本文選題：診斷性評(píng)分量表 + 效度研究　； 參考：《北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：如何測(cè)試英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)能力是外語(yǔ)測(cè)試領(lǐng)域一個(gè)長(zhǎng)盛不衰的研究問題。近二十年間,國(guó)外學(xué)者不斷對(duì)測(cè)試相關(guān)的理論基礎(chǔ)與實(shí)施方法進(jìn)行完善,一些大規(guī)模、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的口語(yǔ)能力測(cè)試也隨即投入使用。隨著測(cè)試?yán)碚摰倪M(jìn)一步發(fā)展,研究者們逐漸意識(shí)到了傳統(tǒng)的口語(yǔ)測(cè)試中存在的問題:此類測(cè)試往往只能提供一個(gè)整體分?jǐn)?shù)或籠統(tǒng)的等級(jí)描述用于反饋學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)能力,卻無法詳盡反映個(gè)體學(xué)習(xí)者在口語(yǔ)方面自身的優(yōu)勢(shì)與弱點(diǎn)。在此背景下,"診斷性測(cè)評(píng)"的概念開始走進(jìn)測(cè)試領(lǐng)域研究者的視野,成為了一個(gè)新興的研究方向。然而,目前國(guó)內(nèi)關(guān)于英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)能力的診斷性測(cè)評(píng)的研究為數(shù)寥寥。要開發(fā)一個(gè)有效、可行的診斷性測(cè)試,首先需要建立一個(gè)服務(wù)于診斷性測(cè)試的評(píng)分量表。因此,本研究從評(píng)分量表入手,對(duì)診斷性評(píng)分量表應(yīng)用于傳統(tǒng)口語(yǔ)測(cè)試環(huán)境中的效度進(jìn)行深入探究。本研究根據(jù)以 BachmanPalmer(1996)的口語(yǔ)交際能力模型(CLA)及 Alderson(2005)對(duì)診斷性測(cè)評(píng)的定義為理論基礎(chǔ),并參考了一些認(rèn)可度較高的現(xiàn)有英語(yǔ)口語(yǔ)能力評(píng)分量表,設(shè)計(jì)了兩份診斷性評(píng)分量表,這兩份量表被用于同一項(xiàng)已有的口語(yǔ)考試任務(wù)。為實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)比分析,本研究采取控制變量法,兩份量表在分?jǐn)?shù)區(qū)間、評(píng)分維度、評(píng)分等級(jí)描述語(yǔ)的內(nèi)容設(shè)置上保持一致,力圖凸顯量表本身的形式及每個(gè)量表提供的等級(jí)描述語(yǔ)的詳細(xì)度這兩個(gè)方面的差異。7名評(píng)分員依據(jù)這兩份不同的評(píng)分量表,對(duì)30個(gè)口語(yǔ)錄音文件分別進(jìn)行評(píng)分。每個(gè)階段的評(píng)分結(jié)束后,評(píng)分員填寫一份相應(yīng)的開放式問卷,表達(dá)他們對(duì)這一階段使用的評(píng)分量表和自己的評(píng)分過程的理解。本研究采取量化與質(zhì)性分析相結(jié)合的混合式研究方法,首先使用多側(cè)面Rasch模型對(duì)評(píng)分的數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果進(jìn)行分析,進(jìn)而對(duì)兩份評(píng)分量表的效度進(jìn)行說明與對(duì)比。然后,本研究運(yùn)用主題分析法,將評(píng)分員的開放式問卷數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行編碼歸納,通過對(duì)評(píng)分行為的分析為兩個(gè)量表的對(duì)比提供深入的解釋。最后,本研究綜合參考了量化與質(zhì)性分析結(jié)果中發(fā)現(xiàn)的問題,分析對(duì)比了兩份評(píng)分量表在效度層面上的差異,繼而探究在傳統(tǒng)的口語(yǔ)能力測(cè)試背景中使用診斷性測(cè)評(píng)方法的可行性。
[Abstract]:How to test oral English proficiency is an everlasting problem in the field of foreign language testing. In the past twenty years, foreign scholars have perfected the theoretical basis and implementation methods of testing, and some large-scale and standardized oral proficiency tests have been put into use. With the further development of the test theory, researchers have gradually realized the problems in the traditional oral test: such tests often only provide a whole score or a general grade description for feedback students' oral English ability. However, individual learners can not fully reflect their own strengths and weaknesses in oral English. In this context, the concept of "diagnostic evaluation" has come into the field of research and become a new research direction. However, there are few studies on diagnostic assessment of oral English proficiency in China. In order to develop an effective and feasible diagnostic test, it is necessary to establish a rating scale to serve the diagnostic test. Therefore, the validity of diagnostic rating scale applied to the traditional oral test environment is explored. Based on the definition of diagnostic assessment based on Bachman Palmern's oral communicative competence model (CLAs) and Aldersonian 2005 (2005), this study has designed two diagnostic rating scales, referring to some existing rating scales for oral English proficiency, which have a high degree of recognition. The two scales were used for the same existing oral test task. In order to achieve comparative analysis, the control variable method was adopted in this study. The two scales were consistent in the content setting of the score interval, the score dimension, the rating level description, and so on. This paper tries to highlight the differences in the form of the scale itself and the detail of the description language provided by each scale. According to these two scales, 7. 7 graders scored 30 oral audio files separately. At the end of each stage, the graders fill out a corresponding open questionnaire to express their understanding of the rating scale used in this stage and their own scoring process. In this study, a hybrid method of quantitative and qualitative analysis was adopted. First, the multi-sided Rasch model was used to analyze the results of the scoring data, and then the validity of the two rating scales was explained and compared. Then, by using the thematic analysis method, the data of the open questionnaire of the raters are coded and summarized, and the analysis of the scoring behavior provides an in-depth explanation for the comparison of the two scales. Finally, this study comprehensively referred to the problems found in the results of quantitative and qualitative analysis, and analyzed and compared the differences between the two rating scales at the level of validity. Then it explores the feasibility of using diagnostic testing method in the context of traditional oral proficiency testing.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H319.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 文秋芳;林琳;;2001-2015年應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究方法的使用趨勢(shì)[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2016年06期

2 王華;甄鳳超;;動(dòng)態(tài)評(píng)估中教師提示系統(tǒng)的診斷作用對(duì)寫作教學(xué)的有效性分析[J];外語(yǔ)測(cè)試與教學(xué);2014年01期

3 韓寶成;羅凱洲;;語(yǔ)言測(cè)試效度及其驗(yàn)證模式的嬗變[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;2013年03期

4 王海貞;;口語(yǔ)測(cè)試的不確定性研究[J];外語(yǔ)測(cè)試與教學(xué);2012年02期

5 徐啟龍;;AUA框架——語(yǔ)言測(cè)評(píng)理論的新發(fā)展[J];外語(yǔ)電化教學(xué);2012年01期

6 武尊民;;語(yǔ)言測(cè)試與評(píng)價(jià):從理論到實(shí)踐[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐;2011年04期

7 楊惠中;;我國(guó)語(yǔ)言測(cè)試學(xué)科的發(fā)展方向[J];外語(yǔ)測(cè)試與教學(xué);2011年01期

8 李清華;;語(yǔ)言測(cè)試之效度理論發(fā)展五十年[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);2006年01期

9 楊莉芳;;近二十年口語(yǔ)測(cè)試研究中存在的主要問題[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué);2006年01期

10 杜金榜;外語(yǔ)教學(xué)中的診斷性測(cè)試[J];外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究;1999年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1951747