簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 朱秀瑜
Hsiu-yu Chu
論文名稱： 利害關係、需求與回沖效應:以台灣之大學英文畢業門檻為例
Stakes, Needs and Washback: An Investigation of the English Benchmark Policy for Graduation and EFL Education at Two Technological Universities in Taiwan
指導教授： 葉錫南
Yeh, Hsi-Nan
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2009
畢業學年度： 97
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 314
中文關鍵詞： 回沖效應 、利害關係 、語言需求 、中介因素 、英文畢業門檻政策
英文關鍵詞： washback, stakes, language needs, mediating factors, English benchmark policy for graduation
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：339  下載：40 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 中文摘要
    本研究旨在探討英文畢業門檻之回沖效應(washback effect)、相關之「利害關係」(stakes)，以及其他可能之中介因素 (mediating factors)。此外，基於「將學生需求納入考試，有助於產生正向回沖效應 (positive washback)」的假設 (Saif, 1999, 2006)，本研究亦對學生之英語需求(needs)進行調查，以期進一步了解學生之英語需求、英文畢業門檻，以及大學英文教育三方之間的關係，是否符合產生正向回沖效應之條件。本研究並試圖以 Green (2007)的model of washback 作理論上之驗證及整合。

    本研究進行之場域為台灣兩所設有相同英文畢業門檻及類似配套措施的科技大學。研究方法則採取質性與量化並用。資料之收集包括: 訪談(老師、行政主管、學生及雇主)、教室觀察、教材、全民英檢考古題，以及學生及教師之問卷調查。資料來源多元化，以利於進行各項分析及交互驗證(triangulation)。

    結論發現英文畢業門檻對教師及學生之回沖效應均低，且多為負面。藉由Green的model of washback 和Saif的假設檢視研究結果後，發現相關之「利害關係」太低，以及門檻不符學生對英語之實際需求實為主因。除此之外，儘管台灣社會對於實施英文畢業門檻已具相當程度之共識，但各方關係人(stakeholder) 對此政策仍有不盡相同的意見及看法。

    根據上述發現，本研究提出具體之建議: 大學英文畢業門檻不同於一般之入學考試，應著重於學生之多樣性及未來畢業後之考量。因此統一之考試標準，如通過全民英檢某級數，恐不符合目前實際狀況，學生應該給予更大之彈性以通過畢業門檻(如採用分級制，不同程度者有不同之進步要求)。而教師們在配合學生需求上則需要花費更大之心力，將學生需求透過測驗及教學之改進，以達到最佳之回沖效應(strong and positive washback)。

    Abstract
    This present study investigated the washback effects of the English exit exam, the stakes of the graduation benchmark policy and possible mediating factors at two technological universities in Taiwan, which had similar English benchmark policies for graduation. Students’ English language needs were also investigated for their relationship with the graduation benchmark requirement and the EFL higher education based on the assumption that positive washback is likely to be generated if students’ language needs are taken into consideration.

    Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were employed for the present study. Qualitatively, classroom observations and interviews with different stakeholders were conducted and the teaching materials and GEPT test samples were collected for all the related issues. Quantitatively, the Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) and Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) were conducted to explore issues on washback and stakes. Students’ Questionnaire 2 (SQ2) was used to collect information on students’ language needs. Data from different sources were analyzed and triangulated throughout the research project to ensure validity of the results and avoid possible biases.

    The results show that the washback on teaching was limited to only a “superficial” level, such as teaching test-taking strategies, delivering test information, using GEPT mock tests and so on. The washback on learning was also very little and mostly negative, because the benchmark was too high for a majority of students, while it was of little help to a few high-achieving students in terms of their eagerness to learn English. The perceived stakes of the English exit exam and its make-up measures were generally low among teachers and students. Although most teachers and low-achieving students worried about the graduation benchmark, they tended not to believe the possible consequences to suffer. The low stakes of the graduation benchmark policy were associated with its limited washback on teaching and learning. The investigation into students’ actual English language needs in the future job market, the EFL higher education and the graduation benchmark requirement show that the three areas did not match well with each other, reducing the possible positive washback that the English exit exam could generate on teachers and students. Also, no effective mediating factors were found to affect the washback effects except that teachers with more administrative experience tended to perceive more pressure from the school administration, and students with low English proficiency worried more about the English exit exam.

    The findings of the present study were reviewed through Green’s (2007) model of washback and were fully explained, confirming the important roles of test stakes, test difficulty and language needs as reflected in the test design whenever washback is to be taken into consideration. It is also suggested that the English benchmark for graduation should no longer be one fixed line which appears to be high for low-achieving students but low for high-achieving ones. Accordingly, renovated curriculum and tests that aim at students’ language needs and their progress in relation to their entry level might be able to push the currently weak and negative washback towards a healthier dimension.

    Chinese Abstract i English Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v List of Tables xi List of Figures xiii List of Transcription Symbols xiv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCATION 1 Background and Rationale 1 Issues in previous washback studies 2 The graduation benchmark policy in Taiwan’s EFL higher education 3 Mediating factors that affect washback effects 10 Students’ English language needs and EFL higher education in Taiwan 13 Purpose of the Study 14 Research Questions 15 Significance of the Study 15 Chapter Summary 16 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 17 Washback on Teachers 17 Washback on teaching content and teaching methods 19 Washback on teachers’ attitudes and feelings 23 Washback on Students 24 Washback on students’ attitudes and perceptions 24 Washback on students’ learning outcomes 26 Direction and Intensity of Washback 27 Factors That Affect Washback 30 Test factors and prestige factors 30 Personal factors 34 Teachers’ beliefs about teaching 34 Teachers’ beliefs about testing 36 Learners’ beliefs about language learning 37 Learners’ beliefs about testing 38 Micro-context factors 39 Macro-context factors 40 Language Needs and Washback 40 Chapter Summary 45 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 46 Research Context 46 Instruments and Participants 50 The general plan for the research instruments and participants 50 Questionnaires 51 Theoretical basis for the TQ and SQ1 52 The Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) on washback and stakes: pilot study 54 Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) on washback and stakes: pilot study 58 Students’ Questionnaire 2 (SQ2) on needs 61 Interview guides 62 Observation forms 63 Data Collection Procedures 65 Observation 65 Collecting teaching materials and the GEPT samples 66 Interviews with administrators 67 Students’ Questionnaire 1 and 2 (SQ1 and 2) and follow-up interviews 67 The Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) and follow-up interviews 69 Interviews with students’ future employers 70 Data Analysis Procedures 70 Analysis of the questionnaire data 71 Scoring of the Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) 71 Scoring of Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) 71 Statistical analysis of the TQ and SQ1 72 Students’ Questionnaire 2 (SQ2) 72 Analysis of the interview data 72 Interview data on washback and stakes 73 Interview data on language needs 73 Analysis of the observation data 75 Analysis of the GEPT and teaching materials 75 Chapter Summary 75 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: WASHBACK ON TEACHING 77 Washback of the English Exit Exam on Teaching 77 Evidence from the interview data 77 Teachers’ selection for their teaching materials 77 Teachers’ delivery of test-taking strategies and GEPT related information 79 Teachers’ worries about their students’ performance 80 Limited superficial washback on teaching 81 Summary 82 Evidence from the observation data 82 Teacher A2’s Freshman English 83 Teacher A3’s Sophomore Aural-oral English 83 Teacher A6’s English Tutorial (make-up course) 84 Teacher B1’s Intermediate English and Practice (Elementary) 84 Teacher B2’s Freshman English(Advanced 3) 85 Teacher B3’s Sophomore English and Practice (Advanced 1) 85 Teacher B4’s Freshman English (Intermediate 1) 86 Teacher B4’ and B6’s Practical English (make-up course) 86 Summary 87 Evidence from the teaching and testing materials 87 School A’s teaching and testing materials 88 School B’s teaching and testing materials 88 Analysis and findings 90 Summary 92 Evidence from the Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) survey data 92 Summary 96 Synthesis of the findings 96 Mediating Factors for Washback on Teaching 97 Common ground for the limited washback on teaching 97 Teachers’ doubts about “testing leading teaching” 98 Teachers’ concerns about students’ individual difference 98 Little interference in teaching from school administration 99 Summary 100 Investigation of possible mediating factors 100 Top-down external pressure 101 Teacher’ perceived external pressure via administrative experience 104 Internal factors to affect washback on teaching 106 Teachers’ and administrators’ beliefs about the purposes of testing 106 Teachers’ perceived teaching roles 109 Teachers’ beliefs about the best teaching method 110 Macro factors 111 Summary 114 Chapter Summary 115 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: WASHBACK ON LEARNIING 116 Washback of the English Exit Exam on Learning 116 Evidence from the interview data 116 Too difficult a goal to accomplish 117 Waiting until the last minute to boost scores 117 Low motivation for taking the GEPT 119 Summary 120 Evidence from Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) survey data 120 Summary 123 Synthesis of the findings 124 Mediating Factors for Washback on Teaching 125 Underlying problems with students’ English in the TVE system 125 Students’ general low achievement in English 125 Discrepancies between high school and vocational high school graduates 126 Socio-economic status and English proficiency 128 Quantitative evidence 128 Limitations of college English education 128 Summary 129 Investigation of possible mediating factors 130 Evidence from the interview data 130 Students’ perceived external pressure 130 Internal factors to affect washback on learning 132 Other micro and macro factors 136 Summary 140 Evidence from Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) survey data 141 Students’ perceived impact of the English exit exam on their out-of-school practice 142 Students’ perceived impact of the English exit exam on their efforts 143 Students’ worries about the graduation benchmark 143 Summary 144 Synthesis of the findings 145 Chapter Summary 146 CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: STAKES AND STATUS 147 Purposes of the English Benchmark Policy for Graduation 147 Administrators’ and teachers’ views of the graduation benchmark policy 148 A benchmark set to meet problematic proficiency descriptions 148 Quantitative evidence 149 A “backdoor” as a necessary evil 150 Students’ views of the make-up course 151 The “cons” of a make-up course as a backdoor 152 The “pros” of a make-up course as a backdoor 153 The actual intention behind the policy 154 Administrators: The GEPT used for management purposes 154 Teachers: The GEPT used as an incentive for learning 155 Students: Taking the GEPT to fulfill social expectations 158 Some negative voices from students 158 Summary 160 Perceived Stakes and Status of the Graduation Benchmark Policy 161 Teachers’ perceived stakes and status of the graduation benchmark policy 161 Analysis of the interview data 161 Summary 163 Analysis of the Teachers’ Questionnaire (TQ) survey data 163 Summary 165 Synthesis of the findings 166 Students’ perceived stakes and status of the graduation benchmark policy 166 Analysis of the interview data 166 Not fatal to fail the test 166 An open backdoor 167 Unawareness of the related rewarding policy 169 Less effort in the exit exam than in the College Entrance Exam 169 An additional finding 170 Summary 171 Analysis of the Students’ Questionnaire 1 (SQ1) survey data 171 Summary 173 Synthesis of the findings 173 Chapter Summary 173 CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS: LANGUAGE NEEDS 176 Overview of Students’ English Language Needs 176 Students’ actual English language needs in college and the job market 176 Analysis of the Students’ Questionnaire 2 (SQ2) survey data 177 Analysis of the interview data with students’ future employers 183 Perceived students’ English language needs in the job market 186 Overview of the EFL Higher Education and Graduation Benchmark Requirement 188 EFL higher Education at both schools 188 Analysis of the observation and interview data for the required courses and their teaching materials 189 Analysis of the testing materials for the required courses 190 Graduation benchmark requirement for both schools 192 Analysis of the GEPT old tests 192 Analysis of the observation data in the make-up course and their teaching and testing materials 193 Comparison Across Students’ English Language Needs, EFL Higher Education and Graduation Benchmark Requirement 193 Chapter Summary 199 CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 202 Discussion of the Results and Analysis 202 Research Question One: What is the washback of the English exit exam on college teachers and students? Is the washback affected by any mediating factors? 202 Research Question Two: How do college teachers and students perceive the stakes and status of the graduation benchmark policy? Is the washback of the English exit exam influenced by their perceptions of the stakes or status of the graduation benchmark policy? 208 Research Question Three: Does the EFL higher education, as well as the graduation benchmark requirement, meet students’ English language needs? 210 Theoretical Implications 211 Pedagogical Implications 214 Limitations of the Present Study 219 Suggestions for Future Studies 220 Concluding Remarks 221 REFERENCES 224 Appendix A Table of approximate score comparability 235 Appendix B Teachers’ Questionnaire (English Version) 236 Appendix C Teachers’ Questionnaire (Chinese Version) 241 Appendix D Students’ Questionnaire 1 (English Version) 246 Appendix E Students’ Questionnaire 1 (Chinese Version) 251 Appendix F Students’ Questionnaire 2 (English Version) 256 Appendix G Students’ Questionnaire 2 (Chinese Version) 263 Appendix H Interview Guide for Teachers 271 Appendix I Interview Guide for Students 274 Appendix J Interview Guide for Administrators 277 Appendix K Interview Guide for Future Employers 279 Appendix L Observation form for required English course 282 Appendix M Observation form for the make-up course 284 Appendix N Letter to teachers requesting observation 286 Appendix O Consent form for teachers to be observed 288 Appendix P Observation schedule 289 Appendix Q Letter to administrators requesting interviews 290 Appendix R Consent form for participants to be interviewed 291 Appendix S Participants’ background information 292 Appendix T Letter to students to be interviewed 294 Appendix U Letter to teachers requesting interviews 295 Appendix V Letter to students’ future employers requesting interviews 296 Appendix W Samples of School A and School B’s exams and quizzes 297 Appendix X Teacher participants’ background information for the TQ 300 Appendix Y Student participants’ background information for SQ1 and SQ2 301 Appendix Z Tables of TLU task characteristics 303

    Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14 (2), 115-129.
    Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: A study of washback. Language Testing 13 (3), 280-297.
    Andrews, S. (2001). Reflecting on washback: High stakes tests and curriculum innovation. Paper given at ILEC Conference, Hong Kong.
    Andrews, S., Fullilove, J., & Wong, Y. (2002). Targeting washback—a case study. System 30, 207-223.
    Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1-24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Arnold, J. (2000). Seeing through listening comprehension exam anxiety. TESOL Quarterly 34 (4), 777-786.
    Bachman, L. F. (1991). What does language testing have to offer? TESOL Quarterly 25 (4), 671-704.
    Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Bailey, K. M. (1996). Working for washback: a review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing 13, 257-279.
    Bedell, D. A., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the People’ Republic of China and other countries. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 47-60). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
    Biddle , B. J. (1997). Recent research on the role of the teacher. In Biddle et al. (Eds.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (pp. 499-520). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly 32 (1), 9-38.
    Broadfoot, P. M. (2005). Dark alleys and blind bends: Testing the language of learning. Language Testing 22, 123-141.
    Brown, G. & Bakhtar, M. (1988). Styles of lecturing: A study and its implications. Research Papers in Education 3, 131-153.
    Brown, J. D. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, J.D. (2008, June). Effects matrix for administrators’, teachers’, and students’ views on testing for ELI at UHM. Observation notes presented at the annual meeting of the 30th Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), Hangzhou, China.
    Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). Maheah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL admission tests: Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System 28, 523-539.
    Chang, H. & Su, Y. (2003). (in Chinese) 張顯達、蘇以文。共同英語能力指標的編寫。教育部委託研究計畫。
    Chang, H., Su, Y., Chou, S., & Chen, M. (2004). (in Chinese) 張顯達、蘇以文、周碩貴、陳美華。建立我國大學生英語能力指標之研究。教育部委託研究計畫。
    Chen, C. (2006). College students’ perception of the impact of graduation English proficiency benchmarks, GEPT and further English learning. Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.239-249). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Company.
    Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly 39 (4), 609-633.
    Chen, L. (2002). Taiwanese junior high school English teachers’ perceptions of the washback effect of the Basic Competence Test in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University: Columbus.
    Cheng, L. (1995). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education 11, 38-54.
    Cheng, L. (1998). Impact of a public English examination change on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards their English learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation 24, 279-301.
    Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: washback on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education 15, 253-271.
    Cheng, L. (2000). Washback or backwash: A review of the impact of testing on teaching and learning. ED 442-280.
    Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A washback study. Studies in Language Testing: Vol. 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cheng, L., & Watanabe, Y. (with A. Curtis) (Eds.). (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. Maheah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Clement, R., Dornyei, Z. & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44, 417-448.
    Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: what do learners believe about them? System 27 (4), 493-513.
    Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research 58 (4), 43-48.
    Dahlin, B., Watkins, D. A., & Ekholm, M. (2001). The role of assessment in student learning: The views of Hong Kong and Swedish lecturers. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 47-74). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Davies, A. (1990). Principles of Language Testing. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Deci, E. L. & Ryan R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
    Denzin, N.K. (1970). The research act. Chicago: Aldine.
    Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
    Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning 53 (1), 3-32.
    Dornyei, Z. & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London) 4, 43-60.
    Entwistle, N. & Waler, P. (2000). Strategic alertness and expanded awareness within sophisticated conceptions of teaching. Instructional Science 28, 335-361.
    Ferman, I. (2004). The washback of an EFL national matriculation tests to teaching and learning. In L., Cheng, & Y., Watanabe (with A. Curtis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp. 191-210). Maheah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Fox, C. A. (1993). Communicative competence and beliefs about language among graduate teaching assistants in French. Modern Language Journal 77 (3), 313-324.
    Frederiksen, J. R. & Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher 18(9), 27-32.
    Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
    Gardner, R. C. & Day, J. B. & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). Integrative motivation, induced anxiety, and language learning in a controlled environment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14, 197-214.
    Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching 26, 1-11.
    Gardner, P. L. & Taylor, S. M. (1980). A transmission-interpretation scale. British Journal of Educational Psychology 50 (2), 186-187.
    Gardner, R. C. & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and theoretical frameworks. The Modern Language Journal 78 (3), 359-368.
    Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, Anne-Marie. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An Empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal 81 (3), 344-362.
    Giorgi, A. (1975). An application of phenomenological method in psychology. In A. Giorgi, C. Fischer & E. Murray. (Eds.), Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology II. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
    Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing. London: The Falmer Press.
    Goldstein, H. (1989). Psychometric test theory and educational assessment, in J. Elliott & H. Simon. (Eds.), Rethinking Appraisal and Assessment (pp. 140-148), Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL Quarterly 32 (3), 447-464.
    Goonan, B. (2003). Overcoming test anxiety: Giving students the ability to show what they know. ED 480-053.
    Graden, E. C. (1996). How language teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their belief about students. Foreign Language Annals 29, 387-395.
    Gravatt, B., J., Richards, and M. Lewis. (1997). Language needs in tertiary studies. Auckland: Occasional Paper Number 10, University of Auckland Institute of Language Teaching and Learning.
    Green, A. (2007). IELTS Washback in Context: Preparation for academic writing in higher education. Studies in Language Testing: Vol. 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31, 367-383.
    Haertel, E.H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: in search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 18 (4), 5-9.
    Haladyna, T.M., S.B., Nolen & N.S. Haas. (1991). Raising standardized achievement test scores and the origins of test score pollution. Educational Researcher 20 (5), 20-25.
    Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and validity; ethical concerns. Language Testing 14 (3), 295-303.
    Hamp-Lyons, L. (2000). Social, professional and individual responsibility in language testing. System 28, 579-591.
    Hawkey, R. (2006). Impact theory and practice: Studies of the IELTS test and Progetto Lingue 2000. Studies in Language Testing: Vol. 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ho, I. T. (2001). Are Chinese teachers authoritarian? In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), Teaching the Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspectives (pp. 99-114). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129). Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27 (4), 557-576.
    Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hughes, A. (1993). Backwash and TOEFL 2000. Unpublished manuscript, University of Reading.
    Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Impara, J. C., Plake, B. S., & Fager, J. J. (1993). Teachers’ assessment background and attitudes toward testing. Theory into Practice 32 (2), 113-117.
    Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Educational Researcher 33 (7), 14-26.
    Kachru, B. B. (1977). New Englishes and old models. English Language Forum, July.
    Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues, and resources. Language Teaching 25, 1-14.
    Kerlinger, F. & Kaya, E. (1959). The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educational and Psychological Measurement 19, 13-29.
    Kern, R.G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals 28 (1), 71-92.
    Kirby, J. R., Woodhouse, R. A., & Ma, Y. (1996). Studying in a second language: The experiences of Chinese students in Canada. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 141-158). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Kirschner, M., Spector-Cohen, E., & Wexler, C. (1996). A teacher education workshop on the construction of EFL tests and materials. TESOL Quarterly 30 (1), 85-110.
    Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Kuntz, P. S. (1996). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz Model. ED 397649.
    Lam, H. P. (1994). Methodology washback—an insider’s view. Bringing about change in language education (pp.83-99). Hong Kong: Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Hong Kong.
    Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning 22, 261-274.
    Lynch, B. K. (1996). Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 29 (3), 373-385.
    Madaus, G. F. (1988). The influence of testing on the curriculum. In Tanner, L. N. (Ed.) Critical issues in curriculum: Eighty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: NSSE, University of Chicago Press.
    Marlow, E. (2001). The feeling dimension in reading. ED 458523.
    McKay, P. (2006). Assessing young language learners. Cambridge Language Assessment Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    McNamara, T. & Roever, C. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
    Ministry of Education. 2007 Administration Guidelines. (in Chinese) 教育部96年度施政計畫。http://www.edu.tw/files/site_content/B0039/教育部96年度施政計畫.doc
    Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing 13 (3), 236-256.
    Miller, C. M. L. & Parlett, M. (1974). Up to the Mark: A Study of the Examination Game. ED 113-370.
    Minor, L. C., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Witcher, A.E. James, T. L. (2001). Trends in teacher candidates educational beliefs. ED 461648.
    Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning 49 (3), 377-415.
    Newstead, S. E. & Findlay, K. (1997). Some problems with using examination performance as a measure of teaching ability. Psychology Teaching Review 6 (1), 23-30.
    Noels, K. A., Pelletire, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50 (1), 57-85.
    Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp.43-68). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
    Norton, L., Richardson, J. T. E., Hartley, J., Newstead, S. & Mayes, J. (2005). Teachers’ beliefs and intentions concerning teaching in higher education. Higher Education 50, 537-571.
    Oh, J. (1992). The effects of L2 reading assessment methods on anxiety level. TESOL Quarterly 26 (1), 172-176.
    O’Malley, J., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanzres, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35 (1), 21-46.
    On, L. W. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25-41). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Park, G. P. (1995). Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning of university students learning English in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
    Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: a longitudinal study. System 29 (2), 177-195.
    Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at the relationship of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to EFL reading achievement test performance. Language Testing 20 (1), 26-56.
    Popham, J. (1987). The merits of Measurement-driven Instruction. Phi Delta Kappan 68(9), 679-682.
    Prosser, M., Ramsden, P., Trigwell, K. & Martin, E. (2003). Dissonance in experience of teaching and its relation to the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education 28, 37-48.
    Qi, L. (2005). Stakeholders’ conflicting aims undermine the washback function of a high-stakes test. Language Testing 22 (2), 142-173.
    Read, J. and Hayes, B. (2003). The impact of IELTS on preparation for academic study in New Zealand. IELTS International English Language Testing System Research Reports 4, 153-206
    Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Rotenberg, A. (2002). A classroom research project: The psychological effects of standardized testing on young English language learners at different language proficiency levels. ED 472-651.
    Rowntree, D. (1987). Assessing Students: How Should We Know Them? London : K. Page.
    Sadker, D. & Zittileman, K. (2004). Test anxiety: Are students failing tests or are tests failing students? Phi Delta Kappan 85, 740-744, 751.
    Saif, S. (2006). Aiming for positive washback: a case study of international teaching assistants. Language Testing 23 (1), 1-34.
    Saif, S. (1999). Theoretical and empirical considerations in investigating washback: A study of ESL / EFL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Victoria, Canada.
    Sakui, K. & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language learning. System 27 (4), 473-492.
    Salmon-Cox, L. (1981). Teachers and standardized achievement tests: What’s really happening? Phi Delta Kappan 62, 631-634.
    Saville, N. and Hawkey, R. (2004). The IELTS impact study: Investigating washback on teaching materials. In L., Cheng, & Y., Watanabe (with A. Curtis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp.73-96). Maheah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp.105-121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Shepard, L. A. (1991). Psychometricians’ beliefs about learning. Educational Researcher 20 (6), 2-16.
    Shepard, L. A., Flexer, R.J., Hiebert, E.H., Marion, S.F., Mayfield, V. & Weston, J.J. (1996). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 15(3), 7-18.
    Shih, C. (2007). A new washback model of students’ learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review 64 (1), 135-162.
    Shih, C. (2006). Perceptions of the General English Proficiency Test and its washback: A case study at two Taiwan technological institutes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
    Shih, Y., Lin. M., Huang, C., & Yeh, C. (2000). (in Chinese) 施玉惠，林茂松，黃崇術，葉健芬。 四技二專英文考試對高職英語教學之影響。第九屆中華民國英語文教學國際研討會論文集，頁586-605。
    Shohamy, E. (1992). Beyond proficiency testing: A diagnostic feedback testing model for assessing foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal 76 (4), 513-521.
    Shohamy, E. (1993). The power of test: The impact of language tests on teaching and learning. NFLC Occasional Papers. ED 362-040
    Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Are they fair? Language Testing 14 (3), 340-349.
    Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the use of language tests. New York: Longman.
    Shohamy, E., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Ferman, I. (1996). Test impact revisited: Washback effect over time. Language Testing 13 (3), 298-317.
    Silvernail, D. L. (1992). The development and factor structure of the Educational Beliefs Questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement 52, 663-667.
    Sirotnik, K. (1979). Instrument development and psychometric analysis of major scales utilized in a Study of Schooling. (A Study of Schooling Technical Report No. 4) Los Angeles: Laboratory in School and Community Education, University of California.
    Smith, M. L. (1991a). Meanings of test preparation. American Educational Research Journal, 28 (3), 521-542.
    Smith, M. L. (1991b). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher 20 (5), 8-11.
    Spolsky, B. (1969). Attitudinal aspects of second language learning. Language Learning 19, 271-283.
    Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: the implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research 9 (1), 5-29.
    Standards for Educational and Psychological testing. (1999). Washington, DC : American Psychological Association.
    Stoneman, B. W. H. (2005). The impact of an exit English test on Hong Kong undergraduates: A study investigating the effects of test status on students’ test preparation behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.
    Tang C., & Biggs, J. (1996). How Hong Kong students cope with assessment. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 159-182). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Truitt, S. N. (1995). Anxiety and beliefs about language learning: A study of Korean university students learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
    Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal 84 (1), 69-84.
    Turner, C. (2001). The need for impact studies of L2 performance testing and rating: Identifying areas of potential consequences at all levels of the testing cycle. In Elder, C., Brown, A., Iwashita, N, Grove, E., Hill, K. and Lumley, T. (Eds.), Experimenting with uncertainty: Essays in honor of Alan Davies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
    Vongpumivitch, V. (2006, June). An impact study of Taiwan’s General Proficiency English Test (GEPT). Paper presented at the 28th Annual Language Testing Research Colloquium (LTRC), Melbourne, Australia.
    Wall, D. & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: the Sri Lankan Impact Study. Language Testing 10 (1), 41-69.
    Wall, D. (1996). Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing 13 (3), 334-354.
    Wall, D. (2000). The impact of high-stakes testing on teaching and learning: Can this be predicted or controlled? System 28, 499-509.
    Wall, D. (2005). The impact of high-stakes examinations on classroom teaching: A case study using insights form testing and innovation theory. Studies in Language Testing: Vol. 22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Warden, C. A. & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals 33 (5), 535-547.
    Watanabe, Y. (1996). Does grammar translation come form the entrance examination? Preliminary findings from classroom-based research. Language Testing 13 (3), 318-333.
    Watanabe, Y. (2000). Washback effects of the English section of Japanese entrance examinations on instruction in pre-college level EFL. Language Testing Update 27 (Summer), 42-47.
    Watanabe, Y (2004). Methodology in washback studies. In L., Cheng, & Y., Watanabe (with A. Curtis) (Eds.), Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods (pp.19-36). Maheah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Watkins, D. A. (1996). Learning theories and approaches to research: A cross-cultural perspective. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learner: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 3-24). Hong Kong: CERC, University of Hong Kong.
    Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R.D. & L. Sechrest. (1966). Unobtrusive measures in social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
    Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    Wiersma, J. (1971). A study of teacher role perception in education students and teachers. ED 051076.
    Wiggins, G. P. (1998). Educative Assessment. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
    Wilkinson, I. A. G., Hattie, J. A. & Parr, J. M. (2000). Influence of peer effects on learning outcomes: A review of the literature. ED 478708.
    Willenberg, C. D. (2005). Adult school student achievement on the California high school exit examination: Are adult schools ready for the challenge? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California: Los Angeles.
    Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
    Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Wu, J. R. W. (2007). English language assessment in Taiwan: Where do we go from here? Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 574-586). Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
    Wu, J. R. W. & Wu, R. Y. F. (2007). Using the CEFR in Taiwan: The perspective of a local examination board. Paper presented in the Fourth Annual EALTA Conference. Sitges, Spain.
    Wu, R. & Chin, J. (2006). An impact study of the Intermediate-level GEPT. Proceedings of the Ninth Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia (pp. 41-65). Taipei., Taiwan.
    Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
    Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety—The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE