國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	曾繁萍 Fan-ping Tseng
論文名稱：	教師命題過程與學生答題過程研究 Exploring Teachers' Test-constructing Processes and Students' Test-taking Processes
指導教授：	程玉秀 Cheng, Yuh-Show
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	274
中文關鍵詞：	試題命製、試題命製過程、答題過程、策略運用、字彙測驗、綜合測驗、閱讀測驗、有聲思考法
英文關鍵詞：	test-construction, test-constructing process, test-taking process, strategy use, vocabulary test, cloze test, reading comprehension test, think-aloud
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：226 下載：23
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

本文旨在研究以下三個問題：第一，高中教師如何命一份英文學科能力測驗的模擬試題？資深教師與新手教師在命題時的考慮點有何不同？第二，高中學生如何回答英文學科能力測驗模擬試題的題目？高程度學生與低程度學生的答題策略有何不同？第三，學生答題時的考慮點與教師命題時的考慮點是否一致？
四位高中英文教師及四十八位高中學生參與此研究。教師的任務是要命一份英文學測模擬試題，內含詞彙測驗、綜合測驗、及閱讀測驗等共二十八題選擇題；學生的任務則是要回答教師所命的模擬試題題目。所有參與者在執行任務時，必須要進行有聲思考法，以作為本研究的主要分析資料。
本研究主要結果如下。首先，資深教師與新手教師在命題時的考慮點略有不同；資深教師的命題考量較以學生為中心，而新手教師的命題考量則較符合評量上的命題原則。此外，資深教師所命的試題並沒有優於新手教師；而且，在四位教師所命的題目中，有不少試題是被專家評定為有暇疵、不合適，並需要修正及改進的。
其次，學生在作答不同類型題目時，大致上會採用不同的策略。然而，學生在作答三種類型的題目時，均有使用「消去法」。此結果顯示，消去法乃學生在本研究最常使用的答題策略。另外，高程度學生比低程度學生較常使用字彙及文法知識和演繹思考法來作答；而低程度學生比高程度學生較常利用「猜測法」來回答任何類型的題目。
研究也發現，學生的答題考慮點與教師的命題考慮點大不相同，兩者的一致率只有33%。此外，學生的想法和新手教師的想法較一致，而和資深教師的想法較不相同。高程度學生在綜合測驗的答題考慮點上，和教師們的命題考慮點出入較大；而低程度學生在閱讀測驗的考慮點上，和教師們的考慮點不一致性較高。

This study aims to investigate three research questions. First, how did experienced and novice teachers construct mock tests for the Scholastic Ability English Test (SAET)? Second, how did higher- and lower-proficiency students take those mock tests? Third, were students’ considerations for answering the tests consistent with teachers’ test-constructing considerations?
Four senior high school teachers and forty-eight senior high school students participated in this study. All participants were asked to do think-aloud while performing their tasks. The teachers were asked to construct twenty-eight items of multiple-choice questions on vocabulary, cloze, and reading comprehension. The students were asked to answer the questions constructed by the teachers.
Major findings of this study are summarized as follows. First, the experienced teachers and novice teachers seemed to make different types of considerations in constructing their tests. The experienced teachers took more student-oriented factors into account while the novice teachers took more test-construction principles into consideration. Despite their different considerations in test-constructing processes, the two experienced teachers did not seem to produce better test items than the two novice teachers. All four teachers had constructed some items that were deemed poor, problematic, or inappropriate from the authority’s perspective.
Second, students generally used different strategies when answering different types of questions. However, they seemed to use the strategy of “elimination” very frequently on three types of tests. In terms of the proficiency levels, higher-proficiency students tended to use their vocabulary knowledge, grammar knowledge, and deductive reasoning more frequently than lower-proficiency students in answering the items. On the other hand, lower-proficiency students tended to use the strategy of “guessing” more frequently than higher-proficiency students across three types of questions.
Third, students’ considerations for answering test items clashed with teachers’ test-constructing considerations to a great extent; the overall consistency rate between them was only about 33% in this study. Furthermore, students generally thought in a way more congruent with novice teachers than with experienced teachers. In addition, higher-proficiency students’ considerations clashed more with teachers’ considerations on cloze items while lower-proficiency students’ considerations clashed more with teachers’ considerations on reading comprehension questions.

CHINESE ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………..i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………x

CHAPTER ONE        INTRODUCTION…………………………………………1
Motivation and Background……………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem and Research Rationale………………………………3
Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………………...6
Research Questions………………………………………………………………8
Delimitations……………………………………………………………………..8
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...9

CHAPTER TWO        LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………..11
Overview of Language Testing Research……………………………………….11
Studies on Students’ Test-taking Process……………………………………….14
        Early Attempts……………………………………………………………..15
        Studies on Multiple-choice Reading Comprehension Tests……………….16
        Studies on Cloze Tests……………………………………………………..18
Studies on Teachers’ Test construction……………………………….................20
        Training in Teachers’ Test Construction…………………………………...21
Studies on Test Constructor Effect………………………………………...24
Research into the Relationship Between Test-constructing and Test-taking Processes…………………………………………………………………..26
Verbal Report in Language Testing……………………………………………..28

CHAPTER THREE        METHODOLOGY………………………………….33
Participants……………………………………………………………………...33
Instruments……………………………………………………………………...36
    Background Questionnaire………………………………………………...36
        Feedback Sheet…………………………………………………………….36
Foreign Language Proficiency Test………………………………………..37
Two Sets of Materials for Test Construction………………………………37
        Four Mock Tests for the Scholastic Ability English Test………………….40
Data Collection Procedures……………………………………………………..41
Collection of Teachers’ Verbal Reports……………………………………42
Collection of Students’ Verbal Reports……………………………………43
Data Analysis Procedures…………………………………………………….....44

CHAPTER FOUR            RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON TEACHERS’     TEST CONSTRUCTION …………………………………………………….46
    Results of Teachers’ Background Questionnaires………………………………46
        Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)……………………………………………..48
        Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)……………………………………………..48
        Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………..49
        Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2)…………………………………………………..49
    Analyses of Teachers’ Think-aloud Protocols…………………………………..49
        Construction of Vocabulary Test Items……………………………………49
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)………………………………….......................49
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced    Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...54
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...58
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2)…………………………………………………………...59
        Construction of Cloze Test Items………………………………………….64
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1)………………………………………………...65
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...67
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...69
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2) …………………………………………………………..71
Construction of Reading Comprehension Questions……………………75
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 1 (ET 1) ………………………………………………..76
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Experienced Teacher 2 (ET 2)………………………………………………...77
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 1 (NT 1)…………………………………………………………...78
The Construction Processes and Considerations of Novice Teacher 2 (NT 2) …………………………………………………………..79
Results of Teachers’ Feedback Sheets…………………………………………..82
Analyses of Teacher-constructed SAET Mock Tests…………………………85
Analyses of Vocabulary Items…………………………………..................85
A Critique of Vocabulary Items……………………………………………88
Problems with the stems……………………………………………...88
Problems with the options……………………………………………91
            General discussion on vocabulary items……………………………..94
Analyses of Cloze Items…………………………………………………...96
A Critique of Cloze Items ………………………………………………..104
Problems with the choice of blanks (or testing points)……………..104
Problems with the options ………………………………………….106
General discussion on cloze items……………………………..........109
Analyses of Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………111
A Critique of Reading Comprehension Questions ………………………113
Problems with the question stems ………………………………….113
Problems with the options ………………………………………….115
General discussion on reading comprehension questions…………..119
General Discussion on the Four Teachers’ Test Construction Performances….121

CHAPTER FIVE         RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON STUDENTS’ STRATEGES TO ANSWER TEST QUESTIONS…………………………125
    Results of Students’ Performances on the Four Mock Tests ………………….125
        Noteworthy Items on Form A…………………………………………….129
Noteworthy Items on Form B ……………………………………………131
Noteworthy Items on Form C…………………………………………….135
Noteworthy Items on Form D …………………………………………...140
General Discussion on Students’ Performances on the Noteworthy Items145
Results on Students’ Strategies to Answer Questions…………………………145
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Vocabulary Items………..146
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Cloze Items ……………..151
Results of Students’ Strategies for Answering Reading Comprehension Questions …………………………………………………………...160
General Discussion on Students’ Strategies for Answering Test Questions……………………………………………………………166
Results of Students’ Opinions about Think-aloud Method and This Study…...171

CHAPTER SIX        RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ON THE CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TEACHERS’ TEST-CONSTRUCTING AND STUDENTS’ TEST-TAKING CONSIDERATIONS……………………….174
Results of Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations …..174
Items That Caused Inconsistency Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations …………………………………………………………...183
Items on Form A ………………………………………………………....184
Items on Form B………………………………………………………….187
Items on Form C………………………………………………………….192
Items on Form D ………………………………………………………...196
General Discussion on the Inconsistency Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on the Four Forms …………………………………199

CHAPTER SEVEN        CONCLUSION……………………………………203
Summary of the Major Findings ……………………………………………...203
Pedagogical Implications ……………………………………………………..205
Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………207
Directions for Future Research………………………………………………...208

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….210

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..218
Appendix A    Research Consent Form for Teachers……………………………….218
Appendix B    Background Questionnaire………………………………………….219
Appendix C    Feedback Sheet……………………………………………………...220
Appendix D    Shortened Version of FLPT…………………………………………221
Appendix E    Research Consent Form for Students……………………………….226
Appendix F    Materials for Test Construction …………………………………….227
Appendix G    Four Forms of the SAET Mock Tests ………………………………230
Appendix H    Dates of Data Collection …………………………………………...248
Appendix I    Teacher-constructed SAET Mock Tests ……………………………249
Appendix J    Words Chosen by Different Teachers in Their Tests ……………….266
Appendix K    Students’ Answers to the Items on Each Form ……………………..267
Appendix L    Frequencies of the Comparisons Between Students’ Test-taking  Strategies and Teachers’ Test-constructing Considerations …...........271



LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.    Three Variations of the Verbal Report Procedure………………………….29
Table 2.    Participants’ FLPT Scores and Exams Averages…………………………..35
Table 3.    Comparison of Material A and Material B………………………………...39
Table 4.    Results of Teachers’ Background Questionnaires…………………………47
Table 5.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Vocabulary Items……………...64
Table 6.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Cloze Items……………………74
Table 7.    Teachers’ Considerations in Constructing Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………………………………………………..81
Table 8.    Results of Teachers’ Feedback Sheets……………………………………..82
Table 9.    Distribution of Items Testing on Different Parts of Speech……………….86
Table 10.    Words Teachers Chose As Correct Options………………………………..87
Table 11.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Stem in Vocabulary Items…………90
Table 12.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Vocabulary Items………93
Table 13.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Vocabulary Items…………..95
Table 14.    Types of cloze items the teachers constructed……………………………..97
Table 15.    Distribution of the cloze item types teachers constructed…………………98
Table 16.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Choice of Blanks in Cloze Items...105
Table 17.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Cloze Items…………..108
Table 18.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Cloze Items……………….110
Table 19.    Distribution of the reading comprehension question types teachers constructed………………………………………………………………..112
Table 20.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Question Stems in Reading Comprehension Items…………………………………………………….115
Table 21.    Frequencies of the Problems with the Options in Reading Comprehension Items……………………………………………………………………...118
Table 22.    Results of the Appropriateness Checklist for Reading Comprehension Questions…………………………………………………………………120
Table 23.    Means of Students’ Scores on the Mock Tests…………………………...126
Table 24.    Items Worthy of Note on the Four Forms………………………………..127
Table 25.    Noteworthy Items Constructed by Four Teachers………………………..128
Table 26.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Vocabulary Items……………………148
Table 27.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Vocabulary Items……………………………………………………………………...149
Table 28.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Cloze Items…………………………153
Table 29.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Cloze Items..158
Table 30.    Students’ Strategies for Answering Reading Comprehensions Questions.161
Table 31.    Frequencies of Each Strategy Students Used in Answering Reading Comprehension Questions………………………………………………..164
Table 32.    Frequencies of Students’ Opinions about Think-aloud and This Study….172
Table 33. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations…………178
Table 34. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations Across Two Proficiency Levels………………………………………………………..180
Table 35. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on Three Types of Items……………………………………………………………181
Table 36. Comparisons Between Teachers’ and Students’ Considerations on Three Types of Items Across Two Proficiency Levels………………………….182


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.    Procedures for Producing Four Forms of Tests……………………………41

                                

Afflerbach, P., & Johnston, P. (1984). On the use of verbal reports in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 307-322.
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 115-129.
Anderson, N.J., Bachman, L., Perkins, K., & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 41-66.
Arndt, V. (1987). Six writers in search of texts: A protocol-based study of L1 and L2 writing. ELT Journal, 41(4), 257-267.
Bachman, L. F. (1997). Generalizability theory. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 255-262). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century: Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17(1), 1-42.
Bailey, K. M., & Brown, J. D. (1996). Language testing courses: What are they? In A. Cumming & R. Berwick (Eds.), Validation in language testing (pp. 236-256). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Banerjee, J. & Luoma, S. (1997). Qualitative approaches to test validation. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 275-287). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463-494.
Brown, A. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), 1-15.
Brown, J. D. (Ed.). (1998). New ways of classroom assessment. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (2008). Language testing courses: What are they in 2007? Language Testing, 25(3), 349-383.
Buck, G. (1991). The test of listening comprehension: An introspective study. Language Testing, 11(2), 145-170.
Carter, K. (1984). Do teachers understand principles for writing tests? Journal of Teacher Education, 35(6), 57-60.
Chapelle, C. (1988). Field independence: A source of language test variation? Language Testing, 5(1), 62-82.
Cohen, A. D. (1984). On taking language tests: What the students report. Language Testing, 1(1), 70-81.
Cohen, A. D. (1987). Studying learner strategies: How we get the information. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 31-40). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, A. D. (1994). Assessing language ability in the classroom (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. In L.F. Bachman, & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 90-111). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307-331.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, C. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 33-56.
Coniam, D. (2009). Investigating the quality of teacher-produced tests for EFL students and the effects of training in test development principles and practices on improving test quality. System, 37(2), 226-242.
Davidson, F., & Lynch, B.K. (2002). Testcraft－A teacher’s guide to writing and using language test specifications. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Davies, A. (1997). Demands of being professional in language testing. Language Testing, 14(3), 328-339.
Douglas, D. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, D., & Seliner, L. (1985). Principles for language tests within the ‘discourse domains’ theory of interlanguage: Research, test construction and interpretation. Language Testing, 2(2), 205-226.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1987). From product to process－introspective methods in second language research. In C. Faerch & G.. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 5-23). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Fulcher, G.. (1996). Testing tasks: Issues in task design and the group oral. Language Testing, 13(1), 23-51.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gierl, M. J. (1997). Comparing cognitive representations of test developers and students on a mathematics test with Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Educational Research, 91(1), 26-32.
Green, A. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis in language testing research: A handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gruba, P. & Corbel, C. (1997). Computer-based testing. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 141-149). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Hale, G. A. (1988). Student major field and text context: interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Language Testing, 5(1), 49-61.
Haney, W., & Scott, L. (1987). Talking with children about tests: An exploratory study of test item ambiguity. In R. O. Freedle & R. P. Duran (Eds.), Cognitive and linguistic analyses of test performance (pp. 298-368). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Heaton, J. B. (1988). Writing English language tests (New ed.). New York: Longman.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. R., & Winters, L. (1992). A practical guide to alternative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hill, K. (1993). The effect of test-taker characteristics on reactions to and performance on an oral English proficiency test. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), Validation in language assessment (pp. 209-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., Brown, J. D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Hudson, T., Detmer, E., Brown, J. D. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jafarpur, A. (2003). Is the test constructor a facet? Language Testing, 20(1), 57-87.
Johnson, R., Becker, P., & Olive, F. (1999). Teaching the second-language testing course through test development by teachers-in-training. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(3), 71-82.
Kirschner, M., Spector-Cohen, E., & Wexler, C. (1996). A teacher education workshop on the construction of EFL tests and materials. TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 85-111.
Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.). (1998). Special issue: Structural equation modeling. Language Testing, 15(3).
Laufer, B. & Nation, P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language Testing, 16(1), 33-51.
Lay, N. D. S. (1982). Composing processes of adult ESL learners: A case study. TESOL Quarterly, 16(3), 406.
Leighton, J. P., Gokiert, R. J., Cor, M. K., & Heffernan, C. (2010). Teachers beliefs about the cognitive diagnostic information of classroom- versus large-scale tests: Implications for assessment literacy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 7-21.
Lim, G.. S. (2011). The development and maintenance of rating quality in performance writing assessment: A longitudinal study of new and experienced raters. Language Testing, 28(4), 543-560.
Lynch, B. K. (1997). In search of the ethical test. Language Testing, 14(3), 315-327.
Lynch, B. K. & Davidson, F. (1997). Criterion referenced testing. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 263-273). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
MacKay, R. (1974). Standardized tests: Objectives/objectified measures of “competence.” In A. V. Cicourel et al. (Eds.), Language use and school performance (pp. 218-247). New York: Academic.
McNamara, T. F. (1997). Performance testing. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 131-139). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Moghaddam, S. (2010). Cultural schemata: Iranian students’ test-taking processes for cloze tests. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(3), 188.
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6(2), 199-215.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259.
Norris, J. M., Brown, J. D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Norris, S. P. (1991). Informal reasoning assessment: Using verbal reports of thinking to improve multiple-choice test validity. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal Reasoning and Education (pp. 451-472). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
Orr, M. (2002). The FCE speaking test: Using rater reports to help interpret test scores. System, 30(2), 143-154.
Park, S. (2009). Verbal report in language testing. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 21, 287-307.
Pienemann, M., Johnson, J., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10(2), 217-243.
Pollitt, A. (1997). Rasch measurement in latent trait models. In C. Clapham, & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 7: Language testing and assessment (pp. 243-254). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273-295.
Raimes, A. (1985). What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 229-258.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary knowledge and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, G. L., & Lee, J. F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing, 13(2), 173-190.
Ross, S. (1997). An introspective analysis of listener inferencing on a second language listening test. In G.. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. (pp. 216-237). London: Longman.
Rupp, A., Ferne, T., & Choi, H. (2006). How assessing reading comprehension with multiple-choice questions shapes the construct: A cognitive processing perspective. Language Testing, 23(4), 441-474.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Effects of cultural schemata on students’ test-taking processes for cloze tests: A multiple data source approach. Language Testing, 17(1), 85-114.
Shohamy, E. (1997). Testing methods, testing consequences: Are they ethical? Language Testing, 14(3), 340-349.
Stansfield, C. W. (1993). Ethics, standards and professionalism in language testing. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 15-30.
Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Assessment literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 534-539.
Storey, P. (1997). Examining the test-taking process: A cognitive perspective on the discourse cloze test. Language Testing, 14(2), 214-231.
Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275-302.
Tsai, P. C. (2008). The effects of types of rhetorical tasks, English proficiency, and writing anxiety on senior high school students’ English writing performance. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wall, D., & Alderson, J. C. (1993). Examining washback: The Sri Lankan impact study. Language Testing, 10(1), 41-69.
Weigle, S. C. (1994). Effects of training on raters of ESL compositions. Language Testing, 11(2), 197-223.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, G.. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, November, 200-214.
Yamashita, J. (2003). Processes of taking a gap-filling test: Comparison of skilled and less skilled EFL readers. Language Testing, 20(3), 267-293.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文