英语专业四级测试与欧洲语言共同参考框架的匹配研究
|
摘要
2001年欧洲理事会正式颁布了《欧洲语言共同参考框架》（简称CEFR）。CEFR为外语学习者、教学者和评估人员提供了全面的、系统的、统一的语言能力参考标准。CEFR促进了各个国家不同教育机构之间的合作，为不同测试体系的相互对比提供了桥梁，为语言资格证书的相互认证提供了良好的基础。国外学者除了对CEFR的本身特征和利弊进行了探讨之外，在将语言测试与CEFR相匹配方面也做出了大量的研究。因此欧洲理事会于2003年颁布了《语言测试与欧洲语言共同参考框架匹配手册》（简称匹配手册），给CEFR的使用者提供了匹配研究的参考方案。到2006年为止，有20多个国家40多个研究所参与了《匹配手册》的试用（Martyniuk,2006），为完善《匹配手册》提出了诸多良好的建议。
国内学者对CEFR的内容结构和特点进行了分析和研究，普遍认同CEFR适用于语言学习、语言教学和语言评估三方面。我国汉语水平考试与CEFR的匹配研究已有成果，但本土英语测试与CEFR相匹配方面的实例应用研究甚少。我国主要的英语能力测试有大学英语测试（简称CET）四、六级，英语专业测试（简称TEM）四、八级，公共英语测试（简称PETS）一至五级和职称英语初中高级。有学者认为我国英语能力测试体系缺乏统一性、完整性、连贯性以及可比性。为了促进我国英语能力测试各体系的完善和发展，实现我国英语测试体系与国际现行英语标准和测试的接轨，以及其他国家与我国英语教学评估的相互认证和合作，我国英语测试体系和CEFR的匹配研究是十分重要且势在必行的。
本研究依据CEFR中的理论，按照《匹配手册》中的步骤，首先用对比分析法进行TEM-4与CEFR的匹配研究，得出匹配结果。然后通过数据分析检验匹配结果，确认其有效性。第一章介绍了研究的背景以及研究目的。第二章综述了国内外学者对CEFR的研究成果，并且详细分析了CEFR和《匹配手册》的起源、特征、内容及应用，同时介绍了TEM-4的主要内容。第三章阐述了研究问题、方法和研究过程。在研究过程中，笔者对河南师范大学新联学院英语专业的60名二年级学生进行了TEM-4和TOEFL测试，同时选取了《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》、《TEM-4考试大纲》和2007-2011年的TEM-4真题为分析材料用于等级匹配研究。第四章首先初步确定了TEM-4所匹配的语言能力等级。然后检验了TEM-4的等级界限。接着对二年级学生的TEM-4和TOEFL的成绩进行数据分析，证实测试及匹配过程的效度，从而进一步证实了匹配结果的效度。第五章总结了研究结果，同时指出了研究中存在的不足，并对我国英语测试与CEFR相匹配的进一步研究提出了建议。
研究发现TEM-4与CEFR中的B1+等级相匹配。研究结果说明，TEM-4合格的考生的英语听、读、写能力，达到了CEFR中B1+等级所描述的语言能力标准。本研究是我国英语测试TEM-4与CEFR匹配的初步探索，是后续一系列研究的开端。
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,Assessment (the CEFR) published by the Council of Europe in2001, provides a comprehensive, systematicand unified reference of language proficiency for foreign language learners, teachers and assessmentproviders. The CEFR facilitates the co-operations among different education institutions of differentcountries, at the same time, makes it possible that various examination systems could compare with oneanother and various language certifications could identify with one another. Besides discussing on thecharacteristics of the CEFR and its advantages and disadvantages, foreign scholars did lots of researches onaligning examinations with the CEFR. Then, in2003the Council of Europe published the Manual of RelatingLanguage Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning,Teaching, Assessment (the Manual) which offers users of the CEFR a reference project for alignmentresearches. Till2006, there were more than40research institutions from more than20countries trying outthe Manual and giving suggestions for the improvement of the Manual.
In China, the researchers analyzed and discussed the content and the characteristics of the CEFR,and all accepted that the CEFR was appropriate for language learning, language teaching and languageassessment. The Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) has already been aligned with the CEFR, but there are fewresearches on aligning national English examinations with the CEFR. The main English proficiencyexamination systems in China are College English Test (CET) Band4and6, Tests for English Majors (TEM)Band4and8, Public English Test System (PETS) from Band1to5and English test system for working staff.Some scholars think that our English examination systems lack of comprehensiveness, coherence, unity andcomparability. In order to facilitate these English examination systems’ developments, as well as theconnection of these systems with current international English proficiency standard, and to facilitate themutual authentication and cooperation among our English education institution and other countries’, it isimportant and imperative to do the researches on aligning our English examination systems with the CEFR.
In terms of the CEFR, following the procedures in the Manual, this paper firstly aligned TEM-4with the CEFR by the method of comparative analysis. Then through data analysis, it verified the validationof the linking result. The first chapter introduced research background and purpose. Chapter two sumed up the research achievements about the CEFR in hand by domestic and overseas scholars, and analyzes theorigins, characteristics, contents and applications of the CEFR and the Manual in detail, and gives a briefintroduction of TEM-4. In chapter three, research question, methodology and research procedures weredemonstrated. During this research, the author chose60sophomores of English major classes in XinlianCollege, Henan Normal University, who took part in the tests of TEM-4and TOEFL, at the same time, theauthor took the Teaching Syllabus for English Majors, the Syllabus for TEM-4and five administered testpapers as analysis materials to be used in the procedure of Specification. In Chapter four, firstly, the authorfigured out which Common Reference Level the TEM-4could be linked to. Then in the procedure ofStandardization, the cut-off score of the TEM-4was calculated and verified. In the procedure of Validation,through the analysis of students’ scores of TEM-4and TOEFL, the validity and reliability of TEM-4and thevalidity of the alignment were tested. Chapter five summarized the research result, pointed out thelimitations and put forward suggestions for further researches on aligning our national English tests with theCEFR.
This research finds out that the language proficiency level of TEM-4is B1+, which means that thetest-takers who passed TEM-4, have English listening, reading and writing competence of level B1+inCEFR. This paper is the first empirical research on the alignment of our national English test—TEM-4withthe CEFR, which can be regarded as the beginning of the follow-up studies.
国内学者对CEFR的内容结构和特点进行了分析和研究，普遍认同CEFR适用于语言学习、语言教学和语言评估三方面。我国汉语水平考试与CEFR的匹配研究已有成果，但本土英语测试与CEFR相匹配方面的实例应用研究甚少。我国主要的英语能力测试有大学英语测试（简称CET）四、六级，英语专业测试（简称TEM）四、八级，公共英语测试（简称PETS）一至五级和职称英语初中高级。有学者认为我国英语能力测试体系缺乏统一性、完整性、连贯性以及可比性。为了促进我国英语能力测试各体系的完善和发展，实现我国英语测试体系与国际现行英语标准和测试的接轨，以及其他国家与我国英语教学评估的相互认证和合作，我国英语测试体系和CEFR的匹配研究是十分重要且势在必行的。
本研究依据CEFR中的理论，按照《匹配手册》中的步骤，首先用对比分析法进行TEM-4与CEFR的匹配研究，得出匹配结果。然后通过数据分析检验匹配结果，确认其有效性。第一章介绍了研究的背景以及研究目的。第二章综述了国内外学者对CEFR的研究成果，并且详细分析了CEFR和《匹配手册》的起源、特征、内容及应用，同时介绍了TEM-4的主要内容。第三章阐述了研究问题、方法和研究过程。在研究过程中，笔者对河南师范大学新联学院英语专业的60名二年级学生进行了TEM-4和TOEFL测试，同时选取了《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》、《TEM-4考试大纲》和2007-2011年的TEM-4真题为分析材料用于等级匹配研究。第四章首先初步确定了TEM-4所匹配的语言能力等级。然后检验了TEM-4的等级界限。接着对二年级学生的TEM-4和TOEFL的成绩进行数据分析，证实测试及匹配过程的效度，从而进一步证实了匹配结果的效度。第五章总结了研究结果，同时指出了研究中存在的不足，并对我国英语测试与CEFR相匹配的进一步研究提出了建议。
研究发现TEM-4与CEFR中的B1+等级相匹配。研究结果说明，TEM-4合格的考生的英语听、读、写能力，达到了CEFR中B1+等级所描述的语言能力标准。本研究是我国英语测试TEM-4与CEFR匹配的初步探索，是后续一系列研究的开端。
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching,Assessment (the CEFR) published by the Council of Europe in2001, provides a comprehensive, systematicand unified reference of language proficiency for foreign language learners, teachers and assessmentproviders. The CEFR facilitates the co-operations among different education institutions of differentcountries, at the same time, makes it possible that various examination systems could compare with oneanother and various language certifications could identify with one another. Besides discussing on thecharacteristics of the CEFR and its advantages and disadvantages, foreign scholars did lots of researches onaligning examinations with the CEFR. Then, in2003the Council of Europe published the Manual of RelatingLanguage Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Language: Learning,Teaching, Assessment (the Manual) which offers users of the CEFR a reference project for alignmentresearches. Till2006, there were more than40research institutions from more than20countries trying outthe Manual and giving suggestions for the improvement of the Manual.
In China, the researchers analyzed and discussed the content and the characteristics of the CEFR,and all accepted that the CEFR was appropriate for language learning, language teaching and languageassessment. The Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) has already been aligned with the CEFR, but there are fewresearches on aligning national English examinations with the CEFR. The main English proficiencyexamination systems in China are College English Test (CET) Band4and6, Tests for English Majors (TEM)Band4and8, Public English Test System (PETS) from Band1to5and English test system for working staff.Some scholars think that our English examination systems lack of comprehensiveness, coherence, unity andcomparability. In order to facilitate these English examination systems’ developments, as well as theconnection of these systems with current international English proficiency standard, and to facilitate themutual authentication and cooperation among our English education institution and other countries’, it isimportant and imperative to do the researches on aligning our English examination systems with the CEFR.
In terms of the CEFR, following the procedures in the Manual, this paper firstly aligned TEM-4with the CEFR by the method of comparative analysis. Then through data analysis, it verified the validationof the linking result. The first chapter introduced research background and purpose. Chapter two sumed up the research achievements about the CEFR in hand by domestic and overseas scholars, and analyzes theorigins, characteristics, contents and applications of the CEFR and the Manual in detail, and gives a briefintroduction of TEM-4. In chapter three, research question, methodology and research procedures weredemonstrated. During this research, the author chose60sophomores of English major classes in XinlianCollege, Henan Normal University, who took part in the tests of TEM-4and TOEFL, at the same time, theauthor took the Teaching Syllabus for English Majors, the Syllabus for TEM-4and five administered testpapers as analysis materials to be used in the procedure of Specification. In Chapter four, firstly, the authorfigured out which Common Reference Level the TEM-4could be linked to. Then in the procedure ofStandardization, the cut-off score of the TEM-4was calculated and verified. In the procedure of Validation,through the analysis of students’ scores of TEM-4and TOEFL, the validity and reliability of TEM-4and thevalidity of the alignment were tested. Chapter five summarized the research result, pointed out thelimitations and put forward suggestions for further researches on aligning our national English tests with theCEFR.
This research finds out that the language proficiency level of TEM-4is B1+, which means that thetest-takers who passed TEM-4, have English listening, reading and writing competence of level B1+inCEFR. This paper is the first empirical research on the alignment of our national English test—TEM-4withthe CEFR, which can be regarded as the beginning of the follow-up studies.
引文
Brown, J. D.(2005). Testing in Language Programs: A Comprehensive Guide to English LanguageAssessment. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Brown, H. D.(2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: PearsonEducation, Inc.
Council of Europe.(2007). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, Teaching,Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe.(2009). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework ofReference for languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment-A Manual [On-line].10May,2011.Available: www.coe.int/lang.
Council of Europe.(2006)The use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Language(CEFR)[On-line].10May,2011. Available: www.coe.int/lang.
David, L.(2006).The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin,reception and impact. Language Teaching,39(03),(pp167-190).
Educational Testing Service.(2008) Mapping TOEFL iBT on the Common European Framework ofReference [On-line].15August,2011. Available: www.ets.org/ell.
Fred D.,&Glenn F.(2007). The Common European Framework of Reference and the design of languagetests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching.40(03),(pp231-241).
Hayworth. F.(2004) Why the CEF is important. In K. Morrow: Insights from the Common EuropeanFramework. Oxford: OUP.
Martyniuk W.(2006). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages (CEFR)[On-line].10May,2011. Available:www.Examsreform.he/Media/Relatinglanguage_exam.ppt.
North, B.(2004). Relating assessments, examinations, and courses to the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insightsfrom the Common European Framework,(pp77–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trim. J.(Ed.)(2001). The common European Framework of Reference for Languages, A Guide For Users.[On-line].10May,2011. Available:www.coe.int/t/DG4/Portfolio/documents/Guide-for-Users-April02.doc.
Weir, C. J.(2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparableexaminations and tests. Language Testing,22,(pp281–300).
Waldemar, M.et al.(Ed.)(2010). Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe’sdraft Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zieky, M.,&Perie, M.(2006). A primer on setting cut scores on tests of educational achievement. Princeton:Educational Testing Service.
博荣,&王克非.(2008).欧盟语言多元化政策与相关外语教育政策分析.外语教学与研究,1,
(pp14-19).
陈国华.(2002).谈英语能力标准的制订.外语教学与研究,6,(pp404-406).
丛进.(2008). TEM-4阅读理解理论效度及项目区分度研究.鲁东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),5,
(pp81-84).
端木庆一.(2005).英语语言测试的理论与实践.郑州：河南人民出版社.
付桂芳,&Peter, B.(2011).欧洲外语技能培养与评估.高教发展与评估,1,(pp110-115).
傅荣.(2003).论欧洲联盟语言多元化政策.四川外语学院学报,3,(pp110-113).
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组．(2000).高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲．上海：上海外语教学出版社.
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组．(2004).高校英语专业四级考试大纲．上海：上海外语教育出版社.
韩宝成.(2001).外语教学科研中的统计方法.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
韩宝成.(2002).高校学生英语能力测试改革势在必行.外语教学与研究,6,(pp410-412).
韩宝成.(2006).国外语言能力量表评述.外语教学与研究,6,(pp443-450).
何艳铭,&冯增俊.(2005).走向新世纪的欧洲语言教学--《欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领》评述.比较教学研究,6,(pp86-90).
何艳铭.(2005).欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领研究.华南师范大学硕士学位论文,未出版,广州市.
李传益,&魏海晶.(2009).两篇新版TEM4完形填空的信度考查.考试周刊,15,(pp3-4).
李传益.(2010).高校英语专业四级考试听写信度实证研究.英语考试研究,7.
撒露莎.(2008).英语专业四级“语法与词汇”题效度研究.中南民族大学硕士学位论文,未出版,武汉市.
王全.(2004).谈英语水平测试多极化与统一能力标准.外语研究,1,(pp66-70).
吴雪萍,&张科丽.(2009).促进资格互认的欧洲资格框架探究.高等教育研究,12,(pp102-106).
杨惠中,&杜诗春.(2007).制定亚洲同意的英语语言能力等级量表. FLC,2,(pp34-37).
鄢家利.(2008).从《欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领》看我国英语能力标准的制定.西南科技大学学报,4,(pp23-25).
姚茗茗.(2010).英语专业四级完形填空题效度研究.南昌大学硕士学位论文,未出版,南昌市.
张台麟.(2007).全球化下的欧洲语言与文化政策.台北：政大欧研中心.
张艳莉.(2010).中国英语测试体系研究.上海:复旦大学出版社.
Brown, H. D.(2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: PearsonEducation, Inc.
Council of Europe.(2007). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, Teaching,Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Council of Europe.(2009). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework ofReference for languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment-A Manual [On-line].10May,2011.Available: www.coe.int/lang.
Council of Europe.(2006)The use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Language(CEFR)[On-line].10May,2011. Available: www.coe.int/lang.
David, L.(2006).The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Content, purpose, origin,reception and impact. Language Teaching,39(03),(pp167-190).
Educational Testing Service.(2008) Mapping TOEFL iBT on the Common European Framework ofReference [On-line].15August,2011. Available: www.ets.org/ell.
Fred D.,&Glenn F.(2007). The Common European Framework of Reference and the design of languagetests: A matter of effect. Language Teaching.40(03),(pp231-241).
Hayworth. F.(2004) Why the CEF is important. In K. Morrow: Insights from the Common EuropeanFramework. Oxford: OUP.
Martyniuk W.(2006). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages (CEFR)[On-line].10May,2011. Available:www.Examsreform.he/Media/Relatinglanguage_exam.ppt.
North, B.(2004). Relating assessments, examinations, and courses to the CEF. In K. Morrow (Ed.), Insightsfrom the Common European Framework,(pp77–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trim. J.(Ed.)(2001). The common European Framework of Reference for Languages, A Guide For Users.[On-line].10May,2011. Available:www.coe.int/t/DG4/Portfolio/documents/Guide-for-Users-April02.doc.
Weir, C. J.(2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing comparableexaminations and tests. Language Testing,22,(pp281–300).
Waldemar, M.et al.(Ed.)(2010). Aligning Tests with the CEFR: Reflections on using the Council of Europe’sdraft Manual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zieky, M.,&Perie, M.(2006). A primer on setting cut scores on tests of educational achievement. Princeton:Educational Testing Service.
博荣,&王克非.(2008).欧盟语言多元化政策与相关外语教育政策分析.外语教学与研究,1,
(pp14-19).
陈国华.(2002).谈英语能力标准的制订.外语教学与研究,6,(pp404-406).
丛进.(2008). TEM-4阅读理解理论效度及项目区分度研究.鲁东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),5,
(pp81-84).
端木庆一.(2005).英语语言测试的理论与实践.郑州：河南人民出版社.
付桂芳,&Peter, B.(2011).欧洲外语技能培养与评估.高教发展与评估,1,(pp110-115).
傅荣.(2003).论欧洲联盟语言多元化政策.四川外语学院学报,3,(pp110-113).
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组．(2000).高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲．上海：上海外语教学出版社.
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组．(2004).高校英语专业四级考试大纲．上海：上海外语教育出版社.
韩宝成.(2001).外语教学科研中的统计方法.北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
韩宝成.(2002).高校学生英语能力测试改革势在必行.外语教学与研究,6,(pp410-412).
韩宝成.(2006).国外语言能力量表评述.外语教学与研究,6,(pp443-450).
何艳铭,&冯增俊.(2005).走向新世纪的欧洲语言教学--《欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领》评述.比较教学研究,6,(pp86-90).
何艳铭.(2005).欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领研究.华南师范大学硕士学位论文,未出版,广州市.
李传益,&魏海晶.(2009).两篇新版TEM4完形填空的信度考查.考试周刊,15,(pp3-4).
李传益.(2010).高校英语专业四级考试听写信度实证研究.英语考试研究,7.
撒露莎.(2008).英语专业四级“语法与词汇”题效度研究.中南民族大学硕士学位论文,未出版,武汉市.
王全.(2004).谈英语水平测试多极化与统一能力标准.外语研究,1,(pp66-70).
吴雪萍,&张科丽.(2009).促进资格互认的欧洲资格框架探究.高等教育研究,12,(pp102-106).
杨惠中,&杜诗春.(2007).制定亚洲同意的英语语言能力等级量表. FLC,2,(pp34-37).
鄢家利.(2008).从《欧洲语言教学与评估共同纲领》看我国英语能力标准的制定.西南科技大学学报,4,(pp23-25).
姚茗茗.(2010).英语专业四级完形填空题效度研究.南昌大学硕士学位论文,未出版,南昌市.
张台麟.(2007).全球化下的欧洲语言与文化政策.台北：政大欧研中心.
张艳莉.(2010).中国英语测试体系研究.上海:复旦大学出版社.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |