考试模式对考生英语成绩的影响研究———英语机考与纸考成绩的实证对比分析
|
摘要
为探明考试模式对考试成绩的影响,本研究抽取了石河子大学大学一年级410名非英语专业学生,将其分成两组,同时以机考和纸考形式进行内容相同的英语测试。通过对比分析两组考生成绩发现:不同的考试模式对样本学生的总成绩没有显著性影响。纸考组主观题成绩低于机考组,且差异显著,说明考试模式对考生(尤其是英语能力较弱的考生)的主观题产生了影响;两组考生的客观题成绩没有显著差异;纸考组英语水平较高的学生听力成绩高于机考组,且差异显著;不同的考试模式有时会对学生的阅读成绩有显著性影响。
This paper investigated how the two different testing modes, computer based language testing(CBLT) and paper-and-pencil based language testing(PBLT),influenced students' English test scores. 410 fresh non-English-majors of Shihezi University were randomly selected and divided into two groups: Group CBLT and Group PBLT. The two groups took the same English test at the same time but in different testing modes,one computer based,the other paper-pencil based. Through comparative analysis of the scores from the two groups,we found that different testing modes had no significant impact on students' total scores. However,in subjective questions,Group PBLT scored lower than that of Group CBLT with statistical significance,which indicated that testing modes would influence subjective questions significantly in the test especially for students whose English level was relatively poor. What's more,there were no significant differences in the two groups in terms of objective questions. Nevertheless,for students with high level of English,their scores in Listening Comprehension in PBLT were significantly higher than that of Group CBLT statistically. Different testing modes sometimes would influence students' scores in Reading Comprehension significantly.
This paper investigated how the two different testing modes, computer based language testing(CBLT) and paper-and-pencil based language testing(PBLT),influenced students' English test scores. 410 fresh non-English-majors of Shihezi University were randomly selected and divided into two groups: Group CBLT and Group PBLT. The two groups took the same English test at the same time but in different testing modes,one computer based,the other paper-pencil based. Through comparative analysis of the scores from the two groups,we found that different testing modes had no significant impact on students' total scores. However,in subjective questions,Group PBLT scored lower than that of Group CBLT with statistical significance,which indicated that testing modes would influence subjective questions significantly in the test especially for students whose English level was relatively poor. What's more,there were no significant differences in the two groups in terms of objective questions. Nevertheless,for students with high level of English,their scores in Listening Comprehension in PBLT were significantly higher than that of Group CBLT statistically. Different testing modes sometimes would influence students' scores in Reading Comprehension significantly.
引文
[1] Choi,I. C.,Kim,K. S.,&Boo,J. Comparability of a Paperbased Language Test and a Computer-based Language Test[J]. Language Testing,2003,20(3):295-320.
[2] Lee,H. K. A Comparative Study of ESL Writers’Performance in a Paper-based and a Computer-delivered Writing Test[J]. Assessing Writing,2004,(9):4-26.
[3]崔瑞国等.机考与纸笔考英语阅读成绩等效性研究[J].河北企业,2014,(11):66-67.
[4]桂诗春.语言测试:新技术与新理论[J].外语教学与研究,1989,(3):2-10.
[5]韩宝成.语言测试:理论、实践与发展[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(2):47-52.
[6]贾清艳.大学英语机考与笔考等效实证研究[J].辽宁工业大学学报(社会科学版),2013,(15):110-112.
[7]孔文,李清华.大规模语言测试的方向:计算机适应性语言测试[J].外语界,2002,(2):76-80.
[8]李清华.基于纸笔的语言测试和基于计算机的语言测试的等效研究综述[J].外语界,2006,(4):73-78.
[9]李玉平.大规模计算机辅助英语口语测试效果实证研究[J].外语界,2009,(4):69-76.
[10]刘萍,王菲.大学英语四、六级机考适应性调查研究[J].现代教育技术,2012,(22):71-75.
[11]邱东林等.大学英语听说机考尝试[J].外语界,2005,(4):76-79.
[12]宋志平,宋云霞,陈昕.大学英语四级机考对听力教学的反拨作用研究[J].通化师范学院学报,2012,(9):105-110.
[13]孙元春.机助与面试英语口语测试中学生焦虑度对比分析与研究[J].长春师范学院学报(人文社会科学版),2007,(4):140-143.
[14]唐锦兰,刘晓悦.考试媒介对于考生成绩的影响研究———一项英语机考与纸笔考试成绩对比分析[J].中国远程教育,2009,(3):57-61.
[15]杨艳霞,李萌涛.大学英语口语机考环境下大学生计算机使用态度研究[J].外语界,2010,(6):78-84.
[16]曾用强.电脑顺应性测试模式的设计[J].外语教学与研究,1992,(2):112-120.
[17]曾用强.个性化自适应性测试探索[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(4):278-282.
[18]张武保.自适应性测试的实验研究[J].外语教学与研究,1999,(3):218-224.
[19]朱正才,杨惠中.关于机助自适应大学英语四、六级考试[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(2):132-141.
[2] Lee,H. K. A Comparative Study of ESL Writers’Performance in a Paper-based and a Computer-delivered Writing Test[J]. Assessing Writing,2004,(9):4-26.
[3]崔瑞国等.机考与纸笔考英语阅读成绩等效性研究[J].河北企业,2014,(11):66-67.
[4]桂诗春.语言测试:新技术与新理论[J].外语教学与研究,1989,(3):2-10.
[5]韩宝成.语言测试:理论、实践与发展[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(2):47-52.
[6]贾清艳.大学英语机考与笔考等效实证研究[J].辽宁工业大学学报(社会科学版),2013,(15):110-112.
[7]孔文,李清华.大规模语言测试的方向:计算机适应性语言测试[J].外语界,2002,(2):76-80.
[8]李清华.基于纸笔的语言测试和基于计算机的语言测试的等效研究综述[J].外语界,2006,(4):73-78.
[9]李玉平.大规模计算机辅助英语口语测试效果实证研究[J].外语界,2009,(4):69-76.
[10]刘萍,王菲.大学英语四、六级机考适应性调查研究[J].现代教育技术,2012,(22):71-75.
[11]邱东林等.大学英语听说机考尝试[J].外语界,2005,(4):76-79.
[12]宋志平,宋云霞,陈昕.大学英语四级机考对听力教学的反拨作用研究[J].通化师范学院学报,2012,(9):105-110.
[13]孙元春.机助与面试英语口语测试中学生焦虑度对比分析与研究[J].长春师范学院学报(人文社会科学版),2007,(4):140-143.
[14]唐锦兰,刘晓悦.考试媒介对于考生成绩的影响研究———一项英语机考与纸笔考试成绩对比分析[J].中国远程教育,2009,(3):57-61.
[15]杨艳霞,李萌涛.大学英语口语机考环境下大学生计算机使用态度研究[J].外语界,2010,(6):78-84.
[16]曾用强.电脑顺应性测试模式的设计[J].外语教学与研究,1992,(2):112-120.
[17]曾用强.个性化自适应性测试探索[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(4):278-282.
[18]张武保.自适应性测试的实验研究[J].外语教学与研究,1999,(3):218-224.
[19]朱正才,杨惠中.关于机助自适应大学英语四、六级考试[J].外语教学与研究,2001,(2):132-141.