大学英语课堂口头报告的评价标准——基于扎根理论的探索性研究
|
摘要
本研究以扎根理论为路径,围绕口头报告任务中不同主体对评价标准的认识和实践展开,探索如何设计和使用口头报告评价标准促进教学。研究搜集对11位教师的单人访谈和60位学生一学期同伴反馈文本,采用三级编码方式,得出评价标准性质、内容、产生、使用和作用五项类属。研究发现标准透明化值得提倡。师生都需要直观的评价标准指引以关注从表层内容到深层能力的各项维度。再者,评价标准应与其他评价任务保持建构性一致,共同指向课程的目标能力。研究进一步将发现去具体化,得出三个抽象程度更高的原则:评价标准的透明性、具体性和一致性。本研究在方法上具有创新性,将有助于培养教师课堂评估素养,完善大学英语多元评价体系具体建立。
This paper draws upon the Grounded Theory and explores teachers' and students' perceptions and practices related to the criteria for assessing English oral presentations. Eleven teachers were individually interviewed, and the texts of sixty students' peer feedback in the whole semester were collected. After three rounds of open, axial and selective coding, five categories were generated from the data and their relationships were explored to generate theories. This study also argues for making criteria more transparent, for the process of describing criteria engages teachers and students into deeper reflection on the learning goals. Concrete criteria foster a better understanding of each assessment dimension. Criteria of oral presentation should also maintain a constructive alignment with other assessment and curriculum goals. This study argues that the transparency, concreteness and alignment of criteria facilitate teaching and learning. It also carries pedagogical implications for implementing oral presentations, developing teacher assessment literacies, and establishing a diversified assessment system in university English curriculum.
This paper draws upon the Grounded Theory and explores teachers' and students' perceptions and practices related to the criteria for assessing English oral presentations. Eleven teachers were individually interviewed, and the texts of sixty students' peer feedback in the whole semester were collected. After three rounds of open, axial and selective coding, five categories were generated from the data and their relationships were explored to generate theories. This study also argues for making criteria more transparent, for the process of describing criteria engages teachers and students into deeper reflection on the learning goals. Concrete criteria foster a better understanding of each assessment dimension. Criteria of oral presentation should also maintain a constructive alignment with other assessment and curriculum goals. This study argues that the transparency, concreteness and alignment of criteria facilitate teaching and learning. It also carries pedagogical implications for implementing oral presentations, developing teacher assessment literacies, and establishing a diversified assessment system in university English curriculum.
引文
[1] Biggs,J.B.Teaching for Quality Learning at University:What the Student Does[M].UK:McGraw-Hill Education,2011.
[2] Boud,D.& N.Falchikov.Aligning assessment with long-term learning[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2006(4):399-413.
[3] De Grez,Luc,Valcke,M.& I.Roozen.The impact of goal orientation,self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills[J].European Journal of Psychology of Education,2009(3):293-306.
[4] Glaser,B.G.& A.L.Strauss.The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Theory[M].New Brunswick:Aldine Transaction,1967.
[5] Green,R.& M.Bowser.Observations from the field:Sharing a literature review rubric[J].Journal of Library Administration,2006(1-2):185-202.
[6] O’Donovan,B.,Price,M.& C.Rust.Know what I mean?Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria[J].Teaching in Higher Education,2004(9):325-335.
[7] Petkov,D.& O.Petkova.Development of scoring rubrics for IS projects as an assessment tool[J].Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology,2006(3):499-509.
[8] Reddy,Y.M.& H.Andrade.A review of rubric use in higher education[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2010(4):435-448.
[9] Strauss,A.& J.Corbin.Basics of Qualitative Research:Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory[M].Newbury Park,CA:Sage,1990.
[10]van Ginkel,S.,Judith,T.M.Harm,J.A.& M.Mnlcler.Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence:A synthesis of research in higher education[J].Educational Research Review,2015(1):62-80.
[11]Zhou,J.& C.Deneen.Chinese award-winning tutors’ perceptions and practices of classroom-based assessment[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2016(8):1144-1158.
[12]陈朗.公众英语演讲课程内容、活动及评估规划——英语专业教学改革新课型探索[J].外语研究,2010(6):56-62.
[13]教育部.中国英语能力等级量表[S/OL].[2018-07-20].http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A19/s229/201804/t20180416_333315.html.
[14]金艳.体验式大学英语教学的多元评价[J].中国外语,2010(1):68-76.
[15]刘建达.我国英语能力等级量表研制的基本思路[J].中国考试,2015(1):7-11.
[16]刘睿,张德禄.通过自我评价提升多模态语篇构建能力的行动研究——以英语专业学生口头报告为例[J].中国外语教育,2016(3):29-36.
[17]吕生禄.二语口试评分认知诊断能力属性的界定基理探讨[J].西安外国语大学学报,2018(4):52-56.
[18]万江波.“促进学习的评估”在英语演讲课中的应用[J].中国外语教育,2013(2):41-51.
[19]文秋芳.“师生合作评价”:“产出导向法”创设的新评价形式[J].外语界,2016(5):37-43.
[20]夏赛辉,张文忠.依托项目语言学习模式下的学习者努力研究[J].外语与外语教学,2017(3):78-88.
[21]许悦婷,张仁霞.小组活动中评价个人贡献的必要性与可行性实证研究[J].现代外语,2017(2):244-253.
[22]朱妮娅.生态课堂教学对小组口语报告质量的作用——以同伴支架的运用为例[J].外语与外语教学,2018(1):101-109.
[2] Boud,D.& N.Falchikov.Aligning assessment with long-term learning[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2006(4):399-413.
[3] De Grez,Luc,Valcke,M.& I.Roozen.The impact of goal orientation,self-reflection and personal characteristics on the acquisition of oral presentation skills[J].European Journal of Psychology of Education,2009(3):293-306.
[4] Glaser,B.G.& A.L.Strauss.The Discovery of Grounded Theory:Strategies for Qualitative Theory[M].New Brunswick:Aldine Transaction,1967.
[5] Green,R.& M.Bowser.Observations from the field:Sharing a literature review rubric[J].Journal of Library Administration,2006(1-2):185-202.
[6] O’Donovan,B.,Price,M.& C.Rust.Know what I mean?Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria[J].Teaching in Higher Education,2004(9):325-335.
[7] Petkov,D.& O.Petkova.Development of scoring rubrics for IS projects as an assessment tool[J].Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology,2006(3):499-509.
[8] Reddy,Y.M.& H.Andrade.A review of rubric use in higher education[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2010(4):435-448.
[9] Strauss,A.& J.Corbin.Basics of Qualitative Research:Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory[M].Newbury Park,CA:Sage,1990.
[10]van Ginkel,S.,Judith,T.M.Harm,J.A.& M.Mnlcler.Towards a set of design principles for developing oral presentation competence:A synthesis of research in higher education[J].Educational Research Review,2015(1):62-80.
[11]Zhou,J.& C.Deneen.Chinese award-winning tutors’ perceptions and practices of classroom-based assessment[J].Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,2016(8):1144-1158.
[12]陈朗.公众英语演讲课程内容、活动及评估规划——英语专业教学改革新课型探索[J].外语研究,2010(6):56-62.
[13]教育部.中国英语能力等级量表[S/OL].[2018-07-20].http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A19/s229/201804/t20180416_333315.html.
[14]金艳.体验式大学英语教学的多元评价[J].中国外语,2010(1):68-76.
[15]刘建达.我国英语能力等级量表研制的基本思路[J].中国考试,2015(1):7-11.
[16]刘睿,张德禄.通过自我评价提升多模态语篇构建能力的行动研究——以英语专业学生口头报告为例[J].中国外语教育,2016(3):29-36.
[17]吕生禄.二语口试评分认知诊断能力属性的界定基理探讨[J].西安外国语大学学报,2018(4):52-56.
[18]万江波.“促进学习的评估”在英语演讲课中的应用[J].中国外语教育,2013(2):41-51.
[19]文秋芳.“师生合作评价”:“产出导向法”创设的新评价形式[J].外语界,2016(5):37-43.
[20]夏赛辉,张文忠.依托项目语言学习模式下的学习者努力研究[J].外语与外语教学,2017(3):78-88.
[21]许悦婷,张仁霞.小组活动中评价个人贡献的必要性与可行性实证研究[J].现代外语,2017(2):244-253.
[22]朱妮娅.生态课堂教学对小组口语报告质量的作用——以同伴支架的运用为例[J].外语与外语教学,2018(1):101-109.