实施课堂测试促进大学英语语法教学的研究
|
摘要
根据Brumfit的“交际—呈现—练习—再交际”语法教学模式,一般语法教学的课堂程序可由四步组成,即:展示、解释、练习和评估。课堂测试作为评估的一个重要手段于日常教学中经常使用。但是,由于一些大型化测试所带来的负面反拨效应,很多人对测试持一种反对态度,课堂测试的作用没有得到充分的重视。本文通过对一个控制组和一个实验组的不同处理,对课堂测试这一评估方式能否有效促进大学英语语法教学效率进行验证并对如何保障课堂测试有效性进行探讨。
本研究通过为期三个月的实证活动来证明课堂测试对大学英语语法教学的促进作用。实验研究根据湖南大学英语分级测试结果,以2008级的两个C级班为研究对象。研究者以教学助手的身份参与某老师的大学英语语法教学,负责实验班课堂测试的设计、实施与讲解。实验最后,控制组和实验组两班的学生同时进行了一次相同的综合测试。研究数据主要通过测试分析获得辅以访谈及课堂观察。本研究运用SPSS13.0对综合测试结果进行了独立样本T检验,得出结论,实验后实验组与控制组的学习成绩存在显著差异(0.007<0.05),证明课堂测试的确能有效的促进大学英语语法教学。接下来本研究在Rea-Dickins(2001)课堂测试四个阶段的基础上,利用麦克米伦(2007)的优化课堂测试八项标准,对此次课堂测试实证研究进行评估和衡量,找出测试过程中的优缺点,为提高大学英语课堂测试的质量提出建议。与此同时,研究者还利用调查问卷以及访谈了解课堂测试的主要参与方对实施的具体看法和建议,为教学者在将来更好地调整和实施课堂测试促进教学效果服务。
本研究的重要意义在于:首先,本研究验证了课堂测试对大学英语教学的促进作用;其次,本研究运用的八条标准可以较好的考察测试活动,成为课堂测试质量监控的强有力的工具,从而有效的提高大学英语语法教学效率;再次,研究获得的数据分析、评估、访谈和问卷调查结果为同类研究提供了较为丰富的实证证据,有利于更好的设计和开展课堂测试,为大学英语教学服务;最后,在本次实证研究的基础上,研究者尝试制定了一份《大学体验英语》第一册的课堂测试实施方案,供其他任课老师参考。
Based on Brumfit’s grammar teaching paradigm“communication, presentation, practice and recommunication”, general grammar teaching classes always comprise four steps: presentation, explanation, practice and evaluation. As a very important method of evaluation, classroom assessments have been frequently employed in teaching. However, due to the negative backwash effect of some large-scale tests, many hold an unfavorable opinion toward all forms of tests, for which the usefulness of classroom assessments has long been underestimated. Therefore, this research aims to testify the usefulness of college English grammar teaching and learning by the implementation of classroom tests and explore how to guarantee their effectiveness by means of carrying out different treatments to an experimental group and a control group.
This research manages to prove the usefulness of classroom tests in terms of college English grammar teaching and learning by conducting a three-month empirical study. Based on the results of College English Placement Test of Hunan University, two classes of non-English major college students at C level of 2008 serve as subjects. The researcher participates in the grammar teaching as language support teacher, assisting the mainstream class teacher in the design and implementation of classroom tests. At the end of this experiment, two groups of students undergo the same summative test simultaneously. Research data is solicited by test analyses, interviews and observations. Independent Samples T-Test is conducted on the results of the summative test, by which a significant performance difference (0.007<0.05) between the two groups of students is proved, indicating that classroom tests can effectively enhance college English grammar teaching and learning. Later on, the researcher employs McMillan’s eight criteria of high-quality classroom tests to evaluate these test activities on the ground of Rea-Dickins’(2001) definition of four-stage classroom assessment, pointing out their strengths and shortcomings with a view to provide suggestions on how to improve the quality of in-class tests of college English. Meanwhile, the researcher deploys questionnaire and interviews to explore teachers’and students’attitude and suggestions on the implementation of classroom tests, which can help teachers better adjust and carry out classroom tests, hence realizing more fruitful learning outcomes.
The significance of this research can be seen as follows:
1) This research provides further evidence that classroom tests on a regular basis can enhance college English teaching and learning.
2) The eight criteria utilized by the researcher are very useful in evaluating test practices and prove themselves to be powerful weapons in quality monitoring and guaranteeing the effectiveness of classroom assessments.
3) Data solicited from test analyses, evaluations, interviews and questionnaire serve as empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the experiment in question and are very helpful in improving the implementation of classroom tests, hence greatly promoting college English teaching.
4) On the basis of this research, the researcher works out a tentative schedule on classroom test implementation for Experiencing English Integrated CoursebookⅠfor reference.
本研究通过为期三个月的实证活动来证明课堂测试对大学英语语法教学的促进作用。实验研究根据湖南大学英语分级测试结果,以2008级的两个C级班为研究对象。研究者以教学助手的身份参与某老师的大学英语语法教学,负责实验班课堂测试的设计、实施与讲解。实验最后,控制组和实验组两班的学生同时进行了一次相同的综合测试。研究数据主要通过测试分析获得辅以访谈及课堂观察。本研究运用SPSS13.0对综合测试结果进行了独立样本T检验,得出结论,实验后实验组与控制组的学习成绩存在显著差异(0.007<0.05),证明课堂测试的确能有效的促进大学英语语法教学。接下来本研究在Rea-Dickins(2001)课堂测试四个阶段的基础上,利用麦克米伦(2007)的优化课堂测试八项标准,对此次课堂测试实证研究进行评估和衡量,找出测试过程中的优缺点,为提高大学英语课堂测试的质量提出建议。与此同时,研究者还利用调查问卷以及访谈了解课堂测试的主要参与方对实施的具体看法和建议,为教学者在将来更好地调整和实施课堂测试促进教学效果服务。
本研究的重要意义在于:首先,本研究验证了课堂测试对大学英语教学的促进作用;其次,本研究运用的八条标准可以较好的考察测试活动,成为课堂测试质量监控的强有力的工具,从而有效的提高大学英语语法教学效率;再次,研究获得的数据分析、评估、访谈和问卷调查结果为同类研究提供了较为丰富的实证证据,有利于更好的设计和开展课堂测试,为大学英语教学服务;最后,在本次实证研究的基础上,研究者尝试制定了一份《大学体验英语》第一册的课堂测试实施方案,供其他任课老师参考。
Based on Brumfit’s grammar teaching paradigm“communication, presentation, practice and recommunication”, general grammar teaching classes always comprise four steps: presentation, explanation, practice and evaluation. As a very important method of evaluation, classroom assessments have been frequently employed in teaching. However, due to the negative backwash effect of some large-scale tests, many hold an unfavorable opinion toward all forms of tests, for which the usefulness of classroom assessments has long been underestimated. Therefore, this research aims to testify the usefulness of college English grammar teaching and learning by the implementation of classroom tests and explore how to guarantee their effectiveness by means of carrying out different treatments to an experimental group and a control group.
This research manages to prove the usefulness of classroom tests in terms of college English grammar teaching and learning by conducting a three-month empirical study. Based on the results of College English Placement Test of Hunan University, two classes of non-English major college students at C level of 2008 serve as subjects. The researcher participates in the grammar teaching as language support teacher, assisting the mainstream class teacher in the design and implementation of classroom tests. At the end of this experiment, two groups of students undergo the same summative test simultaneously. Research data is solicited by test analyses, interviews and observations. Independent Samples T-Test is conducted on the results of the summative test, by which a significant performance difference (0.007<0.05) between the two groups of students is proved, indicating that classroom tests can effectively enhance college English grammar teaching and learning. Later on, the researcher employs McMillan’s eight criteria of high-quality classroom tests to evaluate these test activities on the ground of Rea-Dickins’(2001) definition of four-stage classroom assessment, pointing out their strengths and shortcomings with a view to provide suggestions on how to improve the quality of in-class tests of college English. Meanwhile, the researcher deploys questionnaire and interviews to explore teachers’and students’attitude and suggestions on the implementation of classroom tests, which can help teachers better adjust and carry out classroom tests, hence realizing more fruitful learning outcomes.
The significance of this research can be seen as follows:
1) This research provides further evidence that classroom tests on a regular basis can enhance college English teaching and learning.
2) The eight criteria utilized by the researcher are very useful in evaluating test practices and prove themselves to be powerful weapons in quality monitoring and guaranteeing the effectiveness of classroom assessments.
3) Data solicited from test analyses, evaluations, interviews and questionnaire serve as empirical evidence of the effectiveness of the experiment in question and are very helpful in improving the implementation of classroom tests, hence greatly promoting college English teaching.
4) On the basis of this research, the researcher works out a tentative schedule on classroom test implementation for Experiencing English Integrated CoursebookⅠfor reference.
引文
[1] Bangert-Drwons, R. L., J. A. Kulik & C. C. Kulik. 1991. Effects of frequent classroom testing [J]. Journal of Educational Research 85 (1): 89-99.
[2] Becker, H, B. Geer, & E. Hughes. 1968. Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life [M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[3] Black, P. & William, D. 1998a: Assessment and classroom learning [J]. Assessment in Education 5: 7-74.
[4] Black, P. & William, D. 1998b. Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment [M]. King’s College London: School of Education.
[5] Broadfoot, P. 1996: Performance assessment in perspective: international trends and current English experience. In Craft, A. (ed.), Primary education: assessing and planning learning [C]. London: Routledge in association with The Open University, 35-65.
[6] Broadfoot, P. 1998. Records of Achievement and the Learning Society: A Tale of Two Discourses [J]. Assessment in Education 5: 447-477.
[7] Brumfit, CJ & Johnson K. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching [M]. Oxford University Press.
[8] Chapelle, C., & D. Douglas. 1993. A new decade of language testing research [J]. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
[9] Clarke, S. 1998. Targeting assessment in the primary classroom [M]. Bristol: Hodder & Stoughton.
[10]Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. 1991. Testing, Reform and Rebellion [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
[11]Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. 1996: Classroom-based evaluation in second language education [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[12]Gipps, C. 1994. Quality in teacher assessment [J]. In Harlen, W., editor, Enhancing Quality in Assessment. London: Paul Chapman, 71-86.
[13]Gipps, C.,Clarke, S. & McCallum, B. 1998. Monitoring consistency in teacher assessment and impact of SCAA’s guidance materials at Key Stages 1, 2, and 3 [M]. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
[14]Graue, M. E. 1993. Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment [J]. Educational Assessment 1: 293-309.
[15]Harlen, W. 1994. Enhancing quality in assessment [M]. London: Paul Chapman.
[16]Harlen, W. & James, M. 1997. Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment [J]. Assessment in Education 4, 365-79.
[17]Hembree, R. 1987. Effects of noncontent variables on mathematics test performance [J]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 18 (3): 197-214.
[18]Heubert, J.P., & Hauser, R.M. (Eds.). 1999. High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation [M].Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[19]Hiebert, E. H., & Calfee, R. C. 1989. Advancing academic literacy through teachers’assessments [J]. Educational Leadership 46 (7): 50-54.
[20]Hinett, K. 1997. Developing Student Learning through the Use of Self-assessment in Higher Education [M]. University of Central Lancashire.
[21]James, D. 1997. Marking the Graduate: Assessment Events as Social Practices. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, York.
[22]Johnston, P. H., P. Weiss, & P. Afflerbach. 1990. Teachers’Evaluation of the Teaching and Learning in Literacy and Literature [M]. Albany: State University of New York at Albany, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
[23]Lewin, Larry & Betty Jean Shoemaker. 1998. Great Performances: Creating Classroom-based Assessment Tasks [M]. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
[24]McCarthey, S. & T. E. Raphael. 1992. Alternative Research Perspectives. Reading/Writing Connections: Learning from Research [M]. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 2-30.
[25]McMillan, J.H., 2007. Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction (Fourth Edition) [M]. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 39-76.
[26]McNamara, T. 2001. Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research [J]. Language Testing 18(4): 333-349.
[27]Messick, S. 1989. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment [J]. Educational Researcher 23: 5-12.
[28]Moss, P. 1994. Can there be validity without reliability [J]? Educational Researcher 23(1): 5-12.
[29]Nunan, D. 2004. Practical English Language Teaching [M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
[30]O’Malley, J.M. & Valdez Pierce, L. 1996. Authentic assessment for Englishlanguage learners: practical approaches for teachers [M]. United States of America: Addison-Wesley.
[31]Peter Airasian 1991. Classroom Assessment [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[32]Rea-Dickins, P. 2001. Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment [J]. Language Testing 18(4): 429-462.
[33]Rea-Dickins, P. & Gardner, S. 2000. Snares and silver bullets: disentangling the construct of formative assessment [J]. Language Testing 17: 215-43.
[34]Schafer, W.D., & Lissitz, R.W. 1987. Measurement training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality [J]. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3): 57-63.
[35]Schloss, P. J., M. A. Smith & M. Posluzsny. 1990. The impact of formative and summative assessment upon test performance of special education majors [J]. Teacher Education and Special Education Majors 13 (1): 3-8.
[36]Smith, M. L. 1991. Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers [J]. Educational Researcher 20 (5): 8-11.
[37]Snyder, B. R. 1971. The Hidden Curriculum [M]. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
[38]Stiggins, R. J. 1994a. Student-centered Classroom Assessment [M]. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[39]Stiggins, R. J. 1994b. High Quality Classroom Assessment: What Does it Really Mean [J]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 11(2): 35-39.
[40]Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. 1992. In Teachers’Hands: Investigating the Practices of Classroom Assessment [M]. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.
[41]The Education Department HKSAR. 2002. English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-Secondary 3) [Z]. Hong Kong: the Printing Department of HKSAR.
[42]Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. 1998. Investigating formative assessment[M]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[43]Valencia, S. W. 1990. A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats, and hows [J]. The Reading Teacher 43: 338-340.
[44]Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[45]Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society [M]. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
[46]Wiggins, G. 1989. Teaching to the (authentic) test [J]. Educational Leadership 46: 41-47.
[47]Wolf, D. 1989. Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work [J]. Educational Leadership 46(7): 35-39.
[48]何琮周. 1998.专业语法教学与英语专业学生四、八级考试的反拨作用[A].邹申,英语语言测试——理论与操作[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[49]贾艳萍.龙萨金. 2005.频繁的课堂测试对外语教学的促进作用[J].山东外语教学(4): 41-45.
[50]金艳. 2000.大学英语四、六级考试口语考试对教学的反拨作用[J].外语界(4): 56—61.
[51]叶菊仙. 1998.大学英语考试对教学反拨作用的调查与思考[J].外语界(3): 40—43.
[52]原萍. 2002.成就测试对外语教学的正面反拨效应[J].外语教学(4): 73—76.
[2] Becker, H, B. Geer, & E. Hughes. 1968. Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life [M]. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[3] Black, P. & William, D. 1998a: Assessment and classroom learning [J]. Assessment in Education 5: 7-74.
[4] Black, P. & William, D. 1998b. Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment [M]. King’s College London: School of Education.
[5] Broadfoot, P. 1996: Performance assessment in perspective: international trends and current English experience. In Craft, A. (ed.), Primary education: assessing and planning learning [C]. London: Routledge in association with The Open University, 35-65.
[6] Broadfoot, P. 1998. Records of Achievement and the Learning Society: A Tale of Two Discourses [J]. Assessment in Education 5: 447-477.
[7] Brumfit, CJ & Johnson K. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching [M]. Oxford University Press.
[8] Chapelle, C., & D. Douglas. 1993. A new decade of language testing research [J]. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
[9] Clarke, S. 1998. Targeting assessment in the primary classroom [M]. Bristol: Hodder & Stoughton.
[10]Corbett, H. D., & Wilson, B. L. 1991. Testing, Reform and Rebellion [M]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
[11]Genesee, F. & Upshur, J. 1996: Classroom-based evaluation in second language education [M]. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[12]Gipps, C. 1994. Quality in teacher assessment [J]. In Harlen, W., editor, Enhancing Quality in Assessment. London: Paul Chapman, 71-86.
[13]Gipps, C.,Clarke, S. & McCallum, B. 1998. Monitoring consistency in teacher assessment and impact of SCAA’s guidance materials at Key Stages 1, 2, and 3 [M]. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
[14]Graue, M. E. 1993. Integrating theory and practice through instructional assessment [J]. Educational Assessment 1: 293-309.
[15]Harlen, W. 1994. Enhancing quality in assessment [M]. London: Paul Chapman.
[16]Harlen, W. & James, M. 1997. Assessment and learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment [J]. Assessment in Education 4, 365-79.
[17]Hembree, R. 1987. Effects of noncontent variables on mathematics test performance [J]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 18 (3): 197-214.
[18]Heubert, J.P., & Hauser, R.M. (Eds.). 1999. High stakes testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation [M].Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
[19]Hiebert, E. H., & Calfee, R. C. 1989. Advancing academic literacy through teachers’assessments [J]. Educational Leadership 46 (7): 50-54.
[20]Hinett, K. 1997. Developing Student Learning through the Use of Self-assessment in Higher Education [M]. University of Central Lancashire.
[21]James, D. 1997. Marking the Graduate: Assessment Events as Social Practices. Paper presented at British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, York.
[22]Johnston, P. H., P. Weiss, & P. Afflerbach. 1990. Teachers’Evaluation of the Teaching and Learning in Literacy and Literature [M]. Albany: State University of New York at Albany, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature.
[23]Lewin, Larry & Betty Jean Shoemaker. 1998. Great Performances: Creating Classroom-based Assessment Tasks [M]. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
[24]McCarthey, S. & T. E. Raphael. 1992. Alternative Research Perspectives. Reading/Writing Connections: Learning from Research [M]. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association, 2-30.
[25]McMillan, J.H., 2007. Classroom Assessment: Principles and Practice for Effective Standards-Based Instruction (Fourth Edition) [M]. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 39-76.
[26]McNamara, T. 2001. Language assessment as social practice: challenges for research [J]. Language Testing 18(4): 333-349.
[27]Messick, S. 1989. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment [J]. Educational Researcher 23: 5-12.
[28]Moss, P. 1994. Can there be validity without reliability [J]? Educational Researcher 23(1): 5-12.
[29]Nunan, D. 2004. Practical English Language Teaching [M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
[30]O’Malley, J.M. & Valdez Pierce, L. 1996. Authentic assessment for Englishlanguage learners: practical approaches for teachers [M]. United States of America: Addison-Wesley.
[31]Peter Airasian 1991. Classroom Assessment [M]. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[32]Rea-Dickins, P. 2001. Mirror, mirror on the wall: identifying processes of classroom assessment [J]. Language Testing 18(4): 429-462.
[33]Rea-Dickins, P. & Gardner, S. 2000. Snares and silver bullets: disentangling the construct of formative assessment [J]. Language Testing 17: 215-43.
[34]Schafer, W.D., & Lissitz, R.W. 1987. Measurement training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality [J]. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3): 57-63.
[35]Schloss, P. J., M. A. Smith & M. Posluzsny. 1990. The impact of formative and summative assessment upon test performance of special education majors [J]. Teacher Education and Special Education Majors 13 (1): 3-8.
[36]Smith, M. L. 1991. Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers [J]. Educational Researcher 20 (5): 8-11.
[37]Snyder, B. R. 1971. The Hidden Curriculum [M]. New York: Alfred A Knopf.
[38]Stiggins, R. J. 1994a. Student-centered Classroom Assessment [M]. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
[39]Stiggins, R. J. 1994b. High Quality Classroom Assessment: What Does it Really Mean [J]. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 11(2): 35-39.
[40]Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. 1992. In Teachers’Hands: Investigating the Practices of Classroom Assessment [M]. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.
[41]The Education Department HKSAR. 2002. English Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1-Secondary 3) [Z]. Hong Kong: the Printing Department of HKSAR.
[42]Torrance, H. & Pryor, J. 1998. Investigating formative assessment[M]. Buckingham: Open University Press.
[43]Valencia, S. W. 1990. A portfolio approach to classroom reading assessment: The whys, whats, and hows [J]. The Reading Teacher 43: 338-340.
[44]Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and Language [M]. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[45]Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society [M]. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
[46]Wiggins, G. 1989. Teaching to the (authentic) test [J]. Educational Leadership 46: 41-47.
[47]Wolf, D. 1989. Portfolio assessment: Sampling student work [J]. Educational Leadership 46(7): 35-39.
[48]何琮周. 1998.专业语法教学与英语专业学生四、八级考试的反拨作用[A].邹申,英语语言测试——理论与操作[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
[49]贾艳萍.龙萨金. 2005.频繁的课堂测试对外语教学的促进作用[J].山东外语教学(4): 41-45.
[50]金艳. 2000.大学英语四、六级考试口语考试对教学的反拨作用[J].外语界(4): 56—61.
[51]叶菊仙. 1998.大学英语考试对教学反拨作用的调查与思考[J].外语界(3): 40—43.
[52]原萍. 2002.成就测试对外语教学的正面反拨效应[J].外语教学(4): 73—76.