英语专业四级阅读任务难度探究
|
摘要
英语专业四级考试(Test for English Majors--Grade 4,缩写为TEM-4)是目前中国唯一的一项专为英语语言文学专业学生基础阶段设计实行的大规模标准参照性教学检查考试。它根据《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》的要求,由全国外语专业指导委员会下属英语专业教学分指导委员会负责组织命题,外语专业教学指导委员会办公室负责实施。TEM-4的目的在于推动高校英语专业教学大纲在基础阶段的贯彻与执行,对英语专业学生的各项基本技能和英语实际运用能力进行客观和准确的测量,从而为提高我国英语教学的质量而服务。
测试的基本目的之一是为进行决策而收集必要的信息。任何一项测试,要想做到权威、公正、客观,必须如实测量其拟测验的内容,这样,合理的考试任务难度就是出题者把握试卷水平以及考试使用者对考试分数进行合理解释的一个至关重要的前提,对于考试设计者,受试者和使用者都具有重要意义。TEM-4也不例外。然而,目前对于考试任务难度的研究却并不多见。本研究试图以TEM-4的阅读理解部分为切入点,从阅读任务特征的角度,对于影响TEM-4阅读理解任务难度的因素进行剖析,以期能更好地认识TEM-4阅读任务的实质,对其形成客观公正的理解。
本研究的主要目的有两个:一是确定可能对TEM-4阅读理解任务难度水平产生影响的主要任务特征有哪些;二是明确这些系统变化的任务特征的共同构念和测量属性,以及对任务难度的具体影响程度有多大,从而明确在多大程度上可以由这些任务特征去预测任务难度。
本研究以2005年和2006年的共8篇阅读理解文章及其40道题目作为研究材料。以外语专业教学指导委员会办公室提供的参加上述两年TEM-4考试的约300,000名考生的阅读成绩为对象。此外,本研究还设计了一个包括143个变量的评价工具,分别从命题内容(包括主题、体裁、词汇等)、组织特征(包括修辞方法、语法、修辞结构、连贯、照应等)、语用特征(言语行为和语言功能、语域等)、长度以及其他与语言相关的特征(文章、段落、句子等的长度,句子类型、指代、否定等)诸多方面分别对文章、关键句和题目三个层面进行分析。每个层面中具体变量各有不同。按照不同的评判方法,本研究又将这143个变量分为三类:计数型,计算型和评分型。前两类由研究者自己完成,评分类变量由10位专家依据专门设计的评分量表完成。
之后对于所获得的原始数据采用多种手段进行处理。描述性分析用于基本数据探索,信度分析用于检验评分一致,变量标准化处理为研究提供统一比较的基准,相关分析用于确定对阅读理解任务难度影响较大的个体变量,探索性因子分析用于因子纬度探索,验证性因子分析用来确定阅读任务特征模型,多重线性回归用于确定对任务难度的预测比例。
研究结果显示,在个体变量的层面上,共有22个任务特征变量可以对任务难度产生较为显著的影响,可分别归类为:语法复杂程度、信息抽象程度、词汇、新信息、修辞结构复杂程度、语域、推理类型、长度、关键句显著性、题目内容专业程度、否定等11类。而且属于文章层面的变量对于任务难度的影响要大于关键句层面和题目层面的变量,这一发现也将丰富我们对于任务难度预测变量的正确认识,改变长久以来认为阅读理解中题目因素是决定任务难度的主要原因的观点。
对于这些变量的进一步构念研究显示,整合后突显的公用因子共三个,分别为文章复杂性因子,文章长度因子和关键句显著性因子。最后的回归分析结果确定TEM-4阅读理解任务难度中约有31.2%可以用上述因子来解释,证明了一定程度上任务特征对于任务难度的可解释性。
结论部分指出了本研究在理论上、方法上、以及语言测试的具体实践上的一些启示,并且指出了研究所存在的问题及今后研究的方向。
As the only large-scale nationwide standardized test for English majors at the foundation stage in China so far,TEM-4(Test for English majors,Grade 4) is administered by the national foreign language teaching advisory committee under the higher education department of the Ministry of Education.With the Teaching Syllabus for English Majors being the basic guiding principle,and the English sub-committee of the national foreign language teaching advisory committee being in charge of test construction,Tem-4 is a criterion-referenced test aimed at the evaluation of the English teaching quality in China. The purpose of TEM-4 is to promote the implementation of the teaching syllabus,to measure English majors' ability to use English,so as to contribute to improving the English teaching quality in China.
One of the primary purposes of a test is to provide necessary information of the test-takers for decision-making.In order to be scientific,unbiased and authoritative,a test is supposed to be able to test what it purports to measure.Thus,one of the challenges facing test designers and test users who are concerned with gauging the influence of task characteristics on candidate performance is how to determine the difficulty of tasks.A greater understanding of the factors affecting task difficulty can assist in the choice of a suitable range of tasks for assessment purposes and also has the potential to influence the way levels of test performance are described.It is now well understood that aspects of test task di(?)ficulty can have an important effect on test performance and it would thus seem imperative to incorporate information about test task difficulty explicitly into the design of language tests and,more importantly,into the interpretation of test scores.But test task difficulty study is a much neglected topic.In this research,identifying the variables which uniquely account for significant variance in the percent correct obtained by examinees for each item in the TEM-4 reading comprehension part is a major focus.This dissertation tries to explore the relationship between reading task difficulty and reading task characteristics,with a view to forming a better understanding of the nature of the TEM-4 reading task.
The principal aims of the present study are:
1) To identify key task characteristics and task conditions that are most likely to affect the difficulty of TEM-4 reading tasks.
2) To investigate the impact on test scores from systematically varying task characteristics and task conditions and,in cases where clear effects are noted,to explore possible reasons for differences in task difficulty;to figure out the factor structure or potential relationship among these characteristics,and to identify the acco untability of item difficulty in the TEM-4 reading section by the set of factors specified in this research.
The research materials are the eight reading passages and the corresponding 40 items on the 2005 and 2006 TEM-4 papers.More than 300,000 test-takers' test scores are processed for the item difficulty index.A rating instrument with 143 test task characteristic variables is constructed,including propositional content variables(subject matter,genre,vocabulary and other aspects),organizational characteristics variables(rhetorical features of patterns, grammar,rhetorical organization,coherence,cohesion),pragmatic characteristics variables (speech acts and language functions,register),length and other language-related variables (number of words,different types of sentences,negations and frontings).These are performed on three levels:passage,key sentence,and item.What's more,these variables are of three different types:counted,mathematically calculated and rated.The first two types are conducted by the researcher herself,and the rated variables are collected from 10 experts using a specifically designed rating sheet.
Multiple techniques are exploited to analyze the raw data.Descriptive statistical analysis, reliability of ratings,standardization of variables,pair-wise correlation,exploratory factor analysis,confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regressions are all employed.
The results indicate that 22 reading task characteristics variables are found responsible for the TEM-4 reading task difficulty,among which passage variables take up a far more important share than key sentence variables and item variables.Three salient constructs are discovered,namely,passage complexity factor,passage length factor and key sentence salience factor,and they account for 31.2%of the variation in the reading task difficulty.
The conclusion part summarizes the answers tO the research questions and points out the theoretical,methodological implications and implications for language testing practices. The limitations and future research suggestions are mentioned in the end.
测试的基本目的之一是为进行决策而收集必要的信息。任何一项测试,要想做到权威、公正、客观,必须如实测量其拟测验的内容,这样,合理的考试任务难度就是出题者把握试卷水平以及考试使用者对考试分数进行合理解释的一个至关重要的前提,对于考试设计者,受试者和使用者都具有重要意义。TEM-4也不例外。然而,目前对于考试任务难度的研究却并不多见。本研究试图以TEM-4的阅读理解部分为切入点,从阅读任务特征的角度,对于影响TEM-4阅读理解任务难度的因素进行剖析,以期能更好地认识TEM-4阅读任务的实质,对其形成客观公正的理解。
本研究的主要目的有两个:一是确定可能对TEM-4阅读理解任务难度水平产生影响的主要任务特征有哪些;二是明确这些系统变化的任务特征的共同构念和测量属性,以及对任务难度的具体影响程度有多大,从而明确在多大程度上可以由这些任务特征去预测任务难度。
本研究以2005年和2006年的共8篇阅读理解文章及其40道题目作为研究材料。以外语专业教学指导委员会办公室提供的参加上述两年TEM-4考试的约300,000名考生的阅读成绩为对象。此外,本研究还设计了一个包括143个变量的评价工具,分别从命题内容(包括主题、体裁、词汇等)、组织特征(包括修辞方法、语法、修辞结构、连贯、照应等)、语用特征(言语行为和语言功能、语域等)、长度以及其他与语言相关的特征(文章、段落、句子等的长度,句子类型、指代、否定等)诸多方面分别对文章、关键句和题目三个层面进行分析。每个层面中具体变量各有不同。按照不同的评判方法,本研究又将这143个变量分为三类:计数型,计算型和评分型。前两类由研究者自己完成,评分类变量由10位专家依据专门设计的评分量表完成。
之后对于所获得的原始数据采用多种手段进行处理。描述性分析用于基本数据探索,信度分析用于检验评分一致,变量标准化处理为研究提供统一比较的基准,相关分析用于确定对阅读理解任务难度影响较大的个体变量,探索性因子分析用于因子纬度探索,验证性因子分析用来确定阅读任务特征模型,多重线性回归用于确定对任务难度的预测比例。
研究结果显示,在个体变量的层面上,共有22个任务特征变量可以对任务难度产生较为显著的影响,可分别归类为:语法复杂程度、信息抽象程度、词汇、新信息、修辞结构复杂程度、语域、推理类型、长度、关键句显著性、题目内容专业程度、否定等11类。而且属于文章层面的变量对于任务难度的影响要大于关键句层面和题目层面的变量,这一发现也将丰富我们对于任务难度预测变量的正确认识,改变长久以来认为阅读理解中题目因素是决定任务难度的主要原因的观点。
对于这些变量的进一步构念研究显示,整合后突显的公用因子共三个,分别为文章复杂性因子,文章长度因子和关键句显著性因子。最后的回归分析结果确定TEM-4阅读理解任务难度中约有31.2%可以用上述因子来解释,证明了一定程度上任务特征对于任务难度的可解释性。
结论部分指出了本研究在理论上、方法上、以及语言测试的具体实践上的一些启示,并且指出了研究所存在的问题及今后研究的方向。
As the only large-scale nationwide standardized test for English majors at the foundation stage in China so far,TEM-4(Test for English majors,Grade 4) is administered by the national foreign language teaching advisory committee under the higher education department of the Ministry of Education.With the Teaching Syllabus for English Majors being the basic guiding principle,and the English sub-committee of the national foreign language teaching advisory committee being in charge of test construction,Tem-4 is a criterion-referenced test aimed at the evaluation of the English teaching quality in China. The purpose of TEM-4 is to promote the implementation of the teaching syllabus,to measure English majors' ability to use English,so as to contribute to improving the English teaching quality in China.
One of the primary purposes of a test is to provide necessary information of the test-takers for decision-making.In order to be scientific,unbiased and authoritative,a test is supposed to be able to test what it purports to measure.Thus,one of the challenges facing test designers and test users who are concerned with gauging the influence of task characteristics on candidate performance is how to determine the difficulty of tasks.A greater understanding of the factors affecting task difficulty can assist in the choice of a suitable range of tasks for assessment purposes and also has the potential to influence the way levels of test performance are described.It is now well understood that aspects of test task di(?)ficulty can have an important effect on test performance and it would thus seem imperative to incorporate information about test task difficulty explicitly into the design of language tests and,more importantly,into the interpretation of test scores.But test task difficulty study is a much neglected topic.In this research,identifying the variables which uniquely account for significant variance in the percent correct obtained by examinees for each item in the TEM-4 reading comprehension part is a major focus.This dissertation tries to explore the relationship between reading task difficulty and reading task characteristics,with a view to forming a better understanding of the nature of the TEM-4 reading task.
The principal aims of the present study are:
1) To identify key task characteristics and task conditions that are most likely to affect the difficulty of TEM-4 reading tasks.
2) To investigate the impact on test scores from systematically varying task characteristics and task conditions and,in cases where clear effects are noted,to explore possible reasons for differences in task difficulty;to figure out the factor structure or potential relationship among these characteristics,and to identify the acco untability of item difficulty in the TEM-4 reading section by the set of factors specified in this research.
The research materials are the eight reading passages and the corresponding 40 items on the 2005 and 2006 TEM-4 papers.More than 300,000 test-takers' test scores are processed for the item difficulty index.A rating instrument with 143 test task characteristic variables is constructed,including propositional content variables(subject matter,genre,vocabulary and other aspects),organizational characteristics variables(rhetorical features of patterns, grammar,rhetorical organization,coherence,cohesion),pragmatic characteristics variables (speech acts and language functions,register),length and other language-related variables (number of words,different types of sentences,negations and frontings).These are performed on three levels:passage,key sentence,and item.What's more,these variables are of three different types:counted,mathematically calculated and rated.The first two types are conducted by the researcher herself,and the rated variables are collected from 10 experts using a specifically designed rating sheet.
Multiple techniques are exploited to analyze the raw data.Descriptive statistical analysis, reliability of ratings,standardization of variables,pair-wise correlation,exploratory factor analysis,confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regressions are all employed.
The results indicate that 22 reading task characteristics variables are found responsible for the TEM-4 reading task difficulty,among which passage variables take up a far more important share than key sentence variables and item variables.Three salient constructs are discovered,namely,passage complexity factor,passage length factor and key sentence salience factor,and they account for 31.2%of the variation in the reading task difficulty.
The conclusion part summarizes the answers tO the research questions and points out the theoretical,methodological implications and implications for language testing practices. The limitations and future research suggestions are mentioned in the end.
引文
Abrahamsen, E., & Shelton, K. (1989). Reading comprehension in adolescents with learning disabilities: semantic and syntactic effects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,569-72.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Alderson, J.C. (1984) . Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language. 1-27.London: Longman.
Alderson, J.C. (1990a) . Testing reading comprehension skills (Part one) .Reading in a Foreign Language 6,425-438.
Alderson, J.C. (1990b) . Testing reading comprehension skills (Part two ) : Getting students to talk about taking a reading test (a pilot study) . Reading in a Foreign Language 7,465-503.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. London: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J.C., & Lukmani, Y. (1989) . Cognition and reading: cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language 5,253-270.
Alderson, J.C. & Urquhart, A.H. (1985 ) .The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing 2, 192-204.
Alderson, J.C. & Urquhart, A.H. (1988) . This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. In P.L.Carrell, J.Devine,. & D.E. Eskey (Eds) , Interactive approaches to second language reading (168-183) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Amer, A. A. (1992). The effect of story grammar instruction on EFL students' comprehension of narrative text. Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 711-720.
Anderson, N.J., Bachman, L.F., Perkins, K. & Cohen, A.(1991) An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test. Language Testing 8, 41-66.
Arnorld, J. (1999).Affect in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) 2001: Glossary. Available at http://www.alte.org/glossary/index.cfm (May 2002).
Bachman, L.F. (1990) . Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford yniversity Press.
Bachman, L.F. (2002) . Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment.Language Testing 19, 453-76.
Bachman, L. F., Davidson, F., & Milanovic, M. (1996). The use of test method characteristics in the content analysis and design of EFL proficiency tests. Language Testing 13,125-150
Bachman, L.F., Davidson, F., Ryan, K., & Choi, I.-C (1995) . An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: the Cambridge-TOEFL comparability study. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language testing in practice., Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Bachman, et al, (1988). Task and ability analysis as a basis for examining content and construct comparability in two EFL proficiency test batteries. Language Testing, 5(2):128-59
Baker, E. (2002). Linguistic framework (draft version February 6, 2002). Unpublished document, University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
Barlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck.I. L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R.C. & Pople, M.T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: the effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly 19, 263-277.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M.G, Sinatra, GM. & Loxterman, J.A. (1991) . Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility.Reading Research Quarterly 26, 251-276.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve students' understanding. Reading Research Quarterly 30, 220-38.
Bernhardt, E.B., & Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses.Applied Linguistics 16,15-34.
Bentler, P. M.& Wu, E.J.C.(2002). EQS for Windows user's guide. Encino, CA: Muitivariate Software.
Block, E.L. (1992) . See how they read: comprehension monitoring of LI and L2 readers.TESOL Quarterly 26, 319-343.
Bower, G.H. (1978). Experiments on story comprehension and recall. Discourse Processes 1,211-231.
Brantmeier , C. ( 2004 ). Statistical procedures for research on L2 reading comprehension: An examination of ANOVA and regression models. Reading in a Foreign Language 16(2).51-69.
Brindley , G & Slatyer, H ( 2002 ) Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment.Language Testing, 19, 369-394.
Brisbois,J.E. (1995) . Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior 27, 565-584.
Brown, J. D.; Hudson, T.: (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Brown, J.D. (1989). Cloze item difficulty; JALT Journal; Vol. 11, p46-67,22p
Bruer, J.J. (1993). Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate and Swain (Eds.) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,teaching and testing. Harlow : Longman.
Carpenter, PA., & Just, M.A. (1975) . Sentence comprehension: a psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological review,82,45-73.
Can, T. & Levy, B. (Eds) (1990). Reading and its development. New York: Academic Press.
Carrell, P.L. (1987 ) . Readability in ESL. Reading in a foreign language 4(1), 21-32.
Carrell, P.L. (1988) . Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P.L Carrell, J. Devine, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.) , Interactive approaches to second language reading (101-113) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P.L. (1991) . Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency?Applied Linguistics 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P.L. (1992) . Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning 42, 1-20.
Carver, R.P. (1982) . Optimal rate of reading prose. Reading Research Quarterly 18, 56-88.
Carver, R.P. (1983) . Is reading rate constant or flexible? Reading Research Quarterly 18,190-215.
Carver, R.P. (1990) . Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego: Academic Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen- Freeman, D. (1999) . The grammar book: an ESL/ EFL teacher's course (2~(nd) ed. )Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Chapelle, C.A. (1998) . Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L.F.Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds.) , Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Chihara,T., Sakurai,T., & Oller,J.W. (1989) . Background and culture as factors in EFL reading comprehension. Language Testing 16, 143-151.
Clapham, C. (1996) . The development of IELTS: a study of the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Clark , H.H., & Haviland, S. (1977) . Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle ,R., editor, Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clarke, M.A. (1978) . Reading in Spanish and English: evidence from adult ESL students.Language Learning 29,121-150.
Clarke, M.A. (1980) . The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading— or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal 64, 203-209.
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: a case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly 17,187-209.
Drum, P.A., Calfee, R.C., & Cook, L.K. (1981) . The effects of surface structure variables on performance in reading comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 486-514.
Duffy, T.M., Higgins, L., Mehlenbacher, B., Cochran, C, Wallace, D., Hill, C. Haugen, D.,McCaffrey, M., Burnett, R., Sloan, S., & Smith, S. (1989). Models for the design of instructional text. Reading Research Quarterly 24, 434-57.
Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. ( 2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks:what does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing 19,347-368.
Elley,E(1994).The IEA Study of Reading Literacy.Oxford:Pergamon.
Embretson,S.E.,& Wetzel,C.D.(1987).Component latent trait models for paragraph comprehension tests.Applied Psychological Measurement,11,175-93.
Enright,M.K.,Grabe,W.;Koda,K.,Mosenthal,E,Mulcahy-Ernt,P.,& Schedl,M.TOEFL (2000).reading framework:A working paper;TOEFL Monograph Series Report No.17;Princeton,NJ:Educational Testing Service
Freebody,P.,& Anderson,R.C.(1983).Effects of vocabulary difficulty,text cohesion,and schema availability on reading comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly 18,277-294.
Frcedle,R.,Fine,J.,& Fellbaum,C.(1981).Predictors of good and bad essays.Paper presented at the annual Georgetown University Roundtable on languages and linguistics.Washington,DC.vreedle,R.,& Fellbaum,C.(1987).An exploratory study of the relative difficulty of TOEFL's listening comprehension items.In Freedle,R.,& Duran,R.,(Eds),Cognitive and linguistic analyses of test performance.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1991 ).The prediction of SAT reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages.Princeton,NJ:ETS Research Report RR-91-29.
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1992).The prediction of GRE reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages for each of three item types:main ideas,inferences and explicit statements.Princeton,NJ:ETS Research Report RR-91-59.
Frcedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1993).The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty:Implications for construct validity.Language Testing 10,133-170
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1999) Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFUs minitalks.Language Testing;16,2-32.
Fulcher,G.(1997).Text difficulty and accessibility:reading formulae and expert judgment.System,25(4),497-513.
Garner,R.,Wagoner,S.,& Smith,T.(1983).Externalizing question-answering strategies of good and poor comprehenders.Reading Research Quarterly 18,439-447.
Gena,E.(1992).The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension.TESOL Quarterly 26,731-747.
Gillian,B.(1998)." M.odes of understanding".In Gillian Brown,Kirsten Malmkjr,.Alaster Pollitt & John Williams(Eds),Language and Understanding.Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press
Goodman,K.S.(1971).Reading:A psycholinguistic guessing game.Singer,H.and Ruddell,R.B.(Eds),Theoretical models and processes of reading.IRA:Newark.
Grabe,W.(1999).Developments in reading research and their implications for computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency(pp.11-48).Cambridge,UK:University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Grabe,W.(2000).Reading research and its implications for reading assessment.Studies in language testing 9----Fairness and validation in language assessment.226-262.London:Cambridge University Press.
Graves,M.(1986).Vocabulary learning and instruction.In Rothkopf,E.,(Ed.),Review of research in education.Volume 13.Washington,DC:American educational research association.
Grellet,F.(1981).Developing reading skills:A practical guide to reading comprehension exercises.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grimes,J.(1975).The thread of discourse.The Hague:Mouton.
Guarino,R.,& Perkins,K.(1986).Awareness of form class as a factor in ESL reading comprehension.Language Learning,36,77-82.
Gunning,T.G.(2002).Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties(second edition).Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Hale,G.A.(1988).Student major field and text content:interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language.Language Testing 5,49-61.
Hare,V.,Rabinowitz,M.,& Schieble,K.(1989).Text effects on main idea comprehension.Reading research quarterly,24,72-88.
Harrison,C.(1980) Readability in the Classroom.Cambridge.UK:Cambridge University Press
Heaton,J.B.(1991).Writing English Language Tests.London and New York:Longrnan.
Hirsh,D.,& Nation,P.(1992).What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8,689-696.
Hites, R.W. (1950). The relation of readability and format to retention in communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.
Hudson , T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the "short circuit"in L2 reading: non- decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning 32, 1-31.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jonz, J. (1989) . Textual sequence and second-language comprehension. Language Learning 39, 207-249.
Joy, J & Frederica, L.S. (1998). " Integrating Strategic Reading in L2 Instruction" in Reading in a Foreign Language 12(1),
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G, Blachburn, A. and Harris, F. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1,122-27.
Kieras, D.E. (1985). Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In Britton,B.and Black,J., editors, Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse processes 1, 1-13.
Klare, G R. (1974-75). Assessing readability. Reading research quarterly. 10-62-102.
Klare, G R. (1985). How to write readable English. London: Hutchinson
Kletzien, S.B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly 26,67-86.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing 19,193- 220.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. UK: Cambridge University Press
Kunnan, A. J. (1995) Test taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling approach;, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Kunnan, A. J. ( 2000) Studies in language testing 9—Fairness and validation in language assessment. London: Cambridge University Press.
Langer,J.A. (1984) . Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 19, 468-481.
Lesgold, A.M., & Perfetti, .C.A. (1978) . Interactive processes in reading comprehension.Discourse Processes 1, 323- 336.
Lipson, M.Y. (1983) . The influence of religious affiliation in children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly 18, 448-457.
Littlewood, W. (2004). Principles and practice of task-based language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools 27, 1-9.
Long, M.H., & Crooks, G (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 27-55.
Long, M.H., & Norris, J.M. (2000). Task-based language teaching and assessment:expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher 20,15-21.
Lunzer, E. (1979). From learning to read to reading to learn. In E. Lunzer & K.Gardner (Eds.),The effective use of reading. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Meyer, B., & Freedle, R (1984). The effects of different discourse types on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-43.
Mislevy, R.J, Sterinberg, L.S. & Almond, R.G (in press) (2000) . On the structure of assessment argument. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 1.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nathan T. Carr. (2006) . The factor structure of test task characteristics and examinee performance. Language Testing 23,269-89.
Nathan T. Can. (2003 ) . An investigation into the structure of text characteristics and reader abilities in a test of second language reading. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,University of California.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
Nuttale, C. (1982). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Nuttall, C. (2002). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language (second edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newsome,R.S., & Gaitee, J.H. (1971). Prose leaning: effects of pretesting and reduction of passage length. Psychology Reports, 28, 128-29.
Norris, J.M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. (Vol. SLTCC Technical Report #18). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Olsen, L.A., & Johnson, R. (1989). A discourse-based approach to the assessment of readability. Linguistics and Education 1, 207-31. (1989).
Paivio, A. ( 1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Perkins, K., & Brutten, S.R. (1993). A model of ESL reading comprehension difficulty. In Huhta, A., Sajavaara, K., and Takala, S., (eds.), Language testing: New openings.Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla, 205-18.
Pulido, D. ( 2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28/1: 66-86.
Purpura, J.E. (1997) . An analysis of the relationships between test taker's cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning 47,289-325.
Purpura, J.E. (1998) . Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low- ability test takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing 15, 333-379.
Quirk. R. (1985).A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Reder, L.M., & Anderson, J.R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19,121-34.
Richards, J.C., Plllllatt, J., & H. Weber. (1986). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.London: Longman.
Robinson .P. (2001) . Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22, 27-57.
Roller, C.M. (1990). Commentary: The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly 25, 79-89.
Royer, J. (1990). The sentence verification technique: a new direction in the assessment of reading comprehension.In Legg,S.& Algina,J.(Eds.).Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Ruddell,R.B.(1976).Language acquisition and the reading process.In H.Singer & R.B.Ruddell(Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading(2~(nd) Ed.)(pp.22-38).Newark,DE:International Reading Association.
Rumelhart,D.E.(1980).Schemata:the building blocks of cognition.In Spiro,R,Bruce,B (Eds).The Psychology of Learning and Motivation.Academic Press:New York.
Salvager-Meyer,F.(1991).Reading expository prose at the post- secondary level:the influence of textual variables on L2 reading comprehension(a genre- based approach).Reading in a Foreign Language 8,_645-662.
Sasaki,M.(2000).Effects of cultural schemata on students' test - taking processes for doze tests:a multiple data source approach.Language Testing 17,85-114.
Schumann,J.H.(1997).The neurobiology of affect.Malden,MA:Blackwell Publishers.
Schumann,J.H.(2001).Appraisal psychology,neurobiology,and language.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21,23-49.
Shiotsu,T & Weir,C.J(2007) The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breath in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance.Language Testing 24,._99-120.
Stanovich,K.E.(1980).Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16,37-71.
Stark,H.(1988).What do paragraph markings do? Discourseprocesses.11,275-303.
Skehan,P.(1998).A cognitive approach to language learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press
Steiger,J.H.(1990).Structural model evaluation and modification:An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research,25,173-180.
Taillefer,G.F.(1996).L2 reading ability:further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis.Modern Language Journal 80,461-477.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate(2001).First Certificate in English Handbook.Cambridge,UK
Urquart,A.H.,& Weir,C.J.(1998).Reading in a Second Language:Process,Product and Practice.Longman
Verhoeven,L.T.(1990).Acquisition of reading in a second language.Reading Research Quarterly 25,90-114.
Weir,C.J.(1993).Understanding & developing language test.London:Prentice Hall International(UK) Ltd.
Weir,C.J.Yang Huizhong,& Jin Yah(2000).Studies in language testing 12 --- An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English for academic purposes.London:CUP.
Widdowson,H.G.(1978).Teaching language as communication.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wilkins,D.A.(1976).Notional syllabuses.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
William,M & Burden,R,L.(1997).Psychology for language teachers:A social constructivist approach.Cambridge:CUP.
Willis,J.(1996).A framework for task-based learning.Harlow,UK:Longrnan Addison-Wesley.
Xu Yong(2006).On identifying and controlling of factors influencing writing task difficulty in English tests.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Shanghai International Studies University.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组,(1989),《高等学校英语专业基础阶段英语教学大纲》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组,(1997),《高校英语专业四级考试大纲(修订本)》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
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:上海外语教育出版社。
《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》词汇表工作组,(2002),《高等学校英语专业全程通用词汇表》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
上海外国语大学TEM考试中心,(1997),《TEM考试效度研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
杨惠中,weir,C.J.(1998),《大学英语四、六级考试效度研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
邹申,(2004),An Interactive Approach to Test Validation---Re-examining the test usefulness of the TEM4 reading component.Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.Shanghai International Studies University.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Alderson, J.C. (1984) . Reading in a foreign language: a reading problem or a language problem? In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language. 1-27.London: Longman.
Alderson, J.C. (1990a) . Testing reading comprehension skills (Part one) .Reading in a Foreign Language 6,425-438.
Alderson, J.C. (1990b) . Testing reading comprehension skills (Part two ) : Getting students to talk about taking a reading test (a pilot study) . Reading in a Foreign Language 7,465-503.
Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. London: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J.C., & Lukmani, Y. (1989) . Cognition and reading: cognitive levels as embodied in test questions. Reading in a Foreign Language 5,253-270.
Alderson, J.C. & Urquhart, A.H. (1985 ) .The effect of students' academic discipline on their performance on ESP reading tests. Language Testing 2, 192-204.
Alderson, J.C. & Urquhart, A.H. (1988) . This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. In P.L.Carrell, J.Devine,. & D.E. Eskey (Eds) , Interactive approaches to second language reading (168-183) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Amer, A. A. (1992). The effect of story grammar instruction on EFL students' comprehension of narrative text. Reading in a Foreign Language 8, 711-720.
Anderson, N.J., Bachman, L.F., Perkins, K. & Cohen, A.(1991) An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test. Language Testing 8, 41-66.
Arnorld, J. (1999).Affect in language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Association of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) 2001: Glossary. Available at http://www.alte.org/glossary/index.cfm (May 2002).
Bachman, L.F. (1990) . Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford yniversity Press.
Bachman, L.F. (2002) . Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment.Language Testing 19, 453-76.
Bachman, L. F., Davidson, F., & Milanovic, M. (1996). The use of test method characteristics in the content analysis and design of EFL proficiency tests. Language Testing 13,125-150
Bachman, L.F., Davidson, F., Ryan, K., & Choi, I.-C (1995) . An investigation into the comparability of two tests of English as a foreign language: the Cambridge-TOEFL comparability study. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996) Language testing in practice., Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Bachman, et al, (1988). Task and ability analysis as a basis for examining content and construct comparability in two EFL proficiency test batteries. Language Testing, 5(2):128-59
Baker, E. (2002). Linguistic framework (draft version February 6, 2002). Unpublished document, University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Research, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
Barlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck.I. L., McKeown, M.G., Omanson, R.C. & Pople, M.T. (1984). Improving the comprehensibility of stories: the effects of revisions that improve coherence. Reading Research Quarterly 19, 263-277.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M.G, Sinatra, GM. & Loxterman, J.A. (1991) . Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility.Reading Research Quarterly 26, 251-276.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Worthy, J. (1995). Giving a text voice can improve students' understanding. Reading Research Quarterly 30, 220-38.
Bernhardt, E.B., & Kamil, M.L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses.Applied Linguistics 16,15-34.
Bentler, P. M.& Wu, E.J.C.(2002). EQS for Windows user's guide. Encino, CA: Muitivariate Software.
Block, E.L. (1992) . See how they read: comprehension monitoring of LI and L2 readers.TESOL Quarterly 26, 319-343.
Bower, G.H. (1978). Experiments on story comprehension and recall. Discourse Processes 1,211-231.
Brantmeier , C. ( 2004 ). Statistical procedures for research on L2 reading comprehension: An examination of ANOVA and regression models. Reading in a Foreign Language 16(2).51-69.
Brindley , G & Slatyer, H ( 2002 ) Exploring task difficulty in ESL listening assessment.Language Testing, 19, 369-394.
Brisbois,J.E. (1995) . Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior 27, 565-584.
Brown, J. D.; Hudson, T.: (2002). Criterion-referenced language testing; Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
Brown, J.D. (1989). Cloze item difficulty; JALT Journal; Vol. 11, p46-67,22p
Bruer, J.J. (1993). Schools for thought: a science of learning in the classroom. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Bygate and Swain (Eds.) Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning,teaching and testing. Harlow : Longman.
Carpenter, PA., & Just, M.A. (1975) . Sentence comprehension: a psycholinguistic processing model of verification. Psychological review,82,45-73.
Can, T. & Levy, B. (Eds) (1990). Reading and its development. New York: Academic Press.
Carrell, P.L. (1987 ) . Readability in ESL. Reading in a foreign language 4(1), 21-32.
Carrell, P.L. (1988) . Some causes of text-boundedness and schema interference in ESL reading. In P.L Carrell, J. Devine, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.) , Interactive approaches to second language reading (101-113) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P.L. (1991) . Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency?Applied Linguistics 12, 159-179.
Carrell, P.L. (1992) . Awareness of text structure: Effects on recall. Language Learning 42, 1-20.
Carver, R.P. (1982) . Optimal rate of reading prose. Reading Research Quarterly 18, 56-88.
Carver, R.P. (1983) . Is reading rate constant or flexible? Reading Research Quarterly 18,190-215.
Carver, R.P. (1990) . Reading rate: A review of research and theory. San Diego: Academic Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen- Freeman, D. (1999) . The grammar book: an ESL/ EFL teacher's course (2~(nd) ed. )Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Chapelle, C.A. (1998) . Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L.F.Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds.) , Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research (pp. 32-70) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Chihara,T., Sakurai,T., & Oller,J.W. (1989) . Background and culture as factors in EFL reading comprehension. Language Testing 16, 143-151.
Clapham, C. (1996) . The development of IELTS: a study of the effect of background knowledge on reading comprehension. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Clark , H.H., & Haviland, S. (1977) . Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle ,R., editor, Discourse production and comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Clarke, M.A. (1978) . Reading in Spanish and English: evidence from adult ESL students.Language Learning 29,121-150.
Clarke, M.A. (1980) . The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading— or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal 64, 203-209.
Davison, A., & Kantor, R. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: a case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly 17,187-209.
Drum, P.A., Calfee, R.C., & Cook, L.K. (1981) . The effects of surface structure variables on performance in reading comprehension tests. Reading Research Quarterly 16, 486-514.
Duffy, T.M., Higgins, L., Mehlenbacher, B., Cochran, C, Wallace, D., Hill, C. Haugen, D.,McCaffrey, M., Burnett, R., Sloan, S., & Smith, S. (1989). Models for the design of instructional text. Reading Research Quarterly 24, 434-57.
Elder, C., Iwashita, N., & McNamara, T. ( 2002). Estimating the difficulty of oral proficiency tasks:what does the test-taker have to offer? Language Testing 19,347-368.
Elley,E(1994).The IEA Study of Reading Literacy.Oxford:Pergamon.
Embretson,S.E.,& Wetzel,C.D.(1987).Component latent trait models for paragraph comprehension tests.Applied Psychological Measurement,11,175-93.
Enright,M.K.,Grabe,W.;Koda,K.,Mosenthal,E,Mulcahy-Ernt,P.,& Schedl,M.TOEFL (2000).reading framework:A working paper;TOEFL Monograph Series Report No.17;Princeton,NJ:Educational Testing Service
Freebody,P.,& Anderson,R.C.(1983).Effects of vocabulary difficulty,text cohesion,and schema availability on reading comprehension.Reading Research Quarterly 18,277-294.
Frcedle,R.,Fine,J.,& Fellbaum,C.(1981).Predictors of good and bad essays.Paper presented at the annual Georgetown University Roundtable on languages and linguistics.Washington,DC.vreedle,R.,& Fellbaum,C.(1987).An exploratory study of the relative difficulty of TOEFL's listening comprehension items.In Freedle,R.,& Duran,R.,(Eds),Cognitive and linguistic analyses of test performance.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1991 ).The prediction of SAT reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages.Princeton,NJ:ETS Research Report RR-91-29.
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1992).The prediction of GRE reading comprehension item difficulty for expository prose passages for each of three item types:main ideas,inferences and explicit statements.Princeton,NJ:ETS Research Report RR-91-59.
Frcedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1993).The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty:Implications for construct validity.Language Testing 10,133-170
Freedle,R.,& Kostin,I.(1999) Does the text matter in a multiple-choice test of comprehension? The case for the construct validity of TOEFUs minitalks.Language Testing;16,2-32.
Fulcher,G.(1997).Text difficulty and accessibility:reading formulae and expert judgment.System,25(4),497-513.
Garner,R.,Wagoner,S.,& Smith,T.(1983).Externalizing question-answering strategies of good and poor comprehenders.Reading Research Quarterly 18,439-447.
Gena,E.(1992).The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension.TESOL Quarterly 26,731-747.
Gillian,B.(1998)." M.odes of understanding".In Gillian Brown,Kirsten Malmkjr,.Alaster Pollitt & John Williams(Eds),Language and Understanding.Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press
Goodman,K.S.(1971).Reading:A psycholinguistic guessing game.Singer,H.and Ruddell,R.B.(Eds),Theoretical models and processes of reading.IRA:Newark.
Grabe,W.(1999).Developments in reading research and their implications for computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency(pp.11-48).Cambridge,UK:University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
Grabe,W.(2000).Reading research and its implications for reading assessment.Studies in language testing 9----Fairness and validation in language assessment.226-262.London:Cambridge University Press.
Graves,M.(1986).Vocabulary learning and instruction.In Rothkopf,E.,(Ed.),Review of research in education.Volume 13.Washington,DC:American educational research association.
Grellet,F.(1981).Developing reading skills:A practical guide to reading comprehension exercises.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grimes,J.(1975).The thread of discourse.The Hague:Mouton.
Guarino,R.,& Perkins,K.(1986).Awareness of form class as a factor in ESL reading comprehension.Language Learning,36,77-82.
Gunning,T.G.(2002).Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties(second edition).Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
Hale,G.A.(1988).Student major field and text content:interactive effects on reading comprehension in the Test of English as a Foreign Language.Language Testing 5,49-61.
Hare,V.,Rabinowitz,M.,& Schieble,K.(1989).Text effects on main idea comprehension.Reading research quarterly,24,72-88.
Harrison,C.(1980) Readability in the Classroom.Cambridge.UK:Cambridge University Press
Heaton,J.B.(1991).Writing English Language Tests.London and New York:Longrnan.
Hirsh,D.,& Nation,P.(1992).What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language 8,689-696.
Hites, R.W. (1950). The relation of readability and format to retention in communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.
Hudson , T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the "short circuit"in L2 reading: non- decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning 32, 1-31.
Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jonz, J. (1989) . Textual sequence and second-language comprehension. Language Learning 39, 207-249.
Joy, J & Frederica, L.S. (1998). " Integrating Strategic Reading in L2 Instruction" in Reading in a Foreign Language 12(1),
Katz, S., Lautenschlager, G, Blachburn, A. and Harris, F. (1990). Answering reading comprehension items without passages on the SAT. Psychological Science, 1,122-27.
Kieras, D.E. (1985). Thematic processes in the comprehension of technical prose. In Britton,B.and Black,J., editors, Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.
Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse processes 1, 1-13.
Klare, G R. (1974-75). Assessing readability. Reading research quarterly. 10-62-102.
Klare, G R. (1985). How to write readable English. London: Hutchinson
Kletzien, S.B. (1991). Strategy use by good and poor comprehenders reading expository text of differing levels. Reading Research Quarterly 26,67-86.
Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing 19,193- 220.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading. UK: Cambridge University Press
Kunnan, A. J. (1995) Test taker characteristics and test performance: A structural modeling approach;, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Kunnan, A. J. ( 2000) Studies in language testing 9—Fairness and validation in language assessment. London: Cambridge University Press.
Langer,J.A. (1984) . Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 19, 468-481.
Lesgold, A.M., & Perfetti, .C.A. (1978) . Interactive processes in reading comprehension.Discourse Processes 1, 323- 336.
Lipson, M.Y. (1983) . The influence of religious affiliation in children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly 18, 448-457.
Littlewood, W. (2004). Principles and practice of task-based language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching in Schools 27, 1-9.
Long, M.H., & Crooks, G (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly. 26, 27-55.
Long, M.H., & Norris, J.M. (2000). Task-based language teaching and assessment:expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher 20,15-21.
Lunzer, E. (1979). From learning to read to reading to learn. In E. Lunzer & K.Gardner (Eds.),The effective use of reading. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Meyer, B. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Meyer, B., & Freedle, R (1984). The effects of different discourse types on recall. American Educational Research Journal, 21,121-43.
Mislevy, R.J, Sterinberg, L.S. & Almond, R.G (in press) (2000) . On the structure of assessment argument. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives 1.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nathan T. Carr. (2006) . The factor structure of test task characteristics and examinee performance. Language Testing 23,269-89.
Nathan T. Can. (2003 ) . An investigation into the structure of text characteristics and reader abilities in a test of second language reading. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,University of California.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
Nuttale, C. (1982). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
Nuttall, C. (2002). Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language (second edition). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Newsome,R.S., & Gaitee, J.H. (1971). Prose leaning: effects of pretesting and reduction of passage length. Psychology Reports, 28, 128-29.
Norris, J.M., Brown, J.D., Hudson, T., & Yoshioka, J. (1998). Designing second language performance assessments. (Vol. SLTCC Technical Report #18). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa
Olsen, L.A., & Johnson, R. (1989). A discourse-based approach to the assessment of readability. Linguistics and Education 1, 207-31. (1989).
Paivio, A. ( 1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart& Winston.
Perkins, K., & Brutten, S.R. (1993). A model of ESL reading comprehension difficulty. In Huhta, A., Sajavaara, K., and Takala, S., (eds.), Language testing: New openings.Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla, 205-18.
Pulido, D. ( 2007). The effects of topic familiarity and passage sight vocabulary on L2 lexical inferencing and retention through reading. Applied Linguistics 28/1: 66-86.
Purpura, J.E. (1997) . An analysis of the relationships between test taker's cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning 47,289-325.
Purpura, J.E. (1998) . Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low- ability test takers: a structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing 15, 333-379.
Quirk. R. (1985).A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Reder, L.M., & Anderson, J.R. (1980). A comparison of texts and their summaries: memorial consequences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19,121-34.
Richards, J.C., Plllllatt, J., & H. Weber. (1986). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.London: Longman.
Robinson .P. (2001) . Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22, 27-57.
Roller, C.M. (1990). Commentary: The interaction between knowledge and structure variables in the processing of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly 25, 79-89.
Royer, J. (1990). The sentence verification technique: a new direction in the assessment of reading comprehension.In Legg,S.& Algina,J.(Eds.).Cognitive assessment of language and math outcomes.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Ruddell,R.B.(1976).Language acquisition and the reading process.In H.Singer & R.B.Ruddell(Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading(2~(nd) Ed.)(pp.22-38).Newark,DE:International Reading Association.
Rumelhart,D.E.(1980).Schemata:the building blocks of cognition.In Spiro,R,Bruce,B (Eds).The Psychology of Learning and Motivation.Academic Press:New York.
Salvager-Meyer,F.(1991).Reading expository prose at the post- secondary level:the influence of textual variables on L2 reading comprehension(a genre- based approach).Reading in a Foreign Language 8,_645-662.
Sasaki,M.(2000).Effects of cultural schemata on students' test - taking processes for doze tests:a multiple data source approach.Language Testing 17,85-114.
Schumann,J.H.(1997).The neurobiology of affect.Malden,MA:Blackwell Publishers.
Schumann,J.H.(2001).Appraisal psychology,neurobiology,and language.Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21,23-49.
Shiotsu,T & Weir,C.J(2007) The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breath in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance.Language Testing 24,._99-120.
Stanovich,K.E.(1980).Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency.Reading Research Quarterly,16,37-71.
Stark,H.(1988).What do paragraph markings do? Discourseprocesses.11,275-303.
Skehan,P.(1998).A cognitive approach to language learning.Oxford:Oxford University Press
Steiger,J.H.(1990).Structural model evaluation and modification:An interval estimation approach.Multivariate Behavioral Research,25,173-180.
Taillefer,G.F.(1996).L2 reading ability:further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis.Modern Language Journal 80,461-477.
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate(2001).First Certificate in English Handbook.Cambridge,UK
Urquart,A.H.,& Weir,C.J.(1998).Reading in a Second Language:Process,Product and Practice.Longman
Verhoeven,L.T.(1990).Acquisition of reading in a second language.Reading Research Quarterly 25,90-114.
Weir,C.J.(1993).Understanding & developing language test.London:Prentice Hall International(UK) Ltd.
Weir,C.J.Yang Huizhong,& Jin Yah(2000).Studies in language testing 12 --- An empirical investigation of the componentiality of L2 reading in English for academic purposes.London:CUP.
Widdowson,H.G.(1978).Teaching language as communication.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wilkins,D.A.(1976).Notional syllabuses.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
William,M & Burden,R,L.(1997).Psychology for language teachers:A social constructivist approach.Cambridge:CUP.
Willis,J.(1996).A framework for task-based learning.Harlow,UK:Longrnan Addison-Wesley.
Xu Yong(2006).On identifying and controlling of factors influencing writing task difficulty in English tests.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,Shanghai International Studies University.
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组,(1989),《高等学校英语专业基础阶段英语教学大纲》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
高校英语专业四级考试大纲修订小组,(1997),《高校英语专业四级考试大纲(修订本)》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
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:上海外语教育出版社。
《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》词汇表工作组,(2002),《高等学校英语专业全程通用词汇表》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
上海外国语大学TEM考试中心,(1997),《TEM考试效度研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
杨惠中,weir,C.J.(1998),《大学英语四、六级考试效度研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
邹申,(2004),An Interactive Approach to Test Validation---Re-examining the test usefulness of the TEM4 reading component.Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.Shanghai International Studies University.