999精品在线视频,手机成人午夜在线视频,久久不卡国产精品无码,中日无码在线观看,成人av手机在线观看,日韩精品亚洲一区中文字幕,亚洲av无码人妻,四虎国产在线观看 ?

On the Factors Affecting Performance in Communicative Oral Tests

2018-01-05 11:03:28徐淑穎
校園英語·下旬 2018年10期
關鍵詞:上海教育

【Abstract】This essay intends to investigate the factors that affect test takers performance in communicative oral tests based on a framework proposed by Bachman. It introduces the general factors suggested by Bachman, followed by the explanation of the communicative oral tests and the factors that have significant influence on the test scores. This investigation demonstrates that, besides communicative language ability, there are various factors affecting test takers performance, ranging from test method facets, personal attributes to random factors.

【Key words】language testing; communicative oral tests; factors

【作者簡介】徐淑穎(1983-),女,浙江人,西南民族大學預科教育學院,碩士,講師,研究方向:應用語言學。

Introduction

The purpose of language testing is to provide an accurate measure of learners language abilities. And it has been long observed that, apart form the language ability the tests intend to measure, there are many other factors that may have effect on test results. Such factors may come from a wide variety of sources, such as test method facets, personal attributes of test takers and even other random factors. Therefore, test constructors must try to understand these affecting factors and minimize the impact of intervening factors.

1. Bachmans model of factors that affect language test scores

In his book Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing, Bachman hold the idea that candidates performance on language tests is affected by factors other than their communicative language ability. And he put these factors into three general categories. The first category is test method facets, and the second category includes attributes of the test taker that are not considered part of the language ability. The last category refers to random factors that are largely unpredictable and temporary. (Bachman, 1990)

The concept of communicative language ability was first proposed in the 1970s. What is most significant of the CLA concept is its recognition of the importance of the social cultural factors in the speech situation - the context in which language use takes place and the interaction between that context and the discourse itself.

According to Bachman, test method facets can be further divided into five subcategories, including test environment, test rubrics, the nature of the input, the nature of the expected response, and the relationship between input and response.

The personal attributes that have effect on test takers scores include individual characteristics such as cognitive style and knowledge of particular content areas of the test, as well as group characteristics such as gender, race and ethnic background. These attributes are systematic factors that are believed regularly affect test takers performance on tests.

Random factors, which are unpredictable and largely temporary, may come from a variety of sources. Examples of random factors include the mental alertness and emotional state of the test taker, the changes in the test environment, the idiosyncratic differences in the way different test administrators carry out their responsibilities; the incompleteness of language sample and imprecision of the scales used to rate a test. Since they are unpredictable and unsystematic, random factors can seldom be manipulated.

2. The adoption of Bachmans model in communicative oral language tests

According to Bachmans CLA models, communicative oral tests emphasis on the social function, appropriate use and effectiveness of the language. Communicative oral tests are usually authentic, functional, interactive, contextualized and holistic.

Typical items of communicative oral tests are role play, discussion and interview. In role-play activities, test takers are usually assigned fictitious roles and then required to improvise in language and behavior. The role-plays used may vary from simple role-plays involving only two candidates to more complex ones involving more candidates and even the examiners. Group discussion refers to the activity in which the members of the group involved are given a particular situation or topic and instructed to make various communications. This type of activity usually involves two to four candidates. An interview, on the other hand, is a series of face-to-face interaction between the examiner and the candidate. Interviews can take the forms of question asking and answering, role-play, presentation, discussion and so on.

According to WEN Qiu-fang, communicative oral test includes two basic test formats, namely the two-way interaction model and the multiple-way interaction model. The two-way interaction model involves both the interaction between the examiner and the test taker, and the interaction between two test takers. The multiple-way interaction model involves interactions among more than two test takers. (Wen, 1999)

The scoring of communicative oral tests usually bases on detailed making scheme, with clear but usually brief description of the criteria of different grades. Generally speaking, the test takers will be judged on accuracy, fluency, comprehensibility of their language and the communicative strategies they employed in the interaction.

3. Factors that affect test takers performance on communicative oral tests

In late 1990s, Weir made a careful study of the advantages and disadvantages of the most widely used formats of oral tests. Such formats include oral presentation, free interview, controlled interview, description of picture sequence, interaction and role-play and so on, and most of them are still widely used all over the world as the assessment of oral language ability.

Weir found that the use of tape recorder might be stressful to some test taker. In todays educational environment, we may make a conjecture that the use of computers is stressful to some test takers. In the format of description of a picture sequence, the quality of the picture may have affected the performance. And in interaction tasks, there are even more problems. If one of the test takers dominates the interaction, other test takers may have fewer opportunities to demonstrate communicative potential. If there is a large difference in proficiency between the test takers, the communication may not go as smoothly as expected, and the examiners judgments will also be influenced. If one of the test takers is more interested in the topic or the task, the interaction may become one-sided.

Heaton expressed a similar idea by saying that “the chief danger in conduction interviews with pairs of students is that resulting from personality conflicts or the dominance of one of the members of the pair. It is therefore very important for the teacher or examiner to ensure that the two students forming a pair have similar or sympathetic personalities and have similar levels of language ability.” (Heaton, qtd. in GUO, 2004)

Besides the framework of a wide range of factors, Bachman also pointed out another important factor in terms of oral test, “In addition, research indicates that the number of individuals involved in interactive tests, such as an oral interview, can affect test takers perceptions of the test, and thus, presumably their performance.”(Bachman, 1990)

4. Conclusion

This essay investigates the factors that affect test takers performance on communicative oral language tests based on Bachmans framework. Such factors range from test method facets to random factors, and they may undermine the reliability and validity of the tests. Therefore, test constructors and test administrators should take these important factors in to consideration and try their best to minimize the negative effect of these factors on the test results.

This essay has made it obvious that there is a wide range of factors that may affect test takers performance in communicative oral tests. However, the extent to which they affect the performance remains an unsolved problem. Given more time and sources, the author would love to make further investigation in this aspect.

References:

[1]Bachman,L.F.Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1990.

[2]文秋芳.英語口語測試及教學[M].上海:上海外語教育出版社, 1999.

[3]Weir,C.Communicative Language Testing[M]. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall,1990.

[4]GUO Qiu-xiu.Analysis of Factors Affecting Performance in CET-SET[D].Zhejiang University,2004.

猜你喜歡
上海教育
國外教育奇趣
華人時刊(2022年13期)2022-10-27 08:55:52
上海電力大學
我去上海參加“四大”啦
題解教育『三問』
當代陜西(2022年4期)2022-04-19 12:08:52
軟件工程教育與教學改革
軟件導刊(2022年3期)2022-03-25 04:44:48
“雙減”如劍,“體外教育”何去何從?
當代陜西(2021年15期)2021-10-14 08:24:24
上海之巔
少先隊活動(2021年5期)2021-07-22 09:00:02
上海城投
上海諦霖鄒杰 Hi-Fi是“慢熱”的生意,但會越來越好
教育有道——關于閩派教育的一點思考
主站蜘蛛池模板: 欧美成人精品一级在线观看| 丁香五月激情图片| 9丨情侣偷在线精品国产| 亚洲乱码在线播放| 成人午夜免费视频| 日本一区二区不卡视频| 99精品免费在线| 91精品久久久无码中文字幕vr| 一本视频精品中文字幕| 久久综合丝袜长腿丝袜| 666精品国产精品亚洲| 99福利视频导航| 中文字幕乱码二三区免费| 国产乱子伦无码精品小说| 91美女在线| 丝袜高跟美脚国产1区| 亚洲无码免费黄色网址| 97超爽成人免费视频在线播放| 国产精品人莉莉成在线播放| 国产性猛交XXXX免费看| 自慰高潮喷白浆在线观看| 成人午夜亚洲影视在线观看| 热思思久久免费视频| 国产一区二区免费播放| 精品免费在线视频| 国产乱人伦精品一区二区| 色男人的天堂久久综合| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频优播| 久久伊伊香蕉综合精品| 99精品在线看| 国产大全韩国亚洲一区二区三区| 国产手机在线观看| 国产精品女同一区三区五区| 亚洲女人在线| 99热在线只有精品| 免费一级无码在线网站| 亚洲一区波多野结衣二区三区| 极品尤物av美乳在线观看| 国产欧美在线观看一区 | 久久国产精品电影| www.日韩三级| 毛片免费网址| 真实国产精品vr专区| 91探花国产综合在线精品| 亚洲人成网站色7799在线播放| 国产无码网站在线观看| 99爱在线| 香蕉eeww99国产精选播放| 亚洲精品成人片在线观看| 亚洲天堂久久久| 刘亦菲一区二区在线观看| 亚洲精品手机在线| 爆乳熟妇一区二区三区| 激情网址在线观看| 国产原创演绎剧情有字幕的| 国产精品开放后亚洲| 一本大道AV人久久综合| 国产网站免费观看| 国产激情无码一区二区免费| 漂亮人妻被中出中文字幕久久| 九九热在线视频| 91麻豆精品视频| 日本精品视频一区二区| 亚洲制服中文字幕一区二区| 免费A级毛片无码无遮挡| 女同国产精品一区二区| 国产精品精品视频| 青草视频免费在线观看| 国产91色| 午夜啪啪网| 欧美www在线观看| 高清国产va日韩亚洲免费午夜电影| 国模极品一区二区三区| 国产激情第一页| 亚洲免费福利视频| 成人免费黄色小视频| 国产高清无码第一十页在线观看| 思思热在线视频精品| 中文字幕在线免费看| 国产高清无码第一十页在线观看| 免费一级大毛片a一观看不卡| 成人免费黄色小视频|