(3.230.76.48) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/15 01:48
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:廖明珠
研究生(外文):Liao Ming-Chu Claire
論文名稱:高職學生及高職英文教師對四技二專英文科試題變革之看法
論文名稱(外文):EEFTC English Tests:Renovations and Viewpoints of Vocational High School Students and English Teachers
指導教授:張武昌張武昌引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang Vincent W. Chang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:英語研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:91
語文別:英文
論文頁數:189
中文關鍵詞:EEFTCEnglish Test
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:176
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究旨在探討四技二專入學考試(Entrance Examination for 2-year and 4-year Technological Colleges, EEFTC)英文科試題之變革,並從歷屆試題中隨機抽選三份,對國立台中家商高三學生進行施測,就所得之成績與問卷分析結果相互比較,以供高職英文科教師日後在教學改進之參考。
首先,我們從四技二專命題改變的三階段(1981~1990,1991~1999,2001以後) 隨意挑出三份試題為代表,分別對201名國立台中家商高三學生進行施測,並經由變異數分析,變異數同質性檢定與Post Hoc檢定分析其作答成績。結果顯示整體學生受測者於1997年與2001年的成績表現優於1990年。高分組學生受測者因較能追隨試題改進的步伐而於2001年的成績表現優於1997年與1990年,反之,低分組學生受測者於1997年的成績表現優於1990年與2001年。此外,針對此三年試題中之共通四大題:文意字彙、對話、克漏字及閱讀測驗,學生受測者於2001年試題之文意字彙與對話成績表現皆優於1997年與1990年;而閱讀測驗居次,克漏字測驗卻為三年之末,似因二大題於2001年試題之改良幅度較大,學生受測者尚未適應之故。
我們接著透過問卷了解參加施測之學生受測者,以及全省公立高職英文科教師對此三份試題之觀點異同之處,並進一步將問卷結果與施測結果對照印證。結果顯示,此三份試題中,學生受測者與教師受測者均認同2001年試題之對話大題為其中最容易之大題,1990年試題之發音大題與1997年試題之重組應考慮刪除,而2001年試題修訂後之四大題頗適當,無刪除之慮。然而,教師受測者認為2001年試題難易度及題目數均更適當、最可測出學生程度、與學校月考及期考之題型最相似,且得自學校英文教學之助最大,學生受測者卻持相反看法。此外,學生受測者認為學校英文教學對其作答此三份試題幫助最大的部份為老師課外補充資料,教師受測者卻認為是老師上課講解;但一致的是英文教科書扮演較次要的角色。
此研究最後針對四技二專入學考試英文考科試題之改良,提供高職英文科教師在教學上之參考,以利學生從容面對考試。
ABSTRACT
The thesis aimed to explore the renovations of the Entrance Examination for 2-year and 4-year Technological Colleges (EEFTC) English tests based on the administration of three randomly selected tests to the third year vocational high school students at National Taichung Home Economical and Commercial Senior Vocational School. The comparison and analysis of the test results and responses to the questionnaires thus provide important references for vocational high school English teachers in their teaching.
First of all, the researcher randomly selected three representative tests, the 1990, 1997, and 2001 tests, representing three different periods of testing-- Stage I (1981~1990), Stage II(1991~1999)and Stage III(After 2001)and administered them to 201 student subjects at National Taichung Home Economical and Commercial Senior Vocational School. The test results were compared and analyzed in many ways. As a whole, the subjects performed better in the 1997 test and the 2001 test than the 2001 test. Besides, high-achievers who can keep up with the test renovations performed best in the 2001 test, the 1997 test, and the lowest in the 1990 test; low-achievers performed best in the 1997 test, then the 2001 test, and the lowest in the 1990 test. As to subjects’ performances in the four shared test types (vocabulary in context, dialogue, cloze and reading comprehension), they performed better in the 2001 test than the other tests in vocabulary in context and dialogue, but not in cloze and reading comprehension, probably because the subjects were not accustomed to the renovation of the two test types.
Then the researcher conducted a survey via questionnaires to collect information on the opinions regarding the EEFTC English tests similarities and discrepancies from student subjects who participated in the administration of the three tests and teacher subjects from public vocational high schools island-wide. On one hand, both groups agreed that the dialogue item of the 2001 test was the easiest among all, and the pronunciation item of the 1990 test as well as the re-arrangement item of the 1997 test should be deleted, while the four items in the 2001 test were appropriate and there was no need to delete them. However, the teacher subjects regarded the 2001 test as the one with the most appropriate level of difficulty, and with the most proper number of test questions. In addition, they considered the 2001 test as the most effective in measuring testees’ level of English proficiency, most similar to the monthly and term-final tests in schools, and benefited most from English teaching in school, but the student subjects held quite different viewpoints. On the other hand, student subjects considered supplementary materials assigned by the teachers as the main factor that helped them in taking the tests, but the teacher subjects thought that it was the class lectures.
The study thus provides constructive information that helps vocational high school English teachers to equip their students with better ability to deal with the EEFTC English tests.
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….…. i
ABSTRACT(ENGLISH)……………………………………………………. ii
ABSTRACT(CHINESE)……………………………………………………. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………….. vi
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………. x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………….. xviii
I INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….. 1
1.1 Background and Motivation…………………………………………. 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………… 3
1.3 Research Questions………………………………………………… 4
1.4 Significance of the Study……………………………………………. 5
II LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………….. 7
2.1 Testing………………………………………………………………… 7
2.1.1 Goals of Testing……………………………………………….. 7
2.1.2 Development of Testing. ……………………………………… 9
2.1.3 Classification of Tests…………………………………………. 15
2.1.4 The Design of English Test…………………………………… 19
2.1.5 Qualities of a Good Test………………………………………. 24
2.2 EEFTC English Test………………………………………………….. 28
2.2.1 EEFTC English Tests:An overview…………………………. 28
2.2.2 EEFTC English Tests:Achievement Test or Proficiency- Oriented Test…………………………………………………… 34
2.3 EEFTC English Tests:A Closer Look…………………………….. 36
2.3.1 The 1990 and 1997 EEFTC English Tests………………….. 36
2.3.1.1 Shared Test Type……………………………………… 37
2.3.1.2 Test Types Appearing Only in the 1990 Test……….. 45
2.3.1.3 Test Types Appearing Only in the 1997 Test……….. 48
2.3.2 The 2001 Test…………………………………………………... 50
III METHODS AND PROCEDURES………………………………………. 55
3.1 Overview……………………………………………………………… 55
3.1.1 Student Subjects………………………………………………. 55
3.1.2 Instrumentation : The Three EEFTC English Tests………… 56
3.1.3 Procedures for the Administration of Tests…………………. 57
3.1.4 Subjects Responding to the Questionnaires……………….. 58
3.1.5 The Questionnaires…………………………………………… 59
3.1.6 Procedures for the Questionnaires………………………….. 60
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………………………...... 63
4.1 Results of Tests and Discussion…………………………………… 63
4.1.1 Overall Differences in the Mean Score on the three Tests… 63
4.1.2 Mean Score Differences:High-achievers vs. Low-achievers 67
4.1.3 Comparing Subjects’ Performance in the Four Shared Test Types……………………………………………………………. 75
4.1.3.1 Vocabulary in Context………………………………… 76
4.1.3.2 Dialogue………………………………………………... 81
4.1.3.3 Cloze…………………………………………………… 87
4.1.3.4 Reading Comprehension……………………………. 92
4.2 Results of Questionnaires…………………………………………… 98
4.2.1 Analysis of Student Questionnaires...……………………….. 99
4.2.2 Analysis of Teacher Questionnaires…………………………. 113
4.2.3 Overall Differences between the Subjects’ Responses to the Questionnaires…………………………………………….. 128
4.3 Tests Results and Questionnaire Responses……….……………. 136
4.3.1 Tests Results and Student Questionnaires ………………… 136
4.3.2 Tests Results and Teacher Questionnaires…………………. 141
V CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………. 144
5.1 Summary of the Study……………………………………………….. 144
5.2 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………… 150
5.3 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………… 152
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………………. 153
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………….. 154
APPENDIX I. The Official Letter………………………………………..... 159
APPENDIX II. The 1990 EEFTC English Test Questions……………… 160
APPENDIX III. The 1997 EEFTC English Test Questions……………… 168
APPENDIX IV. The 2001 EEFTC English Test Questions………………. 175
APPENDIX V. The Teachers’ Questionnaires of the 1990 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 184
APPENDIX VI. The Teachers’ Questionnaires of the 1997 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 185
APPENDIX VII. The Teachers’ Questionnaires of the 2001 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 186
APPENDIX VIII. The Students’ Questionnaires of the 1990 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 187
APPENDIX IX. The Students’ Questionnaires of the 1997 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 188
APPENDIX X. The Students’ Questionnaires of the 2001 EEFTCEnglish Test………………………………………………… 189
Alderson, J. C. (1993). Judgments in Language Testing. In Dan Douglas & Carol Chapelle (Eds.), A New Decade of Language Testing Research: Selected Papers From the 1990 Language Testing Research Colloquium. (pp, 46-57) Alexandria,Va. U.S.A.: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Alderson, J. C.; Percsich, R.; and Szabo, G. (2000). Sequencing as an Item Type. Language Testing. 17/4: 423-447.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. and Cohen, A. D. (1998). Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern Language Testing at the Turn of the Century: Assuring That What We Count Counts. Language Testing. 17/1: 1-42.
Beresford, J. (1998). Collecting Information for School Improvement: Model Questionnaires and Research Instruments. London: D. Fulton.
Bondaruk, J.,Child, J. and Tetrault, E. (1975). Contextual Testing. In Randall L. Jones and Bernard Spolsky (Eds.), Testing Language Proficiency. (pp. 89-104). Arlington,Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Bradburn, N. M. and Sudman, S. (1979). Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire Design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 31.陳偉(1999)“美國審計總署應用資訊與科技再造簡介”,審計季刊,第十九卷第三期。
2. 27.游玉梅(1999)“二十一世紀人力資源管理發展的新策略上、下”,公務人員月刊,第四十、四十一期:25-30;39-42。
3. 20.柯承恩、賴森本(2002)“推動績效導向之審計制度”,研考雙月刊,第二十六卷第五期。
4. 29.張鴻春(2002)“美國地方政府審計”,審計季刊,第二十二卷第二期。
5. 12.林源慶(1998)“從內部控制觀念談立法院應加強決算審核報告之審議”,審計季刊,第十八卷第三期。
6. 11.林慶隆、李枝春、郭大榮(2002)“美國績效責任制度之介紹”,審計季刊,第二十二卷第二期。
7. 8.吳義建(1997)“如何加強政府施政績效之評估”,審計季刊,第十七卷第四期。
8. 2.王毅忠(1998)“審計機關人事預算自主之必要性”,審計季刊,第十八卷第四期。
9. 蕭碧茹、洪振方(2000)案例式推演與科學教育。物理教育季刊,3(2)中華民國教育學會。
10. 25.孫本初(2002)“政府績效管理的新思維”,考銓季刊,第二十九期,台北,銓敘部。
11. 張志明(2000)知識經濟時代的學校行政。學校行政雙月刊,6,38-49。
12. 邱茂林(1998)建築設計中的案例式設計與推理(二);案例式推理系統之建構研究 中華民國建築學會 建築學報,26,頁1-17。
13. 33.陳悅宜(2002)“知識管理在公部門運用的迷思與突破”,研考雙月刊,第二十六卷第四期。
14. 23.孫本初(2000)“美國政府績效評估制度之研析—以政府績效與成果法案(GPRA)為例”,研考雙月刊,第二十四卷第二期。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔