跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.201.97.224) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/18 02:06
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:倪強
研究生(外文):John-Michael Lopez Nix
論文名稱:語言學習者對歐洲共同語文參考架構的理解與詮釋之分析:高中與國中學生為例
論文名稱(外文):A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INTERPRETABILITY OF CEFR DESCRIPTORS BY JUNIOR HIGH AND SENIOR HIGH STUDENTS
指導教授:莊永山莊永山引用關係
指導教授(外文):Yuang-shan Chuang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:英文
論文頁數:193
中文關鍵詞:歐洲共同語言參考架構年輕外語學習者
外文關鍵詞:CEFRYoung Langauge Learners
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:186
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在調查在台灣實行歐洲共同語言參考架構(CEFR)的狀況。具體來說,本研究在探究台灣年輕外語學習者(12-17歲)使用中文譯版CEFR語言能力的總體指標的狀況。參與此研究的受試者為322名來自台灣四所公立國、高中。受試者須填寫研究者所設計的自我英文能力評估問卷及參加對應CEFR的線上英語能力檢定測驗(NETPAW全民網路英語能力檢定)。本研究使用兩個版本的自我評估,分別為CEFR總體指標級數A1到B2(國中學生版本)及級數A1到B2(高中學生版本)與受試者全民網路英語能力檢定的成績。全民網路英語能力檢定中的三個級數:基礎、初級、中級分別為CEFR中A1, A2, B2的程度

研究者用全民網路英語能力檢定第一階段的分數來分析及確定受試者本身對英文程度狀況。研究者用自我填寫的問卷資料來探討受試者本身對自己英文程度狀況。分析比較問卷內容及英檢成績得到這兩份資料評估的確實共同作用;另外,研究者亦分析研究自我評估問卷的可信度。總體來說,研究者使用四個階段的分析來了解受試者是否能理解CEFR對不同級數英語能力的描述並且正確地用以了解自身的英語程度。

本研究的主要發現如下:
1. 對台灣年輕外語學習者來說,CEFR總體指標中文譯本能清楚傳達不同英語程度所具備能力的概念。
2. 台灣年輕外語學習者在正確地使用英語能力概念部份有困難。
3. CEFR 級數A1在所有的受試者身上得到一致的答案,可證明這個級數對英語能力的指標很有效。
4. CEFR 級數A2及B1則是受試者理解開始出現困難的部份,這兩個級數的指標中有些混淆的因素阻礙受試者的自我評估。
5. 台灣年輕外語學習者顯示出他們能正確地使用CEFR總體指標中文譯本來做自我評估,雖然這與英檢測試評估內容的關連性並不大。
6. CEFR 級數A1對國中一年級及二年級學生來說是適合的程度,而CEFR A2則適用於國中三年級及高中一年級學生。

根據以上結果,本研究者提出對未來在教學上使用CEFR總體描述方法的建議。為了能正確地評估課堂教學的內容及品質,英語教師應以CEFR為參考標準並應仔細考慮課堂所使用教材內容 (任務型教學) 及其使用的頻率。學生們應以CEFR作為了解自我英語學習的過程、進度,藉此推動自我學習的方向。未來的研究應著重在自省的方法以得到更深入,有關心理及情緒方面上因素影響台灣年輕外語學習者自我評估正確性的相關資訊。
This study investigated a key issue in the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in Taiwan. Specifically, this study researched the accuracy and reliability of self-assessments by young Taiwanese EFL students (12-17 years old) when compared against a test-based criterion assessment. The 322 subjects in this study were junior high and senior school students from four regular public schools in Taiwan. The instruments in this study included two versions of a self-assessment instrument comprised of the CEFR global descriptors for levels A1 to B1 (junior high version) and levels A1 to B2 (senior high version), translated into Chinese, and the practice version of an online English proficiency test reciprocal to the CEFR (NETPAW). Three levels of the NETPAW exam were utilized: Basic, Elementary and Intermediate, reciprocal to CEFR levels A1, A2 and B1, respectively.
The scores of the NETPAW Phase One exams (receptive language skills) were analyzed statistically to ascertain trends in English test performance. The self-assessment data were also analyzed statistically to ascertain trends in self-perceived English abilities. Both types of assessment were then compared statistically to derive validity coefficients for the self-assessments. In addition, the reliability of the self-assessment instruments was analyzed statistically. In total, four phases of analysis were employed to understand how well the subjects discern distinct constructs of English proficiency inherent in the CEFR descriptors, and how well the subjects apply their understanding of these constructs to themselves. Based on the analyses herein, the findings are as follows:
1. The CEFR global descriptors in translation can accurately convey distinct constructs of language proficiency to young Taiwanese EFL students.
2. Young Taiwanese EFL learners experience difficulty applying the constructs of language proficiency to themselves accurately.
3. The descriptors comprising CEFR A1 work well, as they produce consistent responses from all subjects.
4. The descriptors comprising CEFR levels A2 and B1 are the focal points of response effects that impede the subjects’ self-assessments.
5. Young Taiwanese EFL learners exhibit a salient tendency to accurately perform self-assessments using the CEFR global descriptors in translation, although the correlation with test-based assessment is modest.
6. CEFR A1 is a suitable proficiency level for junior high first and second graders, whereas CEFR A2 is suitable for junior high third graders and senior high first graders.
In addition to these findings, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research into the implementation of the CEFR guidelines are discussed. Teachers should consult the CEFR in order to critically evaluate their classroom instruction in terms of content and quality. Teachers should reflect on the type and amount of task-based instruction they utilize and also the frequency of use. Students should consult the CEFR to familiarize themselves with the process of self-assessment, which in turn, will provide an impetus for self-directed learning. Future research should focus on introspective methods in order to gather in-depth qualitative information about the psychological and affective factors influencing the accuracy of self-assessment by young Taiwanese EFL learners.
Acknowledgements i
Chinese Abstract iii
English Abstract v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 8
1.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses 9
1.4 Statement of Purpose 10
1.5 Significance of the Study 17
1.6 Limitations of the Study 18
1.7 Definition of Terms 18

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 23
2.1 Self-assessment 23
2.1.1 The Rationale for Self-assessment in Language Learning 24
2.1.2 Types of Self-assessment Studies 26
2.1.2.1 Studies of the Mediational Role of Self-assessment 26
2.1.2.2 Studies of the Predictive Role of Self-assessment 28
2.1.2.3 Studies of the Reliability of Self-assessment 29
2.1.3 The Role of Self-assessment in Learner Involvement 31
2.1.4 Self-assessment vs. Test-based Assessment 36
2.1.5 Caveats in Using Self-assessment 42
2.2 CEFR 48
2.2.1 The Origin of the CEFR 49
2.2.2 Functions of the CEFR: Learner Involvement 51
2.2.3 Functions of the CEFR: Curriculum Modification 54
2.2.4 Functions of the CEFR: Test Design 55
2.2.5 Caveats in Using the CEFR 57
2.3 Case Studies in the Use of the CEFR 65
2.3.1 Trinity College Dublin: Integrate Ireland Language and Training (www.iilt.ie) 66
2.3.2 Assessment of Young Language Learners in Norway: Bergen “Can do” Project 70
2.3.3 Self-assessment at the University of Basle, Switzerland 75

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 81
3.1 Research Design 81
3.2 Subjects 83
3.3 Instruments 84
3.3.1 Self-assessment Questionnaires 84
3.3.2 NETPAW Tests of Reading and Listening Comprehension 88
3.3.2.1 Design of NETPAW Tests 89
3.3.2.2 NETPAW Basic Level (基礎級) (CEFR A1) 91
3.3.2.2.1 Basic Reading Comprehension 92
3.3.2.2.2 Basic Listening Comprehension 96
3.3.2.3 NETPAW Elementary Level (初級) (CEFR A2) 99
3.3.2.3.1 Elementary Reading Comprehension 100
3.3.2.3.2 Elementary Listening Comprehension 103
3.3.2.4 NETPAW Intermediate Level (中級) (CEFR B1) 108
3.3.2.4.1 Intermediate Reading Comprehension 108
3.3.2.4.2 Intermediate Listening Comprehension 111
3.4 Pilot Study 116
3.4.1 Instruments 116
3.4.2 Procedures 117
3.4.3 Results 117
3.4.4 Suggestions for Main Study 122
3.5 Main Study Procedures 123
3.6 Special Considerations During Data Collection 125
3.7 Data Analysis 127
3.7.1 Calculating Facilities and “Can Do” Indexes 127
3.7.2 Exploring the Test Results 132
3.7.3 Exploring the Self-assessment Results 133
3.7.4 Examining the Reliability of the Self-assessment Instruments 134
3.7.5 Comparing Self-assessment to Test-based Assessment 135

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 139
4.1 Phase One: Test Results 139
4.2 Phase Two: Self-assessment Results 144
4.2.1 Interpretations of the CEFR Proficiency Levels 145
4.2.2 Self-assessed Proficiency Levels 155
4.3 Phase Three: Reliability of the Self-assessment Instruments 163
4.4 Phase Four: Self-assessment vs. Test-based Assessment 167

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 173
5.1 Summary of the Major Findings 173
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 176
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 178

REFERENCES 180
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: CEFR Global Descriptors (English Version) 188
Appendix B: CEFR Global Descriptors (Chinese Version) 189
Appendix C: Self-assessment Questionnaire (Junior High Version) 190
Appendix D: Self-assessment Questionnaire (Senior High Version) 192
REFERENCES

Alderson, J., Figueras, N., Kuijper, H., Nold, G., Takala, S., & Tardieu, C. (2004, July). The development of specifications for item development and classification within the Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment, reading and listening, final report of the Dutch CEF construct project. Unpublished document. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/44/01/final_report.pdf

Alderson, J., & Huhta, A. (2005). The development of a suite of computer-based
diagnostic tests based on the Common European Framework. Language Testing, 22(3), 301-319.

AlFallay, I. (2004). The role of some selected psychological and personality traits of the rater in the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment. System, 32, 407- 425.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1), 14-29.

Blanche, P. (1990). Using standardized achievement and oral proficiency tests for self-assessment purposes: the DLIFLC study. Language Testing, 7(2), 202-229.

Blanche & Merino (1989). Self-assessment of foreign language skills: Implications for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39(3), 313-340.

Brantmeier, C. (2006). Advanced L2 learners and reading placement: Self-assessment, CBT, and subsequent performance. System, 34, 15-35.

Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent language learning programs: the value of annotated samples. Assessing Writing, 10, 174-191.

Brown, J. & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing second language research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Campillo, M. & Pool, S. (1999, April). Improving writing proficiency through self-efficacy training. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (Report No. CS216821). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED432774).

Chiang, C. (2005, June 10). Education officials adopt new English proficiency test standard. Taiwan Journal. Retrieved March 26, 2006, from http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/

Chuang, Y.S. (2000). Corpus analyses of the vocabulary in the junior and senior high school students’ English textbooks and writings in Taiwan. Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Company, Ltd.

Chuang, Y. S. (2005, December). NETPAW and the NETPAW-CEFR Reciprocal Table.
Keynote speech presented at the Ninth Annual ROCMELIA Conference, Tainan, Taiwan.

Cohen, A. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Cooper, C. (1999). Intelligence and Abilities. London: Routledge.

Council of Europe. (2000). Appendix 2: Self-assessment checklists from the Swiss
version of the European Language Portfolio. [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio//documents/appendix2.pdf

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Publications_EN.asp

DeJong, J. (2003, December). Criterion referenced assessment: Relating tests to the Council of Europe Framework. Keynote speech presented at the Seventh Annual ROCMELIA Conference, Chia Yi, Taiwan.

Elliot, A. (1981). Child language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics of society. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Figueras, N, North, B., Takala, S., Verhelst, N., & van Avermaet, P. (2005). Relating examinations to the Common European Framework: a manual. Language Testing, 22(3), 261-279.

Foster, S. (1990). The communicative competence of young children: a modular approach. New York: Longman Inc.

Goodman, K. (1998). The reading process. In P. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.). Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 11-21). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted from Language and literacy: the selected writings of Kenneth Goodman, pp. 5-16, by F.W. Gollasch, Ed., 1975, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).

Gore, P. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92-115. Abstract retrieved July 12, 2006, from PsycINFO database. (2005-16363-006).

Gouty, J., & Lid, S. (2002). Improving student writing ability through the use of teacher interventions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED471783)

Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and self-efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(4) 237-249.

Hasselgreen, A. (2003). Bergen ‘can do’ project. [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Retrieved July 25, 2006, from http://www.ecml.at/documents/pub221E2003_Hasselgreen.pdf

Hasselgreen, A. (2005). Assessing the language of young learners. Language Testing,
22 (3), 337-354.

Heilenman, K. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: the role of response effects. Language Testing, 7(2), 174-201.

Heyworth, F. (2006). Key concepts in ELT: the Common European Framework. ELT Journal, 60(2), 181-183.

Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd ed.). United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press.

Integrate Ireland Language and Teaching. (2006). Annual report. Retrieved August 12, 2006, from http://www.iilt.ie/publications/default.asp?NCID=40

Jinks, J., & Lorsbach, A. (2003). Introduction: Motivation and self-efficacy belief. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 113-118.

Jones, N. (2002). Chapter 11: Relating the ALTE Framework to the Common
European Framework of Reference. In Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Case Studies [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Publications_EN.asp

Khubchandani, L.M. (1984). Language planning processes for pluralistic societies. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), Language planning and language education (pp. 98-110). Boston: G. Allen & Unwin.

Langendyk, V. (2006). Not knowing that they do not know: Self-assessment accuracy of third year medical students. Medical Education, 40(2) 173-179. Abstract retrieved July 12, 2006, from PsycINFO database. (2006-02109-012).

Lantolf, J., & Appel, G.(Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corp.

LeBlanc, R., & Painchaud, G. (1985). Self-assessment as a second language placement instrument. TESOL Quarterly, 19(4), 673-687.

Lee, Y. (2006). EFL students’ perception of English speaking tests and the effects of on-screen question prompts: the context of a university. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan R.O.C.

Linnenbrink, E., & Pintrich, P. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119- 137.

Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language
Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgments in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22 (3), 320-336.

Lu, M.L. (2004, December). The e-era manpower development project. Plenary speech presented at the Eighth Annual ROCMELIA Conference, Hsin Chu, Taiwan.

Luoma, S., & Tarnanen, M. (2003). Creating a self-rating instrument for second language writing: From idea to implementation. Language Testing, 20(4), 440-465.

Lynch, D. (2006). Motivational factors, learning strategies and resource management as predictors of course grades. College Student Journal, 40(2), 423-428. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from PsycINFO database. (2006-07935-023).

Malabonga, V., Kenyon, D., & Carpenter, H. (2005). Self-assessment, preparation and response time on a computerized oral proficiency test. Language Testing, 22 (1), 59-92.

McKay, P. (2000). On ESL standards for school-age learners. Language Testing, 17(2), 185-214.

Mousavi, S. (2002). An encyclopedic dictionary of language testing. (3rd ed.). Taiwan: Tung Hua Book Co. Ltd.

Multon, K., Brown, S., & Lent, R. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(1), 30-38.

Nation, I. S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Nold, G. (2005, December). Foreign language assessment in the context of the
Common European Framework: The example of DESI [Abstract]. Keynote speech presented at the Ninth Annual ROCMELIA Conference, Tainan, Taiwan.

North, B. (2000). Linking language assessments: an example in a low stakes context. System, 28, 555-577.

North, B. (2002). Chapter 10: A CEF-based self-assessment tool for university entrance. In Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Case Studies [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Publications_EN.asp

North, B., Figueras, N., Takala, S., van Avarmaet, P., & Verhelst, N. (2003). Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Manual: Overview of preliminary pilot version. [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/ Publications _EN.asp

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Oladejo, J. (1993). How not to embark on a bilingual education policy in a developing nation: the case of Nigeria. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14 (1-2), 91-102.

O’Malley, J., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic assessment for English language
learners: Practical approaches for teachers. United States: Addison-Wesley.

Oscarson, M. (1989). Self-assessment of language proficiency: rationale and applications. Language Testing, 6 (1), 1-13.

Pajares, F. (1996, April). Assessing self-efficacy beliefs and academic outcomes: the case for specificity and correspondence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (Report No. CG027091). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395264).
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: a review of the literature. Reading &writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.

Pajares, F. & Valiente, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on elementary students’ writing. Journal of Educational research, 90 (6), 353-360.

Palmer, A. (2004). Qualities of useful language tests and principles for their use. In
English Teachers’ Association, ROC, Selected papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing.

Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: a meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15 (1), 1-20.

Schunk, D. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2) 159-174.

Scott, W., & Ytreberg, L. (1990). Teaching English to children. New York: Longman Inc.

Simpson, B. (2002, October) Meeting the needs of second language children: language and literacy in primary education. Paper presented at the conference of the Reading Association of Ireland. Retrieved August 12, 2006 from http://www.iilt.ie/publications/default.asp?NCID=40

Smith, F. (1997). Reading without nonsense (3rd. ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Smolen, L., Newman, C., Wathen, T., & Lee, D. (1995). Developing student self-assessment strategies. TESOL Journal, Autumn, 22-27.

Spiegel, M., & Stephens, L. (1997). Theory and problems of statistics. (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Trim, J. (Ed.). (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment, a guide for users. [electronic version]. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Publications_EN.asp

Weir, C. (2005). Limitations of the Common European Framework for developing
comparable examinations and tests. Language Testing, 22 (3), 281-299.

White, M., & Bruning, R. (2005). Implicit writing beliefs and their relation to writing quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 166-189.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top