臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　本研究目的在於比較學科能力測驗以及指定科目考試英文科試題之難易度，同時，調查高中英文老師對此兩種英文科試題的看法，及幫助學生準備學測與指考時所使用的教學方式。試題難易度主要是根據試題的通過率、字彙的級數、鑑別度指數、可讀性統計數字以及試題種類來做比較。在問卷方面，有55位高中英文科教師填答此問卷。為了提高效度，此問卷經由專家效度及預測做了修正。問卷結果以敘述性統計的方式呈現，同時，透過卡方檢定，檢測老師之間的意見是否有顯著不同。
　　研究結果發現：(1)學測英文科在2002及2003年有較多較困難之題目，而在2004到2007年試題中，指考英文科有較多較困難之題目。(2)在字彙試題方面，指考出了較多5級和6級以上的字彙，而學測則以4級以下的字彙為主。在嬝玫�驗的文章之中，指考出了較多4級以上的字彙。(3)可讀性統計顯示指考嬝玫�驗的文章較學測的來得難。(4)在試題類型方面，指考在克漏字題型中出了較多測驗高層次的語言能力以及思考能力的試題。(5)在嬝玫�驗方面，指考出了較多推論性的題目，而學測則以測驗事實性的知識為主。(6)大多數的老師認為指考英文科比學測英文科來得難，然而，在使用對應的教學方式上，學測與指考並無太大差異。
　　根據研究結果，從不同面向來看，指考英文科確實是較學測英文科來得難。此外，在試題編製上，研究結果反映了大考中心訂定區分此兩種英文科考試的指標。同時也證明了試題的編製除了以嚴謹及完整的研究結果做為基礎，也朝向更有系統及科學化的方式邁進。文末提出對於實際教學及未來研究之建議。

　　This study aimed to compare the test items of SAET and DRET administered from 2002 to 2007 in Taiwan and to survey senior high school English teachers’perspectives on the two tests and their approaches to helping students prepare for the tests respectively. The comparison was conducted in terms of item difficulty level, reference word level, text readability (Flesch-Kincaid readability), and item types. With regards to the questionnaire, 55 senior high school English Teachers in Taiwan filled in the questionnaire and the validity of questionnaire was ensured by several testing specialists and a pilot test on a couple of high school teachers. The questionnaire data were presented and tabulated by descriptive statistics and analyzed by the chi-square test to detect whether there are differences in teachers’responses toward the tests and their teaching strategies.
　　The results indicated that (1) in 2002 and 2003 SAET contained more difficult items than DRET; however, from 2004 to 2007 more difficult items were found in DRET, (2) DRET examined more words beyond level 5 in vocabulary test while SAET had more words below level 4, and DRET had more words at level 5-6 in reading texts than SAET, (3) reading texts of DRET had higher readability indices and revealed more difficulty for reading, (4) DRET contained more items that require higher-level language competence and processing skills than SAET in cloze test formats, (5) in DRET reading comprehension, more inferential items were found while in SAET, more factual and local items were found, and (6) most English teachers stated that the difficulty of SAET is different from that of DRET and DRET seems to be more difficult than SAET in several aspects, and most approaches used by teachers yielded no obvious difference between SAET and DRET.
　　Based on the results, this study demonstrated that DRET is generally difficult than SAET in various aspects. Additionally, test constructions of SAET and DRET reflected the assumption and suggestion provided by CEEC studies as well as the results of previous research in college entrance examination. It also indicated that development in test construction was not only built on solid research foundation but also moving toward a more systematic and scientific approach. Finally, pedagogical implications and suggestions for future research are provided in the end.

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………1
Background and Motivation of the Study……………………………………………………………1
Purpose and Research Questions………………………………………………………4
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………6
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………6
Organization of the Study………………………………………………………………7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………9

The Development of Language Testing……………………………………………………………9
Types of Language Tests………………………………………………………………14
DRET and SAET…………………………………………………………………18
The Design of SAET and DRET …………………………………………………………20
Item Analysis of University Entrance English Examinations………………………………………………………30
Item Analysis of JCEE English Tests…………………………………………………………………31
Item Analysis of SAET and DRET…………………………………………………………………33
Comparison between SAET and DRET…………………………………………………………………38
Summary……………………………………………………………40

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………41
Material……………………………………………………………41
Instrument…………………………………………………………42
English Reference Word List…………………………………………………………………42
Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula……………………………………………………………43
Item Classifications…………………………………………………43
Teachers’Perspective Questionnaire……………………………………………………44
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………45
Define the difficult and Easy Items……………………………………………………46
Examine English Word Level………………………………………………………………50
Check Flesch-Kincaid Readability………………………………………………………52
Classify Cloze Test Items…………………………………………………………………54
Classify Reading Comprehension Questions……………………………………………58
Analysis of the questionnaire……………………………………………………………63

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………………64
Comparison of Different Difficulty Level Items……………………………………64
Factors that Influence the Difficulty Level of Items……………………………71
Vocabulary at Different Levels…………………………………………………………71
Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test…………………………………………………………79
Multiple-Choice Cloze Item Types………………………………………………………84
Blank-Filling Cloze Item Types…………………………………………………………88
Reading Comprehension Item Types………………………………………………………93
Teachers’ Responses to Questionnaire………………………………………………101
Teachers’ Perspectives of the Difficulty between SAET and DRET……………102
Teaching Approaches of SAET and DRET…………………………………………………108

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………111
Summary of the Major Findings……………………………………………………………113
Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………………114
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………………………115
Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………………………116

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………118

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………124
A. Revising Comments for Questionnaire………………………………………………124
B. Questionnaire of Teachers’ Perspective of SAET and DRET……………………128
C. Items with Four Different Difficult Levels in Terms of Item Difficulty …　　　　……………………………………………………………………………………………131
D. Items with Four Different Difficulty Levels in Terms of Discrimination
　　Index……………………………………………………………………………………134
E. Different Level Words Tested in Vocabulary Test of SAET and DRET………136
F. Cloze Passages of Example Items……………………………………………………138
G. Reading Passages of the Example Items……………………………………………143

Alderson, J. C. (2005). Assessing reading. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Alderson, J. C., Clapham, C. & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and
evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1982). The trait structure of cloze test scores. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 61-70.
Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 535-556.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (2004). Statistical analyses for language assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beatty, R. J. (1975). Reading comprehension skills and Bloom’s taxonomy. Reading World, 15(2), 101-08.
Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches　to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In R.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication. London: Longman.
Carroll, J. B. (1972). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In H.B. Allen & R.N. Campbell, Teaching English as a second language: A book of readings (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cheng, H. Y. (2007). A study of the cohesion items in the cloze tests of SAT and AST. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Davies, A. (1990). Principles of language testing. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ebel, R. L. (1979). Essentials of educational measurement (3rd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Flech, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: implications for construct validity. Language Testing, 10, 133-170.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Singapore: Longman.
Harris D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Heaton, J. B. (1975). Writing English language testing (2nd ed.) London: Longman.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing: Development, evaluation, research. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Hsu, W. L. (2005). An analysis of the reading comprehension questions in the JCEE English test. Unpublished master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Huang, T. S. (1994). A qualitative analysis of the JCEE English tests. Taipei: Crane.
Jeng, H. H. (2001). A comparison of the English reading comprehension passages and items in the 1999 college entrance examinations of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Concentric: Studies in English literature and linguistics, 27(2), 217-251.
Jeng, H. H., Chen, L. H., Hadzima, A. M., Lin, P. Y, Martin, R., Yeh, H. N.,
Lin, C. C., Chang, B. Y., Tseng, T. Y., Sung, L. M., Ahrens, K., Chen, Y. S., Chen, C. R., Chang, H. H., Yu, H. Y., Liu, M. C., Alagata, A., & Wu, H.C. (1999). An experiment in designing English proficiency tests of two difficulty levels for the college entrance examination in Taiwan. Taipei: CEEC.
Jonz, J. (1990). Another turn in the conversation: what does cloze measure? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 61-83.
Jonz, J. (1991). Cloze item types and second language comprehension. Language
Testing, 8(1), 1-22.
Lan, W. H. (2007). An analysis of reading comprehension questions on the SAET and the DRET using revised Bloom's taxonomy. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lu, J. J. (2002). An analysis of the reading comprehension test given in the English subject ability test in Taiwan and its pedagogical implications. Unpublished master thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
McNamara, T. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mo, C. C. (1987). A study of English reading comprehension and general
guidelines for testing reading. Journal of National Chengchi University, 55, 173-206. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Morrow, K. E. (1979). Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution. In C. J. Brumfit &K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp.143-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. UK: Macmillan Education.
Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at schools. London: Longman.
Spolsky, M. (1995). Measure words: The development of objective language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weir, C. J. (1990). Communicative language testing. NY: Prentice Hall.
Wu, H. L. (2002). Rational cloze: item-generation approaches and construct validity. English Teaching & Learning, 26(4), 85-106.
Yang, T. H. (1996). Fundamental considerations in the cloze test, with special reference to its use in EFL testing in Taiwan. Sun Yet-sen Journal Humanities, 4, 57-77.
余民寧 Yu, M. N. (1997)。教育測驗與評量：成就測驗與教學評量(Educational measurement and evaluation: Achievement measurement and teaching evaluation)。台北：心理出版社。
林至誠等 Lin, C. C., Chen, C. R., Hsiao, T. Y., Curran, J. E., & Ning, H. J. (2001)。
學科能力測驗命題研究報告(A study in designing SAET)。台北：大考中心。
林秀慧 Lin, H. H. (2006)。九十五學年度學科能力測驗英文考科試題分析(Item
analysis of 2006 SAET)。台北：大考中心。
林秀慧 Lin, H. H. (2007)。九十六學年度學科能力測驗英文考科試題分析摘要
(An abstract of Item analysis of 2007 SAET)。台北：大考中心。
范柏余 Fan, B. Y. (2001)。九十年度大學聯考英文試題分析：英文科(Item analysis
of 2001 JCEE English Test)。台北：大考中心。
姜文娟、林寶芬 Chiang, W. C. & Lin, B. F. (1999)。八十八學年度大學聯考英文
試題簡評(A brief item analysis of 1999 JCEE English test)。英語教學，24卷1期， 3-23頁。
殷允美 Yin, Y. M., Yang Y. L., Yan, T. H., Ma, C. C., Gao, Z. M., Yu, C. C., & Chang, S. C. (2003)。九十一年度指定科目考試英文考科試題研發工作計畫(An experiment in designing DRET in 2002)。台北：大考中心。
殷允美 Yin, Y. M., Yang Y. L., Li, Y., Yan, T. H., Ma, C. C., Yeh, H. N., Yu, C. C., & Chang, S. C. (2005)。九十二年度指定科目考試英文考科試題研發計畫研究報告(A report of the experiment in designing DRET in 2003)。台北：大考中心。
釣�君、盧富世 Hsu, Y. J. & Lu, F. S. (1998)。八十七學年度大學聯考英文試題簡
評(A brief item analysis of 1998 JCEE English test)。英語教學，22卷2期, 23-40頁。
張武昌等 Chang, W. C., Chen, K. T., Chung, K. S., Huang H., Ku, Y. H., Wang, C. S., Chang, S. Y. (1998)。高中常用字彙表(The English word list for senior high schools in Taiwan)。台北：大考中心。
張淑貞 Chang, S. C. (2003)。九十二學年度學科能力測驗試題分析英文考科
(Item analysis of 2003 SAET)。台北：大考中心。
張淑貞 Chang, S. C. (2004)。九十三學年度學科能力測驗試題分析：英文考科
(Item analysis of 2004 SAET)。台北：大考中心。
陳坤田 Chen, K. T. (1995)。八十三學年度大學入學暨獨立學院入學考試英文試題
分析(Item analysis of 1994 JCEE English test)。教育研究資訊，3卷5期，81-102頁。
陳坤田 Chen, K. T. (1996)。八十四學年度大學推薦甄試學科能力測驗試題分析
(Item analysis of 1995 SAET)。人文及社會學科教學通訊，7卷2期，181-206頁。
陳坤田 Chen K. T. (2002)。九十一學年度學科能力測驗試題分析：英文考科 (Item
analysis of 2002 SAET)。台北：大考中心。
陳凌霞等 Chen, L. H., Yeh, H. N., Wang, A. C., & Yu, H. Y. (2002)。指定科目考試
規劃研究報告：英文考科（IV）(A study in designing DRET (IV))。台北：大考中心。
游春琪 Yu, C. C. (2002)。九十一學年度指定科目考試試題分析：英文考科(Item analysis of 2002 DRET)。台北：大考中心。
游春琪 Yu, C. C. (2007)。九十六學年度指定科目考試英文科試題分析摘要(An abstract of item analysis of 2007 DRET)。台北：大考中心。
湯廷池等 Tang, T. C., Yang, Y. L., Chen, L. H., Chen, Z. F., & Chen, K. T. (2000)。 指定科目考試規劃研究報告：英文科（III）(A study in designing DRET III)。台北：大考中心。
葉錫南等 Yeh, H. N., Hsiao T. Y., Li. Y, Hsu, H. Y., Yu, H. Y., Chen, Y. M., Chang, S. C., &Yu, C. C. (2003)。九十一年度學科能力測驗英文考科試題研發工作計畫研究報告(A report of the experiment in designing SAET in 2002)。台北：大考中心。
鄭恆雄、斯定國Jeng, H. H. & Sze, D. K. (1992). 七十六至七十九年度中華民國大
學聯考英文科選擇題統計數值分析(Item analysis on multiple-choice questions of JCEE English test from 1987 to 1990)。載於英文小組七十九年度工作計畫研究報告，86-127頁。台北：大考中心。
鄭恆雄等 Jeng, H. H., Lin, C. C., Chen, C. R., Hsiao, T. Y., & Curran, J. E. (2001)。 指定科目考試與學科能力測驗英文考科統整計畫研究報告 (A study of department required English test and scholastic aptitude English test)。台北：大考中心。
鄭恆雄等 Jeng, H. H., Chang, H. H., Cheng, Y. S., & Gu, Y. S. (2002)。大考中心高中英文參考詞彙表(An English reference word list for senior high schools in Taiwan)。台北：大考中心。