摘要
对专家评分员在无引导评分过程中的口头报告分析表明,语法词汇及表达、复述内容、流利度、语音语调这四个方面是英语专业四级口试故事复述任务的主要考察因素。按照由高到低的比例,依次是语法词汇及表达、复述内容、语音语调和表述流利度。因此,应将流利度纳入故事复述评分标准,避免仅将语音语调和语法作为故事复述评分的侧重点。同时,应该丰富和细化故事复述任务评分标准在优秀、良好、合格与不合格四个层级的描述,以提升评分的科学性、客观性及公正性,进而充分发挥英语专业四级口试在高等学校英语专业英语教学中的导向作用。
Abstract： Validation is one of the core concepts in the field of language testing. In recent years, validity argument and assessment usage argument have provided new perspective and approach to language test validation. Based on the interpretative argument and with the inferences and assumptions, a scientific inquiry into score interpretation and use becomes the focus of validation research. According to assessment usage argument, evaluation is the first step in the whole validation process. Evaluation is based on the warrant that observations of performance on test tasks could provide observed scores reflective of targeted language abilities. And the assumption underlying this warrant is that rubrics for scoring responses are suitable to provide evidence for targeted language abilities. In order to obtain backing for the inference, researchers need to make sure that rubrics are developed, trialed and revised based on expert consensus. However, some researches point out that the present rubrics for oral performance assessment are not specific and detailed. This may result from the lack of empirical research, and particularly the research on raters＇ rating process and performance. Under the background of the popularizing of TEM4 Oral Test among Chinese universities and colleges, this research aims to investigate the validity of the rating scale of TEM4 Oral Test story retelling task and inquire whether and to what extent the present rubrics for scoring story retelling task are appropriate for providing evidence for the oral proficiency of the sophomore English majors in Chinese universities and colleges. Following the theoretical framework of validity argument and assessment usage argument and focusing on score interpretation, the researcher has analyzed qualitative and quantitative data obtained through observation o{ expert rating process and has attempted to find the answers to the following research questions. （1） To which conceptual categories do expert raters attend in conducting their evaluations o
出处
《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2013年第6期187-194,共8页
Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences
基金
北京语言大学校级项目(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)(41172005)
