政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/119614
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造访人次 : 50795318      在线人数 : 386
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119614


    题名: 2010年至2017年英語科國中基測與會考克漏字測驗分析
    Analysis of the Cloze Test Items in English Basic Competence Test and Comprehensive Assessment Program from 2010 to 2017
    作者: 彭凡家
    Peng, Fan-Chia
    贡献者: 尤雪瑛
    Yu, Hsueh-Ying
    彭凡家
    Peng, Fan-Chia
    关键词: 克漏字測驗
    國中教育會考
    國中基本學力測驗
    Cloze test
    Basic competence test
    Comprehensive assessment program
    日期: 2018
    上传时间: 2018-08-27 15:06:07 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 對台灣國中生而言，2001年實施至2013年的國中基本學力測驗以及2014年開始實施的國中教育會考，是兩項重要的高中入學考試。其中，英文閱讀測驗題組中每年會有二篇的克漏字測驗，克漏字測驗能夠測驗受試者英文學習的整合能力，且在台灣被廣泛地使用於各項考試中，本研究主要目的在於：(1)研究從2010年至2017年基測與會考的克漏字試題主要測驗了哪些語言能力; (2)分析這8年的克漏字試題分別在基測與會考中測驗的能力為何，以及討論其相同與相異之處。本研究使用Jonz (1990)的克漏字分類法為其研究工具以探討其分類結果。
    本研究結果顯示：(1) 2010年至2017年基測與會考著重於受試者要能找出跨越句子與句子間文本線索的能力; (2) 2010至2013年的基測，著重於檢視受試者時態句法的能力; (3) 2014至2017年的會考，著重於檢視受試者篇章結構的能力。根據本研究發現，筆者針對未來研究方向及教學實務提出了建議。

    關鍵字：克漏字測驗、國中教育會考、國中基本學力測驗
    Abstract
    To every ninth-grade student of junior high school, the Basic Competence Test (BCT) from 1999 to 2013 and the Comprehensive Assessment Program (CAP) from 2014 are the two most important senior high school entrance examinations. Among the reading tests of both exams, two of them are the cloze tests. The cloze test targets at measuring the candidates’ performances on the integrated ability in language, and it is widely used in the different testing contexts in Taiwan. The research thus aims to investigate: (1) from 2010 to 2017, what kind of language knowledge in the cloze tests were measured in BCT and CAP, and (2) the similarities and differences of the cloze item types tested and designed in BCT and CAP. To achieve the purpose, this research analyzed the cloze items in BCT and CAP in the past 8 years, and Jonz’s taxonomy was utilized as the instrument to classify the target test items.
    The analysis results of the present study are shown as follows: (1) the primary language knowledge tested from 2010 to 2017 was about the higher-order knowledge that focused on the ability to integrate the contextual clues across sentential level; (2) the most frequently-tested items in BCT was the syntactic knowledge in tense; and (3) the most frequently-measured item in CAP was the textual relationship in discourse. Based on the findings of this research, the researcher yielded suggestions for the future research and implications for teaching.

    Key words: cloze test, Basic Competence Test, Comprehensive Assessment Program
    參考文獻: References
    Alderson, J. C. (1979). The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a
    foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 13(2), 219-227.
    Alderson, J. C. (1980). Native and nonnative speaker performance on cloze
    tests. Language Learning, 20, 59-76.
    Alderson, J.C. (2005). Assessing reading. (5th ed). 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 with fixed-ratio and rational
    deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 535-556.
    Bailey, K. M. (1998). Learning about language assessment: Dilemmas, decisions,
    and directions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Bensoussan, M. (1990). Redundancy and the cohesion cloze. Journal of
    Research in Reading, 13, 18-17.
    Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
    pedagogy. (2nd ed.). NY: Longman.
    Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic
    approach to program design. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to
    English language assessment. NY: McGraw-Hill.
    Chang, W. C. (1994). A brief analysis of the principles for constructing cloze
    items. Newsletter for Teaching the Humanities and Social Studies, 5(4),
    69-80.
    Chavez-Oller, M. A., Chihara, T., Weaver, K. A., & Oller, J. W. (1994). When are
    cloze items sensitive to constraints across sentences? Language
    Learning, 35(2), 181-206.
    Chou, S. Y. (2009). A Study of Cloze Test Items in Scholastic Aptitude English
    Test and Department Required English Test. Unpublished master’s
    thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    Chen, W. Y. (2008). The relationship between the rational cloze test and the
    discourse structure test. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan
    Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
    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.
    Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational
    Research Bulletin, 27, 11-20.
    Dastjerdi, H. V., & Talebinezhad, M. R. (2006). Chain-processing deletion
    procedure in cloze: A discourse perspective. Language Testing, 23, 58-
    72.
    Dick, W., Carey, J. O., & L. Carey. (2000). The systemtic design of instruction.
    Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Educational.
    Dupuis, M. M. (1980). The cloze procedure as a predictor of comprehension in
    literature. Journal of Education Research, 74(1), 27-33.
    Flech, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32,
    221-233.
    Greene, B.B. (2001). Testing reading comprehension of theoretical discourse
    with cloze. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(1), 82-98.
    Hadley, A. M. (2000). Teaching language in context. (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle &
    Heinle.
    Halliday, M. A. K., & Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    Heaton, J. B. (1998). Writing English language tests. NY: Longman.
    Hinofotis, F. B., & Snow, B. G. (1978). An alternative cloze testing procedure:
    Multiple-choice format. In J. W. Oller & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in
    language testing. Massachusetts: Newbury House.
    Huang, L. (1992). A feasibility study of using the revised cloze test as a measure
    of reading comprehension. Proceedings of the eighth conference on
    English teaching and learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 305-332). Taipei: Crane.
    Huang, T. S. (1994). A qualitative analysis of the JCEE English tests. Taipei:
    Crane.
    Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd). Cambridge: Cambridge
    University Press.
    Ito, A. (2004). Two types of translation tests: Their reliability and validity.
    System, 32,395-405.
    Jonz, J. (1990). Another turn in the conversation: What does cloze measure?
    TESOL Quarterly, 24(1), 61-81
    Keshavarz, M. H., & Salimi, H. (2007). Collocational competence and cloze test
    performance: A study of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of
    Applied Linguistics, 17, 81-92
    Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. Toward a model of text comprehension and
    production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363-394.
    Klein-Braley, C. 1997. C-Test in the context of reduced redundancy testing: an
    appraisal. Language Testing 14: 47-84.
    Kolers, P. A. Some modes of representation. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, and T.
    Alloway (Eds.), Communication and effect: language and thought. New
    York: Academic Press, 1973.
    Lee, S. H. (2008). Beyond reading and proficiency assessment: The rational
    cloze procedure as stimulus for integrated reading, writing, and
    vocabulary instruction and teacher-student interaction in ESL. System,
    36, 642-660.
    Markman, P. L. (1985). Rational deletion cloze and global comprehension in
    German. Language Learning, 35, 423-430.
    McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia
    Medica, 22(3), 276-282.
    Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language
    Testing, 13, 241-256.
    Miller, M. J., DeWitt, J. E., McCleeary, E. M., & O’Keefe, K. J. (2009). Application
    of the cloze procedure to evaluate comprehension and demonstrate
    rewriting of pharmacy educational materials. Annals of
    Pharmacotherapy, 43, 650-657
    Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.
    Nicholls, A & Nicholls, S. (1972). Developing a curriculum: a practical guide.
    London: Allen and Unwin.
    Panackal, A. A. & Heft, C. S. (1978). Cloze technique and multiple choice
    technique: Reliability and validity. Educational and Psychological
    Measurement. 38, 917-932.
    Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2003). Approaches and methods in language
    teaching. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sasaki, M. (2000). Effects of cultural schemata on students’ test-taking
    processes for cloze tests: A multiple data source approach. Language
    Testing, 17(1), 85-114.
    Shanahan, T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure of
    intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 229-
    255.
    Schmitt, M. C., & Sha, S. (2009). The developmental nature of meta-cognition
    and the relationship between knowledge and control over time. Journal
    of Research in Reading, 32, 254-271
    Sharp, A. (2009). Reading comprehension in two cultures. International Journal
    of Learning, 16, 281-292.
    Spolsky, B. (1996). Measured words: The development of objective language
    testing. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Storey, P. (1997). Examining the test-taking process: A cognitive perspective on
    the discourse cloze test. Language Testing, 14, 214-231.
    Stuart, W., & Eve, K. (2009). The effects of vocabulary learning on collocation
    and meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 55-77.
    Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability.
    Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-433.
    Taylor, W. L. (1956). Present developments in the use of the cloze procedure.
    Journalism Quarterly, 33, 42-48.
    Tyler, R. W. (2010). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago:
    University of Chicago Press.
    Viera, A. J. & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the
    kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360-363.
    Wittrock, M. C. Reading as a generative process. Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 1975, 67, 484-489.
    Wu, H. L. (2002). Rational cloze: Item-generation approaches and construct
    validity. English Teaching and Learning, 26(4), 85-106.
    Yang, T. H. (1996). Fundamental considerations in the test, with special
    reference to its use in EFL testing in Taiwan. Sun Yat-sen Journal of
    Humanities, 4, 57-77.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英語教學碩士在職專班
    1009510201
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1009510201
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/THE.NCCU.ETMA.003.2018.A07
    显示于类别:[英語教學碩士在職專班] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 大小格式浏览次数
    020101.pdf1690KbAdobe PDF2256检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈