政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33394
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113451/144438 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51245823      線上人數 : 892
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33394


    題名: 英語科克漏字測驗中的連貫性考題分析：以大學學力測驗與指定科目考試為例
    A Study of the Cohesion Items in the Cloze Tests of SAT and AST
    作者: 鄭翕尹
    Cheng,Hsi-ying
    貢獻者: 尤雪瑛
    Yu,Hsueh-Ying
    鄭翕尹
    Cheng,Hsi-ying
    關鍵詞: 克漏字
    連貫性
    考題分析
    大學學力測驗
    指定科目考試
    cloze test
    cohesion
    coherence
    日期: 2006
    上傳時間: 2009-09-17 16:28:11 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 本研究旨在探究大學學力測驗與指定科目考試中，有關「連貫性」 的克漏字試題（包括克漏字和文意選填測驗），藉以一窺台灣高中學生在這方面的表現，並進一步透過試題分析，學生表現，和題目鑑別度等細項，深入討論台灣高中英語教育中，老師和學生在課堂上可以加強的部分。
    首先，我們將連貫性這個觀念加以分類和說明，根據修改過後的分類，將大學入學考試試題分為連接，指涉，字彙連貫三種。字彙連貫又可以細分為重複和常連用字兩種。我們就題目出現的頻率來討論，分析後發現，在克漏字測驗和文意選填題目中，考字彙連貫出現頻率最高。就學生答對率表現來看，常連用字試題，通過率最高，而指涉試題，通過率最低。這結果顯示台灣學生在局部連貫性上表現較佳，對於整體連貫性較不熟悉。試題出現在整篇文章的主題句，也會造成答對率較低。另就試題的鑑別度而言，低鑑別度往往和低通過率的試題重疊，表示大多數學生通過率低的題目，往往因為困難而無法鑑別學生能力。
    In this study, we analyzed the multiple-choice rational cloze tests used in the Subject Ability Test (SAT) and Appointment Subject Test (AST) from 2002 to 2004. The item types were mainly analyzed according to the five cohesion types that Halliday and Hasan proposed in their 1976 research. Through these classifications, we gained better knowledge about whether the cohesion types affected the students’ performances. Furthermore, we also investigated the possible reasons.
    First of all, we refined the cohesion types proposed by Halliday and Hasan proposed in their 1976 research. In our study, the cohesion types we looked were conjunction, reference, and lexical cohesion. We wanted to find how the cohesive types were tested in the tests. From the analysis of cloze tests and the WYXT tests, the result we got was that lexical cohesion was tested more often than other cohesive categories.
    For the passing rate of SAT and AST, we found that the collocation test items were the easiest while the reference test items were the most difficult. According to Bachman (1982, 1985), Test items in Type 2 and 3 (repetition, conjunction, and reference) do have lower passing rates. This means students have difficulties in global cohesion. Furthermore, students had more difficulties in answering the test items located in the first or last sentence, which are usually associated with main ideas of the paragraph – a global concept. Therefore, the locations of the test items also had an influence on the passing rate.
    Lastly, for the discrimination index, those test items with low D value always co-occurred with low passing rate test items, meaning that difficult items fail to discriminate between different proficiency levels.
    參考文獻: Alderson, J. C. (1979). The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 219-227
    Bachman, L. F. (1982). The trait structure of cloze test scores. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 61-70.
    Bachman, L. F. (1985). Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 535-556.
    Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Mayer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51–61.
    Candlin, C. N. (1978). Discoursal patterning and the equalizing of interpretive opportunity. Lancaster, England: Institute for English Language Education, University of Lancaster.
    Candlin, C. N. (1979). Discourse analysis: interpretive strategies and the process of reading. Presentation at a Regional University Teachers of English in Israel (UTELI) Meeting, Jerusalem, Israel, January 10, 1979.
    Candlin, C. N., J. M. Kirkwood, and H. M. Moore. (1978). Study skills in English: theoretical issues and practical problems. In English for Specific Purposes, R. Mackay and A. Mountford (Eds.), 190-219. London: Longman.
    Carrell, P. L. (1981). Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In Selected papers form the ninth Illinois TESOL/BE annual convention, the first mid-west TESOL conference, R. Orem and J. Haskell (Eds.), 123-132. Chicago: Illinois TESOL/BE.
    Carrell, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 479-488.
    Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33 (2), 183-207.
    Carrell, P. L., and B. Wallace. (1983). Background knowledge: context and familiarity in reading comprehenion. In On TESOL ’82, M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (Eds.), 295-308, Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
    Chang, Trista Yu-lun. (1988). A study of six cloze formats for junior high schools in Taiwan and its pedagogical implications. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
    Chapman, L. J. (1979).The perception of language cohesion during fluent reading. In Processing visible language, Vol. 1, P. Kolers, M. Wrolstad, and H. Bouma (Eds.), 403-411. New York: Plenum.
    Chappele, C. A. and Abraham, R. G. (1990). Cloze method: What difference does it make? Language Testing, 7 (2), 121-146.
    Cohen, A., H. Glasman, P. R. Rosenbaum-Cohen, J. Ferrara, and J. Fine. (1979). Reading English for specialized purposes: discourse analysis and the use of student informants. TESOL Quarterly, 13 (4), 551-564.
    Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Papers in Linguistics, 17 (3), 301-316.
    Cowan, J. R. (1976). Reading, perceptual strategies and contrastive analysis. Language Learning, 26 (1), 95-109.
    Dijk, T. A. van, and W. Kintsch. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    Eskey, D. E. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 23 (2), 169-184.
    Gernsbacher, M. A. and Givon, T. (1995). Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    Grabe, W. (1986). The transition from theory to practice in teaching reading. In Dubin and Eskey (Eds.), 25-48.
    Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.
    Haberlandt, K. (1982). Reader expectations in text comprehension. In J. F. Le Ny & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and language comprehension (pp. 239–249). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    Halliday, M. A. K. and Hassan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Singapore: Longman.
    Hinofotis, F. B. (1987). Cloze testing: An overview. In Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings, M. H. Long and J. C. Richards (Eds.), 412-417, Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
    Hobbs, Jerry R. (1979). Coherence and Coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67-90.
    Hobbs, Jerry R. (1990). Literature and Cognition. CSLI Lecture Notes 21.
    Huang, S. L. (1996). The effects of test formats on Chinese students’ performance on multiple-choice rational cloze tests. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
    Huang, T. S. (1997). A qualitative analysis of the JCEE English Tests. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
    Hume, David. (1748). An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding. The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1955 edition.
    Kuo, Frank (2001). On cloze tests: probing reading strategies and language proficiency of EFL students. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Cheng-chi University, Taipei.
    Kuo, W. C. (2002). Differences in processing tactics on cloze test between successful and less successful readers: a case study. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
    Joe, S. (1994). An investigation of reading strategies on cloze tasks for freshmen of the National Yunlin Institute of Technology. Journal of Yulin Pocytechnic Institute, 3, 103-110.
    Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15 (2), 169-181.
    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, 1-22.
    Longacre, Robert E. (1983). The Grammar of Discourse. Plenum Press.
    Mackay, R. (1979). Teaching the information-gathering skills. In Reading in a second language, T. Mackay, B. Barkman, and R. R. Jordan (Eds.), 79-90, Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
    Mann, William C., and Sandra A. Thompson. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization. Technical Report RS-87-190. information Sciences Institute.
    McNamara, D. S. and Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from Texts: Effects of Prior Knowledge and Text Coherence. Discourse Process: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 22 (3), 247-288.
    Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    Morgan, J. and M. Sellner. (1980). Discourse and linguistic theory. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, R. Spiro, B. Bruce, and W. Brewer (Eds.). New York: Erlbaum.
    Noordman, L. G. M. and Vonk, W. (1998). Memory-based processing in understanding casual information. Discourse Process: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 26 (2-3), 191-212.
    Polanyi, Livia. (1988). A Formal Model of the Structure of Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 12: 601-638.
    Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In Attention and performance, Vol. 6, S. Dornic (Ed.), 573-603. New York: Academic Press.
    Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In Theoretical issues in reading comprehension, R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (Eds.), 35-58. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
    Sanford, A. J. and S. C. Garrod. (1981). Understanding written language. New York: Wiley.
    Shanahan, T. and Kamil, M. L. (1982). The sensitivity of cloze to passage organization. In J. A. Nilkes and L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction, 204-208. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
    Steffensne, M. S., C. Joag-dev, and R. C. Anderson. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15 (1), 10-29
    Taylor, W. L. (1953). Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 30, 415-453.
    Tierney, R. J. and J. Mosenthal. (1981). The cohesion concept’s relationship to the coherence of text. Technical Report No. 221. Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
    Urquhart, A. H. (1977). The effect of rhetorical organization on the readability of study texts. Unpublished doctoral diss., University of Edinburgh.
    Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. London: Oxford.
    Williams, R. (1983). Teaching the recognition of cohensive ties in reading a foreign language. Reading in Foreign Language, 1, 35-53.
    Witte, S. P., and L. Faigley. (1981). Coherence, cohesion, and writing quality. College Composition and Communication, 22 (2), 189-204.
    Wu, Z. R. (1996). The construct validity of the cloze procedure: function words vs. content words. Journal of Yulin Pocytechnic Institute, 15, 7-10.
    Yang, T. H. (1996). Fundamental consideration in the cloze test, with special reference to its use in EFL testing in Taiwan. Sun Yat-sen Journal of Humanities, 4, 58-76.
    Zhou, W. P. (1984). A correlational study of cloze tests, discrete-point tests, and other integrative tests for Chinese students of English. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    語言學研究所
    91555008
    95
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0915550081
    資料類型: thesis
    顯示於類別:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    55008101.pdf15KbAdobe PDF2916檢視/開啟
    55008102.pdf30KbAdobe PDF2652檢視/開啟
    55008103.pdf88KbAdobe PDF2951檢視/開啟
    55008104.pdf16KbAdobe PDF2869檢視/開啟
    55008105.pdf15KbAdobe PDF2821檢視/開啟
    55008106.pdf68KbAdobe PDF2926檢視/開啟
    55008107.pdf17KbAdobe PDF2846檢視/開啟
    55008108.pdf77KbAdobe PDF2770檢視/開啟
    55008109.pdf38KbAdobe PDF23281檢視/開啟
    55008110.pdf72KbAdobe PDF2805檢視/開啟
    55008111.pdf113KbAdobe PDF21109檢視/開啟
    55008112.pdf28KbAdobe PDF21667檢視/開啟
    55008113.pdf25KbAdobe PDF21241檢視/開啟
    55008114.pdf64KbAdobe PDF21186檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    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 ©   - 回饋