任务型语言测试中的任务难度研究PDF|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

任务型语言测试中的任务难度研究PDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Chapter 1 Introduction1

1.1 The Nature of the Problem1

1.2 Defining the Problem3

1.3 Purpose of Investigations4

1.4 Significance of the Study6

1.5 Organization of Thesis7

Chapter 2 English Teaching and Language Testing in China10

2.1 English Education in China11

2.1.1 Student Population11

2.1.2 Teacher Resources12

2.1.3 Instructional Time for Language Learning12

2.1.4 Management System13

2.1.5 Textbooks and Teaching Resources14

2.1.6 Trends of Development14

2.2 Communicative Language Teaching and the National English Curriculum Standards15

2.2.1 Communicative Language Teaching15

2.2.2 The National English Curriculum Standards16

2.3 Current Problems in English Teaching in Schools19

2.3.1 The Curriculum Objectives and Language Assessment19

2.3.2 Curriculum,Teaching and Testing:Problems21

2.4 Task-Based Approaches to the Problems26

2.4.1 Task-Based Language Teaching:Challenges27

2.4.2 Task-Based Assessment30

2.5 Summary32

Chapter 3 Literature Review:Language Testing,Task-Based Assessment,and Task Difficulty34

3.1 Language Testing:Issues and Problems35

3.2 Communicative Language Testing37

3.2.1 Basic Issues37

3.2.2 Communicative Tests:Models42

3.3 Task-Based Approaches and Performance Assessment46

3.3.1 Some Research Questions in Task-Based Approaches48

3.3.2 Task-Based Approaches to Testing49

3.3.3 Cognitive Dimensions:Information-Processing Approaches61

3.3.4 Implications for Language Assessment67

3.4 Assessing Task Difficulty70

3.4.1 Defining Task Difficulty71

3.4.2 Sequencing Tasks:Rationale and Task Difficulty Factors73

3.4.3 Designing Tasks80

3.5 Task Difficulty Matrix82

3.5.1 The Norris-Brown et al.'s Studies82

3.5.2 Problematizing Norris et al.'s Matrix84

3.6 Rater Training and Objective Measures86

3.6.1 Task Difficulty Matrix:Rater Training86

3.6.2 Measuring Task Performance:The Discourse Analysis Measures90

Chapter 4 Research Methods95

4.1 Research Design96

4.2 Method101

4.2.1 Participants104

4.2.2 Effective Tasks108

4.2.3 Establishing the Difficulty of Tasks111

4.2.4 Qualitative Analyses115

4.2.5 Rater Training118

4.2.6 Measuring Student Written Performance119

4.3 Data Summary and DataAnalysis122

4.3.1 TBA Reliability123

4.3.2 TBA Validity123

4.3.3 Data Analysis126

Chapter 5 Task Difficulty Matrix Ⅰ:Evolving the IPO Task Difficulty Matrix130

5.1 Application of Norris et al.'s Matrix131

5.1.1 Study One:Application of Norris et al.'s Matrix131

5.1.2 Studies Two,Three,and Four:Applications of the Norris et al.'s Matrix136

5.2 The Input-Processing-Output Task Difficulty Matrix156

5.2.1 Establishing the Matrix:Input-Processing-Output by Content-Form-Support156

5.2.2 Study Five:Applying the IPO-CFS Task Difficulty Framework159

5.2.3 Study Six:Refining the Task Difficulty Framework:IPO by Extended CFS168

5.2.4 Study Seven:Refining the Task Difficulty Framework:IPO by Extended CFS175

5.2.5 Self-Report Written Data182

5.2.6 Study Eight:Refining the Task Difficulty Framework:Integrated IPO by ILPS190

5.3 Task Difficulty Component Analysis198

5.3.1 Component Analysis and the Refined IPO Matrix198

5.3.2 Study Nine:Refining the Task Difficulty Framework:IPO by Redueed ILPS202

5.3.3 Study Ten:Refining the Task Difficulty Framework:IPO by Reduced ILPS204

Chapter 6 IPO Task Difficulty Matrix Ⅱ:Dimensions and Components217

6.1 The Construction of the Task Difficulty Matrix218

6.1.1 Definitions of Dimensions and Their Characteristics220

6.1.2 Definitions of the Task Components in Operational Terms222

6.2 A Comparison between Brown et al.'s Matrix and the IPO Task Difficulty Matrix236

6.2.1 Similarities236

6.2.2 Differences238

6.3 The Original Research Questions246

6.3.1 Research Question 1246

6.3.2 Research Question 2247

6.3.3 Research Question 3248

6.3.4 Research Question 4250

6.4 Summary251

Chapter 7 Rater Training for IPO Task Difficulty Matrix253

7.1 Rationale254

7.2 Study 11:A Pilot Study for Rater Training256

7.2.1 Materials and Raters256

7.2.2 Procedures257

7.2.3 Results258

7.3 Study 12:Establishing Expert Ratings261

7.3.1 Tasks and Instruments261

7.3.2 Experts and Procedures264

7.3.3 Results265

7.4 Study 13:Rater Training270

7.4.1 Raters and Materials271

7.4.2 Procedures272

7.4.3 Results277

7.5 Discussion and Implications285

7.5.1 Discussion:Rater Training and Standardization285

7.5.2 Implications for the Rater Training286

Chapter 8 Discourse Measures for Student Performance288

8.1 Research Methods291

8.1.1 Participants291

8.1.2 Writing Tasks292

8.1.3 Task Instructions and Formats295

8.1.4 Discourse Analysis Measures297

8.1.5 Setting and Procedures304

8.2 Results and Analysis304

8.2.1 Discourse Measure Results304

8.2.2 Discourse Measure Correlations308

8.2.3 Analytical Rating Results and Discourse Measures310

8.2.4 Students'Perceptions of the Writing Tasks317

8.3 Discussions and Impact of Conditions on Discourse Measures321

8.4 Conclusions322

Chapter 9 Conclusions and Implications326

9.1 Summary of Research Findings326

9.2 Implications,Reflections,and Future Research328

9.2.1 Tasks and Task-Based Assessment328

9.2.2 Language Teaching and Learning329

9.2.3 Reflections and Limitations331

9.2.4 Suggestions for Future Research335

9.3 Conclusions336

References340

Appendices363

Table 2.1 The NECS Goals17

Table 3.1 Two dimensions underlying the study of tasks54

Table 3.2 Feuerstein's Cognitive Map63

Table 3.3 Feuerstein et al.'s three aspects of learning phase65

Table 3.4 Checklist for task description81

Table 3.5 Task difficulty matrix for prototypical tasks:ALP83

Table 4.1 Research overview99

Table 4.2 Summary of research participants and instruments103

Table 4.3 Raters in the 13 studies105

Table 4.4 Six Norris et al.'s tasks with tentative difficulty levels109

Table 4.5 Input—Processing-Output Task Difficulty Matrix for TBA113

Table 4.6 Analytical Writing Scales119

Table 4.7 Discourse Measures(Writing)121

Table 4.8 Specifications for Authenticity125

Table 4.9 The framework of studies related to the research questions127

Table 5.1 Task difficulty matrix for prototypical tasks:ALP132

Table 5.2 Modified task difficulty matrix137

Table 5.3 Questionnaire for teachers:Judging difficulty levels of tasks138

Table 5.4 Six Norris et al.'s tasks with different difficulty levels141

Table 5.5 Norris et al.'s estimations and teachers'ratings in Study Two142

Table 5.6 Norris et al.'s estimations and teachers'ratings and rankings in Study Three146

Table 5.7 A comparison of the average ratings of teachers'ratings in Study Two and Study Three147

Table 5.8 Eight tasks of low difficulty levels150

Table 5.9 Norris et al.'s estimations and teachers'ratings and rankings in Study Four152

Table 5.10 Summary of the task difficulty factors154

Table 5.11 IPO-CFS Task difficulty rating framework158

Table 5.12 The average of the two sets of 24 tasks162

Table 5.13 A range of 24 tasks of 8 themes at different levels169

Table 5.14 Rating results of the 24 tasks on the IPO-CFS task difficulty framework172

Table 5.15 Factors reported to affect task difficulty174

Table 5.16 Task difficulty:IPO by CFMS176

Table 5.17 Extended IPO-CFS task difficulty matrix177

Table 5.18 Total averages for the 24 tasks in Study Seven179

Table 5.19 Total inter-rater correlations of the 24 tasks in Study Seven180

Table 5.20 E's Estimations of the five tasks192

Table 5.21 Fifteen prototypical tasks193

Table 5.22 Total averages for the 15 tasks in StudyEight194

Table 5.23 Inter-rater correlations of the 15 tasks in Study Eight195

Table 5.24 Total inter-rater correlations in Study Nine203

Table 5.25 Nine tasks for the refined IPO task difficulty matrix205

Table 6.1 IPO task difficulty matrix219

Table 6.2 IPO Task Difficulty Matrix for TBA232

Table 6.3 Example task characteristic codings240

Table 6.4 Teachers'and students'perceptions of factors that affect task difficulty249

Table 7.1 Nine tasks for the refined IPO task difficulty matrix256

Table 7.2 Total inter-rater correlations of the nine tasks259

Table 7.3 Component correlations and descriptive statistics259

Table 7.4 Twelve tasks for rater training262

Table 7.5 Study 12:Basic statistics265

Table 7.6 Expert rating correlations268

Table 7.7 Task 1-6(NECS themes:School life;Weather)268

Table 7.8 Task 7-12(NECS themes:Topical issues;Literature)268

Table 7.9 Component correlations and median269

Table 7.10 Twelve writing tasks272

Table 7.11 Format of training and standardization session272

Table 7.12 Basic statistics in Study 13277

Table 7.13 Study 13:Rater training rating correlations279

Table 7.14 Inter-rater correlations of the first 6 tasks279

Table 7.15 Inter-rater correlations of the second 6 tasks280

Table 7.16 Medians of the component correlations281

Table 7.17 A comparison between trainee ratings and expert ratings282

Table 8.1 Potential effects of task features on learner production289

Table 8.2 Summary of participants in Study 14292

Table 8.3 A range of 6 tasks of 5 themes at different difficulty levels293

Table 8.4 Developmental Measures(Writing)298

Table 8.5 Analytical Writing Scales301

Table 8.6 Questionnaire on task instructions,topics,time and support303

Table 8.7 Average of discourse measure results305

Table 8.8 Discourse measure correlations309

Table 8.9 Two marker correlations on the 6 tasks:Fluency,accuracy and complexity311

Table 8.10 Expert ratings+Student performance ratings+Discourse measures312

Table 8.11 Correlations between expert ratings,student performance,and discourse measures313

Table 8.12 Focus group interview summary318

Table 8.13 Results of the questionnaire320

Table 8.14 Task dimensions and task characteristics322

Figure 2.1 The structure of curriculum goals18

Figure 3.1 Components of language competence44

Figure 3.2 Components of communicative language ability in communicative language use44

Figure 3.3 Task-Based Performance and Language Testing:The Skehan Model45

Figure 4.1 The holistic task difficulty vertical line114

Figure 5.1 The holistic task difficulty vertical line144

Figure 5.2 Feuerstein's seven parameters and IPO-CFS task difficulty matrix157

Figure 5.3 IPO figure:Mental process of task raters188

Figure 7.1 12 tasks and their difficulty levels263

Figure 7.2 Expert ratings of the 12 writing tasks266

Figure 7.3 Comparison of expert holistic and analytical ratings267

Figure 7.4 Sequence of the holistic and the analytical ratings267

Figure 7.5 Rater training data results278

Figure 7.6 A comparison between trainee ratings and expert ratings282

Figure 7.7 Rating difference between experts and trainees283

Figure 7.8 Sequence of the expert and the trainee ratings284

Figure 8.1 The difficulty levels of the 6 writing tasks293

Figure 8.2 Relationship between expert estimates and student performance314

Figure 8.3 Relationship between expert estimates and language complexity314

Figure 8.4 Relationship between language complexity and student performance315

Appendix A General Objectives in the Chinese National English Curriculum standards363

Appendix B Research Overview366

Appendix C Analytical Writing Scales370

Appendix D Six Prototypical Tasks from Norris et al.and Related Five NECS Themes372

Appendix E The NECS Theme-Based 48 Tasks374

Appendix F Part Ⅰ:Task Demands and Task Features377

Part Ⅱ:Task Requirements for the Nine Pairs of the NECS-Based Tasks381

Appendix G A Range of NECS Theme-Based 24 Tasks of Three Generated Difficulty Levels383

Appendix H A Synthesis of Cognitive Skills with Examples385

Appendix I Reasons for the 24 Tasks Being Easy or Difficult389

Appendix J IPO-CFS Task Difficulty Matrix for Task-Based Assessment391

Appendix K Task Samples in the Self-Written Reports393

Appendix L IPO Task Difficulty Matrix for TBA:Fifteen Tasks395

Appendix M Part Ⅰ:IPO Task Difficulty Matrix for Task-Based Assessment396

Part Ⅱ:Task-Based Assessment400

Part Ⅲ:IPO Task-Based Difficulty Matrix for Task-Based Assessment401

Appendix N NECS Theme-Based 12 Tasks for Rater Training402

Appendix O Questionnaire on Task Instructions,Topics,Time and Support415

Appendix P Measures of Fluency,Accuracy,and Complexity of Each Task416