Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119614


Title: 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
Authors: 彭凡家
Peng, Fan-Chia
Contributors: 尤雪瑛
Yu, Hsueh-Ying
彭凡家
Peng, Fan-Chia
Keywords: 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
Date: 2018
Issue Date: 2018-08-27 15:06:07 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 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
Reference: 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.
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
英語教學碩士在職專班
1009510201
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1009510201
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[英語教學碩士在職專班] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File SizeFormat
020101.pdf1690KbAdobe PDF45View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing