期刊文献+

任务类型对中国英语学习者写作表现的影响 被引量:13

The effect of task type on Chinese EFL learners' writing performance
原文传递
导出
摘要 本文从测试方法效应角度入手,通过对比分析中国英语学习者高、低水平组各90名学生无材料、读写和读听写作文,认为在有效避免抄袭的前提下:1)综合型写作任务能够有效测量考生英语写作能力,其作文内容丰富性和结构优化程度高;2)在语言测试中,综合性任务更适合高水平考生;在教学训练中,该类任务有利于所有受试语言复杂度和流利度发展、并通过完善布局充分表达思想;3)考生读听写作文质量最高、能有效消解抄袭弊端,无材料作文居中,读写作文得分最低;4)受试的多元识读能力总体较低。 The present study compares 90 high-level and 90 low-level group testees' compositions of impromptu writing, reading-to-write and reading-listening-writing. The results indicate that(1) integrated writing tasks can effectively measure testees' English writing ability and contribute to the enhancement of content richness and organization optimization;(2) this type of task benefits high-level subjects' language complexity, fluency, thought expressing, and organization enormously;(3) the reading-listeningwriting task yields the best writings, with impromptu writing ranking the midway and reading-to-write the worst;(4) the overall multiliteracy of all testees is relatively low.
作者 张新玲 周燕
出处 《现代外语》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第4期548-558,585,共11页 Modern Foreign Languages
基金 教育部人文社会科学研究项目基金项目"英语综合性写作测试任务研究"(09YJC740051) 上海市哲社教育科学规划项目(B11030)资助
关键词 任务类型 测试方法效应 无材料写作 读写写作 读听写写作 test method effect impromptu writing reading-to-writing reading-listening-writing
  • 相关文献

参考文献34

  • 1Asencion, Y. 2008. Investigating the reading-to-write construct [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 140-150.
  • 2Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford University Press.
  • 3Bachman, L. F., F. Davidson & M. Milanovic. 1996. The use of test method characteristics in the content analysis and design of EFL proficiency tests [J]. Language Testing 13: 125-150.
  • 4Boscolo, P., N. Ariasi, L. D. Favero & C. Ballarin. 2011. Interest in an expository text: How does it flow from reading to writing? [J] Learning and Instruction 21: 467-480.
  • 5Burstein, J., K. Kukich, S. Wolf, C. Lu, M. Chodorow, L. Braden-Harder & M. D. Harris. 1998. Automated scoring using a hybrid feature identification technique [J]. Proceedings of ACL 1: 206-210.
  • 6Cho, Y. 2003. Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method? [J] Assessing Writing 8: 165-191.
  • 7Cho, Y., F. Rijmen & N. Jakub. 2013. Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBT^TM integrated writing tasks [J]. Language Testing 30: 513-534.
  • 8Cubilo, J. 2011. Video Mediated Listening Passages: Their Effects on Integrated Writing Task Performance and Note-taking Practices[D]. PhD. Dissertation, Michigan State University.
  • 9Cumming, A., R. Kantor, K. Baba, U. Erdosy, K. Eouanzoui & M. James. 2005. Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation of TOEFL [ J ]. Assessing Writing 10 : 5-43.
  • 10Feak, C. & B. Dobson. 1996. Building on the impromptu: A text-based academic writing assessment [J]. College ESL 6: 73-84.

二级参考文献129

共引文献195

同被引文献230

引证文献13

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部