期刊文献+

高考作文改革与评分误差控制:基于测量学的视角 被引量:4

College Entrance Essay Reform and Scoring Error Control:From the Perspective of Psychometrics
下载PDF
导出
摘要 从测量学角度来看,高考作文因其评分主观性强影响了对考生写作能力甚至是语文能力的测量。如何改革作文才能进一步减小评分误差、提高考试的公平性,是落实此次考试招生制度改革的一项具体任务。研究一表明,与西方采用的小评分量表相比,我国高考采用的60分制大评分量表评分趋中效应更为严重,评分标准更为宽松,不同评分者对评分标准的掌握一致性较差,据此建议改革高考作文评分量表的设计,将目前的大评分量表改为小评分量表,成绩单独报告。研究二表明,增加作文任务数量有助于明显提高评分信度,据此建议将高考作文由一个大作文变为一大一小两个作文。 From the perspective of psychometrics, college entrance essay scoring is so subjective that much impact on measure of writing ability, as well as measure of the candidates' language ability. In order to further reduce the scoring error and improve the fairness of the examination, essay reform is to implement a specific task in the system reform of the Entrance Examination and Enrollment. The first study shows that, compared with small scoring scale in western countries, large scale such as using 60-point rating in China turns out to be more serious effect of tending toward the middle, scoring criterion is more relaxed, and different raters show poor consistency on scoring. So the first suggestion about essay reform is that scoring scale should be designed to be smaller than present large scale, and report the essay scores independently. The second study shows that increasing the number of writing tasks will improve the reliability of scoring. So it is proposed to design two writing tasks instead only one in college entrance essay.
作者 关丹丹
机构地区 教育部考试中心
出处 《中国考试》 2016年第5期12-16,共5页 journal of China Examinations
关键词 考试招生制度改革 作文改革 评分量表 评分误差 Examination and Enrollment System Reform Essay Reform Scoring Scale Scoring Error
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献43

  • 1田清源.主观评分中多面Rasch模型的应用[J].心理学探新,2006,26(1):70-73. 被引量:16
  • 2孙晓敏,张厚粲.国家公务员结构化面试中评委偏差的IRT分析[J].心理学报,2006,38(4):614-625. 被引量:36
  • 3Cason G J, Cason C L. A deterministic theory of clinical performance rating, Evaluation and the Health Professions, 1984, 7:221-247.
  • 4Lunz M E, Stahl J A, et al. Variation among examiners and protocols on oral examinations, The annual meeting of the American Educational Re.arch Association, San Francisco, 1989.
  • 5Lumley T, McNamare T F. Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 1995, 12 ( 1 ) : 54 - 71.
  • 6Lunz M E, Wright B D, et al. Measuring the impact of judge severity on examination scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 1990, 3(4) :331- 345.
  • 7Lumley T, Mcnamara T F. Rater characteristics and rater bias: Implications for training. Language Testing, 1995,12:54 - 71.
  • 8Linacre J M, Wright B D. Understand Rasch measurement: Construction of measures from Many-facet Data. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2002,3 (4) : 486.
  • 9Barrett S. Question choice: Does marker variability make examinations a lottery? HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 1999,12 - 15.
  • 10Bonk W J ,Ockey G J. A many-facet Rash analysis of the second language group oral discussion task. Language Testing, 2003, 20 (1):89- 110.

共引文献74

同被引文献25

引证文献4

二级引证文献3

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