基于雅思的“全国英语等级考试第5级”（PETS-5）与“国家留学基金委英语考试”（CSC-ET）的阅读测试比较

论文摘要

国家留学基金管理委员会每年均会针对高校教师或医院医生,接受符合一定要求的预备人员,为其提供资金支持,在国外继续学习或从事科研工作。其中很重要的一条标准便是外语水平（特别是英语水平）。因此,申请人员需参加全国英语等级考试体系第5级（PETS-5）或国家留学基金委组织的英语水平测试（CSC-ET）。PETS-5级考试为面向全社会设立的交际性公共英语考试,其5级水平相当于学完我国的英语专业二年级水平。留学基金会考试则是针对这一特定目的组织的交际性考试,考试人员仅限于出国预备人员,且需在国家指定的培训中心进行一学期的英语培训。这两种考试在这一特定条件下视为同等有效。由此便引出一个问题,针对这一特定测试人群,哪种考试更为科学合理,更能有效地测试出受试者的英语交际水平。本文是一项研究课题的一部分,集中探讨英语阅读问题。本文采用实证研究方法,选择80名留学预备人员作为受试对象,分别参加PETS-5和CSC-ET测试。随后对试卷本身和测试结果进行定性和定量分析,以进行比较。在分析过程中,主要以语言交际理论及相关的阅读理论为指导,并选择英国的“雅思”考试进行对比。选择“雅思”作为参考对象主要有两大原因:其一是由于该考试被世界多个地区、机构视为权威性交际考试;其二是因为参加“雅思”考试的人员的主要目的也是在英语国家继续学业。通过较为全面的分析,作者最后得出两种考试的比较结论,并提出可供借鉴的改进意见和具体方法。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• 摘要
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1 Importance of L2 reading ability for China Scholarship Council （CSC） scholarship candidates
• 1.2 Two types of tests developed to test their English proficiency –PETS-5 and CSC-ET
• 1.3 IELTS –an internationally recognized communicative test
• 1.4 Purpose of the study
• 1.5 Research questions
• Chapter Two Literature Review
• 2.1 Overview of communicative language testing
• 2.1.1 Communicative language ability
• 2.1.1.1 Hyme’s view on communicative competence
• 2.1.1.2 Canale and Swain’s theory
• 2.1.1.3 Bachman’s framework of communicative language ability
• 2.1.2 Communicative language test and its essential measurement qualities
• 2.1.2.1 Authenticity
• 2.1.2.2 Interactivness
• 2.1.2.3 Validity
• 2.1.2.4 Reliability
• 2.2 L2 Reading and reading assessment
• 2.2.1 The nature of reading
• 2.2.2 Factors affecting reading: reader attributes and text characteristics
• 2.2.2.1 Reader variables
• 2.2.2.2 Text variables
• 2.3 Chapter summary
• Chapter Three Study Design
• 3.1 Subjects
• 3.2 Study procedures
• 3.3 Data collection
• Chapter Four A Proposed Framework for Analyzing Reading in PETS-5 and CSC-ET
• 4.1 Introduction to the three tests: PETS-5, CSC-ET and IELTS
• 4.1.1 PETS-5
• 4.1.2 CSC-ET
• 4.1.3 IELTS
• 4.2 A new framework
• 4.2.1 Characteristics of the input
• 4.2.1.1 Text forms
• 4.2.1.2 Text topic and subject matter
• 4.2.1.3 Text type and genre
• 4.2.2 Expected response
• 4.2.2.1 Skills tested
• 4.2.2.2 Types of questions
• 4.2.3 Statistical consideration
• 4.2.3.1 Overview of the test scores
• 4.2.3.2 Facility value and the discrimination index
• 4.2.3.3 Concurrent validation
• Chapter Five Analysis and Discussion
• 5.1 Qualitative comparison of the reading tests in PETS-5 and CSC-ET with reference to IELTS
• 5.1.1 Overview of the test specification of the three tests
• 5.1.1.1 Test specification of PETS-5
• 5.1.1.2 Test specification of CSC-ET
• 5.1.1.3 Test specification of IELTS
• 5.1.1.4 Comparison of the three test specifications
• 5.1.2 Characteristics of the input
• 5.1.2.1 Text forms
• 5.1.2.2 Text topic and subject matter
• 5.1.2.3 Text type and genre
• 5.1.2.4 Traditional linguistic variables and text readability
• 5.1.3 Expected response
• 5.1.3.1 Skills tested
• 5.1.3.2 Types of questions
• 5.2 Quantitative comparison of the reading tests in PETS-5 and CSC-ET
• 5.2.1 Overview of the test results
• 5.2.2 Item difficulty and discrimination
• 5.2.3 Concurrent validation
• Chapter Six Conclusion and Implications
• 6.1 Major findings and implications
• 6.2 Limitations
• Bibliography
• Appendix I Text Paper 1 （PETS-5）
• Appendix II Text Paper 2 （CSC-ET）
• Appendix III Text Paper 3 （IELTS）
• Appendix IV Test Scores of Each Candidate