نوسان در نمرات آزمون های چهار گزینه ای دستور زبان: تاثیر جنسیت و نوع سوال

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

محسن شیرازی زاده ¹ , غلامرضا کیانی ²

1 - English Department, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
2 - English Department, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2016-02-20 Accepted : 2016-06-13 Published : 2014-11-22

Keywords: دستور زبان, آزمون دهندگان, نوسان در نمرات, نوع سوال,

Abstract :

این مطالعه به بررسی تاثیر جنسیت و نوع پرسش بر عملکرد آزمون دهندگان میپردازد. بدین منظور نمرات بخش گرامر آزمون دهندگان (تعداد = 2931) که در آزمون زبان عمومی دانشگاه تربیت مدرس شرکت کرده بودندبررسی شد. بخش دستور زبان این آزمون شامل سه نوع سوال 1) پر کردن جای خالی در جملات 2) تشخیص اشتباه و 3) پرکردن جای خالی در متن کلوز میشد. نتایج نشان داد که آزمون دهندگان عملکرد بهتری در سوالات کلوز نسبت به دو نوع دیگر سوال داشتند. همچنین آزمون دهندگان زن در نمره کل گرامر و همچنین در سوالات کلوز و سوالات پرکردن جای خالی جملات عملکرد بهتری نسبت به مردان از خود نشان دادند. علل یافته های این پژوهش و کاربردهای این یافته ها مورد بحث و بررسی قرار گرفته است. با توجه به محیط خاص این آزمون و میزان تاثیر آماری که بدست آمد نیاز است تا بافته های این پژوهش با احتیاط مورد تعمیم قرار گیرد.

References:

Alderson, C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Born, M., & Lynn, R. (1994). Sex differences on the Dutch WISC-R: A comparison with the USA and Scotland Educational Psychology, 14(2), 249–255.

Breland, H. M., Bridgeman, B., & Fowles, M. E. (1999). Writing assessments in admission to higher education: Review and framework (Report No. 99-3). New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.

Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carleton University. (2009). CAEL test score and users’ guide . Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cael.ca/edu/testuserguide.shtml

Carlton, S. T., & Harris, A. M. ( 1992). Characteristics associated with differential item functioning on the scholastic aptitude test: gender and majority/minority group comparisons. ETS Research Report, 92–64. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

Chen, Z., & Henning, G. (1985). Linguistic and cultural bias in language proficiency tests. Language Testing, 2(2), 155-163.

Cheng, H. f. (2004). A comparison of multiple-choice and open-ended response formats for the assessment of listening proficiency in English. Foreign Language Annals, 37(4), 544-553.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cole, N. S. (1997). The ETS gender study: how females and males perform in educational setting. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Dávid, G. (2007). Investigating the performance of alternative types of grammar items. Language Testing, 24(1), 65-97.

Educational Testing Service. (2007). Test and score data summary for TOEFL Internet-based test: September 2005-December 2006 test data. Princeton, NJ. Retrieved from www.ets.org/toefl.

Farhady, H. (1982). Measures of language proficiency from the learner’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 16(1), 43-59.

In'nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2009). A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats. Language Testing, 26(2), 219-244.

James, C. L. (2010). Do language proficiency test scores differ by gender? TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 387-398.

Johnson, J. S., & Song, T. (2008). MELAB 2007 descriptive statistics and reliability estimates. Ann Arbor, MI: English Language Institute, University of Michigan.

Kobayashi, M. (2002). Method effects on reading comprehension test performance: text organization and response format. Language Testing, 19(2), 193-220.

Kunnan, A. J. (1990). DIF in native language and gender groups in an esl placement test. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 741-746.

Lawrence, I. M., & Curley, W. E. (1989). Differential Item Functioning for males and females on SAT-Verbal Reading subscore items: follow-up study.: Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Lawrence, I. M., Curley, W. E., & Hale, F. J. M. (1988). Differential item functioning for males and females on SAT verbal reading subscore items . Report No. 88–4. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Lumley, T., & O’Sullivan, B. (2005). The effect of test-taker gender, audience and topic on task performance in tape-mediated assessment of speaking. Language Testing, 22(4), 415-437.

Lynn, R., & Dai, X. Y. (1993). Sex differences on the Chinese standardiz-ation sample of the WAIS-R. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154 (4), 459–464.

Pae, T.-I. (2004). DIF for examinees with different academic backgrounds. Language Testing, 21(1), 53-73.

Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Construct equivalence of multiple-choice and constructed-response items: a random effects synthesis of correlations. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40(2), 163-184.

Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1(2), 147-170.

Takala, S., & Kaftandjieva, F. (2000). Test fairness: a DIF analysis of an L2 vocabulary test. Language Testing, 17(3), 323-340.

Tsagari, C. (1994). Method effects on testing reading comprehension: How far can we go? . Unpublished MA thesis, University of Lancaster, UK.

Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure fl reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 473-489.