是/否词汇测试中两种测试标准测试结果的差异

Wallapha Wongsirichan, Jeremy Ward
{"title":"是/否词汇测试中两种测试标准测试结果的差异","authors":"Wallapha Wongsirichan, Jeremy Ward","doi":"10.55766/ypzh1827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Yes/No vocabulary test (YN test) is a receptive vocabulary size test that comes in a form of a checklist where learners answer yes to the words they know. However, an inconsistency of the test rubrics has been found. That is, rubric type 1 says: “Write Y (yes) if you know the meaning of the word” while rubric type 2 says: “Write Y (yes) if you think that the word exists in English”. These 2 rubrics seem to require different levels of vocabulary knowledge from test takers. Rubric 1 may need more knowledge of the word meaning while Rubric 2 may need less (i.e. only having seen the word or even guessing). This led to the doubt whether or not the 2 rubrics yield the same YN test results. Therefore, a study was conducted to compare these two rubrics by administering 2 YN test versions, i.e. Rubric 1 YN tests and Rubric 2 YN tests, to 600 first-year students of a university in Nakhon Ratchasima, followed by a translation test as a concurrent validity test. After that, a semi-structured interview of 72 students was conducted in order to gain some insight of how they did the tests. The findings revealed that the results of Rubric 1 YN tests correlated better with the results of the concurrent validity test than those of Rubric 2 YN tests.","PeriodicalId":145995,"journal":{"name":"Suranaree Journal of Social Science","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in the Test Results of Two Test Rubrics in the Yes/No Vocabulary Test\",\"authors\":\"Wallapha Wongsirichan, Jeremy Ward\",\"doi\":\"10.55766/ypzh1827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Yes/No vocabulary test (YN test) is a receptive vocabulary size test that comes in a form of a checklist where learners answer yes to the words they know. However, an inconsistency of the test rubrics has been found. That is, rubric type 1 says: “Write Y (yes) if you know the meaning of the word” while rubric type 2 says: “Write Y (yes) if you think that the word exists in English”. These 2 rubrics seem to require different levels of vocabulary knowledge from test takers. Rubric 1 may need more knowledge of the word meaning while Rubric 2 may need less (i.e. only having seen the word or even guessing). This led to the doubt whether or not the 2 rubrics yield the same YN test results. Therefore, a study was conducted to compare these two rubrics by administering 2 YN test versions, i.e. Rubric 1 YN tests and Rubric 2 YN tests, to 600 first-year students of a university in Nakhon Ratchasima, followed by a translation test as a concurrent validity test. After that, a semi-structured interview of 72 students was conducted in order to gain some insight of how they did the tests. The findings revealed that the results of Rubric 1 YN tests correlated better with the results of the concurrent validity test than those of Rubric 2 YN tests.\",\"PeriodicalId\":145995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Suranaree Journal of Social Science\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Suranaree Journal of Social Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55766/ypzh1827\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suranaree Journal of Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55766/ypzh1827","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

是/否词汇测试(YN测试)是一种接受性词汇量测试,以清单的形式出现,学习者对他们知道的单词回答“是”。然而,已经发现了测试规则的不一致。也就是说,题型1说:“如果你知道这个词的意思,就写Y(是)”,而题型2说:“如果你认为这个词在英语中存在,就写Y(是)”。这两个题目似乎对考生的词汇知识要求不同。第一题可能需要更多关于单词含义的知识,而第二题可能需要更少的知识(即只看到这个单词,甚至是猜测)。这导致了对这两种规则是否产生相同的YN测试结果的怀疑。因此,本研究对那空叻差岛某大学600名一年级学生进行了两种不同版本的YN测试,即第1类YN测试和第2类YN测试,并进行了翻译测试作为并行效度测试。之后,对72名学生进行了半结构化的采访,以了解他们是如何进行测试的。结果显示,与并行效度检验结果相比,第1项YN检验结果与第2项YN检验结果的相关性更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in the Test Results of Two Test Rubrics in the Yes/No Vocabulary Test
The Yes/No vocabulary test (YN test) is a receptive vocabulary size test that comes in a form of a checklist where learners answer yes to the words they know. However, an inconsistency of the test rubrics has been found. That is, rubric type 1 says: “Write Y (yes) if you know the meaning of the word” while rubric type 2 says: “Write Y (yes) if you think that the word exists in English”. These 2 rubrics seem to require different levels of vocabulary knowledge from test takers. Rubric 1 may need more knowledge of the word meaning while Rubric 2 may need less (i.e. only having seen the word or even guessing). This led to the doubt whether or not the 2 rubrics yield the same YN test results. Therefore, a study was conducted to compare these two rubrics by administering 2 YN test versions, i.e. Rubric 1 YN tests and Rubric 2 YN tests, to 600 first-year students of a university in Nakhon Ratchasima, followed by a translation test as a concurrent validity test. After that, a semi-structured interview of 72 students was conducted in order to gain some insight of how they did the tests. The findings revealed that the results of Rubric 1 YN tests correlated better with the results of the concurrent validity test than those of Rubric 2 YN tests.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信