考察用于评估美国大学生中文口语表现的评分标准

Guangyan Chen
{"title":"考察用于评估美国大学生中文口语表现的评分标准","authors":"Guangyan Chen","doi":"10.1075/CSL.51.3.04CHE","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study empirically examines the rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ CSL (Chinese as a Second Language) oral performance by analyzing teachers’ assessment of these performances at different proficiency levels. The researcher videotaped ten speeches, and three ACTFL-trained raters assessed oral performance in these samples. The researcher then selected three samples (Samples 1, 2, and 3) to represent Novice High, Intermediate High, and Advanced Low levels. The researcher developed 20 rating items through interviewing ten experienced CSL teachers and running an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on teachers’ assessments of speech samples. After that, 104 CSL teachers used these rating items to assess the aforementioned samples. The EFAs of teachers’ assessments led to three corresponding rating criteria models (Models 1, 2, and 3). Both Models 2 and 3 for Samples 2 and 3, respectively, were five-criterion models, consisting of fluency, conceptual understanding, content richness, communication appropriateness, and communication clarity. Model 1 for Sample 1 was a four-criterion model, in which the items in communication appropriateness and content richness showed high correlations, and therefore were merged into one category; the other three criteria remained the same. Comparisons of the three models demonstrated that the criteria were constant. The ANOVAs showed that the proficiency levels of these oral performances differed significantly across all five rating criteria. This study empirically supports CSL teachers’ use of constant rating criteria to assess different levels of oral performance. It also provides Chinese teachers with rating criteria they can use to assess U.S. college students’ CSL oral performance.","PeriodicalId":429518,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ Chinese oral performance\",\"authors\":\"Guangyan Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/CSL.51.3.04CHE\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study empirically examines the rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ CSL (Chinese as a Second Language) oral performance by analyzing teachers’ assessment of these performances at different proficiency levels. The researcher videotaped ten speeches, and three ACTFL-trained raters assessed oral performance in these samples. The researcher then selected three samples (Samples 1, 2, and 3) to represent Novice High, Intermediate High, and Advanced Low levels. The researcher developed 20 rating items through interviewing ten experienced CSL teachers and running an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on teachers’ assessments of speech samples. After that, 104 CSL teachers used these rating items to assess the aforementioned samples. The EFAs of teachers’ assessments led to three corresponding rating criteria models (Models 1, 2, and 3). Both Models 2 and 3 for Samples 2 and 3, respectively, were five-criterion models, consisting of fluency, conceptual understanding, content richness, communication appropriateness, and communication clarity. Model 1 for Sample 1 was a four-criterion model, in which the items in communication appropriateness and content richness showed high correlations, and therefore were merged into one category; the other three criteria remained the same. Comparisons of the three models demonstrated that the criteria were constant. The ANOVAs showed that the proficiency levels of these oral performances differed significantly across all five rating criteria. This study empirically supports CSL teachers’ use of constant rating criteria to assess different levels of oral performance. It also provides Chinese teachers with rating criteria they can use to assess U.S. college students’ CSL oral performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":429518,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/CSL.51.3.04CHE\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/CSL.51.3.04CHE","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究通过分析教师在不同水平下对大学生汉语口语表现的评价,实证检验了美国大学生汉语口语表现的评价标准。研究人员录下了十段演讲,并由三名actfl训练过的评分员评估这些样本的口头表现。然后,研究者选择了三个样本(样本1、样本2和样本3)来代表新手高水平、中级高水平和高级低水平。本研究通过访谈10位有经验的对外汉语教师,并对教师的言语样本评价进行探索性因子分析(EFA),开发出20个评价项目。之后,104名对外汉语教师使用这些评价项目对上述样本进行了评价。教师评价的EFAs导致了三个相应的评分标准模型(模型1、模型2和模型3)。样本2和样本3的模型2和模型3分别是五个标准模型,包括流利性、概念理解、内容丰富度、沟通适当性和沟通清晰度。样本1的模型1是一个四标准模型,其中交际适当性和内容丰富度的项目表现出高度的相关性,因此被合并为一个类别;其他三个标准保持不变。三种模型的比较表明,标准是不变的。方差分析显示,这些口语表演的熟练程度在所有五个评分标准上都有显著差异。本研究实证支持对外汉语教师使用统一的评分标准来评估不同水平的口语表现。它还为中国教师提供了评分标准,他们可以用来评估美国大学生的对外汉语口语表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Examining rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ Chinese oral performance
This study empirically examines the rating criteria used to assess U.S. college students’ CSL (Chinese as a Second Language) oral performance by analyzing teachers’ assessment of these performances at different proficiency levels. The researcher videotaped ten speeches, and three ACTFL-trained raters assessed oral performance in these samples. The researcher then selected three samples (Samples 1, 2, and 3) to represent Novice High, Intermediate High, and Advanced Low levels. The researcher developed 20 rating items through interviewing ten experienced CSL teachers and running an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on teachers’ assessments of speech samples. After that, 104 CSL teachers used these rating items to assess the aforementioned samples. The EFAs of teachers’ assessments led to three corresponding rating criteria models (Models 1, 2, and 3). Both Models 2 and 3 for Samples 2 and 3, respectively, were five-criterion models, consisting of fluency, conceptual understanding, content richness, communication appropriateness, and communication clarity. Model 1 for Sample 1 was a four-criterion model, in which the items in communication appropriateness and content richness showed high correlations, and therefore were merged into one category; the other three criteria remained the same. Comparisons of the three models demonstrated that the criteria were constant. The ANOVAs showed that the proficiency levels of these oral performances differed significantly across all five rating criteria. This study empirically supports CSL teachers’ use of constant rating criteria to assess different levels of oral performance. It also provides Chinese teachers with rating criteria they can use to assess U.S. college students’ CSL oral performance.
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