高、低风险测试的效度:CLIL与非CLIL学生书面语篇学术词汇及部分词汇特征的比较

E. Olsson, L. Sylvén
{"title":"高、低风险测试的效度:CLIL与非CLIL学生书面语篇学术词汇及部分词汇特征的比较","authors":"E. Olsson, L. Sylvén","doi":"10.5617/OSLA.5852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In second language (L2) learning research, learners’ proficiency levels and progress are often investigated. Sometimes high-stakes tests, which are part of the school curriculum, are used for this purpose, but more often tests designed for the purpose of the specific research study are utilized. How do we know that tests of the latter kind actually show what learners know and can do, when they do not have any impact on school grades? In other words, how can we be sure that our informants do as well in low-stakes tests specifically designed for research purposes as they would in high-stakes tests that result in final grades, and thus have an impact on the individual’s future? The answer is, of course, that we can never know for sure. One way of finding out, though, is to compare results from high- and low-stakes tests. \n \nIn this study, we examine whether students display similar levels of performance when writing in high- and low-stakes contexts, with regard to the use of English academic vocabulary and some other linguistic features, more precisely text length, word length and variation of vocabulary. Thereby, we indirectly explore whether students have put a similar amount of effort into high- and low-stakes writing assignments. We investigate this by analyzing and comparing texts written under high- and low-stakes conditions. The purpose of the study is, firstly, to validate results obtained in the low-stakes writing assignments used in the large-scale longitudinal research project Content and Language Integration in Swedish Schools, CLISS, focusing in particular on results regarding productive academic vocabulary and the linguistic features mentioned above. Secondly, we hope that this study will shed new light on validity in relation to writing assignments in high- and low-stakes contexts in a more general sense, for instance with regard to the role of effort and motivation.","PeriodicalId":143932,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Studies in Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity in High- and Low-Stakes Tests: A Comparison of Academic Vocabulary and some Lexical Features in CLIL and non-CLIL Students’ Written Texts\",\"authors\":\"E. Olsson, L. Sylvén\",\"doi\":\"10.5617/OSLA.5852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In second language (L2) learning research, learners’ proficiency levels and progress are often investigated. Sometimes high-stakes tests, which are part of the school curriculum, are used for this purpose, but more often tests designed for the purpose of the specific research study are utilized. How do we know that tests of the latter kind actually show what learners know and can do, when they do not have any impact on school grades? In other words, how can we be sure that our informants do as well in low-stakes tests specifically designed for research purposes as they would in high-stakes tests that result in final grades, and thus have an impact on the individual’s future? The answer is, of course, that we can never know for sure. One way of finding out, though, is to compare results from high- and low-stakes tests. \\n \\nIn this study, we examine whether students display similar levels of performance when writing in high- and low-stakes contexts, with regard to the use of English academic vocabulary and some other linguistic features, more precisely text length, word length and variation of vocabulary. Thereby, we indirectly explore whether students have put a similar amount of effort into high- and low-stakes writing assignments. We investigate this by analyzing and comparing texts written under high- and low-stakes conditions. The purpose of the study is, firstly, to validate results obtained in the low-stakes writing assignments used in the large-scale longitudinal research project Content and Language Integration in Swedish Schools, CLISS, focusing in particular on results regarding productive academic vocabulary and the linguistic features mentioned above. Secondly, we hope that this study will shed new light on validity in relation to writing assignments in high- and low-stakes contexts in a more general sense, for instance with regard to the role of effort and motivation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oslo Studies in Language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oslo Studies in Language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.5852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oslo Studies in Language","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLA.5852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在第二语言学习研究中,学习者的熟练程度和进步经常被调查。有时,作为学校课程一部分的高风险考试也会被用于这一目的,但更多的是为了特定的研究而设计的考试。当后一种测试对学校成绩没有任何影响时,我们怎么知道后一种测试实际上显示了学习者的知识和能力?换句话说,我们如何确保我们的线人在专门为研究目的而设计的低风险测试中表现得和他们在最终成绩的高风险测试中表现得一样好,从而对个人的未来产生影响?答案当然是,我们永远无法确切知道。然而,找出答案的一种方法是比较高风险和低风险测试的结果。在这项研究中,我们考察了学生在高风险和低风险语境中写作时是否表现出相似的水平,包括英语学术词汇的使用和其他一些语言特征,更准确地说,是文本长度、单词长度和词汇变化。因此,我们间接地探讨学生是否在高风险和低风险的写作作业中投入了相似的努力。我们通过分析和比较在高风险和低风险条件下编写的文本来调查这一点。本研究的目的是,首先,验证在大型纵向研究项目瑞典学校内容和语言整合(CLISS)中使用的低风险写作作业中获得的结果,特别关注关于生产性学术词汇和上述语言特征的结果。其次,我们希望这项研究能够从更广泛的意义上揭示高风险和低风险情境下写作作业的效度,例如努力和动机的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity in High- and Low-Stakes Tests: A Comparison of Academic Vocabulary and some Lexical Features in CLIL and non-CLIL Students’ Written Texts
In second language (L2) learning research, learners’ proficiency levels and progress are often investigated. Sometimes high-stakes tests, which are part of the school curriculum, are used for this purpose, but more often tests designed for the purpose of the specific research study are utilized. How do we know that tests of the latter kind actually show what learners know and can do, when they do not have any impact on school grades? In other words, how can we be sure that our informants do as well in low-stakes tests specifically designed for research purposes as they would in high-stakes tests that result in final grades, and thus have an impact on the individual’s future? The answer is, of course, that we can never know for sure. One way of finding out, though, is to compare results from high- and low-stakes tests. In this study, we examine whether students display similar levels of performance when writing in high- and low-stakes contexts, with regard to the use of English academic vocabulary and some other linguistic features, more precisely text length, word length and variation of vocabulary. Thereby, we indirectly explore whether students have put a similar amount of effort into high- and low-stakes writing assignments. We investigate this by analyzing and comparing texts written under high- and low-stakes conditions. The purpose of the study is, firstly, to validate results obtained in the low-stakes writing assignments used in the large-scale longitudinal research project Content and Language Integration in Swedish Schools, CLISS, focusing in particular on results regarding productive academic vocabulary and the linguistic features mentioned above. Secondly, we hope that this study will shed new light on validity in relation to writing assignments in high- and low-stakes contexts in a more general sense, for instance with regard to the role of effort and motivation.
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