中國大學生英語口語分析性評估體系的構建與效驗

《中國大學生英語口語分析性評估體系的構建與效驗》作者以Bachman的交際語言能力（CLA）模式、Cohen的語用口試等級評分表、Nunn的小組討論等級評分表、高校英語教學大綱為基礎，結合大規模問卷調查結果構建了中國大學生口語評估體系。在將其運用於來自六類院校180名學生的口語評估後，對其進行了全面的效度研究，同時深入探討了中國大學生英語口語的普遍特徵。作者提出的口語評估體系具備科學性和可行性，對口語測試評分標準的改進和完善具有借鑑意義，對提高口語測試的總體效度有著很高的理論意義和應用價值。《中國大學生英語口語分析性評估體系的構建與效驗》的讀者對象為從事英語口語教學評估的研究人員和專業學生，也可供高校英語教師參考使用。

List of Acronyms
List of Figures
List ofTables

Chapter1 Introduction
1.1 Need for the study
1.1.1 Students perspective
1.1.2 Teachers perspective
1.1.3 Purpose of the study
1.2 Configuration of the study
1.2.1 Study procedure
1.2.2 Study questions
1.3 Significance of the study
1.4 Layout of the book
1.5 Summary

Chapter2 Literature Review
2.1 Fundamentals of oral proficiency
2.1.1 Speech communication and its characteristics
2.1.2 Essence of speech communication
2.1.2.1 Language use versus usage
2.1.2.2 Communicative competence versus linguistic competence
2.1.2.3 Accuracy versus fluency
2.1.2.4 Correctness versus appropriateness
2.1.2.5 Proficiency versus achievement
2.1.2.6 Process versus product
2.1.2.7 Synthetic approach versus analytic approach
2.1.2.8 The learner versus the teacher
2.1.3 Components of oral proficiency
2.2 Classification of oral rating scales
2.2.1 Holistic rating scales
2.2.2 Analytic rating scales
2.2.3 Combination of holistic&analytic rating scales
2.2.4 Integration of holistic&analytic rating scales
2.2.5 Using analytic rating scales for the project
2.3 Summary

Chapter3 Study Bases
3.1 Empirical basis
3.1.1 Syllabus description
3.1.2 Oral tests of CET&TEM
3.2 Theoretical basis
3.2.1 CLA model
3.2.1.1 Language competence
3.2.1.2 Strategic competence
3.2.1.3 Psychophysiological mechanisms
3.2.1.4 Significance of CLA to OARS
3.2.1.5 Trait factors of CLA
3.2.2 Cohens rating scale for pragmatic speaking
3.2.3 Nunns rating scales for small group interaction
3.2.3.1 Nunns rating scales of interactive skills
3.2.3.2 Nunns rating scales of intelligibility
3.2.3.3 Significance of Nunns rating scales to OARS
3.2.4 Reconsiderations on strategic competence
3.2.4.1 Classification of strategic competence
3.2.4.2 Evaluation of nonverbal communication
3.3 Summary

Chapter4 Construction of OARS
4.1 Needs analysis
4.1.1 Basic considerations on band descriptors
4.1.2 Questionnaire construction
4.1.2.1 The trial questionnaire
4.1.2.2 Demographic analysis
4.1.2.3 Data analysis
4.1.3 Survey results
4.1.3.1 Demographic analysis
4.1.3.2 The OARS questionnaire
4.1.3.3 Data analysis
4.2 Description of OARS
4.2.1 Framework of OARS
4.2.2 Band descriptors of OARS
4.2.2.1 Band descriptors of organizational competence
4.2.2.2 Band descriptors of pragmatic competence
4.2.2.3 Band descriptors of flexible interaction
4.2.2.4 Band descriptors of nonverbal communication
4.3 Sample rating
4.3.1 Sample ratingⅠ-role-play
4.3.1.1 Performance analysis
4.3.1.2 Suggested rating
4.3.2 Sample ratingⅡ—discussion
4.3.2.1 Performance analysis
4.3.2.2 Suggested rating
4.4 Summary

Chapter5 The PilotValidation Study
5.1 Research purpose
5.2 Research subjects and task
5.3 Research operation
5.4 Data analysis
5.4.1 Prior consideration
5.4.1.1 Candidates perspective
5.4.1.2 Teachers perspective
5.4.2 The profound study
5.4.2.1 Analysis of reliability estimates
5.4.2.2 Analysis of descriptive statistics
5.4.2.3 Analysis of construct validity
5.4.2.4 Analysis of external validity
5.5 Discussion
5.6 Summary

Chapter6 The Field Validation Study
6.1 Research purpose
6.2 Research subjects and task
6.3 Research operation
6.3.1 Process of experimental tests
6.3.2 Rater training
6.3.3 Collection of data
6.4 Data analysis
6.4.1 Study on six types of candidates
6.4.1.1 Analysis of reliability estimates
6.4.1.2 Analysis of descriptive statistics
6.4.1.3 Analysis of construct validity
6.4.1.4 Analysis of external validity
6.4.2 Study on 180 candidates
6.4.2.1 Analyses of reliability estimates
6.4.2.2 Analyses of descriptive statistics
6.4.2.3 Analyses of construct validity
6.4.2.4 Analyses of external validity
6.4.3 Characteristics of oral English proficiency of Chinese college students
6.4.4 Comparability study on different types of candidates
6.5 Discussion
6.6 Summary

Chapter7 Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Validation results
7.2 Washback effects
7.2.1 Design of OARS as a model
7.2.2 Precautions in application of OARS
7.2.3 Contribution of OARS to oral instruction
7.3 Existing problems
7.3.1 Problems with OARS itself
7.3.2 Problems with the validation study
7.4 Further research
7.5 Summary
Bibliography

Appendix1 Empirical Basis
Appendix1.1 Requirements for Oral Proficiency of English Majors（Chinese version）
Appendix1.2 Requirements for Oral Proficiency of non-English Majors（Chinese version）
Appendix1.3 Requirements for Pronunciation of English Majors at Band2&Band4
（Chinese version）
Appendix1.4 Rating Scale&Range Descriptions of CET-SET（Chinese version）
Appendix1.5 Range Descriptions of TEM4-Oral（Chinese version）
Appendix1.6 Range Descriptions of TEM8-Oral（Chinese version）

Appendix2 Questionnaires
Appendix2.1 OARS TrialQuestionnaire
Appendix2.2 OARS Teachers Questionnaire
Appendix2.3 OARS Students Questionnaire
Appendix2.4 Candidates Questionnaire—the Pilot Study

Appendix3 Experiments
Appendix3.1 Experimental Test of Sample RatingⅠ
Appendix3.2 Experimental Test of Sample RatingⅡ
Appendix3.3 Experimental Test of the Validation Study—Role Cards

Appendix4 Data of the Validation Study
Appendix4.1 Candidates Raw Scores on ORAL，TEM4&TEM8—the Pilot Study
Appendix4.2 Raw Scores of Candidates Ratings—the Pilot Study
Appendix4.3 Raw Scores of Raters Detailed Ratings—the Pilot Study
Appendix4.4 Raw Scores of Teachers Rough Ratings—the Pilot Study
Appendix4.5 Sub-total Correlation Matrix —the Pilot Study
Appendix4.6 Sub-total Correlation Matrix for English（key）Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.7 Sub-total Correlation Matrix for Arts（key） Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.8 Sub-total Correlation Matrix for Science（key）Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.9 Sub-total Correlation Matrix for Arts（local）Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.10 Sub-totalCorrelation Matrix for Science（local）Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.11 Sub-total CorrelationM atrix of R1T for 180Candidates—the Field Study
Appendix4.12 Sub-total Correlation Matrix of RAT for 180 Candidates—the Field Study