读写任务中策略运用对测试效果的影响研究

发布时间：2018-09-03 14:01

【摘要】：近年来,越来越多的大学分班考试和大型测试机构开始采用综合写作任务测试学生的学术写作能力。综合写作任务是一种将写作和阅读或听力结合起来的写作任务类型。与传统独立写作任务相比,该任务类型被认为能更真实地反映学术写作活动,即能更好地测试学生的学术写作能力。但是,综合写作任务是否能真正有效评估和区分学生的学术写作水平,就有必要对其进行效度验证。因此,许多研究英语写作测试和开发方面的专家学者以及一些二语写作方面的教师,开始将注意力集中到综合写作任务实用性上。其中,最多的是对综合写作任务构念效度的研究。有许多研究致力于比较不同任务类型(独立写作和综合写作)下作文文本特征,写作分数以及写作过程之间的差异：有的研究了阅读能力和策略在读写任务中的作用；有的研究了写作过程中话语合成的过程。然而,对测试环境下综合读写任务中策略运用的研究却很少见。因此,为了更全面的了解考生的读写写作过程及其策略运用情况,在上述研究的基础上,本研究提出了三个研究问题：(1)考生在读写任务中策略运用的本质是什么?(2)读写任务策略运用和测试分数的关系是什么?(3)高分数考生和低分数考生在策略运用上有什么区别?本文通过策略调查问卷,有声思维和访谈收集考生参与读写任务过程中的策略活动,运用因子分析和结构方程模型方法探讨了这些策略活动的本质以及其对写作效果的影响,从而进一步研究综合读写任务的构念,为该任务类型提供一定的效度证明。为了解答上述研究问题,共有109名非英语专业中国大学生参与了本研究实验的数据收集。这些学生包含本科生和研究生。本研究实验基本分为两个环节,在第一环节中,要求99名学生限时完成一个读写任务测试,并且写作结束后,随即填写了写作调查问卷。在实验第二环节,运用有声思维和访谈方法收集了10名学生的写作过程,目的是全面探析学生的策略运用以及比较高低分数考生间策略运用的差异。通过实验,研究者收集了所有参与者的作文,策略问卷,有声思维写作过程和访谈的录音。然后,从文章内容,语言运用和组织结构对所有作文进行了分析性评分,目的是探究策略运用对学生作文具体哪些方面起到了何种作用。接着,根据一定的策略分类标准,对有声思维和访谈数据进行了转录并标注为具体的策略活动。在数据分析阶段,本研究首先运用一。系列的探索性因子分析和验证性因子分析探讨了考生在读写任务中的策略运用的潜在结构,接着运用结构方程模型探索了考生策略运用和写作分数之间的相关关系,最后运用定性分析方法计算了有声思维和访谈数据中的策略活动的频率和百分比,并对比了高分数学生和低分数学生间策略使用的差异,最终概括出学生在读写任务中的一个策略使用框架,同时对定量分析的结果给予了一定的解释和补充。结果表明在读写测试任务中,学生的策略运用结构是比较复杂多面的,既有阅读策略,也有写作技巧；既包含认知,元认知以及情感策略,也包含考生的一些个人应试技巧,例如,套用写作模板,抄袭阅读材料等：既包含挑选,组织,记忆,和翻译等直接策略,也包括评价,监控,自我激励,降低焦虑等间接策略。总的来说,读写测试任务中,策略运用结构包含四个维度,即认知策略,元认知策略,情感策略以及应试技巧。其中,除了应试技巧外,认知,元认知和情感策略三者之间有明显的相关关系,元认知策略对考生的认知和情感活动有一定的监控和评价作用,对考生认知策略和情感策略的运用有着直接且积极的影响。认知策略和情感策略高度相关,互相影响。其次,在策略运用和写作效果的关系方面,研究发现元认知策略通过认知策略和情感策略间接地影响考生的写作效果；而认知策略的运用对写作效果有着直接且积极的作用,但是这种作用不是太明显。情感策略直接或间接地影响考生的写作效果。然而,考生的个人应试技巧对其写作效果有着明显的消极作用。最后,有声思维和访谈的数据分析表明不同水平学生之间策略的选择及其运用效果是有差异的。高分数学生倾向于运用较为多样化、概括类的策略种类；而低分数学生则使用一些较为单一且具体的策略。高分数考生会较多地运用计划策略,评估策略等元认知策略,而分数较低考生则过多地运用重复策略,复读策略和翻译策略等认知策略。此外,研究还发现考生写作分数的高低和策略运用的数量无关,而和策略的选择及运用效果相关。最后,基于口头表达的数据分析结果,本研究提出一个有关读写任务策略运用模式的框架,试图对二语学术写作指导提供一定的借鉴作用。综上所述,本研究结果会对二语写作,尤其是学术写作的学习,教学,测试以及研究方面有一定的启示。本研究结果对二语写作和学术写作的启示主要体现在三个方面。从理论角度看,本研究探讨了综合读写任务的构念效度,研究结果验证了读写任务的效度,表明读写任务不仅测试了考生的写作能力,同时考察了他们的阅读能力,概括综合信息的能力。而这些能力恰好是学术写作中所需的能力,因此,读写任务的测试分数在一定程度上能发映出考生的学术写作水平。高校和大型测试机可以采用读写任务来考察学生的学术写作能力。在实际运用方面,本研究调查了考生在读写任务中所使用的具体策略及其与写作分数的关系。研究发现不同二语水平的考生在策略运用上存在差异,并且不同的策略对写作分数的贡献也不同。不论是指导学术写作的教师还是参与学术写作的学生,本研究结果都将对学术写作策略的教学和学习提供一定的参考。在方法论方面,在数据收集层面,本研究不仅采用问卷方法调查了考生使用的策略,还运用有声思维法和访谈方法全面充分地记录了考生参与整个读写任务的过程及其看法；在分析方法层面,本研究采用结构方程模型,探索性因子分析及验证性因子分析,探讨了考生在读写任务中策略运用的特征结构,分析了策略运用和写作分数之间的相关关系。结构方程模型能有效地分析出潜在因子和其可观察变量,以及多个潜在因子之间的关系。这也为今后语言测试领域试题任务的效度论证研究提供了一个新的分析方法。同大多数策略研究和结构方程模型的研究一样,本研究也存在一些局限性。例如,由于二语学习策略在学术界至今没有一个统一的分类标准,因此,在策略问卷的制定以及有声思维转录的方面,存在一定的主观因素,有些策略的转录存在一定的重合。此外,对于运用结构方程模型作为主要分析方法的研究来说,受试的数量还是相对较少的,这就在一定程度上影响模型的稳定性和研究结果的概括性。因此,在今后的研究中,需要运用较大样本量的数据以及定制更全面、更详细、更科学的策略调查问卷。
[Abstract]:In recent years, more and more university classified examinations and large-scale testing institutions have begun to test students'academic writing ability with comprehensive writing tasks, a type of writing task that combines writing with reading or listening. However, it is necessary to verify the validity of the comprehensive writing task in assessing and distinguishing students'academic writing ability. Therefore, many experts and scholars who study the testing and development of English writing and some teachers who teach second language writing are involved. Many studies have been devoted to comparing the differences in text characteristics, writing scores and writing process between different task types (independent writing and comprehensive writing). Some have studied reading ability and writing process. The role of strategies in reading and writing tasks and the process of discourse synthesis in writing have been studied. However, few studies have been conducted on the use of strategies in comprehensive reading and writing tasks under the test environment. Three research questions: (1) What is the nature of strategy use in reading and writing tasks? (2) What is the relationship between strategy use in reading and writing tasks and test scores? (3) What is the difference between high-score candidates and low-score candidates in strategy use? By using factor analysis and structural equation model, this paper explores the nature of these strategies and their effects on writing, and further studies the structure of the integrated reading and writing task, providing some validity proof of the task type. In the first part, 99 students were asked to complete a reading and writing task test in time. After writing, they filled out a writing questionnaire. In the second part of the experiment, they used voice thinking and interview. The purpose of this study is to explore the strategies used by students and compare the differences between high and low score candidates. Through the experiment, the researchers collected the compositions of all participants, questionnaires on strategies, the process of thinking aloud and the recording of interviews. The purpose of this study is to find out which aspects of the students'compositions are affected by the use of strategies. Then, according to certain criteria of strategy classification, the data of audio thinking and interviews are transcribed and labeled as specific strategies. A series of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to explore the potential structure of the candidates'strategy use in reading and writing tasks. Then the structural equation model was used to explore the correlation between the candidates' strategy use and their writing scores. Finally, the frequency of strategy activities in audio thinking and interview data was calculated by qualitative analysis. The results show that the structure of students'strategy use is more complex in the reading and writing test task. There are both reading strategies and writing skills, including cognitive, metacognitive and emotional strategies, as well as some individual test-taking skills, such as writing templates and plagiarism of reading materials: both direct strategies such as selection, organization, memory, and translation, and indirect strategies such as evaluation, monitoring, self-motivation and anxiety reduction. Generally speaking, the structure of strategy use in reading and writing test includes four dimensions, namely, cognitive strategy, metacognitive strategy, affective strategy and test-taking skills. Cognitive and affective strategies are highly correlated and interact with each other. Secondly, in terms of the relationship between the use of strategies and the effect of writing, the study finds that metacognitive strategies indirectly influence the writing effect of examinees through cognitive and affective strategies. The use of cognitive strategies has a direct and positive effect on the writing effect, but the effect is not obvious. Emotional strategies directly or indirectly affect the writing effect of the examinees. However, the examinees'individual test-taking skills have a significant negative effect on their writing effect. Finally, the data analysis of the voice thinking and interviews shows that the effect is not obvious. High-score students tend to use more diversified and generalized strategies, while low-score students use more single and specific strategies. In addition, the study also found that the level of writing scores was not related to the number of strategies used, but to the choice of strategies and the effect of strategies used. Finally, based on the results of the oral data analysis, this study proposed a strategy-based approach to reading and writing tasks. To sum up, the findings of this study will shed light on the study, teaching, testing and research of second language writing, especially academic writing. The implications of the findings of this study for second language writing and academic writing are mainly reflected in three aspects. From the angle of view, this study explores the constructive validity of the comprehensive reading and writing task, and the results verify the validity of the reading and writing task. Colleges and universities and large-scale test machines can use reading and writing tasks to examine students'academic writing ability. The results of this study will provide some references for the teaching and learning of academic writing strategies. In terms of methodology, at the level of data collection, This study not only investigated the strategies used by candidates by questionnaires, but also fully recorded the process and opinions of candidates participating in the whole reading and writing task by means of voice thinking and interviews. On the analysis method level, this study used structural equation model, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to explore candidates. The structural equation model can effectively analyze the relationship between the potential factors and their observable variables, as well as the relationship between multiple potential factors. It also provides a basis for the validity study of test questions in the field of language testing in the future. As with most strategies and structural equation models, there are some limitations in this study. For example, since there is no uniform classification criterion for SLA learning strategies in academic circles, there are some subjective factors and some strategies in the formulation of the strategy questionnaire and the transcription of thinking through voice. In addition, the number of subjects is relatively small for the study using the structural equation model as the main analysis method, which affects the stability of the model and the generality of the research results to a certain extent. Develop a more comprehensive, detailed and scientific strategy questionnaire.
【学位授予单位】：兰州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：H05

【参考文献】