2008 11 ( ) No v.

2008
40 6 F or eign L anguage T eaching and R ese ar ch ( bimo nthly ) V ol. 40 N o . 6

: ) ) ) ) ) )

:
,
,
,



:



[ ] H319 [ ] A [ ] 1000- 0429( 2008) 06- 0440- 07

( ) ( )
1.
, ( )
, ( L azar ato n 1996a; M cN ama ra & L um ley 1997;

, M o r ton et a l . 1997) ( )
( Br ow n & L umley 1997; R eed &
Ha lleck 1997)
( )
( ana ly tic sco r ing) ( holistic sco ring) ( L azar ato n 1996b; R oss 1996; Br ow n &
( ite m analy tic al sco ring) L umle y 1997; Br ow n 2003) ( )
( R oss
, 1992; R o ss & Ber wick 1992; Ca far ella 1994; Ber wick
, & R oss 1996; L azar ato n 1996b; Br ow n & L um ley
( CET- SET ) 1997; M or ton et a l . 1997)
( )

, ( Berw ick & R o ss 1996) (
CET- SET ) ( O. L o ug hlin 2000,

2002) O PI ( or al pr o ficiency inter vie w)

( D ando noli & Henning 1990; Hatch &
, , L aza ra ton 1991; H ughe s 1991; T hom pson 1995; Ha -
l
le ck 1996; Surf ace & D ie rdor f f 2003)
,
, (
( ) , 1995)
, (
1998) (
2002) ( 1997;
1999; 2003; 2003)

# 440 #


( 2002;
2. 3
2004) ( 1995) ,
( ) ( ) ( CET- SET
; ( 2002) ( ) ,

)
( 2002) , :
,
1

,
CET- SET
Hea ton ( 1988)
, ,
,

( 1998: 55)
CET- SET
, ( 2001)
, ,

, ,
,
: 2. 4
( 1)
?
?
( 2)
3.

?
,
, (
CET- SET , 1 2)
2.

2. 1 ,
5 ( 150 ,
) , 5 ,
,
,

2. 2 3. 1
( ) ( simula ted o ra l 3. 1. 1
pr o ficiency inter view)
, , , ,
: , ;
; , (
, , 1
3 4)

, , : 28
28 27

# 441 #
 2008 6

, 3 2. 2
, ( Ho mog eneity of V ar -
i
a nce T est) , 0. 015, 0.

05, ,

( %) ( % )
, 3 ( %) ( %)
1 4
1 5. 622 80. 319 80. 319 5. 622 80. 319 80. 319
, L eve ne Sta tist ic 0. 192 2.
032, 0. 826 0. 138, 2 . 523 7. 466 87. 785
0. 05,
3 . 303 4. 327 92. 112
1 4
, F 0. 223 4 . 255 3. 647 95. 759
0. 040, 0. 800 0. 961,
0. 05, 1 4 5 . 115 1. 637 97. 396

6 . 102 1. 452 98. 847

(
) 1 1( CET- SET 7 8. 068E-02 1. 153 100. 000
) ,
2 , 5. 622,

80. 319% ,
,
(

) ,
, ,

,
, ,
1. 13 4
,

( 1998: 54)

,

/ / /
, ,

,
1 0. 927* * 0. 930* * 0. 914* *
3. 2
3 0. 817* * 0. 663* * 0. 834* *
3. 2. 1
4 0. 771* * 0. 732* * 0. 751* *
( co ncur re nt va lidity)
( exte rnal
0. 838 0. 775 0. 833
v alidity) ,
: * * 0. 01

3. 1. 2

,
, 0. 5 0. 7
( Alde rson et al . 1995: 177-178)
1 2
3 4 5 ,
( 30 ) ( 1 17 , 2 29 , 3
2 26 )
, ( )
( )
# 442 #


4.

,


,
1/ 2 0. 535* * 0. 767* * 0. 684* *

1/ 3 0. 627* * 0. 796* * 0. 546* *
3
1/ 4 0. 686* * 0. 585* * 0. 519* *
3.
1/ 5 0. 694* * 0. 669* * 0. 375*

/ / /
2/ 3 0. 559* * 0. 742* * 0. 460*


2/ 4 0. 685* * 0. 628* * 0. 402*

1 0. 483* 0. 660* *
0. 638* *
2/ 5 0. 478* * 0. 659* * 0. 564* *

3/ 4 0. 688* * 0. 628* * 0. 565* *

2 0. 502* 0. 662* * 0. 537* *

3/ 5 0. 764* * 0. 644* * 0. 570* *

3 0. 570* 0. 647* * 0. 244

4/ 5 0. 659* * 0. 628* * 0. 541* *

4 0. 503* 0. 443* 0. 205 0. 638 0. 675 0. 523

5 0. 689* * 0. 393* 0. 424* 3/ 44/ 53/ 5

0. 704 0. 633 0. 559

12 0. 493 0. 661 0. 588
: * * p < . 01; * p< . 05

345 0. 587 0. 494 0. 291

: * * p< . 01; * p< . 05

5 7

5.
3 , CET- SET ( 1
2)



( 0. 661) , Cr onbachps

A lph a
( 34 5)
, ( 0. 587) 1 14. 0333 2. 639 . 750 . 849

( 3) , 2 14. 1333 2. 913 . 623 . 877

CET- SET ( 1 2) 3 13. 4111 2. 572 . 793 . 839
,
4 13. 8222 2. 831 . 797 . 849
( 34 5)
5 13. 7778 1. 995 . 770 . 867

Cronbachps Alpha ( ) . 882

3. 2. 2
Cronbachps Alpha ( 3
4 5) . 842
,
Cronbachps Alpha ( 1 2) . 694
, ,
, 5 , 2( CET- SET ) ,
, , 0.
, 877
4 , 43 5( CET- SET )
4 , 0. 7970. 793 0. 770, 1 2( CET- SET
( 0. 675) , ) 0. 750 0. 623,
( 0. 638) , ( 0. 523) ,
# 443 #
 2008 6

( 0. 839 0. 849) ,
: 3
4 5( ) 0. 842, 1 , ( 3 4)
2( ) 0. 694( 5) ; 2 ,
( 0. 877) , ,
6 7 2
6 , 5
4 3 ,
6.
,

( 34 5) ,


Cronb achps ( 1 2)

A l pha
C ET- SET ,
1 15. 1231 2. 364 . 809 . 864 ,
2 15. 6713 2. 167 . 802 . 862 3 , 1 2

3 14. 6843 2. 583 . 808 . 875

0. 66 0. 662,
7 , 4 5 ,
4 15. 6907 2. 390 . 700 . 884
( 0. 812 0. 815) ,
5 14. 7824 1. 953 . 743 . 890
( 4 5)
Cronbachps A lpha ( ) . 897
Cronbachps A lpha ( 3
4 5) . 804 ,

Cronbachps A lpha ( 1 2) . 860 ( 0. 897, 6) , ( 0. 840,

7) ( 34 5)
7.
( 0. 842, 5) ,
( 0. 781, 7) ; ( 1 2)


( 0. 860, 6) ,
Cronb achps

A l pha ( 0. 694, 5)
1 12. 9598 2. 841 . 653 . 806 4 7 , CET- SET
,
2 13. 2414 3. 049 . 672 . 801

3 12. 5402 3. 245 . 675 . 805
( 3 )
4 13. 0747 3. 037 . 629 . 812
3. 2. 3
5 13. 1954 2. 841 . 626 . 815
, CET- SET ,
Cronbachps A lpha ( ) . 840 , ,
Cronbachps A lpha ( 3
4 5) . 781

Cronbachps A lpha ( 1 2) . 806 / Ca rdy K ee fe

,
, , ,
0. 675, , 0. 638, 0 (
, 0. 523( 4) 4- 7 , 2003: 71) Halleck( 1992) O PI
CET- SET
4 , CET- SET ( 1 2) ( )
( 0. 767) , , 3
( 0. 535) , ( 34 5) ( 34 5)
( 0. 704) , 0. 291,
( 0. 559) , CET- SET
5 , 3 4 , , C ET- SET
# 444 #


( 7) , ,
, ,
,


4.

,
,
,
:
1.

,
,
, , ,
( 1995: 33)
, 2. KM O Bart let t , KM O 0. 879,

,
/ ( A lderson , J. , C. Claph am & D . W all. 1995. Language Test
1999; Byham 1977; Ber nar din 1981) Const ruct i on and Evalu ati on [ M ] . Bei jing: For ei gn
, , Language Teach ing and R esearch Press.

0 Berw ick, R . & S. R o ss. 1996. Cro ss-cul tur al pragm at ics in
oral pr of ici en cy in t ervi ew st rategies [ A ] . In M . M i-
( 2003: 71) Halle ck( 1996)
lanovic & N . Saville ( ed s. ) . Perf ormance Test ing , Cog-
( )
nit ion and A ssessmen t : Select ed Papers f rom t h e 15t h
D o uglas( 1994: 134)
Langu age Testi ng Research Col loqu ium [ C ] . Cambr idge:



CU P. 34-54.
,
Brow n, A . 2003. In terview er variat ion and t h e co-const ruc-
, Or r ( 2002)
ti on of speaking p rof iciency [ J] . Langu age Test i ng 20:
D ouglas( 1994) , ( 2002: 149- 150) 1- 25.
Brow n, A . & T. Lu mley. 1997. In t ervi ew er var iabili ty in
, , speci f ic pur pose lan guage p er f ormance t ests [ A ] . In V .
( : 153) K ohon en , A . Huh ta, L. K urk-
i Suon io & S. Luo ma
, ( eds. ) . 1997. 137-150.
,/ , Caf arella, C. 1994. A ssessor accom modat ion in th e V . C . E.
, It alian oral test [ J] . A ust rali an Revi ew of Appl ied Lin-

, 0 ( gu ist ics 20: 21-41.

D andon oli, P. & G . Hennin g. 1990. A n i nvesti gat ion of t he
2005: 21) ,
const ruct validi ty of th e A C TFL prof iciency guid el ines
, ,
and oral int erview procedure [ J] . Foreign Lan gu age A n-

nals 23: 11-22.

, ,
D ouglas, D . 1994. Q uant it y and qualit y in speakin g t est p er-
, ;
f orm an ce [ J ] . Language Testi ng 11: 125- 144.
, ;
Hall eck, G . 1992. The oral prof iciency int erview : D iscr et e
, poi nt t est or a measure of com muni cat ive language abili-
, ty? [ J] . Forei gn Language A nn al s 25: 227- 231.
? , Hall eck, G . 1996. In terrat er r eli ab ilit y of t h e O PI: U sin g
, academi c t rainee rat ers [ J ] . Foreign Langu age A nnal s
, , 29: 223-238.
# 445 #
 2008 6

Hatch, E . & A . L az arat on. 1991. The R esearch M anu al : R oss, S. 1992. A ccomm odative quest ion s in or al prof iciency
D esign and St at ist ics for Appl ied Lin gu ist ics [ M ] . N ew in terview s [ J] . Language Test i ng 9: 173-186.
Y ork: N ew bury Hou se. R oss, S. 1996. Formulae and inter- int erview er variat ion in oral
Heat on, J. 1988. Writ i ng Engli sh Language Test ( new edi- prof iciency int erview discourse [ J] . Prospect 11: 3-16.
t ion ) [ M ] . Beiji ng: Foreign Lan guage Teach ing and R e- R oss, S. & R . Berw ick. 1992. The di scourse of accomm oda-
search Press. ti on in oral p rof iciency int erview s [ J] . Stu di es in Second
Hughes, A . 1991. Testi ng f or Language Teachers [ M ] . N ew Language A cqu isit ion 14: 159- 176.
Y ork: CU P. Surf ace, E. & E. D i erd orf f . 2003. R eliabil it y and th e A CT-
K oh onen, V . , A . H uh t a, L. K urk-
i Suoni o & S. Luoma FL oral prof iciency in terview : R eport ing i ndices of in-
( ed s. ) . 1997. Cu rrent D evel opment s and A lt er nati ves i n t err at er con si stency and agreement f or 19 languages [ J ] .
Lan gu age Assessment : Proceedi ngs of LTR C 96 [ C ] . Foreign Language A nn als 36: 507-519.
J yvsk yl : U niversit y of Jyv skyl & U n iver sit y of Tam- Th omp son , I. 1995. A st udy of int errat er rel iabili ty of t he
p ere. 225-238. A CT FL oral pr of icien cy in terview i n f ive Euro pean lan-
Lazarat on, A. 1996a. In terlocut or su pport i n oral p rof icien- guages: D ata f rom ESL, French, G er man, R ussi an ,
cy i nt er vi ew s: The case of CA SE [ J] . Langu age Test in g and Spani sh [ J] . Forei gn Langu age An nals 28: 407- 422.
13: 151- 172. , 2003, [ J ] , 5
Lazarat on, A . 1996b. A qual itat ive approach t o moni t oring 6 ( 4) : 69-77
examin er conduct i n t he Camb ridge assessm en t of spoken , 2003,
E nglish ( C A SE) [ A ] . In M . M il an ovic & N . Savill e [ J] , 56 ( 1) : 135-139
( eds. ) . Perf ormance Test ing , Cogni ti on and Assess- , 1999, ( )
ment : Select ed Papers f rom t he 15th Lan gu age Test ing [ J] , 56 ( 3) : 43-47
Research Coll oqui um [ C ] . C ambrid ge: CU P. 18-33. , 1998, [ J] , 5
M cN amara, T. F. & T. Luml ey. 1997. The ef f ect of int er- 6 ( 5) : 54-55
l ocut or and assessm en t mode variabl es i n overseas assess- , 1997, [ J] , 5
m en ts of speaking sk ills i n occupati onal set ti ngs [ J ] . ( ) 6 ( 2) : 102-106
Lan gu age Test ing 14: 140- 156. , 2005,
M ort on, J. , G . W igglesw orth & D . W illi ams. 1997. A p- [ J] , 56 ( 7) : 19-23
pr oach es t o t he eval uat ion of in t ervi ew er perf or mance in , 1995, ) ) )
or al i nt eract ion t est [ A ] . In G . B rindl ey & G . W iggles- [ J] , 56 ( 1) : 30-36
w ort h ( eds. ) . A ccess : Issues in Engl ish Langu age Test , 1998,
D esign and D el iver [ C ] . Sydney: N ati onal Cent re f or [ J] , 56 ( 2) : 52-55
E nglish Language T each ing and R esearch . 175-196. , 2001, 5 6
OpLoughli n, K. 2000. Th e im pact of gen der in th e IELT S o- [ M ] :
ral in tervi ew [ A ] . In R . Tull oh ( ed. ) . IELTS Research , 2002,
R eport s , Vol um e 3 [ C ] . Canb er ra: IEL TS A ust ralia. [ J] , 56( 4) : 283-287
1-28. , 2004,
OpLoughli n, K . 2002. T he i mpact of gend er in oral pr of i- [ J] , 56 ( 1) : 77-82
ciency t estin g [ J] . Language Test i ng 19: 169-192. , 2002, :
O r r, M . 2002. Th e FC E speakin g test : U sing r at er repor ts t o [ J] , 56 ( 1) : 98-102
h el p int er pret t est scor es [ J] . Syst em 30: 143-154.
R eed, D . J. & G . B. Halleck. 1997. Probi ng above t he ceil- : 2008 ) 06 ) 27;
in g in or al int er views: W hatps up th ere? [ A ] . In V . , 2008) 10) 12
K oh onen, A . H uht a, L . Kur k-i Suonio & S. Luoma
: 610031
( eds. ) . 1997. 225-238.

# 446 #
 2008 6

Teaching assessment of English in China tertiary education over the past 30 years, by HE Q ix in et a l . ( Schoo l of
Eng lish and Inter national St udies, Beijing Fo re ign Studies U niv. , Beijing 100089, China) , p. 427
Ov er the la st 30 ye ars, a compr ehensive sy stem o f English te aching to Enlgish major s at ter tiar y lev el ha s
bee n successfully deve lo ped in China. The t eaching assessment o f Eng lish under- gr aduate pr og ram s at the ter tiary
lev el h as helped to fur the r r egula te teach ing pr ono tice and r aise tea ching standa rds.

A framework for fuzzy assessment of communicative competence based on fuzzy mathematics, by Z HAN G
Wenzhong & ZHANG Heng ( Co llege of Fo re ign L a ng uag es, Na nka i U niv. , T ianjin 300071, China) , p. 433
T his paper attem pts to e stablish an applicatio n fr amew or k fo r fuzz y asse ssment tha t dr aw s on the under lying
pr inciples of fuzzy mathem atics. The autho r star ts with the assumptions that co mmunicative com pe tence is a f uzzy
pheno meno n and that its assessme nt o r descr iption can o nly be fuzzy in nat ure . A s comm unica tiv e com pe tence
cor re sponds w ith an ar ea rat he r than a point on a measur ing sca le, f uzzy a ssessment, w hich is based o n mult-
i va -
l
ue log ic and fuzzy sets, is a mo re r ationa l cho ice in language testing pr act ice than pr ecise assessment w hich is
ba sed o n tw o- v alue lo gic. W ith its better- gr ounded under lying pr inciple, f uzzy assessm ent lesse ns the psycho log ical
pr essur e unde r which assesso r s w or k, allo ws mo re aspe cts o f co mmunicative co mpetence to be assesse d, and r esults
in a m or e o bjective descr iption o f the testeeps o r al pr of iciency.

A comparative study of the rating scales of oral English test, by L B Changhong et a l . ( Scho ol of Fo re ign L ang ua-
g es, So uthw est Jia oto ng U niv. , Chengdu 610031, China) , p. 440
By co mparing the validity, r eliability and o pe ra tio nalization o f the three r ating scale s o f o ra l Eng lish test:
analytic scor ing , ho listic sco ring and item analytical scor ing , the a utho rs find tha t there is no g re at dif fer ence in
the sco res rat ed w ith the three sca les and the three f actor s compr ising the a naly tic ra ting scale in f act belong to
one f acto r; and that to CET- SET r ater s, the ana ly tic r ating scale ha s the hig hest va lidity and re liability , whe rea s
to no n- CET- SET r ater s, the holistic r ating sca le is the mo st va lid and r eliable o ne. T aking into a ccount the r eality
of colle ge o ra l Eng lish test, the a utho rs ho ld that h olist ic ra ting scale, because of its ease t o oper ate and c ompar a-
t ive ly high v alidit y and re liability to no n- CET- SET ra ter s, is the r ating scale m ost suitable f or larg e- scale co lleg e
or al Eng lish test.

An investigation into the theory-based validity of essay writing in TEM8, by XI U X udong ( Co lleg e o f F or eig n L an-
g uag es, L udong U niv. , Y a ntai 264025, China) , p. 447
By develo ping and pilot ing a questionnaire as an instrument, this study uses r eleva nt statistical pr o cedure s to
inve stig ate the exte nt to which essay w riting in T EM 8 is a v alid te st in term s of the or y- base d v alidity . T he r e-
sear ch design ma inly inv olves st udent par ticipants f ro m thre e univ ersities in China. T he findings o f this study may
sug gest that the a bility in wr iting teste d co uld be gener ally r ef lec ted by the interna l sub- pr ocesses; t he test- taker sp
tra nsla ting ability var iance ca n be m arg inally statistica lly ref le cted; the sub- pr o cesses such as to pic and ge nr e mod-
ify ing , o rg anizing, translating, rev iew ing may h ave mo r e eff ect on sco r e gains than som e other sub- pr ocesses. I n
this sense, T EM 8E can be g ener ally r eg arded as a test r ef lecting the w riting ability , but it needs impro ving.

Explicitation of personal pronoun subjects in English-Chinese translation ) A corpus-based investigation, by

HUA NG Libo ( D ept. o f Scientific Re sear ch, X ipa n Inter national Studies U niv. , X ipan 710128, China) , p. 454
With the help of pa ra lle l co rpo r a, the pr ese nt paper inv estigates the r ender ing of per sona l pr ono un subjec ts
in liter ar y and no n- litera ry E- C tra nslat io n in ter ms of a bsolute number , fr eque ncy a nd tr ansfer r ing ty pes. T he
study show s: 1) Bo th the abso lute num ber and the fr equency of pe rso nal pr o noun subjects in liter ar y and non- lit-
er ar y E- C tr ansla tio n are r educed; 2) I n term s of transfer ring types, ther e are m or e cor r espondences betw een
Eng lish and Chinese ; 3) Co mpar ed with no n- tr anslated Chinese te xts, tr ansla ted C hinese te xts tend to contain
mor e per so nal pr ono un subjects.