考試程序對英語聽力測驗的影響研究

Abstract

Berne (1995) 和Herron (1994)的報告指出聽力前的題目預覽對聽力有幫助。Sherman (1997)便把題目預覽放在整個考試程序裡以探究其效益，但是她的實驗並沒有把受試者的程度和聽力題目的類型當作變因探索，所以本實驗決定除了對不同考試程序[QB、QA、S]對以英語為外語的受試者的聽力影響去探討外；也將分析考試程序和受試者程度以及考試程序和題目類型的互動。 在本研究裡，總共有171位大學生參與實驗，根據托福成績，這些學生被分為高、中、低程度。他隨後參加主要聽力測試，測驗總共包含三篇試題，每篇試題涵蓋整體大意、局部細節、推理三種類型題目。至於三種考試程序區分，主要在於給題目的時間點：整個聽力內容撥放兩次，QB代表在兩次聽力前給題目；QA代表兩次聽力後才給題目；而S則兩次聽力中間給題目，在整個聽力考試完畢後，每個受試者必須做一份問卷，以瞭解他們對考試程序的看法。 研究結果顯示，考試程序S對受試者的聽力效益優於QB，而QB優於QA；但是就考試程序和受試者程度以及考試程序和題目類型的互動，則沒有重大發現，不過大體上可以發現大意題目在QB和S程序中是明顯高分，相較之下，局部細節題目和推理題目的分數在S程序中低特別多；在問卷中，受試者也給予S程序最好的評價，其次是QB，再來是QA，這個排序大致與考試結果相符。最後根據實驗結果，本研究提出一些實質教學建議。Many studies (Bern 1995; Herron 1994) suggest the help of pre-listening questions with comprehension. Sherman (1997) even explores the best procedure to present such questions. Yet, her study does not take into account participants’ proficiency levels and the nature of questions. The present study, therefore, first aims to investigate the effects of three different test procedures (Questions Before [QB], Questions After [QA], Sandwich [S]) on EFL learners’ listening comprehension. Then, it also explores procedures’ interaction with learners’ proficiency levels and question types. In this study, 171 university students were recruited and classified into high, intermediate, and low levels of proficiency based on their scores of a TOEFL listening test. They then took another listening test which encompassed three texts, with each text containing three question types: global, local and inferential. The primary distinction of the three procedures lies in the timing of question provision. As its name suggests, Questions Before (QB) distributed questions for previewing prior to the two hearings. By contrast, Questions After (QA) postponed the questions until the last whereas Sandwich (S) offered the questions for the preview between two times of listening. In the study, after the test a questionnaire was also employed to elicit participants’ attitude toward test procedures. The results indicated an effect of test procedures on listening comprehension, with S outperforming QB, which in turn surpassed QA. Yet, there was not a significant relationship between test procedures and proficiency or question types. Global questions roughly displayed higher scores in both QB and S. In contrast, inferential and local questions exhibited lower scores in S. The questionnaire responses showed participants’ preference for S, then QB and finally QA. This ranking approximately consented to the test results. Based on the findings, some pedagogical suggestions were made.