ABSTRACT

L2 test developers often use scripted spoken texts in their L2 listening tests, because it is efficient and practical to create scripted spoken texts that meet predetermined test specifications. But because scripted spoken texts differ in a number of fundamental ways from unscripted spoken language, there are potential threats to validity when only scripted spoken texts are used to assess test-takers’ communicative competence. The present study seeks to firstly, examine the process of “authenticating” scripted texts (making changes to scripted texts to give them more of the lexico-grammatical, phonological, and speech rate characteristics of unscripted spoken language), and secondly to compare how test-takers perform on tests with “authenticated” versus scripted spoken texts. A total of 111 ESL and EFL participants took the listening section of the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT). For each language group, half of the participants heard the actual GEPT (scripted) spoken texts, and half-heard an authenticated version of the same texts. An analysis of group means using two-way ANCOVA indicated that the test-takers who heard the scripted texts scored higher than the group who heard the authenticated version in both the ESL and EFL groups, and marked differences between the two text types were found.

摘要

L2 测试开发人员经常在他们的 L2 听力测试中使用脚本化口语文本，因为创建满足预定测试规范的脚本化口语文本既高效又实用。但是，由于脚本口语文本在许多基本方面与无脚本口语不同，因此当仅使用脚本口语文本来评估考生的交际能力时，有效性存在潜在威胁。本研究旨在首先检查“验证”脚本文本的过程（对脚本文本进行更改以赋予它们更多无脚本口语的词汇语法、语音和语速特征），其次比较如何测试- 接受者使用“经过验证的”与脚本化的口语文本进行测试。共有 111 名 ESL 和 EFL 参与者参加了通用英语水平测试 (GEPT) 的听力部分。对于每个语言组，一半的参与者听到了实际的 GEPT（脚本化）口语文本，一半的参与者听到了相同文本的认证版本。使用双向 ANCOVA 的组均值分析表明，在 ESL 和 EFL 组中，听到脚本文本的测试者得分高于听到认证版本的测试者，并且发现两种文本类型之间存在显着差异。