國中基測英語科題組結構與學生表現之分析

Structures and Examinees' Performances of the Reading Tasks on the English Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students

本研究參酌學生能力國際評量計畫（PISA）閱讀評量架構探究90至98年基測英語科題組選文和試題歷程類型的分佈，並分析學生在不同層面的表現，主要發現摘述如後。在選文類型的分布上，連貫文本、非連貫文本和混合文本出現率分別為72.6%、22.1%和5.3%，連貫文本以敘事、對話、記述居多數，三類合起來達85%，非連貫文本以資訊表單和廣告為大宗，兩類合起來達70%。在試題歷程的分布上，典型閱讀測驗題組以提取資訊類試題出現率最高（75%），其餘各歷程之合才約25%；克漏字題組文意選填和動詞時態試題約各占50%。在全體考生表現方面，考生在連貫文本、非連貫文本和混合文本的表現沒有顯著差異出現，但在不同試題歷程上則有顯著差異出現，考生 在提取資訊的表現顯著高於解釋文本和動詞時態，在文意選填的表現也顯著高於解釋文本和動詞時態。在不同成就水準學生的表現方面，高分組、中間考生和低分組考生之平均通過率分別為.96、.70 和.28，各層面的分析結果也一致顯示大幅度的學習落差存在不同成就水準者之間，特別是低分組皆遠遠落後在高分組和中間考生之後。篇末根據研究發現提出建議供相關人員參考。

This study aimed to adopted the PISA reading literacy framework to investigate the structures of reading tasks on the English Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Students (BCTEST) and to analyze the examinees' performances on different reading texts and processes from 2001 to 2009 administrations. Major findings were as follows. In terms of the distributions of text format, the percentages for continuous, non-continuous and mixed texts respectively were 72.6%, 22.1% and 5.3%. Among continuous texts, the most frequent categories were narration, conversation and description, with a total around 85%. Among non-continuous texts, the most frequent categories were information sheets and advertisements, with a total around 70%. As for item cognitive processes, the most frequent category for typical reading tasks was retrieving information (75%). For cloze reading tasks, the percentages for reading comprehension and verb tense items respectively were about 50%. In terms of examinees' performances, there were no significant differences among the performances on different reading text formats; however, there were significant differences for the performances on different processes. As for the performances of different achievement level examinees, the average items passing rates for high achieving (top 25%), average (middle 50%) and low achieving students (bottom 25%) respectively were .96, .70and .28. Besides, the results showed that large achievement gaps were found among different achieving examinees without exceptions. Implications based on the findings of this study were proposed for test developers, educators, researchers, and policy makers.