Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies ›› 2013, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (08): 6-13.
Previous Articles Next Articles
Jessica R. W. Wu
Online:
2013-08-15
Published:
2020-07-25
CLC Number:
Jessica R. W. Wu. A Comparability Study between Paper-based and Computer-based Test Mode of the GEPT Advanced Writing Test[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(08): 6-13.
AydΙn, S. 2006. The effect of computers on the test and inter-rater reliability of writing tests of ESL learners [J/OL]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 5(1): 75-81. [2003-06-30]. http:∥w3.balikesir.edu.tr/~saydin/index_dosyalar/56.pdf Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chambers, L. 2008. Computer-based and paper-based writing assessment: A comparative text analysis [J]. Cambridge ESOL Research Notes 34: 9-15. McDonald, A. 2002. The impact of individual differences on the equivalence of computer-based and paper-and-pencil educational assessment [J]. Computers & Education 39 (3): 299-312. Mead, A. & F. Drasgow. 1993. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis [J]. Psychological Bulletin 114 (3): 449-58. Nation, P. & A. Heatley. 1996. Range. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington [OL]. [2013-06-30]. http:∥www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/about/staff/paul-nation Powers, D., M. Fowles, M. Farnum & P. Ramsey. 1994. Will they think less of my handwritten essay if others words process theirs? Effects on essay scores of intermingling handwritten and word-processed essays [J]. Journal of Educational Measurement 31(3): 220-33. Russell, M. & W. Haney. 1997. Testing writing on computers: An experiment comparing student performance on tests conducted via computer and via paper-and-pencil [J/OL]. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 5 (3). [2013-06-30]. http:∥epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/604 Russell, M & W. Tao. 2004a. Effects of handwriting and computer-print on composition scores: A follow-up to Powers, Flowles, Farnum and Ramsey [J/OL]. Practical Assessment and Research Evaluation 9(1). [2013-06-30]. http:∥pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=1 Russell, M. & W. Tao. 2004b. The influence of computer-print on rater scores [J/OL]. Practical Assessment and Research Evaluation 9 (10). [2013-06-30]. http:∥pareonline.net/getvn.?=9&n=10 Roever, C. & Y. C. Pan. 2008. Test review: GEPT (General English Proficiency Test) [J]. Language Testing 25(3): 403-18. Scott, M. 1998. WordSmith Tools, Version 3.0 [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weir, C., B. O'Sullivan, Y. Jin & S. Bax. 2007. Does the computer make a difference? The reaction of candidates to a computer-based versus a traditional hand-written form of the IELTS Writing component: Effects and impact [J]. IELTS Research Reports 7: 311-47. van de Vijver, F. J. R. & M. Harsveld. 1994. The incomplete equivalent of paper-and-pencil and computerized versions of the General Aptitude Test Battery [J/OL]. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6): 852-859. [2013-06-30]. http:∥arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=26674 Weir, C. J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-based Approach [M]. NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Wu, J. 2012. GEPT and English language teaching and testing in Taiwan [J]. Language Assessment Quarterly 9(1): 11-25. Wu, R. Y. F. & I. C. Chao. 2011. A case study of effects of delivery mode on test performance and markers' rating [R]. Proceedings of the 13th Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia, Hong Kong, 31-48. |
[1] | . [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 13-20. |
[2] | . [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 53-63. |
[3] | XU Wandong, GU Xiangdong. Cognitive Validity: A Review of its Rationale, Definition, Models and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 68-78. |
[4] | GAO Yanjie, DING Yi, JIANG Yue. Interpersonal Meanings of the Values of Modal Operators in English Political Interviews [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 50-58. |
[5] | ZHANG Le, LIU Qin. Phraseological Features of Cover Letters written by Chinese science and engineering majors [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 111-120. |
[6] | WANG Liangjing, PAN Fan. The Core Function and Application Prospects of the New Generation of Visualization Corpus Software #LancsBox [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 449(5): 77-90. |
[7] | YAO Jianpeng. An Insight into Repair Initiation in L2 Teacher Discourse [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(09): 70-75. |
[8] | ZHANG Jingyuan, XIA Jing. A Study of the “Shi”-causative Construction in Modern Mandarin Chinese: A Cardiff Grammar Perspective [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(05): 17-22. |
[9] | HUANG Wanli, QIN Hongwu. The Compilation of E-C Diachronic Parallel Corpus and Its Query System [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 14-19. |
[10] | ZHANG Jianhua. A Study of the Development of Productive Vocabulary Knowledge of Japanese Majors [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 31-35. |
[11] | ZHOU Hui, LIU Yongbing. Evaluative Analysis of Projections in English and Chinese Academic Book Review [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(02): 18-23. |
[12] | LI Wenzhong. Revisiting the Use of the Corpus Evidence in the US Supreme Court [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(07): 7-11. |
[13] | LIU Lixin, YANG Yuchen. A Critical Review of “qi-cheng-zhuan-he” within the Field of Contrastive Rhetoric [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(04): 18-22. |
[14] | JIA Dongmei, LAN Chun. Conceptual Metonymies and Metaphors behind TU "Earth" in the Five Elements [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(01): 20-25. |
[15] | ZHANG Huiping, LIU Yongbing. On the Syntactic Features of DMs Expressiong Adding and the Acquisition Regularities of the Beginners: An Empirical Study Based on ICCI Learner Corpus [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2013, 13(01): 14-19. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||