考研英语一与考研英语二阅读理解A部分文本复杂度对比研究
A Comparative Research on Text Complexity of Reading Part A in NETEM I and NETEM II
DOI: 10.12677/CES.2023.111008, PDF,   
作者: 张 玲, 时真妹：大连理工大学外国语学院，辽宁 大连
关键词: 考研英语一；考研英语二；文本复杂度；输入特征；NETEM I； NETEM II； Text Complexity； Characteristics of Input
摘要: 自从2010年以来，全国硕士研究生入学英语考试划分为考研英语一(学术型)和考研英语二(专业型)。本研究以Bachman和Palmer提出的任务特征框架为理论基础，利用Coh-Metrix和Vocab Profile对考研英语一和考研英语二阅读理解A部分的文本复杂度进行了对比研究。本研究从词汇特点、句法特点、语篇特点和易读度四个维度对两种英语阅读考试的文本进行了研究，并运用SPSS对以上四个方面分别进行独立样本t检验，旨在发现两者文本的难易度是否存在差异。结果显示，考研英语一阅读文本和考研英语二阅读文本在平均词长、篇章长度、语义重叠以及易读度四个方面存在显著差异，其余部分并不存在显著差异。
Abstract: Since 2010, NETEM (National Entrance Test of English for MA/MS Candidates) has been classified into NETEM I (academic-oriented) and NETEM II (professional-oriented). Based on the framework of task characteristics proposed by Bachman and Palmer, this research uses Coh-Metrix and Vocab Profile to conduct a comparative study on the text complexity of Reading Part A in NETEM I and NETEM II. This research studies the two English reading texts from four dimensions: lexical characteristics, syntactic characteristics, discourse characteristics and readability. SPSS is used to conduct independent-samples T test on the four aspects respectively, aiming at finding out whether there are differences in the difficulty of the two reading texts. The results show that there are significant differences in average word length, text length, semantic overlap and read ability between NETEM I and NETEM II, while no significant differences can be found in other aspects.
文章引用：张玲, 时真妹. 考研英语一与考研英语二阅读理解A部分文本复杂度对比研究[J]. 创新教育研究, 2023, 11(1): 42-51. https://doi.org/10.12677/CES.2023.111008

参考文献

[1] 教育部考试中心. 全国硕士研究生招生考试英语(一)考试大纲(非英语专业) [Z]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2022.
[2] 教育部考试中心. 全国硕士研究生招生考试英语(二)考试大纲(非英语专业) [Z]. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2022.
[3] Alderson, J.C. (2000) Assessing Reading. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[4] Freedle, R. and Kostin, I. (1991) The Prediction of SAT Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Texts. Educational Testing Service, Princeton. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[5] Freedle, R. and Kostin, I. (1992) The Prediction of GRE Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Texts for Each of Three Item Types: Main Ideas, Inferences, and Explicit Statements. Educational Testing Service, Princeton. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[6] Freedle, R. and Kostin, I. (1993) The Prediction of TOEFL Reading Comprehension Item Difficulty for Expository Prose Passages for Three Item Types: Main Idea, Inference, and Supporting Idea Items. TOEFL Research Reports No. RR-93-44. Educational Testing Service, Princeton. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[7] Laufer, B. and Sim, D. (1985) Measuring and Explaining the Reading Threshold Needed for English for Academic Purposes Texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405-411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[8] Ure, J. (1971) Lexical Density and Register Differentiation. In: Perren, G.E. and Trim, J.L.M., Eds., Applications of Linguistics: Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 443-452.
[9] Graesser, A., McNamara, D. and Kulikowich, J. (2011) Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Nuttall, C. (2002) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Lan-guage. Shanghai Foreign Languages Educational Press, Shanghai.
[11] Alderson, J.C. and Urquhart, A.H. (1985) The Effect of Students’ Academic Discipline on Their Performance on ESP Reading Tests. Language Testing, 2, 192-204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[12] Britton, B.K. and Gulgoz, S. (1991) Using Kintsch’s Computational Model to Improve Instructional Text: Effects of Repairing Inference Calls on Recall and Cognitive Structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 329-345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[13] Bachman, L.F., Kunnan, A., Vanniaraian, S. and Lynch, B. (1988) Task and Ability Analysis as a Basis for Examining Content and Construct Comparability in Two EFL Proficiency Test Batteries. Language Testing, 5, 128-159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[14] 李蓂, 蔡基刚. 高考英语考试与大学英语四级考试的对比研究[J]. 山东外语教学, 2012, 33(2): 55-61.
[15] 陈卓, 于鹏. 高考英语成绩与大学英语四、六级成绩的实证研究[J]. 海外英语, 2019(6): 113-115.
[16] 李丽, 高淑玲, 刘园园. 大学英语四级测试中两种完形填空难度和区分度对比分析[J]. 新西部(中旬刊), 2015(1): 41-40.
[17] Weir, C.J., Hawkey, R., Green, A., et al. (2009) The Relationship between the Academic Reading Construct as Measured by IELTS and the Reading Experiences of Students in the First Year of Their Courses at a British University. IELTS Research Reports 9, British Council, 97-156.
[18] 杨旭, 裴学梅. 研究生入学考试英语与托福阅读文本复杂度特征对比研究[J]. 教育现代化, 2018, 5(2): 204-206.
[19] 江进林, 韩宝成. 基于Coh-Metrix的大学英语英语六级与托福、雅思阅读语篇难度研究[J]. 中国外语, 2018(3): 86-95.
[20] 虞程远. 六级、雅思、托福阅读词汇复杂度对比研究[J]. 外语与翻译, 2020, 27(3): 8-13.
[21] Bachman, L.F. (1990) Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

为你推荐