高考英语听力测试与PETS-2听-省略-度对比研究-2011-2016-孟凡娜

20171557.5%2051522.5%20【】。PETS-2。、。Bachman＆Palmer、、32011—2016PETS-2。PETS-2、、。。【】PETS-2【】【】【】、“”“”。。。、2009、20112013“、”3039PETS-2。。PETS-2、、。PETS-2、、。、2011—2016PETS-2312。520。、“PETS”2015-QN-478、14“PETS”。。400044—●20171、、、1。Bachman＆Palmer[1]。、、、、。。、、。。PETS-2、、。2。、1.《》[2]“”。《2011》[3]PETS-2“、”。、、、、、、、。2.“”。。80020156802014887。PETS-295120133300201231289。“”[4]。。PETS-21053825—PETS-22011859106220128501289201385895120148871155201568095220168139068251053wpmFlesch12、34、PETS-2123、4、“”“”●—20171228。。PETS-2。3.PETS-2。《》[5]《》“”110/110～120/。2011—2016PETS-24。PETS-2160/150/。2012162/2011144/。PETS-220143187/20123152/。。4.。。[6]Flesch。MicrosoftWord2007。2011—2016。PETS-2。[6]PETS-288.6“easy”90.8“fairlyeasy”,。。PETS-24、。PETS-26。“”51.7%PETS-245.8%“”34.2%PETS-237.5%“”“、”20112013PETS-2“”2012“—PETS-2201185.588.1201293.787.7201388.291.4201490.787.1201592.988.3201693.788.990.888.6PETS-2201114416320121621522013145153201415118720151541542016141153150160—●—20171、”。PETS-2“、”13.3%7.5%。“、”PETS-213.3%PETS-2。4。1.Bachman＆Palmer[1]“”。“”“”。PETS-27。68.3%81.7%31.7%18.3%。Greene“”[7]。“”。PETS-2。PETS-2。2.“”[1]。。8。。、201121152201211270201311081201429722015110812016110636.7%51.7%34.2%7.5%PETS-2201108842012186520130116320141982201519822016110903.3%45.8%37.5%13.3%—201116420121642013146201410102015128201614668.3%31.7%PETS-220111732012182201319120141732015146201613781.7%18.3%—●—20171—20111552012128201312820141192015128201615564.2%35.8%201115520121192013164201411920159112016101060%40%PETS-2PETS-2、、。。20133PETS-2。、2011—2016PETS-2。。。。。PETS-2、、“、”“”。PETS-2、、。PETS-2、PETS-2。。1.151/110～120/。。120VOA130～160/。。2.“”“、”“●—20171●—”51.7%“”34.2%“”6.7%“、”7.5%。2012“”“、”2015“”“、”。“”“、”。。。1.、、、。、、。。、、“”。“”、、“”“”、。2.、。。。、、、。。、。3.、。CCTV-9、TED、。、。。“”20171。。1BachmanLF＆PalmerAS．LanguageTestinginPracticeM.OxfordOUP199659.2.M.20112.3.2011M.20111.4.、———J.2001187-90．5.M.20112.6.CETJ.2003339-42.7.、1996-2007D.200968.●—/AComparativeStudyontheContentValidityofNationalMatriculationEnglishTestandPETS-2ListeningTests2011-2016MengFannaAbstract:WiththeincreasingdemandoflisteningandspeakingabilityinnewtimesthereformofNationalMatriculationEnglishTestNMETlisteningtestshasbecometheunavoidabletendency.CurrentlysomeprovincesandcitiesadoptPETS-2listeningteststoreplacetheoriginalNMETlisteningtestswhichariseswidesocialconcerns.ButwhatarethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthesetwotestsCantheybesubstitutedforeachotherdirectlyNowtherearenearlynorelatedstudies.ThereforethispapermakesacomparisononthecontentvalidityofNMETandPETS-2listeningtestsadministeredbetween2011and2016basedontheframeworkoftesttaskcharacteristicsputforwardbyBachman&Palmerwhichmainlyincludesthreeaspectstheinputtheexpectedresponsesandtherelationshipbetweentheinputandtheexpectedresponses.Thefindingsofthestudysuggestthatthesetwotestshavehighcontentvalidityandbasicallybeinaccordancewiththerequirementsofthecorrespondingtestingsyllabuses.ButthecomparisonofthetwotestsshowsthatPETS-2listeningtesthasfasterspeechratelongertextandbemoredifficultthanNMETlisteningtestBesidesdiachronicallyspeakingbothtestshaveincreasingdemandonthetest-takers’listeningcompetence.Meanwhilesomeshortcomingsofthetwotestsarealsofoundinthestudyforexamplethelengthoflisteningtestsisnotbalancedeachyeartheaveragespeedisslightlyfasterthantherequirementinthetestingsyllabusetc.Keywords:ThelisteningtestofNationalMatriculationEnglishTestPETS-2listeningtestcontentvaliditycomparison