中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表研究

中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表研究

HunanNormalUniversity硕士学位论文AStudyontheScaleofEGCforChineseMiddleSchoolStudents中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表研究学科专业英语语言文学学位类别□√科学学位□专业学位研究生姓名张延雪导师姓名、职称邓杰教授论文编号湖南师范大学学位评定委员会办公室二0一六年六月 分类号密级学校代码10542学号201302080632AStudyontheScaleofEGCforChineseMiddleSchoolStudents中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表研究研究生姓名张延雪指导老师姓名、职称邓杰教授学科专业英语语言文学研究方向语言学湖南师范大学学位评定委员会办公室二0一六年六月 AStudyontheScaleofEGCforChineseMiddleSchoolStudentsAThesisSubmittedtoForeignStudiesCollegeOfHunanNormalUniversityInPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementsFortheDegreeofMasterofArtsintheSubjectofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureByZhangYanxueUndertheSupervisionofProfessorDengJieChangsha,HunanJune,2016 湖南师范大学学位论文原创性声明，，独本人郑重声明：所呈交的学位论文是本人在导师的指导下立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中己经注明引用的巧容外，本论文不含任何其他个人或集体己经发表或撰写过的作席成果。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均巴在文中Ｌ义明确方式＃明。本人完全意识到本声明的法律结果由本人承捏。学位论文作者签名：兴Ｍ年《月／之日細南师范大学学位论文版巧使用授较书、本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留使用学位论文的规定，同意学校保留并向国家有关部口或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权湖南师范大学可Ｌ义将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索、缩印或担，可Ｌ乂采用印影描等复制手段保存和汇编学位论文。本学位论文属于１、保密□。，在年解密后适用本授权书２、不保密日。＂＂’（请在Ｌ乂上相应方框内打Ｖ）作者签名：；＾遠＾聲日期：乃？｜＾？年６月Ｉ文曰，曰：导师签名：／广期年月曰／ AbstractTherehavebeenalotofresearchesonlanguageproficiencyscalesabroadwhilemoststudiesinChinatendtointroducethemethodsandproceduresofmakingforeignlanguageproficiencyscalesorsimplydiscusstheiradvantagesanddisadvantages.Actually,onlyafewresearcheshaveexploredhowtoconstructlanguageproficiencyscales.Besides,withregardtoEnglishgrammaticalcompetence(EGC),previousresearchesmainlyfocusontherelationshipbetweenEGCandgrammaticalknowledgeorpragmaticcompetenceormakingsurveysofstudents’EGCindifferentstages.TherearefewresearchesthathaveconnectedEGCwithlanguageproficiencyscales.UnderthebackgroundofdevelopingChinaStandardsofEnglish,theauthorcombinesEGCwithlanguageproficiencyscalesandtakesChinesemiddleschoolstudentsassubjecttoexplorehowtoconstructthescaleofEGC.BasedonthetheoryofBachman’sCommunicativeLanguageAbility(CLA)andLarsen-freeman’sThree-dimensionalGrammarFramework,thisthesis,adoptingqualitativeandquantitativemethods,investigatethefollowingtwoquestions:(1)WhatarethedimensionsofEGCscaleforChinesemiddleschoolstudents?(2)WhatarethelevelsofEGCscaleforChinesemiddleschoolstudents?Toprobeintotheabovequestions,thei authortakesthefollowingsteps:firstofall,207descriptorsthatcanreflectEnglishabilityofmiddleschoolstudentsaregatheredwidelyfromlanguageproficiencyscales,curriculumstandards,teachingandtestingsyllabuses,Englishtextbooksandsoonathomeandabroad.However,descriptorsarefoundtobevariousinwaysofexpressionandspecificityofcontents.Therefore,thisthesis,referringtothepreviousprinciplesforeditingdescriptors,takesthemeasuresofdeletion,packing,unpackingandtranslationtorevisethedescriptors.Followedbythefirststage,theauthorexpoundsform,meaningandusebasedonthecalibrateddescriptorsandclassifiesthemintocorrespondingdimension.Later,intra-rater’scorrelationandinter-raters’consistencyhavebeenusedtojudgetherationalityofdimensions.Finally,basedonsourcesofdescriptorsandtheauthor’sexperience,editeddescriptorsaredividedintofivelevels.Thirty-twoexperiencedmiddleschoolEnglishteachersareinvitedtoparticipateintheresearch.TheresultsareanalyzedbyMultifacetRaschModel(MFRM)andinthisway,thelevelsofdescriptorsaresetultimately.Throughthestudy,itisfoundthat,(1)EGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentscanbedescribedfromthreedimensions,namely,form,meaninganduse.Thenumberofdescriptorsineachdimensionis23,26and57respectively;(2)therearethreelevelsofthescaleofEGCandtheyarelow,intermediateandadvancedlevels,whicharethesameinii eachdimension.Meanwhile,descriptorsarebalancedineachlevelfromtheperspectiveofeachdimension.TheresultsalsoindicatethatthecollectionandeditingofdescriptorsarethebasisofbuildingthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Thedescriptorsmustbecomprehensive,representativeandauthoritativeinsourcesandshouldbedefinite,clear,brief,independentandpositiveinexpression.What’smore,classificationandscalingarekeystepsfortheconstructionofEGCscale.Classificationshouldbebasedonsolidtheoreticalfoundationswhilescalingneedstobesupportedbyqualitativeandquantitativedatainordertoguaranteethevalidityofthescale.Hopefully,thescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentscanprovidecertainguidanceforlanguageteachingandalsohassomevalueofreferencefortheconstructionofChinaStandardsofEnglish.Keywords:languageproficiencyscales;EGC;descriptors;dimensions;levelsiii 摘要迄今为止，国外关于语言能力等级量表的研究已日趋成熟，而国内的相关研究则侧重于介绍国外量表的研制过程、研究方法和讨论国外量表存在的优势与不足，探讨如何构建语言能力等级量表的研究相对较少。英语语法能力的相关国内外研究主要集中在探索其与语法知识、语用能力的关系或者调查某一阶段学生习得的语法知识，并没有与量表相结合。因此，本文将英语语法能力和等级量表结合起来，在当前教育部研制《中国英语能力等级量表》这一背景下，以中国中学生为目标群体，研究如何建构中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表。本文基于Bachman的交际语言能力理论和Larsen-freeman的三维语法框架，采用定性和定量相结合的方法，旨在回答以下两个问题：（1）中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表可分为哪几个维度？（2）中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表可分为哪几个等级？针对上述问题，我们进行了以下具体研究：首先，从国内外语言能力量表、课程标准、教学和考试大纲及英语教科书等文献中采集207条与中学生语言能力相当的描述语。鉴于描述语的表述形式多种多样，且描述的内容有详有略，作者参考以往描述语的编辑原则，采取删减、拆分、合并和翻译等手段对描述语进行编辑。其次，作者结合已编辑好的描述语，v 重新阐述三维语法框架中的形式、意义和用法，并据此将描述语归类至相应的维度；之后通过自我一致性评判和专家一致性评判验证描述语维度划分的合理性。最后，我们根据经验和描述语的初始级别，本文将加工处理后的描述语初步分为五个等级，并邀请32位经验丰富的一线初高中教师参与调研；然后采用多面Rasch模型对结果进行统计分析，进而确定描述语的最终等级。本研究发现：（1）中国中学生英语语法能力可以从形式、意义和用法三个维度进行描述，描述语数量分别为23、26和57；（2）中国中学生英语语法能力描述语最终可确定为低中高三个级别,且每个维度都能分成三级，描述语分布较为均衡。研究结果表明构建中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表，描述语的采集与编制是基础，应确保描述语来源的广泛性、代表性和权威性，描述语应准确、清晰、简洁、独立和肯定。分类和定级是关键，分类应有坚实的理论基础，定级应有定性和定量证据的支持，从而保证量表的效度。希望中国中学生英语法能力量表的建立能为教师教学和语法学习提供一定的指导；同时，也可为《中国英语能力等级量表》的制定提供参考。关键词：语言能力等级量表；英语语法能力；描述语；维度；级别vi AListofAbbreviationsEGCEnglishGrammaticalCompetenceFSIForeignServiceInstituteILRInteragencyLanguageRoundtableScaleACTFLAmericanCouncilfortheTeachingofForeignLanguagesISLPRInternationalSecondLanguageProficiencyRatingsSFLLStandardsforForeignLanguageLearninginthe21stcenturyCLBCanadianLanguageBenchmarksALTEAssociationofLanguageTestersinEuropeCEFRACommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages:Learning,Teaching,AssessmentCLACommunicativeLanguageAbilityELAEnglishLanguageArtsContentforCaliforniaPublicSchools:KindergardenthroughGrade12NCENationalCurriculuminEngland:EnglishProgrammesofStudyCSEConventionsofStandardEnglishOCOntarioCurriculumNYNewYorkStateP-12CommonCoreLearningStandardsforvii EnglishLanguageartsandliteracyECSEnglishCurriculumStandardsinFull-timeCompulsoryEducationECSSEnglishCurriculumStandardsforPrimaryandMiddleSchoolStudentsinShanghaiNECSNewEnglishCurriculumStandardforSeniorStudentsTSEMTeachingSyllabusforEnglishMajorsTSSTestingSyllabusforCETSixTSNTeachingSyllabusforOralEnglishinNorthwestUniversityGCSEGeneralCertificateofSecondaryEducationSyllabusIELTSTheInternationalEnglishLanguageTestingSystemGuidePETSCambridgePreliminaryEnglishTest-handbookforteachersassessmentofwritingAYLLITAssessmentofYoungLearnersLiteracyKETCambridgeKeyEnglishTest-handbookforteacherslanguagespecificationsEIKENEIKENCan-doListETEnglishTextbooksforJuniorandSeniorSchoolStudents(People’sEducationEdition)(GradeSeventoGradeTwelve)AEAdvancewithEnglish(OxfordseniorEnglish,Yilinedition)(Moduleonetoten)viii SWSuccessfulWritingPWPRAXISWritingCoreAcademicSkillsforEducatorsGBNewGrammarCourseBookQSAQuestionnaireforSyntacticAbilityMFRMMulti-facetRaschMeasurementix AListofFiguresFigure2-1ComponentsofCLAinCommunicativeLanguageUse(Bachman,1990:85)Figure2-2ComponentsofLanguageCompetence(Bachman,1990:87)Figure4-1ScalingofDescriptorsofEGCbyMFRMxi AListofTablesTable3-1ForeignSourcesofDescriptorsofEGCTable3-2DomesticSourcesofDescriptorsofEGCTable3-3MethodsforEditingDescriptorsofEGCatFirstStageTable3-4MethodsforEditingDescriptorsofEGCatSecondStageTable3-5OriginalDimensionsofEGCScaleTable3-6ProvisionalLevelsofEGCScaleTable3-7Intra-rater’scorrelationsTable3-8Experts’ConsistencyTable3-9DetailedInformationofInvitedTeachersTable3-10Teachers’RatingReportTable4-1FinalDimensionsofEGCScaleTable4-2Descriptors’HolisticReportTable4-3MeasuresforVergingDescriptorsandTheirNeighboringDescriptorsTable4-4DescriptorsofEGCinLowLevelbyMFRMAnalysisTable4-5DescriptorsofEGCinIntermediateLevelbyMFRMAnalysisTable4-6DescriptorsofEGCinAdvancedLevelbyMFRMAnalysisTable4-7FinalLevelsofEGCscaleTable4-8LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofFormxiii Table4-9LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofMeaningTable4-10LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofUseTable4-11ScaleofEGCforChineseMiddleSchoolStudentsxiv ContentsAbstract.......................................................................................................i摘要.........................................................................................................vAListofAbbreviations..........................................................................viiAListofFigures.......................................................................................xiAListofTables......................................................................................xiiiIntroduction...............................................................................................1ChapterOneLiteratureReview..............................................................61.1StudiesonLanguageProficiencyScales........................................71.1.1ConstructionofLanguageProficiencyScales.......................71.1.2ValidationofLanguageProficiencyScales.........................171.2StudiesonEGC.............................................................................221.2.1FromthePerspectiveofRelationshipbetweenGrammaticalKnowledgeandEGC.....................................................................231.2.2FromthePerspectiveofRelationshipbetweenEGCandPragmaticCompetence..................................................................26ChapterTwoTheoreticalFoundations.................................................302.1CommunicativeLanguageAbility................................................312.1.1BackgroundofCLA............................................................312.1.2ModelofCLA......................................................................342.1.3EvaluationofCLA...............................................................38 2.2Three-dimensionalGrammarFramework....................................382.2.1NatureofGrammar..............................................................392.2.2ModelofEGC......................................................................412.2.3EvaluationofThree-dimensionalGrammarFramework....43ChapterThreeConstructionandValidationoftheScaleofEGC.....443.1CollectionandEditingofDescriptors..........................................453.1.1CollectionofDescriptors.....................................................453.1.2EditingofDescriptors..........................................................483.2ClassificationandScalingofDescriptors.....................................573.2.1ClassificationofDescriptors...............................................583.2.2ScalingofDescriptors..........................................................603.3ValidationoftheScaleofEGC.....................................................633.3.1ValidationofClassification..................................................633.3.2ValidationofScaling............................................................67ChapterFourResultsandDiscussion...................................................724.1DimensionsofEGCScale............................................................734.2LevelsofEGCScale.....................................................................76Conclusion...............................................................................................90Bibliography............................................................................................97AppendixI原始描述语.......................................................................107AppendixII编辑后剩余描述语..........................................................119 AppendixIII专家问卷调査表..............................................................125AppendixIV教师问卷调查表............................................................133AppendixV中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表..............................143Acknowledgements...............................................................................159 IntroductionGrammaticalcompetenceisahottopicbothinlanguageteachingandlanguagetesting.ThisthesistakesanempiricalapproachtostudyhowtoconstructascaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Languageproficiencyscalesthatareusedtodescribe“successivelevelsoflanguagelearningattainment”(North,2000)canprovideguidanceforlanguagelearning,teachingandassessing.Researchesonthemabroadareverycommonandmostcountrieshavealreadyformedunifiedlanguagestandards,suchasthewell-knownscalesofForeignserviceInstitute(FSI),AssociationofLanguageTesters(ALTE),CanadianLanguageBenchmarks(CLB),StandardsforForeignstLanguageLearninginthe21Century(SFLL)andCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReference(CEFR)andsoon.Butuptonow,theChinesegovernmenthasonlyestablishedthreeguidelinedocuments,namely,EnglishCurriculumStandards,CollegeTeachingRequirementsandEnglishTeachingSyllabusforEnglishMajors,whichareappropriateforlearnersindifferentstagesthatmaycausedifferentunderstandingsofEnglishabilityandlevelsofEnglishproficiency.Havingrealizedthisproblem,ChineseMinistryofEducationhasannouncedtodevelopChinaStandardsofEnglishsinceJune,2014.Fromthenon,manyexperts,1 scholarsandteachersindifferentareasareactivelyengagedinit.Theyhavewrittenseveralworksheetstointroducetheguidelinesandprocedurestobuildlanguageproficiencyscales.Besides,aplatformnamedChinaStandardsofEnglishisbuiltwhichsummarizesallkindsofdescriptorsrelatedtoEnglishabilityexpressedeitherinChineseorinEnglish.Themostimportantthingisthatsomematerialsforcollectingdescriptorsandforeigntheoriesusedforsuchstudyarealsoprovided.Therefore,makingunifiedEnglishstandardinChinahassuppliedapowerfulsupportforthecurrentstudyfromallaspects.AstothestudiesEGCathomeandabroad,previousscholarsprefertomakesurveysaboutstudents’EGCindifferentstagesordistinguishEGCfromgrammaticalknowledgeorpragmaticcompetence.Obviously,theyhavemadegreatachievementsandalsohaveprovidedenlightenmentforthelaterstudies.However,itisnotenoughsincewestilldonothaveaunifiedstandardtojudgethelevelsofstudents’EGCwhentheyuselanguagetocommunicate.WiththedevelopmentoflanguageproficiencyscalesathomeandabroadandtherequirementofbuildingaunifiedlanguagestandardinChina,constructingthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentsisworthdoingasit’sanimportantpartforlearners’EnglishabilityaswellasonepartoftheconstructingChineseStandardsofEnglish.Reasonsforchoosingmiddleschoolstudentsassubjectcanbe2 brieflyexplainedasfollows.Tostartwith,studentsinmiddleschoolsarethecenterofprimaryeducation.Theyarespecialandtypicalfortheirpsychophysicalfeatures.Everythinginthisstageiseasytoinfluencethestudents.Inthesecondplace,theyareatacriticalperiodoflanguagelearninganditissaidthattheirlearninghabitswillbegraduallyformedinthisstage.Lastly,studentsinmiddleschoolsarewideinnumberbecauseeveryplacewhethercitiesorvillageshaslotsofmiddleschools.Formiddleschoolstudents,grammarisanecessarypartinEnglishlearning.TeacherswillteachthemhowtousegrammarandtesttheirEGCwhileinprimaryschool,EGCisnotafocusandincollege,grammaticalknowledgeisnotemphasizedexceptforstudentsinEnglishmajor.Therefore,choosingmiddleschoolstudentsassubjectsareavailableandpractical.Undertheaboveresearchbackground,thisthesis,basedonBachman’sCLAandLarsen-freeman’sThree-dimensionalGrammarFramework,intendstoconstructthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Itmainlyanswersthefollowingtwoquestions:(1)WhatarethedimensionsofEGCscaleforChinesemiddleschoolstudents?(2)WhatarethelevelsofEGCscaleforChinesemiddleschoolstudents?Theprocessofstudyisaconnectionofqualitativeandquantitativemethods.Thequalitativemethodissupportedbyliteraturewhile3 quantitativeoneisbackedupbydataandanalyzedwiththehelpofsoftwareSPSSandMFRM.Actually,buildingsuchascaleisavitalandcriticalstepfortheconstructionofChinaStandardsofEnglish.Theoretically,EGCisaninternalpartofcommunicativecompetence.ThisstudycanoffervaluableguidanceforEnglishlearning,teachingandassessing.Practically,EnglishlearnerscanimprovetheircommunicativecompetencebycheckingtheirEGC.TeachersandassessmentexpertscanpaymoreattentiontotheteachingandassessingofEGC,andadjustteachingandassessingcontentsaccordingtothescaleofEGC.Thisthesisconsistsoffourchaptersinadditiontotheintroductionandconclusion.Introductionisconcernedwiththeresearchbackground,content,significanceandthegeneralframework.ChapterOneisaliteraturereviewofpreviousstudiesonlanguageproficiencyscalesandEGC.Astotheformer,itinvolvestheconstructionandvalidationofforeignanddomesticlanguageproficiencyscales.ResearchesonEGCarestatedfromitsrelationshipanddistinctionbetweenEGCandgrammaticalknowledgeorpragmaticcompetence.ChapterTwoisthetheoreticalbasisofthestudy,whichisdividedintotwoparts,CLAandThree-dimensionalGrammarFramework.Theformerisanunderlyingtheoreticalbasisforthestudy.Thebackgroundanditsmodelareintroduced.Thelatterisasupportfortheclassificationofdescriptors,4 whichisintroducedfromthenatureofgrammar,itsmodelofEGCanditsevaluation.ChapterThreemainlydescribestheconstructionofthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentswhichcanbesummarizedasthreesteps.ThefirststepisthecollectionandeditingofdescriptorsofEGC.Thisisabasicandalsoanecessarystepforconstructingascale.ThesecondoneistheclassificationofEGCbasedonThree-dimensionalGrammarFramework.ButitneedstobementionedthattheauthorhasexplainedthreedimensionsinanewwayandsupposesthatdescriptorsofEGCcanbedescribedbythesethreedimensions.ThescalingofdescriptorsofEGCisprovisionallydeterminedaccordingtothesourcesofdescriptorsandpersonalexperience.ThethirdpartisthevalidationofthescaleofEGCfromitsclassificationandscaling.Questionnaires,SPSSandMFRMareinvolved.ChapterFourisconcernedwiththeresultsanddiscussionofthestudy.ItmainlydiscussesthedimensionsofEGCscaleandlevelsofEGCscaleandlevelsineachdimensionaccordingtotheresultsofsurvey.Conclusionpresentswhatwehavedoneinthethesis,majorfindingswehavemade,thesignificanceandlimitationsofthecurrentstudy.5 6 ChapterOneLiteratureReviewInthischapter,previousstudiesonlanguageproficiencyscalesandEGCwillbestated.Thisaimstofindoutwhathasorhasnotbeenstudiedandwhatarethemeritsanddemeritsofthepreviousstudies.1.1StudiesonLanguageProficiencyScalesLanguageproficiencyscalescanalsobecalledlanguageproficiencystandards,whicharedescriptionsoflanguageusersorlearners’leveloflanguageproficiencyfromlowtohigh,thusenablingthemtobeclearabouttheirlanguageabilityaccordingtothedescriptorsinthescale(HanBaocheng2006:443).Languageproficiencyscalescanbedividedintouser-oriented,constructor-orientedandassessor-orientatedonesaccordingtoAlderson(1991).Thissectionwillreviewtheresearchesaboutthemfromtheperspectiveoftheirconstructionandvalidation.1.1.1ConstructionofLanguageProficiencyScalesThehistoryofresearchesontheconstructionoflanguageproficiencyscalesismorethansixtyyearsabroad(HanBaocheng,2006).FamousforeignlanguagescalesincludingFSI,ILR,ACTFL,ISLPR,ALTE,SFLL,CLBandCEFRetc.andalsosomeChinesestudiesonlanguageproficiencystudieswillbeintroducedhere.FSIscaleisthefirstlanguageproficiencyscalethatwasconstructed7 bymembersinWashingtonGovernmentandForeignServiceinstitutein1957,whichisasetoforalcompetencescalesusedfororalassessment.Itisstandardizedtosixbaselevelsrangingfrom0(=nofunctionalability)to5(=equivalenttoaneducatednativespeaker)andcoversfiveaspectsoflanguage:accent,comprehension,fluency,grammarandvocabulary.FSIhastwoinnovations,thefirstisthatitadoptsafacetofacetalkbetweeninterviewerandintervieweetotestthelatter’scommunicationability,whichbringsarevolutioninoralassessmentandthesecondisthatitisthefirsttodefinelanguageusers’oralcommunicationabilityinreallifebywayofdescription;however,itisbasedonstructuretheory,whichisnotscientificaslanguageknowledgeisnottotallyequaltolanguagecompetence(WangShuhua,2012).ILRscaleisbasedonFSIandisconstructedbyInteragencyLanguageRoundtable.Itconsistsoffoursub-scales:speaking,listening,readingandwriting.Later,translationandinterpretationwereaddedasnewsub-scalesin2005and2006.ILRscale,likeFSIscale,hassixmajorlevelstogetherwithfivepluslevels,whichareusedtodescribelearnerswhohavenotreachedthenextlevelbuthavesurpassedthecurrentlevel.Therefore,ithaselevenlevelsinsum.DifferentfromFSIscale,ittakessocial-cultureandcognitivefactorsaffectinglanguagebehaviorsintoaccount,suchasinterests,topicfamiliarityandsoon.Besides,thereareexamplestoillustratethecorrespondingcompetenceafterthedescriptions8 ofeachlevel,whichmakesthescalemoreeasilytooperate.Therefore,itmakesareferencefortheconstructionofproficiencyscalesbothinAmericaandothercountriesintheworld.ThedeficienciesofILRscalecanbeconcludedasfollows:(1)thedistinctionsbetweenlowandmiddlelevelsarenotclearandthetransitionsbetweenlevelsarealsonotbalanced(HanBaocheng,2006).(2)Expressionsofabilityaretoovarious,someofwhichbeginwithmodalverbswhileothersstartwithverbsinpresenttenseorthirdpersonsingularforms.(3)Thedescriptorsarenotunifiedinwayofexpression,whichshouldbepresentedwithpositiveform.ACTFLscaleisconstructedbyAmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguagesandEducationalTestingServicebasedonFSIandILRscales.Theconstructionadoptsanexperientialmethod.Itconsistsofthreestages(novice,intermediate,advanced)andninelevels,inotherwords,therearelow,middleandhighlevelsaftereachstage.Besides,afterrevising,twolevelsareincreased:distinguishedandnativelevels.Currentdescriptorsinthescalearepresentedbytheformof“can-do”statements.TheyarealignedwiththeACTFLProficiencyGuidelinesin2012andtheACTFLPerformanceDescriptorsforLanguageLearners,somanyofthetermsusedinthecan-dostatementsareconsistentwiththosedefinedintheGuidelinesandareintendedtoreflectthecommonterminologythatdefineskeycharacteristicsoftherangesofperformance9 foundinACTFLdocumentsrelatedtolanguagelearningandteaching.The“can-do”statementsareself-assessmentchecklistsusedbylanguagelearnerstoassesswhatthey“cando”withlanguageintheInterpersonal,PresentationalandInterpretivemodesofcommunicationthatcanbeorganizedintothefollowingdetailedcategories:interpersonal(person-to-person)communication,presentationalspeaking(spokenproduction),presentationalwriting(writtenproduction),interpretivelisteningandinterpretivereading.ThespecialfeatureofACTFLscaleisthatitisthefirsttouse“can-do”statementstodescribelanguageabilityfromtheperspectiveoflanguageusers.Itnotonlycoverslistening,speaking,readingandwritingskills,butalsoincludesculturalaspect.Thescalehastwofunctions.Firstly,itcanbeusedtoassessthelanguageabilityofmiddleschoolteachers;secondly,itisastandardforthegovernmentandotherdepartmentstotestthelanguageabilityofthepeopletheyaregoingtohire.However,itfailsinthatitisnotbasedonempiricalstudy.ISLPRscaleisasecondlanguageproficiencyscaleinAustraliaandusedwidely.Ithassixmajorlevelsfromzeroproficiencytonative-likeproficiencyandsixplusandminuslevels.LikeILRscale,ISLPRscalealsodescribesfourskills:listening,speaking,readingandwriting.Thedescriptorsinthescalearebasedonauthenticlanguageusetostatewhatkindoftasksuserscandoandwhattypesoflanguagetheymayuseto10 finishthetaskswhentheyreachthelevel(HanBaocheng,2006).Ithasthreefunctions,firstly,itcanbeusedfordescribingforeignlanguageabilityofadolescentsandadults;secondly,itcanbeusedasastandardtomakeforeignlanguagepolicies;thirdly,itcanprovideareferenceframeworkfordevelopingnewcourses(Wylie,1999).Therearetwoeditionsofthescale,oneisspecialpurposemodelusedfortestinglanguageuseinspecialsituationlikecareerandtheotherisgeneralproficiencymodelwhichisappropriateforeachsituation,whichisaparticularpointofISLPRscale.ISLPRisdevelopedonthebasisofILRandACTFLscales,butisinfluencedbycommunicativelanguageability.Therefore,thedescriptorsarerelatedtotasksandcontexts,inotherwords,theycanreflecttheuseoflanguagetocompletetasksinreallifecontexts.AlthoughISLPRscalehasitsownadvantages,itstilllacksempiricalsupport.ALTEscaleisaforeignlanguagescaledevelopedbyAssociationofLanguageTestersinEurope.Itisarelativelycompletelanguageproficiencysystem,whichisoriginallyusedtopromotetheidentityofcertificatesaboutforeignlanguageinEurope.Ingeneral,therearesixlevelsinthescale,butsomesub-scalescoveronlyapartoftheproficiencyrangeastherearemanysituationsinwhichonlybasicproficiencyisrequiredtoachievesuccessfulcommunication.Thescaleiscomposedofabout400statements,whichareputintothreegeneralareas:11 SocialandTourist,Work,andStudybecausetheyaretheareasmostlanguagelearnersareconcernedwith.Eachareaconsistsofanumberofmoreparticularareas,suchasEatingout,Accommodation,andShoppingunderSocialandTouristarea.Allthescalesincludefourskills:listening,speaking,readingandwriting,buttheformertwoarethoughtasthesameskillinALTEscaleforbotharerelatedtointeraction.ATLEscaleisadetailedscalebasedonempiricalresearchandusespositivestatementstowritedescriptorsthatprovidesareferencefortheconstructionofotherscales.However,thereisonlyonedescriptorineachlevel,thetypicalityofwhichisundersuspicion.Besides,thedescriptorsusesomeabstracttermslike“predicted”whichareunclearanddetailed,soitmaycausesomedifficultyinunderstanding(WangShuhua,2012).SFLLisaforeignlanguagestandardconstructedbyAmericancouncilontheteachingofforeignlanguagesandassociationofforeignteachersin1996.Thisstandardisnotonlyaguidelineforprimaryandmiddleschoolsusedbystudentsfromkindergartentogradetwelve,butalsoareferenceforadulteducation.Ithasproposedfivelearningobjectives:Communication,Culture,Connection,ComparisonandCommunity(LuXiaoyong,2001;HanBaocheng,LiuRunqing,2008)andareusuallycalled“5Cstandards”,whichareseparatedintodetaileddescriptionsrespectively.SFLLisstudent-orientedandthecoreofitistodeveloplanguagelearners’communicativeabilityandtocultivatetheir12 foreignculturesthroughlearninglanguages.SFLLisanewmodeloflanguageproficiencystandard,butitignoreskeyaspectsoflanguagelearning,suchasgrammarandvocabulary.Itisstudent-oriented,butdoesnotemphasizestudents’emotions,whichisnotgoodforthedevelopmentofstudents’comprehensivequality.CLBisanationalforeignlanguagestandardconstructedbyCitizenshipandImmigrationCanada,whichwaspublishedin1996.Ithasexperiencedaseriesofrevisementinthelateryears.Therearethreestages(elementary,secondaryandhigher)andtwelvelevelsinthebenchmark.Eachleveliscomposedofthreeparts:thefirstpartisaglobaldescriptionoflistening,speaking,readingandwriting;thesecondpartexplainsvariousperformanceconditionsforcompletingthetasks,suchascommunicativegoals,situations,subjects,objectsandsoon.ThelastpartgivestypicalexamplestostatewhatlanguageusersreallycandoinEnglish.CLBreflectsthedevelopmentofappliedlinguisticstheoriesinlanguagetestingandteaching(HanBaocheng,2006).Thedescriptionsinthebenchmarkarecompleteandspecificandhavemadeasystematicrequirementforthecognitiveabilityoflanguagelearnerswhichmakesitdifferentfromotherlanguageproficiencyscales.TheconstructionofCEFRisbasedontheneedtogetamutualrecognitionoflanguagecertificatesamongEuropeancountries.Itisaction-orientedandlanguagelearnersarethoughtassocialmemberswho13 usetheirabilityandstrategiestheyhavetocompletelanguageactivitiesandtasksunderanyconditionandsituation.ThisframeworkisanoverallsystemwhichisusedasareferenceinEuropeancountriestodeveloplanguageteachingoutlines,teachingmaterialsandlanguagetestingresearches.CEFRisdividedintothreebandsandsixlevels.Eachlevelcoversfourskillsandhasgeneralandspecifieddescriptionsoflanguageability.TherearesomeproblemsinCEFRsuchaslackingdescriptorsinlowandhighlevels,includingunclearwordsinsomedescriptorsandignoringconcretelanguageitems(HanBaocheng,2006).SincethereisnotaunifiedlanguagestandardinChina,domesticstudiesrelatedtoforeignlanguageproficiencyscalesareneededtobeintroducedhere.Somearetheintroductionandcommentsonthemwhileothersaretheconstructionofpartiallanguageproficiencyscalebyreferencetothem.Besides,EnglishcurriculainChinaarealsomentionedbriefly.Throughintroducingtheprinciplesforformulatinglanguageproficiencyscales,YangHuizhongandGuiShichun(2007)haveadvocatedtobuildacommonlanguagereferenceframeworkinAsiaandtheyespeciallyemphasizetheimportancetocombinequalitativeandquantitativemethodswhenconstructingthescale.Later,FangXujun,YangHuizhongandZhuZhengcai(2008)haveproposedtoconstructaunifiedlanguageproficiencyscaleinChinabased14 oncommunicativelanguageability.Theyholdthatthescaleshouldadopt“can-do”statementstodescribethefourskills:listening,speaking,readingandwriting.LiuZhenwei(2010)agreeswiththeirideaandcomparesthecurrentsituationofnationalEnglishlanguagestandardinChinawithCEFR,thenpointsouttheenlightenmentthatthelatterbringstotheformulationofaunifiedlanguageproficiencyscaleinChina.Afterthem,moreandmorescholarsbegintopayattentiontolanguageproficiencyscales.HanBaochengandChangHaichao(2011)havemadeacomparativeanalysisof12languageabilitystandardsathomeandabroadfromtheirresearchbackgrounds,theoreticalbasis,expressionsandresearchmethodsandhavefoundoutthattheconstructionsofCEFRandALTEaremorescientific.FangXujun,YangHuizhongandZhuZhengcai(2011)basedonempiricalstudy,havedevelopedanoralEnglishscale.Thescaleiscoveredby65descriptorswhicharedividedintothreedimensionsandfourlevels.LiuZhuang(2011),focusingontheCEFR,adopts“action-oriented”conceptanduses“can-do”statementtodescribelanguageability,toemphasizelanguagediversityandtocultivatestudents’comprehensivelanguagequality.TheresultshowsCEFRcaninfluencethewaytoteachEnglishinChina.15 WangShuhua(2012)haswrittenthebook“DevelopingandValidatingofLanguageComprehensionAbilityforChineseLearnersofEnglish”.Inthebook,sheconstructsthescaleoflanguagecomprehensionabilitythatismadeupof188descriptorsrelatedtowritingcomprehensionand195descriptorsoforalcomprehension.Inadditiontothestudiesonlanguageproficiencyscales,thereareteachingguidancedocumentsinChina,includingEnglishCurriculumStandards,CollegeTeachingRequirements,EnglishTeachingSyllabusforEnglishMajorsandotherrelevantexaminationoutlines.ThesedocumentshaveprovidedanimportantsupportforEnglishteachinginmiddleschool.TakingEnglishCurriculumStandard(trailversion,2001)forexample,itconsistsoffiveparts:linguisticknowledge,languageskills,emotionsandattitude,learningstrategiesandculturalawareness.Ingeneral,itisananalyticscaleandhas184descriptors.Theyare“can-do”statementsusedtodescribefourlanguageskillsofstudentsfromprimaryschooltohighschool.Thecurriculumisdetailedtosomedegree,buttherearesomeproblemsinit.First,theclassificationofdescriptorsisnotclear;second,theratingdivisionisgeneralandunreasonable;third,themeaningsofsomewordsindescriptorsarevague,suchas“general”,“most”etc.;fourth,thereisnoquantitativeanalysisinthescale.Apartfromtheaboveinternalproblems,thedocumentalsohasaweakconnectiontootherdocuments.What’smore,thedescriptionsin16 thosedocumentsaresogeneralthattheycanbeusedbystudentsinanystage.Therefore,itisnecessarytobuildaunifiedbutalsoapplicablelanguageproficiencyscaleinChina.Throughaglobaloverviewoftheresearchesontheconstructionoflanguageproficiencyscalesathomeandabroad,someexistingscaleshaveshortcomings,buttherearestillsomekeypointsthatcanbeusedasareferencefortheconstructionofthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Firstly,theconstructionofalanguageproficiencyscaleshouldhavetheoreticalfoundations,suchasFSI,ILR,ACTFLandISLPRbasedonstructurallinguisticsandSFLL,ALTE,CLBandCEFRbasedonCLA.Secondly,thedescriptorsshouldadopttheformof“can-do”statementsandtheymustbeclear,simple,brief,positiveandandindependentandmustbetotallyrelevanttothecompetencedescribed.1.1.2ValidationofLanguageProficiencyScalesValidationshouldbedoneonceascaleisconstructed.Thecontentsbelowareresearchesaboutthevalidationoflanguageproficiencyscalesathomeandabroad.ThevalidationofFSIscaleowestoFSI.Itcreatedatestingofficetovalidatethemin1958,whichhasdevelopedastructuredinterviewdirectlysupportedby6pointscaleandstandardizedfactorsforscoring.17 ALTEusesbothqualitativeandquantitativeresearchmethodstovalidatethescale.Thequalitativeresearchincludessixsteps:1)usequestionnairesandreportsfromschoolstodescribestudents’languageabilityintests;2)usethisinformationtospecifyrangeofcandidateneedsandidentifymajorconcerns;3)usetestspecificationsandinternationallyrecognizedlevelssuchasWaystageandThresholdtodrawupinitialstatements;4)moderatestatementsandassessingtheirrelevancetotesttakers;5)trialstatementswithteachersandstudentswithaviewtoevaluatingrelevanceandtransparency;6)correct,reviseandsimplifythelanguageofthestatementsinthelightoftheabove.Thequantitativeresearchinvolvestwoparts:first,thedescriptorsinthreeareasaremadeintoquestionnairesbyalinkofanchoritemandsenttotheusersineacharearespectively;second,Raschmodelisusedtoanalyzetheresultsofquestionnairessoastoidentifythedegreeofdifficultyofdescriptors.Thepurposeofquantitativeresearchistoturnthescaleintoanassessmentinstrument.Untilnow,ALTEscaleisstillintheprocessofvalidationtoadjustthelevels.ThevalidationofCLBmainlyincludesthreesteps:(1)developacommontheoreticalframework;(2)validateagainstthetheoreticalframeworktodeterminewhetherthecontentaccuratelyreflectedtheunderlyingtheory;(3)developexemplarstotestthevalidity,clarity,andreliabilityofdescriptors.CLBisbasedonthetheoryofCLA.Astothe18 secondstep,sixindependentexpertsmapeachdescriptorontothetheoreticalframeworktoidentifygapswherecomponentsofthetheoreticalmodelsservingasthefoundationofthedocumentsarenotadequatelyrepresentedandfindthattheyareconsistentwithwidelyacceptedresearch.Thenextstepisthecoreofvalidation.Expertsfirstdevelopreadingandlisteningtextsandtasksforthe12levels,aswellaspromptswhichareusedtocollectexemplarsoflearners’performanceinspeakingandwriting.Thetasksandexemplarsarelaterindependentlybenchmarkedbysixexperts,withinter-rateragreementconfirmingthevalidityandreliabilityofthedescriptors.Afterthat,thesedescriptorsaretestedbymorethan100practitionersacrossCanada.Thesepractitionershavetwokeyroles:oneisthattheyconfirmtheleveloftheexemplarsbasedontheirexperiencewithlearnersatspecificlevels,andtheotheristhattheyprovidefeedbackontheclarity,completeness,andaccuracyoftherepresentationoftheselevels.However,thevalidationofCLBismainlybasedontheexperienceofexpertsandlacksquantitativeresearches.ThevalidationofCEFRhasadoptedintuitive,qualitativeandquantitativemethods,whichinvolvesthreestages.Firstofall,collectlanguagescalesandsplitupeachdescriptorinthescalesintosentenceswhicharelaterdistributedintodifferentcategoriesaccordingtotheexperienceofdevelopers.Second,teachersareaskedtodiscussthe19 performanceofapairoflearnersandchoosethebetteronebygivingdetailedreasons.Thesediscussionsarethenrecorded,transcribedinnoteform,analyzedandifsomethingnewisbeingsaid,itisformulatedintodescriptors.Later,theteachersaredividedintodifferentworkshopstofinishtheworkofclassificationandscaling,thatis,tojustifytheclarity,accuracyandrelevanceofdescriptorsandputthemintosixlevels.Third,basedonthelevelsofdescriptors,questionnairesaremadeforlearnersindifferentstagesandteacherscanusethemtoassesstheabilityofsometypicalstudentsattheendofaterm.Itsetsafive-pointdifficultylevelandadoptsRaschmodeltoanalyzeandrankthefinalresultsinordertoconfirmthecut-offpointbetweentwoadjacentlevels.Studiesabovearethevalidationofsomefamousforeignlanguageproficiencyscales.Inadditiontothem,therearealsosomepersonalstudiesofthevalidationoflanguageproficiencyscalesthatarepresentednext.Miller,J.M.&Penfield,R.D.(2005)hasadvocatedtousescoringmethodtovalidatethescale.Theyanalyzethedemeritsofusingthemeanofscaleratingtovalidatethecontentvalidity,thencalculatethestatisticalequationsandconductanexperimenttocalculatetheinterval.Resultsindicatethatcombinationoftwomethodsforcontentvalidationhasthebestefficiencyandisprovedtobeamorevalidapproachtocontentvalidation.20 FangXujun,YangHuizhongandZhuZhengcai(2011)havevalidatedtheiroralEnglishscalebyusingfactoranalysistoidentityclassificationofdescriptorsandclusteranalysistoscalethedescriptorsandtheresultshowsitcanbedividedintothreedimensionsandfourlevels.Threedimensionsincludetheaccuracyandrichnessoflanguageuse,connectingofdiscourseandcoherenceofmeaningandalsoflexibility,appropriatenessandeffectiveness.WangShuhua(2012)hasvalidatedthedescriptorsinthescalesofcomprehensionbyadoptingqualitativeandquantitativemethodslikechi-squaretestandMFRM.Theresultsshowthedescriptionofcomprehensionabilitycanbedividedintooralcomprehensionandwrittencomprehension,bothofwhichincludeidentifyingandextracting,understandingandgeneralizing,analyzingandinferringandevaluatingandappreciating.Thescaleisfinallyformedbysixbandsandeachbandconsistsofthreeclasses.Smyk,E.,Restrepo,M.A.,Gorin,J.S.&Gray,S.(2013)haveverifiedtheSpanish-Englishlanguageproficiencyscalefromthefollowingaspects:syntacticcomplexity,grammaticalaccuracy,verbalfluencyandlexicaldiversity.Measuresusedinthisstudyincludequalificationandexperimentalones.First,ratertrainingisconductedtoensuretheinter-raters’reliability.Second,storytelladministrationisgiventoguaranteethereliabilityoftheparallelform.Datausedfor21 analysisaremedian,mean,standarddeviation,Spearman’srhocorrelationsandsoon.Itissaidthatthescalecanbeusedasscreenertojudgewhetherstudentsagedfourtoeighthavesufficientskillsinlanguageproficiency.Cox,T.&Clifford,R.(2014)statethatvalidationofabilityscaledescribingmultidimensionalskillsischallengingsotheyapplymultistage,criterion-referencedapproachtovalidateACTFLandrelatelisteningproficiencyguidelines.First,traintheitemwritertoensureitemsarealignedwiththecurrentscale.Second,validatetheinternalconsistencysoastoensurethedifficultyofeachitemforlearners.Third,multipletestscontainingthoseitemswithaminimumof20%anchorsaredistributedtodifferentgroupsofstudy.DatawereprocessedusingWinsteps.Throughtheaboveresearches,itisclearthatthevalidationofscalesmustbecomposedofqualitativemethodsandquantitativeones.Therearemanywaysforqualitativestudylikeexperts’methodsandquantitativemethodslikedataanalysis.1.2StudiesonEGCEGCisaninseparablepartofEnglishlinguisticcompetence.Inshort,itreferstotheabilitytounderstandandusewords,phrasesandsentencesaccordingtorules.InChinesemiddleschools,cultivationof22 students’EGCplaysanimportantroleinEnglishteachingandlearning.Thus,thispartmainlyintroducesthepreviousstudiesofEGCtofindouttheachievementsandignoredaspects.1.2.1FromthePerspectiveofRelationshipbetweenGrammaticalKnowledgeandEGCChomsky(1965)whodoesn’tcareaboutlanguageusehasfirstputforwardtheconceptofcompetence.Inhisopinion,EnglishlinguisticcompetenceisEGCwhichreferstotheinternallinguisticknowledgeofthespeakerandhearer.Thus,grammaticalknowledgeissimilartoEGCinChomsky’sview.AsChomskydoesn’tfocusonlearner’sperformance,Hymes(1971)basedonhisresearch,hasproposedtheconceptofcommunicativecompetencewhichincludesfouraspects:possibility,feasibility,appropriatenessandperformance.Inotherwords,knowledgeisacomponentofcompetence,thatis,competenceshouldincludetheknowledgeandabilitytouseit.Later,CanaleandSwain(1980)havebuiltamorecomplexframeworkofcommunicativecompetenceandhaveconsideredEGCasonepartofit.Inthismodel,EGCreferstousers’abilitytomasterlanguagecodesuchascharacteristicsandrules,whichincludevocabulary,wordformation,syntax,pronunciation,spellingandlinguisticsemantics.Afterthat,Canale(1983)addsthatEGCconcentratesonlearners’knowledgeandabilitytounderstandtheliteral23 meaningofsentences.Bachman(1990)developstheideaCanaleandSwain,andputforwardamorecomplexcommunicativemodelthatconsistsoflanguagecompetence,strategiccompetenceandphysiologicalmechanisms.Languagecompetenceisdividedintotwoclasses:organizationalcompetenceandpragmaticcompetence.EGCasonepartoftheformeriscomposedofvocabulary,syntax,phonologyandgraphology,which,inotherwords,isabouttheformalaspectsofthelanguage.Grammaticalknowledgeisdifferentfromgrammaticalabilityastheformerisdefinedasasetofinternalizedinformationalstructuresrelatedtothetheoreticalmodelsofgrammarwhilethelatteristhecombinationofgrammaticalknowledgeandstrategiccompetence(Pupura,2004:85-86).Besides,somescholarshavediscussedtheeffectoftwokindsofgrammaticalknowledge,namely,explicitgrammaticalknowledge(grammaticalknowledgethatcanberealizedandexpressedaccordingtosomegrammaticalrules)andimplicitgrammaticalknowledge(learners’internalizedgrammaticalknowledgethatexistsinsubconscious)onEGC.GreenandHecht(1992),takingGermanstudentsandnativespeakersassubjects,havedevelopedanempiricalstudytoshowstudents’applicationofgrammaticalknowledgeinerrorcorrectionandhavefoundthatimplicitgrammaticalknowledgecaneasilyinfluencenativespeaker’EGCwhileexplicitgrammaticalknowledgeismorelikelytoinfluenceGermanstudents’EGC.Ellis(2005)hasstatedthatlinguistic24 competenceiscomposedofimplicitknowledge,notexplicitknowledge.ApartfromstudiesofgrammaticalknowledgeandEGCabroad,scholarsathomealsohavetriedtomakecleartherelationshipbetweenthetwo.MaGuanghuiandWenQiufang(1999)havearguedthatEGCisthesumofthecomprehensionofgrammaticalknowledgeandtheuseofit.Intheiropinions,theformerreferstotheidentificationofgrammaticalrulesandthelatterfocusesontheapplicationofgrammaticalrulesinsentence-making.NiuQiang&WangYafang(2007),basedonChomsky’sfiveaspectsofEGC,haveproposedthedifferencebetweengrammaticalknowledgeandEGC.Accordingtothem,grammaticalknowledgeistherulesthatlearners’arefamiliarwith,whichisalittlesimilartoMaGuanghuiandWenQiufang’sidea.EGCislearners’abilitytochangegrammaticalknowledgeintointernalknowledgeinsubconsciousthroughtheuseoflanguagethatcanmakethelearnersproducelanguageautomaticallyandjudgethecorrectnessofit.ZhouMei(2010)agreeswithNiuQiangandWangYafangandemphasizestheimportancetochangegrammaticalknowledgeintogrammaticalcompetenceinEnglishteaching.DuXiaohong(2011),differentfromotherscholars,takestheviewthatgrammaticalknowledgeisexplicitandgrammaticalcompetenceisimplicitthroughtheanalysisofdeclarativeknowledgeandproceduralknowledge.EGChasbeenseparatedfromgrammaticalknowledgebythe25 researchesforalongtime,butintheprocessofdevelopment,theyareawareoftheoverlappingbetweenthem.Infact,grammaticalknowledgeisaninseparablepartofEGCandshouldbetakenasthebasisofitontheonehand.EGCiscloselyconnectedwiththeinternalizationofgrammaticalknowledgeontheotherhand.1.2.2FromthePerspectiveofRelationshipbetweenEGCandPragmaticCompetenceInthefirstpartofthissection,thisthesishasimpliedthatlinguistshavestartedtoshifttheirattentiontothecommunicativeaspectoflanguagesince1970.Thepropositionofcommunicativecompetencehasattractedlinguists’interestintheresearchonlanguagelearners’pragmaticcompetence.Bardovi-Harlig(1999)hasstatedthatEGCmaybeanecessaryconditionofpragmaticdevelopment,butnotasufficientcondition.However,Kasper&Schmidt(1994)andKasper(2001)donotagreewithhim.Theyhaveexplainedthatgrammarcannotbeanecessaryconditionforpragmaticcompetence,astheyhavefoundthatlearnersareoftenabletomakecertainperformanceunderpragmaticfunctionseventheyhavelimitedEGC.Kasper(2001)haspointedoutthatthestudyoftherelationshipbetweenEGCandpragmaticcompetencehasarousedattentioninthemodelofcommunicativecompetence.TherearetwostatementsthatcanexplaintheroleofEGCandpragmaticcompetence.26 OneisthatEGCisaninsufficientconditionforpragmaticcompetence;theotherisEGCisanessentialconditionforpragmaticcompetence.Takahashi(1996)andFrancis(1997)havetakentheopinionthatalearnerknowsthereexistssuitablepragmaticstrategyforacontemporarycontext,butdoesnotknowhowtorealizeitbecauseofhislimitedlinguisticknowledge,whichiswhattheythinkasthebasisofthenecessityofEGC.Bardovi-Harlig(1999)aftertestingtheadvancedlearners’pragmaticabilityhasconsistentlyfoundthatlearners’highlevelofEGCdoesnotmeanhighlevelofpragmaticcompetence.Rose(2000)hascometoanappropriateconclusionthatalearnermayalreadyknowaboutthelinguisticstructureofalanguagebuttheyarenotclearabouthowtousethemaspragmaticstrategieswhensheobservestheminclass.InChina,somescholarsbegintoexploreChineselearners’pragmaticcompetencefromthelearners’pragmaticfailureanddeficiencyincross-culturalcommunication,likeHeZiran&YanZhuang(1986).Withthehelpofcooperativeprinciples,politenessprinciplesandspeechacttheory,theyhavedescribedwhatpragmaticfailureisandhaveexplainedthecausesofit.Buttheirresearchesconcentrateonthepragmaticcompetence,nottakingEGCintoaccountorevenignoreit.HongGang(1991)hasstatedthatlearners’lowlevelofpragmaticcompetencehasnothingtodowiththeirabilityofEGCthroughtheinvestigationoftheirrelationship.However,inrecentyears,scholarsare27 awareoftheimportantroleEGCplaysinthedevelopmentoflinguisticcompetence,therefore,theybegintoconnectEGCwithpragmaticcompetence.SomeofthemlikeHuZhuanglin(2002),XuHuanrong&LiXuezhen(2003),HeZiran(2003)andRanYongping(2004)havegraduallyfoundthatthereisaninterrelationbetweenthetwokindsofcompetence,andhavemadeanemphasisonthestudyofEGC.HuZhuanglin(2002)hasinsistedthatourattentionneedstobeturnedtothecommunicativegrammarapproach,notthepurecommunicativeapproachbecausetheformeradvocatesthecombinationofgrammarinstructionandlanguageteaching,whichiswhatweneedatthepresent.HeZiran(2003)hasheldthatweshouldfindaneffectivewaytoimprovelearners’abilityinforeignlanguageteaching,andshouldconnectgrammaticalknowledgeandthepragmaticuseofit.EGCcannotbeisolatedfrompragmaticcompetence,whichiscloselyrelatedtocontext,becauseEGCnarrowlyreferstotheuseoflanguage,whichisoftenreflectedinconcretesituationsduringtheprocessoflanguageteachingandlearning.Therefore,EGCinvolvestheproductionofgrammaticalknowledgethatispragmaticcompetence.Inaword,scholarshavegainedsomeachievementsintheseresearchesandhavemadesomecontributiontothestudyofEGC,butalmostnoonehasmadeanexperimentalstudyfromtheaspectofEGC,nottosaytheexplorationofhowtorelateEGCtolanguageproficiency28 scales.29 30 ChapterTwoTheoreticalFoundationsInthischapter,twotheoriesrelatedtothestudywillbeintroduced,namely,Bachman’sCLAandLarsen-freeman’sthree-dimensionalGrammarFramework.2.1CommunicativeLanguageAbilityBachman’scommunicativelanguageability(CLA)isthetheorythatCEFRisbasedon.Toconstructlanguageproficiencyscales,thistheorycanbeseenasanunderlyingtheoreticalframeworkbecauseitconsistsofanoverallframeoflanguageusers’ability.Thispartwillintroducethebackground,themodelandevaluationofitindetails.2.1.1BackgroundofCLAInthe1960s,influencedbyStructurlisttheory,thefocusoflanguagetestingisonstudents’graspoflinguisticknowledge.Inthisperiod,therearetworepresentativeresearches:Lado’s(1961)‘skills-and-language’modeloflanguageproficiencyandCarroll’s(1968)languagecompetence.InLado’sview,thedimensionsoflanguageknowledgecanbenarrowlyinterpretedasphonology,structureandthelexicon,allofwhicharerelatedtolinguisticform.ThegrammaticalknowledgeforLadoisonlycomposedofmorphosytacticform.Basedonhisnotion,Carroll(1968)defineslanguagecompetenceintermsofphonologyandorthography,31 grammarandthelexicon.DifferentfromLado’sview,Carroll’sEGCincorporatesboththemorphosyntaxandsemanticcomponentsofgrammar,thatis,herecognizestheoverlapbetweenformandmeaninginlanguageuse.Thelimitationsoftheirviewareasfollows:thefirstisthattheyhavemadeadifferencebetweenlanguageknowledgeandlanguageskills,buttherelationshipbetweenthemhasn’tbeenexplained.Thesecondisthattheyignoretheusescenariosoflanguagelearners(Bachman,1990).InfluencedbyCarroll’s(1968)viewongrammar,Oller(1979)rejectshiselements-and-skillsapproachtoproficiencyandproposestheideaofpragmaticexpectancygrammar,whichisdefinedas‘apsychologicallyrealsystemthat‘causesthelearnertoprocessthesequencesofelementsinalanguagethatconformtothenormalcontextualconstraintsofthatlanguage,and...requiresthelearnertorelatesequencesoflinguisticelementsviapragmaticmappingstotheextralinguisticcontext’(Oller1979:38).Inotherwords,pragmaticexpectancygrammarattributestheshapeoflinguisticformstocontextualmeanings.Ollerhypothesizesthatpragmaticexpectancyconstitutesasingleandunitaryability,butitcannotbesupportedbythelaterresearchdata,sothestudyofpragmaticexpectancygrammarisshort-lived.Exceptfortheabovestudy,inthe1970s,theideasofsociolinguistshavearousedscholars’attention.Theybegintorealizethatitisnot32 enoughforlearnersonlytomasterlanguageelementsandlinguisticrulesinlanguagelearning,theyshouldalsopayattentiontotheirrolesincommunicationandhavetheabilitytoadapttothepresentcircumstances.Thus,theideasofcommunicativecompetencegraduallycomeintobeing.D.HHymes(1971)isthefirstpersonwhopresentsanddefinestheconceptof‘communicativecompetence’,whichreferstoEGCaboutformandstateandsociolinguisticcompetenceaboutknowledgeuse.ThecontentsofHymes’scommunicativecompetenceconsistoffouraspects,(1)Possibility—whetherit’sformallypossibletoproducegrammaticalsentences;(2)Feasibility—towhatdegreeit’sfeasibletoproducesentenceswhichcanbedecodedbythehumanbrain;(3)Appropriateness—whetherit’sappropriatetousecorrectformsoflanguageinaspecificsocio-culturalcontext;(4)Performance—whethertheformeraspectsaredoneinreality.Thetheoryrelatedtocommunicativecompetenceshiftsscholars’sinterestintothestudyoflanguageapplicationfromlanguageitself.Meanwhile,Thestudymakescommunicativecompetencegainadevelopmentinthe1980s.CanaleandSwain(1980)andCanale(1983)putforwardamodelofcommunicativecompetencethatismadeupofsociolinguisticcompetence,grammaticalcompetence,strategiccompetenceanddiscoursecompetence.Thismodel,throughspecifyingthefeaturesoflinguisticformwithotherfeaturesoflanguageuse,hassignificantlydeepenour33 understandingofcommunicativecompetence.Besides,itbecomesthebasisof‘communicativetesting’inthe1980sandthemaintaskoflanguagetestingatthattimealsoliesinlearners’communicativecompetence.Butthismodeldoesn’texplaintherelationshipamongthosefourcompetences(HanBaocheng,1995)andlacksempiricalbasis.2.1.2ModelofCLABuiltonCanaleandSwain’modelofcommunicativecompetence,Bachman(1990)developsanewmodelcalledCLA,whichviewslanguageabilityasaninternalconstructthatinteractswithlanguageusers’knowledgeandthecontexttheyareengagedin.Thismodelconsistsofthreeelements:languagecompetence,strategiccompetenceandpsychologymechanism.Theirrelationshipisexplainedbyfigure2-1:Figure2-1ComponentsofCLAinCommunicativeLanguageUse(Bachman,1990:85)Languagecompetence,alsonamedlanguageknowledge,isanimportantpartofCLA.Itiscomposedofaseriesofspecifiedlanguage34 structuresusedincommunication.Todescribeit,Bachman(1990)andBachman&Palmer(1996)divideitintotwocomponents,namely,organizationalcompetenceandpragmaticcompetence,bothofwhichincludetwocomponentsthatareclearlypresentedinFigure2-2.Figure2-2ComponentsofLanguageCompetence(Bachman,1990:87)Organizationalcompetenceinvolvestheabilitytocontrollanguagestructureinunderstandingthemeaningofsentences,producinggrammaticallycorrectsentenceandarrangingtheorderofsentencesintexts.OrganizationalcompetenceiscomposedofEGCandtextualcompetence.AccordingtoBachman(1990),grammaticalcompetenceisdefinedaslanguageusers’competenceofvocabulary,syntaxandphnology/graphologythatinshortaccountsforgrammaronthesubsententialandsententiallevels.However,inBachmanandPalmer’s(1996)view,grammaticalcompetenceshouldbestrictlyconnectedtosentence-basedphonology,graphology,vocabularyandsyntax,whichisusefulforlanguagetestinginmeasuringlinguisticformsalone.Textualcompetencereferstolanguageusers’competenceofcohesion(reference,35 ellipsis,lexicalcohesion),conversationalorganization(topicnominalization,turn-taking)andrhetoricalorganization(logicalconnectors)whichexplainlanguagefromsuprasententialordiscourselevel.Pragmaticcompetenceisdividedintofunctionalcompetenceandsociolinguisticcompetence.Functionalcompetencereferstolanguageusers’abilitytorelatesentencesandtextstotheircommunicativegoals.Thiscompetenceenableslanguageusers’toexpressorunderstandlanguagefunctionsincontextsbyusingorganizationalknowledge.BasedonHalliday’s(1976)functionalframework,Bachman(1990)sortslanguagefunctionsintofourtypes:ideationalfunction,manipulationfunction,heuristicfunctionandimaginativefunction.Sociolinguisticcompetencemeanslanguageusers’interpretingtosituation-specificlanguageandselectingofparticularlanguageinatemporarysetting.Thatis,thiscompetencemustrelyonaparticularsituationandlanguageusersaresensibleenoughtothissituation.Strategiccompetencereferstometacognitivestrategy,whichisacognitivepsychologicalprocesswherelanguageuserscanuselanguagetocommunicatewithothersinacertaincommunicativesituation(Bachman1990:84).Itcoversfoursubtypes:assessmentstrategies,goal-settingstrategies,planningstrategiesandexecutionstrategies.Assessmentstrategiesareinvolvedinevaluatingthefeaturesofsettings,judgingwhethertheusers’ownknowledgeisenoughtofinishtheabove36 communicativegoalandassessingtherealizationdegreeofthetask.Thestrategiesalsoenablethemtoidentifythelanguageweshouldchooseandtheinterlocutor’sknowledgeandability.Goal-settingstrategiesrequirethatthelanguageusersshouldmakesureaseriesofpossiblecommunicativegoalsandchooseoneormoregoalstheyareabletoachieve.Planningstrategiesmeanthatlanguageusersselectneededlanguage,likeasecondlanguageorbilinguallanguagetomakearelativedetailedplanbasedontheirexpectationswhichcanhelpfinishthetask.Executionstrategiesarethewaysofexecutionaccordingtothecommunicativegoalsandcommunicativesettings.Besides,theyareusedwithrelevantpsychophysiologicalmechanisms.Strategiccompetencehasagreatimpactontesting,rangingfromtestingbehaviorstotestingscores(Bachman1990:104).Psychophysiologicalmechanismreferstotheneurologicalandpsycologicalprocessintheexecutionoflanguage,whichconsistsofvisualandauditorychannelsandreceptiveandproductivemodesbasedonthestudyofFaerch&Kasper(1983).Receptivemoderelatestotheapplicationofneuromuscularskillswhileproductivemodeinvolvesvisualsenseandauditorysense.Therefore,itcanbeseenthatCLAprovidesanoverallframeforlanguageabilitythatmakesitbecomeaback-uptheoryofthestudy.37 2.1.3EvaluationofCLABachman’sCLAisanopensystem,whichhasachievedfurtherdevelopmentinworksofNorth(2000)andBachman&Palmer(1996,2010).Ithasintroducedtheknowledgeoflanguageandworldaswellasusers’practicalabilitytouselanguage,whichcorrespondstolanguageteachingandlearningandalsohasagreateffectonlanguagetesting.ThedescriptionsinsomeforeignlanguageproficiencyscaleslikeCEFR,CLBscalesandotherscalesaredirectlyinfluencedbyit.Therefore,theconstructionofthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentscan’tavoidtoconsiderthepracticalneedsoflanguageteaching,learningandtesting.ItisreasonabletotakeCLAasatheoreticalfoundation.However,ItneedstobementionedthatalthoughthemodelofCLAseemstobecomprehensive,italsohassomeshortcomingssuchasitisunclearabouthowthecomponentsoflanguagecompetenceareinteractedwitheachotheranditdoesn’tdescribelanguagefromquantitativeperspective.2.2Three-dimensionalGrammarFrameworkEGCisinterconnectedwithEnglishgrammarteaching.Influencedbylanguageteachingpedagogyandseverallinguistictheories,DianeLarsen-freeman(1991)firstproposestheconceptofthree-dimensionalgrammarframework.Inthispart,herideaaboutthenatureofgrammarandthemodelofEGCtogetherwithetheevaluationofher38 three-dimensionalgrammarframeworkwillbestated.2.2.1NatureofGrammarFormanylinguistsandteachers,grammarisanareaofknowledge,soifstudentspossessthegrammaticalknowledgeteachershavetaught,theywillpossessEGC.However,Larsen-freemanthinksthatitismorehelpfultothinkaboutgrammarasaskillratherthanasanareaofknowledge;thisunderscorestheimportanceofstudents’developinganabilitytodosomething,notsimplystoringknowledgeaboutthelanguageoritsuse(Larsen-freeman2005:13).Inotherwords,onenatureofgrammaristhatthelearningofittakespracticeandLarsen-freeman(1992)hasusedtheterm“grammaring”toemphasizetheskilldimensionofgrammar.Foralongtime,whenwetalkaboutgrammar,onlyaccuracyisconsidered.Whilegrammardoeshavesomethingtodowithaccuracy,itisalsorelatedtomeaningandtheappropriatenessinlanguageuse(Larsen-freeman2005:14).Whenwejustifyone’sEGC,weshouldconsidertheabovethreeaspects.Forexample,“It’sabookonthetable”and“thereisabookonthetable”botharesayingthesamethingandgrammaticallycorrect,buttheyhavedifferentmeaningsbecause‘it’isusedtoshowidentitywhile‘there’showsthelocation.Meanwhile,“Abookisonthetable”and“thereisabookonthetable”mayhavesimilar39 meaning,however,aredistinguishedastheyareusedindifferentcontexts.Therefore,thesecondnatureaboutgrammaristhatitcaresaboutaccuracy,meaningaswellasuse.Grammaticalruleshaveprovidedusefulguidanceforthestructureoflanguage,butsometeachershavepaidmoreattentiontothemwhileothersmayignorethem.Larsen-freemanclaimsthat“grammarandrules”isprobablythemostcommonassociationandgrammaticalrulesshouldbetaught,butgrammarisnotallaboutrules.Ourgrammaticalperformanceispartiallyattributedtotheapplicationofgrammaticalrulesandpartiallyrelatedtotheassembledunitsfromourmemory.Besides,thereareexceptionsoutofrules,thiscanbeexplainedbyamoreabstractlevel-constructions,likeditransitiveconstruction:“thesubject(X)causestheobject(Y)toreceivesomething(Z).”Constructionslikethishavemeaningsbythemselves(Larsen-freeman2005:15).Grammarteachingandlearningshouldbeclearabouttheunderlyinglogicofthelanguage.Onlyinthiswaywillthelearnersbeabletousethegrammaticalknowledgetoexpressthemselvesastheywanttoandtounderstandthesentencestheyhear.Thelogicofgrammarenableslearnerstounderstandboththerulesandtheexceptions.Grammarisnotarbitrary.Languageusersusegrammaticalknowledgeforparticularreasonsandgrammaticalresourcesaredistributedinanonarbitraryway.Taking‘-ed’forexample,althoughit40 canbeusedindifferentgrammaticalstructures,suchaspasttense,perfectiveaspect,passivevoice,conditionalandindirectspeechandsoon,‘-ed’hasasimilarmeaning,thatis,inthesestructures,itrepresentssomekindofremotenesswhetheritsignifiespasttime,anterminatedactionorthereceiveroftheaction(Larsen-freeman2005:17).Intheprocessofteachingandlearning,grammaticalknowledgeshouldbeutilizedinapurposefulmanner.Besides,grammarpresentsflexibilitybecausethesamemeaningmaybeconveyedinvariousgrammaticalforms.2.2.2ModelofEGCThecustomarywaytotreatgrammarpartsisinanascendinghierarchy:morphemes,words,syntax,andsoon,butLarsen-freemanpresentsherunderstandingofgrammarinathree-dimensionalway:form,meaninganduse.Theformsofalanguagearecomposedofthevisibleandaudibleunits:sounds(orsigns,inthecaseofsignlanguage),writtensymbols,inflectionalmorphemes,functionalwords,contentwordsandsyntacticstructures(Larsen-freeman2005:34).Thefirsttwoarestudiedbyphonologyandgraphologyrespectively.Forinflectionalmorphemes,functionalwords,wehavethesubjectofmorphology.Astudyofsyntaxiscloselyrelatedtothelattertwounitsasitdetermineswhatcombinesawordandhowwordsandmorphemesaresequencedinsentences.41 Meaning,inotherwords,isrelatedtosemantics.Itdescribestheinherentorliteralmessageconveyedbyalexicalitemoragrammaticalfeature,thatisadenotationofadecontextualizedform.Later,Larsen-freeman(2005)emphasizesthatthemeaningofawordoraphrasemaybedifferentfromwhattheyaredefinedindictionarybecausesomeofthemhavepotentialmeanings,forexample,thegreetingterm‘goodmorning’canbeusedintheafternoonforspecialreasonsliketeasingoramildsarcasm.Thisisrelatedtothenextdimension—use.Useinvolvestheapplicationofgrammarinaconcretecontext,eitheralinguisticcontextorasocialcontext.Thisdimensionpaysattentiontotheuseofgrammarbothaccuratelyandappropriately.JustasthegreetingtermIhavementioned,itiscorrectinformbutalittlestrangeininherentmeaning,however,whenitisusedincertainsituation,itcanbeacceptedandunderstood.Sometimeslanguageusershavedifficultyindistinguishingmeaningfromuseandalsoareconfusedaboutwhyitisimportanttomakeadifference.Larsen-freemanthinksthereasonfortheformeristhattheyaresupposedtoimplytheinterconnectionamongthethreedimensionsandtheboundarybetweenthetwoispermeable.Astothesecond,shegivestwoexplanations,thefirstisthatthreedimensionsshouldbelearneddifferentlyandthesecondisthelearningchallengetoeachstudentmaybedifferent(Larsen-freeman2005:41).Letustake“may”in42 “Itmayraintomorrow”and“Youmayleavenow”forexample,“may”inthefirstsentenceisapredictionandthesecondisapermission.Whenuserschooseamongthemodalstoshowdifferentdegreesofprediction,ittendstobeameaningdimension,onthecontrary,thelatterconcentratesonparticipantsinthatsituation,thusbelongingtousedimension.2.2.3EvaluationofThree-dimensionalGrammarFrameworkThree-dimensionalgrammarframeworkisinterconnectedwitheachotherandusefulforgrammarteachingandlearning.Thisframeworkgivesusanewperspectiveaboutgrammar,thatis,grammarisaskill.Itisaboutform,meaninganduse.Formpaysattentiontohowsomethingisformedandisrelatedtorules,cognitionofsomegrammaticalcategoriesandstructures.Meaningisabouttheinherentmeaningandsomepotentialmeaningsandusenotonlyinvolvessocialsituationsbutalsothelinguisticsituationssuchastheuseofawordinasentenceortheapplicationofagrammaticalstructureinadiscourse.Besides,grammarpresentsfeasibilityandnon-arbitrariness.43 44 ChapterThreeConstructionandValidationoftheScaleofEGCThescaleofEGCiscomposedofvariousdescriptors,sothemeaningoftheterm“descriptor”shouldbeexplained.AccordingtoAmericanHeritageDictionary,itmeans“aword,phrase,oralphanumericcharacterusedtoidentifyaniteminaninformationstorageandretrievalsystem.”Inthisstudy,“can-do”statements,thatisdescriptorsareusedtodescribeEGC.Toconstructsuchascale,thethesisfirstshowsthecollectionandeditingofdescriptorsofEGC,followedbyclassificationandscalingofthecalibrateddescriptorsofEGC.Afterthat,thevalidationofEGCscaleispresentedtoproveitspracticability.3.1CollectionandEditingofDescriptorsThispartintroducesthecollectionandeditingofthedescriptorsofEGC.TheyarethebasicandvitalstepsforconstructingthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.3.1.1CollectionofDescriptorsThecollectionofdescriptorscannotbeseparatedfromthesourcesofthem.ToconstructthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents,moresourcesofdescriptorscanguaranteethecontentsinthescalearecomprehensive.TheconstructingChinaStandardsofEnglishdevelopedaplatformoninternetforustomakeareferencein2015.In45 thisplatform,allkindsofdescriptorsrelatedtoEnglishabilityarecollectedby108experiencedresearchers.Theyhavediscussedthefeasibilityofeachdescriptor.Therefore,descriptorstherearescientifictosomedegree.AccordingtotheconstructingChinastandardsofEnglish,sourcesofdescriptorsmustbetypical,comprehensiveandauthoritative.Besides,eachdescriptorcanaccuratelyreflectlanguagelearners’certainability.Basedontheguidelineswrittenbytheexperts,descriptorscanbecollectedthroughliteratureandsamplingmethod,writingbyexperts,researchers,teachersandstudents.Thedescriptorsinthisstudymainlycomefromliterature,includinglanguagestandards,textbooks,syllabusesandpapersathomeandabroad,besides,somearewrittenbyresearchersbyreferencetotextbooks.Elaborately,curriculumstandards,syllabusesandlanguagescalesmakebasicrequirementsforlanguageknowledgeandlanguageabilityoflearners,sotheyarereliableforbeingareferencefordescriptors.Especially,foreignlanguagescaleslikeACTFL,CEFRandCLBtakingCLAasatheoreticalbasisarescientificandaccordwiththeneedsofcurrenteducation.Thetextbookswrittenformiddleschoolstudentshaveexperiencedtestingandthecontentsarecompatiblewithstudentsofthisstage.Inthisstudy,theycangiveusanoverallgraspforwhatkindofgrammaristaughtinEnglishclass.Descriptorsinquestionnairearevalidatedsothattheycanbeusedasareferencesourceandself-writingis46 awaytomakeupforwhatmaybeneededbutisnotpointedout.Basedontheabovesources,207originaldescriptorsofEGCarecollectedinthisthesis(AppendixⅠ).Basicinformationabouttheirsourcescanbesummarizedintable3-1andtable3-2fromtheperspectiveofforeignsourcesanddomesticsourcesrespectively:Table3-1ForeignSourcesofDescriptorsofEGCSourcesofNumberofPercentageofTypesofSourcesDescriptorsDescriptorsDescriptorsScalesandCurriculumCEFR,CLB,ELA,StandardsOC,ACTFL,ALTE,7636.71%NCE,CSE,NYTeachingandGCSE,IELTS125.80%ExaminationSyllabusesTextbooksAE,S,PRA41.93%Total9244.44%Table3-2DomesticSourcesofDescriptorsofEGCSourcesofNumberofPercentageofTypesofSourcesDescriptorsDescriptorsDescriptorsScalesandCurriculumECS,ECSS,NECS,5928.50%StandardsSATeachingandTSEM,TSS,TSN104.83%ExaminationSyllabusesTextbooksET,PW,GB3617.40%Self-writingSW104.83%Total11555.56%Fromtheabovetables,itisclearthatthesourcesofdescriptorsare47 verywide.Comparingthem,wecanseethetotalnumberofdescriptorsfromforeigncountriesanddomesticareaare44.44%and55.56%respectively.Descriptorsofforeignanddomesticsourcesarebothmainlyfromscalesandcurriculumstandards.Thatisbecauseforeignlanguagescalesarematureandhavemanydescriptorsthatinvolvewithdifferentlanguageabilities.Ourcountryalsohasdifferentlanguagestandardsindifferentplacesforstudentsatthesamelearningstage.Thenumberofdescriptorscollectedthroughsyllabusesfromforeignanddomesticsourcesisverynear,bothoftheirpercentagesaresmall,just5.80%and4.83%.Thisresultsfromthelimitationofmaterials.Descriptorsfromdomestictextbooksaremorethanthosefromforeignones.Thereasonisthatforeignbooksarelimitedwhiletextbooksfromourcountryareveryeasytoget.Besides,somecontentsandrequirementsinforeignbooksarenotfitforChinesestudents.Themostdifferentthingisthat4.83%descriptorsfromhomearewrittenbyexpertsandexperiencedteachers.Inaword,allthesesourcesareusefulforbuildingthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentsbecausetheyhaveensuredthewidth,typicality,comprehensivenessandauthoritativenessofdescriptors.3.1.2EditingofDescriptorsAs207descriptorshavedifferentsources,somedescriptorsareexpressedinEnglishandothersareinChinese.Fortherequirementof48 constructingascaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents,descriptorswritteninEnglishareneededtobetranslatedintoChinese.Asisknown,descriptorsshouldbepresentedwith“can-do”statements,butsomearenot,sotheyshouldbemodifiedinexpression.DescriptorsthatareinChineseand‘can-do”statementsneedn’ttobechanged.Thisisthefirststageforeditingdescriptors,atwhichdescriptorsaredividedintothreetypesincludingtranslating,modifyingandunchanging.Thefollowingtableshowsmethodsusedforeditingdescriptorsatfirststage:Table3-3MethodsforEditingDescriptorsofEGCatFirstStageTypesNumberpercentageTranslating11857.00%Modifying5024.16%Unchanging3918.84%Total207100%TheabovetablehasshowedusthatmorethanhalfofthedescriptorsaretranslatedfromEnglish,thepercentageofwhichcomesto57%.Whentheyaretranslated,someexpressionsmaybevague,whicharerequiredtoberevisedagain.Withregardtotheconcretewaysofmodifying,theywillbestatedatlengthatthesecondstage.ThisstageonlychangestheChinesedescriptorsinto“can-do”statements.Throughthestatistics,24.16%descriptorsofEGCaremodified,whicharemorethanthoseunchanged.ThisimpliesthatmostChinesedescriptorsarenotinaccordancewith“can-do”statements.Afterthisstage,therearestillconsiderabledifferencesincontentsandwaysofexpressionof49 descriptors,whichcanbeexplainedfromtwoperspectives.Oneisthattheyarebasedondifferenttheoriesandtheotheristhattheyhavedifferentdegreesofspecificityondescribingparameters.Fromliteraturereview,itcanbeobservedthatsomescalesarestructuralism-basedsothattheyrequirelearnerstomasteronelanguagesystematically.OthersarebasedonCLAwhichpaysmoreattentiontolearners’communicativecompetence.Whencomestothedegreesofspecificityindescribingparameters,somedescriptorsaretoogenerallike“canidentifytypesofwords”(EC)andothersaresospecific,forexample“formregularpluralnounsorallybyadding/s/or/es/”(NY).Thereisnotaunifiedstandardforthesedescriptors,therefore,itisnecessarytoedittheChinesedescriptorstoensurethattheyareunifiedinformandqualifiedincontent.Inthisstudy,thesecondstageforeditingdescriptorscanbedividedintofoursteps,thefirstistorevisedescriptorsbasedonsixprinciples.Thesecondistosortoutdescriptorsfromtheirgeneralcontentsandthethirdistoeditdescriptorsbasedonthethree-elementmodelandthelastistoamenddescriptorsbyexperts.Thelasttwostepsaimtoimprovethequalityofdescriptors.Sixprinciplesofeditingdescriptorsarebasedonpreviousstudiesonlanguageproficiencyscales.Firstly,thedescriptorsshouldbepositive.Theyshouldbeformulatedintermsofwhattheycandoratherthanintermsofwhattheycannotdo.Inotherwords,thosedescriptorsmustbe50 presentedas“can-do”statements,whichhasbeenexplainedatthefirststage.Thepositivedescriptorscanencouragestudentstolearnfromthepointviewofeducationandpsychology.Secondly,thedescriptorsshouldbedefinite.Thedistinctionsbetweenproficiencylevelsshouldnotdependonthechangeofqualifiers.Forexample,replacing‘some’or‘afew’with‘many’or‘most’,replacing‘fairlybroad’with‘verybroad’or‘moderate’with‘good’.Peoplehavedifferentunderstandingstowardsthesequalifiers,soitisbettertoavoidthem.Thirdly,thedescriptorsshouldbeclearandtransparent.Theyshouldbewritteninsimplesyntaxwithanexplicitandlogicalstructure.Fourthly,thedescriptorsshouldbebrief.Thisprincipleiscloselyrelatedtotheformerone.Itisbettertousesimplesentencesthanusethelengthyones,becausetheyareeasytobeunderstood.Generally,itshouldnotbelongerthanabout25words(CEFR2001:Appendixa).Fifthly,thedescriptorsshouldbeindependent.Avoidcomparativesorexpressionslinkingtootherdescriptors.Byadoptingtheindependentdescriptors,itisconvenienttosetupconcretetasksforlanguagelearning,teachingandassessment.Andinordertouseandestimatedescriptorswithease,eachoneshouldbeindependentfromeachotherinformandcontent.Lastly,thedescriptorsmustbetotallyrelevanttoEGC,whichisabasicbutmostimportantrequirementofdescriptors.AfterabasicrevisementaboutdescriptorsofEGC,theyarecodedfor51 selecting.Thisisdonebythreemethods.Tostartwith,splitlongdescriptorsordescriptorsinvolvingmorethanonecompetence.Takingthefollowingdescriptorsforexample:[1]Canknowthemajortypesofverbs,tensesofverbs,moodsofverbs,basicuseofinfinitivesand-ingprinciples,sentencetypes,basicsentencepatternsandbasicmethodsforword-formation.(TSEM4)[2]Canidentifyandcorrectlyusesingularandpluralnouns.(ELA2)Thefirstexampleshowsthedescriptoristoolongandshouldbesplitintosevensimpleandshortdescriptors:“canknowthemajortypesofverbs”,“canknowtensesofverbs”,“canknowmoodsofverbs”,“canknowthebasicuseofinfinitivesand-ingprinciples”,“canknowsentencetypes”,“canknowbasicsentencepatterns”and“canknowbasicmethodsforword-formation”.Thesecondexampleusestwocognitiveverbs“identify”and“use”,whichimpliesitcoverstwoabilitiesthatcanbedividedinto“canidentifysingularandpluralnouns”and“cancorrectlyusesingularandpluralnouns”.Subsequently,deletedescriptorsthathavesimilarcontentandleavingaclearone,forexample:[3]Canknowsingularandpluralnouns.(ECS1)[4]Candistinguishsingularandpluralnouns.(TSEM2)[5]Canidentifysingularandpluralnouns.(ELA2)Theaboveexamplesareallaboutnouns,buttheyhavedifferent52 sourcesandusedifferentverbstodescribethecontent.Throughcomparison,thelasttwoarebetterthanthefirstone.However,thethirdoneissplitfromalongdescriptor,sothesecondischosen.Finally,deletedescriptorsthatareabstract,instruct-orientedandlittlerelatedtoEGC,likethefollowingexamples:[6]Canusebasicgrammaticalknowledgeproperly.(PETS1)[7]Canmakecorrectsentencesaccordingtogivenwordsorsentencepattern.(ECS13)[8]Candemonstratethemechanicsofwritinge.g.,quotationmarks,commasatendofdependentclauses.(ELA9)Theexamplein[6]showsavagueandgeneralcontent,whichisnotclearaboutwhatkindofgrammaticalknowledgeisbasicandhowtodefine“properly”.Descriptorin[7]isstronglyinstruct-oriented.Whencomesto“givenwordsorsentencepattern”,itishardtojudgethedegreeofdifficulty,becausetheyarenotlimitedtodetailedcontents.ThelastexampleisputingrammaticalknowledgeinELA,buthasnothingtodowithEGC.Ittendstobeonestandardofwritingfromitsdescription.Thethirdstepisconnectedwiththefirstone,becauseinthosesixprinciples,therearealsostatementstohelpimprovethequalityofdescriptors.Thediscriminationisthatsixprinciplesareverygeneralandincludebothformandcontentwhilethisstepisonlyaconfirmaboutthequalityincontentsofdescriptors.Ontheonehand,ifthedescriptorsare53 “can-do”statementsandbrief,clear,positiveandindependent,theywillnotneedtobeamendedagain.Ontheotherhand,iftheyarenot,theywillberevisedbyreferencetoguidelinesfromPersonStandardsandQualityOffice(2014),inwhichdescriptorstypicallyconsistthefollowingthreeelements:(1)Performance:thelanguageoperationitself(e.g.Cananswerthetelephone)(2)Criteria:theintrinsicqualityoftheperformance,typicallyintermsoftherangeoflanguageused(e.g.usingalimitedrangeofbasicvocabulary)(3)Conditions:anyextrinsicconstraintsorconditionsdefiningtheperformance(e.g.withsupport,ifspokenslowlyandclearly)Amongthethreeelements,thefirstoneiscompulsorywhiletheothertwoareoptional.Besides,theexplanationinthebracketsshowsthree-elementmodelisquiteappropriatetodescriptorsformanagingkindoflanguageactivity,butitcanalsobeguidelinesforcheckingthequalityofdescriptorsonEGC,forexample:[9]Canuseparallelstructures,like“Atcamp,wemostenjoyedswimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball”.(CSE14)Thisdescriptorcanbeamendedas“canuseparallelstructuresinsimplesentence”,where‘parallelstructure’isaperformanceand‘insimplesentence’isacondition,therefore,thisdescriptorbecomesclearer.54 Throughtheeditionofdescriptors,112ofthemareleft.However,thesedescriptorsarejustdonepersonally.TomakethemmorereliableincontentandtoguaranteedescriptorsaretotallyrelatedtoEGCofChinesemiddleschoolstudents,thelaststepistheexperts’discussion.Indetails,112descriptorsareputintoatablefordiscussionandauditionbyfourexperts.Theyarepostgraduateswhohavestudiedhowtoconstructlanguageproficiencyscalesformorethantwoyears,sotheyarefamiliarwiththisprocess.Theyarerequiredtojudgethedescriptorsinthefollowingways:first,pickoutquestionabledescriptorstheythink,markthemanddosomerevisement.Second,discussthosedescriptorsonebyonetogethertogetanagreement.Third,summarizethefinalresultsofdiscussion.Accordingtotheiropinions,12descriptorshavebeenpickedout,forthreeshouldchangetheircognitiveverbs.Forexample,“canknow”isnotapplicableindescriptors,theyshouldbechangedinto“canunderstand”or“canidentify”,otherninedescriptorsneedtobethoughttwice.Forexample:[10]Canunderstandthedifferencebetweenpasttenseandpresentperfecttenseinmeaning.[ET18][11]Canunderstandbasicmeaningsofeachtense.[SW5][12]Canexpandnounphrasesfordescriptionandspecification,forexample,thebluebutterfly.[NCE5]55 [13]Canexpandnounphrasesbyadditionofmodifyingadjectives,nounsandprepositionphrases(thestrictmathsteacherwithcurlyhair)[NCE4][14]Canaskwho,what,when,wherequestions.[ACTFL5][15]Canusequestionwords(interrogatives)[NY1][16]Canmakeconsideredchoicesofvocabularyandgrammartocreatedeliberateeffects.[GCSE2][17]Canusesomesimplestructurescorrectly,butstillsystematicallymakesbasicmistakes,forexampletendstomixuptensesandforgettomarkagreement;nevertheless,itisusuallyclearwhathe/sheistryingtosay.[CEFR1][18]Canwritesimpleconstructedsentences.[EIKEN4]Basedonthesuggestionsofexperts,thecontentindescriptor[10]iscoveredby[11],and[10]issodetailedthatshouldbedeleted.Descriptorsin[12]and[13]areaboutnounphrases.[12]hasstatedthepurposeofexpandingnounphraseswhile[13]hasclearlyexplainedhowtoexpandnounphrases,sotheyshouldbemergedintoonedescriptorlike“canexpandnounphrasesbyadditionofmodifyingadjectives,nounsandprepositionphrasestodescribeorspecifysomething.”Descriptorsin[14]and[15]haveuseddifferentcognitiveverbs,buttheyexpressthesamemeaning,eitheroneofthemshouldbedeleted.Descriptorsin[16],[17]and[18]shouldbedeletedfor[16]isalittlevaguein“vocabulary”56 and“grammar”,[17]hasused“but”whichexpressesnegativeaspectsofabilityand[18]isabstract,andhasbeencoveredbysomeotherdescriptors.Aftertheaboveconfirmation,sixmoredescriptorsaredeleted.Table3-4isasummaryofmethodsusedfortheeditingofdescriptorsatsecondstage.Table3-4MethodsforEditingDescriptorsofEGCatSecondStageEditingMethodsNumberofEditedNumberofSurplusdescriptorsDescriptorsUnpacking20258Packing28237Deleting121106Revising106106Fromtheabovetable,itcanbeseen20descriptorsareunpacked,asthenumberoforiginaldescriptorsis207,andnowthenumberreaches258.49descriptorsareincreased.Butsomedescriptorsaresimilar,sotheyarerequiredtobepacked.Inthisway,21descriptorsaremerged.Afterthat,121descriptorsaredeletedbecausealotofdescriptorsareabstractandrepetitive.Thatis,106descriptorsformsadescriptorpoolofEGC.AllthesedescriptorshavebeenrevisedmoreorlessonthebasisoffiveprinciplesinCEFR,relevantprincipleandthethree-elementmodel.Thereserved106descriptorsarepresentedinAppendixII.57 3.2ClassificationandScalingofDescriptorsThispartisabouttheclassificationandscalingofdescriptors,whicharethekeystepstoestablishthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.3.2.1ClassificationofDescriptorsInBachmanandPalmer’s(1996)view,EGCshouldbestrictlyconnectedtosentence-basedphonology,graphology,vocabularyandsyntax,whichisusefulforlanguagetestinginmeasuringlinguisticformsalone.AccordingtoLarsen-freeman’s(2005)view,EGCshouldincludethreeaspects,namely,form,meaninganduse,whichhavebeenexplainedintheoreticalfoundations.EGCinmystudyreferstotheabilitytounderstandandusegrammaticalknowledge,includingwords,phrases,sentencesandothergrammaticalknowledgerelatedtothemfromform,meaninganduse.Thatis,itisaconnectionoftheiropinions.SinceitisdifficulttoclassifyEGCfromwords,phrasesandsentencesaccordingtothecollecteddescriptors,Larsen-freeman’sviewaboutEGCisadoptedtodeterminethedimensionsofediteddescriptorsofEGC.Inotherwords,threedimensions,namely,form,meaninganduseareadoptedtodescribeEGC.Althoughshehasgivencleardefinitionsaboutthem,thedescriptorsarenotlikeacertainkindofgrammaticalknowledgewhichcanbeexplainedfromdifferentangles.Therefore,furtherexplanationsaboutform,meaningandusebasedonherviewarestatedaccordingtothe58 calibrateddescriptorsonEGC.Tomakeitclear,thedimension,formcanbeexplainedusing“how”and“what”,indetails,“howisacertainkindofgrammaticalknowledgeformed”and“whatispresentedonsurface”.Itpaysattentiontolearners’abilitytograspthewaygrammaticalknowledgeisformedandidentifyordistinguishgrammaticalunitsandgrammaticalstructuresfromthesurface,forexample,“cangrasptheformationofpluralnouns(ET15)”and“canidentifythecoordinationandsubordinationincomplexsentence(CLB4).”Theseconddimensionismeaning,whichfocusesonunderstanding,mainlyreferstothemeaningofwords,sentencesandothergrammaticalstructures.Thedescriptorscollectedarepresentedintwoways,withstrategiesandwithoutstrategies,like“canunderstanddifferentmeaningsofmodalverbs(Q30,31,32,33)”and“canunderstandmeaningofobjectsentencebyanalyzingthestructure.(Q14)”Thelastdimensionisuse.Itconcentratesontheapplicationofgrammarindifferentsituations.Somehavebeenlimitedtospeakingorwriting,othersarenot,suchas“canusethesimple(e.g.,Iwalked;Iwalk;Iwillwalk)verbtenses”(CSE4)and“canuseprepositionalphrases,appositives,andindependentanddependentclausesinwriting”(ELA7).Aftertheclassificationofdescriptors,thenumberofdescriptorsinform,meaninganduseis27,23and56respectively.Thefollowingtablehaspresentedthedescriptorsineachdimensionandtheirproportionsin59 theEGCscale.Table3-5OriginalDimensionsofEGCDescriptorsDimensionsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7,D8,D9,D10,D11,D12FormD13,D14,D15,D16,D17,D18,D19,D20,D21,D222725.47%D23,D24,D36,D51,D75D25,D26,D27,D29,D30,D31,D32,D33,D34,D35MeaningD37,D38,D39,D40,D41,D42,D43,D44,D45,D462321.70%D47,D48,D49D28,D50,D52,D53,D54,D55,D56,D57,D58,D59UseD60,D61,D62,D63,D64,D65,D66,D67,D68,D695652.83%D70,D71,D72,D73,D74,D76...D106Total106100%Table3-5hassummarizedthedescriptorsofeachdimension.Actually,theirproportionsarenotinbalance.Descriptorsinthedimensionofusearemorethanthoseintheothertwodimensions.Thereasonwhyusedimensionhastakenonmoredescriptorsisthatwetendtoemphasizetheuseofgrammaticalknowledgeinlanguageteachingandlearning.Itmustbementionedthattherationalityoftheclassificationofdescriptorsisrequiredtobevalidated,whichwillbeintroducedinlatersections.3.2.2ScalingofDescriptorsAfterthepoolofdescriptorsbeingconstructed,itstillneedstosetprovisionallevelsforthedescriptors(North2000:183).ThecalibrateddescriptorsofEGCarevariedinsources,sohowmanylevelsshouldtheyhaveisnotclear.Fromtheperspectiveofpsychologicalmeasurement,if60 fewlevelsareset,thereliabilityofthescalewillbehigh.However,morelevelsaresuitableforassessingstudents’progressandarousingtheirmotivationinlearningfromtheperspectiveoflanguageteaching.Therefore,thelevelsneedqualitativeandquantitativesupport.Elaborately,thispartonlyaimstosetprovisionallevelsofEGCscale,whichisdonebyreferencetothesourcesofdescriptors.Becausethelevelsofthesedescriptorshavebeenvalidatedinsomeway.However,thequestionislevelsarevariedindifferentsources.Somearespecifiedwhileothersaregeneral.Tomakeitscientific,Likertscaleisusedforthesuppositionoflevels.Likerthasprovidedascaleattitudemeasurement,whichhasbecomethemostwidelyusedtoolformeasurementandhasbeenusedinsurveysandresearches,especiallyinlanguageteachingtests,marketsurveys,environmentalassessmentandotheraspects.InLikertscale,userscanlistaspecificproblemorsituationsothatrespondentscanshowthedegreeoftheirpreferencefromasubjectiveorobjectivepointofview.Answerstothequestionsaregenerallyfallenintotwoornineormoredifferentdegreesofoptions.Althoughmanypsychometriciansadvocate7or9points,generally,themostcommonlyusedoneisthefive-pointscale,whichistomeasuretherespondents’attitudetothesequestionsrangingfromstronglydisagreetostronglyagreerepresentedbyonetofiverespectively.Therefore,calibrateddescriptorsinthescaleofEGCarescaledto5levelsandthedescriptorsineachlevelaredisplayed61 edinTable3-6,wheredescriptorsinthefirstlevelaretheeasiestonesandbecomealittlemoredifficultinthefollowinglevelsgradually.Table3-6ProvisionalLevelsofEGCScaleLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD1,D2,D3,D4,D6,D10,D24,D29,D50,D51FirstLevel1211.32%D52,D57D7,D9,D12,D26,D28,D30,D31,D37,D53SecondLevelD55,D56,D59,D61,D62,D63,D64,D661917.93%D68D69D5,D8,D11,D13,D14,D15,D16,D17,D18D20,D25,D27,D32,D33,D34,D36,D39D43D44,D45,D46,D49,D54,D58,D60ThirdLevel4441.50%D65,D67,D70,D71,D72,D73,D74,D75D76,D77,D78,D79,D85,D86,D87,D90D98,D103,D106D21,D35,D38,D41,D47,D48,D80,D81FourthLevelD82,D83,D84,D89,D91,D93,D94,D952119.81%D96,D97,D100,D102,D104D19,D22,D23,D40,D42,D88,D92,D99FifthLevel109.44%D101,D105Total106100%Fromthetable,itcanbeseendescriptorsofEGCaregatheredinthemiddlethreelevels.Thoseinleveloneandlevelfivearesmallinnumber,whichprovesthatdescriptorscannotbeeithertooeasyortoohard.Thus,itaccordswiththerequirement.Asthesetemporarylevelsfordescriptorsaresetbytheauthorbasedonexperienceandsourcesofdescriptors,thescalingmaybenotappropriate.Tomakeitmorecompatibletothemiddleschoolstudentsinourcountry,thenextstepistocollectdatafrommiddleschoolEnglishteachersinordertohaveaquantitativeanalysis.Thiswillbedoneinthenextsections.62 3.3ValidationoftheScaleofEGCThevalidationoftheEGCscaleforChinesemiddleschoolstudentsconsistsoftwoparts.OneistovalidatetheclassificationofdescriptorsbyusingSPSSsoftwareandtheotheristhevalidationtothescalingofthedescriptorsofEGCbyadoptingMFRM.3.3.1ValidationofClassificationWhetherdescriptorsarecorrectlyputintoeachdimensionshouldbevalidated,whichistoensurethereliabilityofthescale.Tovalidatetheclassificationofdescriptors,questionnairesurveyusedforself-judgmentandexperts’judgment,anddataanalysisthroughSPSSareinvolved.3.3.1.1QuestionnaireSurveyQuestionnairesurveyisagoodwaytocollectdataandalsoanecessaryprocessinthestudy.DescriptorsofEGCareorganizedtoformaquestionnairewhichconsistsoffourparts.Thefirstpartisdesignedtogatherpersonalinformationofparticipants;thesecondpartisageneralintroductiontoEGCincludingitsdefinitionandcontents;thethirdpartintroducesthewaytofillinthequestionnairewhichusesnumber1to3torepresentdifferentdimensions.Amongthem,“1”refersto“form”,“2”to63 “meaning”and“3”to“use”.Thelastpartpresentsallthedescriptorstobejudged.AllthesecanbeseeninappendixIII.Thequestionnaireisfinallyusedforselfjudgmentintwodifferentperiodsandexperts’judgment.Inthisstudy,fourexpertswhoarefamiliarwithEGCaswellastheconstructionoflanguageproficiencyscalesandhaveeducationalbackgroundinlanguagetestingandteachingareinvitedtofillinthequestionnairebasedontheirexperience.Toensuretheycandoitseriously,atrainingisnecessary,whichincludesthreestepsasfollows:(1)sitseparatelyfromeachothertoguaranteetheyalljudgebythemselveswithoutdiscussioninthewholeprocess.(2)ReadthedefinitionoftheclassificationofEGCcarefullyandbetotallyclearaboutthenumberthatrepresentseachdimension.(3)Readeachdescriptorcarefullyandclassifythemintoeachdimensionbyusingnumber.3.3.1.2DataAnalysisThroughthequestionnairesurvey,twogroupsofdatacanbecollected.Thefirstisfromself-judgmentintwodifferentperiodsandthesecondisthejudgmentoffourdifferentexperts.Theyareusedfortestingintra-ratercorrelationandinter-raters’consistencyrespectively.Bothofthemarebasicmethodstoinvestigatethereliabilityofaquestionnaire.Toanalyzethedata,softwareSPSSisused.SPSSistheabbreviationofStatisticalProductandServiceSolutionswhichpossessesaseriesof64 functionssuchasfactoranalysis,correlationanalysisandregressionanalysisthatareusedwidely.SPSScanreaddatafromexcelorotherdatabasethatisveryconvenientandcanpresentusersaclearandintuitiveresultthroughtheWindows.Inthisthesis,Spearman’scorrelationanalysisisfirstadoptedtoanalyzeintra-rater’scorrelationoftwoperiods,beforeandafter.Inotherwords,twovariablesarechosentogetthecorrelationcoefficient,let’scallitr.Thecoefficientrisnotexpectedtobe0,becauseitmeanstotallynotcorrelated.Thedetailedvaluerangeofcoefficientrcanbedividedintofourdifferentdegreesofrelevance,namely,when|r|isbelow0.3,itisweakcorrelation,between0.3and0.5,lowcorrelation,between0.5and0.8,obviouscorrelationandabove0.8,itisstrongcorrelation.Aftertheintra-rater’scorrelationanalysis,thedimensionsofseveraldescriptorshavebeenchanged.Toensurethereliabilityofchangedresults,thedescriptorswillbecheckedagainbytheauthor.Table3-7isthefinalresultthroughSpearman’scorrelationanalysis:65 Table3-7Intra-rater’sCorrelationsbeforeafterCorrelationCoefficient1.000.931beforeSig.(2-tailed)..000Spearman"sN106106rhoCorrelationCoefficient.931**1.000afterSig.(2-tailed).000.N106106**.Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed).Throughtheaboveresult,itisfoundthatthecorrelationcoefficientoftwoperiodsfromthesamerateris0.931.AccordingtoSpearman’scorrelationanalysis,itmeansjudgmentoftwodifferentperiodshavestrongrelevancewitheachotherwhencoefficient(2-tailed)isatthe0.01level.Inotherwords,itmeanstheraterhasstabilityaboutmostofthedescriptorsintwoperiods.Aftertheintra-rater’sjudgment,dimensionsofdescriptorsaresettemporally.Somechangeddescriptorsarealsorecordedfortheauthor’sthirdjudgment.Theresultkeepsthesamewiththeauthor’ssecondjudgment.Thenthesedescriptorsareusedforexperts’judgment.Table3-8hasshowedtheresultofexperts’judgmentanalyzedbyKendall’sW.66 Table3-8Experts’ConsistencyN4Kendall"sWa.911Chi-Square382.571df105Asymp.Sig..000Itcanbebeseenfromtheabovetablethatthevalueofasymptoticsignificanceis.000,whichismuchlowerthanthelimitvalue.05,sothefourratersareconsistentabouttheclassificationofdescriptorsintheaquestionnaire.Besides,theKendallWhasreached0.911,whichisover0.8.Itmeanstheopinionsfromthemarehighlyconsistent.Byanalyzingthedatacollectedfromthesetwoexperiments,itturnsoutthatboththeauthorandtheexpertsagreewiththeclassificationoftheEGCdescriptorswithhighconsistency,butthedimensionsofsomedescriptorshavechangedinthisprocess,whichwillbediscussedinChapterFour.3.3.2ValidationofScalingDescriptorsofEGCaregenerallyscaledintofivebands,butwhetherthesuppositionisreasonableornotisstillaquestion.Todeterminethelevelofeachdescriptor,quantitativeanalysisisneeded.ThispartwillintroducethequestionnairesurveyusedforscalingandthedataanalysisthroughMFRM.67 3.3.2.1QuestionnaireSurveyThemajorcontentsofthisquestionnairearesimilartotheaboveoneexceptforpartthreeandpartfour.Inpartthree,a5-pointmethodforjudgmentisadopted.Thenumberfrom1to5represents“veryeasy”,“easy”,“medium”,“difficult”and“verydifficult”respectively.Inpartfour,descriptorsarenotpresentedrandombutputtogetheraccordingtotheirdimensions(AppendixIV).Itaimsatjudgingstudents’EGCbyEnglishteachersfrommiddleschools.Tomakethedatareliable,teachersshouldbeselected.Themajorstandardforselectingteachersisthattheyshouldbefamiliarwithstudents’EGCineachstageandthenjudgethedegreeofdifficultyobjectively.Inthisthesis,32teachersareinvitedtodoit.Table3-9DetailedinformationoftheinvitedteachersYearsspentteaching(yea3568101315192534Totalrs)Numberof264535321132teachersPercentage6.2%18.7%12.5%15.7%9.4%15.7%9.4%6.2%3.1%3.1%100%JuniorhighSeniorhighschoolMiddleschoolStudentsevertaughtTotalschoolstudentsstudentsstudentsNumberofteachers1014832Percent(%)31.3%43.7%25%100%HunanHunanHenanHenanGuangJiangxiDistrictsTotalCityCountrycitycountrydongcityCityNumberofteachers114842332Percentage34.4%12.5%25%12.5%6.2%9.4%100%Throughthetable,wecanseealltheteachershavemoretanthree68 years’teachingexperience.Fourteenofthemnowworkinseniorhighschoolsandtenarejuniorhighschoolsteachers.Besides,eightteachersnowworkinjuniorhighschoolbutalsohavetheteachingexperienceinjuniorhighschoolbefore.TheyaremainlyfromschoolsinHunan,Henan,GuangdongandJiangxi.Afterthesurvey,32questionnairesarecollected.3.3.2.2DataAnalysis32teachershavejudgedthedescriptorsofEGCabouttheirdegreesofdifficulty,thenthedatashouldbeanalyzed.Accordingtopreviousstudies,MFRMisausefulwaytoclassifydataintodifferentlevels.Inthisthesis,itischosentoscaledescriptorsofEGC.MFRMisaone-parametermodelofitemresponsetheoryandoftenusedforanalyzingcategoricaldata,suchasresponsesforapolytomousquestionnaire.TheuniquefeatureofMFRMisthatitcanprovidedifferentparametersofoneiteminasamelogitwithoutconsideringthenumberofsamplesorjudgethetestees’abilitywithoutconsideringtestingconditions.MFRMisanextensionofRaschmodelbyLinacre(1989).Itcanprovidethreekindsofinformationforeachfacet.Indetails,theyaremeasure,standarderror(SE)andfitvalues.Measureistheestimatedresultwhichrepresentstestees’ability,ordegreeofrater’sstrictness,orthedegreeofdifficultyaboutitems.SEmeanstheprecisionoftestees,69 ratersoritemvalues.Fitvaluesarethestatisticsusedtoobservethediscriminationbetweenthemodelandobservedvalue.ItconsistsofInfitMeanSquareandOutfitMeanSquare,theexpectedvalueofwhichis1.Actually,MFRMdoesnotlimittheexpandofvalidvaluesofthem.McNamara(1996)thinkstheacceptablevalueofInfitvalueandOutfitvaluerangesfrom-2to2whileLinacre(1999)suggestsitisbetween0.4and1.8.Therefore,therangeshouldbesetbasedontherequirementsinaresearch.Inthisstudy,twofacets,namely,teachersanddescriptorsareputintoMFERanalysis.TeachersarerepresentedbyTandorderedfromT1toT32anddescriptorsarenamedasD1,D2,D3D4……D106forconvenienceofdataprocessing.Intheinputtextofsoftware,descriptorsareprescribedtorunpositively,thatis,descriptorswithhighscoresaremoredifficultandtheirmeasureswillbehigher.Throughthemeasuresofdescriptors,itwillbeclearhowmanylevelscanbeset.Inthispart,wewillfirstlookatthesummarystatisticsaboutteacherswhichistoguaranteethereliabilityofthisstudy.Themeasure,S.E.,InfitandOutfitstatisticsandseparationsareprovidedinthefollowingtable.70 Table3-10Teachers’RatingReport-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ObsvdObsvdObsvdFair-M|Model|InfitOutfit|Estim.||ScoreCountAverageAvrage|MeasureS.E.|MnSqZStdMnSqZStd|Discrm|Numitems|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|331.3106.03.143.18|-.31.16|.97-.4.98-.3||Mean(Count:32)||34.1.0.3.30|.83.0|.32.1.292.1||S.D.(Populn)||34.6.0.3.31|.85.01|.32.2.32.2||S.D.(Sample)|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Model,Populn:RMSE.16Adj(True)S.D..82Separation5.19Reliability.96Model,Sample:RMSE.16Adj(True)S.D..83Separation5.28Reliability.97Model,Fixed(allsame)chi-square:864.7d.f.:31significance(probability):.00Model,Random(normal)chi-square:30.0d.f.:31significance(probability):.47Rateragreementopportunities:52576Exactagreements:20847=39.7%Expected:20922.8=39.8%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teachers’severitycanbejudgedfromtheperspectiveofthevalueofseparation,reliabilityandchi-square.Ifthereexistslittledifferenceonseverity,thevalueofreliabilityiscloseto0,andviceversaiscloseto1(WangShuhua,2012).Throughtheabovetable,theindexofreliabilityis0.96,whichmeansthereis99percentofcertaintytomakesurethatthese32teachershavegreatdiscrepancywhilejudgingdescriptorsofEGC.Theseparationindexofteachersis5.19whichalsoimpliesthereisgreatdifferencebetweentheirratings.Somemaybestrictwhileothersmaybelenient.Also,wecanseethechi-squareinthistableis867.4andPequalsto0.00,whichshowsthediscrepancyissignificant.Itisbecause32teachersaredifferentinteachingageandstagesandalsohavedifferentexperience.However,inthisstudy,moreattentionispaidtothefitstatistics,inotherwords,whethertheteachersjudgethedescriptorsaccordingtoaconsistentprinciple,therefore,InfitvalueandS.Dareadoptedasareference.Fromthetable,wecanseetheInfitis0.97,approachingtotheexpectedvalue1,whichmeansthesampleschosenare71 highlyreliable.TheS.E.is0.16thatisverysmallandcanbeaccepted.Toidentifyeachteacher’sratingisacceptable,Infitvaluesofthemarecheckedonebyone.Accordingtotherequirementofthisthesis,thevaluerangeofInfitMnSqcanbecountedasbetween0.65and1.29,usingmeanofInfitMnSqplusandminustwoS.D.ButbasedonLinacre’sview(1989),ifitisbetween0.4and1.8,theresultcanbeaccepted.Byreferencetothetwostandards,allteachers’judgmentsarequalified.72 ChapterFourResultsandDiscussionThischapterwillpresenttheresultsofdimensionsandlevelsofEGCscaleanddiscusstheresultsbyreferencetothedataanalysis.4.1DimensionsofEGCScaleInordertoensurethesourcesofdescriptorsaboutEGCarevariedandrepresentative,thestudyhascollecteddescriptorsfromforeignlanguageproficiencyscales,curriculumstandards,syllabuses,textbooksandafewofdescriptorsareevencreatedbyexperts,whichcausesdescriptorsinamess.Someofthemarerepetitiveorunclearincontent.Therefore,theyneedtobearrangedinanewwaytosuitthecurrentstudy.Fiveprinciples,thatis,positiveness,definiteness,clarity,brevityandindependenceusedintheconstructionofCEFRtogetherwiththerelevantprincipleandthree-elementmodelareadoptedtorevisetheoriginaldescriptorstoguaranteethequalityofthem.Afterthat,weclassifythedimensionsofEGCscalebasedonLarsen-freeman’sviewaboutit.Accordingtoher,EGCcanbedescribedfromthreedimensions:form,meaninganduse.Afterthedescriptorsbeingcollectedandedited,theyneedtobeputintoaprovisionalclassification,sothesedescriptorsareplacedtotheabovedimensionsbytheauthorbasedonexperienceandoriginalsourcesofdescriptors;however,thisdoesnotmeaneachdescriptorcanfitforitscorresponding73 dimensionwell.Inordertoensurethereliabilityoftheclassification,intra-rater’sandinter-raters’judgmentsareusedwhichhavebeenintroducedinthelastchapter.Intheintra-rater’sjudgment,ithasshowedthatSpearman’scorrelationreaches0.931,whichmeansjudgmentofthetwodifferentperiodshavestrongrelevancewitheachother,however,italsoimpliesthedimensionsofsomedescriptorshavebeenchanged.Accordingtothedetailedresults,only5descriptorsareinthiscondition.D24,D36,D51andD75areputintothedimensionofformatfirstbutlatertheformertwoareplacedinthedimensionofmeaningandthelattertwoareintothedimensionofuse.D28isprovedmoreappropriateinthatofmeaningthaninthedimensionofuse.Finally,thesedescriptorsarelaidasideforathirdjudgmentbytheauthoroneweeklater.Afterthejudgment,therelevancehasreached1.00,thatis,totallyrelevant.Intheinter-raters’judgment,descriptorsareratedbyfourdifferentaexperts.TheresultsareanalyzedbyKendall’sWandtheconsistencyhascometo0.911,whichmeanstheiropinionsarehighlyconsistent.Throughcheckingthefrequencyofdescriptors,itisfoundthatseveralofthemarejudgeddifferentlybyonlyonerater,whichcannotmakebigdifferencetothedescriptors’dimensionsdeterminedbytheauthorinthethirdpersonaljudgment.Theaboveresultshaveprovedthattheplacementofeachdescriptorinthegivendimensionisreliableontheonehandanditalso74 suggeststherearesomereasonsforreachingsuchhighconsistencyontheotherhand.Thereasonscanbesummarizedbelow:thefirstisthattheclassificationofdescriptorsisnotabstractwhichmakesthemclearlyenoughtobejudged;thesecondisthattheauthorhasconsideredthedimensionofeachdescriptorcarefully;thethirdisthatthefourexpertsorratershavereadtheinstructionswellandhaveagoodknowledgeofEGCdescribed.Theprocessofjudgmentshavemadethedimensionsofdescriptorsbecomemorereliable.NowtheproportionofdescriptorsofEGCineachdimensionanddetaileddescriptorsofEGCcanbeconcludedbythefollowingtwotables.Table4-1FinalDimensionsofEGCScaleDimensionsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD1,D2,D3,D4,D5,D6,D7,D8,D9,D10,FormD11,D12,D13,D14,D15,D16,D17,D18,2321.69%D19,D20,D21,D22,D23D24,D25,D26,D27,D28,D29,D30,D31,D32D33,D34,D35,D36,D37,D38,D39,D40Meaning2624.52%D41,D42,D43,D44,D45,D46,D47,D48D49D50,D51,D52,D53,D54,D55,D56,D57,D58D59,D60,D61,D62,D63,D64,D65,D66,D67D68,D69D70,D71,D72,D73,D74,D75,D76UseD77,D78,D79,D80,D81,D82,D83,D84,D855753.77%D86,D87,D88,D89,D90,D91,D92,D93,D94D95,D96,D97,D98,D99,D100,D101,D102D103,D104,D105,D106Total106100%Fromtable4-1,itcanbeseenthatdescriptorsofEGCaremainlydistributedinthedimensionofuse,theratioofwhichis53.77%,higher75 thandescriptorsofformandmeaning.Itisunderstandableandscientific,becausethepurposetolearnlanguageistouseit.Thepercentagesofdescriptorsofformandmeaningareonly21.69%and24.52%respectively.Thisisforthereasonthatformandmeaningareoftenconsideredasthebasicrequirementsofuseandwhenweuselanguage,weneedtograspitsformandmeaning.DescriptorsofformarefromD1toD23,ofmeaningfromD24toD49andofusefromD50toD106.ThecontentsrepresentedbyeachdescriptorsareshowninAppendixIV.Comparedwiththeprovisionaldescriptorsofeachdimension,fivedescriptorshavebeenchangedintoanotherdimension.Whichhasbeenexplainedintheintra-rater’sjudgment.4.2LevelsofEGCScaleInChapterThree,thedescriptorsofEGCareputintofivelevelsthroughintuitiveandqualitativemethods,however,whetherthesuppositionisreliableornotstillneedstobevalidated.Inthisthesis,MFRMisusedtodeterminethelevelsofEGCfinally.MFRMhasdividedtheanalysisintotwofacets.Asthefirstfacet,thatis,thereliabilityofselectedteachershasbeenstatedabove,herewewilllookatthesummarystatisticsaboutthesecondfacet:descriptors.Table4-2Descriptors’HolisticReport------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|ObsvdObsvdObsvdFair-M|Model|InfitOutfit|Estim.|||ScoreCountAverageAvrage|MeasureS.E.|MnSqZStdMnSqZStd|Discrm|Numitems|76 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|100.030.03.13.13|.00.29|.97-.1.98-.2||Mean(Count:117)||25.1.0.8.79|2.04.01|.21.9.22.9||S.D.(Populn)||25.2.0.8.79|2.05.01|.21.9.22.9||S.D.(Sample)|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Model,Populn:RMSE.29Adj(True)S.D.2.02Separation7.04Reliability.98Model,Sample:RMSE.29Adj(True)S.D.2.03Separation7.08Reliability.98Model,Fixed(allsame)chi-square:5401.4d.f.:105significance(probability):.00Model,Random(normal)chi-square:103.2d.f.:104significance(probability):.50------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table4-2isasummaryinformationaboutdescriptors.Itcanbeseenthatthemeasureofdescriptorsis0.00,S.E.is0.29andInfitMnSqis0.97,whichiscloseto1andhashighreliability.Theseparationofdescriptorsis7.34andreliabilityis0.98,whichmeansthereis98percentofpossibilitythatthedescriptorshaveagooddiscriminationbetweeneachother.Thus,itverifiesthatthesedescriptorscanbeusedtotestlearnerswithdifferentEGC.Theresultalsoshowsthatthefixedchi-squareis5401.4andPis0.00,sothediscrepancyofthedifficultyofthesedescriptorshasstatisticalsignificance.ThisconfirmsthepredictionofEGCscalethatthesedescriptorscandistinguishthedifferentlearners’EGC.Thedetaileddataabouteachdescriptorwillbepresentedinthefollowingparts.Basedontheteachers’judgmentofeachdescriptor,MFRM,throughalogitverticalrulergeneratesthelevelsbasedonthemeasureofeachdescriptorautomaticallyandallofthedescriptorscanfindlocationsthere.77 Figure4-1ScalingofDescriptorsofEGCbyMFRMFigure4-1isthepartialdistributionaboutdescriptorsofEGCbasedontheirdifficultyvaluesormeasures.Inthefigure,thefirstcolumnismeasure(logitvalue)inthisthesis,therangeofwhichisdefinedfrom-4to4.Thesecondcolumnrepresentsteachers.ThethirdcolumncoversallthedescriptorsofEGCandthelastoneisscalerepresentedbynumber1to5accordingtothesuppositionoflevels,whichpresentsthelevelsofdescriptors.Fromthescalecolumn,wecanseedescriptorsareallinthemiddlethreelevelsalthoughtheyarelimited78 tofivebandsoriginally.Comparedwiththeformersupposition,descriptorsofleveloneandlevelfivearenowmergedintoleveltwoandlevelfourrespectively.Severaldescriptorsoflevelthreearenowputintolevelfour.Descriptorsinleveltwohavenotchanged.Besides,therearenocross-leveldescriptorsaccordingtothestatistics,whichwillbestatedindetailinthelaterparts.Therefore,itismoreappropriatetosetthescaleintothreelevels.Throughthefigure,itisobservedthatthecut-offpointbetweenleveltwoandlevelthreeisD53andthatbetweenlevelthreeandlevelfourisD103andsevenotherdescriptors.Theyarealongtheedge,sowhichlevelshouldtheybelongtomustbeseenbyreferencetotheirmeasures.Table4-4providesthemeasuresforthevergingdescriptorsandtheirneighboringdescriptors:Table4-3MeasuresforVergingDescriptorsandTheirNeighboringDescriptorsDescriptorsMeasuresD1021.47D1031.38D1041.38D811.38D231.38D381.38D841.38D211.30D491.30D1061.2279 Fromtheabovetable,itcanbeseenmeasuresofD103,D104,D23,D38,D81andD84areall1.38whichiscloseto1.47,not1.22,sotheyshouldbeclassifiedintolevelfourwhilemeasuresofD21andD49are1.30,approaching1.22sothatcanbeputintolevelthree.Astheverticalrulerhasshowedtherearethreelevelsofthesedescriptors,nowwenamethethreelevelsaslowlevel,intermediatelevelandadvancedlevel.Intermsofthenumber,thedescriptorsineachlevelaremuchinbalance.Thenumberis29,40and37fromthelowtotheadvancedlevels.Asdescriptorswithhighermeasuresaremoredifficult,therangeofmeasuresordifficultyvaluesisbetween-3.71to3.25,whichmeansthevalueofeasiestdescriptorsis-3.71andofthehardestonesis3.25.Thecut-offpointbetweenlowlevelandintermediatelevelis-1.44or-1.20andthatbetweenintermediatelevelandadvancedlevelis1.30or1.38.Thefollowingthreetablesaredescriptorsfromlowlevel(secondlevel)toadvancedlevel(fourthlevel).Theyhaveprovidedthemeasures,S.E.andInfitvaluesforeachdescriptorarrangedbymeasures.IthasbeenmentionedthattheInfitMnSqofdescriptorsisfrom0.39to1.55,whichiscalculatedbasedonthemeanofInfitMnSqplusandminustwomeansofStandardError,butaccordingtoLinacre,thevaluecannotbelowerthan0.4andhigherthan1.8,sothevaluerangeislimitedbetween0.4and1.55.ThevalueofZStdrangesfrom-2to2,basedonscientific80 researches.WhendescriptorsareamongthevaluerangeofZStd,thentheyareacceptable.Iftheyarenot,MnSqneedstobeobserved.Usually,therearetwoconditions.IfZStdisover2andInfitMnSqisoverthemaximumvalue,thenthedescriptorisunderfit.Onthecontrary,ifZStdislowerthan-2andInfitMnSqislowerthantheminimumvalue,thenthedescriptorisoverfit.Table4-4DescriptorsofEGCinLowLevelbyMFRMAnalysisDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdD53-1.440.85-0.5D26-3.050.990.0D30-1.750.90-0.3D56-3.050.71-1.3D31-1.830.78-0.9D69-3.050.82-0.7D10-1.980.76-1.0D57-3.130.95-0.1D59-2.060.72-1.2D7-3.211.210.9D55-2.510.970.0D24-3.210.93-0.2D62-2.511.040.2D4-3.290.70-1.4D6-2.590.68-1.5D9-3.290.75-1.1D64-2.591.180.8D1-3.371.020.1D66-2.660.80-0.8D2-3.531.010.1D51-2.741.241.0D28-3.530.80-0.8D68-2.740.76-1.1D29-3.530.94-0.1D50-2.820.75-1.1D61-3.531.200.9D63-2.820.72-1.3D1-3.711.050.2D52-2.971.220.9Theabovetableprovidestheinformationfordescriptorsinlowlevel(secondlevel).29descriptorsareinvolved.Therangeofmeasureinthis81 levelis-3.71to-1.44.ThehardestdescriptorofthislevelisD53andtheeasiestisD1.ThevaluesofZStdofalldescriptorsareintheallowedrange.Asithasmentioned,therangeofinfitvalueisbetween0.4and1.55.ThroughobservingtheInfitMnSq,allthedescriptorsofEGCinthislevelarefitforthisconditionaswecansee.Table4-5DescriptorsofEGCinIntermediateLevelbyMFRMAnalysisDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdD211.301.060.3D370.210.93-0.1D491.301.040.2D760.210.82-0.6D431.220.82-0.7D580.040.86-0.4D451.220.69-1.3D34-0.041.100.4D1061.220.78-0.8D46-0.211.020.1D731.141.020.1D74-0.210.67-1.3D151.051.281.1D54-0.381.180.7D161.050.73-1.1D60-0.381.100.4D321.051.120.5D33-0.630.85-0.5D351.051.000.0D79-0.631.010.1D411.050.77-0.9D5-0.710.72-1.0D140.970.70-1.2D72-0.880.84-0.5D780.970.79-0.8D39-0.961.180.7D850.970.83-0.6D25-1.041.210.8D110.810.84-0.5D27-1.040.82-0.6D980.810.68-1.3D67-1.040.81-0.7D750.640.88-0.3D71-1.040.73-1.0D770.641.140.6D12-1.200.92-0.282 DescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdD170.470.77-0.8D65-1.200.75-1.0D80.210.78-0.8D70-1.200.91-0.2Table4-5summarizesdescriptorsofEGCinintermediatelevel(thirdlevel),whichconsistsof40descriptors.Thedifficultyvalueofthislevelisfrom-1.20to1.30.D21andD49havegotthehighestvalue1.30whileD12,D65andD70havethelowestvalue-1.20.AllthedescriptorsareacceptedinthislevelaccordingtotheirZStdandInfitMnSq.Therefore,descriptorsinthislevelareallverysuitablefordescribinglearners’EGC.Table4-6DescriptorsofEGCinAdvancedLevelbyMFRMAnalysisDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdD1013.251.381.5D962.041.130.6D402.881.251.0D201.871.150.7D222.791.210.9D831.871.170.7D1002.790.983.4D441.711.020.1D902.710.90-0.3D481.711.110.5D922.710.90-0.3D871.711.160.7D182.541.050.3D951.710.85-0.5D472.541.501.9D821.630.970.0D132.450.970.0D801.550.70-1.3D422.451.080.4D941.551.030.2D192.371.200.8D861.470.82-0.7D912.371.140.6D1021.470.78-0.9D992.371.411.6D231.381.040.2D892.281.220.9D381.381.020.183 DescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdDescriptorsMeasureInfitZStdD972.200.990.0D811.380.970.0D362.121.100.4D841.381.180.8D882.120.970.0D1031.380.80-0.8D1052.121.090.4D1041.381.060.3D932.041.010.1FromTable4-6,itcanbeobservedthatthereare37descriptorsintheadvancedlevel(fourthlevel).Themeasuresofdescriptorsinthislevelrangefrom1.38to3.25andthespanis1.87logits.ThroughobservingtheirvaluesofZStd,alldescriptorsareamongtherange.WhenitcomestoseetheInfitMnSq,nodescriptorsareunqualified,therefore,thesedescriptorsareallreserved.Atlast,thedescriptorsofeachlevelcanbesummarizedinTable4-8:Table4-7FinalLevelsofEGCScaleLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD13,D18,D19,D20,D22,D23,D36,D38,AdvancedLevelD40,D42,D44,D47,D48,D80,D81,D82,(TheFourthD83,D84,D86,D87,D88,D89,D90,D91,3734.91%Level)D92,D93,D94,D95,D96,D97,D99,D100,D101,D102,D103,D104,D105D5,D8,D11,D12,D14,D15,D16,D17,IntermediateD21,D25,D27,D32,D33,D34,D35,D37,LevelD39,D41,D43,D45,D46,D49,D54,D58,4037.73%(TheThirdLevel)D60,D65,D67,D70,D71,D72,D73,D74,D75,D76,D77,D78,D79,D85,D98,D106LowLevelD1,D2,D3,D4,D6,D7,D9,D10,D24,D26,2927.36%84 LevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentage(TheSecondD28,D29,D30,D31,D50,D51,D52,D53,Level)D55,D56,D57,D59,D61,D62,D63,D64,D66,D68,D69Total106100%TheabovetablehaspresentedthatthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Itiscomposedofthreelevels,andthenumberofdescriptorsfromlowtoadvancedlevelsis29,40and37respectively.Descriptorsofintermediatelevelaremorethanthoseinthetwootherlevels.Thepercentageis37.73%.ComparedwithTable3-6,thatis,theprovisionallevelsofEGCscale,itisclearlythatlevelsofsomedescriptorsherearedifferentfromtheiroriginalones.Indetail,descriptorsinthefirstlevelareallputintothesecondlevel,thatisthelowlevelhere.Threedescriptors,D12,D37andD54areinthesecondlevelintheprovisionallevelsofthescalebutareplacedintothethirdlevelorintermediatelevelnow.MostofthedescriptorsinthethirdlevelstaythesameexceptforD13,D18,D36,D90andD103,whichareclassifiedtothefourthlevelortheadvancedlevel.SixdescriptorsinthefourthlevelnowbelongtothethirdlevelandtheyareD21,D35,D41,D44,D86andD87.Besides,alldescriptorsinthefifthlevelaredistributedtothefourthlevelortheadvancedlevel.Itneedstobementionedthatnocross-leveldescriptorsappearinthisprocess.Asonlydescriptorsineachlevelareconcludedhere,thoseofeachdimensionin85 eachlevelshouldbedisplayed.Theywillbepresentedinthefollowingtablesonebyone.Table4-8LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofFormDimensionLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageAdvancedLevelD13,D18,D19,D20,626.09%D22,D23D5,D8,D11,D12,DFormIntermediateLevel14,D15,D16,D17,939.13%D21D1,D2,D3,D4,D6,LowLevel834.78%D7,D9,D10Total23100%Fromtheabovetable,itcanbeseenthattherearethreelevelsinthedimensionofform.Thepercentagesofeachlevelarecomparativelyclose.Descriptorsoflowlevelandintermediatelevelaremorethandescriptorsinadvancedlevel.ThisimpliesthatthedescriptorsofthisdimensionarefitformiddleschoolstudentswhoseEGCareatthenormallevel.Onlyafewofdescriptorsaredifficultforthem.Table4-9LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofMeaningDimensionLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD36,D38,D40,D42,MeaningAdvancedLevel726.92%D44,D47,D4886 D25,D27,D32,D33,D3IntermediateLevel4,D35,D37,D39,D41,1350.00%D43,D45,D46,D49D24,D26,D28,D29,LowLevel623.08%D30,D31Total26100%Table4-10showsthedimensionofmeaningalsoconsistsofthreelevels.Descriptorsintheintermediateleveltakethemostspacewhilethoseintheothertwolevelsareafewinnumber.Thepercentageofintermediatelevelhasreached50%,whichishalfofthewholedescriptors.Itindicatesthatthesedescriptorsaremoreapplicableforstudentswithintermediateability.Astotheeasyandhardones,theyarelimitedinnumbersothattheycannotinfluencethewholeconditionoftheEGCscale.Inaddition,descriptorsinthisdimensionaccordswithwhatisexpectedinstatistics.87 Table4-10LevelsofDescriptorsofEGCintheDimensionofUseDimensionLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageDimensionLevelsDescriptorsNumberPercentageD80,D81,D82,D83,D84,D86,D87,D88,D89,D90,AdvancedLevelD91,D92,D93,D94,D95,2442.11%D96,D97,D99,D100,D101,D102,D103,D104,D105D54,D58,D60,D65,D67,UseIntermediateD70,D71,D72,D73,D74,1831.58%LevelD75,D76,D77,D78,D79,D85,D98,D106D50,D51,D52,D53,D55,LowLevelD56,D57,D59,D61,D62,1526.31%D63,D64,D66,D68,D69Total57100%Intheabovetable,descriptorsinthedimensionofusearegatheredinadvancedlevel,thepercentageofwhichishigherthanlowlevelandintermediatelevel.Actually,itisexpectedthenumberofdescriptorsintheintermediatelevelisthehighest.Ifitisnot,itcanbeexplainedthatdescriptorsofthedimensionofusearemoreappropriatetostudentsaboveintermediateability.ThismaybecausedbytherangeofsamplesorstudentsfromdifferentplaceswithdifferentdegreesofEGC.Nomatterwhatthereasonsare,descriptorsofadvancedlevelinusedimensionareneededtobeconsideredseriously.Uptonow,thescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentshasbeenconstructed.ThroughtheresultsofSpearman’scorrelationanalysisandKendalWconsistencytesting,thedescriptorsofEGChavebeen88 provedtobeputintothecorrespondingdimensionswithahighreliability.ThroughMFRManalysis,descriptorsaresortedintothreelevelsautomaticallyinwholeandalsothesameineachdimension.Here,abrieftableaboutthescaleofEGCisprovided.Table4-11ScaleofEGCforChineseMiddleSchoolStudentsDimensionsLevelsFormMeaningUseD13,D18,D36,D38,D40,D80,D81,D82,D83,D84,D86,D87,D19,D20,D42,D44,D47,D88,D89,D90,D91,D92,D93,D94,AdvancedLevelD22,D23D48D95,D96,D97,D99,D100,D101,D102,D103,D104,D105D5,D8,D25,D27,D32,D54,D58,D60,D65,D67,D70,D71,IntermediateD11,D12,D33,D34,D35,D72,D73,D74,D75,D76,D77,D78,LevelD14,D15,D37,D39,D41,D79,D85,D98,D106D16,D17,D43,D45,D46,D21D49D1,D2,D3D24,D26,D28,D50,D51,D52,D53,D55,D56,D57,LowLevel,D4,D6,DD29,D30,D31D59,D61,D62,D63,D64,D66,D68,7,D9,D10D69Table4-12isaminiatureofthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Descriptorsofthesamedimensionandsamelevelareputintoonegrid.Thispresentsanoverallviewaboutthestructureofthescale.Infact,tomakeitmoreclearly,basedonthedimensionsofEGC,threesub-scalesaboutitcanbeformedandeachlevelineachdimensioniscoveredbyanumberofdescriptors,whichareshowninAppendixⅣonebyone.89 ThedescriptorsofEGChaveexperiencedaseriesofcheckingandeditingsincetheyarecollected.Theprocessofeditionhasensuredthequalityofeachdescriptor,whichisabasicstepfortheconstructionofEGCscale.Besides,theyhavebeentestedwhetherfromtheperspectiveofdimensionsorlevels.ThisstageisthekeytoconstructingthescaleofEGCsuccessfully.90 ConclusionThisthesisconsistsoffourmajorchapters:literaturereview,theoreticalbasis,constructionandvalidationoftheEGCscale,andresultsanddiscussionofthestudy.Inthissection,conclusionwillbemadefromtheworkdoneinthisthesis,majorfindings,significanceandlimitationsofthisthesis.0.1WorkDoneinThisThesisThisthesisaimsatconstructingthescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudents.Toreachthegoal,itfirstreviewsthepreviousstudiesoflanguageproficiencyscalesandEGCandcommentsonthemrespectively.Byprobingintothepreviousstudies,thisthesishasfoundfewpeoplehaveconnectedEGCwithlanguageproficiencyscales.Afterthat,theoreticalfoundations,namely,communicativelanguageabilityandthree-dimensionalgrammarframeworkareintroduced.ThroughthecollectionandeditingofdescriptorsofEGC,adescriptorpoolofEGCisbuilt.Basedonthetheoriesandqualityanalysis,thisthesishasclassifiedthedescriptorsandthroughquantitativestudy,thelevelsareset.Finally,thescaleofEGCforChinesemiddleschoolstudentsisconstructed.0.2MajorFindingsofThisThesisThemajorfindingsofthisthesisarelistedasfollowsbasedontworesearchquestionsinthisthesis:91 (1)ThedescriptorsofEGCcanbeclassifiedintothreedimensions:form,meaninganduse.207descriptorsthatcanreflectEGCofmiddleschoolstudentsarecollectedwidelyfromcurriculumstandards,teachingandexaminationsyllabuses,languageproficiencyscales,Englishtextbooksandsoonathomeandabroad.Subsequently,theyarecalibratedbasedonfiveprinciplesfromCEFRandthree-elementsmodelfromPersonStandardsandQualityofficetogetherwithrelevantprinciple.What’smore,throughthediscussionbetweenexperts,106descriptorsareleft.Basedonpreviousstudies,Bachman’smodelofCLAandLarsenFreeman’smodelofEGCareintroducedasreferencesfortheclassificationofdescriptors.However,itcanbeseenthatnotallofthedescriptorscanbeclearlyputintooneofthedimensionsaccordingtothedefinitionofEGCmodel,sothecommonalitiesofdescriptors,cognitiveverbsandthecontentsexpressedinthedescriptorsarecombinedtodeterminetheircorrespondingdimensions.Inthisway,EGCcanultimatelybedescribedfromthreedimensions:form,meaningandusethroughtheperspectiveofgrammaticalknowledge.Thedimensionofformconsistsofdescriptorswhichareabouthowagrammaticalunitiscomposedandwhatispresentedfromthesurface.Meaningdimensioniscomposedbydescriptorswhichfocusontheunderstandingofmeaningaboutwords,phrases,sentencesandothergrammaticalstructures.Dimensionofuseincludesdescriptorsabouttheapplicationofthe92 grammaticalunits,especiallyincontext.Throughconsistencytest,bothintra-rater’sandinter-raters’judgmentshavereachedhighconsistency,whichmeansthedescriptorsareplacedintotherightdimensions.Bystatistics,thenumberofdescriptorsineachdimensionis23(D1-D23),26(D24-D49)and57(D50-D106)respectively.(2)TherearethreelevelsofEGCscaleandlevelsineachdimensionarethesame.Tostartwith,descriptors,basedontheirsourcesandtheauthor’sexperiencearetemporallydividedintofivelevelsandaquestionnaireisformed.Afterthat,thirty-twoexperiencedEnglishteachersfromHenan,HunanandJiangxiareinvitedtojudgethedifficultyofdescriptorsaccordingtothestandardinthequestionnaireandMFMRisusedtomanagethedatacollected.Throughanalysis,MEFRpartitions106descriptorsintothreelevelsbasedontheirmeasuresautomatically.Threeleftlevelsarethesecondlevel,thirdlevelandfourthlevel.Tomakeitmoreclear,werenamethesethreelevelsaslowlevel,intermediatelevelandadvancedlevel.Thenumberofdescriptorsfromlowleveltoadvancedlevelis29,40and37,whichaccordswiththeideathatdescriptorsshouldbeinnormaldistributiongenerally.However,italsoimpliessomedescriptorsarelittledifficultforstudentsinmiddleschoolsbecausethedescriptorsofadvancedlevelsaremorethantheexpectation.Besides,therearealsothreelevelsofeachdimension.Thenumberofdescriptorsonformdimensionfromlowleveltoadvanced93 levelis8,9and6,thatofmeaningdimensionis6,13and7andthatofusedimensionis15,18and24.0.3SignificanceofThisThesisThisthesisisofgreatsignificanceinboththeoryandpractice.Theoretically,thisthesishascombinedCommunicativeLanguageAbilityandThree-dimensionalGrammarframeworktohaveacomprehensiveunderstandingofEGC.Fromtheperspectiveoflanguageproficiencyscales,descriptorsonEGCarecollected.Throughapplyingthetwotheories,thecalibrateddescriptorsareclassifiedintothreedimensions,whichisabasisforconstructingthescaleofEGC.Practically,the“can-do”statementsordescriptorsonEGCcanhelpteachersjudgethestudents’abilityinlanguageteachingandstudentscanusethemtodescribewhattheycandoinlanguagelearning.Besides,thisthesishasadoptedMFRMtomanagethedata,whichcanprovideanewwayforlaterresearches.TheconstructionofEGCscalecanalsoprovidesomehelpforbuildingChinaStandardsofEnglish.0.4LimitationsofThisThesisThisthesis,despitetheworkdone,majorfindingsandsignificance,alsohasitsdeficiencies.Firstofall,theresearchesofEGCabroadarenot94 overallforlackingofmaterialsinrecentyears.Secondly,althoughthedescriptorshavebeencollectedfromdifferentsources,theycan’tcoverallkindsofgrammaticalknowledge.Thirdly,thisthesisshouldbewidelyusedtotestitsvalidity,butitonlychoosesafewteachersasthesubjectstojudgethedifficultyvaluesofdescriptors.Theselimitationsimplythatthisthesisisnotperfect.Totackletheproblemsmentioned,theauthorstillneedstodofurtherstudyinthefutureresearches.95 96 BibliographyAlderson,J.C.1991.Bandsandscores.In:Alderson,J.CandNorth,B.(eds.):Languagetestinginthe1990s[M],London:BritishCouncil/Macmillan,DevelopmentsinELT.Alderson,C.2002.CommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages:Learning,Teaching,Assessment:CaseStudies[M].Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope.ALTE.1994.EuropeanLanguageExaminations:DescriptorsofExaminationsOfferedbyMembersoftheAssociationofLanguageTestersinEurope(ALTE)[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguage(ACTFL).1986.ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines[S],InByrnes,H&M.Canale(eds.).DefiningandDevelopingProficiency:Guidelines,ImplementationsandConcepts[C].Lincolnwood(III):NationalTextbookCompany.AmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguage(ACTFL).1996.StandardsforForeignLanguageLearning:Preparingforst21Century[M].NewYork:Yonkers.Bachman,L.F.1990.FundamentalConsiderationsinLanguageTesting[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.97 Bachman,L.R,&A.S.Palmer.1996.LanguageTestinginPractice[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Bardovi-HarligK.1999.ExploringtheInterlanguagePragmatics:AResearchAgendaforAcquisitionalPragmatics[J].LanguageLearning49(4):677-713.Canale,M.&M.Swain.1980.TheoreticalBasesofCommunicativeApproachestoSecondLanguageTeachingandTesting[J].AppliedLinguistics(1):1-47.Carrel,P.L.1989.Metacognitiveawarenessandsecondlanguagereading[J].ModernLanguageJournal(3):113-134.ChomskyN.1965.AspectsoftheTheoryofSyntax[M].Cambridge:TheMITPress.Clark,J.L.D.&Clifford,R.T.1988.TheFSI/ACTFLProficiencyScalesandTestingTechniques[J].StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition(3):129-147.Cox,T.&Clifford,R.2014.EmpiricalValidationofListeningProficiencyGuidelines[J].ForeignLanguageAnnalsbyAmericanCouncilontheTeachingofForeignLanguages.CouncilofEurope.2001.CommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages:Learning,Teaching,Assessment[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.98 CouncilofEurope.2007.TheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages(CEFR)andtheDevelopmentofLanguagePolicies:ChallengesandResponsibilities[Z].Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope.Ellis,R.1994.TheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisition[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ellis,R.1997.SLAResearchandLanguageTeaching[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ellis,R.2005.MeasuringImplicitandExplicitKnowledgeofaSecondLanguage:APsychometricStudy[J].StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition(27):141-172.ForeignServiceInstitute(FSI).1975.GlobalDefinitionsofAbsoluteProficiencyinSpeakingandReading[S].InSpolsky,B.&R.Jones(eds).TestingLanguageProficiency[C].Washington,D.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.FrancisC.1997.TalktoMe!TheDevelopmentofRequestStrategiesinNon-NativeSpeakersofEnglish[J].WorkingPaperinEducationalLinguistics13(2):23-40.Green,P.&K.Hecht.1992.ImplicitandExplicitGrammar:AnEmpiricalStudy[J].AppliedLinguistics(13):168-182.Higgs,T.1984.TeachingforProficiency,theOrganizingPrinciple[M].Linconwood,IL:NationalTextbookCompany.99 Hymes,D.1967.ModelsoftheInteractionofLanguageandSocialSetting[J].JournalofSocialIssues(3):23.HymesD.1971.OnCommunicativeCompetence[M].Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress.Hymes,D.1972.OnCommunicativeCompetence[A].InJ.B.Pride&J.Holmes(Eds.).Sociolinguistics[C].Harmondsworth:Penguin.Hedge,T.2001.TeachingandLearninginthelanguageClassroom[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hudson,T.2005.TrendsinAssessmentScalesandCriterion-referencedAssessment[J].AnnualReviewofAppliedLinguistics(25):205-227.InteragencyRoundTable.1985.ILRSkillLevelDescriptions[S].Washington,DC:IRT.KasperG,RSchimidt.1996.DevelopmentalIssuesinInterlanguagePragmatics[J].StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition(18):149-169.KasperG.2001.FourPerspectivesonL2PragmaticDevelopment[J].AppliedLinguistics(22):502-530.Larsen-FreemanD.1991.TeachingGrammar[C]InM.Celce-Murcia,eds.TeachingEnglishasaSecondorForeignLanguage.Boston:Heinle&Heinle,279-283.Larsen-FreemanD.&LongM.1991.AnIntroductiontoSecondLanguageAcquisitionResearch[M].London:Longman.100 Larsen-FreemanD.2005.TeachingLanguage:FromGrammartoGrammaring[M].Beijing:ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress.Lincre,J.M.1989.ManyFacetRaschMeasurement[M].Chicago:MESAPress.Miller,J.M.&Penfield,R.D.2005.Usingthescoremethodtoconstructasymmetricconfidenceintervals:AnSASprogramforcontentvalidationinscaledevelopment[J].BehaviorResearchMethods,(3).Morrow,K(ed).2004.InsightsfromtheCommonEuropeanFramework[C].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.North,B.&G.Schneider.1998.ScalingDescriptorsforLanguageProficiencyScales[J].LanguageTesting(15)/2:217-262.North,B.2000a.TheDevelopmentofaCommonFrameworkScaleofLanguageproficiency[M].NewYork:PeterLang.North,B.2000b.LinkingLanguageAssessments:anexampleinalowstakescontext[J].System28:555-557.North,B.2014.TheCEFRinPractice[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pawlikowska-Smith,G.2000.CanadianLanguageBenchmarks2000:EnglishasaSecondLanguageforAdults[S].TheCenterforCanadianLanguageBenchmarks.101 Pawlikowska-Smith,G.2002.CanadianLanguageBenchmarks2000:TheoreticalFramework[M].TheCenterforCanadianLanguageBenchmarks.Purpura,J.2004.AssessingGrammar[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rose,K.R.2000.Anexploratorycross-sectionalstudyofinterlanguagepragmaticdevelopment[J].StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition(22):27-67.Smyk,E.,Restrepo,M.A.,Gorin,J.S.&Gray,S.2013DevelopmentandValidationoftheSpanish-EnglishLanguageProficiencyScale(SELPS)[J].Language,Speech,andHearingServicesinSchools,(44).AmericanSpeech-Language-HearingAssociation.Takahashi,S.1996.PragmaticTransferability[J].StudiesinSecondLanguageAcquisition(18):275-302.Widdowson,G.1978.TeachingLanguageasCommunication[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Wood,R.1993.AssessmentandTesting:ASurveyofResearch[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Wylie,E.2002.AnOverviewoftheInternationalSecondLanguageProficiencyRatings[M].GriffithUniversity:CenterforAppliedLinguisticsandLanguages.102 陈国华，2012，谈英语能力标准的制订[J]，《外语教学与研究》（6）：405-406。戴炜栋，2002，构建具有中国特色的英语教学“一条龙”体系[J],《中国高等教育》(11)：10-12。邓杰，2012，《论语言测试效度的累进辩论》[M]。海口：南海出版公司。杜小红，2011，显性语法知识与隐性语法能力的动态平衡探微[J]，《当代外国语研究》（7）：26-29。方绪军、杨惠中、朱正才，2008，制定全国统一的语言能力等级量表的原则和方法[J],《现代外语》（4）：380-387。高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组，2000，《高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲》[S]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。韩宝成，2006，国外语言能力述评[J],《外语教学与研究》（6）：443-450。韩宝成、常海潮，2011，中外外语能力标准对比研究[J]，《中国外语》（4）：39-46。何自然、阎庄，1986，中国学生在英语交际中的语用失误—汉英语用差异调查[J]，《外语教学与研究》（3）：52-57。何自然，2003，外语教学中的语用路向探索[J]，《山东外语教学》（4）：3-8。洪岗，1991，英语语用能力调查及其对外语教学的启示[J]，《外语教学与研究》（4）：56-60。103 胡壮麟，2002，对中国英语教育的若干思考[J]，《外语研究》（3）：2-5。刘振前、T.G.Bever，2002，句法分析在外语阅读中的作用[J]，《外语教学与研究》（3）：219-224。刘振卫，2010，欧洲语言共同参考框架对我国制定统一的语言能力标准的启示[J]，《安徽文学》（10）：172-173。刘壮，2009，语言能力和国际第二语言教学Cando理念[J]，《语言文字应用》（1）。刘壮、韩宝成、阎艰，2012，《欧洲语言共同参考框架》的交际语言能力理论框架和外语教学理念[J]，《外语教学与研究》（4）。陆效用，2001，美国21世纪的“5C”外语教育[J]，《外语界》(5)：22-27。牛强、王亚芳，2007，论将语法知识转化为语法能力的外语学习策略[J]，《江苏外语教学研究》（1）：5-11。欧洲理事会文化合作教育委员会，2008，《欧洲语言共同参考框架:学习、教学、评估》[M]。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。彭康州，2012，语法词汇项目构念效度研究一基于Rasch和CFA的分析[J]，《外语与外语教学》（11），CSSCI。冉永平，2004，语用学与二语习得交叉研究的新成果——《第二语言中的语用发展》评价[J]，《外语教学与研究》36（2）：152-155。王全，2004，谈英语水平测试多极化与统一能力标准[J]，《外语研究》（1）：66-70。104 王淑花，2012，《中国学生英语理解能力量表的构建及验证研究》[M]。北京:知识产权出版社。王玉云，2008，初中英语教材知识体系构建研究[D]，西南大学学位论文。徐晓燕、徐路明，2009，英语专业学生英语语法能力的变化和发展[J]，《外语教学理论与实践》（3）：1-14。许焕荣、李学珍，2003，论语言知识和语用知识在外语教学中的权重[J]，《山东外语教学》（2）。薛薇，2013，《统计分析方法及应用》(第三版)[M]。北京：电子工业出版社。杨惠中、桂诗春，2007，制订亚洲统一的英语语言能力等级量表[J]，《中国外语》（2）：34—37。杨惠中、朱正才、方绪军，2011，英语口语能力描述语因子分析及能力等级划分[J]，《现代外语》34（2）：151-160。杨惠中、朱正才、方绪军，2012，《中国语言能力等级共同量表研究：理论、方法与实证研究》[M]。上海：上海外语教育出版社。章振邦，1992，《新编英语语法教程》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。中华人民共和国教育部，2001，《英语课程标准》(实验稿)[S]。北京：北京师范大学出版社。中华人民共和国教育部，2003，《普通高中英语课程标准》(实验稿）[S]。北京:人民教育出版社。105 周梅，2010，加强语法教学，提高语法能力[J]，《大家》（20）：135。106 AppendixI原始描述语编号描述语来源IdentifyallpartsofspeechandtypesandstructureofELACurriculumELA1sentences.StandardsELACurriculumELA2Identifyandcorrectlyusesingularandpluralnouns.StandardsIdentifyandcorrectlyusecontractions(e.g.,isn’t,aren’t,ELACurriculumELA3can’t,won’t)inwritingandspeaking.StandardsIdentifyandcorrectlyusesingularpossessivepronounsELACurriculumELA4(e.g.,my/mine,his/her,hers,your/s)inwritingandStandardsspeaking.useregularandirregularverbs,adverbs,prepositions,ELACurriculumELA5andcoordinatingconjunctionsinwritingandspeaking.StandardsIdentifyandcorrectlyusevariouspartsofspeech,ELACurriculumELA6includingnounsandverbs,inwritingandspeaking.Standardscorrectlyuseprepositionalphrases,appositives,andELACurriculumELA7independentanddependentclauses;usetransitionsandStandardsconjunctionstoconnectideas.Usesimple,compound,andcompound-complexELACurriculumELA8sentences;useeffectivecoordinationandsubordinationStandardsofideastoexpresscompletethoughts.Demonstratethemechanicsofwriting(e.g.,quotationELACurriculumELA9marks,commasatendofdependentclauses)Standardsuseparallelism,includingsimilargrammaticalforms,inELACurriculumELA10allwrittendiscoursetopresentitemsinaseriesandStandardsitemsjuxtaposedforemphasis.ELACurriculumELA11Distinguishbetweencompleteandincompletesentences.StandardsRecognizeandusethecorrectwordorderinwrittenELACurriculumELA12sentences.StandardsUnderstandandbeabletousecompleteandcorrectELACurriculumELA13declarative,interrogative,imperative,andexclamatoryStandardssentencesinwritingandspeaking.UsesimpleandcompoundsentencesinwritingandELACurriculumELA14speaking.Standards107 编号描述语来源Combineshort,relatedsentenceswithappositives,ELACurriculumELA15participialphrases,adjectives,adverbs,andprepositionalStandardsphrases.IdentifyandcorrectlyuseverbsthatareoftenmisusedELACurriculumELA16(e.g.,lie/lay,sit/set,rise/raise),modifiers,andStandardspronouns.properlyuseindefinitepronounsandpresentperfect,ELACurriculumELA17pastperfect,andfutureperfectverbtenses;ensurethatStandardsverbsagreewithcompoundsubjects.ELACurriculumELA18Placemodifiersproperlyandusetheactivevoice.StandardsIdentifyanduseinfinitivesandparticiplesandmakeELACurriculumELA19clearreferencesbetweenpronounsandantecedents.StandardsUsesubordination,coordination,apposition,andotherELACurriculumELA20devicestoindicateclearlytherelationshipbetweenStandardsideas.IsabletomakesimpleindepententsentenceswithaAYLLIT1AYLLITprojectlimitednumberofunderlyingstructuresAYLLIT2sentencescontainsomelongerclausesAYLLITprojectIsabletocreatequitelongandvariedsentenceswithAYLLIT3AYLLITprojectcomplexphrasessentencescontainawidevarietyofclausetypes,withAYLLIT4AYLLITprojectfrequentcomplexclausesGCSE1usearangeofsentencestructuresGCSEteachingsyllabusmakeconsideredchoicesofvocabularyandgrammarGCSE2GCSEteachingsyllabustocreatedeliberateeffectsCanusesimplefillers,interjections,andresponsesinEIKEN1EIKENCan-dolistconversation(e.g."Isee."/"Readlly?")EIKEN2canunderstandsimpleconstructedsentencesEIKENCan-dolistcanproducespeechandaskquestionsusingsimpleEIKEN3EIKENCan-dolistconstructedsentencesEIKEN4canwritesimpleconstructedsentencesEIKENCan-dolistcanunderstandbasicEnglishwords,phrasesandsetEIKEN5EIKENCan-dolistexpressionsEIKEN6canusebasicEnglishwords,phrasesandsetexpressionsEIKENCan-dolist108 编号描述语来源Usessomesimplestructurescorrectly,butstillsystematicallymakesbasicmistakes–forexampletendsCEFRLanguageCEFR1tomixuptensesandforgettomarkagreement;proficiencyscalenevertheless,itisusuallyclearwhathe/sheistryingtosay.CanproducesimplemainlyisolatedphrasesaboutCEFRLanguageCEFR2peopleandplaces.proficiencyscaleCandescribepeople,placesandpossessionsinsimpleCEFRLanguageCEFR3terms.proficiencyscaleCanwriteaseriesofsimplephrasesandsentencesCEFRLanguageCEFR4linkedwithsimpleconnectorslike„and‟,„but‟proficiencyscaleand„because‟.Canwritesimpleisolatedphrasesandsentences.CEFRLanguageCEFR5proficiencyscaleUsesreasonablyaccuratelyarepertoireoffrequentlyCEFRLanguageCEFR6used‘routines’andpatternsassociatedwithproficiencyscalemorepredictablesituations.Recognitionofbasicgrammarstructurestogetageneralunderstandingoftexts(suchassimpleandcontinuousCanadianLanguageCLB1verbtenses,simplemodals,comparativesandBenchmarkssuperlatives,andsimpleyes/noandwh-questions)Abilitytousebasicgrammarstructures(suchassimpleandcontinuousverbtenses,simplemodals,CanadianLanguageCLB2comparatives,andsuperlatives)toconveymeaningBenchmarkseffectivelyrecognitionofbasicsyntax(suchasindicationsofastatement,anegativeoraquestion;wordorder;CanadianLanguageCLB3prepositionalphrases;andcoordinationandBenchmarkssubordinationAbilitytoproducebasicsyntax(suchasindicationsofastatement,anegative,oraquestion;wordorder;CanadianLanguageCLB4prepositionalphrases;andcoordinationandBenchmarkssubordination)Recognitionorunderstandingofgrammarstructuresandsyntaxtointerprettexts(suchasperfecttenses,basicCanadianLanguageCLB5conditionals,reportedspeech,nounclauses,relativeBenchmarksclauses,passiveandactivevoice,infinitivesandgerunds)109 编号描述语来源Abilitytounderstandcomplexgrammarandsyntaxstructurestointerpretnuancesofmeaning(suchaspastconditionals,reportedspeech,pastorfutureperfectCanadianLanguageCLB6passive,perfectorpastinfinitives,subordinateadverbialBenchmarksclauses,subordinatingconjunctionsandmodalstoexpresslogicaldeduction)Abilitytoproducegrammarstructuresandvocabularyrelatingtobasicpersonallyrelevantfacts(suchasethnicity,homecountry,address,age),time,dates,CanadianLanguageCLB7money,schoolenvironment,communityfacilities,Benchmarkscommonactions,jobsandoccupations,family,housing,food,weather,clothing,etc.canhavesomecontroloverbasicgrammarstructuresCanadianLanguageCLB8andtensesBenchmarkscanunderstandanadequaterangeofcomplexsentencesCanadianLanguageCLB9andstructuresBenchmarkscandemonstrateadequatevarietyofgrammaticalCanadianLanguageCLB10structures,withadequatecontrolofcomplexstructuresBenchmarksAbilitytousemoderatelycomplexgrammarandsyntaxstructures(suchasperfecttenses,basicconditionals,CanadianLanguageCLB11basicreportedspeech,nounclauses,relativeclauses,Benchmarkspassiveandactivevoice,infinitivesandgerunds)toconveymeaningeffectivelyandpreciselyAbilitytousecomplexgrammarandsyntaxstructures(suchaspastconditionals,pastorfutureperfectpassive,CanadianLanguageCLB12perfectorpastinfinitivesandsubordinateadverbialBenchmarksclauses)toconveymeaningeffectivelyandpreciselyUseawiderangeofcohesionlinksintheproductionofCanadianLanguageCLB13complex,multi-clausesentences,aswellaslinksBenchmarksbetweensentencesandparagraphsCanadianLanguageCLB14giveverysimplewarningsandcautions.Benchmarks"Abilitytouse:Moderatelycomplexgrammarandsyntaxstructures(suchasperfecttenses,basicCanadianLanguageCLB15conditionals,basicreportedspeech,nounclauses,Benchmarksrelativeclauses,passiveandactivevoice,infinitivesandgerunds)toconveymeaningeffectivelyandprecisely.110 编号描述语来源NewYorkStateP-12understandandusequestionwords(interrogatives)(e.g.NY1CommonCoreLearningwho,what,where,when,why,how).StandardsNewYorkStateP-13formregularpluralnounsorallybyadding/s/or/es/NY2CommonCoreLearning(e.g.dog,dogs;wish,wishes).StandardsDistinguishamongtheconnotations(associations)ofNewYorkStateP-14NY3wordswithsimilardenotations(definitions)(e.g.,stingy,CommonCoreLearningscrimping,economical,unwasteful,thrifty).StandardsNewYorkStateP-15Linkopinionandreasonsusingwords,phrases,andNY4CommonCoreLearningclauses(e.g.,consequently,specifically)Standards"IcanwritebrieflyaboutmostfamiliartopicsandACTFL1ACTFLGuidelinespresentinformationIcanunderstandsomelearnedormemorizedwordsACTFL2ACTFLGuidelinesandphraseswhenIread.Writingtendstoconsistofafewsimplesentences,oftenACTFL3ACTFLGuidelineswithrepetitivestructure.Icanrespondtowho,what,when,whereACTFL4ACTFLGuidelinesquestions.ACTFL5Icanaskwho,what,when,wherequestions.ACTFLGuidelinesExpressingtime,placeandcauseusingconjunctions[forexample,when,before,after,while,so,because],NationalcurriculuminNCE1adverbs[forexample,then,next,soon,therefore],orEnglandprepositions[forexample,before,after,during,in,becauseof]ExpandednounphrasesfordescriptionandspecificationNationalcurriculuminNCE2[forexample,thebluebutterfly,plainflour,themaninEnglandthemoon]Nounphrasesexpandedbytheadditionofmodifyingadjectives,nounsandprepositionphrases(e.g.theNationalcurriculuminNCE3teacherexpandedto:thestrictmathsteacherwithcurlyEnglandhair)Frontedadverbials[forexample,Laterthatday,IheardNationalcurriculuminNCE4thebadnews.]England111 编号描述语来源Relativeclausesbeginningwithwho,which,where,NationalcurriculuminNCE5when,whose,that,oranomittedrelativepronounEnglandIndicatingdegreesofpossibilityusingadverbs[forNationalcurriculuminNCE6example,perhaps,surely]ormodalverbs[forexample,Englandmight,should,will,must]Useofthepassivetoaffectthepresentationofinformationinasentence[forexample,IbroketheNationalcurriculuminNCE7windowinthegreenhouseversusThewindowintheEnglandgreenhousewasbroken(byme)].Thedifferencebetweenstructurestypicalofinformalspeechandstructuresappropriateforformalspeechandwriting[forexample,theuseofquestiontags:He’syourNationalcurriculuminNCE8friend,isn’the?,ortheuseofsubjunctiveformssuchasEnglandIfIwereorWeretheytocomeinsomeveryformalwritingandspeech]Withguidanceandsupport,produceandexpandConventionsofStandardCSE1completesentencesinsharedlanguageactivitiesEnglishUsesingularandpluralnounswithmatchingverbsinConventionsofStandardCSE2basicsentences(e.g.,Hehops;Wehop).EnglishProduceandexpandcompletesimpleandcompoundConventionsofStandardCSE3declarative,interrogative,imperative,andexclamatoryEnglishsentencesinresponsetoprompts.Produce,expand,andrearrangecompletesimpleandcompoundsentences(e.g.,Theboywatchedthemovie;ConventionsofStandardCSE4Thelittleboywatchedthemovie;TheactionmoviewasEnglishwatchedbythelittleboy).Formandusethesimple(e.g.,Iwalked;Iwalk;IwillConventionsofStandardCSE5walk)verbtenses.EnglishConventionsofStandardCSE6Ensuresubject-verbandpronoun-antecedentagreement.EnglishConventionsofStandardCSE7Producesimple,compound,andcomplexsentences.EnglishProducecompletesentences,recognizingandcorrectingConventionsofStandardCSE8inappropriatefragmentsandrun-ons.English112 编号描述语来源Chooseamongsimple,compound,complex,andConventionsofStandardCSE9compound-complexsentencestosignaldifferingEnglishrelationshipsamongideas.Placephrasesandclauseswithinasentence,recognizingConventionsofStandardCSE10andcorrectingmisplacedanddanglingmodifiers.EnglishExplainthefunctionofverbals(gerunds,participles,ConventionsofStandardCSE11infinitives)ingeneralandtheirfunctioninparticularEnglishsentences.ConventionsofStandardCSE12useverbsintheactiveandpassivevoice.Englishuseverbsintheindicative,imperative,interrogative,ConventionsofStandardCSE13conditional,andsubjunctivemood.EnglishRecognizeandcorrectinappropriateshiftsinverbvoiceConventionsofStandardCSE14andmood.EnglishConventionsofStandardCSE15Useparallelstructure.EnglishUsevarioustypesofphrases(noun,verb,adjectival,adverbial,participial,prepositional,absolute)andConventionsofStandardCSE16clauses(independent,dependent;noun,relative,Englishadverbial)toconveyspecificmeaningsandaddvarietyandinteresttowritingorpresentations.WritesentencesaboutMarkandSally.UsetheS1informationinthetableandthepresentsimpleSolutionsaffimativeorthenegative.WriteanessayaboutwhatyouwoulddoifyouruledtheS2SolutionscountryWhatdoyouliketodo?Drawapicture.UsethesentenceS3Solutionsframe.IliketoPRAXISWritingCorePRADisplayseffectivesentencevarietyAcademicSkillsforEducators"CANexpresssimpleopinionsusingexpressionssuchALTECanDoALTEas‘Idon’tagree’Statementtheuseoffirst-andthird-personpersonalpronounsinaOCOntariocurriculumnarrativeTSW1first-personnarrationSuccessfulWritingTSW2third-personnarrationSuccessfulWriting113 编号描述语来源能做到英语语音基本准确、语调自然、语法结构多样。TS1大学英语教学大纲（拆分）能较规范的使用常用词汇和句型结构，比较准确地表TS2初中英语教学大纲达意思。PETS1能适当运用基础的语法知识pets考试大纲PETS2能熟练运用基础的语法知识pets考试大纲TSS1理解句间关系（如原因、结果、目的、比较）英语六级考试大纲ECSS1使用do,does,did表示强调上海中小学课程标准ECSS2使用it引导的强调结构上海中小学课程标准Q1能使用交际用语问卷调查表Q2能使用非限制性定语从句的关系代词问卷调查表Q3能使用非限制性定语从句的关系副词问卷调查表Q4能使用限制性定语从句的关系代词问卷调查表Q5能使用限制性定语从句的关系副词问卷调查表Q6能分析强调句问卷调查表Q7能分析倒装句问卷调查表Q8能运用反意疑问句问卷调查表Q9能使用祈使句问卷调查表Q10能使用感叹句问卷调查表Q11能使用主谓一致问卷调查表Q12能使用therebe句型问卷调查表Q13能分析同位语从句问卷调查表Q14能分析宾语从句问卷调查表Q15能分析主语从句问卷调查表Q16能分析表语从句问卷调查表Q17能分析时间状语从句问卷调查表Q18能分析让步状语从句问卷调查表Q19能分析原因状语从句问卷调查表Q20能分析目的状语从句问卷调查表Q21能分析结果状语从句问卷调查表Q22能分析条件状语从句问卷调查表能分析”主句+—般将来时态,从句+—般现在时态“句Q23问卷调查表子结构在状语从句中的运用Q24能使用非谓语动词做状语问卷调查表Q25能使用非谓语动词做主补问卷调查表Q26能使用非谓语动词做定语问卷调查表Q27能使用非谓语动词做宾补问卷调查表Q28能使用非谓语动词做宾语问卷调查表114 编号描述语来源Q29能使用非谓语动词做主语问卷调查表Q30能使用情态动词表推测问卷调查表Q31能使用情态动词表必要性问卷调查表Q32能使用情态动词表能力问卷调查表Q33能使用情态动词表请求、命令、允诺问卷调查表Q34能分析虚拟语气在if引导的非真实条件句中的使用问卷调查表Q35能分析虚拟语气在名词性从句中的运用问卷调查表Q36能根据句意使用连词问卷调查表Q37可以从对话中得出说话者描述事情的时间问卷调查表能在口头表达中，运用ing形式来构成动名词或现在SW1平台描述语个人编写进行时态。能口头运用“in”、“on”或“under”短语，描述物品在家SW2平台描述语个人编写中或教室里的位置。SW3知道常用的词语搭配如takecareof,alotof，blacktea平台描述语个人编写能在恰当的场景使用恰当的固定表达（词块），如SW4平台描述语个人编写MerryChristmas!SW5能理解各种时态表达的基本意义平台描述语个人编写SW6能在具体语境中恰当使用物主代词平台描述语个人编写SW7能根据语境准确使用指示代词平台描述语个人编写SW8能区分常见动词后跟ing和不定式的意义平台描述语个人编写能理解限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句的语义SW9平台描述语个人编写差别SW10能使用并列复合句平台描述语个人编写ECS1知道名词有单复数形式义务教育英语课程标准ECS2知道主要人称代词的区别义务教育英语课程标准ECS3知道动词在不同情况下会有形式上的变化义务教育英语课程标准ECS4了解表示时间、地点和位置的介词义务教育英语课程标准ECS5了解英语简单句的基本形式和表意功能义务教育英语课程标准ECS6了解常用语言形式的基本结构和常用表意功能义务教育英语课程标准ECS7在实际运用中体会和领悟语言形式的表意功能义务教育英语课程标准ECS8理解和掌握描述人和物的表达方式义务教育英语课程标准理解和掌握描述具体事件和具体行为的发生、发展过ECS9义务教育英语课程标准程的表达方式ECS10初步掌握描述时间、地点、方位的表达方式义务教育英语课程标准ECS11理解、掌握比较人、物体及事物的表达方式义务教育英语课程标准义务教育课程标准（台ECS12能模仿范例写句子湾）义务教育课程标准（台ECS13能依照提示改写句子湾）115 编号描述语来源义务教育课程标准（台ECS14能根据提示所给的字词或句型，造出合宜的句子湾）请将题目中所有提示的字词整合成一有意义的句子，义务教育课程标准（台ECS15并将重组的句子完整地写在答案纸上湾）高等学校英语专业英语TSEM1能识别词类教学大纲语法入学要求高等学校英语专业英语区分名词的可数性和不可数性、可数名词的单、复TSEM2教学大纲语法入学要数形式求基本掌握各种代词的形式与用法、基数词和序数词、高等学校英语专业英语TSEM3常用介词和连词、形容词和副词的句法功能、比较级教学大纲语法入学要和最高级的构成及基本句型、冠词的一般用法求高等学校英语专业英语了解动词的主要种类、时态、语态及不定式和分词的TSEM4教学大纲语法入学要基本用法、句子种类、基本句型和基本构词法求掌握主谓一致关系、表语从句、宾语从句、定语从句高等学校英语专业英语和状语从句等句型、直接引语和间接引语的用法、动TSEM5教学大纲语法入学要词不定式和分词的用法、各种时态、主动语态、被动求语态和构词法。ET1代词的类型人教版初中英语ET2基本时态（一般现在时、过去时、进行时）人教版初中英语canfindthedifferencebetweendirectspeechandET3人教版高中英语indirectspeechchangedirectspeechintoindirectspeechandindirectET4人教版高中英语speechintodirectspeechusethepresentcontinoustensetoexpressyourfutureET5人教版高中英语actionsmakeupshortsentencesandcompletethesentencesET6人教版高中英语usingattributiveclauseswiththat,which,whoorwhoseET7useindirectspeechtoretellastory人教版高中英语askquestionsusingthepresentprogressivepassiveET8人教版高中英语voicecompletesentencesbyusingattributiveclauseswithET9人教版高中英语‘prep+which/whomET10usenounclausesasthepredicative人教版高中英语underlinetheexampleswherenounclausesareusedasET11人教版高中英语objectsET12rewritethesentenceswiththenounclausesassubjects人教版高中英语116 编号描述语来源ET13canusethenounclauseasanappositiveinasentence人教版高中英语Whenwewriteaboutunrealsituations,weoftenuseifET14牛津版高中英语clauses.ET15名词复数形式的构成规则人教版初中英语ET16名词所有格的构成人教版初中英语ET17指示代词的含义人教版初中英语ET18虚拟语气表达禁止祝愿人教版高中英语ET19现在完成时和一般过去时的区别人教版初中英语ET20现在完成进行时表示的意义人教版初中英语ET21祈使句表命令、劝说、警告等人教版初中英语Whenwewriteaboutchangesinapersonoraplace,itisET22importantthatwewriteaboutthedifferencebetweenthe牛津版高中英语pastandthepresent.动词时态现在时、（过去、现在）进行时、过去时、ET23（过去、现在）将来时、（现在、过去、将来）完成牛津版高中英语时ET24状语从句的种类人教版高中英语ET25名词性从句的种类人教版高中英语ET26附加疑问句的构成人教版初中英语CANunderstandsimpleexpressionsofcommunication,ET27剑桥英语suchas‘Hello’,‘Howareyou?’,‘Thankyou’.一般现在时主要表示现在时间及与现在时间有联系ET28新英语语法教程的其他时间概念ET29一般过去时表示过去习惯的动作新英语语法教程ET30ed分词与ing分词作定语作名词修饰语的意义新英语语法教程ET31附加疑问句的语义新英语语法教程ET32语句表达及词汇运用要多样化，切记流水账三年高考，五年模拟ET33集体名词既可用作单数，又可用作复数，意义不同新英语语法教程ET34现在进行时表示将来的时间新英语语法教程ET35学会通过各种句法和句式结构来提升书面表达能力复旦大学英语笔语NECS1能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句高中英语新课标NECS2进一步掌握描述时间、地点、方位的表达方式高中英语新课标NECS3进一步理解、掌握比较人、物体及事物的表达方式高中英语新课标使用适当的语言形式进行描述和表达观点、态度、情NECS4高中英语新课标感等117 118 AppendixII编辑后剩余描述语编号中学生英语语法能力描述语D1能区分可数名词的单复数形式D2能区分人称代词的主、宾格形式D3能识别缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,won’tD4能识别形容词性和名词性物主代词能掌握动词基本时态的构成,如一般现在时/过去时、现在/过去进行D5时、现在完成时D6能掌握名词复数形式的构成规则D7能掌握名词所有格的构成方式D8能掌握附加疑问句的构成规则D9能掌握序数词的构成方式D10能掌握形容词、副词比较级和最高级的构成方式D11能掌握英语基本句型的构成D12能识别简单句中的并列成分D13能识别非谓语动词即动名词、分词和不定式在句中的组成成分D14能掌握定语从句的构成D15能识别直接引语和间接引语在人称、时态上的变化D16能识别限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句D17能识别状语从句D18能识别复合句的句子结构和各成分能识别非正式讲话和正式讲话的典型句子结构，如非正式讲话使用反D19义疑问句，正式讲话或写作中使用虚拟形式119 编号中学生英语语法能力描述语D20能掌握动词各种时态的构成D21能识别名词性从句D22能区分结构及成分完整和不完整的复杂句D23能识别复杂句中的并列和从属结构D24能了解表时间、地点和位置意义的介词能通过识别基本的语法结构理解文本含义，如简单的情态动词、比较D25级和最高级、简单的肯否回答和特殊疑问句D26能理解表示陈述、否定或疑问含义的简单表达D27能理解感叹句的表意功能D28能理解therebe句型的意义D29能理解指示代词的内涵D30能理解祈使句的表意功能，如命令、劝说、警告等D31能理解集体名词单复数形式表达的不同含义能通过理解复杂的句法结构解释听力/阅读文本的，意义，如定语从D32句、主被动语态D33能通过分析宾语从句理解句子意义D34能通过分析状语从句理解句子意义D35能区分情态动词表能力、推测、请求、命令等不同含义D36能理解句间关系，如表原因、结果、目的、比较D37能理解常见动词后跟ing和不定式时的不同含义D38能通过分析同位语从句理解句子意义D39能理解现在进行时的特殊语义，如表将来或习惯性的动作能通过理解复杂的语法和句法结构，推断意义的细微差别，如过去条D40件句、转述、过去或将来完成时的被动语态120 编号中学生英语语法能力描述语D41能通过分析强调句理解句子意义D42能通过分析复杂的倒装结构理解句子意义D43能理解附加疑问句的语义功能D44能通过分析主语从句理解句子意义D45能通过分析表语从句理解句子意义D46能理解常见近义词的不同内涵，如stingy,economical,thriftyD47能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句意义D48能理解各种时态表达的基本意义D49能理解虚拟语气表祝愿禁止等含义D50能在口头表达时使用简单的陈述、否定和疑问句式D51能在简单的句子中根据名词的单复数匹配相应的动词能在句中正确使用简单的动词时态，例如Iwalked;Iwalk;IwillD52walkD53能在陈述句、祈使句、疑问句中组织使用动词能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemostenjoyedD54swimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.D55能使用简单句描述人物、地点和所有物D56能使用简单连词写出一系列的短语和句子，如and，but,becauseD57能使用简单的日常交际用语D58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补D59能使用常见的情态动词表能力D60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺D61能在口头表达中，准确运用人称代词指代自己或他人D62能在口头表达中，准确运用who、what、where和how构成疑问句来121 编号中学生英语语法能力描述语询问信息D63能够使用诸如“Idon"tagree”这样的简单表达来表达看法能使用简单的词或小句如“Isee.”、“Really?”在交谈中作出回D64应能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“Becareful!”、D65“Watchout!”和“Don"tbelate!”D66能根据语境准确使用指示代词D67能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比较D68能在口头表达时正确使规则名词的单复数能在口笔头表达中正确使用缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,D69won’tD70能在口笔头表达时正确使用形容词性和名词性物主代词D71能在口笔头表达中使用简单的过渡词或连接词连接观点D72能在口笔头表达时正确组织简单句的各成分D73在引导和帮助下，能在共同的语言活动中使用完整的复合句阐述观点D74能够使用形容词、副词、介词短语扩展简单句D75能在复合句中做到主谓、代词被指的一致性能够使用连词，如when,before,after,while、副词，如soon,D76therefore和介词，如before,after,during表示时间、地点和原因能够使用形容词、名词和介词短语扩展名词短语描述事物，例如theD77strictmathsteacherwithcurlyhair能够在句中使用前置副词组织信息，例如Laterthatday,IheardD78thebadnews.122 编号中学生英语语法能力描述语D79能在句中使用表示可能性的副词，如perhaps,surely能使用被动语态来影响句子中信息的呈现，例如：IbrokethewindowD80inthegreenhouse.和Thewindowinthegreenhousewasbroken(byme).D81能在口头表达中恰当运用反意疑问句确认信息D82能在句中使用非谓语动词做主语和定语D83能使用情态动词的完成时表必要性和推测D84能做到直接引语和间接引语的互换D85能使用定语从句的关系词扩写短句D86能使用“介词+关系代词”引导的定语从句D87能正确使用基本句型D88能选择使用简单句、并列句和复杂句表达不同的观点关系D89能根据情境选择使用动词的主动和被动语态D90能在笔头表达时使用多种短语类型，如名词、动词、分词短语D91能在口笔头表达中正确使用介词短语、同位语和主、从句D92能使用复杂的平行结构，包括类同的语法形式，强调并列的事项D93能在句中使用非谓语动词做主补和状语D94能在名词性从句中使用虚拟语气D95能使用间接引语复述故事能使用名词性小句充当复杂句句子成分，如主语、宾语、表语和同位D96语D97能使用虚拟语气描述想象的情景D98能使用if引导的非真实条件句D99能在笔头表达时恰当使用多种结构的句子123 编号中学生英语语法能力描述语D100能使用多种衔接手段写复杂的句子D101能在口语表达中使用多样化的语法结构D102能在口头表达时使用助动词do,does,did表强调D103能在口笔头表达时使用it引导的强调句D104能正确使用时态描述某地或某人发生的变化D105能根据表达的需要，变换使用不同句式D106能在虚拟语气中组织使用动词124 AppendixIII专家问卷调査表尊敬的老师：您好！十分感谢您能抽出宝贵时间参与本次问卷调查。本次问卷旨在调查中学生的英语语法能力。为了确保调查结果的准确性和真实性，请您先仔细阅读第二部分（英语语法能力）和第三部分（评价标准），然后根据实际情况尽可能客观地回答问题。调查结果仅供学术研究使用，不会用于其他目的。再次感谢您的支持！一、个人信息（请填写）您的身份:□中学教师□高校教师□研究生您的研究方向：□外语教学□语言学□测试学□其他(可多选）二、英语语法能力语法能力是指理解和综合运用语法知识的能力。本研究主要从三个层面描述语法能力：语法知识的形式（form）、意义（meaning）和用法（use）。形式是从语法知识的构成方式、范畴类别及组成成分的识别与区分的角度来描述语法能力；意义侧重于理解，指理解词、句及其他语法结构的意义；用法即运用词、句和其他语法结构，尤其是指在语境中运用。三、评价标准本研究根据上述英语语法能力的分类从三个方面（见第四部分）125 对中学生英语语法能力进行描述。请您按照以下标准对描述语的分类进行判断。请在表1的“类别”一栏中填上代表相应类别的数字，各数字代表的类别如下：1=形式2=意义3=用法例如，您认为第一条描述语属于“形式”，则在描述语的“类别”一栏中填上数字“1”。四、英语语法能力评判表表格1描述语分类判断序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类1能区分可数名词的单复数形式2能区分人称代词的主、宾格形式3能识别缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,won’t4能识别形容词性和名词性物主代词能掌握动词基本时态的构成,如一般现在时/过去时、现在/过去进行5时、现在完成时6能掌握名词复数形式的构成规则7能掌握名词所有格的构成方式8能掌握附加疑问句的构成规则9能掌握序数词的构成方式10能掌握形容词、副词比较级和最高级的构成方式11能掌握英语基本句型的构成126 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类12能识别简单句中的并列成分13能识别非谓语动词即动名词、分词和不定式在句中的组成成分14能掌握定语从句的构成15能识别直接引语和间接引语在人称、时态上的变化16能识别限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句17能识别状语从句18能识别复合句的句子结构和各成分能识别非正式讲话和正式讲话的典型句子结构，如非正式讲话使用19反义疑问句，正式讲话或写作中使用虚拟形式20能掌握动词各种时态的构成21能识别名词性从句22能区分结构及成分完整和不完整的复杂句23能识别复杂句中的并列和从属结构24能了解表时间、地点和位置意义的介词能通过识别基本的语法结构理解文本含义，如简单的情态动词、比25较级和最高级、简单的肯否回答和特殊疑问句26能理解表示陈述、否定或疑问含义的简单表达27能理解感叹句的表意功能28能理解therebe句型的意义127 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类29能理解指示代词的内涵30能理解祈使句的表意功能，如命令、劝说、警告等31能理解集体名词单复数形式表达的不同含义能通过理解复杂的句法结构解释听力/阅读文本的，意义，如定语从32句、主被动语态33能通过分析宾语从句理解句子意义34能通过分析状语从句理解句子意义35能区分情态动词表能力、推测、请求、命令等不同含义36能理解句间关系，如表原因、结果、目的、比较37能理解常见动词后跟ing和不定式时的不同含义38能通过分析同位语从句理解句子意义39能理解现在进行时的特殊语义，如表将来或习惯性的动作能通过理解复杂的语法和句法结构，推断意义的细微差别，如过去40条件句、转述、过去或将来完成时的被动语态41能通过分析强调句理解句子意义42能通过分析复杂的倒装结构理解句子意义43能理解附加疑问句的语义功能44能通过分析主语从句理解句子意义45能通过分析表语从句理解句子意义46能理解常见近义词的不同内涵，如stingy,economical,thrifty47能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句意义128 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类48能理解各种时态表达的基本意义49能理解虚拟语气表祝愿禁止等含义50能在口头表达时使用简单的陈述、否定和疑问句式51能在简单的句子中根据名词的单复数匹配相应的动词能在句中正确使用简单的动词时态，例如Iwalked;Iwalk;Iwill52walk53能在陈述句、祈使句、疑问句中组织使用动词能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemostenjoyed54swimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.55能使用简单句描述人物、地点和所有物56能使用简单连词写出一系列的短语和句子，如and，but,because57能使用简单的日常交际用语58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补59能使用常见的情态动词表能力60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺61能在口头表达中，准确运用人称代词指代自己或他人能在口头表达中，准确运用who、what、where和how构成疑问句来62询问信息63能够使用诸如“Idon"tagree”这样的简单表达来表达看法129 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类能使用简单的词或小句如“Isee.”、“Really?”在交谈中作出64回应能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“Becareful!”、65“Watchout!”和“Don"tbelate!”66能根据语境准确使用指示代词67能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比较68能在口头表达时正确使规则名词的单复数69能在口笔头表达中正确使用缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’70能在口笔头表达时正确使用形容词性和名词性物主代词71能在口笔头表达中使用简单的过渡词或连接词连接观点72能在口笔头表达时正确组织简单句的各成分在引导和帮助下，能在共同的语言活动中使用完整的复合句阐述观73点74能够使用形容词、副词、介词短语扩展简单句75能在复合句中做到主谓、代词被指的一致性能够使用连词，如when,before,after,while、副词，如soon,76therefore和介词，如before,after,during表示时间、地点和原因能够使用形容词、名词和介词短语扩展名词短语描述事物，例如the77strictmathsteacherwithcurlyhair能够在句中使用前置副词组织信息，例如Laterthatday,Iheard78thebadnews.130 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类79能在句中使用表示可能性的副词，如perhaps,surely能使用被动语态来影响句子中信息的呈现，例如：Ibrokethewindow80inthegreenhouse.和Thewindowinthegreenhousewasbroken81能在口头表达中恰当运用反意疑问句确认信息82能在句中使用非谓语动词做主语和定语83能使用情态动词的完成时表必要性和推测84能做到直接引语和间接引语的互换85能使用定语从句的关系词扩写短句86能使用“介词+关系代词”引导的定语从句87能正确使用基本句型88能选择使用简单句、并列句和复杂句表达不同的观点关系89能根据情境选择使用动词的主动和被动语态90能在笔头表达时使用多种短语类型，如名词、动词、分词短语91能在口笔头表达中正确使用介词短语、同位语和主、从句92能使用复杂的平行结构，包括类同的语法形式，强调并列的事项93能在句中使用非谓语动词做主补和状语94能在名词性从句中使用虚拟语气95能使用间接引语复述故事131 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语分类能使用名词性小句充当复杂句句子成分，如主语、宾语、表语和同96位语97能使用虚拟语气描述想象的情景98能使用if引导的非真实条件句99能在笔头表达时恰当使用多种结构的句子100能使用多种衔接手段写复杂的句子101能在口语表达中使用多样化的语法结构102能在口头表达时使用助动词do,does,did表强调103能在口笔头表达时使用it引导的强调句104能正确使用时态描述某地或某人发生的变化105能根据表达的需要，变换使用不同句式106能在虚拟语气中组织使用动词132 AppendixIV教师问卷调查表尊敬的老师：您好！十分感谢您能抽出宝贵时间参与本次问卷调查。本次问卷旨在调查中学生的英语语法能力。为了确保调查结果的准确性和真实性，请您先仔细阅读第二部分（英语语法能力）和第三部分（评价标准），然后根据实际情况尽可能客观地回答问题。调查结果仅供学术研究使用，不会用于其他目的。再次感谢您的支持！一、个人信息（请填写）您的年龄:____性别：1.男□2.女□您的单位：您的职称：您从事英语教学的时间（多少年？）：您教授的学生群体：初中生高中生（可多选）二、英语语法能力语法能力是指理解和综合运用语法知识的能力。本研究主要从三个层面描述语法能力：语法知识的形式（form）、意义（meaning）和用法（use）。形式是从语法知识的构成方式、范畴类别及组成成分的识别与区分的角度来描述语法能力；意义侧重于理解，指理解词、句及其他语法结构的意义；用法即运用词、句和其他语法结构，尤其是指在语境中运用。133 三、评价标准本研究根据上述英语语法能力的分类从三个方面（见第四部分）对中学生英语语法能力进行描述。研究初步将描述语分为5个等级，采用李克特5分计分模式采集数据，描述语每一难度分别对应一个级别。请根据以下标准对描述语难度进行评判。请在表1“难度”一栏中填上代表相应难度的数字。各数字代表的意义如下：1=非常容易2=比较容易3=难易适中4=比较困难5=非常困难例如，如果您认为中学生能做到第1条描述语非常容易，则在“难度”一栏中填上数字1（非常容易）。四、英语语法能力评判表表格1描述语难度判断序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度形式类1能区分可数名词的单复数形式2能区分人称代词的主、宾格形式3能识别缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,won’4能识别形容词性和名词性物主代词能掌握动词基本时态的构成,如一般现在时/过去时、现5在/过去进行时、现在完成时6能掌握名词复数形式的构成规则7能掌握名词所有格的构成方式134 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度8能掌握附加疑问句的构成规则9能掌握序数词的构成方式10能掌握形容词、副词比较级和最高级的构成方式11能掌握英语基本句型的构成12能识别简单句中的并列成分能识别非谓语动词即动名词、分词和不定式在句中的组13成成分14能掌握定语从句的构成15能识别直接引语和间接引语在人称、时态上的变化16能识别限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句17能识别状语从句18能识别复合句的句子结构和各成分能识别非正式讲话和正式讲话的典型句子结构，如非正19式讲话使用反义疑问句，正式讲话或写作中使用虚拟形式20能掌握动词各种时态的构成21能识别名词性从句22能区分结构及成分完整和不完整的复杂句23能识别复杂句中的并列和从属结构135 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度意义类24能了解表时间、地点和位置意义的介词能通过识别基本的语法结构理解文本含义，如简单的情25态动词、比较级和最高级、简单的肯否回答和特殊疑问句26能理解表示陈述、否定或疑问含义的简单表达27能理解感叹句的表意功能28能理解therebe句型的意义29能理解指示代词的内涵30能理解祈使句的表意功能，如命令、劝说、警告等31能理解集体名词单复数形式表达的不同含义能通过理解复杂的句法结构解释听力/阅读文本的，意32义，如定语从句、主被动语态33能通过分析宾语从句理解句子意义34能通过分析状语从句理解句子意义35能区分情态动词表能力、推测、请求、命令等不同含义36能理解句间关系，如表原因、结果、目的、比较37能理解常见动词后跟ing和不定式时的不同含义38能通过分析同位语从句理解句子意义39能理解现在进行时的特殊语义，如表将来或习惯性的动136 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度能通过理解复杂的语法和句法结构，推断意义的细微差40别，如过去条件句、转述、过去或将来完成时的被动语态41能通过分析强调句理解句子意义42能通过分析复杂的倒装结构理解句子意义43能理解附加疑问句的语义功能44能通过分析主语从句理解句子意义45能通过分析表语从句理解句子意义46能理解常见近义词的不同内涵，如stingy,economical,47能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句意义48能理解各种时态表达的基本意义49能理解虚拟语气表祝愿禁止等含义用法类50能在口头表达时使用简单的陈述、否定和疑问句式51能在简单的句子中根据名词的单复数匹配相应的动词52能在句中正确使用简单的动词时态，例如Iwalked;I53能在陈述句、祈使句、疑问句中组织使用动词能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemost54enjoyedswimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.137 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度55能使用简单句描述人物、地点和所有物56能使用简单连词写出一系列的短语和句子，如and，57能使用简单的日常交际用语58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补59能使用常见的情态动词表能力60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺61能在口头表达中，准确运用人称代词指代自己或他人能在口头表达中，准确运用who、what、where和how构62成疑问句来询问信息能够使用诸如“Idon"tagree”这样的简单表达来表达63看法能使用简单的词或小句如“Isee.”、“Really?”在64交谈中作出回应65能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“Be66能根据语境准确使用指示代词能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比67较68能在口头表达时正确使规则名词的单复数69能在口笔头表达中正确使用缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’70能在口笔头表达时正确使用形容词性和名词性物主代词138 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度71能在口笔头表达中使用简单的过渡词或连接词连接观点72能在口笔头表达时正确组织简单句的各成分在引导和帮助下，能在共同的语言活动中使用完整的复73合句阐述观点74能够使用形容词、副词、介词短语扩展简单句75能在复合句中做到主谓、代词被指的一致性能够使用连词，如when,before,after,while、副词，76如soon,therefore和介词，如before,after,during表示时间、地点和原因能够使用形容词、名词和介词短语扩展名词短语描述事77物，例如thestrictmathsteacherwithcurlyhair78能够在句中使用前置副词组织信息，例如Laterthat79能在句中使用表示可能性的副词，如perhaps,surely能使用被动语态来影响句子中信息的呈现，例如：Ibroke80thewindowinthegreenhouse.和Thewindowinthegreenhousewasbroken(byme).81能在口头表达中恰当运用反意疑问句确认信息82能在句中使用非谓语动词做主语和定语139 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度83能使用情态动词的完成时表必要性和推测84能做到直接引语和间接引语的互换85能使用定语从句的关系词扩写短句86能使用“介词+关系代词”引导的定语从句87能正确使用基本句型能选择使用简单句、并列句和复杂句表达不同的观点关88系89能根据情境选择使用动词的主动和被动语态能在笔头表达时使用多种短语类型，如名词、动词、分90词短语能在口笔头表达中正确使用介词短语、同位语和主、从91句能使用复杂的平行结构，包括类同的语法形式，强调并92列的事项93能在句中使用非谓语动词做主补和状语94能在名词性从句中使用虚拟语气95能使用间接引语复述故事能使用名词性小句充当复杂句句子成分，如主语、宾语、96表语和同位语97能使用虚拟语气描述想象的情景98能使用if引导的非真实条件句99能在笔头表达时恰当使用多种结构的句子140 序号中学生英语语法能力描述语难度100能使用多种衔接手段写复杂的句子101能在口语表达中使用多样化的语法结构102能在口头表达时使用助动词do,does,did表强调103能在口笔头表达时使用it引导的强调句104能正确使用时态描述某地或某人发生的变化105能根据表达的需要，变换使用不同句式106能在虚拟语气中组织使用动词141 142 AppendixV中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表维度高级D20能掌握动词各种时态的构成D22能区分结构及成分完整和不完整的复杂句D23能识别复杂句中的并列和从属结构形式D18能识别复合句的句子结构和各成分能识别非正式讲话和正式讲话的典型句子结构。如非正式讲话使D19用反义疑问句，正式讲话或写作中使用虚拟形式D13能识别非谓语动词即动名词、分词和不定式在句中的组成成分D36能理解句间关系，如表原因、结果、目的、比较D38能通过分析同位语从句理解句子意义能通过理解复杂的语法和句法结构，推断意义的细微差别，如过D40去条件句、转述、过去或将来完成时的被动语态意义D42能通过分析复杂的倒装结构理解句子意义D44能通过分析主语从句理解句子意义D47能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句意义D48能理解各种时态表达的基本意义能使用被动语态来影响句子中信息的呈现。例如：Ibrokethe用法D80windowinthegreenhouse.和Thewindowinthegreenhousewasbroken(byme).143 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表D81能在口头表达中恰当运用反意疑问句确认信息D82能在句中使用非谓语动词做主语和定语D83能使用情态动词的完成时表必要性和推测D84能做到直接引语和间接引语的互换D86能使用“介词+关系代词”引导的定语从句D87能正确使用基本句型D88能选择使用简单句、并列句和复杂句表达不同的观点关系D89能根据情境选择使用动词的主动和被动语态D90能在笔头表达时使用多种短语类型如名词、动词、分词短语D91能在口笔头表达中正确使用介词短语、同位语和主、从句D92能使用复杂的平行结构，包括类同的语法形式，强调并列的事项D93能在句中使用非谓语动词做主补和状语D94能在名词性从句中使用虚拟语气D95能使用间接引语复述故事能使用名词性小句充当复杂句句子成分，如主语、宾语、表语和D96同位语D97能使用虚拟语气描述想象的情景D99能在笔头表达时恰当使用多种结构的句子D100能使用多种衔接手段写复杂的句子D101能在口语表达中使用多样化的语法结构D1O2能在口头表达时使用助动词do,does,did表强调144 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表D103能在口笔头表达时使用it引导的强调句D104能正确使用时态描述某地或某人发生的变化D105能根据表达的需要，变换使用不同句式维度中级D21能识别名词性从句D17能识别状语从句D16能识别限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句形式D15能识别直接引语和间接引语在人称、时态上的变化D14能掌握定语从句的构成D11能掌握英语基本句型的构成D12能识别简单句中的并列成分D8能掌握附加疑问句的构成规则能掌握动词基本时态的构成,如一般现在时/过去时、现在/过去D5进行时、现在完成时D21能识别名词性从句能通过识别基本的语法结构，理解文本含义，如简单的情态动词、D25比较级和最高级、简单的肯否回答和特殊疑问句D27能理解感叹句的表意功能意义能通过理解复杂的句法结构解释听力/阅读文本意义，如定语从D32句、主被动语态D33能通过分析宾语从句理解句子意义145 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表D34能通过分析状语从句理解句子意义D35能区分情态动词表能力、推测、请求、命令等不同含义D37能理解常见动词后跟ing和不定式时的不同含义D39能理解现在进行时的特殊语义，如表将来或习惯性的动作D41能通过分析强调句理解句子意义D43能理解附加疑问句的语义功能D45能通过分析表语从句理解句子意义D46能理解常见近义词的不同内涵，如stingy,economical,thriftyD49能理解虚拟语气表祝愿禁止等含义能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemostenjoyedD54swimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.D58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补D60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“BeD65careful!”、“Watchout!”和“Don"tbelate!”用法D67能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比较能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemostenjoyedD54swimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.D58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补D60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺D65能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“Be146 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表careful!”、“Watchout!”和“Don"tbelate!”D67能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比较D70能在口笔头表达时正确使用形容词性和名词性物主代词D71能在口笔头表达中使用简单的过渡词或连接词连接观点D72能在口笔头表达时正确组织简单句的各成分在引导和帮助下，能在共同的语言活动中使用完整的复合句阐述D73观点D74能够使用形容词、副词、介词短语扩展简单句D75能在复合句中做到主谓、代词被指的一致性能够使用连词，如when,before,after,while、副词，如soon,D76therefore和介词，如before,after,during表示时间、地点和原因D79能在句中使用表示可能性的副词，如perhaps,surelyD85能使用定语从句的关系词扩写短句D98能使用if引导的非真实条件句D106能在虚拟语气中组织使用动词D50能在口头表达时使用简单的陈述、否定和疑问句式D51能在简单的句子中根据名词的单复数匹配相应的动词能在句中正确使用简单的动词时态，例如Iwalked;Iwalk;ID52willwalkD53能在陈述句、祈使句、疑问句中正确使用动词147 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表D55能使用简单句描述人物、地点和所有物D56能使用简单连词写出一系列的短语和句子，如and，but,because维度低级D1能区分可数名词的单复数形式D2能区分人称代词的主、宾格形式D3能够识别缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,won’tD4能识别形容词性和名词性物主代词形式D6能掌握名词复数形式的构成规则D7能掌握名词所有格的构成方式D9能掌握序数词的构成方式D10能掌握形容词、副词比较级和最高级的构成方式D24能了解表时间、地点和位置含义的介词D26能理解表示陈述、否定或疑问含义的简单表达D28能理解therebe句型的意义意义D29能理解指示代词的内涵D30能理解祈使句的表意功能，如命令、劝说、警告等D31能理解集体名词单复数形式表达的不同含义D57能使用简单的日常交际用语D59能使用常见的情态动词表能力用法D61能在口头表达中，准确运用人称代词指代自己或他人D62能在口头表达中，准确运用who、what、where和how构成疑问148 中国中学生英语语法能力等级量表句来询问信息D63能够使用诸如“Idon"tagree”这样的简单表达来表达看法能使用简单的词或小句如“Isee.”、“Really?”在交谈中作D64出回应D66能根据语境准确使用指示代词D68能在口头表达时正确使规则名词的单复数能在口笔头表达中正确使用缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’D69t,won’t149 150 形式类级别编号描述语D20能掌握动词各种时态的构成D22能区分结构及成分完整和不完整的复杂句D23能识别复杂句中的并列和从属结构高级D18能识别复合句的句子结构和各成分能识别非正式讲话和正式讲话的典型句子结构。如非正式讲话使用D19反义疑问句，正式讲话或写作中使用虚拟形式D13能识别非谓语动词即动名词、分词和不定式在句中的组成成分D21能识别名词性从句D17能识别状语从句D16能识别限制性定语从句和非限制性定语从句D15能识别直接引语和间接引语在人称、时态上的变化D14能掌握定语从句的构成中级D11能掌握英语基本句型的构成D12能识别简单句中的并列成分D8能掌握附加疑问句的构成规则能掌握动词基本时态的构成,如一般现在时/过去时、现在/过去进行D5时、现在完成时151 D1能区分可数名词的单复数形式D2能区分人称代词的主、宾格形式D3能够识别缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’t,won’tD4能识别形容词性和名词性物主代词低级D6能掌握名词复数形式的构成规则D7能掌握名词所有格的构成方式D9能掌握序数词的构成方式D10能掌握形容词、副词比较级和最高级的构成方式152 意义类级别编号描述语D36能理解句间关系，如表原因、结果、目的、比较D38能通过分析同位语从句理解句子意义能通过理解复杂的语法和句法结构，推断意义的细微差别，如过去D40条件句、转述、过去或将来完成时的被动语态高级D42能通过分析复杂的倒装结构理解句子意义D44能通过分析主语从句理解句子意义D47能通过分析句子结构理解难句和长句意义D48能理解各种时态表达的基本意义能通过识别基本的语法结构，理解文本含义，如简单的情态动词、D25比较级和最高级、简单的肯否回答和特殊疑问句D27能理解感叹句的表意功能中级能通过理解复杂的句法结构解释听力/阅读文本意义，如定语从句、D32主被动语态D33能通过分析宾语从句理解句子意义D34能通过分析状语从句理解句子意义153 D35能区分情态动词表能力、推测、请求、命令等不同含义D37能理解常见动词后跟ing和不定式时的不同含义D39能理解现在进行时的特殊语义，如表将来或习惯性的动作D41能通过分析强调句理解句子意义D43能理解附加疑问句的语义功能D45能通过分析表语从句理解句子意义D46能理解常见近义词的不同内涵，如stingy,economical,thriftyD49能理解虚拟语气表祝愿禁止等含义D24能了解表时间、地点和位置含义的介词D26能理解表示陈述、否定或疑问含义的简单表达D28能理解therebe句型的意义低级D29能理解指示代词的内涵D30能理解祈使句的表意功能，如命令、劝说、警告等D31能理解集体名词单复数形式表达的不同含义154 用法类级别编号描述语能使用被动语态来影响句子中信息的呈现。例如：IbroketheD80windowinthegreenhouse.和Thewindowinthegreenhousewasbroken(byme).D81能在口头表达中恰当运用反意疑问句确认信息D82能在句中使用非谓语动词做主语和定语D83能使用情态动词的完成时表必要性和推测D84能做到直接引语和间接引语的互换高级D86能使用“介词+关系代词”引导的定语从句D87能正确使用基本句型D88能选择使用简单句、并列句和复杂句表达不同的观点关系D89能根据情境选择使用动词的主动和被动语态D90能在笔头表达时使用多种短语类型如名词、动词、分词短语D91能在口笔头表达中正确使用介词短语、同位语和主、从句D92能使用复杂的平行结构，包括类同的语法形式，强调并列的事项155 级别编号描述语D93能在句中使用非谓语动词做主补和状语D94能在名词性从句中使用虚拟语气D95能使用间接引语复述故事能使用名词性小句充当复杂句句子成分，如主语、宾语、表语和同D96位语D97能使用虚拟语气描述想象的情景D99能在笔头表达时恰当使用多种结构的句子D100能使用多种衔接手段写复杂的句子D101能在口语表达中使用多样化的语法结构D1O2能在口头表达时使用助动词do,does,did表强调D103能在口笔头表达时使用it引导的强调句D104能正确使用时态描述某地或某人发生的变化D105能根据表达的需要，变换使用不同句式能在简单句中使用平行结构，例如Atcamp,wemostenjoyedD54swimming,hiking,andplayingvolleyball.D58能在句中使用非谓语动词做宾语和宾补中级D60能使用常见的情态动词表请求、命令、允诺能使用固定的口头表达发出简短的提醒和警告如“Becareful!”、D65“Watchout!”和“Don"tbelate!”D67能在表达时使用比较级和最高级进行人或者事物间的比较156 级别编号描述语D70能在口笔头表达时正确使用形容词性和名词性物主代词D71能在口笔头表达中使用简单的过渡词或连接词连接观点D72能在口笔头表达时正确组织简单句的各成分在引导和帮助下，能在共同的语言活动中使用完整的复合句阐述观D73点D74能够使用形容词、副词、介词短语扩展简单句D75能在复合句中做到主谓、代词被指的一致性能够使用连词，如when,before,after,while、副词，如soon,D76therefore和介词，如before,after,during表示时间、地点和原因能够使用形容词、名词和介词短语扩展名词短语描述事物，例如theD77strictmathsteacherwithcurlyhair能够在句中使用前置副词组织信息，例如Laterthatday,IheardD78thebadnews.D79能在句中使用表示可能性的副词，如perhaps,surelyD85能使用定语从句的关系词扩写短句D98能使用if引导的非真实条件句D106能在虚拟语气中组织使用动词D50能在口头表达时使用简单的陈述、否定和疑问句式D51能在简单的句子中根据名词的单复数匹配相应的动词157 级别编号描述语能在句中正确使用简单的动词时态，例如Iwalked;Iwalk;IwillD52walkD53能在陈述句、祈使句、疑问句中正确使用动词D55能使用简单句描述人物、地点和所有物D56能使用简单连词写出一系列的短语和句子，如and，but,becauseD57能使用简单的日常交际用语D59能使用常见的情态动词表能力D61能在口头表达中，准确运用人称代词指代自己或他人能在口头表达中，准确运用who、what、where和how构成疑问句D62来询问信息D63能够使用诸如“Idon"tagree”这样的简单表达来表达看法低级能使用简单的词或小句如“Isee.”、“Really?”在交谈中作出D64回应D66能根据语境准确使用指示代词D68能在口头表达时正确使规则名词的单复数能在口笔头表达中正确使用缩略形式，如isn’t,aren’t,can’D69t,won’t158 AcknowledgementsIt’sachallengeformetocompletethisthesisjustbymyself.Theaccomplishmentofitdependsonthesupportandhelpofmanypeople.Ioweadeptofgratitudetotheprofessors,classmates,friendsandfamiliesfortheirassistance,guidanceandencouragementthroughoutmygraduatestudiesatHunanNormalUniversity.First,IwouldliketoexpressmygreatdebtofgratitudetomysupervisorDengJiewhohasnotonlyprovidedmewithenlightenmentbutalsoprofessionaladvicethroughthewholeprogram.Heisgenerousandresponsible.Tohelpushaveanoverallgrasptotheconstructionoflanguageproficiencyscales,hehasprintedmanymaterialsrelatedtothisfieldforuswithhisownmoney,encouragedustoattendrelevantmeetingsandcreatedmanyopportunitiestodiscussquestionsinthethesistogether.Besides,IamverygratefultoProfessorZhuXiaozhouwhohasofferedsomeusefulsuggestionsduringtheprocessofwritingthethesis.Becauseofthem,Ihavelearnedscrutinyandprecisiontoconductacademicresearch.Withtheircriticalcommentsandconstructivesuggestions,thisthesishasturnedintoitspresentform.Second,IexpressmysincerethankstomyroomateXiaoLiforhercontinuingencouragementandmytenotherteammembers:JiangSufang,159 LiuQian,ZhuMeifang,XuYing,DuanQian,YinShuling,ChenCan,WanXiaolingandKangXifortheirassistanceandvaluablesuggestions.Weoftenexchangeouropinionsandaccomplisheverytasktogether.HereIamalsoverygratefultomanyotherprofessorsandteacherswhohavetaughtmygraduatecourses.ProfessorBaiJiehong,ProfessorLiaoGuangrongandProfessorQinYuxianghavehelpedmegetadeepunderstandingoflinguistics.Theirenlighteningteachingandsharingofacademicinformationareofgreatusefulnessforthestudyinmylaterlife.Third,Iwanttosaythankstotheexperiencedteachersfromdifferentplaceswhohaveparticipatedinthisresearch.OnlywiththeirsupportandpatienceinthesurveycanIcontinuethestudy.Finally,Ineedtoexpresssinceregratitudetomyfamily,especiallymyparents.Fortheirselflessloveandcontinuingsupportinmylifeandstudy,Ihavebecomeapersonwithidealsandknowledge.TheyarethemostlovelyandimportantpersonsinmylifewhoworkhardsothatIcanhaveagoodlivingconditionandlearningstate.BecauseoftheirencouragementthatIcancompletemystudiessmoothly.160