MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W281329835

A More Valid Alternative to TOEFL

2002· article· en· W281329835 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ann E. Roemer

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege and university · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueEducational Technology and Assessment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTest of English as a Foreign LanguageTest (biology)Mathematics educationLanguage proficiencyPsychologyMedical educationConstruct (python library)Higher educationForeign languageLanguage assessmentPedagogyComputer sciencePolitical scienceMedicineLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this article is to describe the TOEFL and the APIEL, and to evaluate both tests on three basic types of validity criteria: content, construct, and criterion-related. These criteria are commonly used by test developers to ensure that the decisions made from a test are as accurate and as fair as possible. Admissions officers want to be confident that the decision they make using a test are the best, based on the most complete information about the applicants. Thousands of international students attend American universities and colleges to reach their educational goals. To do so they, like their American peers, must be evaluated by admissions offices, a task complicated even more by the differences in educational systems worldwide. Proficiency in English is one of the criteria for this process, and it is crucial for success at North American universities. Xu's (1991, p.567) findings strongly suggest that English language proficiency is the single most important factor influencing international graduate students' academic coping (a factor that is just as significant for undergraduate students). As important as it is, assessing an individual's command of English is not a simple procedure. The most widely used instrument is the TOEFL, Test of English as a Foreign Language, required at over 4,200 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada. In 2000-2001, more than half a million examinees registered to take the computer-based TOEFL at test centers from Albania to Zimbabwe (ETS 2001c). Despite its widespread acceptance, the TOEFL may not be an accurate measure of English language proficiency. An alternative to the TOEFL is the APIEL, Advanced Placement in International English Language, which may be a more accurate measure of proficiency in English. TOEFL The TOEFL measures English proficiency of a non-native speaker (ETS 200IC). Presently there are two versions of the test: paper-based and computer-based. As of January zooo, all TOEFL examinations in North America have been computerized, and students have been required to take the TWE, Test of Written English. And since October 2000, the computer-based test has been administered in most test centers abroad. The TOEFL is computer-adaptive, meaning that if the examinees' responses are correct, they will next be presented with more difficult questions, but if their responses are incorrect, the next questions will be of lesser or equal difficulty. There are four sections to the TOEFL. Section i, Listening Comprehension, measures the students' ability to comprehend spoken American English. It includes vocabulary and idioms that are commonly used in spoken language. This section contains two parts, both of which present video clips: short conversations between two speakers and mini-lectures. In the first, the students hear a short dialogue and a question about the dialogue. From the four possible answers on the screen, the students choose the best one to the question they have heard. In the second section, the students hear brief lectures of less than two minutes, after which they answer several questions, spoken one time only. The topics of the conversations and talks are varied, but tend to be academic in nature (ETS 2000). Section 2 of the TOEFL, Structure, measures recognition of formal grammar points in English. It contains two parts. In the first, the students are tested on their ability to choose the correct word or phrase to complete a sentence. Below is an example from an actual TOEFL test (ETS 200Ia). The columbine flower____to nearly all of the United States, can be raised from weed in almost any garden. a. native b. how native is c. how native it is d. is native In the second part, they have to recognize the portion of the sentence that is grammatically incorrect. This section is also multiple choice. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,102
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,123

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,102
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,002
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0060,007
Science ouverte0,0030,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0370,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,249
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations12
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCollege and universityMême sujetEducational Technology and AssessmentTravaux en français237 207