An analysis of listening part in Ferdowsi University Persian Proficiency test

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Mohsen Roudmajani ¹
• Behzad Ghonsoli ²
• ehsan ghabol ³

¹ Mohsen Rudmajani; Graduate of PhD in Persian Language and Literature, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² Behzad Ghonsoly; Professor, Department of English, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³ Ehsan ghabol; Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jlkd.2019.39334

Abstract

There is no doubt that listening ability is very important in an academic environment. This ability is needed in most of students’ daily activities. That is why assessing listening constitutes a major part of Language proficiency tests such as Ferdowsi University. This exam is held in Iran and Iraq to assess language knowledge of non-Persian speaker who want to enter Iranian Universities. In this research we analyzed the listening part of this exam with Rasch model. The result show that the reliability is 0.66 which is low for a high stake test. Also the wright map indicated the exam items are mostly appropriate for elementary or intermediate students. As most of test items’ type of match are locating and cycling, it is suggested to include more integrative and generative items which can make the test more difficult. Generally speaking the exam mostly assess the ability to detect key vocabulary and understanding details while understanding communicative function of utterances, making inferences about relationship among ideas, integrating information from listening and reading texts are abilities that can improve test difficulty.

Keywords

• Listening Skill
• the Persian Proficiency Test
• Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

References

1- جلیلی، س.ا. (1390). آزمون مهارتی فارسی (آمفا) بر پایۀ چهار مهارت اصلی زبانی. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی‌ارشد. دانشکدۀ ادبیّات فارسی و زبان­های خارجی دانشگاه علاّمه طباطبائی.

2- عرفانیان قونسولی، ل.، و شریفی، ش.، و تقی­پور، م. (1393). بررسی الگوهای مکث در زبان فارسی. مجموعه‌ی مقاله­های سومین همایش تحلیل گفتمان و کاربردشناسی. تهران: نشر نویسه‌ی پارسی.

3- قنسولی، ب. (1389). طرّاحی و روایی‌سنجی آزمون بسندگی زبان فارسی. پژوهش زبان‌های خارجی، 57، 115ـ 129.

4- گلپور، ل. (1394). طرّاحی و اعتباربخشی آزمون بسندگی زبان فارسی بر پایۀ چهار مهارت زبانی. رساله‌ی دکتری. دانشکدۀ ادبیّات فارسی و زبان­های خارجی دانشگاه پیام‌نور مرکز.

5- مخلصین، م.، و احمدی­زاده، ز.، و کسبی، ف.، و احدی، ح. (1396). تأثیر سن، جنسیت و تکلیف بر سرعت گفتار فارسی‌زبانان. فصلنامه‌ی کومش، 19(2)، 327ـ332.

6- موسوی، ث. (1379). طرّاحی و اعتباربخشی آزمون استاندارد زبان فارسی بر پایۀ چهار مهارت زبانی. پایان­نامه‌ی کارشناسی‌ارشد. دانشکدۀ ادبیّات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه شیراز.

7- وکیلی­فرد، ا.ر.، و کولی­وندی، ا.، و فاطمی­منش، ع. (1392). بسامد تکرار زمان­های دستوری در گفتار و نوشتار فارسی: در جست‌وجوی اولویت­های آموزشی دستور برای فارسی‌آموزان. پژوهش­نامه‌ی آموزش زبان فارسی برای غیرفارسی‌زبانان، 2(3)، 99ـ115.

8- Bachman, L. (2004). Statistical Analysis for Language Assessment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

9- Bachman, L., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language Assessment in practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

10- Bejar, I., & Douglas, D., & Jamieson, J., & Nissan, S., & Turner, J. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Listening Framework: A working paper (TOEFL Monograph No. 19) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

11- Biber, D. (1988). Dimensions of register variation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

12- Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13- Buck, G. (2001). Assessing Listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

14- Carrol, J. B. (1992). Human Cognative Abilities: A Survey of Factor Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

15- Chapelle, C. A., & Enright M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. Building a Validity Argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York: Routledge.

16- Educational Testing System, (2009). The official Guide to the new TOEFL. New York: McGraw-Hill.

17- Educational Testing System, (2018). Reliability and Comparability of TOEFL iBT Score. https://www.ets.org/s/toefl/pdf/toefl_ibt_research_s1v3.pdf.

18- Jamieson, J., & Jones, S., & Kirsch, I., & Mosenthal, P., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 Framework: A Working Paper (TOEFL monograph No. 16). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing system.

19- Jamieson, J. M., & Eigner, D., & Grabe W., & Kunnan, A. J. (2008). “Frameworks for a new TOEFL”.In Building a Validity Argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language Edited by Chapelle, C. A., Enright M. K., Jamieson, J. M.  New York: Routledge. pp. 1-25.

20- Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, J. (1991). Fundamentals of Iten Response Theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publication.

21- Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22- Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing. London: Longman.

23- Linacre, J. M. (2009). WINSTEPS Rasch Measurement [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.

24- Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and Consequences in the Validation of Performance Assessment. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.

25- Miller, c., & Aghajanian-Stewart, K. (2018). A Frequency Dictionary of Persian. New York: Routledge.

26- Mousavi, S. A. (2012). Item Response Theory. In An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language Testing. 5^th ed. Tehran. Rahnama.

27- Rost, M. (2016). Teaching and Researching Listening. New York: Routledge.

28- Powers, D. (1986). Academic demands related to listening skills. Language Testing, 3, 1-38.

Spolsky, B. (2008). Language Assessment in Historical and future Perspective. In  Hornberger, Nancy (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education. 2^nd ed.Vol 7. New York: Springer.