Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ – ĐHQGHN tổ chức chấm luận án tiến sĩ cấp Đại học Quốc gia cho nghiên cứu sinh Wei Yu chuyên ngành LL&PPDH Bộ môn Tiếng Anh khóa QH2019 đợt 2

Đề tài: A Validity Study on a Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency VSTEP 3-5 Reading Test (Nghiên cứu xác trị một bài thi đọc hiểu của VSTEP 3-5)

Chuyên ngành: Lí luận và phương pháp dạy học Bộ môn Tiếng Anh

Mã số: 9140231.01

CBHD: GS. TS. Nguyễn Hòa & TS. Dương Thu Mai

Thời gian: 14h30 thứ Năm, ngày 26 tháng 10 năm 2023

Địa điểm: Phòng 509, Tầng 5 Nhà A1, Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội, Số 2 Phạm Văn Đồng, Quận Cầu Giấy, TP. Hà Nội

Tóm tắt luận án bằng tiếng Anh, xin xem tại đây!

INFORMATION ON DOCTORAL THESIS

1. Full name: Wei Yu
   2. Sex: Female
   3. Date of birth: 20/5/1992
   4. Place of birth: Lanzhou, China
   5. Admission Decision number: 2501/QD-DHNN Date: 17/10/2019
   6. Changes in academic process:
   7. Official thesis title: A study on the validity of a Vietnamese developed test of English reading proficiency
2. Major: English language teaching methodology
   9. Code: 9140231.01
   10. Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa & Dr. Duong Thu Mai
   11. Summary of the new findings of the thesis:

The new findings of the thesis can be summarized into theoretical, methodological and practical aspects.

Theoretically, the study demonstrates the usefulness of the argument-based approach, interpretive argument (Chapelle et al., 2008) in particular, in validating a high-stakes standardized test of English proficiency independently developed in Vietnam.

First, the contribution of the current study owes much to its adaptation of the interpretive argument template to the VSTEP.3-5 reading test. In terms of VSTEP.3-5 reading test, two central and distinguishing perspectives regarding test score interpretation and use are identified in the current study: product-based and process-based. Thus, the current study focuses on two inference which are the generalization inference the explanation inference. Second, through articulating the validity warrants and assumptions, the interpretive argument for the VSTEP.3-5 reading test provides a logical framework to allocate the relevant evidence to justify each validity inference. Accordingly, different types of evidence involving both quantitative and qualitative data are collected and analyzed.

Methodologically, previous studies have generally involved test product data while the current study places great emphasis on process data tapped through introspective or observational approaches, such as think aloud protocols and eye tracking, both of which have been used widely in psychological studies but limitedly in studies on language testing and assessment. The attempt to explore test takers’ cognitive processes in VSTEP.3-5 reading test mainly through think aloud protocols and eye tracking has illuminated some of the unobservable sides of test takers’ mental processes while they try to complete tests, which also demonstrate the potential wider use of this research paradigm.

It is worth mentioning that methodologies designed to explore the actual processes of thought through biological indicators including eye movements can go beyond evaluation of a product obtained in a group setting environment that permits answers arrived at in a covert fashion (Kong, 2016). Therefore, eye tracking can be extremely valuable as part of test validation studies even though it is quite labor intensive. In recent years, a few researchers in the field of language testing and assessment have positively explored the possibility of using eye tracking in research on language testing and assessment and great advances have been made in this regard (Bax, 2013; Brunfaut, & McCray, 2015; Bax, & Chan, 2016; Bax, & Chan, 2019). In Vietnam, there has been no use of eye tracking in research on language testing and assessment yet. This study can be regarded as a new attempt and provide reference for the future studies.

Practically, the multiple sources of evidence from both product-based and process-based perspectives of the current study may provide some potential implications for stakeholders of the VSTEP.3-5 reading test including test takers, teachers, test designers, curriculum designers and researchers. Actually, the discussion of test fairness acts as an important role in the practical implications. A major issue in this phase of the test design is the expectation of potential sources of score variance, where constructing irrelevant sources is detrimental to test fairness. Therefore, any factors that are irrelevant to the test constructs should be avoided in the phase of test design. Reviewing the findings in the current study, some piece of evidence with the construct-irrelevant factors can be found. Data of think aloud protocols and reading processing checklists show that some test takers have a tendency to use the test-wiseness strategies of elimination and guessing. It indicates that the test has been constructed in a way that potentially induced test takers to resort to reading processes irrelevant to the expected reading processes.

Identifying these structurally unrelated sources has implications not only for test designers, but also for teachers, test takers, and researchers. For test designers, caution must be exercised when designing test items in order to avoid building constructed-irrelevant sources. As to teachers and test takers, the teaching and learning of reading comprehension should pay much attention to comprehension itself, and the ultimate goal of subskill training should be to cultivate test takers with good reading ability, flexible use of subskills, familiarity with different types and genres of reading materials. Test-oriented teaching should be minimized as much as possible. As to researchers, transparent and depth studies should be conducted so as to gain more insight into problematic aspects of the test. The argument-based approach employed in the current study is a viable framework for a comprehensive investigation of theses aspects of test.

12. Practical applicability, if any:
    13. Further research directions, if any:
    14. Thesis-related publications:
    Wei, Y., & Nguyen, D. H. (2021). A validity study on the Vietnamese Standardized Test of English Proficiency (VSTEP.3-5): From test-takers’ perspectives. Journal of China Examinations, 10, 67-73.
    Wei, Y. (2021). A comparative study on the validity of VSTEP.3-5 and PETS-5 reading tests. International Graduate Research Symposium (IGRS), 40-51.

Date: 25/09/2023

Signature:

Full name: Wei Yu

Kính mời cán bộ, giảng viên, học viên, NCS và cá nhân quan tâm tham dự!