An Explorative Study On The Validity Evidence Of Cloze In 2010 NMET

As an important means to select competent people, National Matriculation of English Test (NMET) has always been attached importance by experts and researchers. With the prosperous development of new curriculum reform, researches on NMET have entered a new stage, too. There are a great number of thorough researches on different test types at present and the researches on cloze are abundant for cloze has won the recognition of test developers with its convenience and easy-controlled feature. However, these researches mainly center on discussing problem-solving strategies or comparing different formats. But how to maintain high validity and reliability is the core of researches on NMET. The previous studies on validity of NMET are generally based on traditional definition and classification of validity, which are various, overlapping and confusing. In order to normalize the validity research, unified standards should be employed. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing laid down by American Educational Research Association, etc. in 1999 is acknowledged as universal professional standards. According to Standards (1999), there are five categories of validity evidence, namely, evidence based on test content, evidence based on response processes, evidence based on internal structure, evidence based on relations to other variables and evidence based on consequences of testing. In terms of the five categories, this thesis is supposed to utilize international standards to guide domestic testing and teaching and lift the quality of validity research. The exploration of the validity evidence of cloze in NMET has practical guidance and value.The main purpose of the study is to explore the validity evidence of the cloze test in 2010 NMET papers, in the hope of finding out whether the cloze test can measure the comprehending and pragmatic abilities of the students. Effort is put forth to answer the four specific questions:1) What is the facility value and discrimination index of the test paper? 2) How does the expert evaluate the test paper? 3) What is the relationship between the cloze in NMET and that in other papers? 4) What is the response of the teacher and students toward the test paper?The study adopts two methods:observation assessment and statistical analysis. The participants are 122 students and their English teacher from one middle school in Chongqing. The participants are asked to finish a test paper composed by four cloze tests from four NMET papers in 2010, Guangdong Version, Chongqing Version, Hubei Version and the National Version, to be detailed, and the cloze test in Taiwan test paper in 2005. This is because these four versions can represent different batches of provinces, municipal cities and autonomous regions that begin curriculum reform in different time. Then an interview with two randomly selected students and their teacher is conducted so as to acquire their response to cloze.Based on the study, conclusions are educed. First of all, the face validity of the test paper is high, with unbiased materials, moderate length and rationally designed distracters. Secondly, as for the facility value and discrimination index, the facility value is relatively high, meaning that the tests are easy, with Guangdong Version being the easiest, while discrimination index is not high. Thirdly, the expert has given high evaluation, which means the content validity is achieved. Compared with cloze in Taiwan test paper, cloze tests in NMET have positive correlation with each other. Finally, the results of the interview show that although there are slight differences between students and teacher's thoughts, cloze has won great attention.Although there are some limitations, like sampling and test paper preparing, the achievement is that the study has applied international professional testing standards to domestic validity research. With certain depth and breadth, it has explored the validity evidence combined with national standards and practical situation. It has provided some inspiration of validity evidence and NMET design for future researchers, test developers and teachers to better understand and improve language testing and teaching.