Skip to main content

A Rasch-Based Approach for Comparison of English Listening Comprehension Between CET and GEPT

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2014 Conference Proceedings

Abstract

This paper describes Rasch-based approach for comparison of English listening comprehension between two important English language tests, i.e., General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) in Taiwan and College English Test (CET) in China Mainland. A total of, 141 students of non-English majors of Jiaxing University were randomly chosen to take a mixed listening test with 15 questions from GEPT (high-intermediate) and 10 questions from CET (Band 4), respectively. All the data thus collected were processed using Gitest, with both subject ability and test difficulty compared. The results show that all the test items, as expected, are well moderated and calibrated. The correlation (= 0.61) shows that the difficulty level is fit for our subjects, but further confirmation is to be resorted by administering the same test items to the students of the similar ability level in Taiwan in the same manner. In the authors’ view, this is a pioneer yet significant comparison. More cooperation and collaborative efforts are needed in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more details, please visit http://www.gept.org.tw/.

  2. 2.

    For more details, please visit http://www.cet.edu.cn/.

  3. 3.

    For interested readers, please contact the author for details about GITEST. Ten features are listed below for reference:

    1. 1.

      Written in BASIC according to Rasch Model ;

    2. 2.

      It assumes binary (right-wrong) scoring;

    3. 3.

      Designed for applications of both CTT and Rasch to practical testing problems;

    4. 4.

      Maximum likelihood (ML);

    5. 5.

      Tests of fit for individual items;

    6. 6.

      Analysis of multiple subtests in one pass;

    7. 7.

      Item analysis and test paper evaluation and report;

    8. 8.

      Feedback for teaching and testing improvement

    9. 9.

      Linking of 2 test forms through common items (good for test equating);

    10. 10.

      200 items/10,000 candidates/in a single run; (Benjamin 1979; Shichun 1985; Quan 2004, 2013).

  4. 4.

    MET is abbreviated from Matriculation EnglishTest, a most competitive and influential entrance examination for higher education launched by Examination Authority under Ministry of Education, P.R.China. The annual participants amounts to 10 million or so.

References

  • Bachman, L. F.& Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, D., Wright & Mark, H., Stone. (1979). Best Test Design Rasch Measurement. MESA

    Google Scholar 

  • Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC). (2015). The general english proficiency test: Level descriptors. [Online] available: https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/E_LTTC/E_GEPT.htm (March 6, 2015)

  • Shichun, G. (1985). Standardized examination: theory practice and method. China: Guangdong Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevor, G., Bond & Christine, M., Fox. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd Edition) Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN-13: 978-0805842524 ISBN-10: 0805842527

    Google Scholar 

  • Quan, Z. (2004). Item analysis and test equating for language testing in practice. Beijing: Higher Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quan, Z. (2013). A pilot study based on Rasch into the appropriateness of the TOEIC bridge test for Chinese students: Status quo and prospect. In Q. Zhang & H. Yang (Eds.), Pacific rim objective measurement symposium 2012 conference proceeding. Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y. (2002). Comparative studies of GEPT and PETS in Taiwan and China, Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Symposium on English Teaching/Fourth Pan-Asian Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, L. (1989). MET (1985−1987) and Data Analyses. Guangdong Education Press. ISBN7-5406-0595-2/G.594

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Mei. (2012). Comparing PETS and GEPT in China and Taiwan. English Language Teaching, 5(6), 48–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and our foreign counterparts for suggestions that greatly helped improve the paper. Our thanks also go to Yang Hong of Jiaxing University who did one way or another to contribute to the present research project and their further cooperation will also be appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quan Zhang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix I

See Tables 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6 and Figs. 9.1 and 9.2.

Appendix II

(Benjamin et al. 1979; Shichun 1985)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, Q., He, G., Mu, H. (2015). A Rasch-Based Approach for Comparison of English Listening Comprehension Between CET and GEPT. In: Zhang, Q., Yang, H. (eds) Pacific Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS) 2014 Conference Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47490-7_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics