摘要
本研究旨在通过基于范围综述的方法,对比分析国外和国内语言评估素养(Language Assessment Literacy,LAL)的研究现状。我们将 Web of Science 和中国知网数据库中 2008—2023 年间重要期刊上的论文作为数据来源,筛选出52 篇英文和42篇中文期刊论文进行分析。结果显示,国外 LAL 研究可分为新兴期、发展期和跃发期,而国内研究则可分为萌芽期和跃发期。国外研究更注重社会情境因素和多元利益攸关者,而国内研究则侧重外语教师的 LAL 发展。在研究方法上,国外研究倾向于质性研究,国内则更多采用混合方法。本文建议国内 LAL研究应拓宽视角、扩大研究对象范围并挖掘研究深度,以促进教师教育和专业发展。
Abstract
This study performed a comparative analysis of the studies on Language Assessment Literacy (LAL) within the realms of international and domestic academia, utilizing a scoping review methodology. The aim was to explore the differences and similarities in LAL research across these contexts. Based on the Web of Science (WoS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)databases, the research examined articles published in significant journals between 2008 and 2023,selecting 52 English and 42 Chinese journal papers for analysis. The results indicated that while international LAL research has progressed through the phases of emerging, developing and surging, domestic research has transitioned from a nascent stage to a surge phase. International studies focused more on social contextual factors and diverse stakeholders, whereas domestic research concentrated on the development of LAL among foreign language teachers. In terms of methodology, international research leaned towards qualitative studies, while domestic research favored a mixed-method approach. It is suggested that domestic LAL research should broaden perspectives, expand the scope of research participants, and delve deeper into research questions to foster the professional development and education of teachers.
关键词
语言评估素养 /
对比分析 /
范围综述 /
Web of Science /
中国知网
Key words
language assessment literacy /
comparative analysis /
scoping review;Web of Science;CNKI
徐 鹰 曾美娟 刘文霞 陈 锦.
语言评估素养国外和国内研究现状对比分析:基于范围综述的方法[J]. 外语教学理论与实践. 2025, 194(2): 53
XU Ying, ZENG Meijuan, LIU Wenxia & CHEN Jin.
A comparative analysis of language assessment literacy research in international and Chinese journals: A scoping review approach[J]. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice. 2025, 194(2): 53
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}