*蘇菲亞*小扎

--轉自敦煌書局外文書籍網--


近年來，各版本出版商因競爭激烈，為力圖市場穩定，
遂竭力迎合教師需求，強化服務內容，
代製試題或提供題庫因而成為必要之業務配套。
然而，若干英語教師也因此疏於參與命題實務，
或懈於構思、創新優美試題，以強化教學成效。
另一方面，由於師資培育多元化，
一些英語教師缺乏英語測驗與評量學理及實作經驗，
其命題內容大多參考自坊間輔助教材，因而不具試題之批判與規範能力。
一份段考試題即反應學校教學內涵及教務品質，
綜觀全國各校試題作品，優劣差異頗為明顯，
與其說是城鄉差距，不如說是教師專業職能與校務督導寬鬆之差距。

以下是佳里地區某國中95年第一學期第二次段考第三測試題討論.....


（1）二、語法選擇5. A: Hello, is Peter there? B: No, Do you want
to leave a message?

該對話中B的答句”Do you want to…”不合電話交談的邏輯，也不合談話的禮貌用語。
通常接電話的人會問來電者的姓名，或彼此有些交談後，如要找的人何時回來，
才會提到代為留言。另外，Do you want…乃非正式用法，
除非有特殊情境，否則不適用於一般情境。
還有，較佳的對話題幹，如基測試題，是不以A…B…為稱呼的，
而且每段對話都應句首排列。
建議題目修改為：
Tom: Hello, is Peter there?
Lily: No. Who’s speaking?
Tom: Tom. Well, could I leave a message?
Lily: Sure.

（2）8. Jack likes/ is like his father. They look alike.

這是一段不具可讀性，且未經潤飾的文字，
命題者只在意產生答案，而不考慮試題本身對學生語文能力的影響。
"is like”應是命題老師的答案。
如果是的話，整題中譯為：“Jack像他的父親。他們長得像。”
兩個述部語意成分幾乎一致的句子接連出現，
違反Grice的會話含義理論中量的原則，即不簡潔。
以寫作來說，”They look alike.”屬贅句，應刪除。
從邏輯推論的命題方式來說，”Jack is like his father.”
接連的句子不應是語意重疊的句子，而是語意擴展、延伸或具因果關係的句子。
例如：
Jack is like his father.
They both have a round face and big eyes. （說明資訊）
Also, Jack is as tall as his father. （延伸敘述）
It’s not easy to tell them apart immediately. （合理結果）
所以，Jack likes his father.是避免語意重複且語法正確的選項，
但缺點有二，一是東方文化中，鮮少有「兒子喜歡老子…」的講法；
二是兩句之間少了轉折詞”and”－Jack likes his father and they look alike.
總之，”likes”或 “is like”選項都對，因為，雖然語意不佳，但語法無誤。

（3）克漏字選擇二：They learned to catch turkeys and（8）crops.

選項（A）grew及（B）grow應均可列為答案。
They learned to catch turkeys and grew crops.
It means they did two things there.
One thing was to learn to catch turkeys
because they never did that in their country,
and the other was to grow crops because they had done that before then.
VP的結構分析是 They [[learned to catch turkeys] and [grew crops]].
They learned to catch turkeys and grow crops.
It means they did one thing there.
They learned to do two things.
One was to catch turkeys and the other was to grow crops.
VP的結構分析是 They [ learned [to catch turkeys] and [grow crops]].
編寫試題時，應以句法學論證法則來設計選項，務求嚴謹，
避免因學生未知，而排除適當的選項。

（4）克漏字選擇三（5）She was yelling at me when I finally got there.

唯一選項應是（D）was yelling，但試看下句：
She vp1[was talking on the phone] when I finally vp2[got there].
“got there”發生時，”was talking on the phone”有可能正在發生，
因為VP2不是VP1的誘因，彼此不具因果關係。
但是，”She vp1[was yelling at me] when I finally vp2[got there].”
句中，VP2是VP1的誘因，
真實情境是
"I finally got there. She yelled at me as soon as she saw me.”
I還沒出現，she不會yell at me；I出現前，she應不會獨自在等候處yelling，
因為yell的動作需有明確的對象在現場作直接的互動，該句可修改為：
She yelled at me the moment I got there.或
She yelled at me as soon as I got there.