The purpose of this study is to investigate the characteristics of the contents and form of the two tests and suggest a direction to remedy their shortcomings and limitations mutually through a comparative analysis of the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test, which is conducted in Japan. The number of test-takers has been constantly growing. The reason for conducting this study is to help the two tests become an objective and appropriate measurement tool of Korean language skills in terms of not only quantitative but also qualitative terms.
For this, this study first checked the general theories of language assessment and then examined the validity, shortcomings, and limits of the form and contents of the two tests based on the theoretical background.
The formal characteristics of the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test were compared and analyzed by dividing them into grade systems, assessment areas, pass criteria, and assessment standards. The content characteristics of the two tests were compared and analyzed by dividing them according to their question types, vocabulary, and text subjects. The question types were compared and analyzed focusing on those of the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test. The vocaburaly on the two tests was classified by grade according to the vocabulary list for learning Korean by Namho Cho (2003). Onomatopoeic words, mimetic words, four Chinese character idioms, idioms, and proverbs on the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test were analyzed. Finally, the subjects of the texts shown in the reading sections of the two tests were classified. The results are arranged as follows:
First, there is no any speaking area on the TOPIK. Speaking assessment should be obligatorily introduced as the tool to evaluate language ability in the future to be objective and accurate. Speaking assessment is conducted in Grade 1 and 2, the advanced steps in the Hangul Language Proficiency Test. The Korean language ability which satisfies levels by grade should be measured by preparing the writing and speaking areas in the beginning and intermediate steps.
Second, TOPIK assessment frames are opened to the public, but those are not opened for the Hangul Language Proficiency Test. The number of larger questions, the number of questions, and question types are not uniformly shown. For the Hangul Language Proficiency Test, it will be desirable to open assessment frames and make learners learn them systematically.
Third, the classification of the vocabulary that appears on the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test according to the vocabulary list for learning Korean by Namho Cho (2003) has shown that the vocabulary which is not included in the vocabulary list for basic learning is included on the two tests at the high rate of close to 30%. The two tests should all increase the rate of the most frequently used vocabulary to prove themselves a proper assessment tool in terms of practicality. The comparison and analysis of the onomatopoeic words, mimetic words, four Chinese character idioms, idioms, and proverbs that appeared on the two tests has shown that they appeared at a much higher rate on the Hangul Language Proficiency Test than on the TOPIK. Because this can weighed heavily upon learners and cause them to avoid the tests, the Hangul Language Proficiency Test needs to adjust the rate of onomatopoeic words, mimetic words, four Chinese character idioms, idioms, and proverbs.
Fourth, the analysis of the subjects of the texts that appeared in the reading sections of the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test has shown that the subject width of the Hangul Language Proficiency Test is narrower than that of the TOPIK. This can be interpreted to mean that there are fewer questions of the reading sections. The Hangul Language Proficiency Test should first increase the number of questions in the reading area and then introduce reading texts that handle various subjects to measure the reading ability of learners properly.
This study investigated the characteristics of the contents and form of the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test and has suggested a direction to remedy their shortcomings and limitations mutually through the comparative analysis of the two tests. Because it could not suggest concrete improvements, future studies on improvements should be done. It is expected that this study will be helpful for studying concrete improvements of the TOPIK and the Hangul Language Proficiency Test.
，免费韩语论文，韩语毕业论文 |
