回沖效應（washback effect）為測驗引導教學的影響，且愈具風險的測驗，將產生愈大的回沖效應。由英國劍橋大學國際考評部發佈的國際中學教育普通證書（IGCSE）中文課程，測驗對象為14至16歲的學生，在全球145個國家，超過5,500所學校實施。然而，對此具相當代表性的測驗，目前探討IGCSE中文測驗如何影響華語教與學的研究付之闕如。
本研究目的在探討其測驗目標與CEFR A2級的能力描述之對應關係，以及測驗目標與測驗內容之對應情形，並根據對應結果發展以回沖效應為本的教學活動設計。本研究採內容分析法，共分兩個研究：研究一旨在探討IGCSE測驗目標與CEFR能力描述之對應，輔以Bloom認知領域教育目標分類架構分析測驗目標的層次分佈。研究二以研究一發展的架構，分析IGCSE試卷在聽說讀寫各試題與目標的對應關係。最後，本研究統整研究一、二之分析結果，應用至以回沖效應為本的教學活動設計，採ADDIE設計模式，提出為期四週的主題式教學設計方案。
研究結果顯示：多有單一IGCSE目標與多個CEFR能力描述對應之情形；值得注意的是有三個口語測驗目標無法直接與CEFR溝通策略的能力描述對應之情形。此外，關於試卷分析亦發現：特定測驗目標之出現頻率高於該技能中的其他目標，可能即為IGCSE測試之重點。最後，本研究以回沖效應觀點整合分析結果，詳實舉例如何融入測驗目標之不同權重於教學，以發揮正向的回沖效應。整體研究結果預期能為相關國際學校在規劃課程或發展測驗評量等實務工作提供參考價值。

Washback effect refers to the impact of the test not only on the teaching and learning process but also on the students and teachers involved. The test content has a direct impact on the curriculum and syllabus, especially on high-stakes exams. According to the 2022-2024 syllabus of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) Mandarin Chinese course, its curriculum is designed to help students develop up to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) A2 level. In this research, we first explore the correspondence between the test objectives of IGCSE Chinese curriculum and the CEFR A2 level of illustrative descriptors, then we analyse the corresponding relationships between the test objectives and the test items, and finally we focus on the development of a washback effect-based teaching design according to the analysis results.
This research is based on content analysis method to analyse the corresponding relationships among the targets. First, we examinate the correspondence between the IGCSE test objectives and the CEFR illustrative descriptors. Then, in order to understand the correspondence between the IGCSE test objectives and the test items, we adopt Bloom taxonomies 2001 to identify the corresponding relationship between the test objectives and all test items from May 2020 examination 10 test papers. Finally, based on these findings, a four-week thematic teaching lesson plan is suggested in view of the washback effect. The lesson plan design adopts the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model.
In Study 1, it was found that every single IGCSE test objective can correspond to multiple CEFR illustrative descriptors, but they cannot correspond to CEFR "Communication Strategies" illustrative descriptors. In addition, we specially designed teaching activities aimed at developing students' "communication strategies", with expectation to help students communicate flexibly with limited language knowledge. This study integrates the corresponding results of the test objectives and the CEFR illustrative descriptors from Study 1, and design a four-week "Shopping" theme lesson plan from the perspective of the washback effect. Finally, instructional design has completed the three stages of ADDIE model, included analysis, design and development, and hope to carry out the rest of implementation and evaluation stages in future. Therefore, the actual effect needs to be verified through more practical research in future. It is hoped that the corresponding results of this research will help IGCSE Mandarin teachers in teaching design, help students achieve CEFR A2 level more comprehensively, and provide examples of "communication strategies" teaching plans that are missing in the IGCSE syllabus as a reference.

一、中文部分
方緒軍(2007)。CEFR對漢語測試研發的啟示。世界漢語教學，2007(2)，136-143。

方緒軍、楊惠中、朱正才(2011)。語言能力「能做」描述的原理與方案：以CEFR為例。世界漢語教學，2011(2)，246-257。

白樂桑、張麗（2008）。《歐洲語言共同參考框架》新理念對漢語教學的啟示與推動：處於抉擇關頭的漢語教學。世界漢語教學（3），58-73。

多媒體英語學會編譯(2007)。歐洲共同語文參考架構。高雄市:和遠圖書資訊出版社。

林進財（1997）。教師教學思考：理論、研究與應用。高雄市：復文。

林進財、林香河（2012）。寫教案：教學設計的格式與規範。台北：五南圖書。

周守晉(2007)。《歐洲共同框架：語言學習、教學、測試參考標準》與對外漢語教學。漢語教學學刊，3。

袁哲琨（2021）。高考英語試卷作為英語學習材料模板的可靠性研究。科學咨詢，2021（5），1-3。

陳丹（2006）。試談測試回沖效應對外語課堂教學的啟發。貴州民族學院學報，2006（5），197-199

陳麗宇、楊藹瑩、張傑智（2011）。符合 CEFR 規範之 A1、A2 級線上華語學習教材研發規劃。應用中國語言，2011（3），63-74。

崔永華（2008）。對外漢語教學設計導論。北京：北京語言大學出版社。

盛炎（2006）。語言教學原理。重慶：重慶出版社。

張霄亭、朱則剛、張鐸嚴、洪敏琬、胡怡謙、方郁琳、胡佩瑛(2002)。教學原理。台北縣蘆洲市：空大。

陳新轉（2003）。社會領域能力指標之詮釋解讀原則與方法芻議。南投文教，19，43-45。

曾芬蘭、游羽萱、蔡逸凡、陳柏熹(2019)。國中教育會考英語科聽力測驗實施的回沖效應初探。教育科學研究期刊，64(2)，219-252。

楊伊菱（2019）。IGCSE中文寫作測試對國際學校漢語寫作課的啟示。文學教育，2019（11），87-89。

臧亞茹（2015）。IGCSE漢語考試特點分析－兼與新 HSK比較（未出版碩士論文）。北京外國語大學，北京。

趙金銘（2009）。對外漢語教學概論。台北：新學林。

鄧巧（2017）。《歐洲語言共同參考框架（CEFR）》視角下新HSK四級和IGCSE漢語水平考試對比研究（未出版碩士論文）。重慶大學，重慶。

鄧攀（2014）。試論以IGCSE中文考試為目標的《標準中文》的詞彙教學（未出版碩士論文）。陝西師範大學，陝西。

鄭蕙如、林世華（2004）。Bloom 認知領域教育目標分類修訂版理論與實務之探討─以九年一貫課程數學領域分段能力指標為例。台東大學教育學報，15（2），247-274。

藍珮君（2007）。基礎華語文能力測驗與歐洲語言共同參考架構的對應關係。「第三屆華文教學國際論壇」，台北。

二、英文部分

Alderson, J. C. & Banerjee, J. (2001). State of the art review: Language testing and assessment part 1. Language Teaching, 34, 213―36.

Alderson, J. C. & D, Wall. (1993). Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14: 116–29.

Anderson, W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds)(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectvies. New York: Longman.

Angoff, William H. (1971). Scales, norms, and equivalent scores. In Thorndike, R. Ladd. (ed.), Educational measurement (2nd ed.) 508-600. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

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

Bailey, K.M. (1996). Working for washback: A review of the washback concept in language testing. Language Testing, 1996(13), 257.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. David McKay Co., Inc.

Buck, G. (1988). Testing Listening Comprehension in Japanese University Entrance Exams. JALT Journal, 10, 15-42.

Cambridge Assessment International Education (2019). Syllabus Cambridge IGCSE Mandarin Chinese 0547. Retrieved from https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/554588-2022-2024-syllabus.pdf

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and
Communication, 2-27. London: Longman.

Carroll, J. B. (1961). Fundamental considerations in testing for English language proficiency of foreign students. In H. B. Allen (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second Language (pp. 364―372). New York: McGraw Hill.

Cheng, L. (1997). How does washback influence teaching? Implications for Hong Kong. Language and Education, 11(1), 38-54.

Cheng, L. (1999). Changing assessment: Washback on teacher perspectives and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(3), 253-271.

Cheng, L. (2005). Changing language teaching through language testing: A
Washback Study. Cambridge: CUP.
Cheng, L., Y. Watanabe, and A. Curtis. (eds.). (2004). Washback in language testing: Research contexts and methods. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, A. (1982). Language testing: parts 1 and 2. In V. Kinsella (Ed.), Cambridge surveys 1 (pp. 127―59). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Figueras, N. (2012). The impact of the CEFR. ELT Journal, 66(4), 477-485.

Heaton, J. B. (1990). Classroom testing. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Hughes, A. (1989). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-293. London: Penguin Books.

International Baccalaureate Organization (2016). Benchmarking selected International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme language courses to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

Kastberg, S. E. (2003). Using Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework for classroom assessment. Mathematics Teacher, 96(6), 402-407.

Lado, R. (1961). Language testing: The construction and use of foreign language tests: A teacher’s book. London: Longmans.

Lewis, Daniel M., Howard C. Mitzel and Donald R. Green. (1996). Standard setting: a bookmark approach. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Boulder, CO.

Lipscomb, J. W. (2001). Is Bloom’s taxonomy better than intuitive judgment for classifying test questions? Education, 106(1), 102-107.

Liskin-Gasparro, Judith E. (2003). The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines and the Oral Proficiency Interview: A Brief History and Analysis of Their Survival. Foreign Language Annals, 36 (4), 483-90.

McNamara, T. F. (2000). Language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.), pp. 13―103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education /Macmillan.

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34-36.

Oller, J. W. (1979). Language tests at school. London: Longman.

Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J., Bridgeman, B. & Cho, Y. (2015). The association between TOEFL iBT test scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) levels. Research Memorandum ETS RM-15-06. Retrieved from http://www.toefl.com.tw/pdf/RM-15-06.pdf.

Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wall, D. (1997). Impact and washback in language testing. In C. Clapham & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Language and Education. Vol. 7. Language Testing and Assessment (pp. 291―302). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

Wall, D. (2005). The Impact of High-Stakes Examinations on Classroom Teaching: A Case Study Using Insights from Testing and Innovation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yalden, J.Janie (2000). Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.