Abstract
Integrated writing has gained importance in both tertiary and secondary learning contexts. However, assessment tasks at secondary schools have received little attention. To obtain evidence of skill integration, a task-defining feature for integrated writing, we developed a comprehensive questionnaire study of an understudied task used in the secondary EFL context, namely, the story continuation writing task. An exploratory factor analysis of 258 secondary students’ responses to a self-generated questionnaire and a confirmatory factor analysis of another 470 responses to a revised questionnaire revealed a correlated structure of planning, writing, grammar, and a secondary-order factor reading-to-connect comprising “reading and selecting” and “transformation”. The structure model showed that writing affected test performance directly and positively, and grammar and reading-to-connect mediated the impact of planning on writing. The findings indicate that the story continuation writing task is a content-responsible task tapping heavily into writing. The skill integration continuum is proven to be a useful framework for understanding the integrated writing construct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2021). Remodeling writers’ composing processes: Implications for writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 50, 100547.
Asención, Y. D. (2004). Validation of reading-to-write assessment tasks performed by second language learners. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Asención, Y. D. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140–150.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Boscolo, P., Ariasi, N., Del Favero, L., & Ballarin, C. (2011). Interest in an expository text: How does it flow from reading to writing? Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 467–480.
Bruce, E., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2015). Opposing tensions of local and international standards for EAP writing programmes: Who are we assessing for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 18, 64–77.
Carson, J., & Leki, I. (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives. Heinle & Heinle.
Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 63–75.
Cumming, A., Lai, C., & Cho, H. (2016). Students’ writing from sources for academic purposes: A synthesis of recent research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 23, 47–58.
Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., & Xu, C. (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1–15.
Davies, A. (1990). A principles of language testing. Blackwell.
Galloway, E. P., & Uccelli, P. (2018). Beyond reading comprehension: Exploring the additional contribution of Core Academic Language Skills to early adolescents’ written summaries. Reading and Writing, 32, 729–759.
Gebril, A. (2018). Integrated-Skills Assessment. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley.
Holzknecht, F., Huhta, A., & Lamprianou, I. (2018). Comparing the outcomes of two different approaches to CEFR-based rating of students’ writing performances across two European countries. Assessing Writing, 37, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.009
Hyland, K. (2016). Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.
Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks: Towards a more focussed definition for assessment purposes. Assessing Writing, 18, 300–308.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). “Completely different worlds”: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. Tesol Quarterly, 31(1), 39–69.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. G. (1994). Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 81–101.
Liu, Q., & Chen, K. (2016). An investigation on the story continuation writing task in the biannual NMET test. Foreign Language Teaching in Middle and Primary School, 39(1), 1–5.
Liu, J., & Han, B. (2018). Theoretical considerations for developing use-oriented China’s Standards of English. Modern Foreign Languages, 41(1), 78–90.
Machili, I., Papadopoulou, I., & Kantaridou, Z. (2020). Effect of strategy instruction on EFL students’ video-mediated integrated writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100708
MOE. (2017). National english curriculum standards for general high school. People’s Eudcation Press.
MOE, & NLC. (2018). China’s Standards of English Language Ability. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587.
Plakans, L. (2012). Writing integrated items. In G. Fulcher & F. Davidson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 249–261). Routledge.
Plakans, L. (2013). Assessment of integrated skills. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Plakans, L., Liao, J.-T., & Wang, F. (2019). “I should summarize this whole paragraph”: Shared processes of reading and writing in iterative integrated assessment tasks. Assessing Writing, 40, 14–26.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. Routledge.
Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign language settings. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 183–206). Multillingual Matters: Bristol.
Ren, W., & Lv, X. (2021). The meta-analysis of alignment effects in the story continuation writing task. Foreign Language World, 4, 44–52.
Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y.-W. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses: Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 73–95.
Shi, B., Huang, L., & Lu, X. (2020). Effect of prompt type on test-takers’ writing performance and writing strategy use in the continuation task. Language Testing, 2, 1–28.
Shin, S.-Y., & Ewert, D. (2014). What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores? Language Testing, 32(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560257
Spivey, N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26.
Vahapassi, A. (1982). On the specification of the domain of school writing. Evaluation in Education: An International Review, Series, 5, 265–289.
van Ockenburg, L., van Weijen, D., & Rijalaardam, G. (2019). Learning to write synthesis texts: A review of intervention studies. Journal of Writing Research, 10(3), 402–428.
Wang, C. (2013). What kind of exerises faciliate L2 leaning? Contermporary Foreign Language Studies, 2, 28–31.
Wang, C., & Qi, L. (2013). A study of the continuation task as a proficiency test component. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 45(5), 707–718.
Wang, C., & Wang, M. (2015). Effect of alignment on L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 503–526.
Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: Investigating text features and rater reactions. University of Hawaii, Manoa.
Wu, Y. (2017). Language education in China: Teaching foreign languages. In R. Sybesma (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Chinese language and linguistics (pp. 515–527). Brill: Leiden, Netherlands.
Yang, H. (2014). Toward a model of strategies and summary writing performance. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(4), 403–431.
Yang, H., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80–103.
Ye, W., & Ren, W. (2019). Source use in the story continuation writing task. Assessing Writing, 39, 39–49.
Zhang, S., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of a xu-argument based iterative continuation task on an EFL learner’s linguistic and affective development: Evidence from errors, self-initiated error correction, and foreign language learning attitude. System, 98, 1–12.
Zhang, X., & Zhang, S. (2017). An empirical study on the integrative reading-to-write ability: A CSE perspective. Foreign Language World (5), 22–31.
Zhang, X., & Zhou, Y. (2014). A study on integrated English writing test tasks. Shanghai: Shanghai University Press.
Acknowledgements
This paper is part of the work for the Talent Project of the Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University and supported by the MOE Project of the Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: The SCWT task (25 points)
Read the following text and produce a two-paragraphed continuation according to the beginning sentences given in each paragraph. The continuation should be coherent to the source and about 150 words.
It was Friday at the end of a really, really long week. Mike and I were having friends over for dinner.
Just before I got home, Mike texted me to say that he had to stay late at work. I was now on my own to get everything ready for the night. Already running late myself, I could feel my frustration mounting as I drove to pick up Haydn and Michael from school. I rushed them into the car and informed them that we were making a few stops before heading home and that they needed to help me tidy the house.
Both of them started complaining immediately. For the next hour, I dragged the boys from one place to the next. The more I needed them to hurry, the more absent-minded and silly they became. I told them to cut it out, but they didn’t seem to listen that day. My patience was wearing thin.
Just as we finished our last task, the boys reminded me that we needed to stop at the pet store to buy crickets (蟋蟀). “You promised,” they said. And they were right. I had. But in the rush of the day, I’d completely forgotten. “Fine, but we need to be fast,” I said, and we raced to the pet shop.
Fifteen minutes later, we were back in the car with some new passengers: one hundred live crickets in a clear plastic bag. I pulled into the driveway with only forty-five minutes left to unpack the car, clean the house and set the table before my guests arrived. How would I make it?
I started barking orders at the boys like an officer, but they were focused on pouring the crickets from the plastic bag into the top of their little cricket-keeper thing.
My annoyance started to soar, and I shouted at them to hurry up, but to do so carefully.
Paragraph 1:
I don’t really know how it happened, but the next time I looked up, one hundred crickets were jumping all over my kitchen in chaos.
Paragraph 2:
At that moment, I realized I had two choices. I could continue feeling annoyed and angry, or I could let go and enjoy this ridiculous moment for what it was.
Appendix 2: The SCWT rating scale
Band (score range) | Descriptors |
|---|---|
Band 5 (21–25) | The continuation creates rich and reasonable content. The content is logical and complementary to the given source. The Continuation fits well into the given situation model |
The continuation uses diverse and appropriate grammatical structures and vocabulary with few errors that do not affect comprehensibility | |
Sentences within paragraphs are effectively connected with cohesion devices. The continuation is well-structured and coherent | |
Band 4 (16–20) | The continuation creates relatively rich and reasonable content. The content is relatively logical and complementary to the given source. The continuation fits into the given situation model |
The continuation uses relatively accurate and diverse grammatical structures and vocabulary with some errors that do not affect comprehensibility | |
Sentences within paragraphs are connected with cohesion devices in a relatively effective way. The continuation is relatively well-structured and coherent | |
Band 3 (11–15) | The continuation creates largely reasonable content. The content is logical to some extent and complementary to the given source. The continuation is relevant to the given situation model |
The continuation uses simple grammatical structures and vocabulary with some errors that do not affect comprehensibility | |
Sentences within paragraphs are connected with cohesion devices. The continuation is largely well-structured and coherent | |
Band 2 (6–10) | The continuation has some major content or logical issues and is somewhat relevant to the source text. The continuation is somewhat disconnected from the given situation model |
The continuation uses a limited range of grammatical structures and vocabulary with some errors that may affect comprehensibility | |
Sentences within paragraphs use limited transition words and other cohesion devices. The continuation lacks structure and coherence | |
Band 1 (1–5) | The continuation has many major contentful and logical issues or is partially copied from the source directly. It demonstrates limited or no relevance to the given situation model |
The continuation uses a limited range of simple grammatical structures and vocabulary with many errors that affect comprehensibility | |
Transition words and other cohesion devices are inappropriate or missing. The continuation is not structured or coherent | |
0 | No response or the continuation is too short or beyond recognition. The continuation is entirely copied from the source or totally irrelevant to the source |
Appendix 3: Descriptive statistics of the 33-item SCWT questionnaire (N = 199)
Mean | SD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Planning** | |||
Strategy-Planing*** | 1–1. Can set goals for reading according to requirements of tasks | 3.99 | 0.89 |
2–2. Can make a plan for the reading and writing process based on specific test conditions such as the available time | 4.01 | 0.81 | |
3–3. Can list the main points of writing based on the information available | 3.79 | 0.98 | |
4–4. Can plan the reading process according to stated goals | 3.76 | 0.94 | |
27-*. Can arrange content logically in a spatial or temporal sequence or sequence of significance | 3.57 | 1.02 | |
Writing** | |||
Writing ability*** | 6-*. Can use a number of sentence structures to express meaning | 3.41 | 1.16 |
9-*. Can effectively use linking words and pronouns to reinforce the coherence of a text | 3.65 | 1.00 | |
10–10. Can construct logical relationships between content points to reinforce the coherence of writing | 3.64 | 1.04 | |
11–11. Can clearly express the progression of stories | 3.66 | 1.01 | |
12–12. Can integrate multiple sources such as materials, background information to enrich the writing content | 3.51 | 1.10 | |
13-*. Can appropriately use vocabulary or grammatical devices (including inversion and repetition) to change, emphasise, and/or reinforce meaning | 3.37 | 1.13 | |
14–14. Can adopt methods (e.g. adding details) to enrich the writing content | 3.51 | 1.06 | |
24-*. Can continue the story according to the personality traits of the main characters | 3.72 | 0.97 | |
28-*. Can use common rhetorical devices such as simile or metaphor to reinforce the effect | 3.22 | 1.14 | |
Reading** | |||
Reading & comprehension*** | 16-*. Can infer implied meaning of a story | 3.45 | 1.08 |
18–18. Can appreciate the differences in behavior, attitude, and position of different characters | 3.72 | 0.94 | |
19-*. Can predict the progression of a story by reading | 3.66 | 0.99 | |
23–19. Can infer the author’s intent | 3.59 | 0.99 | |
25–6. Can distinguish between primary and secondary plots | 3.66 | 0.96 | |
26-*. Can adequately understand the meaning of words in reading materials | 3.62 | 0.95 | |
Meditation-selecting & constructing*** | 17-*. Can summarise the major plot details of a story | 3.71 | 0.95 |
22-*. Can simplify detailed information and summarise the main points | 3.67 | 0.97 | |
Meditation-transformation*** | 20-*. Can extract useful expression in reading materials | 3.72 | 0.97 |
21–13. Can imitate words and sentence patterns to express different meanings | 3.54 | 1.04 | |
Grammar** | |||
Strategy-executing*** | 5–5. Can use correct verb tenses | 3.71 | 1.02 |
7–7. Can correctly express time, place, direction, and sequence | 3.58 | 1.04 | |
8–8. Can correctly use both direct speech and reported speech to recount the speech of others | 3.48 | 1.07 | |
15-*. Can correctly use language to express intent, feeling, or attitude | 3.66 | 0.99 | |
29-*. Can modify texts to avoid repetition by diversifying words and syntactic structures | 3.41 | 1.06 | |
32-*. Can improve cohesion quality by correcting | 3.58 | 1.09 | |
33-*. Can correct obvious errors (e.g. errors in numbers of nouns or subject-verb agreement) | 3.81 | 0.99 | |
reading-generalization & evaluation*** | 30-*. Can check the consistency in the writing style of the source and the continuation | 3.50 | 1.05 |
31-*. Can appraise if the continuation continues the storyline | 3.63 | 1.08 | |
Appendix 4: Factor loading for the 33-item questionnaire (N = 199)
Item | Factor Loading | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writing | Transformation | Grammar | Reading and selecting | Planning | |
11 | 0.72 | ||||
15 | 0.68 | ||||
14 | 0.62 | ||||
12 | 0.61 | ||||
10 | 0.61 | ||||
29 | 0.68 | ||||
30 | 0.64 | ||||
21 | 0.59 | ||||
7 | 0.76 | ||||
8 | 0.73 | ||||
5 | 0.56 | ||||
18 | 0.69 | ||||
23 | 0.68 | ||||
24 | 0.68 | ||||
25 | 0.68 | ||||
1 | 0.74 | ||||
2 | 0.73 | ||||
3 | 0.70 | ||||
4 | 0.66 | ||||
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ye, W., Ren, W. Toward a better understanding of skill integration in integrated writing: a structural equation modeling study of EFL secondary learners’ test performance. Read Writ 36, 2739–2762 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10419-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10419-1