Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences between the relationship of L1 learners’ performance in integrated writing with both independent listening and independent reading cognitive skills

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent decades, integrated language competence has been highlighted in the language curricula taught in schools and institutions, and the relationship between test-takers’ performance on integrated tasks and comprehension sources has been much studied. The current study employed the frameworks of reading and listening comprehension processes to examine the difference between the effects of reading competence and listening competence on integrated writing performance. A total of 152 Secondary 5 students from five local schools in Hong Kong responded to three tasks, including an independent listening task, an independent reading task and an integrated writing task. The reading cognitive skills contributed more towards the performance of the integrated writing task than the listening cognitive skills did. Furthermore, the interaction between the relationships of reading and listening to the integrated writing performance was significant. Three subskills each for both listening and reading that belong to higher-order thinking skills—Elaborating, Evaluating and Creating—had significant correlation with integrated writing performance. Implications for the teaching of integrated writing were also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In Hong Kong, students are classified into three bands of secondary schools according to their performance on a public placement test at the end of their primary schooling. Usually, students at the highest performance level are assigned to Band 1 schools, while those at the lowest performance level are assigned to Band 3 schools.

References

  • Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alderson, C. J. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Åberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students’ results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascención, Y. (2005, Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Validation of reading-to-write assessment tasks performed by second language learners. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.

  • Beaufort, A. (2004). Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English, 39(2), 136–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigot, L. L., & Rouet, J. F. (2007). The impact of presentation format, task assignment, and prior knowledge on students’ comprehension of multiple online documents. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. (1995). Dimensions of difficulty in listening comprehension. In D. Mendelsohn & J. Rubin (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 59–73). San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 58–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J.-F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. V. D. Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (2008). Test score interpretation and use. In C. A. Chapelle, M. K. Enright, & J. M. Jamieson (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. H. C., Wu, R. Y. F., & Weir, C. J. (2014). Examining the context and cognitive validity of the GEPT advanced writing task 1: A comparison with real-life academic writing tasks. LTTC-GEPT Research Report, 3, 1–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, S. H. C., Inoue, C., & Taylor, L. (2015). Developing rubrics to assess the reading-into-writing skills: A case study. Assessing Writing, 26, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2005.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Eouanzoui, K., Erdosy, U., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for the new TOEFL test. TOEFL ® Monograph No. MS-30. Princeton, NJ: ETS.

  • Cumming, A. (2013). Assessing integrated writing tasks for academic purposes: Promises and perils. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.622016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A. (2014). Assessing integrated skills. In A. J. Kunnan (Ed.), The companion to language assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 216–229). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, Y. A. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. A., Styllianou, P., Karefillidou, C., & Papageorgiou, P. (2005). The relationship between listening and reading comprehension of different types of tests at increasing grade levels. Reading Psychology, 26, 55–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710590910584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 599–622. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.4.599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, E. G., & Shah, P. (2002). Toward a model of knowledge-based graph comprehension. In Paper presented at the diagrammatic representation and inference, second international conference, diagrams 2002, Callaway Gardens, GA, USA.

  • Frost, K., Elder, C., & Wigglesworth, G. (2011). Investigating the validity of an integrated listening-speaking task: A discourse-based analysis of test takers’ oral performances. Language Testing, 29(3), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211424479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gebril, A. (2009). Score generalizability of academic writing tasks: Does one test method fit it all? Language Testing, 26(4), 507–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. T., & Tyler, S. J. (1976). Psycholinguistic processing in reading and listening among good and poor readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8, 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967609547197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Writing Assessment, 18, 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgements of task difficulty on essay tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90005-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2013). ‘Why am I paraphrasing?’: Undergraduate ESL writers’ engagement with source-based academic writing and reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12, 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (HKCDC). (2001). Chinese language curriculum guide (Secondary1–7). Hong Kong, PRC: Education and Manpower Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). (2005). HKCEE Chinese language level descriptors and exemplars for standards-referenced assessment. Hong Kong: HKEAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). (2012). Hong Kong diploma of secondary education examination revised assessment framework for category A subjects (Chinese Language). Hong Kong: HKEAA. Retrieved from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKDSE/Subject_Information/chi_lang/2013hkdse-clang.pdf.

  • Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamhi, A. (2007). Knowledge deficits: The true crisis in education. ASHA Leader, 12(7), 28–29. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FMP.12072007.28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, C. (2014). Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development: A re-examination of L1 and L2 summarization practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61551-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobrin, J. L., Deng, H., & Shaw, E. J. (2011). The association between SAT prompt characteristics, response features, and essay scores. Assessing Writing, 16, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewkowicz, J. A. (1994). Writing from sources: Does source material help or hinder students’ performance? In M. Bird (Ed.), Language and learning: Paper presented at the annual international language in education conference. ERIC Document (ED 386 050).

  • Lee, Y. W. (2006). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks. Language Testing, 23(2), 131–166. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt325oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linderholm, T., Therriault, D. J., & Kwon, H. (2014). Multiple science text processing: Building comprehension skills for college student readers. Reading Psychology, 35(4), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.726696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. T., Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2016). Impact of source texts and prompts on students’ genre uptake. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 11–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework–key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. 2017 Aug 30. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf.

  • Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L. (2010). Independent vs. integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.215251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L. M., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in L2 integrated writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plakans, L. (2015). Integrated second language writing assessment: Why? What? How? Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(4), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. (1990). Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes, 9, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90002-T.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 573–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rub-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign Language Annals, 34(1), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02404.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.633305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Gerjets, P., Huk, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2014). Extending multimedia research: How do prerequisite knowledge and reading comprehension affect learning from text and pictures. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.2307/747597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, S. S., Oakley, D. D., Worthen, D., Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1977). Recall of thematically relevant material by adolescent good and poor readers as a function of written vs. oral presentation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.4.381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sticht, T. G., Beck, L. J., Hauke, R. N., Kleinman, G. M., & James, J. H. (1974). Auding and reading: A developmental model. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2016). How source information shapes lay interpretations of science conflicts: Interplay between sourcing, conflict explanation, source evaluation, and claim evaluation. Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1629–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trites, L., & McGroarty, M. (2005). Reading to learn and reading to integrate: New tasks for reading comprehension tests? Language Testing, 22(2), 174–210. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt299oa.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandergrift, L. (1999). Facilitating second language listening comprehension: Acquiring successful strategies. ELT Journal, 53(3), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.3.168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Young, M., Yuhtsuen, T., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The Landscape Model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of memory representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71–98). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddill, P. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (1992). Pictorial enhancement of text memory: Limitations imposed by picture type and comprehension skill. Memory and Cognition, 20, 472–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9(1), 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wette, R. (2010). Evaluating student learning in a university-level EAP unit on writing using sources. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (1987). Apprenticeship in literacy. Interchange, 18(1), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L., & Shi, L. (2003). Exploring six MBA students’ summary writing by introspection. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00016-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H. C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoro, T. (2007). Meaning to read or reading for meaning: Promoting reading comprehension proficiency of Latino English learners. (Doctoral Dissertation). UMI Microform 3269659. Retrieved from LLBA.

  • Yu, G., Rea-Dickins, P., & Kiely, R. (2012). The cognitive processes of taking IELTS academic writing task 1. IELTS Research Reports Volume 11, 2012, 2nd edition, 1.

  • Yu, G., He, L., & Isaacs, T. (2017). The cognitive processes of taking IELTS academic writing task 1: An eye-tracking study. IELTS Research Reports Online Series, 105.

  • Zhu, X. (2005a). A study of setting standards of Chinese Language assessment in reading, writing and integrated skills. Technical Report (unpublished). Project No: CD/C/13-0309. Commissioned by Education and Manpower Bureau, HKSAR. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

  • Zhu, X. (2005b). Further development of the model of cognitive abilities and related questions on reading test. Journal of Chinese Language Education., 2, 18–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2012). Performance of Putonghua listening skills of secondary school students in Hong Kong. In S. D. Chan (Ed.), A study on Putonghua proficiency test for secondary school students (pp. 59–108). Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. (2015). Implementing integrated testing of Chinese Language in Hong Kong secondary schools: The current situation and improvement strategies. Educational Research, 36(5), 114–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., Li, X., Yu, G., Cheong, C. M., & Liao, X. (2016a). Exploring the relationships between independent listening and listening-reading-writing tasks in Chinese language testing: Toward a better understanding of the construct underlying integrated writing tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2016.1210609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., Liao, X., & Deng, M. (2016b). Concerns of secondary school teachers about reforming Chinese language instruction with the use of a Comprehension Process Model of reading in Hong Kong. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 16, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2016.16.01.06.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X., & Wu, Y. L. (2013). Secondary school students’ difficulties and learning expectation in integrated Chinese Language tasks in Hong Kong. Education Journal, 41(1–2), 27–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong

    Choo Mui Cheong

  2. Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Xinhua Zhu

  3. Department of Chinese Language Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, N.T., Hong Kong

    Xian Liao

Authors
  1. Choo Mui Cheong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xinhua Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xian Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xian Liao.

Additional information

This study forms a part of a larger ongoing project aimed at exploring the cognitive process of Hong Kong secondary students in processing integrated writing tasks.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4, 5 and 6.

Table 4 Sample questions from the reading task
Full size table
Table 5 Sample questions from the listening task
Full size table
Table 6 Marking rubrics for integrated writing
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cheong, C.M., Zhu, X. & Liao, X. Differences between the relationship of L1 learners’ performance in integrated writing with both independent listening and independent reading cognitive skills. Read Writ 31, 779–811 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9811-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9811-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation