Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 31, Issue 4, pp 779–811 | Cite as

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

  • Choo Mui Cheong
  • Xinhua Zhu
  • Xian Liao
Article
First Online:

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.

Keywords

Integrated writing Reading process Listening process Cognitive skill Chinese language as L1 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Alderson, C. J. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ascención, Y. (2005, Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Validation of reading-to-write assessment tasks performed by second language learners. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The development of writing abilities. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Buck, G. (2001). Assessing listening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies, 4(3), 164–195.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (HKCDC). (2001). Chinese language curriculum guide (Secondary1–7). Hong Kong, PRC: Education and Manpower Bureau.Google Scholar
  37. Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). (2005). HKCEE Chinese language level descriptors and exemplars for standards-referenced assessment. Hong Kong: HKEAA.Google Scholar
  38. 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.
  39. Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 2(2), 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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).Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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
  61. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sinatra, G. M. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 115–130.  https://doi.org/10.2307/747597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wells, G. (1987). Apprenticeship in literacy. Interchange, 18(1), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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.Google Scholar
  81. 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.Google Scholar
  82. 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.Google Scholar
  83. 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.Google Scholar
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongPok Fu LamHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Chinese and Bilingual StudiesThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonHong Kong
  3. 3.Department of Chinese Language StudiesThe Education University of Hong KongTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options