Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between three discourse synthesis skills (i.e., quotation, summarization, and connection) and students’ overall integrated writing performance in Chinese, students’ first language, and English, their second language. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that 63.6% of the variance in students’ overall Chinese integrated writing performance was accounted for by the three discourse synthesis skills, with connection and summarization contributed almost equally to the overall scores. In the English test, the three skills explained 47.9% of the variance. Cross-linguistic facilitation of the L1 discourse synthesis skills to the overall L2 integrated writing performance was observed, although the predictive strength of the three skills was comparatively low. Eye-tracking data together with subsequent stimulated-recall interviews illuminated the differences in students’ approaches to discourse synthesis. Findings of the study support the decisive role of discourse synthesis abilities in both L1 and L2 integrated writing assessments. Implications for writing instruction are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asención Delaney, Y. (2008). Investigating the reading-to-write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.04.001.
Bax, S., & Chan, S. H. C. (2016). Researching the cognitive validity of GEPT high-intermediate and advanced reading: An eye tracking and stimulated recall study. Retrieved from https://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/lttc-gept-grants/RReport/RG07.pdf.
Cheong, C.M., Zhu, X., & Liao, X. (2018). Differences between the relationship of L1 learners’ performance in integrated writing with both independent listening and independent reading cognitive skills. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 779–811.
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., 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.
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.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002222.
Curriculum Development Council, & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2007a). English language curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4–6). Hong Kong.
Curriculum Development Council, & Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2007b). 中國語文課程及評估指引:中四至中六 (Chinese language curriculum and assessment guide: Secondary 4–6) Hong Kong.
Deygers, B., Van den Branden, K., & Peters, E. (2017). Checking assumed proficiency: Comparing L1 and L2 performance on a university entrance test. Assessing Writing, 32, 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.12.005.
Education Bureau. (2010). Enriching our language environment, realising our vision: Fine-tuning of medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Retrieved from https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-secondary/moi/moi_booklet-eng-17apr2010.pdf.
Grabe, W. (2001). Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 15–47). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations, and implications for instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056004473.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2005). 香港中文會考中國語文科水平參照等級描述及示例 (Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination Chinese language level descriptors and exemplars). Hong Kong: Government Printer.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2010). HKCEE Chinese language examination report and question papers. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2012). HKDSE Chinese language examination report and question papers. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. (2017). 2017 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination question papers (with marking schemes and candidates’ performance). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87(4), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.
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.
Keung, Y.-C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2009). Transfer of reading-related cognitive skills in learning to read Chinese (L1) and English (L2) among Chinese elementary school children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.11.001.
Kim, Y.-S. G., & Piper, B. (2019). Cross-language transfer of reading skills: An empirical investigation of bidirectionality and the influence of instructional environments. Reading and Writing, 32(4), 839–871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9889-7.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2008). A synthesis of research on second language writing in English. New York, NY: Routledge.
Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing, 26(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340192.
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.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002.
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.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2017). Exploring the relationship of organization and connection with scores in integrated writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 31, 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.005.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2001). Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write. Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02404.x.
Savage, R., Kozakewich, M., Genesee, F., Erdos, C., & Haigh, C. (2017). Predicting writing development in dual language instructional contexts: Exploring cross-linguistic relationships. Developmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12406.
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.
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., et al. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00213.
Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In M. Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (pp. 231–250). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Shum, K. K., Ho, C. S., Siegel, L. S., & Au, T. K. (2016). First-language longitudinal predictors of second-language literacy in young L2 learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.139.
Sparks, R. L. (2012). Individual differences in L2 learning and long-term L1–L2 relationships. Language Learning, 62(s2), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00704.x.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term crosslinguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59(1), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00504.x.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2012). Do L1 reading achievement and L1 print exposure contribute to the prediction of L2 proficiency? Language Learning, 62(2), 473–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00694.x.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., & Luebbers, J. (2019). Individual differences in L2 achievement mirror individual differences in L1 skills and L2 aptitude: Crosslinguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills. Foreign Language Annals. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12390.
Spivey, N. N., & King, J. R. (1989). Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(1), 7–26.
Wang, M., Perfetti, C. A., & Liu, Y. (2005). Chinese-English biliteracy acquisition: Cross-language and writing system transfer. Cognition, 97(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.10.001.
Whalen, K., & Ménard, N. (1995). L1 and L2 writers’ strategic and linguistic knowledge: A model of multiple-level discourse processing. Language Learning, 45(3), 381–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00447.x.
Wolfersberger, M. (2013). Refining the construct of classroom-based writing-from-readings assessment: The role of task representation. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2012.750661.
Yang, H.-C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading-listening-writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.6.
Yu, G. (2009). The shifting sands in the effects of source text summarizability on summary writing. Assessing Writing, 14(2), 116–137.
Yu, G. (2013). The use of summarization tasks: Some lexical and conceptual analyses. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 96–109.
Yu, G., He, L., & Isaacs, T. (2017). The cognitive processes of taking IELTS Academic Writing Task 1: An eye-tracking study. Retrieved from https://www.ielts.org/teaching-and-research/research-reports/ielts_online_rr_2017-2
Zhu, X. (2005). A study of setting standards of Chinese Language assessment in reading, writing and integrated skills (Unpublished technical report, project no: CD/C/13-0309). Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Zhu, X., Li, X., Yu, G., Cheong, C. M., & Liao, X. (2016). 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.
Funding
The study reported in this article was funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (Reference No. 15640416).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Analytic integrated writing rubrics
Appendix: Analytic integrated writing rubrics
(The Chinese integrated writing marking rubrics are consistent with the English rubrics.)
-
1.
Quotation
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
9–10 | Important information is precisely quoted from the readings and/or the recording (i.e., no similar information can be summarized) |
7–8 | Important information is precisely quoted from the readings and/or the recording, but a small part of the information quoted needs to be summarized |
5–6 | Important information is quoted from the readings and/or the recording, but some of the information quoted is inappropriate (i.e., it is not important or needs to be summarized) |
3–4 | Information is quoted from the readings and/or the recording, but at least half of the information quoted is inappropriate (i.e., it is not important or needs to be summarized) |
1–2 | Most of the content is directly copied from the readings and/or from the recording. The writer made no attempt to distinguish key information from the source materials |
0 | No attempt was made to quote the source materials |
-
2.
Summarization (single source text)
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
9–10 | Important information presented in the readings and/or from the recording is comprehensively and concisely summarized |
7–8 | Important information presented in the readings and/or from the recording is purposefully summarized, but the expression is not concise |
5–6 | Some of the important information presented in the readings and/or from the recording is summarized while some key points are missing |
3–4 | Information presented in the readings and/or from the recording is summarized, but the selection of information is unbalanced with many key points missing |
1–2 | The writer rarely summarized the information. Most of the content is merely a restatement of the information presented in the readings or from the recording |
0 | No attempt was made to summarize the source materials |
-
3.
Connection (multiple source texts)
Marks | Level descriptor |
|---|---|
9–10 | Differing perspectives (from the readings and the recording) are comprehensively and concisely synthesized |
7–8 | Differing perspectives (from the readings or the recording) are clearly synthesized |
5–6 | Differing perspectives (from the readings or the recording) are synthesized, but the content is not sufficient |
3–4 | An attempt to synthesize differing perspectives (from the readings or the recording) is made, but most of the content is not reasonable |
1–2 | An attempt to synthesize differing perspectives (from the readings or the recording) is not evident. Only a single perspective (for/against) is present |
0 | No attempt was made to synthesize information from the source materials |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhu, X., Li, G.Y., Cheong, C.M. et al. Secondary school students’ discourse synthesis performance on Chinese (L1) and English (L2) integrated writing assessments. Read Writ 34, 49–78 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10065-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10065-x