Modeling the relationships between test-taking strategies and test performance on a graph-writing task: Implications for EAP

English for Specific Purposes

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 174-187

  Yang, Hui Chun ^a  

^a NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Academic writing; Construct irrelevant variances; Graph writing tasks; Integrated tasks; Writing assessment; Writing strategies

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862811736     PISSN: 08894906     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2011.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Allan A. Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test takers. Language Testing 1992, 9(2):101-122.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Arbuckle J.L. Amos 16.0 user's guide 2007, SPSS, Chicago, IL.
4. Asención, Y. (2004). Validation of reading-to-write assessment tasks performed by second language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
5. Bachman L.F. Fundamental consideration in language testing 1990, Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
6. Bachman L.F. Some reflections on task-based language performance assessment. Language Testing 2002, 19(4):453-476.
7. Bertin J. Semiology of graphics: Diagrams networks maps 1983, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
8. Bollen K.A. Structural equations with latent variables 1989, Wiley, New York, NY.
9. Bridges G. Demonstrating cognitive validity of IELTS academic writing task 1. Research Notes 2010, 42:24-33.
10. Byrne B.M. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming 1994, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
11. Campbell C. Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. Second language writing 1990, 211-230. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. B. Kroll (Ed.).
12. Carpenter P.A., Shah P. A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 1998, 4:75-100.
13. Carswell, C. M. (1990). Graphical information processing: The effects of proximity compatibility. Paper presented at the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
14. Carswell C.M., Emery C., Lonon A.M. Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1993, 7(4):341-357.
15. Chapelle C.A., Enright M.K., Jamieson J. Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference?. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 2010, 29(1):3-13.
16. Chapelle C.A., Enright M.K., Jamieson J.M. Test score interpretation and use. Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language 2008, Routledge, New York, NY. C.A. Campbell, M.K. Enright, J.M. Jamieson (Eds.).
17. Charge N., Taylor L.B. Recent developments in IELTS. ELT Journal 1997, 51:374-380.
18. Cleveland W. Visualizing data 1993, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.
19. Cohen A.D. English for academic purposes in Brazil: The use of summary tasks. From testing to assessment: English as an international language 1994, 174-204. Longman, London, England. C. Hill, K. Parry (Eds.).
20. Cohen A.D. Strategies and processes in test taking and SLA. Interfaces between second language acquisition and language testing research 1998, 90-111. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. M.H. Long, J.C. Richards (Eds.).
21. Cohen, A. D. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners [Electronic Version]. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from . http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/digest_pdfs/0302cohen.pdf.
22. Cohen A.D. The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly 2006, 3(4):307-331.
23. Cohen A.D., Pinilla-Herrera A. Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. A new look at language teaching and testing: English as subject and vehicle 2009, 63-83. The Language Training and Testing Center, Taipei, Taiwan. T. Kao, Y. Lin (Eds.).
24. Cohen A.D., Upton T.A. 'I want to go back to the text': Response strategies on the reading subtest of the new TOEFL. Language Testing 2007, 24(2):209-250.
25. Cumming A. Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication 1990, 7:482-511.
26. Cumming A., Grant L., Mulcahy-Ernt P., Powers D. A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing 2004, 21(2):159-197.
27. Cumming A., Kantor R., Baba K., Erdosy U., Eouanzoui K., James M. Difference in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing 2005, 10:5-43.
28. Curcio F.R. Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 1987, 18:382-393.
29. Esmaeili H. Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students' reading and writing performance in an English language test. The Canadian Modern Language Review 2002, 58(4):599-622.
30. Feak C., Dobson B. Building on the impromptu: A source-based academic writing assessment. College ESL 1996, 6(1):73-84.
31. Fox J. From products to process: An ecological approach to bias detection. International Journal of Testing 2003, 3(1):21-48.
32. Fox J. Test decisions over time: Tracking validity. Language Testing 2004, 21(4):437-465.
33. Friel S., Bright F., Curcio G. Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2001, 32(2):124-158.
34. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. Multivariate data analysis 2006, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 6th ed.
35. Hollands J.G., Spence I. Judgements of change and proportion in graphical perception. Human Factors 1992, 34(3):313-334.
36. Hu L.-T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999, 6:1-55.
37. Hyland K. English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book 2006, Routledge, New York, NY.
38. Jöreskog K.G., Sörbom D. LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications 1989, SPSS, Chicago, IL. 2nd ed.
39. Kane M.T. Certification testing as an illustration of argument-based validation. Measurement 2004, 2:135-170.
40. Kane M.T. Validation. Educational measurement 2006, 17-64. The National Council on Measurement in Education & the American Council on Education, Washington, DC. R.L. Brennan (Ed.).
41. Katz, I. R., Xi, X., Kim, H., & Cheng, P. C.-H. (2004). Elicited speech from graph Items on the Test of Spoken English. TOEFL Research Report No. 74. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
42. Kosslyn S.M. Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 1989, 3:185-225.
43. Leki I., Carson J. Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing experiences of ESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly 1997, 31(1):39-69.
44. Lohse G.L. A cognitive model of understanding graphical perception. Human-Computer Interaction 1993, 8:353-388.
45. LTTC. (2010). GEPT advanced level scoring standards. Retrieved 02.03.10. http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/geptad/06.test_score.htm.
46. Manchón R.M., Murphy L., Roca de Larios J. Lexical retrieval processes and strategies in second language writing: A synthesis of empirical research. International Journal of English Studies 2007, 7:147-172.
47. Messick S. Validity. Educational measurement 1989, 13-104. American Council on Education & Macmillan, New York. 3rd ed. R.L. Linn (Ed.).
48. Mickan P., Slater S., Gibson C. Study of response validity of the IELTS writing subtest. International English language testing system 2000, vol. 3:29-48. IELTS Australia, Canberra, Australia.
49. Peebles, D., Cheng, P. C. -H., & Shadbolt, N. (1999). Multiple processes in graph-based reasoning. Paper session presented at the Conference Name. Retrieved Access Date.
50. Pinker S. A theory of graph comprehension. Artificial intelligence and the future of testing 1990, 73-126. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. R. Freedle (Ed.).
51. Plakans L. Discourse synthesis in integrated second language writing assessment. Language Testing 2009, 26(4):561-587.
52. Raimes A. What unskilled ESL students do as they write: A classroom study of composition. TESOL Quarterly 1985, 19(2):229-258.
53. Read J. Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes 1990, 9:109-121.
54. Rubin J., Chamot A.U., Harris V., Anderson N.J. Intervening in the use of strategies. Language learner strategies: 30years of research and practice 2007, 141-160. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. A.D. Cohen, E. Macaro (Eds.).
55. Shah P., Freedman E.G. Bar and line graph comprehension: An interaction of top-down and bottom-up processes. Topics in Cognitive Science 2009, 1-19.
56. Shaw S., Falvey P. The IELTS writing assessment revision project: Towards a revised rating scale 2008, University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations, Cambridge, England.
57. Simkin D., Hastie R. An information-processing analysis of graph perception. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1987, 82:454-465.
58. Spivey N. Discourse synthesis: Constructing texts in reading and writing 1984, International Reading Association, Newark, DE.
59. Spivey N. Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication 1990, 7:256-287.
60. Spivey N. The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning 1997, Academic Press, New York, NY.
61. Spivey N.N., King J.R. Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly 1989, 24:7-26.
62. Stevens J. Applied multivariate statistics for the social science 1992, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 2nd ed.
63. Trafton J.G., Trickett S.B. A new model of graph and visualization usage. Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2001, 1048-1053. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. J.D. Moore, K. Stenning (Eds.).
64. Upshur J.A., Turner C.E. Systematic effects in the rating of second-language speaking ability: Test method and learner discourse. Language Testing 1999, 16(1):82-111.
65. Watanabe, Y. (2001). Read-to-write tasks for the assessment of second language academic writing skills: Investigating text features and rater reactions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii-Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
66. Weigle S.C. Investigating rater/prompt interactions in writing assessment: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Assessing Writing 1999, 6(2):145-178.
67. Wilkinson L. Graphs for research in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist 1999, 27(3):384-407.
68. Xi X. Do visual chunks and planning impact performance on the graph description task in the SPEAK exam?. Language Testing 2005, 22(4):463-508.
69. Xi X. Aspects of performance on line graph description tasks: Influenced by graph familiarity and different task features. Language Testing 2010, 27(1):73-100.