Integrated task on students’ writing quality: Is it more effective?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v4i1.3336Keywords:
integrated task, independent task, quality of writingAbstract
Integrated tasks are popularly known and accepted as an effective way of improving students’ writing quality. However, it is still not clear to what really accounts for its effectiveness. This study examined whether the students who were facilitated by integrated task achieved higher writing quality than those who were not. Twenty - two students participated within the group experiment utilizing a counterbalance technique in controlling the order effect. In the first session, twelve students were asked to write an essay based on an integrated (INT) task while the other 12 wrote based on an independent (IND) task. Then, the task division was switched in the second writing session. Students’ writing quality were scored by three raters and were analyzed descriptively and inferentially using Wilcoxon signed rank test (WSRT). The results confirmed that the quality of students’ writing using both integrated and independent tasks was not significantly different. There are still other aspects contributing to writing quality. Thus, task types do not guarantee the students’ writing quality.
References
Barkaoui, K. (2014). Examining the impact of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFL-iBT writing tasks. Language Testing, 31(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213509810
Cho, Y., Rijmen, F., & Novak, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBTTM integrated writing tasks. Language Testing, 30(4), 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213478796
Cumming, J., Clark, S. E., Ste-Marie, D. M., McCullagh, P. and Hall, C. 2005. The functions of observational learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 517–537.
Delaney, A. Y. (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
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2013). Toward a transparent construct of reading-to-write tasks : The interface between discourse features and proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.642040
GhaVamnia, M., Tavakoli, M., & Esteki, M. (2013). The effect of pre-task and online planning conditions on complexity , accuracy , and fluency on EFL learners ’ written production. Porta Linguarum, 20(junio), 31–43.
Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2013). Reading and writing together: A critical component of English for academic purposes teaching and learning. Tesol Journal, 4(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.65
Grace, D., & Malang, U. N. (2018). Relationships among writing and reading as a respond to critical journal review. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 341–344.
Gu, L. (2014). At the interface between language testing and second language acquisition: Language ability and context of learning language. Language Testing, 31(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212469177
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (p. 1–27). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
In’nami, & YoKoizumi, R. (2016). Task and rater effects in L2 speaking and writing : A synthesis of generalizability studies. Language Testing, 33(3), 341–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215587390
Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks : Towards a more focussed definition for assessment purposes. Assessing Writing, 18(4), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.003
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2014). Rating written performance : What do raters do and why ? Language Testing, 31(3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526174
Leaper, D. A. (2014). The influence of prompt on group oral tests. Language Testing, 31(2), 177–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213498237
Ling, G., Mollaun, P., & Xi, X. (2014). A study on the impact of fatigue on human raters when scoring speaking responses. Language Testing, 31(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214530699
Nitta, R., & Nakatsuhara, F. (2014). A multifaceted approach to investigating pre-task planning effects on paired oral test performance. Language Testing, 31(2), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532213514401
Pertiwii, Dian, Ngadiso, and Drajat, N. A. (2018). The effectiveness of dictogloss in teaching writing skill viewed from students’s motivation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 8(1), 366–380.
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., & Bilki, Z. (2016). Shaping a score : Complexity , accuracy , and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language Testing, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537
Rassaei, E. (2014). Effects of textual enhancement and input enrichment on L2 development. Tesol Journal, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.149
Sawaki, Y., Quinlan, T., & Lee, Y. (2013). Understanding learner strengths and weaknesses : Assessing performance on an integrated writing task. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(1), 73–95.
Shi, L., & Ma, Z. (2016). Application of visual interactive concept map in college English writing teaching. Internaltional Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(11), 32–36.
Shin, S., & Ewert, D. (2015). What accounts for integrated reading-to-write task scores ? Language Testing, 32(2), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214560257
Thi, M., Nguyen, T., Pham, H. T., & Pham, T. M. (2015). The effects of input enhancement and recasts on the development of second language pragmatic competence. innovation in language learning and teaching, (April 2015), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1026907
Wette, R. (2014). Teacher-led collaborative modelling in academic L2 writing courses. ELT Journal, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu043
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
Yan, X. (2014). An examination of rater performance on a local oral english proficiency test : A mixed-methods approach. Language Testing, 31(4), 501–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214536171
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
Zhang, X. (2017). Reading – writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815623291
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish in ELTEJ agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the ELTEJ right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
