Startseite The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?

  • Choo Mui Cheong ORCID logo , Wandong Xu ORCID logo , Wanru Pang ORCID logo , Siyu Zhu ORCID logo und Xian Liao ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 19. Juli 2024
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching
Aus der Zeitschrift International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching Band 63 Heft 2

Abstract

Integrated group discussion (IGD) tasks represent a new type of integrated speaking task that requires students to communicate with their peers after comprehending and using provided source materials. With its potential to enhance effective communication and information literacy, IGD stands at the core of language education. Although the IGD task type has become increasingly popular, its construct is still unexplored. In this study, 124 Hong Kong undergraduate students completed an IGD task and a group discussion (GD) task (i.e., without source materials) in Putonghua. Four factors, speech and expression, content with source use, interaction, and language usage, were extracted to represent IGD performance. Two indicators of GD performance (linguistic expression and engagement in interaction) significantly predicted IGD performance, explaining 21.9 % of its total variance. The large proportion of unexplained IGD performance variance suggests that IGD tasks may be worth implementing. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed in details.

Keywords: group discussion; integrated group discussion; construct; undergraduate students; speaking assessment
Corresponding author: Xian Liao, Department of Chinese Language Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong Kong, E-mail:

  1. Research Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  2. Informed consent statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

  3. Institutional review board statement: The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Departmental Research Committee of University.

  4. Data availability statement: The data are not publicly available due to ethical considerations, though the data may be made available on request from the corresponding author.

  5. Competing interests: none.

Appendix A Rubric for integrated group discussion (IGD) task

Content of the discussion output

Level 1. Thesis 2. Evidence 3. Argument 4. Creativity
9–10 Exhibiting a clear and in-depth thesis with insightful viewpoints that are focused on the topic throughout the discussion. Providing concrete evidence from the input source materials (aural and written) through comprehensively selecting, summarising or synthesising processes to effectively support the thesis. Presenting a convincing explanation and reasoning by connecting to prior knowledge and the input source materials.

The warrant is well backed up and elaborated throughout the discussion.		 Offering unique insights and presenting ideas in a creative approach that deepens the discussion.
7–8 Exhibiting a clear and appropriate thesis in terms of good comprehension of the topic. Providing sufficient evidence from the input source materials through selecting, summarising or synthesising processes to appropriately support the thesis. Presenting a sound explanation and reasoning to support the warrant by connecting to prior knowledge and the input source materials. Offering new ideas or presenting ideas in a creative manner once in a while.
5–6 Exhibiting a basic thesis on the topic, but that is neither fully supported nor logical. Providing some evidence (which may be insufficient) from the input source materials through selecting or summarising that partially supports the viewpoints. Presenting a necessary explanation and reasoning to support the warrant by partially using prior knowledge and the input source materials. Offering rational ideas or constructive thoughts on the topic during the discussion.
3–4 Exhibiting a vague thesis that is not directly related to the topic. The main points may be deduced but are not explicitly stated. Providing limited evidence based on the input source materials; some important information may be overlooked; the viewpoints are not supported. Presenting a limited explanation; the reasoning lacks logic, and the argument is flawed and unpersuasive. Providing some relevant ideas.
1–2 Exhibiting an unidentifiable thesis. The thesis and viewpoints do not match. Providing almost no evidence to support the thesis. Presenting no or an ineffective explanation and reasoning; no elaboration made. Offering invalid or irrelevant ideas that are not related to the topic.

Linguistic skills

Level 5. Coherence 6. Lexis 7. Grammar 8. Pronunciation 9. Intonation
9–10 Developing and organising ideas in a fluent, clear and logical manner throughout the discussion.

Applying appropriate techniques and devices (e.g., introductory and concluding statements, cohesive features, succinct transitions) consistently.		 Using a wide variety of vocabulary that conveys rich content precisely and expressively. Using varied and well-structured sentences/syntax that precisely and effectively communicate on the topic. Enunciating with precise and accurate pronunciation; can be understood effortlessly during the discussion. Well-modulated speech is used to display enthusiasm through the use of vocal qualities (e.g., stress, rising/falling tones, pacing and pauses). The intent of the speaker is expressed accurately through the use of tones.
7–8 Developing and organising most of the ideas in a logical manner. Some of the techniques and devices used are generally helpful in transmitting the ideas well. Using an adequate range of vocabulary to convey ideas accurately most of the time. Using correct sentence structures/syntax with occasional errors (e.g., use of slang, reductions) that appropriately communicate on the topic. Enunciating with accurate pronunciation most of the time. Occasionally, pronunciation errors occur, but they do not affect the conveying of meaning. Vocal modulation appropriately supports the intent of speech. Vocal variety, articulation, vocalised pauses and pacing reflect the content well.
5–6 Developing ideas with lapses in logical sequences at times.

Using necessary techniques and devices, but not always appropriately.		 Using basic vocabulary with occasional inaccuracies. Using sentence structures/syntax that are mostly appropriate for the topic. Some common errors are made, but they rarely reduce understandability. Some mispronunciation occurs with sporadically effective use of pronunciation features. General comprehension is not impeded but the mispronunciation of individual words or sounds reduces clarity. Some vocal variation that generally supports the intent of speech. Fillers are generally avoided.
3–4 Organising ideas illogically most of the time, showing little control or progression of the topic. Limited use of techniques and devices. Using limited vocabulary and making frequent errors and improprieties in diction, only conveying basic meaning. Using sentence structures/syntax with grammatical errors that often lead to misunderstanding. Stilted or slurred speech with many words unclear. A limited range of pronunciation features used. Mispronunciations are frequent and cause difficulties for listeners. Vocal modulation exhibits slow, strained, unnatural speech. Fillers are used, voice is sometimes too soft, or articulation is too vague for listeners to hear or comprehend.
1–2 Failing to communicate ideas with any logic. Only producing isolated ideas/words or fragmented utterances. Conveying meaning inappropriately, vaguely and misleadingly during the discussion. Making numerous syntactic errors; almost unable to use proper sentences at all. Speech is often unintelligible with mispronunciations. Poor vocal modulation and often incomprehensible. Frequent use of vocalised pauses and lacking vocal variety and clear articulation.

Interaction skills

Level 10. Kinesics 11. Responding 12. Directing
9–10 Using varied means of body language, such as facial expressions, eye contact, posture and gestures demonstrating high levels of confidence and effectively matching the intent of speech. Highly engaged in the discussion by accurately and actively responding to all other interlocutors, politely disagreeing with opposing views with good elaboration. Leading and directing the discussion thread in various ways, such as summarising to bring everyone’s attention to what has been discussed; drawing conclusions to end the discussion; inviting other interlocutors to expand on views; initiating a new discussion thread that is relevant and interesting; challenging the discussion in a constructive way; and avoiding dominance by any members in the group.
7–8 Appropriately using body language, occasionally with some mannerisms that do not match the intent of speech. Seems natural and relaxed for most of the time. Responding accurately to other interlocutors’ viewpoints or questions; acknowledging opposing views, effectively elaborating on the different viewpoints. Directing the discussion thread in several ways, such as summarising the discussion, drawing conclusions, asking questions that seek clarification and sometimes broaden the discussion topic; occasionally challenging the discussion with an inappropriate attitude or dominating the discussion.
5–6 Body language mostly demonstrates comfort in interacting, with regular referencing to the notes taken during the preparation of the discussion. Adequate eye contact and gestures. Responding to other interlocutors briefly. Expressing agreement or disagreement with other viewpoints without full coverage of the viewpoints. Demonstrating some awareness of leading or directing in a constructive manner. Focusing on articulating his/her own viewpoints basically, asking simple questions mainly for clarification purposes during the discussion.
3–4 Demonstrating reluctance in interacting, e.g., less eye contact, inappropriate gestures and posture. Too much or too little hand movement. Reading the notes too much. Adequately answering some direct questions related to the content. Occasionally demonstrating some agreement or disagreement with others’ opinions without any elaboration. Taking turns during the discussion without overly long pauses. Demonstrating weak awareness in directing. Only focusing on articulating his/her own viewpoints. Questions only serve as fillers. Little cooperation with other interlocutors during the discussion.
1–2 Almost no eye contact and always looking down. Body language exhibiting high anxiety and lack of confidence. Distracting mannerisms that divert away from communication. Showing no awareness of other interlocutors. Showing no awareness of other interlocutors; limited involvement throughout the discussion.

Appendix B Rubric for group discussion (GD) task

1. Content (40) 2. Linguistic expression (20) 3. Response (20) 4. Engagement in interaction (20)
Level 1 33–40 17–20 17–20 17–20
Addressing the topic to produce a convincing thesis that is well-supported with concrete evidence, creative ideas and insights.

Organising the related content systematically and logically throughout the discussion.		 Conversing fluently with rich vocabulary. High vocal quality with accurate pronunciation and varied intonation techniques. Responding to interlocutors with precision. Providing more perspective and creating greater interaction to build a deeper understanding of the topic. Highly motivated to engage in discussion politely. Demonstrating activeness and confidence while conversing.
Level 2 25–32 13–16 13–16 13–16
Addressing the topic to produce a clear thesis supported with sufficient evidence and persuasive opinions.

Organising the related content systematically and logically most of the time.		 Generally fluent during the discussion, with occasional repetition or self-correction. Using appropriate vocabulary. Pronunciation is accurate most of the time, and intonation supports the expression of ideas. Responding to interlocutors with precise and elaborated viewpoints. Making some effort to interact with others. Engaging well with others politely. Showing some interest in the discussion topic.
Level 3 17–24 9–12 9–12 9–12
The thesis statement is simple, and some necessary evidence and explanations are provided if asked.

Organising content logically at times, and some gaps occur that hinder the flow of thought.		 Conversing hesitatively, with some repetition and self-correction. Using simple vocabulary and limited use of intonation to convey ideas. Providing some responses to others when asked. Asking simple questions to keep the conversation going. Lack of initiative in conversation. Generally engaged in the discussion with occasional distraction.

Sometimes passively listening without interruption.
Level 4 9–16 5–8 5–8 5–8
No thesis statement is provided. Some fragmented content is articulated with weak organisation and limited communication intent. Maintaining the flow of speech with strain. Limited vocabulary is used. Mispronunciations and vocalised pauses are frequent and vocal variety is lacking. Only providing limited responses with short utterances when asked. Inactive during the discussion. Only willing to express his/her basic viewpoints with minimal engagement with others.
Level 5 1–8 1–4 1–4 1–4
Content is fragmented and has no communication intent. Unintelligibility of speech. No valid interaction with others. Lack of interest and engagement.

Appendix C Correlations between variables for EFA

IGD1 Thesis IGD2 Evidence IGD3 Argument IGD4 Creativity IGD5 Coherence IGD6 Lexis IGD7 Grammar IGD8 Pronunciation IGD9 Intonation IGD10 Kinesics IGD11 Responding IGD12 Directing
IGD1 Thesis 1
IGD2 Evidence 0.638 1
IGD3 Argument 0.805 0.609 1
IGD4 Creativity 0.678 0.586 0.650 1
IGD5 Coherence 0.668 0.445 0.672 0.443 1
IGD6 Lexis 0.667 0.479 0.615 0.512 0.725 1
IGD7 Grammar 0.630 0.484 0.574 0.445 0.790 0.802 1
IGD8 Pronunciation 0.316 0.280 0.343 0.176 0.491 0.460 0.463 1
IGD9 Intonation 0.434 0.364 0.431 0.269 0.490 0.553 0.448 0.687 1
IGD10 Kinesics 0.320 0.333 0.345 0.216 0.323 0.352 0.270 0.338 0.617 1
IGD11 Responding 0.595 0.460 0.566 0.453 0.537 0.476 0.427 0.263 0.425 0.421 1
IGD12 Directing 0.480 0.414 0.363 0.351 0.377 0.388 0.319 0.198 0.366 0.414 0.644 1

Appendix D The scree plot for the IGD dataset

References

Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrien S. Palmer. 1996. Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bachman, Lyle F. & Adrien S. Palmer. 2010. Language assessment in practice: Developing Language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Barkaoui, Khaled, Lindsay Brooks, Merrill Swain & Sharon Lapkin. 2013. Test-takers’ strategic behaviors in independent and integrated speaking tasks. Applied Linguistics 34(3). 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams046.Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, Annie, Noriko Iwashita & Tim McNamara. 2005. An examination of rater orientations and test-taker performance on English-for-academic-purposes speaking tasks (TOEFL monograph no. 29). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.10.1002/j.2333-8504.2005.tb01982.xSuche in Google Scholar

Byrnes, Heidi. 2008. Assessing content and language. In Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 37–52. Boston, MA: Springer.Suche in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, Zoltán Dörnyei & Sarah Thurrell. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6(2). 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5070/l462005216.Suche in Google Scholar

Chin, Christine & Jonathan Osborne. 2010. Students’ questions and discursive interaction: Their impact on argumentation during collaborative group discussions in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(7). 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385.Suche in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2020. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available at: www.coe.int/lang-cefr.Suche in Google Scholar

Crossley, Scott, Amanda Clevinger & Youjin Kim. 2014. The role of lexical properties and cohesive devices in text integration and their effect on human ratings of speaking proficiency. Language Assessment Quarterly 11(3). 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2014.926905.Suche in Google Scholar

Cumming, Alister, Robert Kantor, Donald Powers, Terry Santos & Carol Taylor. 2000. TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper (TOEFL monograph series no. 18). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Suche in Google Scholar

De Jong, Nivja H. 2023. Assessing second language speaking proficiency. Annual Review of Linguistics 9(1). 541–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics−030521−052114.10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-052114Suche in Google Scholar

De Jong, Nivja H., Margarita P. Steinel, Arjen F. Florijn, Rob Schoonen & Jan H. Hulstijn. 2012. Facets of speaking proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 34(1). 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000489.Suche in Google Scholar

De Reuiter, Jan Peter. 2000. The production of gesture and speech. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620850.018Suche in Google Scholar

DeVellis, Robert F. & Carolyn T. Thorpe. 2016. Scale development: Theory and applications, 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Dimitrov, Dimiter M. 2012. Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.Suche in Google Scholar

Douglas, Dan. 1997. Testing speaking ability in academic contexts: Theoretical considerations. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Suche in Google Scholar

Educational Testing Service. 2008. TOEFL iBT tips: How to prepare for the TOEFL iBT. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Suche in Google Scholar

Educational Testing Service. 2020. The official guide to the TOEFL iBT test, 6th edn. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2001. Memory for language. In Peter Robinson & Peter Jake Robinson (eds.), Cognition and second language instruction, 33–68. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.004Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, James D. 1996. Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Suche in Google Scholar

Farch, Claus & Gabriele Kasper. 1984. Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34(1). 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00995.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Freebody, Peter. 2013. Knowledge and school talk: Intellectual accommodations to literacy? Linguistics & Education 24. 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2012.11.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Frost, Kellie, Catherine Elder & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2012. 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.Suche in Google Scholar

Frost, Kellie, Josh Clothier, Annemiek Huisman & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2020. Responding to a TOEFL iBT integrated speaking task: Mapping task demands and test takers’ use of stimulus content. Language Testing 37(1). 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532219860750.Suche in Google Scholar

Galaczi, Evelina D. 2008. Peer–peer interaction in a speaking test: The case of the First Certificate in English examination. Language Assessment Quarterly 5(2). 89–119.10.1080/15434300801934702Suche in Google Scholar

Galaczi, Evelina & Lynda Taylor. 2018. Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions. Language Assessment Quarterly 15(3). 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1453816.Suche in Google Scholar

Ginther, April. 2012. Assessment of speaking. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 1–8. Chichester, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0052Suche in Google Scholar

Grove, Elisabeth & Annie Brown. 2001. Tasks and criteria in a test of oral communication skills for first-year health science students: Where from? Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 10(1). 37–47.Suche in Google Scholar

Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin & Rolph E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Suche in Google Scholar

He, Lianzhen & Ying Dai. 2006. A corpus-based investigation into the validity of the CET-SET group discussion. Language Testing 23(3). 370–401. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt333oa.Suche in Google Scholar

Henson, Robin K. & J. Kyle Roberts. 2006. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational & Psychological Measurement 66(3). 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485.Suche in Google Scholar

Hsieh, Ching-Ni & Yuan Wang. 2019. Speaking proficiency of young language students: A discourse-analytic study. Language Testing 36(1). 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217734240.Suche in Google Scholar

Hughes, Rebeca. 2002. Teaching and researching speaking. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar

Inoue, Mizue. 2009. Health sciences communication skills test: The development of a rating scale. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing 14(1). 55–91.Suche in Google Scholar

Jamieson, Joan M., Daniel Eignor, William Grabe & Antony John Kunnan. 2008. Frameworks for the new TOEFL. In Carol A. Chapelle, Mary K. Enright & Joan M. Jamieson (eds.), Building a validity argument for the test of English as a foreign language, 55–95. New York, NY: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Jolliffe, Ian T. 1986. Principal component analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.10.1007/978-1-4757-1904-8Suche in Google Scholar

Jöreskog, Karl G. 1999. How large can a standardised coefficient be. Unpublished report. SSI Central, Inc. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20180430044906id_/http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/HowLargeCanaStandardizedCoefficientbe.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar

Khabbazbashi, Nahal. 2017. Topic and background knowledge effects on performance in speaking assessment. Language Testing 34(1). 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215595666.Suche in Google Scholar

Kline, Rex B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Kyle, Kristopher, Scott A. Crossley & Danielle S. McNamara. 2016. Construct validity in TOEFL iBT speaking tasks: Insights from natural language processing. Language Testing 33(3). 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215587391.Suche in Google Scholar

Lee, Yong-Won. 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.Suche in Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Lewkowicz, Jo A. 1997. The integrated testing of a second language. In Caroline Clapham & David Corson (eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (Language Testing and Assessment), vol. 7, 121–130. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-1-4020-4489-2_12Suche in Google Scholar

Lim, Gad S. 2018. Conceptualising and operationalising second language speaking assessment: Updating the construct for a new century. Language Assessment Quarterly 15(3). 215–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2018.1482493.Suche in Google Scholar

Luoma, Sari. 2004. Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511733017Suche in Google Scholar

Maton, Karl. 2016. Legitimation code theory: Building knowledge about knowledge-building. In Karl Maton, Susan Hood & Suellen Shay (eds.), Knowledge-building: Educational studies in legitimation code theory, 1–24. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315672342Suche in Google Scholar

McNamara, Timothy Francis. 1996. Measuring second language performance. Harlow, Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.Suche in Google Scholar

McNeill, David & Susan Duncan. 2000. Growth points in thinking for speaking. In David McNeill (ed.), Language and gesture, 141–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620850.010Suche in Google Scholar

Nakatani, Yasuo. 2006. Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal 90(2). 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00390.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Nelson, Nancy & James R. King. 2023. Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading & Writing 36. 769–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145−021-10243-5.10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5Suche in Google Scholar

Park, Hee Sun, René Dailey & Daisy Lemus. 2002. The use of exploratory factor analysis and principal components analysis in communication research. Human Communication Research 28(4). 562–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/28.4.562.Suche in Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. The Behavioral & Brain Sciences 36(4). 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x12001495.Suche in Google Scholar

Pituch, Keenan A. & James P. Stevens. 2016. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS, 6th edn. New York, NY: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

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

Plakans, Lia & Atta Gebril. 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.Suche in Google Scholar

Read, John. 1990. Providing relevant content in an EAP writing test. English for Specific Purposes 9(2). 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(90)90002-t.Suche in Google Scholar

Read, John. 2000. Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511732942Suche in Google Scholar

Sato, Takaori. 2012. The contribution of test-takers’ speech content to scores on an English oral proficiency test. Language Testing 29(2). 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211421162.Suche in Google Scholar

Seibold, David R. & Renee A. Meyers. 2007. Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research 38(3). 312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966.Suche in Google Scholar

Skehan, Peter. 2009. Models of speaking and the assessment of second language proficiency. In Alessandro G. Benati (ed.), Issues in second language proficiency, 202–215. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group.Suche in Google Scholar

Spivey, Nancy Nelson. 1990. Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication 7(2). 256–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088390007002004.Suche in Google Scholar

Spivey, Nancy Nelson & James R. King. 1989. Readers as writers composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly 24(1). 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.24.1.1.Suche in Google Scholar

Stroud, Robert. 2021. The effects of strategic planning and rehearsal on second language group discussion task performance. Language Learning Journal 49(5). 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1610475.Suche in Google Scholar

Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using multivariate statistics, 6th edn. Boston: Pearson Education.Suche in Google Scholar

Taylor, Pat Ellis. 1977. Teaching creativity in argumentation. College English 39(4). 507–510. https://doi.org/10.2307/375779.Suche in Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840005Suche in Google Scholar

Weigle, Sara Cushing. 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.Suche in Google Scholar

Weir, Cyril J. 1990. Communicative language testing. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Suche in Google Scholar

Weir, Cyril J., Ivana Vidaković & Evelina D. Galaczi. 2013. Measured constructs: A history of Cambridge English examinations, 1913–2012. Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Cathie Elder. 2010. An investigation of the effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly 7(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300903031779.Suche in Google Scholar

Young, Richard F. 2000. Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. Young, Richard F. 2000. Interactional competence: Challenges for validity. Paper presented at a joint symposium ‘Interdisciplinary Interfaces with Language Testing’ held at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics and the Language Testing Research Colloquium, 11 March 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Available at: http://www.wisc.edu/english/rfyoung/IC_C4V.Paper.PDF.Suche in Google Scholar

Young, Richard F. 2019. Interactional competence and L2 pragmatics. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics, 93–110. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781351164085-7Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Cui. 2013. Effect of instruction on ESL students’ synthesis writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(1). 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.12.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, Hang. 2018. Current trends in research of Chinese sound acquisition. In Chuanren Ke (ed.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese second language acquisition, 217–233. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.10.4324/9781315670706-9Suche in Google Scholar

Zhu, Xinhua, Guan, Ying, Choo Mui Cheong, Guoxing Yu & Xian, Liao. 2021. Secondary school students’ discourse synthesis performance on Chinese (L1) and English (L2) integrated writing assessments. Reading and Writing 34(1). 49–78.10.1007/s11145-020-10065-xSuche in Google Scholar

Zhu, Xinhua, Xian Liao & Choo Mui Cheong. 2019. Strategy use in oral communication with competent synthesis and complex interaction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48(5). 1163–1183.10.1007/s10936-019-09651-0Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2023-04-01
Accepted: 2024-06-23
Published Online: 2024-07-19
Published in Print: 2025-06-26

© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0073
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
group discussion; integrated group discussion; construct; undergraduate students; speaking assessment

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Unpacking the positioning of being “disengaged” and “disrespectful” in class through nexus analysis: an international student’s navigation of institutional and interactional university norms
  4. Assessing English language learners’ collocation knowledge: a systematic review of receptive and productive measurements
  5. The role of awareness in implicit and explicit knowledge
  6. Intensity of CLIL exposure and L2 motivation in primary school: evidence from Spanish EFL learners in non-CLIL, low-CLIL and high-CLIL programmes
  7. Promoting young EFL learners’ oral production through storytelling: coursebook adaptation in the Vietnamese classroom
  8. Applying embodied meaning of spatial prepositions and the Principled Polysemy model to teaching English as a second language: the case of to and on
  9. The impact of guessing and retrieval strategies for learning phrasal verbs
  10. Unraveling the differential effects of task rehearsal and task repetition on L2 task performance: the mediating role of task modality
  11. Examining L2 studentsʼ development of global cohesion and its relationship with their argumentative essay quality
  12. The construct of integrated group discussion (IGD) among undergraduate students: to what extent does group discussion performance reflect performance on IGD tasks?
  13. Discipline-specific attitudinal differences of EMI students towards translanguaging
  14. Relationship between second language vocabulary knowledge and vocabulary learning strategy use: a meta-analysis of correlational studies
  15. Evaluative language in undergraduate academic writing: expressions of attitude as sources of text effectiveness in English as a Foreign Language
  16. Investigating optimal spacing schedules for incidental acquisition of L2 collocations
  17. The association between socioeconomic status and Chinese secondary students’ English achievement: mediation of self-efficacy and moderation of gender
  18. Integrated instruction of Appraisal Theory and rhetorical moves in literature reviews: an exploratory study
  19. Scaffolding in genre-based L2 writing classes: Vietnamese EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices
  20. Exploring the professional role identities of English for academic purposes practitioners: a qualitative study
  21. The combined effects of task repetition and post-task teacher-corrected transcribing on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 oral performance
  22. Teacher behaviour and student engagement with L2 writing feedback: a case study
  23. The effect of an intervention focused on academic language on CAF measures in the multilingual writing of secondary students
  24. Which approach best promoted low-proficiency learners’ listening performance: metacognitive, bottom-up or a combination of both?
  25. Enhancing young EFL learners’ written skills: the role of repeated pre-task planning
  26. The mediating roles of resilience and motivation in the relationship between students’ English learning burnout and engagement: a conservation-of-resources perspective
  27. Student and teacher beliefs about oral corrective feedback in junior secondary English classrooms
  28. The effects of context, story-type, and language proficiency on EFL word learning and retention from reading
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 20.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/iral-2023-0073/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen