The Role of Lexical Properties and Cohesive Devices in Text Integration and Their Effect on Human Ratings of Speaking Proficiency

REFERENCES

• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bejar, I. (1985). The preliminary study of raters for the test of spoken English. ( Monograph Series No. MS-18). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Boles, D. B. (1983). Dissociated imageability, concreteness, and familiarity in lateralized word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 11(5), 511–519.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, F. A., Eignor, D., Jones, S., McNamara, T., & Suomi, B. K. (2000). TOEFL 2000 speaking framework: a working paper. ( TOEFL Monograph Series MS-20). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrell, P. L. (2007). Notetaking strategies and their relationship to performance on listening comprehension and communicative assessment tasks. ( TOEFL Monograph Series No. MS-35). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Carrell, P. L., Dunkel, P. A., & Mollaun, P. (2002). The effects of notetaking, lecture length and topic on the listening component of the TOEFL 2000. ( TOEFL Monograph Series No. MS-23). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Carrell, P. L., Dunkel, P. A., & Mollaun, P. (2004). The effects of notetaking, lecture length and topic on a computer-based test of ESL listening comprehension. Applied Language Learning, 14(1), 83–105.
   Google Scholar
• Clifton, C., & Ferreira, F. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Some experimental results. In M. Coltheart ( Ed.). Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading ( pp. 635–654). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concato J., Peduzzi P., Holford T. R., & Feinstein A. R. (1995). Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(12), 1495–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication 10(1), 39–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensible input: A case for an intuitive approach. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 89–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 475–493.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011a). What is lexical proficiency? Some answers from computational models of speech data. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 182–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2011b). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 28(4), 561–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Powers, D., Santos, T., & Taylor, C. (2000). TOEFL 2000 writing framework: A working paper ( TOEFL Monograph Series, Report No. 18). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. (2004). A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. Language Testing, 21(2), 107–145.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, A., Grant, L., Mulcahy-Ernt, P., & Powers, D. (2005). A teacher-verification study of speaking and writing prototype tasks for a new TOEFL. ( TOEFL Monograph Series, No. 26). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• 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 tasks for the new TOEFL. ( TOEFL Monograph Series, Report No. 30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, A., & Widdowson, H. (1974). Reading and writing. In J. P. Allen & S. P. Corder ( Eds.). Techniques in applied linguistics ( pp. 155–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, D. (1997). Testing speaking ability in academic contexts: Theoretical considerations. ( TOEFL Monograph Series). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, D. (1981). An exploratory study of bilingual reading proficiency. In S. Hudelson ( Ed.). Learning to read in different languages ( pp. 33–102). Washington, DC: Washington Center for Applied Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Feak, C., & Dobson, B. (1996). Building on the impromptu: A source-based academic writing assessment. College ESL, 6(1), 73–84.
   Google Scholar
• Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Forster, K. I., & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(6), 627–635. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(73)80042-8
   Google Scholar
• Frederiksen, J. R., & Kroll, J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(3), 361–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty. Language Testing, 10(2), 133–170.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L. S., & Pee, D. (1989). Return to note on screening regression equations. American Statistician, 43(4), 279–282.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gee, N. R., Nelson, D. L., & Krawczyk, D. (1999). Is the concreteness effect a result of underlying network interconnectivity? Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 479–497.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, L. (2011). Product and process in TOEFL iBT independent and integrated writing tasks: An investigation of construct validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgia State University.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hamp-Lyons, L., & Kroll, B. (1996). Issues in ESL writing assessment: An overview. College ESL, 6(1), 52–72.
   Google Scholar
• Kintsch W., & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirsner, K. (1994). Implicit processes in second language learning. In N. Ellis ( Ed.). Implicit and explicit learning of languages ( pp. 283–312). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. doi:10.1093/applin/16.3.307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. (2006). Dependability of scores for a new ESL speaking assessment consisting of integrated and independent tasks. Language Testing, 23(2) 131–166.
   Google Scholar
• Lewkowicz, J. (1997). Investigating authenticity in language testing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Lancaster.
   Google Scholar
• Longo, B. (1994). Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41(2), 348–352.
   Google Scholar
• Marschark, M. (1985). Imagery and organization in the recall of prose. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(6), 734–745.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. R. (1989). A reexamination of the role of imagery in learning and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4), 710–720.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marschark, M., Richman, C. L., Yuille, J. C., & Hunt, R. R. (1987). The role of imagery in memory on shared and distinctive information. Psychological Bulletin, 102(1), 28–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Einstein, G. O., Dunay, P. K., & Cobb, R. E., (1986). Encoding difficulty and memory: Toward a unifying theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(6), 645–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. A, Beckwith, R., Fellbaum, C., Gross, D., & Miller, K. (1993). Five papers on WordNet. Cognitive Science Laboratory, Princeton University, No. 43.
   Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (1998). Individual differences in second language proficiency: Working memory as language aptitude. In A. F. Healy ( Ed.). Foreign language learning ( pp. 339–364). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., & Friedrich, M. A. (1980). Encoding and cuing sounds and senses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(6), 717–731.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1990). Encoding context and retrieval conditions as determinants of the effects of natural category size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(1), 31–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1992). Word concreteness and word structure as independent determinants of recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(2), 237–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43(2), 121–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford, R. (2001). Integrated skills in the ESL/EFL classroom. ESL Magazine, 6(1), 58–63.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1968). A factor analytic study of word attributes and verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7(1), 41–49.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A., & O’Neill, B. J. (1970). Visual recognition thresholds and dimensions of word meaning. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 273–275.
   Google Scholar
• Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18–34.
   Google Scholar
• Powers, D. E. (1986). Academic demands related to listening skills. Language Testing, 3(1), 1–38.
   Google Scholar
• Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore ( Ed.). Cognitive development and the acquisition of language ( pp. 111–144). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salsbury, T., Crossley, S. A, & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27(3), 343–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawaki, Y., Stricker, L., & Oranje, A. (2008). Factor structure of the TOEFL internet-based test (iBT): Exploration in a field trial sample. ( TOEFL Monograph Series No. RR-08-09). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics, Fourth Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 169–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: Global implications of curriculum and materials design. ELT Journal, 51(4), 370–373.
   Google Scholar
• Xi, X., Higgens, D., Zechner, K., & Williamson, D. M. (2008). Automated scoring of spontaneous speech using SpeechRater (SM) v1.0. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Research Report RR-08-62.
   Google Scholar