Text Integration and Speaking Proficiency: Linguistic, Individual Differences, and Strategy Use Considerations

References

• Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. A., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andringa, S., Olsthoorn, N., van Beuningen, C., Schoonen, R., & Hulstijn, J. (2012). Determinants of success in native and non-native listening comprehension: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 62(S2), 49–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00706.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appel, R., & Wood, D. (2016). Recurrent word combinations in EAP test-taker writing: Differences between high-and low-proficiency levels. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13, 55–71. doi:10.1080/15434303.2015.1126718
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(3), 189–208. doi:10.1016/S0021-9924(03)00019-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 8, pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.
   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
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The english lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. doi:10.3758/BF03193014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. (2013). Examining the impact of L2 proficiency and keyboarding skills on scores on TOEFL-iBT writing tasks. Language Testing, 31, 241–259. doi:10.1177/0265532213509810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K. (2015). Test takers’ writing activities during the TOEFL iBT writing tasks: A stimulated recall study. ETS Research Report (RR-15-04, TOEFLiBT-25).
   Google Scholar
• Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2012). test-takers’ strategic behaviors in independent and integrated speaking tasks. Applied Linguistics, 34(3), 304–324. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   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, 511–519. doi:10.3758/BF03196988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breland, H., Lee, Y., Najarian, M., & Muraki, E. (2004). An analysis of TOEFL CBT writing prompt difficulty and comparability for different gender groups. TOEFL researcher reports report 76. ETS.
   Google Scholar
• Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Validating running memory span: Measurement of working memory capacity and links with fluid intelligence. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 563–570. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.2.563
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2013). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
   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
• Carrell, P. L. (2007). Notetaking strategies and their relationship to performance on listening comprehension and communicative assessment tasks. Princeton, NJ: ETS: TOEFL Monograph Series No. MS-35.
   Google Scholar
• Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33, 497–505. doi:10.1080/14640748108400805
   Google Scholar
• Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. doi:10.3758/BF03196772
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Core Team, R. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. URL http://www.R-project.org/
   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, 39–71. doi:10.1177/0741088393010001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Clevinger, A., & Kim, Y. (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. doi:10.1080/15434303.2014.926905
   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. doi:10.1002/tesq.2008.42.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Text Cohesion (TAACO): Automatic Assessment of Local, Global, and Text Cohesion. In Behavior Research Methods.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, and expert evaluations of writing proficiency. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 984–989). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Text coherence and judgments of essay quality: Models of quality and coherence. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. (pp. 1236–1241). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   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
• Cushing, S. T. (1993. April). L2 proficiency, academic status, and lecture note content. Paper presented at TESOL, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 4466–4500. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
   Google Scholar
• Dascalu, M., McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & Trausan-Matu, S. (in press). Age of exposure: A model of word learning. Proceedings of the 30th Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Conference.
   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
• Davies, M. (2010). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. doi:10.1093/llc/fqq018
   Google Scholar
• DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22.4, 499–533.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, D. (1997). Testing speaking ability in academic contexts: Theoretical considerations. In TOEFL Monograph Series. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Dunkel, P. (1988). The content of L1 and L2 students’ lecture notes and its relation to test performance. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 259–281. doi:10.2307/3586936
   Web of Science ®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
• Foltz, P. W. (2007). Discourse coherence and LSA. T. K. Landauer, W. Kintsch, D. McNamara, & S. Dennis Eds. LSA: A Road to Meaning. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing.
   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, 479–497. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(2), 193–202. doi:10.3758/BF03195564
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. doi:10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2013). Predicting human judgments of essay quality in both integrated and independent second language writing samples: A comparison study. Assessing Writing, 18(3), 218–238. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.05.002
   Web of Science ®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
• Hill, Y., & Liu, L. (2012). Is there any interaction between background knowledge and language proficiency that affects TOEFL iBT reading performance. RR-12-22, TOEFLibT-18, ETS Research Report.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P., Ralph, M. A. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0278-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., Payant, C., & Pearson, P. (2015). The intersection of task-based interaction, task complexity, and working memory: L2 question development through recasts in a laboratory setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition., 37, 549–581. doi:10.1017/S0272263114000618
   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
• Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of English and its computer analysis. In A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, & N. Hamilton-Smith (Eds.), The Computer and Literary Studies. Edinburgh: University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kormos, J., & Trebits, A. (2011). Working memory capacity and narrative task performance. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 267–289). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day american english. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzales, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30 thousand English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R Package Version, 2.0-11.
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically Assessing Lexical Sophistication: Indices, Tools, Findings, and Application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. doi:10.1002/tesq.194
   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. doi:10.1191/0265532206lt325oa
   Google Scholar
• Linck, J. A., Osthus, O., Koeth, J. T., & Bunting, M. F. (2013). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review., 21, 861–883. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0565-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longo, B. (1994). Current research in technical communication: The role of metadiscourse in persuasion. Technical Communication, 41, 348–352.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, K., Burgess, C., & Atchley, R. A. (1995). Semantic and associative priming in a high-dimensional semantic space. Cognitive Science Proceedings (LEA), 660–665.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., & Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501–533. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00565.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., & Sachs, R. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62(3), 704–740. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00649.x
   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, 645–656. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90041-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, J. L. (2000). Grammaticality judgments in a second language: Influences of age of acquisition and native language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21.3, 395–423. doi:10.1017/S0142716400003064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2001). Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech, 44(3), 295–322. doi:10.1177/00238309010440030101
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1–43. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
   Web of Science ®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
• Nakagawa, S., & Schielzeth, H. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 133–142. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., & Friedrich, M. A. (1980). Encoding and cuing sounds and senses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 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, 31–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford, R. (2001). Integrated skills in the ESL/EFL classroom. ESL Magazine, 6 (1).
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1968). A factor analytic study of word attributes and verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7, 41–49. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(68)80161-6
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: 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. doi:10.1037/h0084295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17, 18–34. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2011.09.002
   Google Scholar
• Powers, D. E. (1986). Academic demands related to listening skills. Language Testing, 3(1), 1–38. doi:10.1177/026553228600300101
   Google Scholar
• Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–188. doi:10.1598/RRQ.20.2.4
   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
• van de Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36, 82–95. doi:10.2307/357609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandergrift, L., & Baker, S. (2015). Learner variables in second language listening comprehension: An exploratory path analysis. Language Learning, 65, 390–416. doi:10.1111/lang.2015.65.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, C. (1997). IELTS: Global implications of curriculum and materials design. ELT Journal, 51, 370–373. doi:10.1093/elt/51.4.370
   Google Scholar
• Wen, Z., Mota, M., & McNeil, A. (Eds.), (2015). Working memory in second language acquisition and processing. Bristol: UK: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. N. (2012). Working memory and SLA. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar