When test takers are required to draw on texts in their performance, they may copy strings of words verbatim from others or plagiarize (Cumming et al., 2005; Gebril & Plakans, 2013; Barkaoui, 2015), which makes the responses difficult to rate and affects score interpretation. For some test takers, such borrowing may be a strategy, needed because of low reading comprehension, hesitancy in expressing themselves in writing, or a lack of experience with source‐text integration (Yu, 2008; Wolfersberger, 2013). However, skills required by some types of integrated reading–writing tasks include selecting ideas from texts to include in one's writing, choosing when to paraphrase or quote from the text, and including appropriate citation. Therefore, test developers need to consider how these skills appear in the construct that integrated tasks are intended to assess. Rating rubrics need to address how to score such writing; for example, the rubric above includes the descriptor, “Paraphrases ideas from source text appropriately,” which could prompt raters to negatively appraise direct source‐text copying.
Validity
Validity of test‐score interpretation and use needs to be justified on the basis of evidence for a correspondence between test scores and the integrated ability that the test is intended to measure, as well as evidence for the utility of the test scores. Test developers and researchers need to consider how to elicit evidence in order to conduct validation research. When dividing language into skills areas, defining the construct appears manageable; questions arise, however, with the construct underlying integrated assessment. Examining writing processes in a thematically linked integrated assessment, Esmaeili (2002) concluded that reading and writing could not be viewed as stand‐alone constructs. In a study of non‐native and native English speakers, Delaney (2008) found that reading‐to‐write tasks elicited processes attributable to unique constructs that were not merely a combination of reading ability and writing skill, but also of discourse synthesis. Plakans (2009) also found evidence of discourse synthesis in writers' composing processes for integrated writing assessment and concluded that the evidence supported interpretation of such a construct from test scores. Using structural equation modeling and qualitative methods, Yang and Plakans (2012) found complex interrelated strategies used by writers in reading–listening–writing tasks, further supporting the idea that the processes related to discourse synthesis (selecting, connecting, and organizing) improved test performance. In a similar study, focused on summarization tasks, Yang (2014) used structural equation modeling (SEM) to provide evidence that the task required comprehension and construction strategies as well as planning, evaluating, source use, and discourse synthesis strategies. While research into validity and integrated assessment is building momentum, ongoing attention and research is needed to attention to refine evolving definitions, innovation in task types, and approaches to scoring.
Conclusions
Integrating skills in assessment will benefit from continued investigation as well as creative innovation. It represents an advance from the approach of the past that defined language as four skills plus grammar and vocabulary. Since integration appears in classroom and authentic contexts (Hirvela, 2016), its emergence or reemergence in testing is inevitable. Meanwhile, research must continue to look at the integrated skills construct(s) to better understand how they can best be defined and measured and how scores from assessments of integrated skills can be used.
SEE ALSO: Assessment of Speaking; Assessment of Writing; English for Academic Purposes; Rating Scales and Rubrics in Language Assessment; Task‐Based Language Assessment; Validation of Language Assessments
References
1 Ascención, Y. (2005). Validation of reading‐to‐write assessment tasks performed by second language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
2 Barkaoui, K. (2015). Test takers' writing activities during the TOEFL iBT® Writing Tasks: A stimulated recall study. ETS Research Report Series, 1, 1–42.
3 Brown, J. D., Hilgers, T., & Marsella, J. (1991). Essay prompts and topics: Minimizing the effect of mean differences. Written Communication, 8, 533–56.
4 Carroll, J. M. (1961). Fundamental considerations in teaching for English language proficiency of foreign students. Washington, DC: Routledge.
5 Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in writing‐only and reading‐to‐write prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5–43.
6 Delaney, Y. A. (2008). Investigating the reading‐to‐write construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 140–50.
7 Esmaeili, H. (2002). Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students' reading and writing performance in an English language test. Canadian Modern Language Journal, 58(4), 599–622.
8 Gebril, A. (2010). Bringing reading‐to‐write and writing only assessment tasks together: A generalizability analysis. Assessing Writing, 15, 100–17.
9 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, 9–27.
10 Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2014). Assembling validity evidence for assessment academic writing: Rater reactions to integrated tasks. Assessing Writing, 21, 56–73.
11 Hirvela, A. (2016). Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
12 Huang, H. T., & Hung, S. T. (2013). Comparing