Reading-to-write (RTW) tasks have been commonly employed in second language (L2) English academic writing pedagogy, and many studies have investigated the validity and reliability of RTW tasks in L2 English writing assessment. Meanwhile, few studies have examined the cognitive validity of RTW tasks, and the design and validation of such tasks in L2 Chinese academic writing assessment remain underexplored. This study develops a Chinese RTW task following a set of design criteria and procedures and evaluates its cognitive validity as an instrument of L2 Chinese academic writing assessment. The RTW task was administered to 15 undergraduate and 15 postgraduate L2 Chinese learners in an eye-tracking laboratory. Analyses of the task features and the eye-tracking and stimulated recall interview data suggested that the RTW task largely aligned with the characteristics of authentic tasks in real L2 Chinese academic writing contexts and elicited a representative range of cognitive processes in existing models of RTW cognitive processes. Many of these processes manifested in different ways between the two groups of participants at different L2 Chinese proficiency levels. Our findings have useful implications for understanding the cognitive validity of the RTW task in L2 Chinese writing assessment.

Vocabulary knowledge greatly affects writing performance (Stæhr in Lang Learn J 36:139–152, 2008; Johnson in Tesol J 7:700-715 2016), but little is known about the relative contribution of different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge to reading-to-write performance. The current study attempted to investigates the contribution of receptive/orthographic (RecOrth) vocabulary knowledge, productive/orthographic knowledge (ProOrth), productive/phonological (ProPhon) vocabulary knowledge and depth of vocabulary knowledge to reading-to-write scores. For this purpose, 154 Chinese English as foreign language (EFL) learners took a battery of vocabulary knowledge tests and a reading-to-write test. The extent to which vocabulary at different word frequencies predicted reading-to-write was also investigated. The results of regression indicated that ProOrth academic level, vocabulary depth, and RecOrth 2, 000 frequency level explained 40.2

本研究以193名英语专业学习者为对象,基于结构方程模型探索英语专业四级考试(TEM4)中综合读写任务的策略运用机制,为该类写作测试收集认知效度证据.经探索性因子分析提取写作过程中运用的4个策略:话语生成、源文本使用、计划、评估,基于此结果建立策略运用机制与成绩关系的结构方程模型.经链式中介效应检验,最终搭建的模型能够形成5条有效的效应链.在有效路径中,认知策略,即话语生成和源文本使用策略对写作成绩起主导作用.元认知策略,即计划和评估通过认知策略对写作成绩产生间接作用.研究揭示写作过程中的策略运用机制,证明综合读写写作测试能够最大限度地激发写作者的资源获取和信息加工过程,是一种有效的二语写作测试方式.

International Journal of Applied LinguisticsEarly View BOOK REVIEW The Routledge handbook of language testing, 2nd edition Edited by Glenn Fulcher | Luke Harding Routledge, 2021. xviii + 656 pp. ISBN: 9781138385436 Rujun Pan, Rujun Pan orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-766X Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJimin Wang, Corresponding Author Jimin Wang blculing26@outlook.com Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China Correspondence Jimin Wang, Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China. Email: blculing26@outlook.comSearch for more papers by this author Rujun Pan, Rujun Pan orcid.org/0000-0001-5388-766X Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorJimin Wang, Corresponding Author Jimin Wang blculing26@outlook.com Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China Correspondence Jimin Wang, Institute of International Students Educational Policy and Evaluation, Beijing Language and Culture University, Beijing, China. Email: blculing26@outlook.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 June 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12429Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Open Research PEER REVIEW The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/ijal.12429. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation