IELTS Research Reports

Introductionprocessing patterns that emerged were then interpreted with reference to the other data sources. Thisenabled the researchers to develop a cognitive processing model which guided their analyses in relationto four main areas for investigation: the nature of processing involved in graphic comprehension and itsinterpretation in written form; the role of graph familiarity on task performance; the correlation betweenwriting performance on a graph-based task and on a topic-based argumentative essay; and the impact oftraining on task performance.Although Task 2 of the IELTS Academic Writing module - an essay-based writing task - has been thesubject of several joint-funded studies in recent years, Task 1 has received relatively little researchattention by comparison so this study is particularly welcome. Task 1 is an ‘integrated’ task in that itrequires test takers to describe information given to them in the form of a graph, chart, table or diagramand to present the description in their own words. This type of task raises interesting questions about thenature of test input presented in graphical mode (often non-verbal as a result)and the way that such visual input is processed by test takers in order to generate written output.This study therefore contributes to our understanding of the complex features associated with such taskprompts and it builds upon two earlier joint-funded studies that investigated Task 1, by Mickan, Slaterand Gibson and by O’Loughlin and Wigglesworth (see IELTS Research Reports, Volumes 3and 4 respectively).The insights resulting from this study are useful for the IELTS test producers because they have thepotential to improve our understanding of how graphic prompts can function not only in the writing testbut also in tests of listening, reading and speaking. The finding that different graphic prompts (e.g. linegraphs, pie charts, tables of statistics, etc) apparently activate different forms of cognitive processingand can stimulate candidates to produce different sorts of written output, differentiated by their lexicaland structural choices, is an important one to bear in mind since it touches upon questions of task andtest comparability. There is a fine balance to be struck here on the part of test developers betweenstandardising the task prompt in order to achieve task comparability from test version to test version,while at the same time sampling as widely as possible from the target language use domain and thusincluding a range of representative task types. The findings also raise the question of whether graphicacyshould be regarded as an integral component of academic literacy, i.e. whether it is construct-relevant;is it reasonable to expect that L2 test takers should have some graphic familiarity so that they can copewith reading-into-writing tasks based on a range of graphic prompts, or do such tasks make unreasonabledemands beyond the purely linguistic? As previously mentioned, there is growing interest now inunderstanding and describing the nature of the L2 learner’s language and communication skills at higherproficiency levels, i.e. the C1 and C2 levels of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR),where the interface between language ability and academic literacy may be increasingly blurred.The observation of a strong correlation between written performance on Academic Writing Task 1 andAcademic Writing Task 2 is naturally encouraging for the test producers. Nonetheless, concern expressedover variable interpretation of the word ‘describe’ in the task rubric for Academic Writing Task 1, andhow teachers therefore train students to approach this task in the test, highlights the importance of clarityof instruction in the actual test as well as in supporting materials for test takers, such as sample materials,exemplar written performances and accompanying examiner comments. As the researchers suggest,the working model of cognitive processes they propose could help to address this, offering a usefulframework for test writers when designing Task 1s and ensuring they take account of the three interrelatedstages involved: comprehending the non-graphically presented task instructions; comprehendingthe graphic information; and reproducing graph comprehension in written discourse in English.IELTS Research Reports Volume 1119