IELTS Research Reports

Guoxing Yu, Pauline Rea-Dickins and Richard Kielyfamiliarity with the particular type of graph used in that task. For example, we ran one-way ANOVA toexamine if there was a significant difference in performance in Task A:UKCO2 between participantsof different familiarity with line graphs (i.e. factor = question No. 22, see Appendix 3 graphicacyquestionnaire), a difference in performance in Task B:Viewing between participants of differentfamiliarity with line graphs (i.e. factor = question No. 22, see Appendix 3), and a difference inperformance in Task A:Oil between participants of different familiarity with statistical tables (i.e.factor = question No. 25, see Appendix 3). No significant differences were found either.In summary, it seems that graph familiarity did not affect these participants’ AWT1 task performancein terms of the marks that their writings received, although some potential psychological impact ofgraph familiarity on task performance was expressed clearly by the participants. This may be largelydue to the fact that these participants had a high level of graph familiarity. However, as shown in4.3.1, the participants’ understanding and knowledge of the conventions of different types of graphsmay affect the ways that they processed and wrote about the graphs. In other words, graph familiarityshould be examined from two perspectives: one is the quantified graph familiarity as measured by thegraphicacy questionnaire (Appendix 3), as discussed in this section, and the other is their familiaritywith and understanding of the conventions of different types of graphs (see 4.3.1).4.3.3 Research question 3To what extent are the candidates’ cognitive processes related to their writing abilities?As described in the working model of cognitive processes (Figure 3), test takers’ writing abilitiesplayed a role when they were re-producing their comprehension of the graphs in written discourse inEnglish as a foreign language. As lexical knowledge is an important aspect of a test taker’s writingability, the use of different vocabulary is clearly an essential indication of the relationship between thecognitive processes of completing the AWT1 tasks and the test taker’s writing ability. As reported in4.3.1, different graphs activated the use of different vocabulary, in other words, different graphs haddifferent lexical demands (see Appendix 9 and Extract 4). In this section, we report further on (a) therelationships in performance between different AWT1 tasks and between AWT1 and AWT2 tasks,and on (b) how test takers’ English writing abilities, their expectations and experiences of academicwriting, whether in English or Chinese, might have shaped the way that the comprehended graphicinformation from AWT1 tasks was re-produced in written discourse in English as a foreign language.Table 4 (see 4.1.2) reported the participants’ performance in AWT1 and AWT2 tasks in normalexamination conditions, that is, without thinking aloud (Appendix 2). It is interesting to note that thecorrelation between the AWT1 and the AWT2 performances was not significant (r=0.33, n.s.). Thedifference in performance between the AWT1 and AWT2 tasks was statistically significant (t=-3.73, p