IELTS Research Reports

The cognitive processes of taking IELTS Academic Writing Task 1protocols were interpreted with reference to the other four main sources of data – AWT1 scripts, theinterviews, graphicacy questionnaire and English writing abilities. From these data sources, a modelof cognitive process was developed, consisting of three interrelated stages – comprehending nongraphicallypresented task instructions, comprehending graphs, and re-producing graph comprehensionin written discourse in English as a foreign language. We used this model to guide our analyses toaddress the four research questions. Below we summarize the main findings of each research question.1 With regard to the effects of types of graphs on cognitive processes, it was found that thetypes and conventions of graphic prompts did matter. They affected how the participantsprocessed the graphic information and how they followed the graphic conventions to reproducetheir graph comprehension in written discourse in English as a foreign language.Such effects of different AWT1 graphic prompts on cognitive processes were clearlyevidenced in the mean scores of the writing performances, in the use of vocabulary, andin whether and how they would make comparisons or trend assessments. The graphicconventions or “cognitive naturalness” of graphs (Tversky 1995) affected the processes ofcomprehending and re-producing graphic information. Candidates had a strong tendencyto make trend assessments when describing line graphs, and make discrete comparisonswhen describing bar and pie charts. When describing a statistical table - the mostchallenging of the AWT1 tasks in this study, candidates tended to do some calculations ofthe numbers to develop their reasoning. Different types of graphs also activated the use ofdifferent vocabulary types.2 With regard to the effects of graphicacy on cognitive processes, we found that: althoughgraph familiarity as measured via the graphicacy questionnaire did not seem to affectAWT1 task performance in terms of the scores for the writing performances, theparticipants clearly expressed some potential psychological impact of graph familiarityon their task performance. In addition, the effects of the participants’ familiarity with andunderstanding of graphic conventions also influenced the way they processed and reproducedthe graphic information (see 1 above).3 The effects of the writing abilities on cognitive processes were manifested in theuse of different vocabulary choices for different graphic prompts. There is also astrong correlation between the mean performances of the AWT1 tasks under thinkaloudconditions and the AWT2 task of topic-based argumentative writing. Besidesthe participants’ English writing abilities, their expectations and experiences ofacademic writing also shaped the way that they interpreted and re-produced their graphcomprehension in written discourse in English as a foreign language.4 The influence of the special training was strong; this clearly demonstrated thecoachability of the AWT1 tasks. Whether or not the candidates tried to make personalinterpretations and comments by linking the graphic information and their domainknowledge about the graphs were clearly influenced by the short test preparation trainingthey received, although they did not necessarily agree with the AWT1 task requirementson “describe”.As we discussed in Section 1.1, this research project addressed two broad areas of interest identified bythe IELTS Joint Research Committee – (a) “test development and validation issues” in relation to “thecognitive processes of IELTS test takers”, and (b) “issues in test impact” in relation to “test preparationpractice”. The findings of this study have implications for the validation and development of AWT1tasks from the perspective of test takers’ cognitive processes. The working model of cognitive processesIELTS Research Reports Volume 11407