This ETS-funded study investigated the effects of the extended planning time on the performance elicited by lecture listening-into-speaking tasks in the TOEFL iBT test across the two different proficiency groups. Effects were examined in terms of the (1) scores, (2) linguistic performance variables (CAF, and reproduction of idea units) and (3) reported use of cognitive/ metacognitive processes and strategies. Although some differences were found in (3), no statistically significant effects were found in (1) or (2). The different use of cognitive/ metacognitive processes and strategies are discussed, which has implications for planning time research using integrated tasks.
Recent years saw a renewed interest in integrated tasks in language tests (Yu, 2013). Such tasks are seen to be more reflective of language use in real-life academic contexts, and are welcomed by some test-takers more than independent tasks (e.g. Huang and Hung, 2010; 2017). However, studies on integrated speaking test tasks have remained relatively few, particularly those exploring the construct – the cognitive processes involved in performing such tasks. This study investigates the effect of extended planning time on test-takers' performance on the Integrated Speaking (Lecture and Question) task from a research form of the TOEFL iBT and on the cognitive processes test-takers engage in. A total of 70 UK-based L2 learners (i.e. 35 with IELTS Speaking scores of 7.0 or above; 35 with IELTS Speaking scores of 5.0-6.0) completed two tasks, one with the original 20-second planning time, and the other with an extended 90-second planning time. After completing each task, questionnaire responses were collected on their test-taking processes during listening, planning and speaking. Additionally, 16 participants provided stimulated recall data immediately after each task performance. The analysis examined possible effects of the extended planning time across the two different proficiency groups in terms of the (1) scores given by ETS certified raters, (2) linguistic performance measures (complexity, accuracy, fluency, and integration of idea units in the listening input) and (3) reported use of (meta)cognitive processes and strategies. Our findings suggest that the longer planning time may affect how participants engage with certain processes and strategies (i.e. more planning for language and mental rehearsal), but does not make measurable difference to the performance (in terms of scores, CAF variables, or reproduction of idea units).
