The Impact of input task characteristics on performance on an integrated listening-Into-writing EAP assessment

Over the last fifty years, as the number of students studying in English-speaking countries orstudying through the medium of English has grown exponentially, so has the market for testingthe language skills of these students to ensure that they have the language and skillsnecessary for tertiary study in English.While traditional tests of academic English have been skills-based, more and more integratedtests are being designed to measure English for Academic Purposes (EAP) both for universityentrance purposes and for in-sessional English courses due to the increased authenticity(Bachman and Palmer, 1996, p. 23) and interactiveness (p. 25) that such tests can offer.Furthermore, as more and more teaching moves to a 'flipped' or blended model and computerbasedtesting increases, there is a need to ascertain how to best provide input for both testingand teaching. Traditionally, listening comprehension has been audio-only and tests haveconsequently used audio only input. However, the broader range of possibilities offered bytechnological developments means that offering video-based input as an alternative to audioonly is now perfectly feasible.This raises the question of how to 'test for best' (Weir, 2005, p. 54). A number of studies haveinvestigated audio versus video or multimedia listening comprehension tests. Similarly, muchresearch has been done into reading-into-writing or listening and reading-into-writing, yet verylittle has been done on integrated listening-into-writing. This study aimed to address that gapin the research by investigating the impact of audio versus video input on performance on anintegrated EAP listening-into-writing test.In the study, participants were exposed to a lecture which was divided in half and presentedin both audio and video formats in a counterbalanced measures design.The quantitative findings of this study revealed that there was a significant difference in scoresbetween the audio first group, which was exposed to the audio input in the first half of the lecture, and the video first group, which was exposed to the audio input in the second half ofthe lecture, while there was only a small, non-significant difference between the two groupswhen exposed to the video input. A follow-up textual analysis broadly supported thesefindings.In line with findings from Cumming et al. (2005a), the quantitative analyses suggest thathigher level learners tended to paraphrase more of the input while the lower-intermediate andintermediate learners generated both paraphrased and verbatim reproductions of the input.The very low levels learners appeared unable to make very much use of the input yet studentsfrom both groups reproduced large numbers of word-level matches from the PowerPoint slideswhen they had access to the video input.While there was no clear preference for one or other of the input formats, around 40 per centof students expressed a preference for video while around 20 per cent said that they preferredaudio only as the video was distracting. This supports the findings of Chen, Wang and Xu.(2014, p. 57).The research has highlighted several areas for future research but also has importantimplications for the construct of academic listening-into-writing.