Impact of Reading-to-Write and Listening-to-Write Integrated Tasks Versus Non-Integrated Writing Tasks on Source-Based Writing Development Among Iranian EFL Learners

Subject Areas : Applied Linguistics

Nikoo Farhadian ¹ , Hossein Heidari Tabrizi ² , Ehsan Rezvani ³

1 -
2 -
3 -

Received: 2024-04-07 Accepted : 2024-12-10 Published : 2024-05-27

Keywords: Integrated Writing Tasks, Listening-To-Write Integrated Tasks, Non-Integrated Writing Tasks, Reading-To-Write Integrated Tasks, Source-Based Writing,

Abstract :

 

Source-based writing, as a way of synthesizing and integrating information from multiple sources, is one of the essential academic skills, but it tends to be very challenging for EFL learners. The present study investigated the effects of three instructional approaches—non-integrated, Reading-to-Write (RTW) integrated tasks, and Listening-to-Write (LTW) integrated tasks—on the development of source-based writing among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. This present study adopted a pre-test-post-test design with 90 undergraduate students in three intact classes, homogenized by the OQPT and randomly assigned to three groups, who completed five tasks based on their experimental conditions. The results show that integrated tasks developed source-based writing ability through superior synthesis and use of information from sources significantly better than non-integrated tasks. Among the integrated tasks, RTW was significantly more effective than LTW, indicating greater cognitive benefits from reading materials compared to listening inputs in improving source-based writing performance. The findings are in line with knowledge-transforming frameworks that suggest engaging with reading material fosters deeper cognitive processing, critical thinking, and building up coherent arguments, while LTW tasks impose heavier cognitive loads due to the real-time processing and multitasking demands. This study has brought to light the effectiveness of IWTs in improving academic writing proficiency, thus lending strong support to the inclusion of RTW tasks in EFL curricula. .

 

 

 

References:

Ahmadnattaj, F., & Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2020). On the effectiveness of integrated skills approach in language teaching: A meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2).
Aldosari, H. (2016). Effects of an integrated reading/writing approach on improving writing skills of EFL students. Dirasat Educational Sciences, 43(1), 761-771.
Aljahdali, W., & Alshakhi, A. (2021). Exploring EFL writing teaching through the integrated skills approach: A case study in the Saudi context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(5), 800-809.
Aljiffri, I. H. (2010). Effects of the integrated approach to teaching English and social studies on achievement in a Saudi private elementary school. Journal of Educational & Psychological Science, 11(4), 11-31.
Alqouran, A. &. Samadi, O. (2016). The effect of reading-writing integration on Jordanian undergraduate students’ writing performance. Arab World English Journal, 7(2), 177-189.
Aull, L. L. (2019). Source-based writing and the development of analytical skills in academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 9(1), 15-30.
Avramenko, А. P., & Davydova, M. A. (2020). Integrated writing tasks as a means of increasing the authenticity of the learning process. Of Applied Linguistics, 2(38), 26-44.
Azodi, N., & Lotfi, A. (2020). E-collaborative tasks and the enhancement of writing performance among Iranian university-level EFL learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 165-180.
Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018). Understanding the effects of writing on writing: A model of writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1929-1943.
Brown, C. M., & Lee, E. H. (2020). Enhancing language development through source-based writing tasks. In S. White & R. Black (Eds.), Language learning in the digital age (pp. 123-140). Springer.
Byrnes, H. (2020). Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning: The educational context of development. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 73–94). John Benjamins.
Chalak, A., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2023). Common errors in graduate Iranian EFL students’ academic writing: Implications for practitioners. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2).
Chan, S., & Yamashita, J. (2022). Integrated writing and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Assessing Writing, 54, 100662.
Cho, H. & Brutt-Griffler, G. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: A case of Korean English language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242–261.
Cho, H. & Brutt-Griffler, G. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: A case of Korean English language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242–261.
Cho, Y., Rijmen, F., & Novák, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBT™ integrated writing tasks. Language Testing, 30(4), 513-534.
Cubilo, J., & Winke, P. (2013). Redefining the L2 listening construct within an integrated writing task: Considering the impacts of visual-cue interpretation and note-taking. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(4), 371-397.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next-generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43.
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for next-generation TOEFL. TOEFL monograph (p. 30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Durukan, E. (2011). Effects of cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) technique on reading-writing skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1), 102.
Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going? Language Teaching, 54(2), 190-205.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
ETS. (2004). iBT/next generation TOEFL test integrated writing rubrics (scoring standards). Retrieved from http://www. ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing_Rubrics.pdf
ETS. (2011). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL iBTTM scores. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/toefl/research/ ibt_insight_series.
Field, J. (2019). Rethinking the second language listening test from theory to practice. British Council Monographs on Modern Language Testing 2. Sheffield: Equinox.
Francis, A. L., & Love, J. (2020). Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 11(1), e1514.
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spaan Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 7, 47–84.
Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2021). Towards a better understanding of skill integration in integrated writing tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(2), 123-142.
Gholami, J., & Alinasab, M. (2017). Source-based tasks in writing independent and integrated essays. International Journal of Instruction, 10(3), 127-142.
Goh, C. C. M. (2018). Listening in second language learning. Oxford University Press.
Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 73-92.
Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2020). Connecting reading and writing: Research-based practice. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-6). Wiley.
Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks: Towards a more focused definition for assessment purposes. Assessing writing, 18(4), 300-308.
Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. Routledge.
Liao, R. J., Ohta, R., & Lee, K. (2023). The relationship between written discourse features and integrated listening-to-write scores for adolescent English language learners. Language Testing, 02655322231167629.
Lindstromberg, S. (2020). The assumptions of normality and similar distributions in small-scale quantitative research: Diagnostic graphs & choosing a significance test (No. 1). Technical Report for L2 Researchers.
Masumi, O. N. O. (2021). Japanese university students’ integrated writing skills in listening-to-write tasks. Koyoyo-Ronso,142, 89-110.
Mekheimer, M. (2011). Effectiveness of an integrated, holistic pedagogy of EFL skills in college students. The Educational Research Journal, 25(100), 41-74.
Michel, M., Kormos, J., Brunfaut, T., & Ratajczak, M. (2019). The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31-45.
Ohta, R., Plakans, L. M., & Gebril, A. (2018). Integrated writing scores based on holistic and multi-trait scales: A generalizability analysis. Assessing Writing, 38, 21-36.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.
Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language assessment. Language Testing, 26 (4), 561–587.
Plakans, L. (2010). Independent versus integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44 (1), 185–194.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18-34.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217-230.
Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2018). Exploring the construct of integrated writing. Journal of Writing Research, 10(1), 45-66.
Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping motivation to read and write: The role of integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 100689.
Plakans, L., Liao, J. T., & Wang, F. (2018). Integrated assessment research: Writing-into-reading. Language Teaching, 51(3), 430-434.
Rukthong, A., & Brunfaut, T. (2020). Is anybody listening? The nature of second language listening in integrated listening-to-summarize tasks. Language Testing, 37(1), 31-53.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142-175.
Siegel, J. (2020). Exploring listening strategy instruction through action research. Palgrave Macmillan.
Siegel, J. (2021). Note-taking in second language listening assessment: Insights and issues. Language Testing, 38(2), 267-291.
Soleimani, H., & Mahdavipour, M. (2014). The effect of variations in integrated writing tasks and proficiency level on features of written discourse generated by Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(2), 129-159.
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Turuk Kuek, M. C. (2010). Developing critical thinking skills through integrative teaching of reading and writing in the L2 writing classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University).
Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.
Weigle, S. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9 (1), 27–55.
Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118-133.
Willis, C., & Nanni, A. (2017). Relative Influence of reading and listening inputs on students’ writing. Proceedings of the 37th Thailand TESOL International Conference, 165-178.
Yang, H. C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading‐listening‐writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80-103.
Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240.
Zhang, Y., & Ren, H. (2023). Analyzing cognitive processes in integrated writing tasks: Implications for EFL teaching. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 100841.
Zhu, X., Li, X., Yu, G., Cheong, C. M., & Liao, X. (2016). Exploring the relationships between independent listening and listening-reading-writing tasks in Chinese language testing: Toward a better understanding of the construct underlying integrated writing tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 167–185.
Zuzana, T., DeCamillis, K., & Lorenz, S. (2023). Culturally and linguistically responsive source-based argumentative writing pedagogy for multilingual writers in the secondary school context. In R. Wette (Ed.), Teaching and learning source-based writing: Current perspectives and future directions (pp. 50-70). Routledge.

Full-Text:



 

Research Paper	Impact of Reading-to-Write and Listening-to-Write Integrated Tasks Versus Non-Integrated Writing Tasks on Source-Based Writing Development Among Iranian EFL Learners Nikoo Farhadian1, Hossein Heidari Tabrizi2*, Ehsan Rezvani3  1Ph.D. Candidate, English Department, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran [e-mail] 2Professor, Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran [e-mail] 3Assistant Professor, Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran [e-mail]
Received: 07 April, 2023                                               Accepted: 18 August, 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

In the field of SFL/SLA, writing has been viewed traditionally as an important ability, particularly in academic contexts, where students are frequently asked to produce long and complex texts. Writing in an additional language involves not only mastering grammatical structures and vocabulary but also an ability to process and integrate information from different sources (Byrnes, 2020). This latter ability, commonly called source-based writing, becomes a must in academic environments where learners are supposed to prove their understanding of the content by synthesizing information coming from more than one input (Zuzana et al., 2023). However, source-based writing skills present lots of challenges—especially to EFL learners—who may be quite puzzled by the possibility of integrating information coming from different modalities (reading and listening) into a coherent written text (Aull, 2019).

Integrating reading and listening tasks into writing instruction, commonly referred to as integrated writing tasks (IWTs), has been suggested to be an effective way to improve source-based writing skills. IWTs require learners to interact with some kind of input material before producing a written response; therefore, this approach promotes a deeper level of understanding and encourages learners to develop critical thinking (Avramenko & Davydova, 2020). This affirms what the actual conditions of an academic setting entail: requiring a student to refer often to multiple sources in creating well-supported arguments (Zuzana et al., 2023). For these reasons, IWTs have received much attention recently in SLA due to the arguments of proponents—that is, through completing these tasks, learners' development in several language skills will take place simultaneously—a much more holistic approach towards learning. Although the study of IWTs is gaining interest from a number of researchers, research on their effectiveness remains relatively scant, especially among EFL learners.

While research has investigated the role of IWTs in general writing ability, there is an almost complete lack of investigations into their contribution to the development of source-based writing. Furthermore, the relative effectiveness of different types of IWTs, such as RTW and LTW, remains largely unexplored. As there has been an increasing emphasis on integrated skills in language assessment and instruction, educators and learners need to take seriously the relative benefits of these approaches. In many learning contexts, including Iran, EFL learners face critical difficulties in developing source-based writing skills (e.g., Ahmadnattaj & Ostovar-Namaghi, 2020). The traditional approach to writing instruction at many universities in Iran is predominantly grammatical and lexical, although it rarely addresses the challenge of achieving an appropriate level of difficulty in the integration of information coming from multiple sources (Soleimani & Mahdavipour, 2014).

            This approach often results in learners who can produce grammatically correct sentences effectively but who struggle with tasks that require higher-order thinking skills, such as information synthesis from multiple inputs and integration of that information into their writing (Gholami& Alinasab, 2017). It therefore beholds the urgent need for instructional methods that will not only improve learners' general writing proficiency but also enhance their ability to engage with source materials in a meaningful way. The current study tries to fill the gap by exploring the effect of different types of integrated writing tasks on the development of source-based writing among Iranian EFL undergraduate students. Specifically, this study compared the effectiveness of RTW tasks, which involve a reading of a text prior to writing, and LTW tasks, which require listening to an audio input prior to writing, with non-integrated writing tasks, where writing takes place without the provision of any oral or written sources before writing. Hence, this study will look at the results of these diverse instructional approaches in order to establish which one really brings about a positive development in source-based writing proficiency.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW

IWTs came about in response to criticisms regarding the traditional non-integrated writing task formats, which until their introduction had been the sole approach to the assessment of L2 writing abilities for decades. The development of IWTs expressed concern with rater reliability, construct validity, and the authenticity of non-IWTs (Cumming et al., 2005, 2006; Weigle, 2004). As a consequence, IWTs have become increasingly prevalent in several high-stakes language proficiency tests such as TOEFL iBT, CAEL, OTESL, GSTEP, and COPE, with TOEFL iBT perhaps the most well-known for its integrated writing component, Cho et al. (2013), Ohta et al. (2018) and Yang and Plakans (2012).

            IWTs are defined here as assessment formats that require writers to synthesize and integrate information from multiple source texts, whether written or spoken, into their written responses. This definition is supported by Plakans (2008), Plakans & Gebril (2013), and Weigle & Parker (2012). These tasks have been said to be a link between writing and other language modalities, like reading and listening, in that the contents from these sources should be incorporated into the written output (Plakans, 2010). In fact, several researchers claim that IWTs enhance the authenticity and validity of the assessment of writing and extend the range of assessment methodological approaches, hence fine-tuning the evaluation of L2 writing performance (Cumming et al., 2005, 2006; Plakans et al., 2019; Knoch & Sitajalabhorn, 2013). IWTs versus Non-IWTs IWTs and non-IWTs differ significantly in their underlying cognitive processes, in particular, when knowledge transformation and knowledge-telling are put into perspective.

            Though both kinds of tasks essentially use basic writing processes in planning, translating, and revising, IWTs require deeper cognitive engagement in comparison. Chan & Yamashita (2022). More precisely, IWTs require the writers to select actively, connect, and synthesize information from many sources and then transform that content into a new form, one that creates a coherent and cohesive text. This process aligns with the knowledge-transforming approach, where writers do not merely recall and reproduce information but critically analyze, evaluate, and restructure it to generate new insights or arguments (Baaijen & Galbraith, 2018). This deeper cognitive engagement fosters a more sophisticated understanding of the material, resulting in writing that is not only coherent and persuasive but also demonstrates a higher level of critical thinking and creativity (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). In contrast, non-IWTs are more closely associated with the knowledge-telling process, where the focus is on retrieving and reproducing information, often based on prior knowledge (Hayes, 2011). This is typically a linear approach, with minimal interaction from the new material, to surface-like processing. Writers in knowledge-telling mode are less likely to analyze or integrate information, and writing may be coherent but it lacks depth and critical engagement with the subject matter (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). As a result, non-IWTs tend to yield text products reflecting a more superficial understanding of the content and do not challenge students in higher cognitive levels of dealing with the material. Baaijen & Galbraith, 2018

            The contrast of these two approaches thus reveals the unique construct underpinning IWTs by emphasizing synthesis and transformation of knowledge in developing students' critical thinking and higher-order cognitive abilities. Gebril & Plakans, 2009; Weigle, 2004. Consequently, an important strand of research has compared performance differences between IWTs and non-IWTs. Studies have shown that independent writing ability plays a role in writing from sources but that integrated writing is a distinct construct with different cognitive requirements (Cumming et al., 2005, 2006). Most of the studies in Psycholinguistics prove that IWTs engage in higher-order cognitive operations like selectively extracting, linking, and organizing ideas from various sources by synthesizing this information into a coherent text; these instances contrast with IWTs and the more linear knowledge-telling approach that characterizes non-IWTs (Avramenko & Davydova, 2020; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1987). Additionally, while planning, writing, revising, and editing processes may be similar across both task types, IWTs demand more dynamic and diverse cognitive strategies (Michel et al., 2019). Also, comparative analyses of textual and discoursal features reveal significant differences between the two, highlighting distinct rhetorical and pragmatic characteristics in IWTs (Gebril & Plakans, 2009; Cumming et al., 2005). In addition, studies on task representation indicate that the two types of tasks, IWTs and non-IWTs, are interpreted differently by students, with different compositional outcomes (Plakans 2010). Readiness to Write and Long-Term Writing-Integrated Writing TasksThe integrated approach has rarely, in fact, been tested for its usefulness for L2 learners in improving their writing development through using IWTs. A limited number of studies have explored the extent to which integrating reading and writing may impact writing development; even fewer have examined how the integration of listening with writing may influence writing development. In fact, Aljiffri (2010) found that integrating reading and writing instruction resulted in significant gains in literacy skills among Saudi EFL learners. Similarly, Turuk Kuek (2010) reported enhanced critical thinking and reasoning in Sudanese students by the integrated teaching of reading and writing. Durukan (2011) also noticed an increase in academic achievement and retention among Turkish EFL learners. Mekheimer (2011) further corroborated that integrated skills instruction effectively promoted performance in all L2 domains in a Saudi context. Cho and Brutt-Griffler (2015) reported overall gain in both writing and reading comprehension among Korean EFL learners, mostly from an intermediate to a higher level of proficiency.

            The RTW tasks were thus believed to influence Jordanian students' writing performances and attitudes toward integrated instruction (Alqouran and Samadi, 2016). In Saudi Arabia, Aldosari (2016) supported integrated approaches in which writing quality and literacy development took priority. In the Iranian context, Soleimani and Mahdavipour (2014) investigated written textual features and source use between LTW and RTW-integrated tasks along high and low language proficiency levels among 60 Iranian English majors. The findings revealed that task type and proficiency level were substantial factors in affecting discourse features. Plagiarism rates were higher in RTW tasks, especially among low-proficiency writers. Similarly, Gholami and Alinasab (2017) pointed out that Iranian EFL learners who used hybrid writing practices with the combination of IWTs along with independent writing tended to perform better. Zhang (2017) also revealed that both RTW tasks, together with corrective feedback, significantly influenced the accuracy of language use by Chinese EFL learners. Aljahdali and Alshakhi (2021) reported on teachers' perspectives about the integrated writing pedagogy, finding consensus on the potential benefits of that approach, despite challenges related to low student proficiency, large class sizes, and limited instructional time. Surprisingly enough, most of the integrated writing literature has focused only on the integration of the reading and writing skills, failing to address the potential of listening for an integrated approach toward teaching writing. Thus, at present, a systematic understanding of how listening contributes to EFL learners' writing development through IWTs is non-existent.

            Avramenko and Davydova (2020) tried to fill this gap by investigating the use of audio or visual input integrated into writing tasks for Russian EFL students. The results indicated students' positive attitudes toward integrating these inputs with writing tasks but demonstrated a lack of confidence when performing tasks that were unfamiliar and challenging. Although the students' perception proved positive, no empirical evidence could be found in this study regarding how LTW tasks support language development. Few studies have directly explored the instructional effects of listening-writing integration on language learning. For example, Willis and Nanni (2017) analyzed how the medium of input-in other words, audio versus written-influenced Thai university students' written output within a reading-listening-writing task. They found that students cited written texts much more than audio inputs in their writing, and the choice of thesis statements was significantly influenced by the medium. Also, Rukthong and Brunfaut (2020) focused on the cognitive processes involved in listening during LTW tasks and their influence on accuracy of writing in a number of Thai EFL students. In their findings, cognitive and metacognitive strategies were pinpointed as vital components in the successful creation and production of accurate written summaries, which again differed depending on the linguistic difficulty of the input. Other studies, such as Cubilo and Winke (2013), investigated the differences of the impacts of video-supported versus audio-only listening passages on note-taking and writing performance. Indeed, no significant difference in writing performance was recorded, though participants preferred video-enhanced tasks, claiming videos had a facilitation effect on comprehension. Similarly, Michel et al. (2019) investigated the contribution of working memory in LTW tasks and observed that higher working memory capacity provided Hungarian EFL learners with more congruent writing performances. Finally, Masumi (2021) identified difficulties with the LTW task that were demonstrated by Japanese EFL learners, such as miscomprehension of lecture content and overreliance on verbatim restatement, which resulted in lower task performance. Similarly, other research by Liao et al. (2023) explored LTW tasks among Taiwanese EFL students and identified fluency, organization, grammatical accuracy, and vocabulary use as the key predictors of writing scores.

            In general, the literature shows an increasing interest in the integration of LTW; however, it points to a continuous need for more empirical research that can confirm its efficiency as regards enhancing L2 learners' writing skills. Gaps in the Literature and Rationale for the Study The literature has shown various critical gaps that this research is set to fill. First, there is an evident lack of studies available on IWTs in EFL situations, particularly in Iran, where research into writing has been more focused on other frameworks, such as processes and productions associated with independent non-integrated essay writing, corrective feedback, and technology-supported writing (Chalak & Heidari Tabrizi, 2023; Azodi et al., 2020). Secondly, the limited attention to IWTs within writing instruction is addressed in this study. With increased recognitions of the need to integrate writing with other skills-particularly reading and listening-such attention to IWTs when teaching is noticeably less forthcoming (Ellis et al., 2020).

            Thirdly, most research into IWTs has focused on their role in assessment rather than instruction (Plakans et al., 2018, 2019), leaving a gap in understanding their potential as teaching tools. Moreover, the influence of the input mode (spoken vs. written) on writing performance has been underexplored, with studies showing that reading comprehension tends to contribute more to performance in integrated tasks than listening (Yang & Plakans, 2012; Zhu et al., 2016). This study seeks to fill this gap by comparing the instructional effects of reading and listening IWTs along with non-IWTs on source-based writing development of Iranian EFL learners. The following research question guided this endeavor: RQ. Are there significant differences in the effects of non-IWTs, RTW-integrated tasks, and LTW-integrated tasks on the development of source-based writing among Iranian intermediate EFL learners? Based on the above research question, the ensuing hypothesis was formulated: RH0: There are no significant differences in the effects of non-IWTs, RTW-integrated tasks, and LTW-integrated tasks on the development of source-based writing among Iranian intermediate EFL learners.

 

METHODOLOGY

Design of the Study

The present study employed a pre-test–post-test quasi-experimental design with three groups: one control group of non-integrated writing tasks and two experimental groups of RTW-integrated tasks and LTW-integrated tasks. It aimed at measuring and comparing the effects of instructional interventions on source-based writing proficiency in Iranian EFL learners at an intermediate level.

 

Participants

This study was carried out with 90 undergraduate EFL students majoring in TEFL and TS at Sheikhbahaee University, affiliated to Isfahan Province, Iran, who were selected through convenient sampling from three intact Essay Writing classes—a course required for all EFL undergraduates. Participants between 20 and 26 years of age included 39 males and 51 females whose first language was Persian. In order to homogenize the participants in terms of language proficiency, the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) was conducted prior to the actual study with a total of 118 students. Based on the results of the OQPT, 90 intermediate-level students (30 students from each class) were randomly chosen for the participant pool of the present study. Afterward, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: a control group (non-integrated) and two experimental groups (RTW and LTW).

To check the homogeneity of the groups in terms of language proficiency levels, the OQPT scores were compared using a one-way ANOVA via SPSS (Version 28.0.1.1). The results showed no statistically significant differences in proficiency levels among the groups (F (4, 186) = 0.961, p = 0.394>0.05), hence the sample is homogeneous.

Five experienced instructors took part in scoring the pre-test and post-test tasks, and in addressing the validity concerns by providing expert opinions and critical reviews. There were three females and two males in the group, all aged between 35 and 58 years, with a great deal of teaching experience in the EFL context of Iran, ranging from 13 to 36 years. Three of the raters held a Ph.D. and were university faculty members while the two others, who had master's degrees, were certified TOEFL trainers at a language center in Isfahan. All the raters were familiar with scoring rubrics for writing tests.

The raters also conducted pilot testing to ensure the instructions were clear, the tasks were usable, and the topics of the tasks were proper. A pilot test with a representative group of 10 volunteer students confirmed that the standard TOEFL iBT time limits (50 minutes) were adequate for completion of the tasks.

To further validate the pre-test and post-test tasks, a focus group session with the raters was held to discuss data collection, analysis procedures, and task content. Discussion resulted in agreements on all disagreeing issues, while feedback was used in the final revisions of the tasks and scoring rubric. In the pilot study, the five raters, along with the researcher, independently scored all the essays according to the TOEFL iBT scoring rubric, ranging from 0 to 5 scoring scales where 0 means very poor quality and 5 means excellent performance. All the raters were blinded from other scores; however, the final scores of each task were calculated by taking the average of the six ratings.

To establish reliability, inter-rater reliability was computed using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation; this rendered strong reliability estimates ranging from 0.93 to 0.98 for both pre-test and post--test scores, thereby establishing the consistency of the scoring procedure.

 

Educational Resources

In this research, five writing tasks, on which the integrated writing section of the TOEFL iBT is based, were adopted by the researcher from ETS Official Collection of TOEFL iBT Writing Tasks. This collection contains real, retired TOEFL iBT tests formerly administered by ETS—an international organization in charge of the development and assessment of the TOEFL test. Unlike the traditional TOEFL iBT structure, which simultaneously combines both reading and listening skills with writing, the tasks in this study were constructed to focus on combining only one skill at a time with the writing component. The instructional materials used in this study followed the argumentative genre, similar to the genre used in the TOEFL writing tests (Cumming et al., 2005, 2006).

Source material consisted of reading passages for the RTW group and listening lectures for the LTW group, as opposed to the non-integrated group that did not receive any pre-writing material. Instead, they were asked to write an argumentative essay on the very same topic that was administered to the experimental groups.

 

Instruments

OQPT The Quick version of the Oxford Placement Test (OQPT) was used in order to homogenize the groups and make sure that every subject demonstrated an almost equivalent level of English language proficiency. The test includes 60 multiple-choice questions designed to elicit lexical, grammatical, and reading comprehension abilities, with a total of 8 parts—5 dedicated to reading comprehension and the remaining 3 to vocabulary and grammar. Students were given 60 minutes to complete the test, and were awarded one point for each correct answer and one point deducted for each incorrect response. A score of between 30 and 47 indicated an intermediate level of proficiency, and only those students whose scores fell within this range were selected as subjects in the study.

 

 

Pre-test/Post-test

This study utilized matched-form writing tasks in a pre-test/post-test design, adapted from the integrated writing section of the TOEFL iBT selected from the ETS Official Collection of TOEFL iBT Writing Tasks. Each participant first read a passage (250-300 words) for 3 minutes and then listened to a 2-minute lecture on the same topic. The reading passage was visible throughout the task, but the listening passage could not be replayed. Participants were given 20 minutes to write an essay based on both inputs with the reading passage available for reference. For the given reasons, TOEFL iBT was chosen. Firstly, it is very distinct about the different language competencies because it separates testing of academic language proficiency according to this study's goal: uniting reading and listening with writing. Additionally, numerous research studies provide strong validity, reliability, and authenticity support (for example, Cho et al., 2013). The rigorous construction of the test and its standardized scoring criteria added to the external validity and applicability of the study's results in educational settings. Given that the TOEFL iBT is stable with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.94 (ETS, 2011), it was assumed that the tasks were equivalent in terms of difficulty and complexity, thus providing a reliable measure for assessing the effect of integrating reading and listening with writing on students' growth in source-based writing.

 

Scoring Rubric

The scoring rubric used for the integrated tasks in this study was the TOEFL iBT scoring rubric (ETS, 2004). This rubric assesses the use of sources or source-based writing, which is marked by the ability to paraphrase and synthesize information fluently while maintaining the intended meaning (Gebril & Plakans, 2009). It considers the inclusion of verbatim phrases (three or more consecutive words copied directly from source materials) as well as clarity and readability of the essays (Aull, 2019). The rubric uses a 0 to 5 grading scale, informed by six different band descriptors. These descriptors are synthesized and presented in Table 1, which clarifies the scoring rubric details to grade the pre-test and post-test.

 

 

Table 1

Scoring Rubric for the Evaluation of Pre-test & Post--test

Score	Description
5	The essay selects the important information from the source and coherently and accurately elaborates on this information. Minor existing language errors do not result in inaccurate or imprecise presentation of content.
4	The essay is generally good in selecting the important information from the source and coherently and accurately elaborating on this information, but it may have minor omissions, inaccuracies, vagueness, or imprecision. There are frequent or noticeable minor language errors but they just result in occasional lapses of clarity or the connection of ideas.
3	The essay contains some important and relevant information from the source, but it is marked by one or more of the following: • It conveys only vague, global, unclear, or somewhat imprecise meanings of the points made in the source. • Errors of usage and/or grammar may be more frequent or may result in noticeably vague expressions or obscured meanings in conveying ideas.
2	The essay contains some relevant information from the source but is marked by significant language difficulties or by significant omission or inaccuracy of important ideas which is marked by one or more of the following: • It significantly misrepresents or completely omits the important points made in the source. • It contains language errors or expressions that largely obscure the understanding of key ideas.
1	The essay is marked by one or more of the following: • It provides little or no meaningful or relevant coherent content from the source, or it presents merely copied sentences from the source with no developed or organized content.  • The language level of the essay is so low that it is difficult to derive meaning.
0	An essay at this level merely copies words from the topic, rejects the topic, is otherwise not connected to the topic, is written in a foreign language, consists of keystroke characters, or is blank.

 

            As shown in Table 1, the rubric uses a rating scale from 0 to 5, where a score of 0 is given for no engagement with the task, such as irrelevant content, random characters, or a blank response. A score of 1 indicates that performance is significantly below expectations; minimal understanding and numerous errors are evident. A score of 2 reflects below-average performance, showing some understanding but frequent errors that affect comprehensibility. A score of 3 reflects average performance with clear understanding, although several minor errors may be present. A score of 4 represents above-average performance, where understanding is clear and errors are minor and do not significantly impact communication. Finally, a score of 5 exemplifies outstanding performance, demonstrating thorough understanding with negligible errors.

            In general, this rubric gave a standardized way of measuring different aspects of the integrated task, maintaining consistency among multiple raters and at different times; therefore, the reliability and validity of the assessment process were preserved in educational research.

 

Instructional Treatment

A total of 90 participants were randomly assigned to three writing treatment groups that met once a week for 90 minutes throughout a 16-week semester. In the first few sessions, the students were introduced to the argumentative genre and were briefed about how it involves taking a position on a topic, explaining and supporting that claim, and refuting the counterclaim with logical reasoning and supporting details (Plakans & Gebril, 2018). Sample essays were analyzed to clarify these concepts. Pre-testing was conducted in week 4, while post--testing took place in week 16. The five argumentative writing tasks were inserted between the tests, namely in weeks 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14. The experiment was implemented within an existing Essay Writing course; all groups received exactly the same syllabus and teaching plan. The tasks were additional activities presented identically to all groups while the regular teaching method remained unchanged. Each group received a different treatment for the writing tasks. The non-integrated group received no preparatory material; they were simply given a topic and had 30 minutes to write an argumentative essay of 150 to 225 words. The RTW group read a 250-300-word passage displayed on a smart board for 3 minutes, took notes, and used these notes to develop their essay. The LTW group listened to a 2-3-minute lecture played once, took notes, and used them to write their essay. In all three groups, the teacher collected the tasks at the end of each session, provided written corrective feedback on sentence structure, content, coherence, cohesion, and writing style, and returned the tasks to the students in the next session.

 

Data Collection Procedure

The study employed a pre-test-post-test design to evaluate the impact of instructional interventions on EFL learners’ source-based writing proficiency. In week 4, participants took a pre-test, setting a baseline for their writing skills. The post--test, administered in week 16, used an equivalent version of the pre-test to ensure consistency in content and difficulty, enabling valid comparisons of performance. Testing conditions were standardized across all groups, with uniform administration procedures and supervision by the same proctors. Tests were conducted in a quiet, well-lit environment, and each session was timed consistently. This approach controlled for extraneous variables and maintained the reliability and validity of the results, providing a robust assessment of the instructional interventions’ effectiveness.

 

Data Analysis Procedure

The pre-test and post--test scores were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA in SPSS (Version 28.0.1.1) to compare source-based writing across the three groups. Post hoc analyses with Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) Test identified specific differences between the groups.

 

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics for Pre-test and Post--test

After collecting data, the next step involved organizing, summarizing, and describing the characteristics of the dataset by conducting and reporting descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post--test scores. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics, including the number, mean, and standard deviation of participants’ source-based writing scores for both tests.

 

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of the Participants’ Scores on Pre-test & Post--test

Group	Pre-test				Post--test
	N	M	SD	N		M	SD
Non-Integrated	30	0.717	0.252	30		0.883	0.306
LTW-Integrated	30	0.775	0.221	30		2.808	0.225
RTW-Integrated	30	0.750	0.227	30		4.717	0.090

 

            As shown in Table 2, the pre-test results indicated that the non-integrated group had an average score of 0.717 for source use, the LTW integrated group had an average score of 0.775, while the RTW integrated group had an average score of 0.750. These results suggest comparable initial proficiency levels in source-based writing among the groups, providing a consistent baseline for subsequent analyses.

            In the post--test, the non-integrated group had a slight increase with an average of 0.883. The LTW integrated group had a remarkable increase with the mean score of 2.808. The RTW integrated group obtained the highest mean score of 4.717, which is the biggest gain. These results indicate significant improvements in source-based writing performance for all groups, with the integrated groups showing even more significant improvements, and the RTW integrated group realizing the most dramatic improvement. Overall, the data indicate that all groups demonstrated gains from the pre-test to the post--test; however, the integrated groups (LTW and RTW) demonstrated significantly higher mean scores on the post-test when compared with their pre-test performances.

            Within the non-integrated group, this had risen to 0.883, (SD = 0.306) from a score of 0.717, SD = 0.252. In comparison, the mean LTW scores increased from 0.775 (SD = 0.221) to 2.808 (SD = 0.225) and for RTW increased from 0.750 (SD = 0.227) to 4.717 (SD = 0.090). In summary, though all participants improved over time, the two integrated groups' post-test performances were descriptively better than their pre-test results, reflecting significantly higher mean scores. To further explore these differences and derive statistically sound conclusions, an analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) was conducted. Results of the Normality Test Before conducting one-way ANOVA, a normality test was necessary to confirm that the data met the assumption of normal distribution required for inferential statistics (Lindstromberg, 2020). The Shapiro–Wilk test was chosen due to its superior power and sensitivity in detecting deviations from normality, particularly with small to moderate sample sizes (Larson-Hall, 2015). Table 3 shows the Shapiro–Wilk test results for the pre-test and post-test source-based writing scores.

 

Table 3

Shapiro–Wilk Test of Normality

Group	Pre-test			Post—test
	Stat.	df	Sig.	Stat	df	Sig.
Non-Integrated	0.870	30	0.260	0.856	30	0.288
LTW-Integrated	0.774	30	0.452	0.932	30	0.136
RTW-Integrated	0.815	30	0.370	0.92	30	0.160

 

            As it can be seen from Table 3, all the significance levels were above 0.05 (p > 0.05), which means that the distribution of scores did not significantly differ from normality. This result confirms that for the dataset, the assumption of normality is met, and therefore, parametric tests, such as one-way ANOVA, can be conducted. Meeting this assumption means that the statistical procedures applied are appropriate and the inferences derived from the data are reliable.

 

Testing Research Hypothesis

The research question, therefore, generated the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences in the effects of non-IWTs, RTW-integrated tasks, and LTW-integrated tasks on the development of source-based writing among Iranian intermediate EFL learners. In testing this hypothesis, the first step was to check the compatibility of the preset scores. A one-way ANOVA was conducted on the participants' pre-test scores to establish the comparability of the groups at the start of the experiment. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4.

 

Table 4

One-way ANOVA for Source-Based Writing Scores on the Pre-test

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	η2
Between Groups	0.051	2	0.026	0.469	0.627	0.002
Within Groups	4.760	87	0.055
Total	4.811	89

 

     As indicated in Table 4, the results reveal no initial differences among the groups in terms of the improvement in source-based writing, F (2, 87) = 0.469, p = 0.627>0.001, η² = 0.002. To examine the differences between the groups following the experiment, a one-way ANOVA was conducted on the participants’ post--test scores, with the results presented in Table 5.

 

Table 5

One-way ANOVA for Source-Based Writing Scores on the Post--test

	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	η2
Between Groups	220.418	2	110.209	2182.233	0.000	0.374
Within Groups	4.394	87	0.550
Total	224.812	89

 

     As shown in Table 5, there is a significant difference among the three groups, F (2, 87) = 2182.233, p = 0.000 < 0.001, η² = 0.374, indicating a strong main effect of the treatment. These results suggest that the groups receiving different types of writing instruction achieved statistically different scores on the post-test assessing source-based writing. However, although one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference among the groups, it did not specify where these differences lay. Therefore, to identify which specific group means differed from each other, a post hoc analysis using Tukey's HSD test was conducted. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.

 

Table 6

Tukey Post Hoc Test for Source-Based Writing Scores on the Post--test

Pairwise Comparisons	Mean	St. Dev.	Mean Difference	Sig.
Non-Integrated (1): LTW Integrated (2)	M1=0.883 M2=2.808	SD1=0.306 SD2=0.225	1.925	0.000
Non-Integrated (1): RTW Integrated (3)	M1=0.883 M3=4.717	SD1=0.306 SD3=0.090	3.834	0.000
LTW Integrated (2): RTW Integrated (3)	M2=2.808 M3=4.717	SD2=0.225 SD3=0.090	1.909	0.000

 

            Tukey's HSD test post hoc comparisons, as illustrated in Table 6, indicate that the mean scores across the three groups are significantly different at p < 0.001. The difference between the non-integrated group and the LTW group is significant at p < 0.001, while the difference between the non-integrated group and the RTW group is significant at p < 0.001. The difference between the LTW and RTW groups is statistically significant with p < 0.001. These results are further explained by descriptive statistics: the highest mean score is for the RTW group, M = 4.717 and SD = 0.090, the LTW group, M = 2.808 and SD = 0.225, while the lowest scores are for the non-integrated group, M = 0.883 and SD = 0.306.

            Generally, the one-way ANOVA results reveal that there is a statistically significant difference in source-based writing scores among the three groups on the post--test, which rejects the null hypothesis that there would be no significant differences among the non-integrated, LTW, and RTW writing tasks in their effects on Iranian EFL learners' source-based writing development. The RH₀ is thus rejected, confirming that the three groups were impacted differently by the type of writing instruction. The Tukey's HSD test revealed further that the RTW group outperformed both the LTW and non-integrated groups, the LTW outperformed the non-integrated group, which turned in the weakest performance.

 

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the effects of three task-based instructional approaches to writing—non-integrated, LTW-integrated, and RTW-integrated—on Iranian EFL learners' development of source-based writing, with a focus on synthesizing and paraphrasing information from sources. More specifically, it investigated how appropriately learners were able to generate ideas in novel or paraphrased sentences while clearly and accurately conveying the original meanings.

            The integrated groups made a significant improvement in extracting the relevant information, summarizing the material, and were generally accurate in communicating ideas. The non-integrated group didn't show much improvement; they usually wrote vague and inaccurate compositions that tended to omit important points. An analysis of the pre-test and post--test scores showed that integrated-group individuals were able to find core information from multiple sources and synthesize it clearly and accurately in a way that would fulfill the requirements set for the assignment. While the non-integrated group did not show significant source-based writing improvement; their written products were often characterized as unclear or confusing in their meanings, with many omitting critical details, errors, or language mistakes that made it hard for a reader to understand key concepts.

            The better performance of the integrated groups can be traced to the latter's access to a greater variety of source materials and the essays that the students have to produce from this information. This experience allowed them to develop a deeper understanding of how to synthesize information, arguments, and evidence from multiple sources into coherent arguments or stories that were richer because of this new understanding. The non-integrated group, without such experiences, was unable to develop the ability to synthesize ideas effectively or create a sense of coherence around their idea based on source texts. These findings are in line with previous research (e.g., Gebril & Plakans, 2009; Plakans, 2008; Plakans & Gebril, 2013) that has shown how engagement with source texts provides a foundation for the analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of information into coherent arguments. Previous research has shown that source-based writing enhances not only students' comprehension of content but also clarity in students' own writing (Lia et al., 2023).

            Supplementary research (e.g., Plakans & Gebril, 2018) underpins the claim that such activities teach learners to evaluate information, identify key arguments and synthesize diverse perspectives—the hallmarks of higher-order cognitive functioning and critical synthesis skills. From a broader perspective, these findings support extensive literature highlighting integrated skills approaches as effective for reinforcing language skills (Ellis, 2021). More specifically, they corroborate research showing that integrating reading and listening with writing enhances English writing skills, validating the effectiveness of IWTs as educational tools (e.g., Aldosari, 2016; Cho & Brutt-Griffler, 2015; Gholami & Alinasab, 2017). A large overall salient outcome of this study found a great difference in source-based writing skills between the integrated and non-integrated writing groups, with the integrated groups performing better in synthesizing information. This outcome verifies the effectiveness of IWTs in improving source-based writing skills, as repeated exposures to IWTs throughout the experiment provided participants with learning opportunities that nurtured their ability to synthesize information (Baaijen & Galbraith, 2018).

            The above findings are in line with the knowledge-telling and knowledge-transforming frameworks. Knowledge-telling does basic information retrieval with minimal modification (Hayes, 2011), while knowledge-transforming—that used in IWTs—entails deeper cognitive engagement, synthesis, analysis, and integration of multiple sources (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hirvela & Du, 2020). Higher-order cognition is associated with tasks involving knowledge transformation, which enhances critical thinking and the development of new arguments, in comparison with tasks that only share knowledge, focusing on basic recall and reproduction of information (Baaijen & Galbraith, 2018). Empirical evidence supports such a classification by emphasizing deep cognitive engagement required by tasks transforming knowledge, leading to critical thinking and using concepts across contexts (Zhang & Ren, 2023; Plakans & Gebril, 2018). The higher performance of the integrated groups in this study is thus explained by the multi-faceted cognitive demands placed on IWTs that allow for the promotion of source-based writing ability, while the non-integrated group undertook less complex and cognitively fewer demanding tasks (Hayes, 2011; Hirvela & Du, 2020). The second important finding from this study was the large discrepancy between the two integrated groups in that the analyses suggested the RTW group performed better than the LTW group in source-based writing.

            This finding is in line with previous research that suggested a big influence of the nature of source input on learners' IWT performance (Brown & Lee, 2020; Cumming et al., 2005, 2006; Gebril & Plakans, 2021; Hirvela & Du, 2020; Soleimani & Mahdavipour, 2014; Yang & Plakans, 2012). Also, it reinforces the assertion that reading input tends to be more facilitative of task performance than listening input in integrated tasks (Cubilo & Winke, 2013; Liao et al., 2023; Rukthong & Brunfaut, 2020; Willis & Nanni, 2017; Zhang, 2017; Zhu et al., 2016). This result is in line with those of Willis and Nanni (2017), which, in the case of argumentative essays, indicated that writers tend to rely more on reading input than on listening input. This dependence on reading input as opposed to auditory input is also supported by Plakans' (2009) study, which showed that participants frequently use reading materials throughout several stages of the task, including pre-writing, writing, and post-writing.

            Plakans and Gebril (2012) also support this claim, noting that students refer to reading texts to comprehend the material, develop their thoughts, and ensure spelling and vocabulary use are accurate, whereas reliance on auditory input is limited by the quality of the notes taken. The superior performance of the RTW group compared with the LTW group was because the nature of spoken input is more complex, as it entails greater cognitive effort as compared to written input. Processing the spoken or audio material entails multitasking such as listening to the recording, processing auditory information, and simultaneously writing down notes due to limitations in memory. This, therefore, makes the LTW tasks more demanding (Field, 2019; Francis & Love, 2020). Listening tasks demand on-the-spot processing, requiring an instant interpretation without an opportunity to stop or replay, in contrast with reading (Siegel, 2020). Another block to listening comprehension is due to differences in pronunciation and accents, intonation variations, and a lack of visual aids (Goh, 2018).

            Auditory processing involves heavier cognitive load on short-term memory, as learners need to simultaneously store and process information; this is in contrast to reading, where learners can re-read texts as needed (Goh, 2018; Vandergrift & Goh, 2012). Moreover, the implicit contextualization in spoken language often requires higher-level inferencing skills compared to the more explicit context usually provided in written texts (Siegel, 2021). These aspects together made it possible for the RTW group to perform better. Their recall abilities, on the other hand, heavily relied on brief notes taken while listening through which their performance of tasks depended on their note-taking skills. This contrasts with RTW participants, who were allowed to review the reading material several times with a clearer advantage (Cubilo & Winke, 2013; Siegel, 2021).

            The additional activity of note-taking, while performing listening tasks caused divided attention, thus deteriorating general performance outcomes, which were evident in the results of the LTW group; Chan & Yamashita, 2022; Plakans & Gebril, 2013. In a nutshell, note-taking while listening seems paradoxical: it provides a way to understand and, at the same time, imposes heavy loads on cognition that may interrupt task performance. This double role, especially in the LTW tasks, taxes learners' working memory capacity, drawing attention away from deep processing essential for high-quality writing (Sweller et al., 2011). Most evidently, the performance of the LTW group showed that the cognitive overload from note-taking during listening must have interfered with comprehension and lowered the quality of writing, thus explaining why the RTW group did better. These findings have important theoretical and practical implications for FLA and writing pedagogy, underlining the efficacy of IWTs in improving source-based writing skills.

            The findings of this study are in line with the extant literature on integrated skills instruction: that is, combining reading, listening, and writing really significantly improves language proficiency, including academic skills like argumentation and synthesis (Brown & Lee, 2020; Plakans & Gebril, 2018). This would align with theoretical constructs like knowledge-transforming, which involves high-level cognitive activities such as synthesis and critical assessment that result in better writing (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Hirvela & Du, 2020). More pragmatically, the findings provide a rationale for the use of IWTs within language curricula to improve writing and critical thinking among students at the tertiary level of education. This will encourage curriculum designers to include reading, listening, and writing tasks in order to provide holistic language instruction, while at the same time, policymakers should encourage IWTs in education programs to develop proficient writers. Besides, assessment practices should mirror the integrated nature of the IWTs; that is, the students' ability to synthesize information from several sources.

            It also calls for professional development programs that will train educators in the effective implementation of IWTs in order to improve practice and student outcomes. Notwithstanding its notable findings, the study points out several limitations, including a small and homogeneous sample size, methodological constraints, and the limited generalizability of the results. The study was of a pre-test-post-test design and did not control for other confounding variables; it also focused narrowly on source-based writing. Future research should address these issues by including larger, more heterogeneous samples and using randomized controlled experiments that assess writing skills and sub-skills more broadly.

            Longitudinal studies should be used to assess the sustainability of improvements, and qualitative methods can give insight into students' perceptions. Additionally, the role of technology in IWTs and how it can be used to improve the scalability of teacher training in different educational settings should be researched.

 

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the comparative effects of non-integrated, RTW-integrated, and LTW-integrated tasks on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' source-based writing proficiency. The findings revealed that integrated writing tasks, especially RTW-integrated tasks, significantly enhanced learners' ability to effectively use sources in writing production. In particular, RTW tasks showed a significantly higher effect size than both non-integrated and LTW tasks, indicating that reading has a unique role in fostering deeper cognitive engagement during the source-based writing process. This can be explained by the fact that reading allows learners to process difficult linguistic structures, extract key ideas, and critically evaluate information in a written format that is close to the requirements of academic writing.

The results of the study are in line with the most recent research, emphasizing the role of cognitive load theory and the Input Hypothesis in second language acquisition. Reading-based tasks require learners to engage in a more extensive meaning-making process, enhancing their comprehension, analytical skills, and synthesis of information. These processes create a strong cognitive foundation for producing cohesive and well-organized written texts, which is particularly critical in source-based writing. However, the support for the latter is also minimal, given that LTW tasks, although useful in their own right, come with extra cognitive processing needs--for example, memory and audio decoding--which may interfere with learners' ability to develop source integration and coherent content production.

The findings again support the growing literature for TBLT, recommending realistic, meaningful tasks to engage skill integration. RTW tasks, which integrate reading and writing, also provide EFL learners with opportunities to develop higher-order thinking skills such as summarizing, paraphrasing, and synthesizing information-skills indispensable for academic and professional success. The findings of this study also support the recent pedagogical trend for multimodal learning in which reading as input better accommodates source-based writing than listening does, since written texts can be revisited, analyzed, and manipulated more easily than auditory inputs.

From a pedagogical perspective, these findings underscore the need for EFL educators to prioritize integrated tasks, particularly RTW tasks, when designing curricula aimed at improving academic writing proficiency. The tasks of RTW provide a scaffolding mechanism in which learners may tap into comprehensible input and strategically embed source material as they work out their critical thinking skills in a supportive environment. For curriculum designers, the findings in this study also underscore the benefit of linking reading comprehension activities to writing tasks as an integrated approach to teaching. For that matter, integrating RTW-integrated activities into EFL curricula might enable learners to overcome these obstacles in academic writing, thereby better preparing them to tackle future academic and professional tasks.

Long-term effects of both RTW and LTW tasks on the development of writing skills might also be investigated in further studies through research across different proficiency levels and language learning contexts. Additionally, examining the role of task complexity, source text modality, and learner motivation in the efficacy of integrated tasks would provide further insights into optimizing source-based writing instruction. Generally, this study offers a robust empirical foundation for adopting RTW-integrated tasks as a key component of EFL writing pedagogy, reinforcing their critical role in fostering learners’ source-based writing proficiency and cognitive engagement.

 

REFERENCES

Ahmadnattaj, F., & Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. (2020). On the effectiveness of integrated skills approach in language teaching: A meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(2).

Aldosari, H. (2016). Effects of an integrated reading/writing approach on improving writing skills of EFL students. Dirasat Educational Sciences, 43(1), 761-771.

Aljahdali, W., & Alshakhi, A. (2021). Exploring EFL writing teaching through the integrated skills approach: A case study in the Saudi context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(5), 800-809.

Aljiffri, I. H. (2010). Effects of the integrated approach to teaching English and social studies on achievement in a Saudi private elementary school. Journal of Educational & Psychological Science, 11(4), 11-31.

Alqouran, A. &. Samadi, O. (2016). The effect of reading-writing integration on Jordanian undergraduate students’ writing performance. Arab World English Journal, 7(2), 177-189.

Aull, L. L. (2019). Source-based writing and the development of analytical skills in academic writing. Journal of Academic Writing, 9(1), 15-30.

Avramenko, А. P., & Davydova, M. A. (2020). Integrated writing tasks as a means of increasing the authenticity of the learning process. Of Applied Linguistics, 2(38), 26-44.

Azodi, N., & Lotfi, A. (2020). E-collaborative tasks and the enhancement of writing performance among Iranian university-level EFL learners. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 165-180.

Baaijen, V. M., & Galbraith, D. (2018). Understanding the effects of writing on writing: A model of writing as a knowledge-constituting process. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1929-1943.

Brown, C. M., & Lee, E. H. (2020). Enhancing language development through source-based writing tasks. In S. White & R. Black (Eds.), Language learning in the digital age (pp. 123-140). Springer.

Byrnes, H. (2020). Toward an agenda for researching L2 writing and language learning: The educational context of development. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 73–94). John Benjamins.

Chalak, A., & Heidari Tabrizi, H. (2023). Common errors in graduate Iranian EFL students’ academic writing: Implications for practitioners. International Journal of Language Studies, 17(2).

Chan, S., & Yamashita, J. (2022). Integrated writing and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Assessing Writing, 54, 100662.

Cho, H. & Brutt-Griffler, G. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: A case of Korean English language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242–261.

Cho, H. & Brutt-Griffler, G. (2015). Integrated reading and writing: A case of Korean English language learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 242–261.

Cho, Y., Rijmen, F., & Novák, J. (2013). Investigating the effects of prompt characteristics on the comparability of TOEFL iBT™ integrated writing tasks. Language Testing, 30(4), 513-534.

Cubilo, J., & Winke, P. (2013). Redefining the L2 listening construct within an integrated writing task: Considering the impacts of visual-cue interpretation and note-taking. Language Assessment Quarterly, 10(4), 371-397.

Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next-generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10(1), 5–43.

Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2006). Analysis of discourse features and verification of scoring levels for independent and integrated prototype written tasks for next-generation TOEFL. TOEFL monograph (p. 30). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Durukan, E. (2011). Effects of cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC) technique on reading-writing skills. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(1), 102.

Ellis, R. (2021). A short history of SLA: Where have we come from and where are we going? Language Teaching, 54(2), 190-205.

Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2020). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

ETS. (2004). iBT/next generation TOEFL test integrated writing rubrics (scoring standards). Retrieved from http://www. ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing_Rubrics.pdf

ETS. (2011). Reliability and comparability of TOEFL iBTTM scores. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/toefl/research/ ibt_insight_series.

Field, J. (2019). Rethinking the second language listening test from theory to practice. British Council Monographs on Modern Language Testing 2. Sheffield: Equinox.

Francis, A. L., & Love, J. (2020). Listening effort: Are we measuring cognition or affect, or both? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 11(1), e1514.

Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2009). Investigating source use, discourse features, and process in integrated writing tests. Spaan Working Papers in Second or Foreign Language Assessment, 7, 47–84.

Gebril, A., & Plakans, L. (2021). Towards a better understanding of skill integration in integrated writing tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(2), 123-142.

Gholami, J., & Alinasab, M. (2017). Source-based tasks in writing independent and integrated essays. International Journal of Instruction, 10(3), 127-142.

Goh, C. C. M. (2018). Listening in second language learning. Oxford University Press.

Hayes, J. R. (2011). Kinds of knowledge-telling: Modeling early writing development. Journal of Writing Research, 3(2), 73-92.

Hirvela, A., & Du, Q. (2020). Connecting reading and writing: Research-based practice. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-6). Wiley.

Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated writing tasks: Towards a more focused definition for assessment purposes. Assessing writing, 18(4), 300-308.

Larson-Hall, J. (2015). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS and R. Routledge.

Liao, R. J., Ohta, R., & Lee, K. (2023). The relationship between written discourse features and integrated listening-to-write scores for adolescent English language learners. Language Testing, 02655322231167629.

Lindstromberg, S. (2020). The assumptions of normality and similar distributions in small-scale quantitative research: Diagnostic graphs & choosing a significance test (No. 1). Technical Report for L2 Researchers.

Masumi, O. N. O. (2021). Japanese university students’ integrated writing skills in listening-to-write tasks. Koyoyo-Ronso,142, 89-110.

Mekheimer, M. (2011). Effectiveness of an integrated, holistic pedagogy of EFL skills in college students. The Educational Research Journal, 25(100), 41-74.

Michel, M., Kormos, J., Brunfaut, T., & Ratajczak, M. (2019). The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31-45.

Ohta, R., Plakans, L. M., & Gebril, A. (2018). Integrated writing scores based on holistic and multi-trait scales: A generalizability analysis. Assessing Writing, 38, 21-36.

Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13(2), 111-129.

Plakans, L. (2009). Discourse synthesis in integrated second language assessment. Language Testing, 26 (4), 561–587.

Plakans, L. (2010). Independent versus integrated writing tasks: A comparison of task representation. TESOL Quarterly, 44 (1), 185–194.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2012). A close investigation into source use in integrated second language writing tasks. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 18-34.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2013). Using multiple texts in an integrated writing assessment: Source text use as a predictor of score. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 217-230.

Plakans, L., & Gebril, A. (2018). Exploring the construct of integrated writing. Journal of Writing Research, 10(1), 45-66.

Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping motivation to read and write: The role of integrated L2 writing tasks. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 100689.

Plakans, L., Liao, J. T., & Wang, F. (2018). Integrated assessment research: Writing-into-reading. Language Teaching, 51(3), 430-434.

Rukthong, A., & Brunfaut, T. (2020). Is anybody listening? The nature of second language listening in integrated listening-to-summarize tasks. Language Testing, 37(1), 31-53.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in written composition. Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142-175.

Siegel, J. (2020). Exploring listening strategy instruction through action research. Palgrave Macmillan.

Siegel, J. (2021). Note-taking in second language listening assessment: Insights and issues. Language Testing, 38(2), 267-291.

Soleimani, H., & Mahdavipour, M. (2014). The effect of variations in integrated writing tasks and proficiency level on features of written discourse generated by Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills), 33(2), 129-159.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.

Turuk Kuek, M. C. (2010). Developing critical thinking skills through integrative teaching of reading and writing in the L2 writing classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University).

Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. Routledge.

Weigle, S. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a competency test for non-native speakers of English. Assessing Writing, 9 (1), 27–55.

Weigle, S. C., & Parker, K. (2012). Source text borrowing in an integrated reading/writing assessment. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 118-133.

Willis, C., & Nanni, A. (2017). Relative Influence of reading and listening inputs on students’ writing. Proceedings of the 37th Thailand TESOL International Conference, 165-178.

Yang, H. C., & Plakans, L. (2012). Second language writers’ strategy use and performance on an integrated reading‐listening‐writing task. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 80-103.

Zhang, X. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 217-240.

Zhang, Y., & Ren, H. (2023). Analyzing cognitive processes in integrated writing tasks: Implications for EFL teaching. Journal of Second Language Writing, 62, 100841.

Zhu, X., Li, X., Yu, G., Cheong, C. M., & Liao, X. (2016). Exploring the relationships between independent listening and listening-reading-writing tasks in Chinese language testing: Toward a better understanding of the construct underlying integrated writing tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(3), 167–185.

Zuzana, T., DeCamillis, K., & Lorenz, S. (2023). Culturally and linguistically responsive source-based argumentative writing pedagogy for multilingual writers in the secondary school context. In R. Wette (Ed.), Teaching and learning source-based writing: Current perspectives and future directions (pp. 50-70). Routledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---