BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES TESOL Quarterly invites readers to submit short reports and updates on their work These summaries may address any areas of interest to Quarterly readers Edited by ALI SHEHADEH United Arab Emirates University ANNE BURNS Macquarie University Independent vs Integrated Writing Tasks: A Comparison of Task Representation LIA PLAKANS The University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa, United States doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.215251 & As the field of second language writing embraces the authenticity and meaningfulness of connecting writing with other skills (Hinkel, 2006; Hirvela, 2004), language teachers and testers require greater understanding of how writers respond to as well as compose for integrated tasks Writing has frequently been isolated as a solitary construct in writing courses and independent assessment tasks; however, inventories of academic language use have demonstrated that the skill of writing has not remained autonomous but, rather, allied with reading, listening, and speaking (Braine, 1989; Horowitz, 1986) This research has led to an increased interest in tasks that integrate writing with these other skills For example, the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) previously employed a single independent writing-only task in which test takers wrote an impromptu essay on a short prompt Recently the test has added an integrated writing task that requires listening to and reading texts followed by a written summarization of this content However, a need exists for the field to better comprehend what second language writers when faced with writing tasks that require other skills Research on integrated tasks is critical in highlighting how integration impacts students and their writing, as well as in implications for instruction and assessment of integrated writing An essential step for writers composing either classroom assignments or assessment tasks is to construct an understanding of the task demands TESOL QUARTERLY Vol 44, No 1, March 2010 185 This construction of meaning has been labeled task representation as defined by Wolfersberger (2007): ‘‘When confronted with any academic writing task, the first thing a student must is create an understanding of what skills, products, and processes the task requires and make a plan of action that will lead to a written product that appropriately fulfills the writing task’’ (p 73) This process has been studied with first language writers (e.g., Flower, Stein, Ackerman, Kantz, McCormick, & Peck, 1990) as well as second language writers (Basham, Ray, & Whalley, 1993; Connor & Carrell, 1993; Ruiz-Funes, 1999, 2001; Zhang, 2006) In studies of second language writing, researchers have investigated task representation in integrated reading-to-write tasks using case study methods analyzing verbal report protocols of writers, observing and interviewing students writing for academic courses, or studying written products For example, Ruiz-Funes (2001) studied 14 advanced Spanishas-a-foreign-language students composing essays discussing a literary text Her focus was on the written products, finding that writers approached tasks differently, resulting in different rhetorical styles However, the more cognitively complex style did not lead to the most syntactically complex writing She concluded that factors other than language skill impacted the writers’ task representation Allen (2004) followed an ESL writer through a linguistics class assignment, finding that the student’s task representation was strongly impacted by her prior experience with writing using sources Similarly, Wolfersberger (2007) found that, for four Chinese writers composing a required English writing course assignment, task representations were shaped by personal and contextual factors such as background, experience, writing process, and interactions with teachers and others during the writing process A gap in the research appears when considering how writers differ in their approaches to integrated tasks in comparison to traditional independent writing tasks Such research is needed to inform teachers and test developers on the impact of using or choosing between the two task types and to help guide development or use of the tasks Studies comparing the two task types have focused on written product comparisons, finding that final scores on the two tasks are related (Brown, Hilgers, & Marsella, 1991; Gebril, 2006; Lewkowicz, 1994), but differences emerge in the features of writing, such as grammatical accuracy, development, and rhetorical stance (Cumming, Kantor, Baba, Erdosy, Eouanzoui & James, 2005; Lewkowicz, 1994) Few studies have investigated the processes across these task types (Esmaeili, 2002; Plakans, 2008) These studies centered on writers’ overall processes in completing these tasks, leading to the conclusion that reading is part of the writing process for integrated tasks However, a narrower lens is essential to focus closely on task representation in the task types Research is needed to discover if writers perceive a difference in the two tasks, and whether they plan different approaches to 186 TESOL QUARTERLY complete them Such insight would provide the field of second language writing with more information on which to interpret the results from both integrated and independent tasks The present study focused on how task type impacts task representation, asking the research question: How writers’ task representations of an integrated reading-to-write task differ from that of an independent writing-only task? METHOD To answer this research question, think-aloud verbal protocol and interview data were collected from 10 writers who were undergraduate and graduate, nonnative-English-speaking students at a U.S university These data were used to compare writing processes overall in an earlier study (Plakans, 2008), which led to the narrower, more detailed focus in the present study of how writers represented the two tasks Participants held a variety of majors from the sciences, applied sciences, business, and humanities They came from different countries: Mexico, China, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, and Vietnam, and had a range of language proficiencies based on scores from the TOEFL, from 520 to 630 (paper based) or 200 to 267 (computer based) Following a training session on thinking aloud (Ericsson & Simon, 1993), each writer used the verbal protocol method while writing both tasks in separate sessions: one session devoted to an integrated reading-towrite task and the other writing an independent writing-only task The task topics and order of tasks were counterbalanced (shown in Table 1) with four argumentative writing tasks on the topics of cultural borrowing and the impact of technology The writing sessions were conducted in small groups of 2–3 writers in a large room with audio recording capability These writing sessions were preceded and followed with interviews to explore writers’ experience and interest in reading and writing, as well as their thoughts on the two writing tasks and their process of composing TABLE Writing Session Design First writing session RW Participants 1–2 3–5 6–8 9–10 Tech Second writing session WO Cult Tech RW Cult Tech WO Cult Tech X Cult X X X X X X X Note: RW reading-to-write, WO writing-only, Tech impact of technology, Cult cultural borrowing BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 187 The reading-to-write tasks included two paragraph-long source-text excerpts that presented different views on each topic Writers were asked to determine their position on the topic and write an essay using the source texts to support that position The topics for these two tasks, cultural borrowing and the impact of technology, were also used for the writing-only tasks Through piloting and postwriting interviews with writers, the topics were found to be equivalent in terms of difficulty Sample instructions for the writing-only and reading-to-write tasks are shown below Technology, Writing-only task How has technology changed our lives? Are these changes positive, negative or both? Plan before you begin to write Write an essay about your opinion on this topic Use examples to support your discussion Your writing will be evaluated on a) content b) organization c) grammar and vocabulary d) punctuation and spelling Technology, Reading-to-write task Modern technology, such as high-speed computers, cell phones, and the Internet, has impacted our lives and our world Some believe this is good; others are not so sure –Read the following passages related to this issue –Then consider your position on the impact of modern technology –Plan and write an essay supporting your position and using examples –Incorporate relevant information from the passages appropriately Do not copy exact phases; cite the authors Your writing will be evaluated on a) content b) organization c) grammar and vocabulary d) punctuation and spelling Once data were collected and transcribed, transcription segments related to task representation were highlighted for thematic patterns Across writers’ think-aloud protocols, there was a sizeable difference in number of task representation segments, from 22 segments to only segments The researcher and a co-rater conducted an inductive analysis of the task representation segments to identify patterns for coding Four coding categories emerged from this analysis: initial task representation, topic determination, genre identification, and source-text use Table provides examples of think-aloud segments for each category Using 188 TESOL QUARTERLY TABLE Coding Categories With Examples From Think-Aloud Protocols Coding category Definition Initial task representation The writers’ first thoughts about the demands of the task Topic determination The writer identifies the topic in the task Genre identification The writer considers what form their writing should take Source text use The writer articulates the purpose of readings in the task Example ‘‘The task is to promote cultural borrowings’’ ‘‘Okay, impact of globalization on culture… on culture’’ ‘‘I’m supposed to present my position, okay.’’ ‘‘So, these are the articles from which I’m supposed to this cite’’ these categories and the transcripts, a comparison between the two tasks was completed focusing on differences across categories, writers, and tasks Once the comparison had been conducted, the researcher divided the patterns into local-level issues that focused specifically on the coding categories, and global differences that concentrated on the writers’ overall processes of task representation RESULTS The results of this study revealed some writers constructing very similar task representations for the two tasks, while others interpreted the tasks differently These findings are presented in terms of local issues, followed by global findings Local-Level Comparison In the initial period of the writing sessions with the integrated tasks, all writers engaged in a circular process of understanding the tasks They began by reading the instructions and prompt, followed by reading the source texts, and then returned to reread the prompt At this point in his writing, Levent1 thought, ‘‘So when I reading the passage, I forgot the task, so I will read again the task.’’ In the independent task, writers read the prompt, quickly identified the task as argumentation, and began planning their essay In this way, the independent task representations seemed more efficient and less repetitive In interviews, writers provided several reasons for this initial recursion in their task representation process Writers reported that their working memory was taxed, causing them to forget the prompt when reading the source texts Second, writers reported more familiarity with independent writing tasks in timed writing situations They had practiced strategies Pseudonyms are used in this article in place of writers’ real names BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 189 for such tasks before taking the TOEFL (all had taken the TOEFL before integrated tasks were introduced) However, they had less experience with tasks involving synthesis of reading with writing in an assessment setting Last, some writers explained that they understood the topic when they first read the prompt, but their conceptualization of the topic became more complex as they read the source texts Thus, they returned to the prompt for clarification In relation to this issue of topic, writers identified and elucidated the topic for their writing in both tasks similarly In reading the prompt, they identified key words or phrases, defined these words, and paraphrased the essay topic For example, in the integrated task Eduardo said, ‘‘Okay, let’s see…I have to write my opinion about the impact of globalization on culture.’’ Another writer, Vivian, reworded the prompt in the independent task to clarify her understanding of the task, ‘‘I can talk about the new technology, how it affects… how it affects our lives.’’ Another element of task representation that occurred with both tasks was articulating the essay genre, not in rhetorical terms, but in writers’ own words Mei recognized the expository nature of the tasks when she thought ‘‘Talk about, talk something about me.’’ On the independent writing, Megumi made note of the independent task by saying, ‘‘It’s like a TOEFL writing!’’ The requirement to integrate the sources in the integrated task created a significant difference in some writers’ task representation as they contemplated and reread the instructions regarding the source texts They focused on two issues: how to use the source text, and the directions for appropriate citation For example, Megumi pointed out, ‘‘Okay, so I’m not supposed to copy exact phrases.’’ Often these incidents of task representation occurred later in the writers’ processes, during writing as they decided to include source support, or when reading their essays to check for plagiarism Global-Level Comparison Examining writers’ task representations across the two tasks more globally, it appears that six writers had very similar task representation processes for both tasks—the addition of source texts had little impact on their task representation Although they differed in the initial step by rereading the reading-to-write prompt, these writers appeared to interpret the demands of the two tasks similarly However, four writers had markedly different interpretations of the tasks, particularly in relation to the source texts This second group of writers recognized in their initial reading of the tasks that the source texts needed close understanding and read them fully, later returning to the readings as they wrote In contrast, 190 TESOL QUARTERLY the first group saw the source texts as a place to generate ideas and read through them quickly before writing their essays and did not return to reading Along with careful reading, the four writers in the second group interpreted the tasks as requiring synthesis of source texts and spent time considering both how and where to include the readings for support The difference between these two groups may be related to their backgrounds, in particular, their experience with academic writing Those in the second group reported experience with source-text-dependent writing in high school or in university coursework that assigned discourse synthesis writing In addition, all four of the writers described writing for pleasure or for social purposes such as letter writing, journal writing, or creative writing The other six did not report such activities, and some even revealed strategies they used to avoid writing In sum, the difference across these two groups was in their understanding of the purpose of the readings, perhaps due to experience with integrated writing as well as greater engagement with writing in general Although the processes of the writers revealed some writers interpreting both tasks in the same way, their interviews suggest that most writers perceived a difference in the tasks Eduardo, a writer from the second group, said that his writing style and basic structure were similar for the two tasks, but for the integrated task, he used the readings as he would a research paper After completing the two writing tasks, Megumi thought the integrated task ‘‘was way harder’’ than the independent task, stating that the former was similar to writing an academic paper This sentiment also appeared with writers whose task representation analysis showed similarities across the two tasks For example, Wei felt that the major difference between the two tasks was in the direction they took writers—the integrated task provided a ‘‘right direction’’ to writers from the readings, while the independent task left ‘‘lots of directions’’ for writers Ahn believed the integrated task was harder, but that reading and writing are always combined in academic writing: ‘‘whenever you read something you have to combine with thinking and combine with writing.’’ DISCUSSION From this exploratory study, some hypotheses may be drawn on the impact of integrating reading in a writing task For all writers, both tasks elicited articulation of the topic and genre The integrated tasks led all writers to spend more time rereading the prompt For the writers who distinguished the two tasks, the integrated tasks were considered to require attention to the source texts and a need to integrate the texts into their writing From these findings, several issues may be highlighted BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 191 First, the integrated task required more time and repeated reading to construct task representation, due to the reading demands in the task For some writers, reading the source texts increased the complexity of the tasks compared with the independent task, causing reconsideration of their understanding of the task during the writing process Changes in task representation during the writing process have been cited by Flower et al (1990) as leading to problems in composing This challenge was not seen in the writing-only task representations The source texts may have proved helpful for some writers’ understanding of the topic, a process called content schematic task representation by Wolfersberger (2007), but for others the reading added complexity to the topic and required monitoring of synthesis and plagiarism When using integrated writing tasks, the role of the added skill and content requires recognition by instructors and test users, both in implementing the tasks and interpreting the results of the tasks Second, in agreement with previous research (Allen, 2004; RuizFunes, 2001; Wolfersberger, 2007), writers’ backgrounds appeared to influence their task representation and, in particular, whether they interpreted the two tasks differently Thus, for writers having less experience with academic writing requiring synthesis, the reading was useful in generating ideas on the topic for their writing For others who reported more experience with academic reading for writing, the reading generated a more complex task that required them to understand and integrate the source texts The findings in this study corroborate Ruiz-Funes’ (2001) proposal that possible factors impacting task representation include ‘‘the level of students’ awareness of the conventions of academic writing, the students’ experience as writers and readers in their first and second languages, and their level of literary interpretation skills’’ (p 233) These results should be recognized in light of several limitations The use of think-aloud verbal protocols demands caution—they can impact the writing process, have differing levels of success for different writers, and provide a partial view into writers’ thinking Furthermore, the study included a small sample of writers with varying backgrounds and first languages as well as employed only two task types and two topics This variation makes transferring the results to other settings more difficult and limits the feasibility for generalizing the findings CONCLUSION Task representation is an aspect of the composing process that requires attention when using performance-based tasks because the resulting performances are dependent both on how writers understand 192 TESOL QUARTERLY and approach the task as well as on their language ability Overall, the results of the study reveal that some writers have different interpretations for the two task types, and others not The intention of the integrated task was to write an essay including the source texts for support; thus those who used the same independent writing process for both tasks failed to spot this difference, and thus neither their processes nor performances were a result of skill integration This mismatch could be important when using integrated tasks for learning or for assessment because assumptions made by the teacher or test user may not coincide with the writers’ assumptions Another significant variation in the two tasks was that all writers’ followed an initial circular process of reading and rereading the integrated prompt that consumed time and increased the complexity of understanding the instructions in task; this process did not occur in the independent task These findings provide implications for the use of integrated writing tasks in writing instruction and assessment First, in academic English writing courses, students should be guided in developing a discourse synthesis writing process, including strategies to comprehend, select from, and integrate reading with writing Providing exposure to writing that integrates other skills facilitates experience in understanding the demands of such writing for future academic coursework Second, in the construction of integrated writing tasks for classroom or assessment purposes, developers should realize that these tasks might not be familiar to students Those less experienced with integrated academic writing may not approach the task demands in the expected way Thus such tasks require guidelines and clear directions on the purpose of the source texts However, even with careful instruction, task representations may differ; therefore, when interpreting the results and scores from integrated tasks, it must be considered that writers may not have recognized tasks as requiring synthesis As the field reconfigures the traditional construct of four separated skills to take account of integration and overlapping processes across skills, the use of integrated tasks will increase and gain importance in teaching, learning, and assessment However, this shift requires understanding of how language learners are also tapping into an integrated conceptualization of language use and process as they perform these tasks Seeking an alignment in these two perspectives will provide better implementation and interpretation of integrated writing tasks REFERENCES Allen, S (2004) Task representation of a Japanese L2 writing and its impact on the usage of source text information Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(1), 77–89 BRIEF REPORTS AND SUMMARIES 193 Basham, C., Ray, R., & Whalley, E (1993) Cross-cultural perspectives on task representation in reading-to-write In J Carson & I Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp 299–314) Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle Braine, G (1989) Writing in science and technology: An analysis of assignments from ten undergraduate courses English for Specific Purposes, 8, 3–15 Brown, J D., Hilgers, T., & Marsella, J (1991) Essay prompts and topics: Minimizing the effect of mean differences Written Communication, 8, 533–556 Connor, U., & Carrell, P (1993) The interpretation of tasks by writers and readers in holistically rated direct assessment of writing In J G Carson & I Leki (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom (pp.159–175) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M (2005) Differences in written discourse in writing-only and reading-to-write prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL Assessing Writing, 10, 5–43 Ericsson, K A., & Simon, H (1993) Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Esmaeili, H (2002) Integrated reading and writing tasks and ESL students’ reading and writing performance in an English language test Canadian Modern Language Journal, 58(4), 599–622 Flower, L., Stein, V., Ackerman, J., Kantz, M J., McCormick, K., & Peck, W C (1990) Reading to write: Exploring a cognitive and social process Oxford, England: Oxford University Press Gebril, A (2006) Independent and integrated academic writing tasks: A study in generalizability and test method Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa Hinkel, E (2006) Current perspectives on teaching the four skills TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 109–131 Hirvela, A (2004) Connecting reading and writing in second language writing instruction Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press Horowitz, D (1986) What professors actually require: Academic tasks for the ESL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 445–462 Lewkowicz, J A (1994) Writing from sources: Does source material help or hinder students’ performance? In M Bird et al (Eds.), Language and learning: Papers presented at the Annual International Language in Education Conference ERIC Document (ED 386 050) Plakans, L (2008) Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-towrite test tasks Assessing Writing, 13, 111–129 Ruiz-Funes, M (1999) The process of reading-to-write used by a skilled Spanish-as-aforeign-language student: A case study Foreign Language Annals, 32(1), 45–58 Ruiz-Funes, M (2001) Task representation in foreign language reading-to-write Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 226–234 Wolfersberger, M A (2007) Second language writing from sources: An ethnographic study of an argument essay task Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ Zhang, Y (2006) Task representation and second language writers’ prior writing experience: A case study Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 194 TESOL QUARTERLY