Μaria Stathopoulou
EXPLORING WRITING TEST-TAKING STRATEGIES[1] 

Abstract

This paper is the result of a larger research project investigating the test-taking strategies employed by Greek users of English when engaging in the activities of the KPG exam. The purpose of the present study is threefold: (a) to identify the test-taking strategies prospective candidates claim to use when responding to the KPG writing tasks, (b) to find out which strategies they use before and after they are trained for the writing test, (c) to devise a tool which can be used to investigate KPG writing task strategy use with different groups of research subjects. The findings presented herein have been derived from open- and closed-response questionnaires con­structed for this study and administered to participants in two experimental courses offered by the RCeL at the University of Athens. The respondents were two different groups of university students attending a ten-week course especially designed to prepare them for the KPG exams in English: a B2 level and a C1 level group. 

Keywords: test-taking strategies, writing strategies, mediation strategies, language learning strategies, language use strategies.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background to the study

This paper reports on the Test-Taking Strategies Research Project (TSRP) which was directed by Bessie Dendrinos as part of the work carried out at the RCeL.[2] The project was designed to investigate the types of test-taking strategies that prospective KPG candidates claim to use when performing the activities contained in the four test papers of the KPG exam: Module 1 (Reading Comprehension and Language Awareness), Module 2 (Writing and written mediation), Module 3 (Listening comprehension), and Module 4 (Speaking and oral mediation).

The TSRP is made up of different sub-projects, namely, the Reading subproject, the Writing subproject, the Listening subproject and the Speaking subproject. Participation in this project, which required a lot of fieldwork, was exciting and all the subprojects very engaging, especially since the group of researchers worked collaboratively and pairs investigating strategies for the different test papers supported one another. The focus of this paper on the writing strategies subproject is incidental, as the other subprojects investigating test-taking strategies for reading and listening comprehension as well as speaking and oral mediation are equally important; it just happened to be the subproject I was involved in.[3] Results from the rest of the subprojects will be reported in future issues of this Journal.

Throughout the project, test-taking strategies have been viewed as those techniques or ‘tricks’ consciously selected by candidates in order to improve their performance in the test papers. Although the research conducted on learning strategies is extensive, the area of test-taking strategies is somewhat neglected. This was one motivating force behind this particular research. Most importantly, however, the English Team working on various aspects of the larger KPG venture considered it essential to determine which strategies are required for successful participation in the KPG exam.

Research data was elicited through the use of questionnaires specially designed for students attending two pilot experimental courses, offered in order to prepare people who wished to sit for the KPG exams. These courses were offered twice, in the spring and autumn of 2008, just before the exam administration in May and November. Both times, the programme was advertised to students of the University of Athens, who could apply for admission, knowing that thirty students would be selected each time to make up the student body of a B2 level and a C1 level class that would run for about seventy hours to prepare fifteen students in each class for the next KPG exam, without tuition or fees.

The students who took the courses were chosen by the English Team of the RCeL on the basis of a placement test in English, ensuring that they had the required language competence. Their classes, they were informed, were not aiming at major improvement of their language skills but at familiarizing and preparing them for the KPG exam.

1.2. Aim of the research

The purpose of this particular study was not only to determine the writing test-taking strategies students claim to use, but also to fish out strategies that may lead to successful test performance, and whether students preparing for the exam can be trained to use them. Therefore, two of the basic questions raised were: (a) What are the test-taking strategies that students use when doing the KPG writing tasks?, and (b)Will students use different strategies at the end of a prep course? An equally important aim of the paper is to present the research instruments used for the investigation. In designing them, the research team aimed at constructing reliable and valid research tools that others could also use with the same purpose in mind, but a different audience.[4]

1.3. Methodology

The first version of our questionnaires was designed during the first research phase, when the first prep course was running. The general aim of this phase was mainly about exploring the most and least popular strategies used by KPG prospective candidates and subsequently locating which strategies are useful for the KPG test papers. The questionnaires (open- and closed-response) were devised gradually with the participation of the students attending the prep course, the instructors teaching them, and the researchers. The first version was modified for the second course, once the first results were evaluated and findings assessed.

More specifically, a preliminary set of questions was prepared by the team of junior researchers who had previously been assigned systematic reading related to learning, writing and test-taking strategies. The members of the team met as a group regularly with the project leader, Prof. Bessie Dendrinos. Each one of us had been assigned to either the B2 level or the C1 level class, and we were to focus on one of the four test papers. People who were responsible for one area, each at a different level, were also asked to work together. For example, the person responsible for the B2 writing paper worked together with the person responsible for the C1 writing paper.

We discussed the questions we would ask candidates and revised them several times on the basis of constructive comments by other members of the group and our project leader. This constant negotiation of the content and the phrasing of the questions was a training process in itself for everyone involved, and it lasted about two months. This fairly complex process finally led to fully designed questionnaires, which were handed out to the prep course students.

The data was systematically collected and interpreted by individual researchers, and then by pairs of researchers working together. During the final stage, the team worked collaboratively, but each researcher wrote an individual report to present findings from her/his questionnaire.

Collaboration continued during the second research phase, even though it did not need to be as intensive since the nature of our work was different. As we had already evaluated the questions we had posed on the basis of our respondents’ responses, we were now involved in a decision-making process as to which questions to change, omit or modify.

Although the analysis of the questionnaires distributed to the participants of the first prep course helped us identify the most and least popular strategies, it did not enable us to see whether the reported strategies were the result of strategy training: We only had students’ testimonies about which strategies they had learnt to use and had found useful. This claim had to be further investigated and, therefore, for the second phase of the project, we were instructed to give out the modified questionnaires both at the beginning and the end of the course. In this way, we would be able to see whether strategy-training made a difference in which strategies students claim to have used before they had training for the exam and afterwards.

All the data collected from the two research phases provided us with insights regarding what test-taking strategies may lead to successful KPG writing performance. These insights may be useful for candidate preparation, i.e. for candidates themselves, test-preparation material developers, and for teachers.

2. Strategies in learning and testing situations

2.1. Language learning strategies

Since the 1970s, research in second language learning has shifted from investigating English Language Teaching (ELT) methods to investigating the processes of learning (e.g. Politzer and Mc Groarty, 1985; Rubin, 1981; Wong-Fillmore, 1979). This refocusing has led studies to examine how students learn rather than what they learn (Purpura, 1999). As a consequence, the study of strategies used by learners of a second/foreign language, i.e. learning strategies[5], gained prominence.

A very useful classification of learning strategies, extensively used, is the one between ‘cognitive’, ‘metacognitive’ and ‘affective’ and ‘social’ strategies (Cohen, 1998a; O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1987). ‘Cognitive strategies operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning’ (O’Malley and Chamot, 1990: 44) and usually involve identifying, retaining, storing and retrieving words or phrases. Metacognitive strategies are used by learners so as to regulate their own learning (Rubin, 1987) or else to control their own cognition (Cohen, 2000: 13) and are concerned with the planning, monitoring, organization as well as the evaluation of the language produced. Affective strategies are associated with the regulation of emotions, motivations, and attitudes, whereas social strategies include the actions taken by learners in order to interact with other speakers such as asking questions to clarify social roles or cooperating with others for the completion of a task.

Language learning strategies are distinguished from language use strategies (e.g. Cohen, 1998a/1998b). While language learning strategies are used with a goal of facilitating learning or improving learners’ knowledge of a particular language, language use strategies primarily focus on helping users of English to utilize the language they have already learned, to whatever degree (Cohen, 1998a). As Cohen (1998b) points out, language use strategies are the mental operations or processes that users of a target language consciously select when accomplishing language tasks. These strategies also constitute test-taking strategies when applied to tasks in language tests (Cohen, 1998a/1998b), as descibed in the section that follows.

2.2. Test-taking strategies

Cohen (1998a/1998b) mentions that since the late 1970s, as with learning strategies, researchers  have started to show an interest in testing from the point of view of the strategies used by test takers (e.g. Abraham and Vann, 1996; Nevo, 1989; Cohen, 1984/1998b; Gordon, 1987; Homburg and Spaan, 1981; Brunch, 1981). Cohen (1998a/1998b) describes test-taking strategies as consisting of both language use strategies and test-wiseness strategies. While language use strategies are actions selected by the test takers to use the target language, test-wiseness strategies are not associated with the candidates’ language proficiency level; rather, they tend to be associated with their test-taking experiences or else with the learners’ general ability to cope with tests. Generally, language test performance is dependent on candidates’ language knowledge, their ability to use the language, and their test-wiseness. According to Nikolov (2006), test-taking strategies involve strategies candidates apply while carrying out language test tasks. In an interview for the ELT Journal, McDonough (2006) states that there are certainly lots of test-taking strategies which are the same as those a learner would use if s/he was doing those language tasks in a non-test situation.

Referring to the work done in the particular field, Bachman, Cushing and Purpura (1993) showed that strategy use affects test performance either directly or indirectly. Focusing his attention on reading tests, Anderson (1991) also attempted to explore the relationship between strategy use and performance and found that high achievers use more memory strategies and less translation. By using data from introspections, Allan (1992, found in Alderson, 2000) examined strategies employed by candidates to handle multiple-choice questions in reading tests.

The relationship of strategy use (as reported by test-takers) with performance in second language tests was explored by various researchers. Purpura (1997/1998) used structural equation to investigate the relation between strategy use and L2 test performance with high- and low-proficiency test takers. He found that both groups, while often using the same strategies, experienced differing results when using them. Furthermore, Purpura (1999: 181) has shown that there is a ‘continuum ranging from product-oriented to process-oriented test-takers.’ The more product-oriented test takers can answer questions quickly and efficiently by retrieving information from long-term memory, whereas the more process-oriented ones tend to spend more time trying to comprehend or remember test input rather than simply answering the question being asked. In Taguchi’s (2001) study, which focused on listening strategies, 50 Japanese EFL college students who had sat for a listening test completed a strategy questionnaire immediately after the test. The questionnaire asked candidates’ for their perceptions of listening strategies they utilized for reducing text-anxiety and compensating for non-comprehension. It also asked the respondents to refer to the elements that posed problems in comprehending the input. The analysis of the results showed a difference between more proficient and less proficient listeners in the use of top-down strategies, but no difference in their perceived use of bottom-up strategies, repair strategies or affective strategies. In addition to this, proficient listeners tended to identify a greater range of strategies.

More recently, in a qualitative survey, Nokolov (2006) investigated children’s uses of strategies while being engaged in EFL reading and writing test tasks. The study provided insights into what young candidates think while doing English tests. According to her findings, some strategies involve cognitive processes and personality traits while others involve ‘tiny tricks’ (ibid: 46).

2.3. Writing strategies

Writing strategies, which the present study explores, are language use strategies rather than language learning strategies. We actually view them as techniques or methods used by the writer to perform as well as possible (Baker and Boonkit, 2004). Many researchers have attempted to investigate their use in the EFL context.[6] However, only a few have focused on writing strategies during test-taking (e.g. Nikolov, 2006), a gap that the present study attempts to fill in. Planning, rehearsing (trying out ideas before putting them on paper), rereading the assigned topic, reviewing, monitoring, generating ideas, organizing, goal-setting, revising, editing, evaluating,[7] double checking,[8] drafting,[9] and dividing a writing task into subtasks are just some of the writing strategies researchers have identified and we presently investigate.

3. Questionnaires and data collection

As already mentioned, the present paper presents results derived from the analysis of both open- and closed response questionnaires filled in by prospective KPG candidates. The use of questionnaires is a popular method of investigation in exploring learners’ strategy use. Others include interviews, diaries, journals or think-aloud protocols (Chamot, 2005) to elicit self-reported data. At the same time, they provide an insight into what writers think they are doing or should be doing when writing (Petric and Czarl, 2003). However, we considered think-aloud protocols inappropriate for this investigation for a variety of reasons, one of which is that we guessed that students would not have the metalanguage needed to describe the strategies they were using. This assumption was actually proven true because we discovered that our respondents could not easily answer the questions included in our open-ended questionnaires (see Section 5.1.2).

The questions included in the questionnaires can be described as behaviour/experience questions (Patton, 1987 as found in Brown, 2001) since they aimed at exploring how the respondents claim to behave or how they believe they respond to KPG writing tasks. It is important to state that they would be used not only as research tools; given the fact that they contained questions about test-taking strategies candidates might possibly use, they were simultaneously test-taking strategy-awareness-raising instruments. In other words, students were being given ideas about what to do through the questions asked of them.

What is more, both open- and close-response questionnaires were compiled in the respondents’ native language since according to O’Malley and Chamot (1990), the customary approach in studies of second language acquisition has been to permit respondents to use their native language in recognizing the strategies they use. Furthermore, our primary concern was the manner in which questions would be asked to the respondents so as not to cause misunderstanding and confusion. The questions were posed in a friendly and informal manner, a fact that usually encourages the respondents to provide honest answers (Cohen, 1998a). The subjects were told that there was no right or wrong answer to any question and that their response would be used for research purposes only. Last but not least, negative or very long questions were avoided.

During the first phase of research, both an open- and a closed-response questionnaire were created. The closed-type questionnaire was distributed once, when classes ended, whereas students were asked to complete the open-ended questionnaires each time they finished an activity in class. While open-ended questionnaires offered the possibility of unexpected answers (Brown, 2001), a fact that would contribute to the better exploration of test-taking strategies,[10] closed-response questions would be easier for the participants to answer and they would be less likely to skip them.

The closed-response questionnaires initially designed for the first research phase were modified for the purposes of the second. While during the first phase of the research, two types of questionnaires were created, in the second, open-ended questionnaires were not used at all, because we had discovered in the first phase that the candidates had difficulty in putting into words what strategies they had used while carrying out the activities.

3.1. The closed-response questionnaires

The closed questionnaire distributed during the first phase included fifty one (51) questions and was divided into two parts.[11] The first part included checklist questions that sought to identify the candidates’ test-taking strategies in both activities of the writing test – the first one being a writing task with a written prompt in English, and the second one a written mediation task. The second part of the questionnaire focused solely on written mediation strategies. Actually, given the dual character of mediation which involves two stages, i.e. reading comprehension in Greek and written production in English, the questionnaire was separated into two further sections, i.e. the reading part and the writing part. In this part of the questionnaire, the candidates were asked to tick on a 5-point scale (never, seldom, sometimes, often, always) how often they used each of the test-taking strategies we had listed for them. 

During the second phase, the research tools were revised and two distinct questionnaires were constructed. The first contained twenty (20) checklist questions and sought to find out which strategies candidates say they use when they do the writing activities. This questionnaire was distributed twice – first at the beginning, and then at the end of the prep course.[12] The second questionnaire contained twenty six (26) questions (24 ranking questions and 2 multiple choice)[13] and it sought to find out which mediation strategies the respondents had learnt to use. Note that this questionnaire was distributed and filled in at the end of the course only, since prior to course preparation the prospective candidates had no experience with mediation activities.

In designing our closed-response questionnaire, we used the three stages identified as important during the writing process by Hayes and Flower (1980/1986) and thus divided our writing strategies into those used before writing, during writing and after the completion of the script-composing process.

The first group of questions deals with planning, which involves the organization of ideas into a plan (Kellogg, 1994) that will satisfy the goals the writer is seeking to achieve. The strategies used at this first stage of writing can be considered as metacognitive. Bachman and Palmer (1996) very aptly describe the components of metacognitive strategy use before starting writing. According to them, metacognitive strategy use at this level includes a goal-setting component (i.e. after the identification of the tasks by the respondents, they should decide on what to do), an assessment component (i.e. the respondents determine what is needed for the successful completion of the task) and a planning component (i.e. the respondents focus on how to exploit their topic and language knowledge).

At the stage of sentence generation, the writing plan is translated into text. It was thus important to explore the writing strategies employed by candidates during the process of producing their actual scripts. The writing strategies used during the composing process and included in the second group in these questionnaires can be divided into three categories, namely a) cognitive, b) metacognitive, and c) strategies which are neither cognitive nor metacognitive but for which we had indications of being used. It should be made clear that planning and sentence generation are not seen as being separated; on the contrary, as the one affects the other and vice versa, they can be considered as inextricably linked to each other (Eysenck and Keane, 2000).

The third group of questions concern the revision strategies used after the completion of the composing process. Note that the revision process involves revising and evaluating the written product (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996) and occurs at various levels of the composing process (Porte, 1997; Raimes, 1987; Moragne e Silva, 1986). Therefore, questions related to revision have been included both under the while-writing strategies section and the post-writing strategies section. According to the literature (cf. Oxford, 1990 and O’Malley and Chamot, 1990), all revision strategies are considered to be metacognitive ones.

Some questions on both the first- and second-phase questionnaires sought to find out specifically not only which mediation strategies candidates use – or claim to use – but also whether they think mediation tasks are more difficult than ‘normal’ writing tasks, and whether they think that training helps them perform better as mediators.

3.2. The Open-ended questionnaires

As already mentioned above, open-ended questionnaires were used only during the first phase of the research project. Given that these candidates were a highly literate group of adults – many of them were postgraduate students – immediately after having performed a writing or mediation task, we wanted them to articulate what strategies they had just used.[14] The questions drew upon literature related to the cognitive aspects of foreign language learning and use (e.g. Eysenck and Keane, 2000) as well as to composing processes (e.g. Hayes and Flower, 1980).

Since we had set out to explore the strategies used in each activity separately,[15] two open-ended questionnaires were constructed and each contained questions that were relevant to each of the activities, though there were also a small number of common questions. For instance, the first question in both questionnaires asked respondents about resorting to general knowledge and to what extent this strategy helped them perform better. The second question was about cues that helped them select information from the prompt texts, while another common question was about what they do when they experience a ‘writer’s block.’ The strategies people use when in this situation are interesting in themselves but also because they are viewed as markers of other strategies (Sindermann and Horsella, 1989). The respondents were also asked to write down any ‘tricks’ they used in order to successfully perform each activity. Last but not least, they were asked to evaluate their own writing, to assign themselves a grade, and to justify their assessment.

As regards the questionnaire designed exclusively for the mediation activity, along with the questions discussed above it includes one mediation-specific question, which asks whether the respondents’ linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, vocabulary) in English had an impact on the selection of information from the Greek text.

4. Presentation and Discussion of Results

4.1. Research phase 1

The data of the first phase of the research was collected over a three-week period. The total number of open-ended questionnaires completed by B2 level candidates was 16, i.e. 6 corresponding to Activity 1 and 10 to Activity 2. In relation to C1 level prospective candidates, 20 questionnaires were returned completed, i.e. 16 were completed after Activity 1 had been completed, whereas only 4 once the respondents had responded to the requirements of Activity 2. As regards the number of the closed-response questionnaires, these were 22, i.e., 11 from the B2 level group of respondents and 11 from the C1 level.

4.1.1. Closed response questionnaire

Table 1 summarizes the results derived from the analysis of the questionnaires distributed during the first research phase, with an emphasis on the most and least preferred strategies highlighted in grey.

PRE-WRITING STRATEGIES
01.	considering purpose/goal before starting to write	86.4%
02.	considering genre before starting to write	100%
03.	note taking[16]	36.4%
04.	organization of ideas into a written plan	40.9%
05.	organization of ideas into a mental plan	54.5%
WHILE WRITING STRATEGIES
06.	resorting to prior knowledge	86.4%
07.	considering what text type of the script to be produced is	90.9%
08.	note-taking	27.3%
09.	re-reading completed parts of the script before completing the whole	59.1%
10.	re-reading parts of the source text or script to generate ideas	68.2%
11.	borrowing words and/or phrases from prompt text(s)	72.7%
12.	using text features (e.g. pictures, tables) or context clues	54.5%
13.	actually assuming the role assigned by the writing task	54.5%
14.	focusing on lexicogrammatical accuracy while writing	27.3%
15.	not focusing on lexicogrammatical accuracy while writing	72.7%
16.	thinking about forming syntactically correct utterances	36.4%
17.	thinking about which are the most appropriate words to use in some instances	40.9%
18.	making a point to use erudite vocabulary and idioms	4.5%
19.	thinking in L1[17]/ mentally translating	36.4%
20.	thinking directly in L2	59.1%
21.	evaluating their script while composing it	50%
POST-WRITING STRATEGIES
22.	evaluating and correcting the final outcome	54.5%
23.	re-reading their script	77.3%
24.	adding points when re-reading their script	45.5%

Table 1: Test-taking strategies used in both activities of the KPG writing test

As it is evident above, the most frequently used pre-writing strategy according to the respondents is to take into consideration the genre of the text to be produced when planning their script. Furthermore, the vast majority claimed that they tend to focus on the communicative purpose of the activity in the pre-writing stage, which makes us think that these respondents are aware of the fact that the text content and form are context specific (cf. Immonen, 2006). Although plan-centred strategies (i.e. note-taking, outlining or creating a mental plan) usually produce better results (Kellogg, 1987; Glynn et al, 1982), they were not among the highly preferred strategies. In fact, note-taking was one of the least popular strategies, and why this is so should be investigated further.

The strategies employed most commonly at the composing stage were a) resorting to background knowledge, so as to link their lifeworld with the writing task at hand (cf. Hamp-Lyons, 1990: 77), b) borrowing words and/or phrases from prompt text(s) so as to be sure that they are using the correct linguistic forms, and c) reflecting on the text type they are to produce, probably being aware of the fact that choices of style and register are genre specific.  

The responses of both B2 level and C1 level respondents indicate that they tended by and large to think in English while writing. This is an interesting finding, especially given that other studies have shown that mental translation is a most common strategy used by L2 learners (cf. Cumming, 1989 and 1990; Uzawa and Cumming, 1989),[18] and needs to be further investigated.

What was also observed is that these subjects avoided using monitoring strategies. For example, they stated that they do not think about grammar rules while writing; they said that they use language without thinking about the rules that govern it.

Moving on to revision and evaluation strategies, the majority of the prospective candidates claimed that they re-read the texts they have produced. Only a few of them evaluate and correct their final outcomes or add any further information at this level of the writing process.

The results derived from the analysis of the second section of the questionnaire, that one concerned the investigation of mediation strategies are summarized below.

1st STAGE OF MEDIATION: COMPREHENSION		% subjects
The most ‘popular’ strategies
01.	activating and using prior knowledge	95.5%
02.	reading the text more than once	90.1%
03.	focusing their reading on some parts of the text	90.1%
04.	reading slowly and carefully	86.4%
06.	underlining	81.8%
07.	going back and forth in the text	81.8%
08.	adjusting reading rate	77.3%
The least ‘popular’ strategies
09.	putting subheading under each paragraph	9.1%
10.	taking notes while reading	36.4%
2ND STAGE OF MEDIATION: PRODUCTION
The most ‘popular’ strategies
11.	using synonyms	95.5%
12.	grouping information	86.4%
13.	paraphrasing	77.3%
The least ‘popular’ strategies
14.	translating word-for-word	0%
15.	transferring all the information included in the source text	5%
16.	note-taking in Greek	22.7%
17.	note-taking in English	36.4%

Table 2: The most and least ‘popular’ strategies used in mediation tasks

The majority of respondents claim here too that they resort to their background knowledge on the topic they have to deal with. Other frequently used support strategies are a) underlining information in the source text, and b) going back and forth in the text to find relationships between ideas. Finding relationships between ideas is an important process which may lead to successful mediation performance, but this is a complex procedure and can be achieved only through multiple-readings of some parts of the text, a technique that the subjects claimed to use frequently. They also argued that they read the source text slowly and carefully, focusing on some extracts of the text which seem more relevant to the task. Although notes created while reading provide an external memory for guiding the writer (Kellogg, 1984), the subjects’ responses illustrated totally the opposite; keeping notes or giving subtitles to extracts of the source text while reading are not among the most frequently used strategies, according to the respondents.

As regards the mediation strategies related to the production, the participants’ responses indicated that they can identify those mediation strategies that lead to successful performance. For instance, the participants’ responses revealed that word-for-word translations are avoided. Additionally, they claimed that they frequently use synonyms and that they do not neglect to paraphrase. Note that these two test-taking strategies have also been identified in the open-response questionnaire which sought to explore respondents’ strategies in the mediation activity. In addition, the majority of the participants claimed that in order to produce their mediation scripts, they usually or always group and re-order information of the Greek text before using them. Last but not least, it was reported that not all information included in the source text is transferred. The least preferred strategy is note-taking (either in Greek or in English).

4.1.2. Open-ended questionnaires

Data from the open-ended questionnaires indicated that the respondents, though highly literate, found it difficult to articulate what they were actually doing when performing writing tasks. Sometimes, the respondents’ answers were too short to give us real insight, and at other times they were simply missing. However, from the explicit responses we did get, we were able to accumulate some interesting information, particularly with regard to what they do when they stop writing because they encounter a difficulty. For example, a number of respondents said that when they cannot think of a particular word, they try to paraphrase, use synonyms or circumlocutions. If that does not work, they leave this word out or skip the whole idea.[19] Actually, not being able to think of a word they wanted to use, or being unsure of how to formulate an idea they wanted to express was the most common problem they encountered.[20]   

As regards the mediation activity, the respondents’ major difficulty was to decide what bits of information to select from the original text. This reveals to us that they fully understand that they have to choose only the information pertinent to the task.[21] However, there are other factors at work when they are trying to decide which bits of information to relay in the target language, including their lexical repertoire in that language. Generally speaking, it seems that they ultimately select from the Greek text only those bits of information that they can easily express in English. That is, they use an avoidance strategy which aims at compensating for the potential limited lexical resources. Now, while Schoonen et al. (2003) claim that avoidance strategies reduce L2 users’ possibilities to express intended meanings[22], in this case, according to Dendrinos[23], our respondents – who are referring to what they do when they mediate – are actually elucidating a very complex decision- making process and one that works if they actually manage to relay the main message(s) of the target text, regardless of their limited linguistic resources. That is the very objective of mediation.

4.2. Research phase 2

While the first phase of the TSRP was mainly about locating the strategies used in KPG exams, the second phase was mainly about confirming a hypothesis for which we had very strong indications from Phase 1; i.e., that test-taking strategy training is possible and its outcomes are positive. More specifically and with regard to writing strategies, which concerned me in particular, we firstly wanted to verify that the writing strategies required for the KPG writing tests are the ones we had actually located during the first project phase, and secondly to ascertain the impact of strategy training. Therefore, once we had revised closed-response questionnaires on the basis of the first-phase findings, we distributed them twice: as soon as the experimental classes began and just before they ended.

The data was collected over a two-month period. At the beginning of the course, 26 participants (i.e., 14 B2 level and 12 C1 level candidates) responded, while at the end, the total number of respondents was 19, i.e., 8 B2 level and 11 C1 level candidates.

4.2.1. The impact of test-taking strategy training

As our data in Table 3 shows, strategy training seems to have a strong impact in strategy use. There is a significant increase in the use of strategies that are thought to lead to successful writing by the particular respondents.[24] In other words, what the findings bring to the surface is that training plays a determining role in strategy use and can actually enhance prospective candidates’ performance.

One very important finding is that respondents seem to use only the strategies they have explicitly been instructed to use. For instance, course instructors stressed the importance of genre considerations at every level of writing, as the KPG writing test is based on a genre-based approach. Therefore, as the table below shows, thinking about the text type and genre of their script was the most frequently used strategy both at the pre-writing stage and at the composing stage. On the other hand, only a few respondents said that they used the note-taking strategy especially before starting to write, which they had not been instructed to do, due to time limitation in a testing situation.

PRE-WRITING STRATEGIES		Before	After
01.	considering writing purpose before starting to write	65.3%	100%
02.	considering text type and genre before starting to write	76.9%	100%
03.	note taking	26.9%	26.3%
04.	organization of ideas into a written plan	23.1%	31.6%
05.	organization of ideas into a mental plan	73.1%	68.4%
06.	underlining key words in the rubrics	34.6%	63.2%
WHILE-WRITING STRATEGIES
07.	using prior knowledge	69.2%	78.9%
08.	considering text type and genre	80.7%	89.5%
09.	note taking	7.7%	21.1%
10.	re-reading to generate ideas	69.2%	73.7%
11.	using text features (e.g. pictures, tables) or context clues	34.6%	68.4%
12.	focusing on lexicogrammatical accuracy	46.2%	63.2%
13.	thinking about forming syntactically correct utterances	42.3%	52.6%
14.	making a point to use erudite vocabulary and idioms	7.6%	21.1%
15.	thinking in L1/ mentally translating	53.8%	36.8%
16.	thinking directly in L2	38.5%	63.2%
17.	evaluating and correcting while composing script	69.2%	73.7%
POST-WRITING STRATEGIES
18.	evaluating the final outcome	38.5%	63.2%
19.	self-correction (of grammar, vocabulary, syntax, content, punctuation, etc)	65.3%	84.2%
20.	re-reading their script	80.7%	89.5%

Table 3: Test-taking strategies used in both activities of the writing test

The most important finding at this stage is that there are indeed significant differences in strategy use before and after strategy training. In relation to the pre-writing strategies, our respondents’ answers show that while only a little over half of them seriously considered the communicative purpose, the genre and the text type to be produced before strategy training, all of them said that they paid attention to these parameters after training. A significant increase in the strategy of underlining key words in rubrics strategy is evident too: The number of respondents using this strategy doubled after training.  

The findings are similar when we look at while-writing strategies: the increased consideration of genre and background knowledge, the increased use of contextual cues and pictures, tables or other accompanying visuals (pictures and graphic design), the decreased thinking about what to write in their mother tongue and then translating it into English, and the increased use of metacognitive strategies such evaluating and correcting were reported by candidates.

Finally, we have similar findings when we look at the post-writing strategies: the increased use of self-correction, evaluation and allowing time to re-read their script. 

4.2.2. Mediation strategies

Moving on to the mediation strategies, those which are reported to be used by a great percentage of students are shown in Table 4.

1st STAGE OF MEDIATION: COMPREHENSION		% subjects
The most ‘popular’ strategies
01.	skimming through the text to note characteristics like its organization or its length	100%
02.	considering the communicative purpose of the text	94.7%
03.	considering genre	94.7%
04.	considering where the text appears and what its use	94.7%
06.	activating and using prior knowledge	94.7%
07.	reading the text more than once	89.5%
08.	underlining	78.9%
The least ‘popular’ strategies
09.	reading the text before the instructions	15.8%
2nd STAGE OF MEDIATION: PRODUCTION
The most ‘popular’ strategies
10.	using synonyms	100%
11.	paraphrasing	100%
12.	selecting which information to transfer from the Greek text	100%
13.	grouping information	97.4%
The least ‘popular’ strategies
14.	switching to the mother tongue	0%
15.	translating word-for-word	21.1%
16.	note-taking in Greek	26.3%

Table 4: Test-taking strategies used in the mediation activity

The strategies which the students were trained or simply told to use appear to be the most ‘popular.’ Thus, the respondents reported that they consciously took the genre, audience and communicative purpose of the target text into serious consideration before starting to produce their mediation scripts. This is because their attention had been drawn to the fact that the KPG writing test is based on a genre-based approach. The use of synonyms, paraphrasing, and transferring only the information appropriate to the task were some of the strategies in which candidates received a great deal of training, and for this reason they seem to systematically use them. On the contrary, the least ‘popular’ strategies are those which the prospective candidates were instructed to avoid, such as direct translation from the Greek text, as well as those which were not taught at all (e.g. note taking).

The participants’ responses lead us to claim that the respondents can identify the mediation strategies which may have a positive impact on their performance. They seem to have learnt to use strategies which would help them be successful when performing a KPG mediation task, and this is why they were able respond to the end-of-the-course questionnaire.

5. Conclusions and implications

This study confirmed the hypothesis of the TSRP team that strategy-use training is possible and exceedingly important in light of our findings that indicate significant differences between the strategies the subjects used before and after the test-taking strategy training. There were significant differences in subjects’ responses on the questionnaire filled in at the beginning of the course and the one completed at the end of the course. In fact, it seems that subjects developed awareness as to what the most effective strategies are, and the vast majority of the respondents systematically used the strategies they were being taught to use.

Given that the particular subjects who were prepared for the exams through a strategy-training course performed very successfully in the actual exam (95% passed it), and given the fact that there were similar findings from the reading and listening comprehension as well as speaking and oral mediation subprojects, we may safely say that test-taking strategies can be successfully taught and learned.[25] Thus, we claim that if exam prep courses provide guidance and sustained practice in test-taking strategies, exam candidates are more likely to succeed in the exam.[26]

Of course, in order to include the test-taking strategies in an exam prep course syllabus and to teach these strategies, the syllabus or course material designer must identify them first. This is perhaps the most difficult part. The mission of identifying and articulating which strategies are the most useful for which test activities is quite demanding, and requires specialized knowledge, both theoretical and practical.  

Therefore, an important contribution of the project as a whole is the fact that it has made a first step to locating the test-taking strategies used for successful performance in the KPG exams in English. The present study has concentrated on the test-taking strategies that seem to lead to successful KPG writing performance. 

However, there is a significant limitation to this study, which has to do with the fact that the subjects were extremely successful learners – given the fact that they were under- and post-graduate university students. These subjects are above the norm of the L2 learner and user of English, with extremely high literacy in L1. All of them were skilled readers and writers in their mother tongue if not in English already, before they began training for the exam. Therefore, all they needed, we assume – despite what they told us when we interviewed them at the end of the course – was a little bit of test-wiseness. We do not know whether these are strategies that different groups of learners use or whether they can learn to use them – learners of different age, social class and literacy level.

It is for this reason that further research has been conducted. Actually, data from a significant sample of candidates who sat for the KPG exam at the November 2008 and May 2009 administration has been analyzed and part of the findings have been published (see Stathopoulou and Nikaki, 2009).[27] Additionally, data collected from 15 classes of students in state schools and colleges having been prepared for the May 2009 or being prepared for the November 2009 KPG exams in English – most of them for the B1 or B2 level exams has been tabulated and already analyzed. These students are of different ages and literacy levels, and their schools are in different parts of the country. The results will carefully be studied and compared to identify differences, both at the level of strategy use and regarding strategy training.

As the TSRP is an ongoing project, this study will hopefully constitute the basis for future research in the area of test-taking practices and specifically those strategies required for successful test performance in the KPG exam. In other words, one of the next goals of the research team is to explore, via data that will be elicited at future administrations, the effectiveness of each test-taking strategy by matching the reported strategies with candidates’ success in the exam. The research team also intends to investigate whether candidates’ proficiency level affects the type and the amount of test-taking strategies candidates claim to use.

References

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 460-472.

Alderson, J. C. (2000). Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test-takers. Language Testing, 9(2), 101-122.

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F., Cushing, S. T. & Purpura, J. E. (1993). Development of a questionnaire item-bank to explore test-taker characteristics. (Interim report submitted to University of Cambridge Local Examination Syndicate). Cambridge: UCLES

Baker, W., & Boonkit, K. (2004). Learning strategies in reading and writing: EAP contexts.  RELC Journal, 35(3), 299-328.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Birch, B. (2002). English L2 Reading: Getting to the Bottom. Mahwah/NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Bosher, S. (1998). The composing processes of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 205-241.

Brown, J. D. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130.

Cohen, A. D. (1984). On taking language tests: what the students report. Language Testing, 1(1), 70-81.

Cohen, A.D. (1998a). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Cohen, A. D. (1998b). Strategies and processes in test-taking and SLA. In L.F. Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds),  Interfaces Between Second Language Acquisition and Language Testing Research (pp. 90-111) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D. (2000). Strategies-based instruction for learners of a second language. NASSP Bulletin (pp.10-18). Retrieved from: http://bul.sagepub.com 

Cohen, A. D. (2006). The coming of age of research on test-taking strategies. Language Assessment Quarterly, 3(4), 307-331.

Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated writing: students’ strategies and their results. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 169-188.

Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39(1), 81-141.

Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482-511.

Dendrinos, B. (2006). Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing”. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 9-35.

Dendrinos, B., & Stathopoulou, M. (2009). Strategies for successful test performance.  ELT News. KPG Corner, Νο 238, p. 8. Available at: http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/kpg/gr_kpgcorner_may2009.htm

Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. 2000. Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. Hove/ NJ: Psychology Press .

Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Galbraith, D. (1992). Conditions for discovery through writing. Instructional Science, 21, 45-72

Glynn, S. M., Britton, B. K., Muth, K. D., & Dogan, N. (1982). Writing and revising persuasive documents: Cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 557-567.

Gordon, C. (1987). The effect of testing method on achievement in reading comprehension tests in English as a foreign language. Unpublished MA thesis. Tel-Aviv University, Israel.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second Language Writing: Assessment Issues. In B. Kroll, (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the Organisation of Writing Processes, In L. Gregg, L. & E.R. Steinberg, (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in Writing (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106-1113.

Homburg, T. J., & Spaan, M. C. (1981). ESL Reading Proficiency Assessment: Testing Strategies. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 25-33). Washington D.C.: TESOL.

Immonen, S. (2006). Translation as a writing process: Pauses in translation versus monolingual text production. Target, 18(2), 313-335.

Jones, S. (1982). Attention to Rhetorical Form while Composing in a Second Language. In C. Campbell, V. Flashner, T. Hudson, & J. Lubin, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum 2 (pp. 130-143). Los Angeles: University of California,Los Angeles.

Kellogg, R. T. (1984). Cognitive strategies in writing. Paper based on a presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. University of Missouri-Rolla.

Kellogg, R.T. (1987). Writing performance: Effects of cognitive strategies. Written Communication, 4, 269-298.

Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kieft, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Galbraith, D., & Van den Bergh, H. (2007). The effects of adapting a writing course to students’ writing strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 565-578.

Kopayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (1992). Effects of first language on second language writing: Translation versus direct composition. Language Learning, 42, 183-215.

Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236.

Leki, I. (1995). Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 235–260.

Leki, I. (1998). Academic Writing: Exploring Processes and Strategies (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London: Continuum.

Manchon, R. M., Rocha, J., & Murphy, L. (2000). An approximation to the study of backtracking in L2 writing. Learning and Instruction, 10, 13-35.

McDonough, S. H. (2006). Learner strategies: An interview with Steven McDonough. ELT Journal, 60(1), 63-70.

Mokhatari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.

Moragne e Silva, M. (1986). First and second language composing processes: A case study. Paper presented at the 20^th Annual TESOL Convention, Anaheim, CA.

Nevo, N. (1989). Test-taking strategies on a multiple-choice test of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 6(2), 199-215.

Nikaki, D. (2009). Integrating preparation for the A level KPG exams in the ‘All Day’ school programme: A proposal for an exam preparation syllabus. MA thesis. University of Athens. Available at: http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/kpg/ma-nikaki.htm  

Nikolov, M. (2006). Test-taking Strategies of 12- and 13-year-old Hungarian learners of EFL: Why whales have migraines. Language Learning, 56(1), 1-51.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

Petric, B., & Czarl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31, 187-215.

Pfingstag, N. (1984). Showing writing: modelling the process. TESOL Newsletter, 18, 1-3.

Politzer, R., & Mc Groarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-123

Porte, G. K. (1997). The etiology of poor second language writing: The influence of perceived teacher preferences on second language revision strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(1), 61-78.

Purpura, J. E.  (1997). An analysis of the relationships between test takers’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy use and second language test performance. Language Learning, 47(2), 289-325

Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high- and low-ability test-takers: A structural equation modelling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.

Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner Strategy Use and Performance on Language Tests: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: a study of ESL college student writers. Language Learning, 37(3), 439-468.

Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchón, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 13–44.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 117-131.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In Wenden and Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy (pp. 15-30). London: Prentice Hall International.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259–291.

Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A., Glopper, K., Hulstijn, A. S., Simis, A, Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53(1), 165-202.

Sindermann, G., & Horsella, M. (1989). Strategy markers in Writing. Applied Linguistics, 10(4), 438-446.

Stathopoulou, Maria. (2008). Έρευνα για τις στρατηγικές επιτυχίας στις εξετάσεις του ΚΠΓ. Ημερίδα Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών: Σύνδεση του ΚΠΓ με τη Δημόσια Εκπαίδευση, 13 December 2008. Παν/μιο Αθηνών.

Stathopoulou, M. (2009). Written mediation in the KPG exams: Source text regulation resulting in hybrid formations. MA thesis. University of Athens. Available at: http://rcel.enl.uoa.gr/kpg/ma-stathopoulou.htm 

Stathopoulou, M., & Nikaki, D. (2008). “Στρατηγικές για επιτυχή αντιμετώπιση των θεμάτων του ΚΠΓ: μια στρατηγο-κεντρική προσέγγιση για την προετοιμασία υποψηφίων”. Paper presented at the conference, Σύστημα Αξιολόγησης και Πιστοποίηση Γλωσσομάθειας, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Stathopoulou M., & Nikaki, D. (2009a). Test-taking strategies in the KPG reading test: Instrument construction & investigation results. The Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.25: 129-148. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Stathopoulou, M., & Nikaki, D. (2009b). “Investigating the use of test-taking strategies by KPG candidates: The Test-Taking Strategies Research Project (TSRP).” Paper presented at the 19th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Taguchi, N. (2001). L2 learners’ strategic mental processes during a listening test. JALT Journal, 23(2), 176-201.

Torrance, M. Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (2000). Individual differences in undergraduate essay-writing strategies: a longitudinal study. Higher Education, 39, 181-200.

Uzawa, K., & Cumming, A. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 178-194.

Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wang L. (2003). Switching to first language among writers with differing second-language proficiency. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 347-375.

Wang, W., & Wen. Q. (2002). L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 225-246.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Prentice Hall International.

Wong, A. T. Y. (2005). Writers’ mental representation of the intended audience and of the rhetorical purpose for writing and the strategies that they employed when they composed. System, 33, 29-47.

Wong-Fillmore, L. W. (1979). Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. In C.J. Fillmore, W.S.Y. Wang & Kempler (Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Abilities and Language Behaviour. New York: Academic Press.

Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.

Endnotes