Strategic competence, task complexity, and foreign language learners’ speaking performance: a hierarchical linear modelling approach

Abstract

Understanding the intricate relationships among strategic competence, tasks and performance is an issue of perennial interest in the assessment of foreign/second languages especially in integrated speaking assessment, a field that is under-researched. Against this background, we investigated such complex relationships in the context of integrated speaking assessment of English as foreign language (EFL) learners, hoping to provide additional empirical evidence to address the problem. In the investigation, strategic competence was defined as metacognitive strategy use and was measured via an inventory administered on 120 Chinese university EFL students; task characteristics were conceptualised as task complexity and were measured on a self-rating scale by the students and five EFL teachers; and the students’ speaking performance was indicated by their scores on four integrated speaking assessment tasks. Data analysis through a hierarchy linear modelling approach led to two primary findings: Monitoring, one form of strategic competence, moderated the effect of task complexity on performance; strategic competence had no substantial effects on performance which had an inverse relationship with task complexity. These findings will add validity evidence for the foreign language speaking assessment literature and provide implications for speaking instruction and test development.

From self-regulated learning to computer-delivered integrated speaking testing: Does monitoring always monitor?

“…Speaking is “a process of oral language production” ( Tarone, 2005 , p. 485) in which information is received and processed before systematic utterances are produced to express meaning that occurs in the real time situations ( Levelt, 1989 ; Levelt et al, 1999 ; Yahya, 2019 ). Therefore, in the research discipline of speaking, whether it be L1 speaking or L2 speaking, speech production is typically treated as an information-processing procedure ( Luoma, 2004 ; Bygate, 2011 ; Kormos, 2011 ; Zhang et al, 2022a , b ) where monitoring plays a necessary role (e.g., Levelt, 1989 ; Levelt et al, 1999 ; Nozari and Novick, 2017 ; Broos et al, 2019 ), as it does in SRL.…”

“…In language testing research, monitoring is usually treated as one of the operational forms of strategic competence or metacognitive strategy use proposed to represent the essence of L2 testing (e.g., Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ; Phakiti, 2016 ; Purpura, 2016 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , 2022a , b ). However, since there is no conclusive definition of strategic competence, researchers tended to take an exploratory approach in investigating the working mode of the construct in L2 testing and its effect on test performance.…”

“…Overall, the research results on the role of monitoring in L2 testing, in particular in L2 speaking testing are mixed, which suggest that further explorations of monitoring in L2 speaking testing are merited ( Seong, 2014 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , 2022a , b ). In fact, with the increasing dominance of modern technology characterized by computer-delivered or computer-assisted L2 learning, and of integrating multiple language skills in classroom instruction, some L2 testers (e.g., Swain et al, 2009 ; Barkaoui et al, 2013 ; Zhang et al, 2021a ) have begun to set their focus on strategic competence in computer-delivered L2 integrated speaking tests (see Zhang et al, 2021a , for a review of the test format).…”

“…Furthermore, the on-going COVID-19 pandemic that has normalized online learning and computer-delivered L2 testing has prompted the need for more research efforts in the test format. However, to our knowledge, in total, there are only seven ( Swain et al, 2009 ; Yi, 2012 ; Barkaoui et al, 2013 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , b , 2022a , b ) empirical studies related to examining monitoring in the test format, but these studied did not investigate monitoring purposely and specifically, rather they treated the construct as one form of strategic competence. Despite this, the limited number of studies have provided some inspiring insights into monitoring and helped us develop a more comprehensive view of the construct.…”

“…The investigation is expected to provide pedagogical implications for SRL: while fostering self-regulating learners, it is necessary for L2 teachers to purposefully reduplicate testing conditions in their classroom instructions for helping the self-regulating learners be equally self-regulating test-takers assisted by self-monitoring to pass certain high-stakes tests for either academic purposes or vocational objectives, the fundamental goal of L2 learning for a large proportion of L2 learners ( Shohamy, 2007 ; Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ). Moreover, the investigation is hoped to offer some insights into L2 testing through the perspective of self-monitoring, one proposed key component of strategic competence, a construct that has been extensively acknowledged to reflect the essence of L2 testing ( Bachman and Palmer, 2010 ; Zhang et al, 2021a , 2022a , b ).…”