Level of processing: The gap summarizes the nature of proximity, also aiming
to reach test-takers’higher cognitive processing of discourse construction. Trace
from the third protocol demonstrates this level: “...different culture, the first
mentioned thing is personal style, culture-bounded, and then the following example
is the importance of situation, so these three elements should be parallel to each
other and I also highlighted them with asterisks.”This extract reflects that the
participant not only identified the key features pertaining to the nature of proximity,
but also their relationship to each other.
Differences: Thefirst two participants only reached the decoding process.
A point worth noticing is that thefirst participant claimed he heard“place”while
the second mentioned“party”. Both of them are nouns with substantial meaning
and relevant to the gap. However, two different“situations”could happen in the
same“place”and“party”is only one of the hyponyms of“situation”. Therefore, the
first two didn’t fully comprehend the accurate coherence between proximity, per-
son, culture, situation and party. On the other hand, the third participant exhibited a
full range of discourse construction process from summarizing the concrete
example to integrating the summary of the example into the existent discourse
structure (Table6.21).
Cognitive Processes.................................... 6.7 Discussion on the Interaction Between Task Targets and
and Cognitive Processes
In light with the results of test-takers’cognitive processes, it is demonstrated that
interaction between task targets and cognitive processes is rather dynamic than
static and how this interaction is realized varies with individual test-takers.
6.7.1 Levels of Cognitive Processes.......................
Given the fact that different gaps in a gap-filling task might pertain to different
constructs, validation of a gap-filling task must adhere to how meaningfulness and
appropriateness of interpretations made on the test-takers’scores should be justi-
fied. It is necessary to build the link between assumed constructs targeted by
different gap types and test-takers’actual cognitive processes and observe the extent
to which the aimed constructs are practically realized (Table6.22).
Supported by substantial TAP data, the four gap types of TEM 8 Mini-lecture
and Gap-filling task have partially targeted the levels of cognitive processes they are
calibrated to. In our Phase 1 TAP analysis, decoding and selective attention process
includes reading notes, memorizing words, reading the task and parsing the
structure, etc. while meaning and discourse construction process encompasses
interpreting, inferring from notes and the task, using schema, summarizing,
6.6 Results of the Test-Taking TAPs 107