Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Lexical complexity and assessment of EFL writing: a study of the assessment of English vocabulary in the Swedish national tests
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Health, Learning and Technology, Education, Language, and Teaching.
2023 (English)In: The 32nd Conference of the European Second Language Association (EuroSLA32), Birmingham, 30th August - 2nd September, 2023., 2023Conference paper, Oral presentation with published abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Vocabulary is a core component of language proficiency (Nation, 2020) and texts containing an appropriate and precise vocabulary are considered to be of high quality by assessors (e.g., Garner et al., 2019; Vögelin et al., 2019). Despite regularly being claimed as an explicit grading criterion in language tests, what constitutes sufficient/good vocabulary is often expressed in vague terms in guidelines to assessors (e.g., ETS, 2022). Every year in Sweden, upper secondary school students are required to take the national tests of English to ensure that their proficiency is on par with the level at which they study (Olsson, 2018). During the tests, students are required to write texts on a specific topic and these are then assessed by teachers with instructions of assessment created by a group of experts on behalf of the Swedish National Agency for Education. These instructions specify vocabulary as a grading criterion and indicate that there should be a progression in terms of lexical complexity between the lowest and highest grade. Furthermore, to ensure fair and equal assessment, the instructions provide graded example texts to assist teachers’ assessment. This paper aims to investigate the assessment of written productive vocabulary by analysing these graded example texts and texts graded by teachers during the exams. The material consists of a corpus of 142 graded example texts and 190 teacher graded texts from two courses written between 2011 and 2022. A range of measures of lexical sophistication (e.g., frequency, range, n-grams) were employed utilising different written subsections of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) as reference corpora. Also, one measure of lexical diversity was used (Moving Average Type-Token Ratio). The results indicate that there is no structured difference in terms of lexical complexity between texts awarded the lowest and highest grade, suggesting that written vocabulary proficiency was largely overlooked in the assessment. In addition, the findings call into question the construction and validity of the Swedish national tests of English since productive vocabulary, although an essential part of overall language competence and explicitly mentioned a grading criterion, does not seem to have been taken into consideration when the example texts were graded.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2023.
National Category
General Language Studies and Linguistics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-101459OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-101459DiVA, id: diva2:1800589
Conference
The 32nd Conference of the European Second Language Association (EuroSLA32), Birmingham, 30th August - 2nd September, 2023.
Available from: 2023-09-27 Created: 2023-09-27 Last updated: 2023-09-27

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

By organisation
Education, Language, and Teaching
General Language Studies and Linguistics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 85 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf