I. Vedder

Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing

Abstract In a study on L2 proficiency in writing, conducted among 84 Dutch university students of Italian and 75 students of French, manipulation of task complexity led in the complex task to a significant decrease of errors, while at the same time a trend for a lexically more varied text was observed (Kuiken and Vedder 2005, 2007, in press). Based on this first analysis in which some global performance measures were used, a more specific analysis was carried out. In the latter analysis, which is reported in this article, accuracy was investigated in more detail according to the type of errors in the L2 texts, while lexical variation was analysed further by distinguishing frequent words from infrequent ones. Results showed that the effect of task complexity could mainly be attributed to lower ratios of lexical errors in the more complex task. With respect to the use of frequent versus infrequent words mixed results were found. On the basis of these findings a number of implications with regard to the operationalisation of task complexity and linguistic performance are discussed.

The Influence of Complexity in Monologic versus Dialogic Tasks in Dutch L2.

Abstract This study puts the Cognition Hypothesis (Robinson 2005) to the test with respect to its predictions of the effects of changes in task complexity (± few elements) and task condition (± monologic) on L2 performance. 44 learners of Dutch performed both a simple and a complex oral task in either a monologic or a dialogic condition. The performance of the L2 learners was analysed with regard to linguistic complexity, accuracy, and fluency. As predicted by the Cognition Hypothesis, the complex task generated more accurate though less fluent speech. Linguistic complexity, however, was only marginally affected. Dialogic tasks triggered more accurate and fluent output though it was structurally less complex. The interaction of task complexity and task condition showed effects on measures of accuracy only: in the monologic but not in the dialogic condition task complexity did promote accuracy. As a consequence, our results only partially support the Cognition Hypothesis.

The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language

Abstract In this paper the effect of interaction between learners of English as a second language during a dictogloss task on the acquisition of the passive form is investigated. Subjects were 34 Dutch high school students in their fifth year of English. The experimental group was given two dictogloss tasks, which consisted in the reconstruction in small groups of two texts read by the teacher (+interaction). The control group was submitted to the same tasks, but this time the students had to reconstruct the texts individually (−interaction). Knowledge of the passive was established by means of a pre-test. After the treatment a post-test and delayed post-test were administered. By means of a quantitative analysis it could not be demonstrated that recognition and frequency of use of the passive differ depending on the degree in which learners are encouraged to interact with each other. A qualitative analysis makes clear that numerous instances of interaction lead to the noticing of passive forms.

Collaborative Writing in L2: The Effect of Group Interaction on Text Quality

This chapter investigates the role of group interaction in L2 writing. It is assumed that text quality in L2 is positively affected by collaborative dialogue. When learners are given the opportunity to reconstruct a text together, which has been read to them by their teacher, their joint product will be better than an individual reconstruction. In order to test this hypothesis, three groups of L2 learners of English, Dutch, and Italian were submitted to a dictogloss task. The focus of the study was on the grammatical and lexical complexity of the text produced by the learners and on the linguistic strategies they used during the text reconstruction phase. However, a positive effect of interaction could not be established. This may partly be due to the cross-sectional design of the study. Other factors which may have had an impact on the obtained results are also discussed, such as level of L2 proficiency, difficulty of the text, group dynamics and the general problem of measuring the role of interaction in L2 writing. In the final section of the chapter it is suggested that a qualitative analysis of the discussions between the learners might shed some light on the benefits of a collaborative writing task like dictogloss.

Rating written performance: What do raters do and why?:

This study investigates the relationship in L2 writing between raters’ judgments of communicative adequacy and linguistic complexity by means of six-point Likert scales, and general measures of linguistic performance. The participants were 39 learners of Italian and 32 of Dutch, who wrote two short argumentative essays. The same writing tasks were administered to a control group of 18 native writers of Italian and 17 of Dutch. During a panel discussion raters were asked to verbalize for which reasons they assigned a text to a particular rating level. The results show that although raters’ judgements of communicative adequacy largely corresponded to their judgments of linguistic complexity, the findings for L2 and L1 turned out to be different. In L2 overall ratings of linguistic complexity were correlated with lexical diversity and accuracy, but not with syntactic complexity. In L1 hardly any correlations between raters’ judgements and general measures of syntactic complexity and lexical diversity were found. Furthermore, raters used different strategies when assessing high- and low-proficiency L2 writers or native writers, and seemed to attach more importance to textual features connected to communicative adequacy than to linguistic complexity and accuracy.

Raters' decisions, rating procedures and rating scales

This special issue of Language Testing explores raters’ evaluations of L2 proficiency and possible causes of variability of rater judgments. In addition to the analysis of rater behavior and rater consistency, we investigate the relationship between general measures of oral and written L2 performance concerning complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 production and overall judgments of oral and written L2 performance by raters, based on holistic rating scales. Finally, the use of rating scales in different contexts and for different types of learners is also examined. In this introduction the three central themes presented in the various contributions are briefly discussed: rater behavior and rater consistency, rater judgments and measures of language performance, and the use of global rating scales.

Functional adequacy in L2 writing : Towards a new rating scale

The importance of functional adequacy as an essential component of L2 proficiency has been observed by several authors (Pallotti, 2009; De Jong, Steinel, Florijn, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2012a, b). The rationale underlying the present study is that the assessment of writing proficiency in L2 is not fully possible without taking into account the functional dimension of L2 production. In the paper a rating scale for functional adequacy is proposed, containing four dimensions: (1) content, (2) task requirements, (3) comprehensibility, and (4) coherence and cohesion. The scale is an adaptation of the global rating scale of functional adequacy, which in an earlier study was carried out with expert raters (Kuiken, Vedder, & Gilabert, 2010; Kuiken & Vedder, 2014). The new rating scale for functional adequacy was tested out by a group of non-expert raters, who assessed the functional adequacy of a corpus of argumentative texts written by native and non-native writers of Dutch and Italian. The results showed that functional adequacy in L2 writing can be reliably measured by a rating scale comprising four different subscales.

Lexical richness and collocational competence in second-language writing

Abstract In this article we report on an experiment set up to investigate lexical richness and collocational competence in the written production of 39 low-intermediate and intermediate learners of Italian L2. Lexical richness was assessed by means of a lexical profiling method inspired by Laufer and Nation (1995) and developed by Bardel, Lindqvist and Gudmundson (Bardel and Lindqvist 2011; Bardel et al. 2012; Lindqvist et al. 2011, Lindqvist et al. 2013). The lexical profiler was used to compare the lexical richness of the L2 texts with that of 18 native speakers of Italian. The study focuses on the relationship between lexical richness, operationalized as lexical frequency, and the overall proficiency level in Italian of the L2 learners, measured by a C-test. In order to get a deeper insight into the development of lexical skills in L2, next to the lexical profiling method, an additional analysis of the use of collocations in L2 and L1 was carried out. The results show that although a relationship in L2 between lexical richness, collocational competence and general language proficiency could not be demonstrated, there appeared to be a number of traits which differentiate L2 and L1 writers.