Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:31:28.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Capturing Accuracy in Second Language Performance: The Case for a Weighted Clause Ratio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2016

Pauline Foster  and
Gillian Wigglesworth
Pauline Foster
Affiliation:
St. Mary's [email protected]
Gillian Wigglesworth
Affiliation:
University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As increasing numbers of research papers in applied linguistics, language learning, and assessment use discourse analysis techniques to assess accuracy in performance, it is timely to examine at a detailed level the wide variety of measures employed. Ideally, measures need to capture accuracy in as valid and reliable a way as possible, but this has proved elusive. In this article, we systematically review the variety of different measures in used in these fields, both global and local, before presenting a more finely tuned weighted clause ratio measure which classifies errors at different levels, that is, those that seriously impede communication, those that impair communication to some degree, and those that do not impair communication at all. The problem of reliably identifying these levels is discussed, followed by an analysis of samples from written and spoken second language performance data. This new measure, grounded in a comprehensive review of prior practice in the field, has the advantages of being relatively easy to use, measuring accuracy rather than error, and evaluating smaller increases in improved performance than have previously been possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 36 , March 2016 , pp. 98 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. K., Hartshorn, K. J., Cox, T. L., & de Jel, T. M. (2014). Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. (2016). Comparing classroom and laboratory task performance: An empirical study. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). A unit for all measures: Analyzing spoken discourse. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granfeldt, J. (2007). Speaking and writing in L2 French: Exploring effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning & teaching (pp. 87–89). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Studies in syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 183–198). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, C. (2007). Fluency and accuracy in the written production of L2 French. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning & teaching (pp. 99–112). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2007). Task complexity, task characteristics and measures of linguistic performance. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 113–126). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H., & Oh, M. (2007). The effects of pre-task planning on L2 narrative tasks. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 127–138). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Lee, H., Joo, K., Moon, J., & Hong, Y. (2007). EFL learner performance variation as the effect of interlocutor type. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 127–138). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Lin, Y.-H., & Hedgcock, J. (1996). Negative feedback incorporation among high-proficiency and low-proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of Spanish. Language-Learning, 46 (4), 567–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loban, W. (1966). The language of elementary school children (Research report no. 1). Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
Nas, G. (1975). Determining the communicative value of written discourse produced by L2 learners. Utrecht, the Netherlands: Institute of Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 716–761). London, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, G. (2009). CAF: Defining, refining and differentiating constructs. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 590–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roquet-Pugès, H., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2007). Bilingual reading: An essential factor for the acquisition of written competence in a third language. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 183–192). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Sempé, J.-J. (1973). Rien n'est simple. Paris, France: Editions Flammarion.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2007). Complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-analysis of the Ealing research. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning & teaching (pp. 207–226). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In Pilar, M. del Mayo, Garcia (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language settings (pp. 157–177). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 303–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010b). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tonkyn, A. (2007). Short-term changes in complexity, accuracy and fluency: Developing progress-sensitive proficiency measures. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 263–284). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Van Daele, S., Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2007). Fluency, accuracy and complexity in the manifestation and development of two second languages. In Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.), Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning and teaching (pp. 310–316). Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Van Daele, S., Housen, A., Kuiken, F., Pierrard, M., & Vedder, I. (Eds.). (2007). Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use, learning & teaching. Brussels, Belgium: KVAB.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26 (3), 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998) Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar