SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2017 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2

Comparing Learners’ General Proficiency Levels with Their Writing Productive Ability: How Correlated are They?

Bouchaib BENZEHAF
Pages
43–58
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed a strong correlation between proficiency levels and CAF measures, thereby proving that CAF measures serve as a framework suitable for benchmarking language proficiency development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Since complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) have been suggested as measures of language development (Larsen-Freeman, 1978), a heated debate has surrounded the issue of whether they can sufficiently capture the multi-dimensional facets of language proficiency and be reliable indices of language proficiency levels.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Contributing to this debate, the present study investigates the correlation between L3 English proficiency and CAF measures in writing.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed a strong correlation between proficiency levels and CAF measures, thereby proving that CAF measures serve as a framework suitable for benchmarking language proficiency development.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Language proficiency · CAF measures · writing

Abstract

Since complexity, accuracy and fluency (CAF) have been suggested as measures of language development (Larsen-Freeman, 1978), a heated debate has surrounded the issue of whether they can sufficiently capture the multi-dimensional facets of language proficiency and be reliable indices of language proficiency levels. Contributing to this debate, the present study investigates the correlation between L3 English proficiency and CAF measures in writing. It recruits 88 semester-one 2nd year Baccalaureate students who were divided into nine groups of general proficiency using the 9-point Stanine scale based on their scores in a general English proficiency test. The scores for the proficiency test were obtained based on the holistic scoring method. We, then, assigned the participants a writing task which we evaluated in terms of CAF. We used the number of dependent clauses per T-unit to measure complexity, the ratio of error-free T-units to the total number of T-units to measure accuracy and number of words per minute to measure fluency. The results showed a strong correlation between proficiency levels and CAF measures, thereby proving that CAF measures serve as a framework suitable for benchmarking language proficiency development. In light of the results, some implications are made for future research targeting language development.

🔖

Cite This Article

BENZEHAF, B. (2017). Comparing Learners’ General Proficiency Levels with Their Writing Productive Ability: How Correlated are They?. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 2, 43–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/284885

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ahmadian, M. J., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The effects of simultaneous use of careful online planning and task repetition on accuracy, complexity, and fluency in EFL learners' oral production. Language Teaching Research, 35-59.
  2. Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: OUP. Bachman, L.F. & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: OUP. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Bofman, T. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17-34.
  3. Benevento, C., Storch, N. (2011). Investigating writing development in secondary school learners of French. Assessing Writing, 16(2), 97-110. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2015). Evaluating short-term changes in L2 complexity development. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 63, 42-76.
  4. Canale, M & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
  5. Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K. & James, M. (2005). Differences in writing discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5-43.
  6. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  7. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Flahive, D. E., & Snow, B. G. (1980). Measures of syntactic complexity in evaluating ESL compositions. In J. W. Oller, & K. Perkins (Eds.), Research in language testing (pp. 171– 176). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Geisler, G. & Pardiwalla, M. (2010). Socialization patterns and boys’ underperformance in Seychellois schools. Journal Statistique Africain, 11, 62-84.
  9. Godfrey, L., Treacy, C., & Tarone, E. (2014). Change in French second language writing in study abroad and domestic contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 48-65.
  10. Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1990). The development of second language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Henry, K. (1996). Early L2 writing development: A study of autobiographical essays by university-level students of Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 309-26.
  11. Hirano, K. (1991). The effect of audience on the efficacy of objective measures of EFL proficiency in Japanese university students. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 2, 21-30.