Linking text readability and learner proficiency using linguistic complexity feature vector distance

References

• Ai, H. (2017). Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted language learning environment. ReCALL, 29(03), 313–334.
   Google Scholar
• Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D. (2017). Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning, 67(S1), 181–209.
   Google Scholar
• Amaral, L., & Meurers, D. (2008). From recording linguistic competence to supporting inferences about language acquisition in context: Extending the conceptualization of student models for Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(4), 323–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amaral, L., Meurers, D., & Ziai, R. (2011). Analyzing learner language: Towards a flexible NLP architecture for intelligent language tutors. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1), 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater v.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 4(3)
   Google Scholar
• Benjamin, R.G. (2012). Reconstructing readability: Recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 63–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C.G. (2002). Inferring and maintaining the learner model. Computer Assisted Language, Learning, 15(4), 343–355.
   Google Scholar
• Bull, S. (1994). Learning languages: Implications for student modelling in ICALL. ReCALL, 6(01), 34–39.
   Google Scholar
• CCSSO (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects (Tech. Rep.). Washington D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Chapelle, C.A., & Heift, T. (2009). Individual learner differences in CALL: The FID construct. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 246–266.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, E., & Cheng, E. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 94–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, L., Tokuda, N., & Xiao, D. (2002). A POST parser-based learner model for template based ICALL for Japanese-English writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 357–372.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2016). CTAP: A web-based tool supporting automatic complexity analysis. In Proceedings of the workshop on computational linguistics for linguistic complexity (pp. 113–119). Osaka, Japan: The International Committee on Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2017a). Challenging learners in their individual zone of proximal development using pedagogic developmental benchmarks of syntactic complexity. In Proceedings of the joint 6th workshop on NLP for computer assisted language learning and 2nd workshop on NLP for research on language acquisition at NoDaLiDa 2017 (pp. 8–17). Gothenburg, Sweden: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2017b). Word frequency and readability: Predicting the text-level readability with a lexical-level attribute. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 486–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinkina, M., & Meurers, D. (2016). Linguistically-aware information retrieval: Providing input enrichment for second language learners. In Proceedings of the 11th workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications (BEA) (pp. 188–198). San Diego, CA: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Chinkina, M., & Meurers, D. (2017). Question generation for language learning: From ensuring texts are read to supporting learning. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications (BEA) (pp. 334–344). Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, I.-C. (2016). Efficacy of an ICALL tutoring system and process-oriented corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 334–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 38–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins-Thompson, K. (2014). Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of past, present, and future research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 97–135.
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crossley, S., Dufty, D.F., McCarthy, P.M., & Mcnamara, D.S. (2007). Toward a new readability: A mixed model approach. In D. S. McNamara & G. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 197–202). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, E., & Chall, J. (1949). The concept of readability. Elementary English, 26(3), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• DuBay, W.H. (2006). The classic readability studies. Costa Mesa, California: Impact Information.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flor, M., Klebanov, B.B., & Sheehan, K.M. (2013). Lexical tightness and text complexity. In Proceedings of the 2th workshop of natural language processing for improving textual accessibility (NLP4ITA). Atlanta, Georgia: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Francois, T., & Watrin, P. (2011). On the contribution of MWE-based features to a readability formula for French as a foreign language. In Proceedings of recent advances in natural language processing (pp. 441–447).
   Google Scholar
• Ghadirian, S. (2002). Providing controlled exposure to target vocabulary through the screening and arranging of texts. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 147–164.
   Google Scholar
• Granger, S., Kraif, O., Ponton, C., Antoniadis, G., & Zampa, V. (2007). Integrating learner corpora and natural language processing: A crucial step towards reconciling technological sophistication and pedagogical effectiveness. ReCALL, 19(3), 252–268.
   Google Scholar
• Hancke, J., Meurers, D., & Vajjala, S. (2012). Readability classification for German using lexical, syntactic, and morphological features. In Proceedings of the 24th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING) (pp. 1063–1080). Mumbai, India.
   Google Scholar
• Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in call. ReCALL, 16(2), 416–431.
   Google Scholar
• Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J., & Eskenazi, M. (2007). Combining lexical and grammatical features to improve readability measures for first and second language texts. In Proceedings of Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (HLT-NAACL-07) (pp. 460–467). Rochester, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis, S. (2013). Capturing the diversity in lexical diversity. Language Learning, 63, 87–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon, E.-Y., & Day, R.R. (2016). The effectiveness of ER on reading proficiency: A meta-analysis. Reading in a Foreign Language, 28(2), 246– 265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Kyle, K., & Crossley, S.A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert, C., & Kormos, J. (2014). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based l2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lexile (2007). The Lexile Framework® for reading: Theoretical framework and development (Tech. Rep.). Durham, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., & Ai, H. (2015). Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 16–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, X., Gamson, D.A., & Eckert, S.A. (2014). Lexical difficulty and diversity in American elementary school reading textbooks: Changes over the past century. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(1), 94–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazgutova, D., & Kormos, J. (2015). Syntactic and lexical development in an intensive English for Academic Purposes programme. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 3–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., & Jarvis, S. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 381–392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNamara, D.S., Graesser, A.C., McCarthy, P.M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mesmer, H.A., Cunningham, J.W., & Hiebert, E.H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: Learning from the past, anticipating the future. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 235–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meurers, D. (2012). Natural language processing and language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 4193–4205). Oxford: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Meurers, D., Ziai, R., Amaral, L., Boyd, A., Dimitrov, A., Metcalf, V., & Ott, N. (2010). Enhancing authentic web pages for language learners. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop on innovative use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (BEA) (pp. 10–18). Los Angeles: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Michaud, L., & McCoy, K. (2006). Capturing the evolution of grammatical knowledge in a CALL system for deaf learners of English. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(1), 65–97.
   Google Scholar
• Milone, M., & Biemiller, A. (2014). The development of ATOS: The renaissance readability formula (Tech. Rep.). Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, D., & Liben, M. (2012). Measures of text difficulty: Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance (Tech. Rep.). The Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2012). A construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Szmrecsanyi & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact (pp. 127–155). Berlin: de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 82–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, P.D., & Hiebert, E.H. (2014). The state of the field: Qualitative analyses of text complexity. The Elementary School Journal, 115(2), 161–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, R., Schaf, E., & Meurers, D. (2014). A view of Russian: Visual input enhancement and adaptive feedback. In Proceedings of the third workshop on NLP for computer-assisted language learning (pp. 98–112). Uppsala: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Rimrott, A., & Heift, T. (2008). October). Evaluating automatic detection of mis-spellings in german. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 73–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigo, V., Krashen, S., & Gribbons, B. (2004). The effectiveness of two comprehensible input approaches to foreign language instruction at the intermediate level. System, 32(1), 53–60.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
   Google Scholar
• Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook on automated essay evaluation: Current applications and new directions. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Skalban, Y., Ha, L.A., Specia, L., & Mitkov, R. (2012). Automatic question generation in multimedia-based learning. In Proceedings of COLING 2012: Posters (pp. 1151–1160). Mumbai, India: COLING.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Vajjala, S., & Meurers, D. (2012). On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications (BEA) (pp. 163–173). Montréal, Canada: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Vajjala, S., & Meurers, D. (2014). Assessing the relative reading level of sentence pairs for text simplification. In Proceedings of the 14th conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL) (pp. 288–297). Gothenburg, Sweden: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Vercellotti, M.L. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language performance: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, C., & Wang, M. (2015). Effect of alignment on L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 36(5), 503–526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, S., Siddharthan, A., & Nenkova, A. (Eds.). (1994). Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on predicting and improving text readability for target reader populations (PITR). Gothenburg, Sweden: ACL.
   Google Scholar
• Wisniewski, K. (2017). The empirical validity of the Common European Framework of Reference scales. An exemplary study for the vocabulary and fluency scales in a language testing context. Applied Linguistics, amw057, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amw057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). (1988). Readability: Its past, present, and future. Newark, Del.: International Reading Association.
   Google Scholar