Automatic measures of cohesion and lexical proficiency
Post on 18-Jul-2015
111 Views
Preview:
Transcript
RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012
www.PosterPresentations.com
(—THIS SIDEBAR DOES NOT PRINT—)
D E S I G N G U I D E
This PowerPoint 2007 template produces a 36”x48”
presentation poster. You can use it to create your research
poster and save valuable time placing titles, subtitles, text,
and graphics.
We provide a series of online tutorials that will guide you
through the poster design process and answer your poster
production questions. To view our template tutorials, go online
to PosterPresentations.com and click on HELP DESK.
When you are ready to print your poster, go online to
PosterPresentations.com
Need assistance? Call us at 1.510.649.3001
Q U I C K S TA RT
Zoom in and out As you work on your poster zoom in and out to the level that
is more comfortable to you.
Go to VIEW > ZOOM.
Title, Authors, and Affiliations Start designing your poster by adding the title, the names of the authors,
and the affiliated institutions. You can type or paste text into the
provided boxes. The template will automatically adjust the size of your
text to fit the title box. You can manually override this feature and
change the size of your text.
TIP: The font size of your title should be bigger than your name(s) and
institution name(s).
Adding Logos / Seals Most often, logos are added on each side of the title. You can insert a logo
by dragging and dropping it from your desktop, copy and paste or by going
to INSERT > PICTURES. Logos taken from web sites are likely to be low
quality when printed. Zoom it at 100% to see what the logo will look like
on the final poster and make any necessary adjustments.
TIP: See if your school’s logo is available on our free poster templates
page.
Photographs / Graphics You can add images by dragging and dropping from your desktop, copy and
paste, or by going to INSERT > PICTURES. Resize images proportionally by
holding down the SHIFT key and dragging one of the corner handles. For a
professional-looking poster, do not distort your images by enlarging them
disproportionally.
Image Quality Check Zoom in and look at your images at 100% magnification. If they look good
they will print well.
ORIGINAL DISTORTED Corner handles
Go
od
pri
nti
ng
qu
alit
y
Bad
pri
nti
ng
qu
alit
y
Q U I C K S TA RT ( c on t . )
How to change the template color theme You can easily change the color theme of your poster by going to the
DESIGN menu, click on COLORS, and choose the color theme of your
choice. You can also create your own color theme.
You can also manually change the color of your background by going to
VIEW > SLIDE MASTER. After you finish working on the master be sure to
go to VIEW > NORMAL to continue working on your poster.
How to add Text The template comes with a number of pre-
formatted placeholders for headers and text
blocks. You can add more blocks by copying and
pasting the existing ones or by adding a text box
from the HOME menu.
Text size Adjust the size of your text based on how much content you have to
present. The default template text offers a good starting point. Follow the
conference requirements.
How to add Tables To add a table from scratch go to the INSERT menu and
click on TABLE. A drop-down box will help you select rows and
columns.
You can also copy and a paste a table from Word or another PowerPoint
document. A pasted table may need to be re-formatted by RIGHT-CLICK >
FORMAT SHAPE, TEXT BOX, Margins.
Graphs / Charts You can simply copy and paste charts and graphs from Excel or Word.
Some reformatting may be required depending on how the original
document has been created.
How to change the column configuration RIGHT-CLICK on the poster background and select LAYOUT to see the
column options available for this template. The poster columns can also
be customized on the Master. VIEW > MASTER.
How to remove the info bars If you are working in PowerPoint for Windows and have finished your
poster, save as PDF and the bars will not be included. You can also delete
them by going to VIEW > MASTER. On the Mac adjust the Page-Setup to
match the Page-Setup in PowerPoint before you create a PDF. You can also
delete them from the Slide Master.
Save your work Save your template as a PowerPoint document. For printing, save as
PowerPoint of “Print-quality” PDF.
Print your poster When you are ready to have your poster printed go online to
PosterPresentations.com and click on the “Order Your Poster” button.
Choose the poster type the best suits your needs and submit your order. If
you submit a PowerPoint document you will be receiving a PDF proof for
your approval prior to printing. If your order is placed and paid for before
noon, Pacific, Monday through Friday, your order will ship out that same
day. Next day, Second day, Third day, and Free Ground services are
offered. Go to PosterPresentations.com for more information.
Student discounts are available on our Facebook page.
Go to PosterPresentations.com and click on the FB icon.
© 2013 PosterPresentations.com 2117 Fourth Street , Unit C Berkeley CA 94710
posterpresenter@gmail.com
This study compared the use of cohesion devices and lexical knowledge
in L1 and L2 blog entries, using the Coh-Metrix tool
(http://tool.cohmetrix.com). The present study is based on the
research described in Crossley and McNamara (2009) who studied the
lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing by using Coh-Metrix.
The topic of automated measures of L2 writing has attracted
considerable interests recently, due to potentially better efficiencies
and higher effectiveness of computational measures, compared to
human raters.
In the present study, the Coh-Metrix tool
(http://tool.cohmetrix.com) is used to automatically evaluate lexical
knowledge and the use of cohesive devices in the L2 (English) writing
of an Indonesian writer, and to compare these measures with those
generated for L1 writers.
In my study, written entries from an L2 writer’s
(http://tantrialmira.wordpress.com/)
and an L1 writer’s (http://jeremyharmer.wordpress.com/) blogs
are analysed for indices of lexical knowledge and cohesion, and the
results are compared.
Introduction
Research Question:
Design & Methodology
Results
Implications
Limitations
• A case study subjects of the study one L1 writer and one L2 writer
• Sample texts: relatively low in number, raising the question of generalizability
• Future studies using Coh-Metrix may benefit from using:
a) large corpus
b) not only cohesion and lexical indices
References
Crossley, S.A. & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Computational assessment of lexical differences in L1 and L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 119–135
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S., (2010). Predicting second language writing proficiency: the roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35 (2), 1–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., McNamara, D. S., & Jarvis, S. (2010). Predicting lexical proficiency in language learner texts using computational indices. Language Testing, 20 (10), 1–20. doi:10.1177/0265532210378031
Graesser, A. C. & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Computational analyses of multilevel discourse comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3, 371-398
Kyle, K. (2011). Objective measures of writing quality. Master Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins: USA
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S.A., & McCarthy, (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27 (1), 57-86. doi: 10.1177/0741088309351547
McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P.M., & Graesser, A. C. (2010). Coh-Metrix: Capturing linguistic features of cohesion. Discourse Processes, 47 (4), 292-330
O’Reilly, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reversing the reverse cohesion effect: Good texts can be better for strategic, high-knowledge readers. Discourse Processes, 43 (2), 121-152
http://jeremyharmer.wordpress.com/
http://tantrialmira.wordpress.com/
Can indices of cohesion and lexical use generated by
Coh-Metrix be used to distinguish between L1 and L2
blog writers?
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
Anik Wulyani, PhD candidate
Automatic measures of cohesion and lexical proficiency in L2 writing: A case study
Indices Expected
Indices # 29: Argument overlap L1 > L2
Indices # 46: Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA) give/new L1 < L2
Indices # 85: Verb incidence L1 > L2
Indices # 94: CELEX word frequency for content words, mean L1 < L2
Indices # 97: Age of acquisition L1 < L2
Indices # 102: Polysemy L1 > L2
Indices # 103: Hypernymy for nouns L1 > L2
Indices Expected
Indices # 48: Lexical diversity, Type-Token Ratio, content word
lemmas
L1 > L2
Indices # 49: Lexical Diversity, Type-Token Ratio, all words L1 > L2
Indices # 50: Lexical Diversity, MTLD, all words L1 > L2
Indices # 51: Lexical Diversity, VOCD, all words L1 > L2
Indices # 95: CELEX Log frequency for all words, mean L1 < L2
Indices # 99: Concreteness for content words L1<L2
Indices # 104: Hypernymy for verbs L1 > L2
Indices # 105: Hypernymy for noun and verbs L1 > L2
1. Practicality Coh-Metrix is able to distinguish L1 and L2 texts using linguistics features (cohesion and lexical indices) 2. Assessment Coh-Metrix is a powerful tool to measure L2 writing
L 1 writer: 13 blog posts
L2 writer: 13 blog posts
Cohesion indices: 5 indices
Lexical indices: 10 indices
Cohesion indices: 5 indices
Lexical indices: 10 indices
Co
h-M
etrix Too
l 3.0
compared MANOVA
Are they significantly different?
Can you see the difference?
Automatic measures of cohesion and lexical proficiency in L2 writing: A case
study
Blogging among in-service teachers • Main research • EFL teachers in Indonesia
• Pilot study • Coh-Metrix Tool 3.0 • One L1 blog writer, native
speaker of English, the UK • One L2 blog writer, EFL
teacher, Indonesia
Those 15 indices from Coh-Metrix were chosen because previous related studies showed that they were able to differentiate L1 writing to L2 writing (Crossley & McNamara, 2009; Crossley & McNamara, 2010; Kyle, 2011; McNamara, Crossley & McCarthy, 2010; & Crossley, Salsbury, McNamara, & Jarvis, 2010).
Today I guide my students to continue design their summative task and formative tasks. I ask my students to list down possible things they can do for their summative and formative tasks. I asked them to list down as many action as possible (actions which they have done in their previous summative or their lies). Then they need to classify the actions which can be feasibly done for their summative tasks.
In my blog I have tried, so far, to address general issues to do with presenting, conferences, writing abstracts etc etc. As with every other blogger, my ‘thoughts’ have been personal, of course, but I have tried to exercise some dispassion. But not this time. Just for once I want to tell you how I feel – or rather what it felt like (and then see if there is anything to learn from that). What I am trying to say is that this post is going to be incredibly personal, and I hope you will forgive me for that.
Sample 1 Blog post
Sample 2 Blog post
Future Research
Future research English Language Teaching in second language context L2 writing proficiency L2 blog writers cohesion and lexical indices
Before discussing the findings of the study, please check the samples of the blog posts I have put in the next section!
In terms of cohesion and vocabulary use which one do you think is the blog post of an L1 writer? How do you know?
What does Coh-Metrix 3.0 and MANOVA with alpha level .05 tell us about the cohesion and lexical use?
Current study versus Crossley & McNamara (2009)
Indices Current study
Crossley & McNamara (2009)
Argument overlap, #29 L1 < L2 L1 > L2
LSA given/new, #46 L1 < L2 L1 < L2
Verb Incidence, #85 L1 < L2 L1 > L2
Lexical diversity, #50 L1 > L2 L1 > L2
Lexical diversity, #51 L1 > L2 L1 > L2
Hypernymy for nouns & verbs, #105
L1> L2 L1 > L2
Crossley & McNamara (2009) Present study
Seven variables (indices) Fifteen variables (indices)
Corpus of L1 (undergraduates in USA) & of L2 (the International Corpus of Learner English)
Blog posts of L1 (a teacher and trainer in English Language Teaching) & of L2 (an Indonesian English teacher)
Academic writing/argumentative essays
Blog writing
Table 2b Expected Results, Additional Indices
Table 1 Differences between Crossley & McNamara’s study & present study
Table 2a Expected Results (Crossley & McNamara, 2009)
1. Three cohesion indices showed significant differences: argument overlap (#29), LSA given/new (#46), and verb incidence (#85)
2. Three lexical indices reached statistical differences: lexical diversity #50, #51, and hypernymy for nouns and verbs (#105)
3. Cohesion: a) The L1 writer appeared to produce more cohesive texts than the L2
writer b) The L2 writer was more likely to produce texts with more new
information than the L1 writer. c) The L2 writer seemed to use more verbs or more spatial cohesion
than the L1 writer 4. Lexical Proficiency: a) The L1 writer seemed to have more diverse lexicon than the L2
writer b) The L2 writer appeared to use less diverse vocabulary than the L1
writer c) The L1 writer used significantly more conceptually abstract and
hierarchically connected words than the L2 writer
Why are the cohesion indices of the present study different from Crossley & McNamara (2009)? Because: a) The L1 writer appeared to be more casual in organizing his texts (few
argument overlap) and to expect his readers to have high knowledge to understand his texts (few verb incidences)
b) The L2 writer seemed to have a formal writing or text organization (greater argument overlap) and to use more cohesion devices (more verb incidences) to assist her readers to better understand her texts
Graesser and McNamara, 2011; McNamara, Louwerse, McCarthy, & Graesser, 2010; & O’Reilly & McNamara, 2007
Email address: Anik.Wulyani@vuw.ac.nz
top related