Analysis of Organizational Knowledge in Writing Corpora of the General Training IELTS-Practice Materials

Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Assistant professor, Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

3 English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran


Inspired by the concept of organizational knowledge, this research intended to analyze a corpus of 180 writing performances of two tasks of the General Training IELTS-practice scripts across three band scores, 7, 8 and 9 in grammatical (GK) and textual knowledge (TK) features. It adopted the taxonomies of Bachman and Palmer (2010) and Connor and Mbaye's (2002) to makes analysis through Coh-metrix in 22 GK and TK features. The band comparisons indicated that the highest-scored scripts tended to be longer and include structurally more diverse sentences. Lexically, 8 and 9 band scripts almost showed no differences, however, they were denser and involved more multiple-meaning and abstract words than those of band 7. Textually, band 9 writings proved to be more coherent and cohesive, although they did not differ from band 8 or even band 7 in some other discourse features. The task comparisons demonstrated task two (T2)'s superiority in length, structural diversity, density, noun phrase (NP) concentration and reading and comprehension difficulty. Lexically, task one (T1) superseded in using more frequent words but not in diverse, multiple-meaning and the abstract ones. It was also indicated that T2 needed more coherence, conceptuality, causality but not coreferentiality in cohesion than T1.


Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford university press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. (2010). Language assessment in practice: Developing language assessments and justifying their use in the real world. Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.
Banerjee, J., Franceschina, F., & Smith, A. M. (2007). Documenting features of written language production typical at different IELTS band score levels. IELTS Research Reports Volume, 7.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(3), 253–278.
Barkaoui, K. (2016). What changes and what doesn’t? An examination of changes in the linguistic characteristics of IELTS repeaters ’ Writing Task 2 scripts. IELTS Research Reports, 3, 1–55.
Barkaoui, K. and Knouzi, I. (2012). Combining score and text analyses to examine task equivalence in L2
writing assessment. In E. Van Steendam, M. Tillema, G. Rijlaarsdam and H. van den Bergh (Eds), Measuring writing: Recent insights into theory, methodology and practices, vol 23 of Studies in Writing. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(2), 183–202.
Becker, A. (2010). Distinguishing linguistic and discourse features in ESL students’ written performance. Modern Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 406-424.
Brown, D. H. (2010). Language Assessment.: Principles and Classroom Practices. London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–4. doi:10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Connor, U., & Mbaye, A. (2002). Discourse approaches to writing assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 263-278. DOI:
Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/Rhetorical measures for International persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 67–87.
Crossley, S. A., Greenfield, J., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–493.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The role of cohesion, readability, and lexical difficulty. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(2), 115-135.
Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M., McCarthy, P. M. and McNamara, D. S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91, 15–30.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2011). Shared features of L2 writing: Intergroup homogeneity and text classification. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(4), 271–285.
Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79.
Crossley, S. A., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting the proficiency level
of language learners using lexical indices. Language Testing, 29 (2), 243-263.
Crossley, S., Weston, J., McLain Sullivan, S., & McNamara, D. (2011). The development of writing proficiency as a function of grade level: A linguistic analysis. Written Communication, 28, 282–311
Cumming, A., Kantor, R., Baba, K., Erdosy, U., Eouanzoui, K., & James, M. (2005). Differences in written discourse in independent and integrated prototype tasks for next generation TOEFL. Assessing Writing, 10, 5–43.
Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420.
Frase, L. T., Faletti, J., Ginther, A., & Grant, L. (1999). Computer analysis of the TOEFL test of written English. TOEFL Research Report, 64.
Fulcher, G. (2000). The ‘communicative’legacy in language testing. System, 28(4), 483–497.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. doi: 10.3758/BF03195564
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 123–145.
Iwashita, N., & Vasquez, C. (2015). An examination of discourse competence at different proficiency levels in IELTS Speaking Part 2 proposals. IELTS Research Report Series, 5, 1–44. Retrieved from
Jin, W. (2001). A quantitative study of cohesion in Chinese graduate students’ writing: Variations across genres and proficiency levels. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED, 452 726.
Kennedy, C., & Thorp, D. (2007). A corpus-based investigation of linguistic responses to an IELTS academic writing task. Studies in Language Testing, 19, 316–377.
Kim, Ji-Young. (2014). Predicting L2 writing proficiency using linguistic complexity measures: A corpus-based study. English Teaching, 69(4), 27-51.
Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2013). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Psychology Press.
Mayor, B., Hewings, A., North, S., Swann, J., & Coffin, C. (2007). A linguistic analysis of Chinese and Greek L1 scripts for IELTS academic writing task 2. In L. T. and P. Falvey (Ed.), IELTS collected papers: Research in speaking and writing assessment (pp. 250–313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCutchen, D. (1986). Domain knowledge and linguistic knowledge in the development of writing ability. Journal of memory and language, 25(4), 431-444.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57–86.
Meara, P., & Bell, H. (2001). P_Lex: A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short L2 texts. Prospect, 16, 5–24.
Millis, K., & Just, M. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128–147.
Murray, J. (1997). Connective and narrative text: The role of continuity. Memory & Cognition, 25(2), 227–236.
Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case text-based studies. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda (Eds), On second language writing, pp. 91–115. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of memory and language, 33(4), 527-544.
Riazi, A. M., & Knox, J. S. (2013). An investigation of the relations between test-takers’ first language and the discourse of written performance on the IELTS Academic Writing Test, task 2. IELTS Research Reports, 2, 1–87.
Spolsky, B. (1995). Prognostication and language aptitude testing, 1925-62. Language Testing, 12(3), 321–340.