Search

The field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has gained considerable attention, mainly due to the growing importance of English teaching and the need for preparing international professionals. The primary academic emphasis of this field is largely centered on the study of English for Academic Purposes (EAP). It has become increasingly important for China to provide EAP education to its vast population of college students, who represent a significant proportion of global tertiary-level English learners. By doing so, they can improve their academic literacy and participate more effectively in international academic communication. In 2016, China's College English Test Examination Board issued the National College English Test Syllabus which emphasized the importance of academic English literacy in the test design. This syllabus was released during a contentious debate among Chinese academics about the role of EAP in college English teaching and testing. Despite this heated discussion, there are currently few studies that have analyzed the linguistic nature of academic English tests in a quantitative manner. This paper calculates the academic word coverage of the reading passages in two crucial English proficiency tests designed for college students in China, the College English Test (CET) and the Test of English for Academic Purposes (TEAP). It is found that the academic word coverage of CET is increasing from the year 2013 to 2021 and that the academic word coverage of TEAP is slightly higher than that of CET. In this sense, these English tests can meet the requirements for measuring Chinese college students' academic literacy. It is also found that there is a positive correlation between academic word coverage and language difficulty as is indicated by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. These findings provide an empirical reference for the study of academic English tests in China, and other parts of the world, and contribute to EAP teaching and testing reform for the development of students' academic literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, the readability of texts has become the focus of reading research because it is believed to have implications for reading comprehension, which is of utmost importance in the field of English as a foreign language (EFL), particularly in the teaching, learning and assessment of reading comprehension. Unfortunately, the influence of text readability on reading comprehension (and reading time) has not been well studied in the EFL context. Most text readability studies are conducted in medical contexts, but these studies are often limited in predicting readability scores for sample texts. To address this gap, the current study aimed to evaluate the influence of text readability levels (based on the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL)) on students' reading comprehension and reading time. Data were collected through reading test and analyzed using SPSS version 22. The Friedman test revealed that the distribution of students' reading comprehension score (X2=197.532, p=0.000) and reading time (X2=215.323, p=0.000) are different in each text, suggesting that the readability of texts has a significant influence on both. This study contributed to the practices of reading instruction and assessment. Limitations and suggestions for further research are briefly discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health literacy impacts health outcomes. Health literacy is a measure of a person's competence to find, access, contextualize, and understand the information needed to make health decisions. Low levels of health literacy have been associated with poor health status. Health literacy can be enhanced by improving the readability of health literature. Misuse and abuse of prescription medicines and controlled substances is rising. It could be argued that improving the readability of the drug-information documents associated with these medicines could serve to alleviate this situation in a small, albeit incremental, manner. This paper provides a readability assessment of 71 such documents. Methods: The readability of drug-information documents associated with 12 commonly misused and abused painkiller medicines and controlled substances published by the top six US pharmacies was assessed. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) indices were used to assess the readability of these drug-information documents. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the readability of the documents. Results: The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index score was found to be 11.16. The average Flesch Reading Ease index score was found to be 45.94. The average SMOG index score was found to be 13.60. Pharmacies C and E had the best average readability scores, whereas pharmacies A and B had the worst average readability scores. Conclusion: Access, contents, and formatting of the documents were qualitatively analyzed to make recommendations to improve readability. Pharmacies C and E were used as benchmarks to identify the seven best practices. Good drug-information documents should have: (1) clear purpose, (2) limited scope, (3) summary/brief review, (4) well-placed graphics, (5) informative illustrations, (6) clean layout and lucid formatting relevant to the media, and (7) focus on the intended users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the readability and quality of online materials for Zenker's diverticulum. A Google search of "Zenker's diverticulum" was performed and the first 50 websites were reviewed. Readability was measured by Flesch Reading Ease (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores using an online calculator. Understandability and actionability were assessed with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P). Websites were categorized as either patient-targeted or physician-targeted and unpaired t tests were used to compare scores between these two groups. A total of 31 websites (23 patient-oriented sites and 8 physician-oriented sites) were analyzed. The average FRES, FKGL, and SMOG scores were 29.96 ± 14.72, 13.75 ± 2.78, and 12.19 ± 2.02, respectively, for the entire cohort. Readability scores for the patient-oriented sites were better than the physician-oriented sites for each measure (FRES 36.21 ± 8.86 vs 11.96 ± 13.54, FKGL 12.68 ± 1.58 vs 16.85 ± 3.25, and SMOG 11.37 ± 1.26 vs 14.53 ± 1.98; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). PEMAT-P understandability and actionability scores for the entire cohort were 68.20% ± 10.19% and 10.75% ± 16.52% respectively, and did not differ between patient-oriented and physician oriented sites. Though patient-oriented sites had better readability than physician-oriented sites for Zenker's Diverticulum, both categories had readability levels more advanced than what is recommended for medical education materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]