DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v14i2.23-42

Student’s Responses on the Suitability of Text Complexity Level Determination Using Web-Based Readability Analysis Application: A Systemic Functional Perspective

Institut Teknologi Garut, Indonesia

Received: 18 Apr 2024; Revised: 15 Jul 2025; Accepted: 27 Aug 2025; Available online: 10 Oct 2025; Published: 13 Oct 2024.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2024 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

The present study attempts to investigate the students' responses on the suitability of web-based readability analysis application results using the Systemic Functional Linguistics Framework through lexical density analysis with their level of language proficiency. This study used a qualitative method supported by some descriptive quantifications to analyze the lexical-density indexes of reading texts. Six texts were randomly selected from the reading texts written in five of Cambridge's Books, and nine participants at different levels were purposively selected to verify the accuracy. The findings revealed that the percentages of lexical density indexes of six selected Cambridge Books texts categorized based on the CEFR level used in this study and automatically analyzed by the application follow the complexity standard decided by the book's writers. Furthermore, the students at each level have a positive response to the text tested, as seen in their ability to answer the questions in each text created by the book's writers. This study provides the implication of informing educators to utilize the web-based readability analysis used in this study to help them analyze the text automatically, accurately, and quickly.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Student’s Responses; Lexical Density; Web-Based Readability Analysis Application; Text Complexity Level; SFL

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Most cited articles
Backmatter The Effect of Study Abroad on Grammatical Accuracy of Indonesian Students’ Oral and Written Performance Frontmatter Interpersonal Metadiscourse pada Tagline Iklan Poster World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Backmatter More cited articles
  1. Alenezi, S. (2016). The suitability of the EFL reading texts at the secondary and preparatory levels as a preparation for academic reading at first year university level in Saudi Arabia [Phd, University of Essex]. https://repository.essex.ac.uk/16514/
  2. Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. (2018). Does Text Complexity Matter in the Elementary Grades? A Research Synthesis of Text Difficulty and Elementary Students’ Reading Fluency and Comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9398-2
  3. Anggia, H., & Habók, A. (2023). Textual complexity adjustments to the English reading comprehension test for undergraduate EFL students. Heliyon, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e12891
  4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th ed). Wadsworth
  5. Bani Amer, M., & Baarah, H. (2021). Readability and Lexical Density of Reading Sections of Tenth Grade English Textbooks in Jordan and Sultanate of Oman: A Comparative Study. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 4, 1138–1148. https://doi.org/10.33258/birle.v4i3.2438
  6. Brook-Hart, G., & Haines, S. (2014). Complete Advanced Student’s Book with Answers with CD-ROM. Cambridge University Press
  7. Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2016). CTAP: A Web-Based Tool Supporting Automatic Complexity Analysis. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/292470
  8. Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2016). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Text Cohesion (taaco): Automatic Assessment of Local, Global, and Text Cohesion. Behavior Research Methods, 48(4), 1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0651-7
  9. Europe, C. of. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, assessment: Companion volume. Council of Europe
  10. Fadhil, A., Gunawan, W., & Wirza, Y. (2023). Lexical Density in EFL Indonesian Textbooks: A Comparative Analysis. JALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literacy), 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.25157/jall.v7i1.9727
  11. Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grmmar. Gerd Stabler
  12. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed). Arnold ; Distributed in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
  13. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2013). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge
  14. Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J. (2009). Bloomsbury Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. A&C Black
  15. Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical Diversity and Lexical Density in Speech and Writing: A Developmental Perspective. Working Papers / Lund University, Department of Linguistics and Phonetics, 53, 61–79
  16. Kauchak, D., Mouradi, O., Pentoney, C., & Leroy, G. (2014). Text Simplification Tools: Using Machine Learning to Discover Features that Identify Difficult Text. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2616–2625. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.330
  17. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a Model of Discourse Comprehension and Production. Psychological Review, 85(5), Article 5
  18. Kosta, J., & Williams, M. (2015). Cambridge English Prepare! Level 1 Student’s Book. Cambridge University Press
  19. Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C. (2018). The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Lexical Sophistication (taales): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1030–1046. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4
  20. Lyashevskaya, O., Panteleeva, I., & Vinogradova, O. (2021). Automated Assessment of Learner Text Complexity. Assessing Writing, 49, 100529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100529
  21. Maamuujav, U. (2021). Examining Lexical Features and Academic Vocabulary Use in Adolescent L2 Students’ Text-Based Analytical Essays. Assessing Writing, 49, 100540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100540
  22. Napolitano, D., Sheehan, K., & Mundkowsky, R. (2015). Online Readability and Text Complexity Analysis with TextEvaluator. In M. Gerber, C. Havasi, & F. Lacatusu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations (pp. 96–100). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/N15-3020
  23. Natova, I. (2021). Estimating CEFR reading comprehension text complexity. The Language Learning Journal, 49(6), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1665088
  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1086/678297
  25. Quispesaravia, A., Perez, W., Sobrevilla Cabezudo, M., & Alva-Manchego, F. (2016). Coh-Metrix-Esp: A Complexity Analysis Tool for Documents Written in Spanish. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, M. Grobelnik, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’16) (pp. 4694–4698). European Language Resources Association (ELRA). https://aclanthology.org/L16-1745
  26. Ramadhani, R., Aulawi, H., & Ulfa, R. L. (2023). Readability of Reading Texts as Authentic Materials Issued by ChatGPT: A Systemic Functional Perspective. IJELTAL (Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics), 8(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.21093/ijeltal.v8i2.1546
  27. Rizkiani, D., Mahdi, S., & Sujatna, E. T. S. (2022). Lexical Density and Readability of the Facil’s ‘Advanced Learning Textbook’ for Indonesian High School Students. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i1.1157
  28. Sheehan, K. M., Kostin, I., Futagi, Y., & Flor, M. (2010). Generating Automated Text Complexity Classifications That Are Aligned with Targeted Text Complexity Standards. ETS Research Report Series, 2010(2), i–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2010.tb02235.x
  29. Stajner, S., Nisioi, S., & Hulputextcommabelows, I. (2020). CoCo: A Tool for Automatically Assessing Conceptual Complexity of Texts. In N. Calzolari, F. Béchet, P. Blache, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, & S. Piperidis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 7179–7186). European Language Resources Association. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.887
  30. Sujatna, E. T. S., Heriyanto, H., & Andri, S. (2021). Lexical Density and Variation in Indonesian Folklores in English Student Textbooks: An Sfl Study. Leksika: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra Dan Pengajarannya, 15, 62. https://doi.org/10.30595/lks.v15i2.11102
  31. Susoy, Z. (2023). Lexical Density, Lexical Diversity and Academic Vocabulary Use: Differences in Dissertation Abstracts. Acuity: Journal of English Language Pedagogy, Literature and Culture, 8(2), 198–210
  32. Toyama, Y., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2017). An Analysis of the Text Complexity of Leveled Passages in Four Popular Classroom Reading Assessments. Educational Assessment, 22(3), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2017.1344091
  33. Ure, J. (1971). Lexical Density and Register Differentiation. Applications of linguistics
  34. Vidal-Abarca, E., Reyes, H., Gilabert, R., Calpe, J., Soria, E., & Graesser, A. C. (2002). ETAT: Expository Text Analysis Tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(1), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195428

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-13 12:19:34

No citation recorded.