Text types in the Austrian Standardized National School-Leaving Exam for English An empirical study into the perception of the text type constructs by teachers 1 Günther Sigott, Samuel Hafner, Hermann Cesnik, Theresa Weiler, Kristina Leitner, Eva Dousset-Ortner At secondary level, great importance is put in teaching and assessment on the ability to write texts that meet the conventions of text types. For the Austrian school system, descriptions of text types for German, English, French, Italian and Spanish are available. However, the text types differ across languages. This study focuses on English. It uses a set of 23 descriptive statements, derived from text linguistic theory, to empirically investigate their suitability to characterise the constructs held by practicing teachers for eight text types for L2 English. This approach has already been applied to German as the language of instruction (Sigott et al. 2020) and can be applied to all other languages. The results for English show that the suitability of the 23 statements varies considerably across text types. A subset of statements turns out to be suitable as dimensions for comparing all the English text types. In addition, statements are identified which are suitable to characterise individual text types and statements which should not be considered in describing text types and, therefore, not used in formulating assessment criteria. This is valuable information for teaching and relevant for assessment practice. These results are presented in a polarity profile for each text type. 1. Introduction At secondary level, great importance is put on the ability to write texts that meet the conventions of text types. To some extent, this emphasis on text 1 This research was funded by Klagenfurt University, Austria. AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Agenda: Advancing Anglophone Studies Band 49 · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2024-0002 Günther Sigott et al. 42 production introduces aspects of genre-based language teaching (Swales 1990; Tardy 2006, 2023; Yasuda 2011; Hyland 2018) and text-based language teaching (Richards & Rodgers 2022) into upper secondary language education. In preparation for the school-leaving exam for English (Standardisierte Reife- und Diplomprüfung (SRDP)) students at upper secondary level in the Austrian school system are faced with definitions of text types for German, English, and some even for French, Italian or Spanish. However, the text types required for German do not correspond neatly to those required for the foreign languages English, French, Italian or Spanish. This is partly due to different educational traditions in the teaching of German and the teaching of the other languages, and partly due to differences in discourse conventions in the languages involved. For details about the provenance of text types for the SRDP see Struger (2018: 163) and Spöttl et al. (2018: 234) Consequently, students are faced with different approaches to defining text types in their language of instruction, German for the vast majority, and their second and third languages. While they are given some support in their effort to understand similarities and differences among text types within each one of their languages, be it German, English, French, Italian or Spanish, they are left to their own devices when it comes to understanding how the German text types relate to those for English, French, Italian or Spanish. This challenge is compounded by the fact that the descriptions of text types as formulated by the Austrian Ministry of Education in the Text Type Characteristics (TTCs) (BMBWF 2019, Appendix) leave room for interpretation. It is almost inevitable that, by their very nature, such documents remain open in several respects, especially due to the tension between reliability of assessment, and authenticity. This can give rise to uncertainties in teaching and to problems of transparency in assessment. This means that both teachers and students are frequently confronted with the challenge of working out for themselves how individual text types differ from, or overlap with, other text types within, and particularly across, their languages. These conceptualisations have not been explored empirically so far. In fact, the challenge of defining criteria which allow sound comparisons among the text types that students are supposed to produce has not been addressed systematically by the teaching profession, the authors of curricular documents, or applied linguists. Defining such criteria, ideally derived from text linguistic theory, which make it possible to compare the text types in all the students’ school languages, therefore seems an urgent requirement. This paper aims to empirically investigate the actual text type constructs held by practicing teachers and to derive recommendations for the practice of teaching and assessment from the results. It builds on a pilot study into German text types (Sigott et al. 2020) and extends its scope to English text types. It uses the same set of descriptive statements, which Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 43 were derived from a literature review of approaches to text type classifications for German. In analogy to the German study, this study seeks to investigate the text type constructs held by practicing teachers of English. It addresses the following research questions: RQ 1: Which statements show sufficient agreement among teachers so that they can be used to characterise a text type? RQ 2: Are there discrepancies between the teachers’ views and the Text Type Characteristics (TTCs)? 2. Text types in the Austrian Standardised National School Leaving Exam for English The Austrian curriculum for foreign languages in academic secondary schools (Allgemeinbildende Höhere Schulen (AHS)) as well as in colleges for higher vocational education (Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen (BHS)) is based on the CEFR. The target level for English, the first foreign language for the vast majority of students, is stipulated as B2. The SRDP - based on the curriculum and hence the CEFR - is a skills-based exam, consisting of three (BHS) or four (AHS) independent exam papers: listening, reading, language in use (AHS only), and writing. This study focuses only on the requirements for the writing part. Academic secondary schools generally focus on broad general education, whereas vocational schools offer a tailored professional education in a certain field. In the SRDP, the specific educational objectives of general and vocational schools are taken into consideration when it comes to assessing writing. Separate writing papers for AHS and BHS with differentiated concepts, and a particular focus on work-related topics in BHS, respond to the demands of the different school types. The test construct of the SRDP is based on the CEFR’s communicative, action-oriented approach to language learning. B2 descriptors of written production and interaction were therefore incorporated in the test specifications of the writing paper in order to cover a range of linguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmatic competences. The test specifications (BMBWF 2021) list CEFR descriptors from the following CEFR scales (Council of Europe 2001, 2020) • Overall written production • Creative writing • Reports and essays • Overall written interaction • Correspondence • Online conversation and discussion (companion volume) • Explaining data (in graphs, diagrams, etc) (companion volume) Günther Sigott et al. 44 • Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature) (companion volume) In line with Glasswell et al. (2001), in the SRDP, the term “text type” is related to the mode of writing and can involve a range of functional purposes. For example, an article may be written to describe, explain, argue or narrate (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 for illustrative examples); it can have various purposes and thus activate a range of register, structure and lexicogrammatical resources. The CEFR outlines functional competence in section 5.2.3.2, listing a number of macrofunctions (e.g., description, narration, argumentation, persuasion) that formed the basis of a pool of speech functions that are used in the test tasks. To be able to cover a range of functions, writing purposes and contexts, various text types are used in the examination. The original text types that were developed and implemented are the essay, article, e-mail and report, as those are represented and explicitly stated in CEFR scales. These text types are internationally often used in language examinations and therefore widely known and well researched. Other text types were added later in order to broaden the construct and to include more authentic writing contexts, doing justice to more recent writing trends. Authenticity is one quality of test usefulness (Bachman & Palmer 1996). Test tasks should be representative of the kind of writing that test-takers are likely to encounter in the target use situation. The added text types were the blog post, blog comment and leaflet. The current text types used in the SRDP are therefore: essay (for AHS only), article, email, blog post, blog comment, report, and leaflet (for BHS only). The leaflet lends itself to testing action-oriented language use in work-related contexts and therefore shows higher face validity for BHS than for AHS. The essay, on the other hand, requires the candidates to reflect on, and discuss, topics of general knowledge in a longer piece of writing as the set word length for essays is 400. Essay writing was therefore found to have more face validity in AHS with its focus on general education. Test-takers are required to write either two or three texts; one of 250 words and one of 400 words at AHS or three texts of 250 words each at BHS (see Table 1). School types and text length Text type AHS BHS essay 400 article 250 / 400 250 Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 45 blog post, blog comment 250 / 400 250 report 250 / 400 250 e-mail 250 250 leaflet 250 Table 1. Text types, school types and text length. As to task development, all test tasks are produced by experienced teachers, who work in the different school types and have been trained as item writers. The tasks go through a number of quality control procedures (field trial, standard setting, post-test analysis). Each test task consists of a prompt and instructions. The prompt defines the text type, sets the situational context, including an authentic situation, the role of the text-taker, the purpose of writing, the readership/ addressee and a stimulus (text-based or visual input). Three content points specifying required speech functions guide the test-takers through the writing task, as can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 1. Article for AHS, © BMBWF. Günther Sigott et al. 46 Figure 2. Article for HLFS (Colleges of Agriculture and Forestry), © BMBWF. The SRDP test papers are marked by the class teachers. A standardised analytic assessment scale was developed, consisting of four criteria (task achievement, coherence and cohesion, lexical and structural range, lexical and structural accuracy) and 10 bands, band 6 describing the threshold for B2.The individual text type characteristics (TTCs) are outlined in the document “Übersicht Charakteristika Textsorten lebende Fremdsprachen (SRDP),” which is available for students and teachers (BMBWF 2019). The document intends to give guidance to teachers and students in their preparation for the SRDP, but is neither prescriptive nor does it provide extensive theoretical descriptions of the text types. The following paragraphs briefly describe the text types as presented in the TTCs (see Appendix). Essay According to the TTCs, an essay is a piece of writing in which a topic is discussed and arguments are developed. The writer takes a position on a topic or question, provides arguments for their point of view, trying to convince the reader. They may also discuss different points of view. In the argumentation, the writer underpins the arguments with examples or explanations. Essay tasks in the SRDP consist of instructions and a prompt that provides a reason to write ((controversial) question or quote), as well as three Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 47 content points. The essay’s main functions as defined for the SDRP are to convince the readership of a point of view on a particular topic or to present a balanced analysis of a topic. Compared to other text types, essays have a more clearly specified structure that should be followed. An essay consists of three main parts: introduction, body and conclusion. The introduction establishes the context, outlines the topic and presents the thesis statement. In the body, the writer develops arguments (and counter-arguments) in relation to the thesis statement. Each paragraph starts with a topic sentence that presents the argument of the paragraph, which is then supported by examples and explanations. In the conclusion, the author answers the initial question, evaluates the thesis statement and summarises their point of view. The tone is formal or neutral. Article An article is a piece of writing that seeks to inform, entertain, explain, narrate or convince. It is written to be published, usually in a newspaper or a magazine and with a specific readership in mind. An article can be written in different styles and registers; hence, it can be serious or amusing. The author holds the readers’ attention by including descriptions, anecdotes, examples or personal opinions when appropriate, and by using expressive language. The author wants to involve the reader; therefore, rhetorical questions, imperatives or exclamations can be used as stylistic features. The readers may also be directly addressed. In the SRDP, candidates are supposed to provide an interesting and catchy title for their article. Ideas are organised into different paragraphs and are followed by a conclusion that can either summarise, encourage action or offer something to think about. Report A report is an informative text that aims to analyse different topics objectively with a specific purpose and readership in mind. It presents facts about events or projects for decision-makers. The prompt of report tasks in the SRDP often includes visual input such as statistics or graphs. The written performances are supposed to be divided into sections with one paragraph per content point, with the candidate having to provide a heading for each section. A short introduction states the purpose of writing the report. This is usually followed by information on the data collected and the presentation of the findings and can include an analysis and interpretation. It can end with a recommendation of specific actions to be taken. A report is written in a clear, factual and precise style as its aim is to communicate facts. The register is formal or neutral, depending on the target readership. Günther Sigott et al. 48 Blog post / blog comment A blog is an interactive webpage that allows publishing texts online as well as interacting with the readership. As blogs are posted online, they can reach a wider readership that is not as clearly defined as with more traditional forms of published writing (e.g. articles in a newspaper or a journal). Similarly to articles, blogs often seek to inform or entertain. In the SRDP, while blog posts usually start a new topic and the blogger shares an opinion on a particular subject, gives advice or offers recommendations, the blog comment requires candidates to react to a previous post, hence adding an element of interaction to the writing process. The person writing the comment may express their opinion on a given topic, give advice, make suggestions or narrate a personal anecdote relating to the previous input. E-mail An e-mail is a digital message directly addressed to one or several persons in a private or occupational context. It can cover a wide range of language functions. Its purpose can range from giving or asking for information to giving advice or help and complaining. In a vocational context, it can also deal with a business case. The register is formal, neutral or personal, depending on the target readership. In the SRDP, candidates are required to state the addressee, the sender, the date and the subject, which refers to the content of the e-mail. A salutation directly addresses the reader followed by stating the purpose of the e-mail. The body is divided into three paragraphs, one per content point. Candidates are supposed to sign off using an appropriate closing phrase. Leaflet Leaflets are mainly used as a medium for marketing. They may promote products or companies and enhance customer relations. Leaflets seek to advertise or to inform a target group about, for example, a new product or event. They used to be distributed in print, but are increasingly published online as well. Leaflets contain pictures, illustrations or logos that are meant to involve the reader emotionally and to convey some of the corporate identity of the company. The language of leaflets typically contains features of advertising language, is descriptive or persuasive. It can contain some humour or may surprise the reader in order to catch their attention. Leaflets need to be designed in such a way as to leave an impression on the reader. Leaflets can be used by individuals, companies, corporates or organizations in order to: Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 49 • advertise products and services • recruit new members • promote an event • inform an audience about a new project • convince or share an opinion Candidates of the SRDP do not need to design a leaflet, but they are required to provide the text for one. In summary, the tasks designed for the SRDP aim to cover a range of writing functions and topics through different text types. For the present empirical study, the teachers’ perceptions of the text types as described above were analysed. In the following section, the methodology of the study is described. 3. Research design The present study is part of a project on text types that comprises two phases. In the first phase, which is the subject of this study, the focus is on practicing teachers’ text type knowledge. The second phase focuses on teachers’ perception of text type characteristics in written student performances. As stated in section 1, in the current study the following research questions are addressed. RQ 1: Which statements show sufficient agreement among teachers so that they can be used to characterise a text type? RQ 2: Are there discrepancies between the teachers’ views and the Text Type Characteristics (TTCs)? 3.1. Data collection method In order to explore practicing teachers’ understanding and knowledge of the different text types, a questionnaire, originally developed for German, with a set of characterising statements was used. In this instrument, teachers are asked to characterise the text types in the Austrian SRDP for English by means of a 5-point Likert scale for each of the questionnaire items. The questionnaire, which is formulated in German, comprises 23 items (see Appendix). The first 19 items were taken from the questionnaire developed in Sigott et al. (2020). In that study, the focus was on the text types in the Austrian SRDP for German as a subject. We derived 19 potential criteria in the form of statements using theoretical approaches as well as text type definitions, asking practicing teachers of German to express their degree of consent to each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Given the task of describing educational text types, criteria were derived from tradi- Günther Sigott et al. 50 tional text linguistic approaches which seem particularly suitable for describing and investigating the SRDP text types (cf. Sandig 1972; Werlich 1975; Große 1976; Sowinski 1978; van Dijk 1980; Brinker 1985; Heinemann & Viehweger 1991; Heinemann 2011; Krieg-Holz 2017). From this basis we derived 19 criteria in the form of statements. They are inspired by the speech/ writing acts characteristic of individual text types as well as by other diverse criteria for classifying text types. Statements that refer to the surface structure of the texts focus on specific grammatical and lexical features such as markers of coherence (statement 1), specific lexical elements (statement 2), or expressive and/ or emotional expressions (statement 3). Like statement 8 (“The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices”), they focus on aspects of style. Statement 6 and 7 address text patterns at the macro level. External conditions of communication are mirrored in statements about the communicative situation, e.g. public communication (statement 4), and reference to the addressee (statement 5). All other statements (9-19) are inspired by text function and speech/ writing acts (e.g. informing, appealing, narrating and argumentation). In order to make the results comparable with the study on German and possible future studies for different languages in the school-leaving exam (e.g., French, Italian and Spanish), we decided to use the same statements in the same language, namely German. Translating could change the meaning of the items slightly, thus making comparisons more difficult. However, after carrying out a content analysis of the TTCs (for details see section 4), we added four statements (20 to 23) in order to ensure complete coverage of the TTCs in the questionnaire. The statements in their German version as well as their English translation can be found in the Appendix. Respondents specified their level of consent to each statement on a symmetric agree-disagree scale, in analogy to the German study. Symmetry means that there is an equal number of positions around the ‘neutral’ value. The 5-point Likert scale ranges from ‘disagree’ (0), ‘partly disagree’ (1), ‘neutral’ (2), ‘partly agree’ (3) to ‘agree’ (4). The number of text types differs from the official number as described in the official text type characteristics, which specify 6 text types, namely essay, leaflet, article, report, blog, and e-mail. Because the structure of emails differs fundamentally depending on the degree of formality, we decided to split e-mails into informal and formal e-mails, the more so because this distinction seems already to be beginning to be made in teacher training. Due to the different discourse functions (statement/ question reply) of the blog post and the blog comment we also split the blog into two separate text types. For each of the 8 text types, namely essay (only AHS), leaflet (only BHS), article, report, blog post, blog comment, formal e-mail, and informal e-mail, teachers were asked to respond to each of the 23 statements. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 51 3.2. Participants In order to reach the target audience, an online survey based on the questionnaire was created. In 2021, the link to the online survey was sent to the Boards of Education (Bildungsdirektionen) for Carinthia, Styria and Salzburg. They forwarded unique personal links to experienced teachers who actively taught English at upper secondary level in AHS or BHS in Austria. Out of a total of 130 teachers who expressed an interest in participating, 75 teachers filled out the survey completely (response rate 58%); 64% (n=48) came from AHS, 36% (n=27) from BHS. 3.3. Analysis Two statistical measures are used in this research, namely sample mean (M) and sample standard deviation (SD). M is used to represent the raters’ average consent to the characterising statements. SD is used as a straightforward index of interrater agreement. Potential outliers are part of the range of teachers’ perceptions of text types. Since this is a main focus of the study, no attempt was made to identify and remove them from the data. Both measures are graphically represented in polarity profiles to show the distribution of response patterns and the heteroand homogeneity of the respondents’ evaluations (see Figure 3). 4. Results and Discussion 4.1. Definingness of statements and their relation to the Text Type Characteristics (TTCs) The 23 statements in the questionnaire were put into three categories according to the amount of agreement reached by the teachers in indicating their consent. This agreement is here referred to as definingness. The definingness of statements is defined with regard to the values of the standard deviations. Statements with an SD smaller than 0.7 (SD < 0.7) are termed highly defining, those with an SD between 0.7 and 1.3 (0.7 ≤ SD ≤ 1.3) are referred to as defining, and those with an SD greater than 1.3 (SD > 1.3) are considered non-defining. Table 2 displays the results and provides four levels of information. Level 1 The first level consists of the values for the means and the SDs of the ratings for each text type and each statement. The ratings range from 0 to 4 with 0 meaning ‘disagree’, 1 ‘partly disagree’, 2 ‘neutral’, 3 ‘partly agree’ and 4 ‘agree’. Günther Sigott et al. 52 Level 2 The second level indicates the degree of definingness of the statements. The cells containing the SDs for highly defining statements are not shaded, those for defining statements are light grey, and those for non-defining statements are coloured dark grey. Level 3 The third level marks those statements for which there is a conceptual match in the TTCs. This constitutes the basis for formulating expectations for values of means and SDs. Decisions as to whether a conceptual match is present were made on the basis of a content analysis (Mayring 2015) by two researchers comparing each statement with the TTCs and reaching negotiated consent. In this semantic analysis, an attempt was made to identify propositional matches between each statement and the formulations in the TTCs for each text type. After adding statements 20 to 23 it was found that the TTCs no longer contained substantial information that was not addressed by the statements. The content analysis yielded four different categories: • The statement is clearly supported by the formulation in the TTCs. E.g., leaflet: The text is intended for public communication (statement 4) - Werbung machen; die Leserschaft informieren (advertise; inform the readership) (TTCs). • The statement is contradicted by the formulation in the TTCs. E.g., informal e-mail: The text is intended for public communication (statement 4) - eine bestimmte Person oder Personengruppe; Empfänger/ in wird direkt angesprochen (a specific person or group of people; the reader is addressed directly) (TTCs). • The statement is neither clearly supported nor clearly contradicted by the formulation in the TTCs. Here the TTCs allow for so much leeway that a support/ contradict decision cannot be made. E.g., leaflet: The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed (statement 5) - mögliche Interessentinnen/ Interessenten; Leser/ innen können direkt angesprochen werden (potentially interested parties; readers can be addressed directly) (TTCs). • The statement has no obvious correspondence in the TTCs. These categories are visualised in Table 2 by different frames: • A bold dashed frame (- -) means that the statement is clearly supported by the TTCs. • A bold dash dot dot frame (- ▪ ▪ ) means the statement is clearly contradicted by the TTCs. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 53 • A bold frame (--) marks statements which, while conceptually matched, are neither clearly supported nor clearly contradicted by the TTCs. • Statements which are not framed have no obvious correspondence in the TTC. The degree to which the TTCs support, contradict, or are neutral with regard to each statement constitutes the basis for expectations for values of means and SDs. No expectations can be formulated for statements which have no correspondence in the TTCs. Level 4 The fourth level indicates the extent to which these expectations are met by the questionnaire data. For statements for which the data meet the expectations, the values are centred and bold. The expectations are as follows. • Statements which are clearly supported by the TTCs (- -) are expected to be at least defining (SD ≤ 1.3) with a mean above 3 (M > 3). • Statements which are clearly contradicted by the TTCs (- ▪ ▪ ) are expected to be at least defining (SD ≤ 1.3) with a mean below 1 (M < 1). • Statements which are neither clearly supported nor clearly contradicted by the TTCs (--) are expected to be non-defining (SD > 1.3) and/ or have a mean between 1 and 3 (1 ≤ M ≤ 3) All measures displayed in Table 2 are also displayed graphically in Figure 3. Two types of agreement measures for each text type can be seen in Figure 3. The bold line shows the average degree of consent (mean) of all raters/ teachers to the specific statement for each text type. A value of 0 represents total disagreement with, and a value of 4 represents total consent to the specific statement. The symmetric slim lines around the mean show one standard deviation in each direction and can be interpreted as a measure of the interrater agreement in the specific statement. The narrower the distance between these lines around the mean, the higher the interrater agreement and vice versa. Günther Sigott et al. 54 Table 2. Means and standard deviations for statements per text type. essay leaflet article report blog post blog comment formal email informal e-mail Mean 3,73 2,52 3,60 3,37 2,68 2,63 3,61 2,36 SD 0,68 0,98 0,72 0,94 1,10 1,17 0,71 1,09 Mean 2,98 2,56 2,89 3,72 1,37 1,41 3,20 0,80 SD 0,98 0,89 0,97 0,53 0,83 0,95 0,99 0,75 Mean 1,42 3,19 2,36 0,44 3,63 3,52 0,67 3,67 SD 1,15 0,88 1,25 0,76 0,54 0,60 0,72 0,58 Mean 2,42 3,85 3,80 1,88 3,79 3,63 1,32 0,41 SD 1,27 0,36 0,46 1,41 0,55 0,61 1,49 0,81 Mean 0,92 2,85 2,39 3,57 2,87 3,73 3,97 3,93 SD 0,92 1,43 1,25 0,92 1,20 0,50 0,16 0,25 Mean 3,73 3,70 3,53 3,96 2,25 2,28 3,83 2,35 SD 0,61 0,61 0,64 0,20 1,18 1,19 0,45 1,10 Mean 3,27 3,30 3,05 3,77 2,25 2,27 3,68 2,33 SD 0,89 0,99 1,08 0,63 1,22 1,15 0,60 1,09 Mean 2,73 3,41 3,01 2,57 2,21 2,20 2,89 1,73 SD 1,22 0,69 1,02 1,25 1,33 1,23 1,12 1,08 Mean 3,13 1,85 2,53 1,39 3,68 3,84 1,92 2,83 SD 0,89 1,26 1,13 1,10 0,55 0,44 1,01 0,79 Mean 2,75 3,07 2,80 1,52 3,20 3,43 1,57 1,81 SD 1,28 1,14 1,04 1,13 0,89 0,81 1,09 0,95 Mean 1,15 2,41 2,75 0,15 3,43 2,84 0,27 2,35 SD 1,05 1,12 1,24 0,36 0,79 1,01 0,53 1,05 Mean 0,71 1,22 2,00 0,43 2,91 2,28 0,89 2,81 SD 0,82 1,01 1,15 0,74 1,03 0,94 1,16 0,88 Mean 3,10 3,30 2,80 3,57 2,36 2,48 2,75 2,24 SD 0,95 0,95 0,94 0,64 0,92 0,94 0,93 0,91 Mean 3,85 2,33 3,03 2,37 2,29 3,08 2,57 1,83 SD 0,41 1,27 0,90 1,33 1,05 0,88 0,92 0,91 Mean 2,79 2,04 2,49 2,51 2,56 3,05 1,88 1,84 SD 1,13 1,32 1,03 1,44 0,96 0,84 1,16 0,92 Mean 2,17 3,15 2,71 1,53 2,77 2,75 2,15 1,84 SD 1,29 1,13 1,12 1,23 0,86 0,93 1,06 0,92 Mean 2,71 3,26 2,96 3,23 2,76 2,40 2,39 2,51 SD 1,03 0,71 0,83 1,06 0,98 0,97 1,05 0,79 Mean 3,08 3,78 3,41 3,73 2,83 2,31 2,97 2,45 SD 0,68 0,51 0,68 0,50 0,76 0,87 0,96 0,87 Mean 3,00 1,19 2,68 2,81 1,99 2,40 1,80 1,53 SD 1,17 1,00 1,09 1,17 0,97 1,05 1,12 0,81 Mean 2,69 1,30 2,15 2,73 1,76 2,28 1,41 1,55 SD 1,11 0,95 1,15 1,17 0,85 0,97 0,92 0,83 Mean 0,67 3,59 2,76 1,23 3,68 3,51 3,49 3,77 SD 0,95 0,64 1,20 1,20 0,62 0,79 1,08 0,69 Mean 2,21 3,96 3,53 1,15 3,64 3,40 1,87 1,79 SD 1,32 0,19 0,88 1,10 0,63 0,75 1,26 1,29 Mean 2,29 3,63 3,79 1,20 3,73 3,33 0,59 0,29 SD 1,34 0,79 0,44 1,23 0,64 0,83 0,93 0,65 23 The text is written to be read by a wider audience. 22 The text is meant to attract attention. 21 The reader is addressed directly. 20 The text makes comparisons. 19 The text summarises / recapitulates. 18 The text serves to inform. 17 The text is descriptive. 16 The text is appelative. 15 The text is evaluative. 14 The text is argumentative. 13 The text is explanatory. 12 The text is narrative. 11 The text is meant to entertain. 10 The text aims to shape opinion / wants to persuade. 9 The text expresses an opinion. 8 The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices. 7 The text follows a common text pattern. 1 The text contains explicit markers of cohesion and coherence indicated by conjunctions, adverbs, etc. Text type Statements 6 The text has a clear structure. 5 The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed. 4 The text is intended for public communication. 3 The text contains expressive or emotional expressions. 2 The text contains technical terms. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 55 Figure 3. Text type profiles. Günther Sigott et al. 56 4.2. Description of all text types In the following sections the eight text types are described and discussed in the light of the empirical findings. • Each section starts by identifying the highly defining statements. Then those highly defining statements are discussed which meet the expectations suggested by the TTCs. This is followed by a discussion of the highly defining statements which contradict the expectations. • Next, as far as the defining statements are concerned, only those which do not meet expectations are focussed on. • Finally, the non-defining statements are mentioned and those which run counter to the expectations are reviewed. Ideally, all 23 statements should be highly defining for all text types. • Given the only minor differences between the results for AHS and BHS, we did not differentiate between the two school types in the description. 4.2.1. Essay For the essay, 17 statements turn out to be defining, four highly defining, and two non-defining. The highly defining statements are 1, 6, 14 and 18. As expressed by statement 1, teachers apparently agree on the importance of explicitly marking cohesion and coherence in essays. Judging from the results for statement 6, teachers also agree strongly on the necessity of a clear structure. Statements 14 and 18 show that there is also strong agreement regarding the argumentative and informative nature of the essay. Among the highly defining statements, statements 6, 14, and 18 are clearly in line with expectations suggested by the TTCs. For statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) this is also mirrored in the results with a mean value of 3.73. The marking of coherence figures prominently in the TTCs for the essay. Requirements for ensuring coherence within paragraphs are mentioned by highlighting topic sentence and supporting detail. At the level of the text, title, introduction, main body, and conclusion are explicitly mentioned. The mean value of 3.85 for statement 14 (The text is argumentative.) and 3.08 for statement 18 (The text serves to inform.) are in line with our expectations. This is also highlighted in the TTCs, which specifically mention arguments as important elements of an essay and refer to informing as one of the main text functions of the essay. As for the defining statements, the data show that five statements, namely statements 4 (The text is intended for public communication.), 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.), 10 (The text aims to shape opinion / wants to persuade.), 17 (The text is descriptive.), and 20 (The text makes comparisons.), run counter to what we Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 57 expected given the information the TTCs provide. The TTCs define a restricted audience by mentioning a jury and the teacher in the school context, which is contradicted by a mean of 2.42. Similarly, although the TTCs mention, e.g., that the essay should not contain contractions or address the reader directly, there was no clear consensus among teachers, as indicated by the mean of 2.73. The text functions of persuading/ convincing, describing, and comparing, expressed by statements 10, 17, and 20, are clearly referred to in the TTCs, but this is not mirrored in the results as indicated by the mean values of 2.75, 2.71, and 2.69 respectively. Statements 22 (The text is meant to attract attention.) and 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.) turn out to be non-defining (SD of 1.32 and 1.34 respectively), meaning that teachers disagree as to whether an essay is written to either attract attention or to be read by a wider audience. While statement 23 has a conceptual match in the TTCs, the mean value of 2.29 contradicts expectations. 4.2.2. Leaflet As for the text type leaflet, 21 statements can be classified as at least defining, six of which are highly defining (statements 4, 6, 8, 18, 21, and 22). Teachers seem to strongly agree that the leaflet is part of communication to the public, has a clear structure and features a particular style and rhetorical devices. Additionally, there is consensus that the text serves to inform, the reader is addressed directly, and the purpose of the text is to attract attention. The level of agreement for statement 22 (The text is meant to attract attention.) is even almost perfect (M = 3.96, SD = 0.19), meaning that teachers nearly unanimously agree that a leaflet should stand out and be noticeable. All of the highly defining statements have a conceptual match with the TTCs, but not all meet our expectations for mean values. The formulations in the TTCs resonate with the results for statements 4, 6, 8, 18, and 22, but not 21. The mean values of 3.85 for statement 4 (The text is intended for public communication.) and 3.7 for statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) are in accordance with the definition of the leaflet as being advertising or information material distributed to a target group and showing a clear structure with some optional elements. The high mean values for statements 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.), 18 (The text serves to inform.) and 22 (The text is meant to attract attention.) of 3.41, 3.78, and 3.96 respectively are also in line with the stipulations of the TTCs, which suggest persuasive language to present content in an informative, interesting and appealing way. Statement 21 (The reader is addressed directly.) with a mean value of 3.59 is the only highly defining statement which is not in accordance with our expectations. In the TTCs, addressing the reader directly is listed as a possible but not mandatory stylistic aspect (‘The reader can be addressed Günther Sigott et al. 58 directly.’). This made us expect a mean value in the middle range (see 4.1, Level 4). However, the teachers do not seem to comply with the intentions of the TTCs, which suggest optionality. Only one of the defining statements with a conceptual match with the TTCs runs counter to our expectations, namely statement 17 (The text is descriptive.). With a mean value of 3.26 and SD of 0.71, teachers feel that the leaflet should be more descriptive than suggested by the TTCs. Only two statements, namely statements 5 (The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed.) and 15 (The text is evaluative.), turn out to be nondefining (SD of 1.43 and 1.32 respectively). Apparently, teachers are in disagreement about whether it is necessary to clearly define to whom the leaflet is addressed or whether this text type should be evaluative or not. The results for statement 5, which has a conceptual match in the TTCs, fulfil our expectations. By contrast, statement 15 does not have a conceptual match in the TTCs, so that no expectations could be formulated. 4.2.3. Article As for the text type article, all 23 statements can be classified as at least defining, 4 of which are highly defining, namely statements 4, 6, 18, and 23. Teachers strongly agree that the article is meant for public communication and should be read by a wider audience. Additionally, this text type should, according to the teachers, have a clear structure and inform the readers. All of the highly defining statements are clearly supported by the TTCs and the results meet our expectations. As the TTCs describe the article as part of a book or other publication, such as a magazine or newspaper, the high mean values for statement 4 (The text is intended for public communication.) and statement 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.) are in accordance with this description (M = 3.80 and 3.79 respectively). The mean value of 3.05 for statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) is also in line with the detailed requirements for layout and structure in the TTCs. Additionally, the high mean value of 3.41 for statement 18 (The text serves to inform.) is echoed in the description of the article in the TTCs, which mention informing as one of the functions of this text type. Among the defining statements which have a conceptual match with the TTCs, four contradict our expectations suggested by the TTCs. Statements 10 (The text aims to shape opinion / wants to persuade.) and 11 (The text is meant to entertain.) are clearly supported by the TTCs, but with mean values of 2.80 and 2.75 are not in line with what we expected. Apparently, teachers do not seem to perceive the persuasive and entertaining function of the article as strongly as the TTCs define it. Although the TTCs do not clearly support statements 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.) or 14 (The text is argumentative.), teachers feel that the Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 59 article should feature a particular style and rhetorical devices and be argumentative, as indicated by the mean values of 3.01 and 3.03 respectively. In the TTCs, the stylistic properties of the article are expressed as optionalities rather than prescriptions (‘Rhetorical questions can be used; the reader can be addressed directly…’). This made us expect a mean value in the middle range (see 4.1, Level 4). However, the teachers do not seem to comply with the intentions of the TTCs, which suggest optionality. Statement 14 (The text is argumentative.) is only indirectly addressed by the TTCs (informing, persuading, entertaining, captivating). This again made us expect a mean value in the middle range, while the teachers do see the article as an argumentative text. 4.2.4. Report For the report, 20 statements can be classified as at least defining, six of which are highly defining, namely statements 2, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 18. Based on the low SDs and the high mean values for statements 2, 6 and 7, it becomes clear that teachers strongly agree that a report contains technical terms, has a clear structure and is written according to a common text pattern. Teachers also strongly agree that this text type should contain explanatory elements as well as inform the readership, as the results for statements 13 and 18 indicate. According to the low mean for statement 11, there is consensus among teachers that the function of a report is not to entertain. Among the highly defining statements, three have a conceptual match with the TTCs, namely 6, 7 and 18. All of them also meet our expectations based on the TTCs. Since the TTCs list detailed requirements for layout and structure, the high mean values for statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) and statement 7 (The text follows a common text pattern.) come as no surprise. The high mean value of 3.41 for statement 18 (The text serves to inform.) can be expected given that the TTCs define the report as an account of a state of affairs in the form of an (official) document after investigation or consideration by a designated person or group of persons. Among the defining statements which can be linked to the TTCs, three contradict our expectations, namely 8, 12, and 23. Although the TTCs stipulate that the report should not contain contractions, be objective, factual, and concise, teachers did not feel that the report features a particular style, as indicated by the mean value of 2.57 for statement 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.). The mean value of 1.20 for statement 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.), does not confirm expectations as the TTCs define a very restricted audience in the form of a decision maker, e.g., a supervisor or an institution. Although the value is close to the threshold of a mean value of 1 for ‘confirmed’, teachers do not see the restriction of the audience as clearly as the TTCs suggest. This is also mirrored in the SD of 1.23 which approaches the upper limit Günther Sigott et al. 60 for defining statements. The mean value of 0.43 for statement 12 (The text is narrative.) could be seen as surprising. Evidently, teachers feel that the report is not narrative at all, while the TTCs suggest the report to be a written account of facts, events, projects, or research, suggesting a chronological structure, which in turn suggests a potentially narrative aspect of this text type. Apparently the teachers have a more narrowly defined, and arguably more technically accurate, understanding of the term “narrative” than the TTCs, relating it to a story with plot and characters. Three statements, namely statements 4 (The text is intended for public communication.), 14 (The text is argumentative.) and 15 (The text is evaluative.), turn out to be non-defining (SD of 1.41, 1.33, and 1.44 respectively). Possibly, due to task-dependent features, teachers disagree whether the report is intended for public communication, and whether this text type is argumentative or evaluative. All of these statements have a conceptual match with the TTCs, but only statement 4 contradicts expectations. Although teachers could not agree whether the report is intended for public communication (M = 1.88), the TTCs specifically mention a superior as an example for the intended audience, suggesting a restricted audience. We would have expected a lower mean and less disagreement. 4.2.5. Blog post / blog comment Blog post and blog comment have similar profiles, as can be seen in Figure 3. For both blog types, statements 3, 4 and 9 are highly defining, given the low values for the SDs. This, in combination with the high mean values (all greater than 3.5), indicates that teachers tend to agree strongly that blogs use expressive or emotional language, are intended for public communication, and express an opinion. For the blog post, also statements 21, 22 and 23 qualify as highly defining. In combination with the high mean values for these statements (all greater than 3.6), this indicates teachers’ agreement that blog posts address the reader directly, are meant to attract attention and are supposed to be read by a wider audience (cf. also the values for statement 4 above). The high mean values of 3.79 and 3.63 for statement 4 (The text is intended for public communication.) can be seen in line with the audience stipulated in the TTCs, which mention friends but also like-minded people, customers, co-workers and business partners. The high mean values of 3.68 and 3.84 for statement 9 (The text expresses an opinion.) for both blog types also tally with the TTCs, where expressing opinions is explicitly listed among the functions of blogs. For the blog post the high mean value of 3.68 for statement 21 (The reader is addressed directly.) is in line with the TTCs, where addressing the readership directly is listed under stylistic aspects. Also the high mean value of 3.64 for statement 22 (The text is meant to attract attention.) is echoed in the TTCs, which describe drawing attention to a company and Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 61 promoting its image as functions of blogs. Like for statement 4, the high mean value of 3.73 for statement 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.) is also in accordance with the readership described in the TTCs. For both blog types, it is worth noting that the relatively clear structure described for blogs in the TTCs is, however, not mirrored prominently in the mean values around 2.3 for statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) and for statement 7 (The text follows a common text pattern.). Apparently the teachers are basing their judgement on real “blogs in the wild” rather than the “blog” defined for educational purposes in the TTCs. While the TTCs do list reporting experiences among the text functions, the mean values of 2.91 and 2.28 for statement 12 (The text is narrative.) for the two blog types are lower than one would expect on the basis of the TTCs. Also the relatively low means of 2.83 and 2.31 for statement 18 (The text serves to inform.) contradict expectations suggested in the TTCs, which list informing among the functions for both blog types. For the blog post, also the mean value of 2.87 for statement 5 (The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed.) contradicts expectations suggested by the TTCs, which define a clear audience. Only one statement, namely statement 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.), turns out as non-defining for the blog post (SD = 1.33), and with an SD of 1.23 also approaches the upper limit for defining statements for the blog comment. Apparently, teachers disagree with regard to stylistic conventions required for blogs, more so for the blog post than for the blog comment. This is in line with the TTCs, which claim that the style of blogs is dependent on the content and the readership. This is a non-characteristic feature, which cannot be used for characterising blogs. All other statements fall within the range (0.7 ≤ SD ≤ 1.3) for defining statements. 4.2.6. E-mail For both e-mail types only statement 5 with mean values of 3.97 and 3.93 is highly defining. Apparently, teachers strongly agree that e-mails should identify the addressee clearly. For the formal e-mail statements 6, 7 and 11 are highly defining. In combination with the high mean values of 3.83 and 3.68 for statements 6 and 7, it becomes clear that teachers strongly agree that a formal e-mail should have a clear structure and follow a common text pattern. Teachers also strongly agree that the function of a formal email is not to entertain, as becomes obvious from the low mean value of 0.27 for statement 11. For the informal e-mail, statements 3, 21 and 23 are highly defining. In combination with the high mean values of 3.67 and 3.77 for statements 3 and 21 this shows that teachers strongly agree that informal e-mails contain expressive or emotional language and address the reader directly. By contrast, the low mean value of 0.29 for statement 23 Günther Sigott et al. 62 indicates that teachers are in strong agreement that informal e-mails are not written to be read by a wider audience. For both e-mail types, statement 5 (The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed.) reaches high mean values of 3.97 and 3.93. This is in line with the expectations suggested by the TTCs, which call for a strictly defined readership for e-mails. For the formal e-mail the high mean values of 3.83 and 3.68 for statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) and statement 7 (The text follows a common text pattern.) are in line with the expectations suggested by the detailed stipulations for Layout and Structure in the TTCs. For the informal e-mail the high mean value of 3.77 for statement 21 (The reader is addressed directly.) confirms the expectations resulting from the stylistic aspect for the informal e-mail in the TTCs, which call for the recipient to be addressed directly. The low mean value of 0.29 for statement 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.) shows that teachers agree that the audience for informal e-mails is restricted. For both e-mail types the formulations for text function in the TTCs resonate with statements 16 (The text is appellative.) and 18 (The text serves to inform.), but are contradicted by the mean values of 2.15 and 2.97 for the formal e-mail and 1.84 and 2.45 for the informal e-mail. Apparently, teachers feel that e-mails are not strongly appellative, and their informative function is somewhat weaker than one might expect on the basis of the speech functions listed in the TTCs. For the informal e-mails statement 6 and 7 show lower mean values of 2.35 and 2.33, suggesting that teachers feel the text structure for informal e-mails is less strictly defined than the TTCs suggest. Only statement 4 (The text is intended for public communication.) turns out to be non-defining for the formal e-mail. With SD at 1.49, teachers tend to disagree as to whether formal e-mails are intended for public communication. This contradicts expectations suggested by the TTCs, where the readership is described as a particular person or group of persons. One would expect more unanimity among teachers that formal e-mails are not intended for public communication. 5. Conclusion This study examined whether the 23 statements in the questionnaire are suitable for describing the text types used in the SRDP. These statements were derived from the literature on text type definitions for German. In addition, the study examined how teachers’ views, as measured by their degree of consent to the 23 statements, correspond to the descriptions of text types as outlined in the TTCs. Since the sample cannot be claimed to be representative of the entire Austrian teacher population, conclusions from the study need to be considered with circumspection. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 63 With regard to RQ 1 (Which statements show sufficient agreement among teachers so that they can be used to characterise a text type? ), the study has shown that the suitability of the 23 statements varies considerably across text types. While none of the 23 statements has turned out to be highly defining for all the eight text types, only six statements (10, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 20) qualify as defining for all text types. These six statements could function as dimensions for comparing all the eight text types, an insight which seems very valuable for teaching practice. The variation in relevance of the 23 statements does not, however, detract from the usefulness of the statements for characterising individual text types. On the one hand, prominent characteristic features of individual text types can be identified by inspecting the statements that are highly defining or defining for individual text types in Table 2. On the other hand, statements that turned out to be non-defining for individual text types identify features that should not be focused on either in teaching or in assessment. This, too, can be valuable information for teaching practice. Before examining the correspondence between teachers’ views and the official text type descriptions, which is the focus of RQ 2, the conceptual overlap between the 23 statements and the official descriptions of text types in the TTCs needed to be determined through content analysis. While three of the 23 statements do not have a conceptual match in the TTCs for any of the text types, six statements show a conceptual match for all eight text types. These are 4 (The text is intended for public communication.), 6 (The text has a clear structure.), 8 (The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices.), 17 (The text is descriptive.), 18 (The text serves to inform.), and 23 (The text is written to be read by a wider audience.). Each of the remaining statements show a conceptual match for at least one text type. This indicates a fair amount of conceptual overlap between the set of statements and the TTCs. It is, however, important to remember that a conceptual match does not indicate agreement or disagreement but constitutes a precondition for making decisions on whether a statement agrees or disagrees with the TTCs. Out of a theoretically possible 184 (23 x 8) instances of conceptual match, there are 104 instances of conceptual match between the questionnaire statements and the individual text type descriptions in the ministry documents (see framed cells in Table 2). Of these 104 instances, 62 represent agreement (bold dashed frame (- -)) between the statements and the TTCs, 10 represent disagreement (bold dash dot dot frame (- ▪ ▪ )), and 32 constitute conceptual matches which do not allow a decision of agreement or disagreement between statements and TTCs (bold frame (--)). On this basis, expectations for teachers’ responses were formulated and confirmed or disconfirmed by the data provided by the teachers. In order to answer RQ 2 (Are there discrepancies between the teachers’ views and the TTCs? ), the correspondence of teachers’ views with the official text type descriptions was examined on the basis of these expectations. Günther Sigott et al. 64 Out of a total of 104 expectations derived from the content analysis, 71 were confirmed and 33 disconfirmed by the teachers’ responses to the statements. Apparently, the teachers agreed with approximately two thirds of the expectations that resulted from a comparison of the statements with the formulations of the TTCs. This does indicate a fair amount of correspondence between the teachers’ views and the official text type characteristics. However, there is also some disagreement between the researchers’ content analysis and the teachers’ views. These cases can easily be identified by examining Table 2 for framed cells in which the values are right aligned and in regular font. For instance, while for the blog post and for the blog comment, according to content analysis, statement 6 (The text has a clear structure.) is supported by the TTCs, the teachers’ responses do not confirm this. This result could be due to the way the TTCs are structured. The document consists of seven categories (general definition, purpose/ function, readership, layout, structure, register, stylistic aspects), each of which is delineated for every text type. However, some categories may be more relevant for certain text types than for others. For example, every text should have a clear structure, but for some text types, e.g. the essay, the structure (introduction with thesis statement, body, conclusion) is more important than for others, e.g. the blog comment. Even if some statements of the questionnaire do not show a conceptual match with the TTCs, this does not mean that they are not relevant for the text types. For example, statement 1 (The text contains explicit markers of cohesion and coherence indicated by conjunctions, adverbs, etc.) does not have obvious correspondence in the TTCs. Still, the teachers thought this statement was relevant for several text types, presumably because coherence and cohesion are part of general writing competence. This can be considered supportive of the validity of the statements. It should be noted that the TTCs are not exhaustive descriptions of the text types but were designed to provide general guidance to teachers and students. 6. Practical implications The results of this study may point to areas that should be focused on more intensively in conceptualising and implementing in-service teacher training. It could be pointed out that highly defining and defining statements, unlike non-defining statements, are reliable bases for describing text types. The means on these statements provide detailed information about text type features. For instance, statement 21 (The reader is addressed directly) is at least defining for the essay and for the informal e-mail and is therefore a reliable basis for characterising the two text types. As the means for the two text types show, they differ considerably with regard to this feature. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 65 The mean of 0.67 indicates teachers’ opinion that an essay should not usually address the reader directly. By contrast, the mean of 3.77 for the informal e-mail expresses teachers’ expectation that the reader will be addressed directly. In this way, detailed text type features can be isolated and focused on in teaching. At the same time, these findings can give rise to sharpening some of the formulations in the current text type characteristics. For instance, for the leaflet, statement 21 (The reader is addressed directly) shows a mean of 3.59. This indicates that teachers expect the reader to be addressed directly in a leaflet. However the formulation in the TTCs leaves this entirely open by suggesting that the reader may be addressed directly. This discrepancy could be resolved by changing may be addressed directly to should be addressed directly. If the TTCs are not changed, then such discrepancies will need to be addressed in teacher training in order to initiate changes in the teachers’ conceptualisations. The findings are also relevant with regard to the quality of writing assessment. Formulations in non-defining statements should not be used as a basis for, or components of, rating criteria because they may constitute a threat to the reliabiliy and validity of the assessment. Rating criteria should be screened for the presence of formulations of non-defining statements and if such formulations are found, remedial action should be considered. These endeavours should ultimately foster a shared understanding of text type characteristics among practicing teachers. Eventually this will be beneficial for the practice of teaching and assessment. 7. References BMBWF (2019). Übersicht Charakteristika Textsorten lebende Fremdsprachen (SRDP): Stand August 2019. [online] https: / / www.matura.gv.at/ downloads/ download/ uebersicht-charakteristika-textsorten-lebende-fremdsprachen [March 2024]. BMBWF (2021). Testspezifikationen Schreiben B2, Version März 2021. Unpublished document. Brinker, Klaus. (1985). Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [online] https: / / rm.coe.int/ 1680459f97 [March 2024]. Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. [online] https: / / rm.coe.int/ common-european-framework-ofreference-for-languages-learning-teaching/ 16809ea0d4 [March 2024]. Glasswell, Kathryn, Judy Parr & Margaret Aikman (2001). Development of the asTTle writing assessment rubrics for scoring extended writing tasks. Technical Report 6, Project asTTle. Auckland: University of Auckland. [online] https: / / easttle. tki.org.nz/ content/ download/ 1460/ 5913/ version/ 1/ file/ 6.+Development+ of+writing+rubrics+2001.pdf [March 2024]. Günther Sigott et al. 66 Große, Ernst U. (1976). Text und Kommunikation: Eine linguistische Einführung in die Funktionen der Texte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Heinemann, Margot (2011). Textlinguistische Typologisierungsansätze. In: Stephan Habscheid (Ed.). De Gruyter Lexikon. Textsorten, Handlungsmuster, Oberflächen: Linguistische Typologien der Kommunikation. Berlin: De Gruyter. 257-274. Heinemann, Wolfgang & Dieter Viehweger (1991). Textlinguistik: Eine Einführung. Berlin: De Gruyter. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1515/ 9783111376387 Hyland, Ken (2018). Genre and second language writing. In: John I. Liontas (Ed.). The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell. 2359-2364. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1002/ 9781118784235.eelt0535. Krieg-Holz, Ulrike (2017). Textsortenstile: Stilbeschreibung und Textsortenklassifikation. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Mayring, Philipp (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz. Richards, Jack. C. & Theodore S. Rodgers (2022). Text-Based Instruction. In: Jack C. Richards & Theodore S. Rosgers (Eds.). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 200-214. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1017/ 9781009024532.013 Sandig, Barbara (1972). Zur Differenzierung gebrauchssprachlicher Textsorten im Deutschen. In: Elisabeth Gülich & Wolfgang Raible (Eds.). Textsorten: Differenzierungskriterien aus linguistischer Sicht. Wiesbaden: Athenaion. 113-124. Sigott, Günther, Ulrike Krieg-Holz, Jürgen Struger & Hermann Cesnik (2020). Was verstehen Lehrende unter Kommentar und Erörterung? Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Textsortenfrage in der österreichischen Standardisierten Reife und Diplomprüfung Deutsch. Der Deutschunterricht 5: 81-86. Sowinski, Bernhard. (1978). Deutsche Stilistik: Beobachtungen zur Sprachverwendung und Sprachgestaltung im Deutschen. Frankfurt: Fischer. Spöttl, Carol, Kathrin Eberharter, Franz Holzknecht, Benjamin Kremmel & Matthias Zehentner (2018). Delivering reform in a high stakes context: From contentbased assessment to communicative and competence-based assessment. In: Günther Sigott (Ed.). Language Testing in Austria: Taking Stock/ Sprachtesten in Österreich: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Berlin: Peter Lang. 219-239. Struger, Jürgen (2018). Deutsch als Unterrichtssprache: Das Konzept der schriftlichen Reife- und Diplomprüfung. In: Günther Sigott (Ed.). Language Testing in Austria: Taking Stock/ Sprachtesten in Österreich: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Berlin: Peter Lang. 155-182. Swales, John M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. 13 th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tardy, Christine M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A comparative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2): 79-101. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jslw.2006.04.003 Tardy, Christine M. (2023). Genre‐based language teaching. In: Carol A. Chapelle (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. New Jersey: Wiley. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1002/ 9781405198431.wbeal0453.pub2 van Dijk, Teun A. (1980). Textwissenschaft: Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung. dtv Wissenschaft Vol. 4364. München: dtv. Werlich, Egon (1975). Typologie der Texte: Entwurf eines textlinguistischen Modells zur Grundlegung einer Textgrammatik. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 67 Yasuda, Sachiko (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing 20 (2): 111-133. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.jslw.2011.03.001 Günther Sigott Samuel Hafner Hermann Cesnik Theresa Weiler Kristina Leitner Eva Dousset-Ortner Günther Sigott et al. 68 8. Appendix Questionnaire items (original and translation) Original statement in German Translated statement (1) Der Text enthält explizite Markierungen von Verknüpfung, die durch Konjunktionen, Adverbien usw. angezeigt werden. (cohesion/ coherence) The text contains explicit markers of cohesion and coherence indicated by conjunctions, adverbs, etc. (2) Der Text enthält fachsprachliche Ausdrücke. The text contains technical terms. (3) Der Text enthält expressive oder emotionale Ausdrücke. The text contains expressive or emotional expressions. (4) Der Text ist für den öffentlichen Kommunikationsbereich bestimmt. The text is intended for public communication. (5) Der Text weist einen Adressatenbezug auf. / Der Text macht es klar, an wen er gerichtet ist. The text makes it clear to whom it is addressed. (6) Der Text weist eine klare Struktur auf. The text has a clear structure. (7) Der Text folgt einem gängigen Textmuster. The text follows a common text pattern. (8) Der Text weist eine besondere stilistische Gestaltung und rhetorische Mittel auf. The text is written in a particular style and uses rhetorical devices. (9) Der Text äußert eine Meinung. The text expresses an opinion. Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 69 (10) Der Text zielt auf Meinungsbildung ab / will von einem Standpunkt überzeugen. The text aims to shape opinion / wants to persuade. (11) Der Text soll unterhalten. The text is meant to entertain. (12) Der Text erzählt. The text is narrative. (13) Der Text erklärt. The text is explanatory. (14) Der Text argumentiert. The text is argumentative. (15) Der Text bewertet. The text is evaluative. (16) Der Text appelliert. The text is appellative. (17) Der Text beschreibt. The text is descriptive. (18) Der Text informiert. The text serves to inform. (19) Der Text rekapituliert/ resümiert. The text summarises / recapitulates. (20) Der Text vergleicht. The text makes comparisons. (21) Die Leserschaft wird direkt angesprochen. The reader is addressed directly. (22) Der Text soll Aufmerksamkeit erzeugen / auf sich ziehen. The text is meant to attract attention. (23) Der Text wurde geschrieben, um von einer größeren Leserschaft gelesen zu werden. The text is written to be read by a wider audience. Günther Sigott et al. 70 Text types in the Austrian School-Leaving Exam for English 71 Text Type Characteristics (TTCs) (BMBWF 2019)