Evaluating Academic Reading Input in Vietnamese EFL Textbooks: Lexical, Syntactic, and Cohesive Evidence for Materials Design and Classroom Pedagogy

Main Article Content

Nhat Quang Vo
Quoc Khanh Nguyen
Thi Thuy Loan To

Abstract

The acquisition of academic vocabulary and complex linguistic structures is essential as learners move from general English proficiency toward academic literacy. In many Asian EFL contexts, textbooks remain a major source of lexical and structural input. This study presents a multi-dimensional corpus-based evaluation of 72 reading passages in the Global Success textbook series for Vietnamese upper-secondary students. Using TAALED, TAALES, TAASSC, and TAACO, the passages were analyzed as separate text-level units to examine lexical diversity, lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, and cohesion across grades. Mean Academic Word List (AWL) coverage showed a non-linear descriptive pattern, declining from 5.90% (SD = 2.98) in Grade 10 to 5.41% (SD = 2.94) in Grade 11 before rising to 6.95% (SD = 3.52) in Grade 12. Mean Measure of Textual Lexical Diversity (MTLD) scores increased descriptively from 70.64 (SD = 14.55) to 74.04 (SD = 17.50) and 79.24 (SD = 21.15), respectively. However, Kruskal–Wallis tests found no statistically significant between-grade differences in AWL coverage or MTLD. Syntactic and cohesion measures also showed substantial passage-level variation, with only small descriptive differences in grade-level means. Overall, the findings do not support a uniform progression across Grades 10–12 and are better characterized by considerable heterogeneity among individual passages. The study demonstrates how text-level corpus analysis can identify areas that may warrant consideration for additional vocabulary and structural support in Vietnamese upper-secondary reading instruction.

Article Details

How to Cite
Vo, Q., Nguyen, K., & To, L. (2026). Evaluating Academic Reading Input in Vietnamese EFL Textbooks: Lexical, Syntactic, and Cohesive Evidence for Materials Design and Classroom Pedagogy. THAITESOL Journal, 39(2), 102–. https://doi.org/10.14456/tj.2026.2
Section
Articles
Author Biographies

Nhat Quang Vo, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Ho Chi Minh University of Banking, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Nhat Quang Vo is an MA student in Applied Linguistics at Ho Chi Minh University of Banking. He has over a decade of English teaching experience. His mixed-methods research interests include Critical Discourse Analysis, Second Language Acquisition, Semantics, and language pedagogy, with attention to their applications in English language education. 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6908-5163

Quoc Khanh Nguyen, Center for Continuing Education, The University of Da Nang, Da Nang, Vietnam

Quoc Khanh Nguyen is an IELTS instructor and an English Linguistics undergraduate at The University of Da Nang. He has over ten years of English teaching experience. His mixed-methods research interests include Critical Discourse Analysis, TESOL, and Corpus Linguistics, with a particular focus on their applications to English language education. 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0171-7942

Thi Thuy Loan To, Faculty of Education, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Thi Thuy Loan To is a faculty member at the Faculty of Education, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City. With over nine years of academic experience, her research focuses on Education Studies, Educational Management, and online and blended learning in tertiary education contexts. 

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2999-5286

References

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024

Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483

Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951

Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K., & Dascalu, M. (2019). The tool for the automatic analysis of cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1142-4

Dang, T. N. Y., & Webb, S. (2016). Evaluating lists of high-frequency words. ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 132–158. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.02dan

Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English-medium higher education: The first-year experience in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.01.001

Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619

Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2014). A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt015

Hoang, V. V. (2015). The development of the ten-year English textbook series for Vietnamese schools under the National Foreign Language 2020 Project: A cross-cultural collaborative experience. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 31(3), 1–17.

Hoang, V. V., Hoang, T. X. H., Chu, Q. B., Vu, H. H., Hoang, T. H. H., Kieu, T. T. H., & Nguyen, T. K. P. (2022). Tiếng Anh 10: Global Success [English 10: Global Success]. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Hoang, V. V., Vu, H. H., Chu, Q. B., Hoang, T. H. H., Kieu, T. T. H., & Nguyen, T. K. P. (2023). Tiếng Anh 11: Global Success [English 11: Global Success]. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Hoang, V. V., Vu, H. H., Chu, Q. B., Hoang, T. H. H., & Nguyen, T. K. P. (2024). Tiếng Anh 12: Global Success [English 12: Global Success]. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2007). Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00058.x

Jin, T., Lu, X., & Ni, J. (2020). Syntactic complexity in adapted teaching materials: Differences among grade levels and implications for benchmarking. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12622

Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine-grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. ScholarWorks. https://doi.org/10.57709/8501051

Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A. (2015). Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194

Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Berger, C. M. (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

Kyle, K., Crossley, S. A., & Jarvis, S. (2021). Assessing the validity of lexical diversity indices using direct judgements. Language Assessment Quarterly, 18(2), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2020.1844205

Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316–323). Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.64152/10125/66648

Mai, N. H., Lien, N. N., & Nguyen, H. T. (2024). Lexical demands and features of English textbooks for Vietnamese 10th graders: An in-depth comparison of listening sections. SAGE Open, 14(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241299247

Ministry of Education and Training. (2018). Thông tư số 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT ban hành Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông [Circular No. 32/2018/TT-BGDĐT promulgating the general education program].

Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59

Pham, T. T. T., Tu, T. L., & Nguyen, T. H. N. (2025). An investigation into English vocabulary and lexical activities in “Global Success” English textbooks (Grade 3, 6, 10). HNUE Journal of Science: Journal of Educational Science, 70(4), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.18173/2354-1075.2025-0073

Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x

Shao, Z., Zhang, H., Zhang, J., Zhong, Y., & Xu, X. (2022). Phrasal complexity in English argumentative writing: Variations across Chinese STEM versus English majors’ production and EFL textbook essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 55, Article 101070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101070

Vuong, K. T. M., Trakulkasemsuk, W., & Zahabi, A. (2025). English textbooks in the modern world: Cultural representation in an EFL textbook from Vietnam. PASAA, 70, 204–238. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.PASAA.70.7

Yu, M., & Renandya, W. A. (2021). A corpus-based study of the vocabulary profile of high school English textbooks in China. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(1), 28–49.

Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2025). Aligning linguistic complexity with the difficulty of English texts for L2 learners based on CEFR levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 47(5), 1407–1434. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263125101125