A Comparative Study of Passive and Active Vocabulary Knowledge of Prince of Songkla University and South China Agricultural University

EFL Learners
Zhong Zhiying South China Agricultural University, Lecturer Adisa Teo, Ph.D. Prince of Songkla University, Asst. Prof. Chonlada Laohaririyanon, Ph.D. Prince of Songkla University, Asst. Prof. Abstract The present study investigates the relationships between three modalities of vocabulary knowledge (passive recognition, active recall and free active written) within two different learning contexts and across the same two learning contexts. Bilingual Vocabulary Levels Tests were designed for determining passive recognition and active recall vocabulary sizes and a guided e-mail writing test was intended to find free active vocabulary size. Participants were 142 non-English majored EFL learners at Prince of Songkla University (PSU) in Thailand and South China Agricultural University (SCAU). Significant correlations were found between passive recognition and active recall vocabularies of PSU students (.662) and SCAU students (.557). The correlations between passive recognition and free active written vocabulary knowledge were different in the two learning contexts with significant correlation for SCAU students (.405) and no significant correlation for PSU students. Significant differences were found between active recall and free active written vocabulary knowledge across the learning contexts with SCAU students having 1451 and PSU students having 1207 word families in active recall test and SCAU students having 122 and PSU students having 87 word families in free active written test. Findings and pedagogical implications regarding learner's

120

3 1 - 2550

motivation, course and materials, classroom management and testing style were discussed. Keywords: comparative, passive vocabulary knowledge, active vocabulary knowledge, passive recognition, active recall, free active written vocabulary INTRODUCTION In the global village, both passive and active use of English in communication becomes more and more prevalent. Modern international communication, especially via the Internet, requires both passive and active use of English. We not only read or listen to information passively but also react to it actively, either through speaking or writing. The free active use of English--- especially writing---is playing a more important role in communication. rashen and Terrel (1983) stated that vocabulary is basic to communication. Therefore, to determine how much vocabulary learners know passively, how much vocabulary learners can potentially produce, and how much vocabulary learners can freely produce in a writing task such as e-mail writing would be of great pedagogical value. LITERATURE REVIEW Passive (receptive) and active (productive) vocabulary knowledge on a continuum Most researchers nowadays construe lexical knowledge as a continuum consisting of several levels and dimensions of knowledge, starting with superficial familiarity with a word and ending with the ability to use the word correctly in free production (Nation 2001; Laufer & Goldstein, 2004). Vocabulary on the continuum may shift from passive to active vocabulary when being properly activated. Therefore, the view of a continuum appropriately expresses the dynamic complexity of vocabulary knowledge.

121

3 1 - 2550

Passive vocabulary knowledge involves perceiving the form of a word while listening or reading and retrieving its meaning. Productive vocabulary knowledge, on the other hand, means to express a meaning through speaking or writing and retrieve and produce the appropriate spoken or written word form (Nation, 2001). Thus, passive vocabulary knowledge involves a process from form to meaning and productive vocabulary knowledge involves a process from meaning to form. Size (breadth), depth and strength In the present study, the breadth of vocabulary knowledge is defined as vocabulary size, or the number of words and meanings of which a learner has at least the minimum knowledge (Qian, 1999). Minimum knowledge of a words meaning is defined as the ability to recognize its most frequent meaning. The total number of words a student knows in this way is the learners breadth of vocabulary knowledge or their vocabulary size. The depth of vocabulary knowledge refers to how well a particular word is known (Nation, 2001). In other words, the depth of a learners vocabulary knowledge is determined by his or her knowledge of various aspects of a given word, such as its meaning, especially polysemy and synonyms, and its sensitivity to collocations and associations (Qian, 2004). While vocabulary knowledge is said to constitute a continuum with difficulty hierarchies from passive to active vocabulary knowledge, the degree of vocabulary knowledge is referred to as strength. Size (breadth), depth and strength tests Different researchers recommend different vocabulary tests depending on their view of vocabulary knowledge, their preference for a particular dimension or modality of vocabulary knowledge, and their interest in either size, depth or strength (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004).

122

3 1 - 2550

Read (2004) points out that Nations Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) is still the most famous vocabulary breadth measurement. The VLT was first designed by Nation (1983) as a diagnostic vocabulary test. It has been revised several times. The latest version was revised by Schmitt et al. (2001), which has been properly validated quantitatively and qualitatively. One kind of vocabulary size test can offer related information about both learners vocabulary size and vocabulary strength. For example, a passive vocabulary size test can measure the vocabulary size the learner has and one of the dimensions or the strengths of the vocabulary knowledge which is the passive vocabulary strength in the example. Besides vocabulary size test, the other category of vocabulary test is the depth test, which focuses on only a small number of items for practical reasons. Their value lies mainly in researching specific items targeted for investigation amongst specific research participants. Read (1993, 1995, 1998, cited in Read, 2004), Bogaards (2000, cited in Read, 2004), Greidanus and Nienhuis (2001, cited in Read, 2004), Qian (1999, 2002), and Qian and Schedle (2004) researched the depth tests. While depth tests look at a small number of the target words, breadth (size) tests include larger samples of words chosen randomly from different word frequency levels. These sample words represent the entire vocabulary at these levels. Read (2000, cited in Laufer et al., 2004) acknowledged that size tests give a more representative picture of the overall state of the learners vocabulary than an in -depth probe of a limited number of words. For these reasons, the present study focuses on only the size and strength of learners vocabulary knowledge. Previous studies Size Investigating learners vocabulary size can be of substantial value to

123

3 1 - 2550

language research and pedagogy. The information indicates the realistic situation of a given lexical syllabus and what would constitute an optimal syllabus (Laufer, 1998) which will, in turn, guide the material design, the testing, the teaching and the learning. In Thailand, for instance, Sripetpun (2000) conducted a study on learners at PSU exploring the influence of vocabulary size on vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning strategies. In China, vocabulary size studies have been conducted since the early 1980s, and most of them concerned passive vocabulary size such as those by Gui (1983, 1985), the English Testing Center in the Military Foreign Languages University (1987), Yu (1991), Zhou et al. (1999), Deng and Zeng (1998, 2001), Shao (2002), and Huang et al. (2004). They used corpus-based methods (both foreign corpuses and the Chinese Word List of the National College Curriculum) and dictionary-based method to sample the target words. For a recent example, Huang et al. (2004) sampled 100 target words from 14,585 high-frequency words in the Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. The subjects were freshmen at three universities in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. The average passive vocabulary size was 5,617 words including many derivations or inflections. The researchers considered 3,500 words that had been learned mainly through high school instruction. With some strategies to guess derivations and some compound words, it was very possible for the students to have such a vocabulary size. Size and strength Several previous studies concerning the size and strength of vocabulary have been conducted. The different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge the researchers tested are referred to as modalities. Two -modality

124

3 1 - 2550

studies by Waring (1997, cited in Nation, 2001) and Ma (2001) found passive vocabulary size was larger than their active vocabulary size. When mentioning using multitests to test learners different vocabulary strengths, we cannot avoid addressing the most important forerunner---Laufer. Laufer (1998) compared the development of passive and active vocabulary knowledge in Grade 10 and Grade 11 Israeli EFL learners using three different types of tests. The results showed that passive vocabulary size progressed very well. The learners with an additional year of instruction had a much larger passive vocabulary size. Controlled active vocabulary progressed too but more slowly than did passive vocabulary. Free active vocabulary did not progress at all. Free active vocabulary, on the other hand, did not correlate with the other two types of vocabulary. Again, Laufer and Paribakht (1998) used the same three measures to look at 79 EFL learners in the University of Haifa, Israel and 103 Canadian ESL university students at different proficiency levels. The results showed that the three dimensions of vocabulary knowledge developed at different rates. Active, particularly free active vocabulary, developed more slowly and less predictably than did passive vocabulary. Six years later, Laufer et al. (2004) researched four modalities of vocabulary knowledge using a monolingual test. The target word list of the monolingual test was based on the Schmitt et al. (2001) version 2. Their results showed that active recall was the most difficult mode followed by passive recall and with active and passive recognition being equally the easiest modes. Later in the same year, Laufer and Goldstein conducted a follow-up study to Laufer et al.s (2004), using a bilingual test this time with the same target word list as the monolingual test. The results showed that active recall was the most difficult mode followed by passive recall, active recognition and passive recognition. The hierarchy was present at all word frequency levels.

125

3 1 - 2550

The scopes of the present study The present study focuses on three-modality vocabulary knowledge: passive recognition (PR), active recall (AR) and free active written (FAW) vocabulary knowledge. These three dimensions well represent passive and active vocabulary knowledge in terms of their relative levels of difficulty. Passive recognition vocabulary provides the weakest point in the form-meaning link of a word when vocabulary knowledge is considered as a continuum of form-meaning relationships (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004). Most researchers agree that free active vocabulary knowledge is the ending point on the continuum of learners vocabulary knowledge (Faerch, Haastrup & Phillipson, 1984, cited in Laufer & Paribakht, 1998). Therefore, in this study passive recognition vocabulary is regarded as the easiest point and free active vocabulary knowledge the most difficult point on the continuum of learners vocabulary knowledge. Active recall vocabulary is the productive vocabulary knowledge which indicates the vocabulary size a learner can potentially produce. With passive recognition vocabulary as a point of reference, teachers and learners are able to locate the gaps between passive and active vocabulary knowledge. In addition, the present study includes the following new elements which have not been investigated in previous studies. Firstly, it is a comparative study of tertiary level EFL learners in different countries under different curricula. Secondly, to the researchers knowledge, no researcher has previously constructed bilingual VLTs for both PSU students and SCAU students. Thirdly, in order to collect data in free active written vocabulary knowledge, a guided e-mail writing form for getting to know new pen-pals in different countries was introduced. With the scopes of the present study in mind, the researchers intended to answer the following three research questions: (1) What are the relationships between learners passive recognition 126

3 1 - 2550

(PR), active recall (AR) and free active written (FAW) vocabularies? Are these relationships similar or different in PSU and SCAU learning contexts? (2) What are the differences between active recall (AR) and free active written (FAW) vocabulary scores of PSU and SCAU learners with the same passive recognition (PR) vocabulary scores? (3) Do the relationships between active recall (AR) and free active written (FAW) vocabularies change with shifts in learners passive vocabulary knowledge (PR)? Are these changes similar or different in PSU and SCAU learning con texts? Definitions of terms Passive recognition (PR) of a word is defined as understanding its most frequent meaning. Active recall (AR) of a word refers to providing an equivalent L2 translation of an L1 word. Free active written (FAW) vocabulary knowledge is defined as spontaneous use of a word in a context which in this case is an e-mail writing assignment. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Subjects of the study Subjects in this study were 142 first year students who had nearly finished the Foundation English II (FEII) course at PSU (n=57) in Hat Yai, Thailand and at SCAU (n=85) in Guangzhou, China. Both PSU and SCAU are major comprehensive public universities located in the southern regions of their respective countries. SCAU ranks about number 7 in Guangdong Province based upon the researchers rough estimation and PSU ranks number 5 in Thailand but number 1 in South Thailand (www.psu.ac.th, 2004). All students, both in Thailand and in China, were Finance majors. Table 1 illustrates related information about the subjects.

127

3 1 - 2550

Table 1 Information about the subjects at PSU and SCAU

Age Mean (year) PSU students (n=57) SCAU students (n=85) 18.9 19.6 Gender Male 13 28 female 44 57
Schooling of English

Mean (year) 11.1 8.5

*All students had been taught by English teachers from their own countries. Research instruments In the present study, the researcher constructed a bilingual test of PR and AR which was adapted from the monolingual VLT by Schmitt et al. (2001) versions 1 and 2 for both PSU students and SCAU students, and the target word list was based on the word list of Schmitt et al. (2001) versions 1 and 2. In adapting the test, the target words were first checked in order to exclude those that were very specifically influenced by the respective cultures. As the subjects were first year tertiary level L2 learners, the 10,000 level test was not used. Only the 2000, 3000, 5000 and the Academic Vocabulary levels of the VLT were used in this study.

PR test The PR test was adapted from version 1 of Schmitt et al.s (2001) VLT, except that the explanations of the target words were in L1. The format was the same as the version by Schmitt et al. (2001). Students were asked to choose three correct options from the six options on the left to match the equivalent L1 words on the right side (see examples of the Thai and Chinese versions below).

128

3 1 - 2550

Thai Version l 2 3 4 5 6 business clock horse pencil shoe wall

Chinese Version l business

_____ _____ _____

2 clock 3 horse 4 pencil 5 shoe 6 wall

______ ______ ______

AR test The target word list of the AR test was adapted from the parallel version test, version 2, of VLT in Schmitt et al.(2001). Students were asked to translate a word from L1 to L2, with the initial letter or letters of the L2 target word given. For example, for the definition not easy, students were expected to complete the target word difficult in writing: Not easy d________. The examples of the Thai and Chinese versions follow: d _______; d _______. Since some Chinese words can either be used as a noun or a verb, to make the translation more accurate, parts of speech were indicated for some words in the Chinese translation. All translations of the bilingual tests of PR and AR in this study were first done by graduate students of Applied Linguistics, and then checked by at least two Thai or two Chinese professors who teach English in Thailand and China respectively. FAW test For the FAW vocabulary test, the students wrote an e-mail draft to get to know a foreign pen-pal. The topics were about their country, their university life and their hobbies.

129

3 1 - 2550

Pilot tests for the three instruments 24 PSU students and 32 SCAU students majoring in Accounting with similar proficiency to the subjects took the pilot tests. After the pilot tests, all the instruments were revised and the reliabilities of the PR and AR tests were calculated using Cronbachs Alpha formula in SPSS 13.0 (the Thai version PR test: .93; AR test: .89; the Chinese version PR test: .90; AR test .92). In the pilot test of the FAW test, the students were required to write an e-mail draft without using computers. Only 7 out of 24 (30%) PSU students could write about 250 words. Therefore, the test was revised to encourage them to write more by adding more parts and more specific questions. As for SCAU students, since 85% of them could write more than 250 words, more guided questions were not necessary. Data collection he data was collected about one month before the FE II teaching ended at both PSU and SCAU. Collecting data from PSU and SCAU students was implemented in January and May 2005 respectively in students spare time. The students were required to finish the three tests within two hours. However, PSU students spent 80 to 110 minutes; SCAU students spent 70 to 90 minutes finishing the three tests in the classroom. The length of testing time was considered appropriate as PSU students and SCAU students usually take two to three hours in mid-term and final examinations every semester. Two examiners supervised the tests. Dictionaries or related English books were not allowed during the tests. Data analysis Scoring method of PR and AR tests For the PR test, students would gain one score (raw score) for each

130

3 1 - 2550

correct answer. The full score for one word level was 30 (raw score) and for the whole set of test was 120 (raw score). Then the raw scores were computed in SPSS 13.0 according to the vocabulary size formula. While scoring the AR test, the researchers held a meaning focus and word family principle. Small misspellings which did not distort the word form were scored as correct. Answers which belonged to the same word family of the target word were treated as correct such as development instead of develop. The norm to decide whether the words belonged to the same word family or not depended on the results of the VocabProfile. However, the Off-list words (words that did not belong to the three word levels: 1-1000 level, 1001-2000 level and Academic Vocabulary level) were not classified as word families by the VocabProfile. Therefore, in the present study, Off -list words were classified as word families according to the definition of word family by Nation (2001), that a word family consists of a headword, its inflected forms, and its closely related derived forms. Students would gain one raw score for each correct answer. The full raw score for one word level was 30 and for the whole set of test was 120. Then the raw scores were computed in SPSS 13.0 according to the vocabulary size formula. Calculation formula of PR and AR vocabulary sizes The figures of PR and AR vocabulary sizes are approximations of the actual vocabulary size. The 1,000 word level and the 2,000 word level were assumed to have the same score with one point raw score for each correct item (Laufer, 1998). This was mainly because target words from the 2,000 word level were sampled at 1:2 ratios from the 1,000 word level and the 2,000 word level (Schmitt et al., 2001). This means the 2,000 word level test in fact has tested the 1,000 word level and the 2,000 level words. The test represented a size o f 4 ,5 7 0 w o r d f a m i l ie s w i th 4 , 0 0 0 w o r d

131

3 1 - 2550

families in the 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 and 5,000 word levels and 570 word families in the Academic Vocabulary level. The formula based on Laufers (1998) for the calculation of the vocabulary size was as follows: V1=(Score of 1000 word level + score of 2000+ score of 3000 +score of 5000) 4000 word families 30 items at each word level 4 levels V2= the score of Academic Vocabulary level 570 word families 30 items Academic Vocabulary level The PR (or AR) vocabulary size V is: V=V1 +V2 Scoring method of the FAW test Data of the FAW vocabulary in this study came from the analysis of the subjects writing from VocabProfile which included 1-1,000 level, 1,001-2,000 level, Academic Vocabulary level and Off-list level. Words from the first 3 word levels: 1-1,000 level, 1,001 -2,000 level and Academic Vocabulary level were classified as word families by the . Off -list words (words that did not belong to the first, second thousand words or Academic Vocabulary level) shown from the VocabProfile were classified as word families according to the definition of word family by Nation (2001). The total number of the word families from all levels represented the free active vocabulary size they used in their writing. While entering the FAW data into the computer, the following modifications were made: spelling errors that did not distort the word were corrected in order to make the word recognizable by computer and proper nouns were omitted because they were not considered as belonging to the lexis of a given language. Moreover, words that were semantically incorrect such as wrong meaning or wrong collocations were omitted as well since they could not be regarded as known by the learners (Laufer, 1998).

132

3 1 - 2550

SPSS 13.0 was used to calculate the quantitative results such as PR, AR vocabulary sizes and the totals. VocabProfile (Laufer & Nation, 1995, with the University Word List replaced by Academic Word List. Also called Lexical Frequency Profile. Retrieved from T Cobbs website: www.lextutor.ca) was used to analyze the FAW data. RESULTS Interrelationships among three types of vocabulary knowledge Research question one investigated the interrelationships among three types of vocabulary knowledge of the PSU and SCAU learners with the same PR vocabulary scores. Therefore, two main procedures were implemented: (1) PR test was a vocabulary proficiency test, therefore, two parallel groups were found on the basis of their PR scores in PSU and SCAU learning contexts for the comparisons of vocabulary knowledge in all the research questions. (2) Pearson Product Moment formula in SPSS 13.0 was used to determine the interrelationships among three types of vocabulary knowledge of the parallel groups in PSU and SCAU learning contexts. Parallel groups Table 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics of two parallel groups in PSU and SCAU learning contexts. Since the number of the students, the means, the standard deviations, the standard errors, and the numbers of the male and female students of the two groups are extremely identical, and the p-value (.997) of the t-test shows there is no significant difference between these two groups, the two groups were identified as parallel groups for all the comparisons in the study.

PR tests functioned similarly as a pre-test to determine vocabulary proficiency of the two parallel groups in PSU and SCAU learning contexts.

133

3 1 - 2550

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for the parallel groups of PSU and SCAU learners PSU (n=40) SCAU (n=40) t-test p-value .997 Vocabulary knowledge Mean (SD) (SE) (Word Families) PR 3290.4 (383.8) (60.7)

Mean (SD) (SE) (Word Families) 3290.0 (379.6) (60.0)

PSU male students n=9, female students n=31; dents n=29.

SCAU male students n=11, female stu-

Interrelationships In order to determine the interrelationships among the three types of vocabulary knowledge in PSU students and SCAU students, Pearson Product Moment formula in SPSS 13.0 was used and significant correlations were found (see Table 3) between PR vocabulary size and AR vocabulary size for PSU students (.662**) and for SCAU students (.557**).

The PSU 2004 Academic year students mean raw score of the English Entrance Exam is 42.7. The 40 PSU Finance students mean raw score of the English Entrance Exam is 43.1. The full score is 100.
3

The SCAU 2004 Academic year students mean raw score of the English Entrance Exam is 610.The 40 SCAU Finance students mean raw score of the English Entrance Exam is 616. The full score is 900.

134

3 1 - 2550

Table 3 Correlations among the three types of vocabulary scores of PSU and SCAU parallel groups

** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). PSU students n=40; SCAU students n=40. The correlations, however, between PR vocabulary size and FAW vocabulary size were different in the two learning contexts with a significant positive correlation for SCAU students (.405**) and no significant correlation for PSU students (.199). There were positive correlations (but no significant differences) between AR vocabulary size and FAW vocabulary size for PSU students (.251) and for SCAU students (.267). All in all, these correlations somewhat indicated that it would not be possible to predict with accuracy PSU students performance in writing from their PR vocabulary knowledge or AR vocabulary knowledge. In other words, PSU students PR vocabulary or AR vocabulary performance could not well predict their performance in writing. On the contrary, it was easier to predict SCAU students performance in writing from their PR vocabulary knowledge.

135

3 1 - 2550

Differences between AR and FAW scores Research question two investigated the differences that might exist between the AR and FAW vocabulary scores of learners with the same PR vocabulary scores. Therefore, two procedures were implemented: (1) T-tests were used to compare the differences between AR and FAW scores of learners in the parallel groups across the learning contexts. (2) One-way ANOVA was used to compare the difference among PR, AR, and FAW scores of learners in the parallel groups within the same learning context. Differences between AR and FAW scores of the parallel groups As shown in Table 4, significant differences were found between AR and FAW vocabulary knowledge in the parallel groups across the learning contexts with SCAU students having 244 more word families in AR test and 35 more word families in FAW test than PSU students. The AR/PR ratio and FAW/PR ratio also show that SCAU students performed slightly better in the AR and FAW vocabulary knowledge when both groups in the two different learning contexts had the same PR vocabulary knowledge. However, when compared with the passive and active vocabulary sizes of native speakers, it was found that the PR vocabulary sizes of PSU and SCAU students which were above 3,000 word families indicated a minimum for comprehension. With regard to AR vocabulary sizes, PSU students had 1,207.8 and SCAU students had 1,451.4 word families which indicated a big gap in the 2,000 to 3,000 word families level for productive use in speaking and writing for native speakers. An educated adult native speaker knows about 20,000 word families passive vocabulary (Goulden, Nation and Read, 1990). For adult EFL learners, the gap between their vocabulary size and that of native speakers is usually very large, with many adult EFL learners having a vocabulary size of much less than 5,000 word families

136

3 1 - 2550

in spite of having studied English for several years (Nation & Warring, 1997). Even for an educated native speaker, between 3,000 to 5,000 word families is needed to provide a basis for comprehension and around 2,000 to 3,000 word families for productive use in speaking and writing (Hirsh and Nation, 1992). Table 4 Means and standard deviations for the vocabulary scores of the PSU and SCAU parallel groups

** significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Differences among PR, AR, and FAW scores: Table 5 demonstrates that PR, AR and FAW vocabulary sizes of PSU students and SCAU students were significantly different. The significant coefficients were p=.000**, p<.001. Sheffe was used to compare the significance of the differences between groups ( PR, AR and FAW) of PSU students and SCAU students respectively and the mean differences were significant at the .001 level, all the significant coefficients were .000**.
AR/PR ratio: the percentage of the mean of the AR scores (PSU: 1207.8; SCAU: 1451.4) divided by the mean of the PR scores (PSU: 3290.4; SCAU: 3290). 5 FAW/PR ratio: the percentage of the mean of the FAW scores (PSU: 87; SCAU: 122) divided by the mean of the PR scores (PSU: 3290.4; SCAU: 3290).
4

137

3 1 - 2550

Table 5

One-way ANOVA among PR, AR, and FAW scores of the PSU and SCAU parallel groups

** significant at the 0.001 level. PSU students n=40; SCAU students n=40. Differences among and between low, middle and high groups Research question three investigated the changes that might occur in the relationships among the AR and FAW vocabulary knowledge as a result of the increased PR vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, two kinds of comparisons were implemented: (1) The comparisons of AR and FAW scores among low, middle and high groups within the same learning context (i.e., PSU students or SCAU students) using t-tests in each learning context. Due to the small sizes of the groups, t-tests were used instead of the one-way ANOVA. (2) The comparisons between groups with the same PR vocabularies (i.e. to compare between: the low groups of PSU and SCAU; the middle groups of PSU and SCAU; and the high groups of PSU and SCAU) in different learning contexts, using t-tests. The researchers divided the learners of the two parallel groups into high and low proficiency groups based upon Hughess (1989) technique of top 27% and bottom 27% of the total participants. The middle part of the participants became the middle group.

138

3 1 - 2550

Table 6 Comparison of PR, AR and FAW scores between the low, middle and high groups of PSU and SCAU students

** significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). * significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). PSU total n=40; SCAU total n=40.

For the first kind of comparison, as shown in Table 6, the two dimensions of learners vocabulary knowledge, AR and FAW vocabulary scores, increased at different rates with the shifts of the PR vocabulary knowledge. While the PR vocabulary sizes in both PSU students and SCAU students three groups increased significantly (PSU: Low and Middle, p=.000**; Middle and High, p=.000**; SCAU: Low and Middle, p=.000**; Middle and High, p=.000**), their AR vocabulary sizes also grew i.e. from 1,003 word families to 1,106 and then to 1,579 for PSU students; from 1,174 word families to 1,382 and then to 1,841 word families for SCAU students. Significant differences were found in the AR scores between the middle groups and the high groups (p=.003* for PSU students; p=.002* for SCAU students). In contrast, their FAW vocabulary sizes increased very little i.e. from 81 word families to 84 and then to 99 for PSU students; from 104 word families to 115 and then to 130 word families for SCAU students. No significant differences were found in the growth of FAW vocabulary knowledge between the low groups and the middle groups as well as between the middle groups and the high groups of PSU and SCAU students.

139

3 1 - 2550

Secondly, comparisons of groups with the same PR vocabularies in different learning contexts were made (see Table 7). T-tests revealed significant differences between PSU students and SCAU students middle groups in AR scores (p=.025*) and between all the low, middle and high groups in FAW vocabulary knowledge of PSU and SCAU students (between low groups: p=.007*; between middle groups: p=.001**; between high groups: p=.004*). Regarding ratios, the AR/PR and FAW/PR vocabulary ratios of the low, middle and high groups of SCAU students are all higher than those of PSU students. The figures in Table 7 show that SCAU students were better at their productive vocabulary knowledge especially in FAW vocabulary knowledge. Table 7 Comparison of the test scores between the low, middle and high groups of PSU and SCAU students

** significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).

6

* significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

AR/PR ratio: the percentage of the mean of the AR scores (PSU: low 1,003; middle 1,106; high 1,579; SCAU: low 1,174; middle 1,382; high 1,841) divided by the mean of the PR scores (PSU: low 2,854; middle 3,273; high 3,756; SCAU: low 2,844; middle 3,287; high 3,740); 7 FAW/PR ratio: the percentage of the mean of the FAW scores (PSU: low 81; middle 84; high 99; SCAU: low 104; middle 115; high 130) divided by the mean of the PR scores (PSU: low 2,854; middle 3,273; high 3,756; SCAU: low 2,844; middle 3,287; high 3,740).

140

3 1 - 2550

DISCUSSION This comparative study has shown that SCAU students utilized a larger AR and FAW vocabulary than did PSU students. Both PSU and SCAU students showed low productive vocabulary knowledge. A relevant discussion of the findings of the study should address the language courses taken by the PSU students and the SCAU students, including issues of the following four aspects: learners motivation, course and materials, classroom management, and testing style. It should be noted that the scope of the discussions will focus on the university FE courses because this study has not followed a longitudinal design and the subjects came from various middle school backgrounds. Due to the constraints of this study, it was impossible to discuss at length about their pre-university stage English instruction. Learners motivation Most of the SCAU students had stronger instrumental motivation than did PSU students. As university EFL learners, instrumental motivation is stronger than integrative motivation due to the learning context. After the two-year FE study, all SCAU students would take the National College Test: Band 4. As the certificates of CET4 are very useful when one hunts for a job, most of the SCAU students were highly motivated to study English. Hence, SCAU students tend to be very concerned about their vocabulary knowledge whether it meets the requirements or not. In contrast, there is no National Exam in Thailand. PSU students are motivated to learn only what is necessary to pass their midterm and final exams. Though it is also instrumental motivation, it is weaker than that in SCAU students since the National Exam in China has so much bearing on the students futures.

141

3 1 - 2550

Course and materials As for the language course, Nation (2001) put forward an idea that a balanced language course should consist of four major strands: (a). Firstly, there is learning from comprehensible meaning-focused input. Learning from meaning-focused input can best occur if learners are familiar with at least 95% of the running words in the input they are focusing on. (b). The second strand is form-focused instruction which refers to deliberate teaching and learning of language items. Vocabulary is just one of the perspectives (Long, 1998; Ellis, 1990; cited in Nation, 2001). (C). The third strand is meaning-focused output. (d). The fourth strand is fluency development in which learners become more adept at using items they already know. In a balanced language course, the four strands receive roughly the same amount of attention with about 25% of the learning time in and outside of class for each strand. Nation argues that vocabulary teaching and learning fit into all four strands. If the strands are not equally represented, then the design of the course needs to be reviewed. According to the teaching plans for FE courses at PSU, PSU students spent different amount of time on the 4 strands: 37% on Strand (a), 22% on Stand (b), 39% on Strand (c) and 2% for Strand (d). Comparatively speaking, PSU courses spent more time on Strands (a) and (c) but less time on (b) and (d). Theoretically speaking, that the PSU teaching staff emphasized the meaning-focus output and meaning-focus input should have been a sound way to facilitate learners to convert the receptive vocabulary into productive vocabulary. However, the effect was not so satisfactory. SCAU FE courses dedicated much more time to Strands (a) and (b) but less time to the other two strands from a calculation based upon the SCAU students teaching plans.

142

3 1 - 2550

When examining the course materials, it seemed PSU students were required to learn 781 words in one year while SCAU students were required to learn 1,596 words in the first year. With regard to glossing, most studies have found that glossing has a positive effect on vocabulary learning (Hulstijn, 1992; Hulstijn, Hotllander and Greidanus, 1996; Jacobs, Dofong, 1994; Myong, 1995; Watanabe, 1997 cited in Nation 2001). In the PSU students textbook, key vocabulary and expressions for each unit are listed at the back of students book but without any glossing. For SCAU students, key words and expressions are listed immediately after the main reading texts with pronunciations and both L1 and L2 glossing. In terms of the quantity and varieties of the reading texts, SCAU students read longer texts in more genres including general texts, academic texts, literature works, narration, expository, and argumentation in their main textbooks than did PSU students who were exposed to limited reading texts both in terms of quantity and varieties. Regarding the multimedia teaching and learning in the classroom, it seems that SCAU learners have been put in a better position. All the four periods per week were carried out with the help of the computer. For example, the input from the CD-Rom is much more interesting and richer than a simple cassette tape that PSU learners normally used in classroom teaching and learning. Numerous studies have proved that multimedia classroom better facilitates English learning than a traditional classroom. Classroom management In terms of the instruction time, SCAU students received more of it than PSU students at the university stage. PSU students had three teaching hours per week and one year FE courses while SCAU students had four teaching hours per week and two years FE courses. However, PSU students, on average received 11.1 years English instruction while SCAU students received 8.5 years.

143

3 1 - 2550

As for class size, PSU students seemed to have had an advantage: about 33 students in one PSU students class while there were about 64 in one SCAU students class. The larger SCAU students class made it less feasible to devote much time to the active use of vocabulary by speaking and writing in class. Testing As for the testing style, PSU students again seemed to have been given an advantage. Tests for PSU students contained more subjective parts than did tests for SCAU students. In an analysis of the mid-term and final exams of FE course at PSU, it was found that 52% of the total scoring of the tests came from subjective parts of the tests. Subjective items are those in which the students must produce at least one English word in writing. According to the washback theory of testing, subjective testing styles have a washback effect which will facilitate students active use of vocabulary in speaking and writing. It might be that the washback effect from the tests at PSU was not a powerful influence on the students. In China, normally, about 85% of the scores in the mid-term, final exams and the National College Tests are for objective items in the form of multiple choice questions and about 15% of the marks are for testing writing which is the subjective. Sometimes, 10% of an exams score is also for the subjective part. Therefore, the highest percentage of the subjective part is 25%. Therefore, its very possible that the objective testing items didnt produce a positive washback on the active use of the vocabulary. Laufer and Paribakht (1998) argued that limited exposure and lack of output practice hindered the successful passage of words from receptive to productive vocabulary. Therefore, normally, the lack of output practice for the EFL learners may be an important factor in accounting for differences in receptive and productive vocabulary size. However, compared with SCAU

144

3 1 - 2550

students, PSU students did not show the sign of lacking output practice because 39% of their time was for meaning-focused output. What PSU learners need might be more time for form -focused instruction and fluency development. Although 22% for form-focused instruction was pretty close to Nation s 25%, still it is not enough because form -focused instruction involves vocabulary which is one main factor. SCAU students seemed to be disadvantageous in terms of the time for output practice, but they were compensated by the quantity and varieties of the vocabulary they were instructed, and the National Exam which led to strong instrumental motivation. SCAU students still lacked output practice in using their vocabulary productively and fluently. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS Four major implications can be drawn from the findings of this study. They are discussed in terms of the following aspects: learners motivation; course and materials; classroom management; and testing style. Learners motivation First of all, the most important job might be to increase the students motivation to study the foreign language. No matter whether a student is motivated intrinsically or extrinsically or no matter the motivation is instrumental or integrative, the greater the motivation the higher the performance. Course and materials It is important to set different goals for passive and active vocabularies in the university and it is helpful to inform the students of the goals of their vocabulary learning. Rather than word types, students should be provided with vocabulary list accompanied with word families, pronunciation, and L1 and L2 glossing for each unit..In addition to what can 145

3 1 - 2550

be found from the textbooks, PSU students should be exposed to larger quantity of new vocabulary and more varieties of the texts. Besides these, more multimedia technology should be used in the English classroom at PSU. Classroom management It might be important to lengthen the instruction time for studying English. The FE courses in Thailand last only one year while the FE courses in China last for two years. PSU students have much time for the active use of vocabulary in speaking and writing in class and they normally get teachers feedback for their oral or written tasks. For PSU students, the output-focused learning and teaching seemed inadequate for activating the passive vocabulary. Therefore, other aspects should be taken into consideration such as whether the motivation is strong enough or whether the instruction time is enough or not. For teachers at SCAU, while considering this point, the large class size needs to be taken into consideration at the same time. The most important point might be to use the appropriate learning and teaching strategies dealing with the low-frequency words. The teacher should not spend substantial amounts of class time explaining and instituting practice with low-frequency vocabulary according to Nation (2001). If this is carried out, SCAU students will have more time for active practice of vocabulary in class. Testing style The positive washback effect of the testing needed increasing. In PSU students tests, about half of the scores are for subjective items. However, the washback effect did not seem to work satisfactorily. Are those items subjective enough? SCAU students need to take advantage of the positive washback of subjective items to facilitate the output practice of the vocabulary such as by introducing more subjective items in the test.

146

3 1 - 2550

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The results of the present study provide plenty of rich food for thought for language teachers. Two paradoxes are displayed. The first paradox is: why havent the output-focused learning and teaching helped PSU students produce higher AR and FAW test outcomes than their SCAU counterparts, even though comparative class sizes and the testing styles would seem to give PSU students an advantage? Secondly, with big class size and about 85% objective items in the testing materials, why did SCAU students still achieve higher in AR and FAW tests than did their PSU counterparts? All of these lead to the following interesting questions for further studies: 1. Whether or not the stronger instrumental motivation, the full use of multimedia teaching and learning in the classroom, the more English instruction time, the more new vocabulary required to learn, and the more difficult and different varieties of the reading texts will nurture PSU students vocabulary learning significantly still needs further investigation. 2. Is it possible that output-focused learning and teaching methodology does not fit Thai students? If not, what is the most suitable method? 3. Is it possible that PSU students do not adopt many vocabulary learning strategies compared with SCAU students? 4. How and what can be done to effectively help students activate more vocabulary knowledge for either PSU students or SCAU students? 5. Would it be helpful to offer PSU students a systematic new vocabulary list with pronunciation, both L1 and L2 glossing for each text or unit? 6. Why doesnt the washback effect of the testing on PSU students work satisfactorily?

147

3 1 - 2550

7. How well can EFL learners master the 2000 high-frequency words passively and actively when their high school instruction ends? Acknowledgement: We wish to express our deep gratitude to Professor Norbert Schmitt for offering us the full-length article of Schmitt et al.s (2001). REFERENCES Bogaards, P. 2000. Testing L2 vocabulary at a high level: The case of the Euralex French tests. Applied Linguistics, 21, 490-516. Deng, Z. C.& Zeng, Z. P. 1998. A survey of the vocabulary size of university students. Foreign Languages and Foreign Languages Learning and Teaching, 10, 19-20. Deng Z. C. 2001. On the English vocabulary size research. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 57-62. Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford. Basil Blackwell : English Syllabus. 1992. Department of General Education, Thailand. Faerch, C., Haastrup,K., & Phillipson, R. 1984. Learner language and language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Goulden, R.,P. Nation & J.Read. 1990. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11, 341-363. Greidanus, T., & Nienhuis, L. 2001. Testing the quality of word knowledge in L2 by means of word associations. Modern Language Journal. 85, 567-577. Gui, S. C. 1983. The survey of vocabulary size of Chinese students. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.

148

3 1 - 2550

Gui S.C. 1985. A study of the English vocabulary size of Chinese English majors. Modern Foreign Language. 1. Hirsh, D. & Nation, P. 1992. What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for leisure? Reading in a Foreign Language. 8. 689-696. Huang, J. B. et al. 2004. The College English course requiring the revision of the Word List in the National Curriculum. Foreign Language World. 1. Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hulstijin, J.H. 1992. Retention of inferred and given word meanings: experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P.J. Arnaud & H. Bejoint. 113-125. Hulstijn, J.H., Hotllander, M. & Gredianus, T. 1996. Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: the influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrences of unknown words. Modern Language Journal. 80, 327-339. Jacobs, G.M., Dufon, P. & Fong Cheng H. 1994. L1 and L2 vocabulary glosses in L2 reading passages: their effectiveness for increasing comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading. 17, 19-28. Krashen, S. D. & Terrel, T. D. 1983. The Natural Approach. s.l. : Pergammon Press. Laufer, B. & Nation, P. 1995. Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics. 16, 307-322. Laufer, B. 1998. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistics. 12, 255-271.

149

3 1 - 2550

Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T. S. 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: effects of language learning context. Language Learning. 48, 365-391. Laufer, B., Elder, C., Hill, K. & Congdon, P. 2004. Size and strength: do we need both to measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing. 21, 202-226. Laufer, B. & Goldstein, Z. 2004. Testing vocabulary knowledge: size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning. 54, 399-436. Long, M. 1998. Instructed interlanguage development in Second Language Acquistion. L.M. Beebe, ed. 115-141. New York : Newbury House. Ma, G. H. 2001. Exploring the English vocabulary level of sci -tech-majored college students. Foreign Language Education. 2, 48-52. Myong, H.K. 1995. Glossing in incidental and intentional learning of foreign language vocabulary and reading. University of Hawaii Working Papers in ELT. 13, 49-94. National Curriculum for Chinese College English. 1999. s.l.: Shanghai Higher Education Press. Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, P. 1983. Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5(1), 12-25. Nation, P. & Waring, R. 1997. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, Pedagogy. Schmitt, N. and MacCarthy, M., eds. 6-19. New York: Cambridge University Press.

150

3 1 - 2550

Qian, D.D. 1999. Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review. 56, 282-308. Qian, D.D. 2002. Investigating relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: an assessment perspective. Language Learning. 52, 513-536. Qian, D.D. & Schedle M. 2004. Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading performance. Language Testing. 21, 28-52. Read, J.S 1993. The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing. 10, 355-371. Read, J. 1995. Validating the word associates format as a measure of depth of vocabulary knowledge. Paper presented at the 17th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Long Beach, CA. Read, J. 1998. Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal. 19, 12-25. Read, J. 2004. Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146-161. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. 2001. Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing. 18, 55-88. Shao H. 2002. A study of the vocabulary size of Chinese Normal University students. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 34, 421-425. Sripetpun, W., 2000. The influence of vocabulary size on vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning strategies. Doctorial Dissertation.Victoria: La Trobe University, Australia. (Unpublished)

151

3 1 - 2550

T Cobbs website. 2005. The VocabProfile, the Text Lex Compare and the FreqList (online) Available : http://www.lextutor.ca [2005, Septemeber 17] Waring, R. 1997. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners. Immaculata (Notree Dame Seishin University, Okayama), 1, 53-68. Watanabe, Y. 1997. Input, intake and retention: effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign vocabulary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.19, 287-307. Yu A. J. 1991. A study of the vocabulary size of trainees. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. 1, 42-47. Zhou D. J., 1999. A study of the Band 4 vocabulary size of Chinese non-English majors. Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching. 12, 34-36.

152

3 1 - 2550