Advertisement

Vocabulary Size, Reading Proficiency and Curricular Design: The Case of College Chinese, Russian and Spanish

  • Jane F. HackingEmail author
  • Fernando Rubio
  • Erwin Tschirner
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 37)

Abstract

A key goal of college foreign language study is L2 literacy development and literary texts from the target culture form the backbone of upper division curricula. Much of the empirical research to date on vocabulary size and reading proficiency has focused on learners of English. This article presents data on the reading proficiency level of 155 college students of Chinese (N = 46), Russian (N = 48) and Spanish (N = 61) and considers these results in terms of these same students’ receptive vocabulary knowledge in the language. The study shows very high correlations between reading proficiency and receptive vocabulary size and that, in general, the vocabulary sizes of the college students participating in the study were not sufficient to read at the Advanced level. We suggest that programs and instructors consider a more intentional approach to vocabulary learning across the curriculum.

Keywords

Reading Proficiency Vocabulary Postsecondary Assessment Chinese Russian Spanish 

References

  1. ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA: ACTFL. Available from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
  2. ACTFL. (2013). ACTFL reading proficiency test (RPT). Familiarization manual and ACTFL proficiency guidelines 2012Reading. Retrieved June 8, 2016, from http://www.languagetesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ACTFL_FamManual_Reading_2015.pdf
  3. ACTFL. (2016). Assigning CEFR ratings to ACTFL assessments. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/reports/Assigning_CEFR_Ratings_To_ACTFL_Assessments.pdf
  4. Bernhardt, E. (2011). Understanding advanced second-language reading. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 413–437.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969409547861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hacking, J., & Tschirner, E. (2017). Reading proficiency, vocabulary development and curricular design: The case of college Russian. Foreign Language Annals, 50(3), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hirsh, D., & Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689–696. Available at: http://nflrc.lll.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl82hirsh.pdf
  10. Hu, M., & Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403–430.Google Scholar
  11. IELTS. (n.d.). IELTS writing mark schemes. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://www.examenglish.com/IELTS/IELTS_Writing_MarkSchemes.html
  12. Institute for Test Research and Test Development. (2013). Assessing evidence of validity of the ACTFL reading proficiency test (RPT). Retrieved June 8, 2016, from http://www.languagetesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Technical-Report-ACTFL-RPT-for-publication.pdf
  13. Khoii, R., & Sharififar, S. (2013). Memorization versus semantic mapping in L2 vocabulary acquisition. English Language Teaching Journal, 67(2), 199–209.  https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, J. F., & Van Patten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320.  https://doi.org/10.2307/40264524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin, C.-C., & Hirsh, D. (2012). Manipulating instructional method: The effect on productive vocabulary use. In D. Hirsh (Ed.), Current perspectives in second language vocabulary research (pp. 117–148). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  18. Milton, J. (2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York, NY: Heinle and Heinle.Google Scholar
  20. 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.63.1.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nation, I. S. P. (2007). Fundamental issues in modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 35–43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nation, I. S. P. (2014). How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000 words? Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  23. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
  24. Rifkin, B. (2005). A ceiling effect in traditional classroom foreign language instruction: Data from Russian. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 3–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00262.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article. Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the vocabulary levels test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.  https://doi.org/10.1191/026553201668475857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2010). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
  29. Staehr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139–152.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Terrell, T. (1986). Acquisition in the natural approach: The binding/access framework. The Modern Language Journal, 70(3), 213–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05266.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tschirner, E. (2004). Breadth of vocabulary and advanced English study: An empirical investigation. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 26–38. Available at: http://www.itt-leipzig.de/static/literatur/Tschirner_2004_Breadth_of_Vocabulary.pdf
  32. Webb, S. (2009). The effects of pre-learning vocabulary on reading comprehension and writing. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(3), 441–470.  https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.3.441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xing, P., & Fulcher, G. (2007). Reliability assessment for two versions of vocabulary levels tests. System, 35(2), 181–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane F. Hacking
    • 1
    Email author
  • Fernando Rubio
    • 2
  • Erwin Tschirner
    • 3
  1. 1.World Languages and CulturesUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  2. 2.Second Language Teaching and Research CenterUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Herder InstituteUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations