Abstract
Word recognition is a basic aspect of vocabulary skill, and a critical skill in fluent reading. Native speakers of English can recognize single words in about one tenth of a second. Learners are somewhat slower, but this difference is difficult to measure without sensitive equipment. This chapter describes how we developed a test of word recognition for EFL learners, called Q_Lex. In our approach, words are hidden in nonsense letter strings and this slows recognition speed to a level that personal computers can easily measure. Learners are assessed on the basis of native speakers’ reaction time norms. We describe the development and validation of this tool and the measurement principles that underlie it. Especially, we emphasize how we sought to improve its reliability. Finally, we describe an experiment with Q_Lex to investigate learners at different levels of proficiency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Akamatsu, N. (2008). The effects of training on automatization of word recognition in English as a foreign language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 175–193.
Aizawa, K., Ishikawa, S., & Murata, M. (2005). JACET 8000 eitango. Tokyo: Kirihara Shoten.
Cattell, J. M. (1886). On the time taken up by cerebral operations. Mind, 11, 377–392.
Cattell, J. M. (1947). The time it takes to recognize and name letters, pictures, and colors. In: A. T. Poffenberger. (Ed.), James McKeen Cattell: Man of science (pp. 13–25). Lancaster, PA: The Science Press. (Translated from German; Ueber die Zeit der Erkennung und Benennung von Schriftzeichen, Bildern und Farben. 1885 Philosophische Studien, 2: 635–650.)
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eyckmans, J., Van de Velde, H., van Hout, R., & Boers, F. (2007). Learners’ response behaviour in Yes/No vocabulary tests. In H. Daller, J. Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 59–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 35(1), 116–124.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language. Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harrington, M. (2006). The lexical decision task as a measure of L2 lexical proficiency. EUROSLA Yearbook 1 (2006) (pp. 147–168). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: A reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 258–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamimoto, T. (2004). The vocabulary levels test: A relationship between target items and distractors. Paper Presented at the 2004 Eurosla conference, San Sebastian, Spain.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (2001). Passive vocabulary size and speed of meaning recognition: Are they related? EUROSLA Yearbook 1(2001) (pp. 7–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meara, P. M. (1986). The Dígame project. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Experimental approaches to second language learning (pp. 101–110). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.
Meara, P. M. (2005). Designing vocabulary tests for English, Spanish and other languages. In C. Butler, M. A. Gómez González, & S, Doval Suárez (Eds.), The dynamics of language use: Functional and contrastive perspectives (pp. 271–285). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meara, P. M., & Milton, J. L. (2003). X_Lex v 2.05. Swansea: Lognostics. Retrieved from http://www.lognostics.co.uk/tools/.
Miller, G. A. (1963). Language and communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miralpeix, I., & Meara, P. M. (2014). Knowledge of the written word. In J. Milton & T. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge (pp. 30–44). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Milton, J. & Fitzpatrick, T. (2014). Dimensions of vocabulary knowledge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Prinzmetal, W., & Silvers, B. (1994). The word without the tachistoscope. Perception and Psychophysics, 55(3), 296–312.
Schneider, W., Essman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 53–67.
Stanovich, K. E. (1982). Individual differences in the cognitive processes of Reading: 1. Word Decoding. Journal of Learning Disabilities., 15, 485–493.
Verspoor, M. H., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1: Approximations to English
Letters randomly selected from the alphabet are known as zero-order approximation strings. Words placed in masks made from such a selection of letters are easy to recognize since the masking string does not resemble English, and the hidden word stands out against this background. To increase difficulty, first-order approximation strings can be used as masking strings. To construct these strings, a letter is chosen at random from a text, and then every nth subsequent letter is added to the string. The end result is a masking string that reflects the frequency of English letters. (The letter ‘e’ appears more often than ‘z’, for example.) First order approximations have a closer resemblance to English, so words hidden in this kind of masking string are better camouflaged. Second-order approximation strings reflect the distribution of 2-letter pairs in English words—the sequence ‘ab’ is much more likely to occur in these strings than the sequence ‘jj’, for example. As a result, these masking strings camouflage the hidden word more effectively still. The three examples below illustrate this effect. The zero-order masking string contains only one vowel, so it is unlike any word spelled in English. Conversely, the first and second order masking strings are increasingly English-like. (Note that in the second order string, the word ‘vein’ has appeared fortuitously in the masking string. This would need to be removed for content validity.)
Zero order approximation string: gwdfdqtablevwcu
First order approximation string: lusetablechtacvutno
Second order approximation string: einentablerveinem
Appendix 2: The Instructions Provided to Subjects in the Test
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Coulson, D., Meara, P. (2017). The Development, Validation and Use of a Test of Word Recognition for English Learners. In: Al-Mahrooqi, R., Coombe, C., Al-Maamari, F., Thakur, V. (eds) Revisiting EFL Assessment. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32601-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32601-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-32599-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-32601-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)