Vocabulary Size Of Learners Research Articles

Vocabulary loading in the Studio textbook series: a 40% decline in the vocabulary input for French GCSE

ABSTRACT The vocabulary content of the French MFL curriculum in England has received criticism (Häcker, M. 2008. Eleven pets and 20 ways to express one’s opinion: the vocabulary learners of German acquire at English secondary schools. The Language Learning Journal 36, no. 2: 215–26; Tschichold, C. 2012. French vocabulary in Encore Tricolore: do learners have a chance? The Language Learning Journal 40, no. 1: 7–19) for its small size, lack of thematic variety, and poor pedagogical exploitation in textbooks. Studies also note the small vocabulary knowledge of learners in UK compared with other French learners, ostensibly at the same CEFR B1 level (David, A. 2008. Vocabulary breadth in French L2 learners. The Language Learning Journal 36, no. 2: 167–80; Milton, J. 2006b. Language lite: learning French vocabulary in school. Journal of French Language Studies 16, no. 2: 187–205). This study examines the vocabulary content of the Studio series of French textbooks, first published in 2010, to see whether this situation has improved. Analysis shows the vocabulary loading of the textbooks has fallen over 40% compared with the previous books analysed by Tschichold (2012. French vocabulary in Encore Tricolore: do learners have a chance? The Language Learning Journal 40, no. 1: 7–19). This indicates a significant decline in the standard of learning for GCSE French since the vocabulary size of learners is so closely associated with their overall language proficiency. There are problems too with the thematic variety of teaching, the regularity of input, and the recycling of the lexical content. We argue this results from the guidance of advisory bodies such as the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (NCELP) and the latest curriculum design (Department for Education. 2015. Modern Foreign Languages GCSE Subject Content. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/485567/GCSE_subject_content_modern_foreign_langs.pdf (accessed 30 August, 2020)) MFL subject content so there is no clear standard for textbook writers to work to. Further, the guidance of advisory bodies such as the National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy (NCELP) and the latest curriculum design (Department for Education. 2021. GCSE MFL Subject Content Review. https://consult.education.gov.uk/ebacc-and-arts-and-humanities-team/gcse-mfl-subject-content-review/supporting_documents/GCSE%20MFL%20subject%20content%20document.pdf (accessed 14 March, 2021)), which damage standards of attainment in MFL by advocating minimal vocabulary content and a departure from thematic input.

Is Frequency Enough?: The Frequency Model in Vocabulary Size Testing

ABSTRACT Modern vocabulary size tests are generally based on the notion that the more frequent a word is in a language, the more likely a learner will know that word. However, this assumption has been seldom questioned in the literature concerning vocabulary size tests. Using the Vocabulary of American-English Size Test (VAST) based on the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), 403 English language learners were tested on a 10% systematic random sample of the first 5,000 most frequent words from that corpus. Pearson correlation between Rasch item difficulty (the probability that test-takers will know a word) and frequency was only r = 0.50 (r2 = 0.25). This moderate correlation indicates that the frequency of a word can only predict which words are known with only a limited degree of and that other factors are also affecting the order of acquisition of vocabulary. Additionally, using vocabulary levels/bands of 1,000 words as part of the structure of vocabulary size tests is shown to be questionable as well. These findings call into question the construct validity of modern vocabulary size tests. However, future confirmatory research is necessary to comprehensively determine the degree to which frequency of words and vocabulary size of learners are related.

Does L1 make a difference? Evidence from the receptive vocabulary size of Spanish and German EFL primary school learners

The present paper explores and compares the receptive vocabulary sizes of two groups of learners of different native languages. One of the most widely used vocabulary size tests is the Vocabulary Levels Test designed by Nation. Some reservations have been raised in relation to the adequacy of the Vocabulary Levels Test to estimate the vocabulary size of learners with Romance languages. In order to examine this reservation, this paper sets out to describe and compare the vocabulary size estimates of two groups of learners with different mother tongues, Spanish and German. A total of 41 German and 41 Spanish native speakers participated in the study. They averaged between 9 and 10 years of age and attended the 4th grade of primary education. Proficiency level tests revealed that their English level was comparable. Analysis of the results of the Vocabulary Levels Test show that mean and median values are very similar between the two language groups and no significant differences could be found. Results are discussed in light of critical constraints on word knowledge and vocabulary acquisition such as age and word origin.

Second language vocabulary growth at advanced level

This study investigated the receptive vocabulary growth of advanced EFL learners in an English-medium degree programme. The study used the Vocabulary Size Test in a cross-sectional design to measure the vocabulary size of learners at various stages of study. The effect of word frequency on vocabulary development and the presence of an implicational scale among frequency levels were also investigated. The results of the study suggest that learners’ vocabularies expand by about 500 words a year. However, there is evidence for severe attrition in the final year. Frequency is a significant factor in receptive vocabulary development, but an implicational scale could not be established.