How Do Korean College Students Perform in Two Different Vocabulary Assessments?
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study investigated Korean college students’ performance as measured by two different vocabulary assessment tools (the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT) and the Productive Vocabulary Use Task (PVUT)) and the relationship these assessments have with students’ writing proficiency. A total of 72 students participated in the study. The students were asked to take the PVLT and the PVUT and write an essay. They were also asked to write a reflection paper to assist in examining what kinds of processes they go through in vocabulary production for both tests. The results of the study indicated that the students’ ability to produce vocabulary and the number of lexical errors displayed in the results of the two different assessment tools were highly contingent on the test format. The students produced more target words in the PVLT since they were helped by clues of a few given initial letters of the target items. On the other hand, the students produced more alternatives than target words when allowed to choose words freely in the PVUT. As for the relationship between the students’ performance on the assessment tests and their writing proficiency, the results of the study showed that the students with a higher proficiency produced a higher number of correct target items and left fewer words unanswered in both tests. This study explores the possibility of using an alternative assessment tool and suggests that careful interpretation of the results of the different tests should be associated with assessment purposes.
Abstract
This study investigated Korean college students’ performance as measured by two different vocabulary assessment tools (the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT) and the Productive Vocabulary Use Task (PVUT)) and the relationship these assessments have with students’ writing proficiency. A total of 72 students participated in the study. The students were asked to take the PVLT and the PVUT and write an essay. They were also asked to write a reflection paper to assist in examining what kinds of processes they go through in vocabulary production for both tests. The results of the study indicated that the students’ ability to produce vocabulary and the number of lexical errors displayed in the results of the two different assessment tools were highly contingent on the test format. The students produced more target words in the PVLT since they were helped by clues of a few given initial letters of the target items. On the other hand, the students produced more alternatives than target words when allowed to choose words freely in the PVUT. As for the relationship between the students’ performance on the assessment tests and their writing proficiency, the results of the study showed that the students with a higher proficiency produced a higher number of correct target items and left fewer words unanswered in both tests. This study explores the possibility of using an alternative assessment tool and suggests that careful interpretation of the results of the different tests should be associated with assessment purposes.
참고문헌 (21)
- Anderson, R. C., "Comprehension and Teaching: Research reviews", pp.77~117 (1981), International Reading Association
- Bachman, L. P., "Language testing in practice" (1996), Oxford University Press
- Chapelle, C. A., "Are c-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research?", Second Language Research, 10(2), pp.157~187 (1994)
- (2002)[URL]
- Engber, C. A., "The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, pp.139~155 (1995)
- Faerch, K., "Learner language and language learning" (1984), Multilingual Matters
- Laufer, B., "Testing vocabulary knowledge : Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness", Language Learning, 54(3), pp.399~436 (2004)
- Laufer, B., "Vocabulary size and use : Lexical richness in L2 Written production", Applied Linguistics, 19, pp.255~271 (1995)
- Laufer, B., "A vocabulary size test of controlled productive ability", Language Testing, 16, pp.36~55 (1999)
- Lee, S. L., "From receptive to productive : Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in a postreading comprehension task", TESOL Quarterly, 40, pp.295~320 (2006)
- Meara, P., "Interlanguage", pp.225~235 (1984), Edinburgh University Press
- Melka, F., "Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy", pp.84~102 (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Munice, J., "Process writing and vocabulary development : Comparing Lexical Frequency Profiles across drafts", System, 30, pp.225~235 (2002)
- Nation, P., "Teaching and learning vocabulary" (1990), Newbury House
- Nation, P., "Learning vocabulary in another language" (2001), Cambridge University Press
- Palmberg, R., "Patterns of vocabulary development in foreign language learners", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, pp.202~221 (1987)
- 박보경, "Does the PVLT Provide an Accurate Measure of Productive Vocabulary Knowledge?", 영어교육, 67(2), pp.159~182 (2012), 한국영어교육학회
- Read, J., "Assessing Vocabulary" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Richards, J. C., "The role of vocabulary teaching", TESOL Quarterly, 10, pp.77~89 (1976)
- Scarcella, R., "Academic words and gender : ESL student performance on a text of academic lexicon", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), pp.27~49 (1998)
- Wesche, M., "Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge : Depth versus breadth", Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), pp.13~39 (1996)