Korean EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Use in Writing According to the Cloze Scoring Methods and Item Types
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present study explores whether Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary in writing differs according to cloze scoring methods and test item types. Two cloze tests (C1 and C2) were administered to the students to provide different proportions of function word items. Cl contains 23 function words out of 30 test items, whereas C2 consists of 12 function words out of 25 test items. The scoring methods used in the study were the exact-word method and the acceptable-word method. Korean college students (n=114) were asked to write an English composition after they read an English book. The students were assigned to a high and low proficiency group in accordance with their scores on the two cloze tests. The students’vocabulary profiles were produced by VocabProfile, which provides four lexical frequency lists:the first 1000 frequent words including function words and content words, the second 1000frequent words, academic word list, and off the list words. The results indicated that cloze scores of C1 did not differentiate the students’ vocabulary use in writing across proficiency groups regardless of scoring methods, showing significant differences in K1, FW, and OLW. On the other hand, those of C2 demonstrated significantly different word token percentages in K1 and K2 under the exact-method and K1, FW, and K2 under the acceptable-word method. Findings and implications are discussed in more detail.
Abstract
The present study explores whether Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary in writing differs according to cloze scoring methods and test item types. Two cloze tests (C1 and C2) were administered to the students to provide different proportions of function word items. Cl contains 23 function words out of 30 test items, whereas C2 consists of 12 function words out of 25 test items. The scoring methods used in the study were the exact-word method and the acceptable-word method. Korean college students (n=114) were asked to write an English composition after they read an English book. The students were assigned to a high and low proficiency group in accordance with their scores on the two cloze tests. The students’vocabulary profiles were produced by VocabProfile, which provides four lexical frequency lists:the first 1000 frequent words including function words and content words, the second 1000frequent words, academic word list, and off the list words. The results indicated that cloze scores of C1 did not differentiate the students’ vocabulary use in writing across proficiency groups regardless of scoring methods, showing significant differences in K1, FW, and OLW. On the other hand, those of C2 demonstrated significantly different word token percentages in K1 and K2 under the exact-method and K1, FW, and K2 under the acceptable-word method. Findings and implications are discussed in more detail.
참고문헌 (21)
- Abraham, R. G., "The meaning of cloze test scores : An item difficulty perspective", Modern Language Journal, 76, pp.468~479 (1992)
- Aitken, K. G., "Using cloze procedure as an overall language proficiency test", TESOL Quarterly, 11, pp.59~78 (1977)
- Bachman, L., "Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions", TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp.535~556 (1985)
- Brown, J. D., "Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests", The Modern Language Journal, 64, pp.311~317 (1980)
- Brown, J. D., "Cloze item difficulty", JALT Journal, 11, pp.46~67 (1989)
- Brown, J. D., "The alternatives in language assessment", TESOL Quarterly, 32, pp.653~675 (1998)
- Brown, J. D., "The emperor’s new cloze: Strategies for revising cloze tests, In Focus on language test development", pp.143~161 (2001), University of Hawaii
- Clausing, G., "On the scoring of cloze tests", Teaching German, 11(2), pp.74~81 (1978)
- [URL]
- Hanania, E., "Interrelationships among three tests of language proficiency : Standardized ESL, cloze, and writing", TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp.97~109 (1986)
- Jenks, D., "Factors affecting cloze test performance", The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 23, pp.315~333 (2011)
- Keshavarz, H. M., "Collocational competence and cloze test performance : A study of Iranian EFL learners", International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17, pp.81~91 (2007)
- Kobayashi, M., "Method effects on reading comprehension test performance : Text organization and response format", Language Testing, 19, pp.193~220 (2002)
- Lee, S., "Cloze test as a measure of EFL writing proficiency", English Teaching, 52(3), pp.151~172 (1997)
- Lee, D. Y. W., "Making a bigger deal of the smaller words : Function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners", Journal of the Second Language Writing, 18, pp.281~296 (2009)
- Morris, L., "The interaction of morphology and lexis in the development in ESL learners", Paper given at the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (2002)
- Oller, J., "Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach" (1979), Longman
- Oller, W., "Scoring methods and difficulty levels for cloze tests of ESL proficiency", Modern Language Journal, 56, pp.151~158 (1972)
- O’Toole, J. M., "The deceptive mean : Conceptual scoring of cloze entries differentially advantages more able readers", Language Testing, 28, pp.127~144 (2011)
- Stubbs, B., "The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency", Modern Language Journal, 58, pp.239~241 (1974)
- Taylor, W. L., "Cloze procedure : A new tool for measuring readability", Journalism Quarterly, 30, pp.415~433 (1953)