L2 Writing and Vocabulary Development: A Comparison of Lexical Quality Across Written Compositions with Different Planning Activities
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of the study is mainly to examine whether learners are able to improve their level of vocabulary through different types of planning activities. In addition, the study also aims at exploring the extent to which their vocabulary is improved and what difference is made with regard to the planning activities, which they utilized during their writing tasks. To see if planning activities was useful in improving the lexical quality of writing, three sets of timed compositions produced by 71 university students were analyzed using the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP). The results indicated that there were significant differences among written compositions in terms of the three variables—word token, lexical variation, and lexical density. Overall, word token at most of the vocabulary levels tended to increase regardless of any type of planning activities while learners showed vocabulary improvement in terms of lexical variation including 1000 and ‘not in the list’ level. However, the result of lexical density showed that the planning activities did not affect the lexical density of the composition since learners got the highest scores in the first writing task with no planning activity. The implications of these findings are discussed with the usefulness of planning activities which help learners to effectively retrieve vocabulary and select correct forms.
Abstract
The purpose of the study is mainly to examine whether learners are able to improve their level of vocabulary through different types of planning activities. In addition, the study also aims at exploring the extent to which their vocabulary is improved and what difference is made with regard to the planning activities, which they utilized during their writing tasks. To see if planning activities was useful in improving the lexical quality of writing, three sets of timed compositions produced by 71 university students were analyzed using the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP). The results indicated that there were significant differences among written compositions in terms of the three variables—word token, lexical variation, and lexical density. Overall, word token at most of the vocabulary levels tended to increase regardless of any type of planning activities while learners showed vocabulary improvement in terms of lexical variation including 1000 and ‘not in the list’ level. However, the result of lexical density showed that the planning activities did not affect the lexical density of the composition since learners got the highest scores in the first writing task with no planning activity. The implications of these findings are discussed with the usefulness of planning activities which help learners to effectively retrieve vocabulary and select correct forms.
참고문헌 (34)
- Astika,G.G, "Analytical assessment of foreign students’ writing", RELC Journal, 24, pp.61~72 (1993)
- Beglar, D., "Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests", Language Testing, 16(2), pp.131~162 (1999)
- Coady, J., "Second language vocabulary acquisition:A rationale for pedagogy" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Engber,C, "The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions", Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, pp.139~155 (1995)
- Garnder,D, "Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children’s narrative and expository reading materials", Applied Linguistics, 25(1), pp.1~37 (2004)
- Goodfellow, R., "Assessing learners’ writing using lexical frequency", ReCALL, 14(1), pp.133~145 (2002)
- Harley,B, "The lexicon in language research. In Lexical issues in language learning", pp.1~29 (1995), Benjamins
- Henriken,B, "Three dimensions of vocabulary development", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp.303~317 (1999)
- Huckin, T., "Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language", Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 21, pp.181~193 (1999)
- Kelly, C., "Writing from writing intro" (2008), Cambridge University Press
- Laufer,B, "What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines", pp.113~132 (1989), Multilingual Matters
- Laufer,B, "The lexical profile of second language writing: Does it change over time?", RELC Journal, 25(2), pp.21~33 (1994)
- Laufer,B, "The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different?", Applied Linguistics, 19(2), pp.255~271 (1998)
- Laufer, B., "Taking the easy way out: non-use and misuse foreign-language students", Language Learning, 46, pp.101~135 (1985)
- Laufer, B., "Vocabulary size and use—lexical richness in L2 written performance", Applied Linguistics, 16, pp.307~322 (1995)
- Laufer, B., "The relationship between passive and active vocabularies:effects of language learning context.Language", Language Learning, 48(3), pp.365~391 (1998)
- Lee,S.H, "ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction", System, 31, pp.537~561 (2003)
- Leki, I., "Students’ perceptions of EAP writing instruction and writing needs across the disciplines", TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), pp.81~101 (1994)
- L.i,Y, "Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities", System, 28, pp.229~245 (2000)
- Linnarud,M, "Lexis in composition: A performance analysis of Swedish learners’ written English" (1986), Lund Studies in English
- Muncie,J, "Process writing and vocabulary development:comparing Lexical Frequency Profile across drafts", System, 30, pp.225~235 (2002)
- Nation,P, "Teaching and Learning Vocabulary" (1990), Newbury House Publishers
- Raimes,A, "What unskilled ESL students do as they write: a classroom study of composing", TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), pp.229~258 (1985)
- Read,J, "Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners", RELC Journal, 19(2), pp.12~25 (1988)
- Santos,T, "Professors’ reaction to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students", TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), pp.69~88 (1988)
- Schmitt, N., "Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and practical suggestions", ELT Journal, 49, pp.133~143 (1995)
- Silva,T, "Towards an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: the ESL research and its implications", TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), pp.657~677 (1993)
- Swain,M, "Three functions of output in second language learning. In Principle and practice in applied linguistics studies in honour of Henry Widdowson", pp.125~144 (1995), Oxford University Press
- Swain, M., "Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate a step towards second language learning", Applied Linguistics, 16(3), pp.372~391 (1995)
- Uzawa, K., "Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: lowering or keeping up the standards", The Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, pp.179~191 (1989)
- Walters, J., "Language awareness in non-native writers: metalinguistic judgments of need for revision", Language Awareness, 5(1), pp.3~25 (1996)
- Xue, G., "A university word list", Language Learning and Communication, 3(2), pp.215~229 (1984)
- Yu,G, "Lexical diversity in writing and speaking task performance", Applied Linguistics, 30, pp.1~24 (2009)
- Zamel,V, "The composing processes of advanced ESL students: six case studies", TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), pp.165~187 (1983)