Predictability of the Cloze Test as a Measure of Written Productive Vocabulary
2
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The present study explores whether cloze test scores under two different scoring methods and English test scores on TOEIC can predict written productive vocabulary of Korean EFL learners. One hundred and fourteen students’ written productive vocabulary in summary writing was analyzed using VocabProfile, which provides four frequency-based vocabulary level lists: the most frequent 1,000 words (K1: function words and content words), second most frequent 1,000 words (K2), academic word lists (AWL), and off the list words (OLW). The study found that the exact-word method led to significant differences in K1, function words, K2, AWL, and OLW, and the acceptable-word method resulted in significant differences in K1, function words, K2, and OLW, indicating only one difference in AWL. On the other hand, the English proficiency test yielded significant differences in K1 and function words alone. These study results suggest that the cloze test under the two different scoring methods did not make a remarkable difference in the predictability of Korean EFL learners’ written productive vocabulary. In addition, both cloze test scores and general English test scores showed they could serve as predictors of Korean EFL learners’ written productive vocabulary, but cloze test scores led to more significant differences in vocabulary use in writing.
Abstract
The present study explores whether cloze test scores under two different scoring methods and English test scores on TOEIC can predict written productive vocabulary of Korean EFL learners. One hundred and fourteen students’ written productive vocabulary in summary writing was analyzed using VocabProfile, which provides four frequency-based vocabulary level lists: the most frequent 1,000 words (K1: function words and content words), second most frequent 1,000 words (K2), academic word lists (AWL), and off the list words (OLW). The study found that the exact-word method led to significant differences in K1, function words, K2, AWL, and OLW, and the acceptable-word method resulted in significant differences in K1, function words, K2, and OLW, indicating only one difference in AWL. On the other hand, the English proficiency test yielded significant differences in K1 and function words alone. These study results suggest that the cloze test under the two different scoring methods did not make a remarkable difference in the predictability of Korean EFL learners’ written productive vocabulary. In addition, both cloze test scores and general English test scores showed they could serve as predictors of Korean EFL learners’ written productive vocabulary, but cloze test scores led to more significant differences in vocabulary use in writing.
참고문헌 (37)
- Aiken, K. G., "Using cloze procedure as an overall language proficiency test", TESOL Quarterly, 11(1), pp.59~78 (1977)
- Bachman, L., "Performance on cloze tests with fixed-ratio and rational deletions", TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), pp.535~556 (1985)
- Brown, J. D., "Relative merits of four methods for scoring cloze tests", Modern Language Journal, 64(3), pp.311~317 (1980)
- Brown, J. D., "Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy" (2001), Longman
- Brown, J. D., "The alternatives in language assessment", TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), pp.653~675 (1998)
- Brown, J. D., "A Focus on language test development", pp.143~161 (2001), University of Hawaii
- 채은영, "A Study of a Timed Cloze Test for Evaluating L2 Proficiency", 영어교육, 70(3), pp.117~135 (2015), 한국영어교육학회[DOI]
- Clausing, G., "On the scoring of cloze tests", Teaching German, 11(2), pp.74~81 (1978)
- (2002)[URL]
- Coxhead, A., "Teaching and Language Corpora(TALC) 2000 Conference Proceedings", pp.73~89 (2002), Rodopi
- Gellert, A. S., "Cloze tests may be quick, but are they dirty? Development and preliminary validation of a cloze test of reading comprehension", Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31(1), pp.16~28 (2013)
- Hanania, E., "Interrelationships among three tests of language proficiency : Standardized ESL, cloze, and writing", TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), pp.97~109 (1986)
- Harsch, C., "Comparing C-tests and yes", no vocabulary size tests as predictors of receptive language skills, 2016, pp.33(4), 555~575
- Henricksen, B., "Three dimensions of vocabulary development", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), pp.303~317 (1999)
- Ito, A., "Two types of translation tests : their reliability and validity", System, 32(3), pp.395~405 (2004)
- Keck, C., "The use of paraphrase in summary writing : A comparison of L1 and L2writers", Journal of Second Language Writers, 15(4), pp.261~278 (2006)
- Keck, C., "Copying, paraphrasing, and academic writing development : A reexamination of L1 and L2 summarization practices", Journal of Second Language Writing, 25, pp.4~22 (2014)
- Keshavarz, H. M., "Collocational competence and cloze test performance : A study of Iranian EFL learners", International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), pp.81~91 (2007)
- Kobayashi, M., "Method effects on reading comprehension test performance : Text organization and response format", Language Testing, 19(2), pp.193~220 (2002)
- Kobayashi, M., "Cloze test revisited : Exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring method", The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), pp.571~586 (2002)
- Laufer, B., "The development of L2 lexis in the expression of the advanced learner", The Modern Language Journal, 75(4), pp.440~448 (1991)
- Laufer, B., "Vocabulary size and use : Lexical richness in L2 written production", Applied Linguistics, 16(3), pp.307~322 (1995)
- Lee, Soyoung., "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(4), pp.281~296 (2009)
- Meara, P. M., "P Lex : A simple and effective way of describing the lexical characteristics of short texts", Prospect, 16(3), pp.5~24 (2001)
- Milton, J., "Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition" (2009), Multilingual Matters
- Morris, L., "Vocabulary profiles as predictors of the academic performance of teaching English as a second language trainees", System, 32(1), pp.75~87 (2004)
- Morris, L, "The interaction of morphology and lexis in the development in ESL learners", Paper presented at the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics Conference (2002)
- Oller, W., "Scoring methods and difficulty levels for cloze tests of ESL proficiency", Modern Language Journal, 56(3), pp.151~158 (1972)
- O’Toole, J. M., "The deceptive mean : Conceptual scoring of cloze entries differentially advantages more able readers", Language Testing, 28(1), pp.127~144 (2011)
- Paribakht, T. S., "The relationship between academic vocabulary coverage and scores on a standardized English proficiency test", Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, pp.121~132 (2016)
- 유영숙, "Lexical Profiles of Korean EFL Summary Writing From Online Spoken Texts", 현대영어교육, 17(3), pp.79~97 (2016), 현대영어교육학회
- Sadeghi, K., "Phrase cloze: A better measure of reading?", The Reading Matrix, 14(1), pp.76~94 (2014)
- Saeedi, S., "Do C-test and cloze test procedure measure what they purport to be measuring? A case of criterion-related validity", International Journal of Human and Social Science, 6(2), pp.99~108 (2011)
- Stubbs, B., "The cloze test as a measure of English proficiency", Modern Language Journal, 58(5-6), pp.239~241 (1974)
- Taylor, W. L., "Cloze procedure : A new tool for measuring readability", Journalism Quarterly, 30(4), pp.415~433 (1953)
- Watanabe, Y., "A meta-analysis of second language cloze testing research", Second Language Studies, 26(2), pp.103~133 (2008)