Search

In response to McLean (2021), Laufer (2021) makes three claims which are either not supported by research or are based on studies with important limitations. First is that a vocabulary size, instead of a level, can be used to match learners with lexically appropriate materials despite test creators and research not supporting this. Second is that the word family (WF6) is an appropriate definition of the lexical unit if learners know at least 5,000 WF6s. The available evidence suggests that for such learners, knowledge of derivational forms is limited enough that it can result in the incorrect matching of learners to pedagogical materials (McLean, 2018). Additionally, foreign language learners who know 5,000 WF6s are rare. Third is that derivational forms are infrequent enough that knowledge of only a few affixes will support comprehension. This inference results from Laufer and Cobb's (2020) analysis, which has major limitations. [For McLean's 2021 article, "The Coverage Comprehension Model, Its Importance to Pedagogy and Research, and Threats to the Validity with Which It Is Operationalized," see EJ1296462. For Laufer's 2021 article, "Lexical Thresholds and Alleged Threats to Validity: A Storm in a Teacup?," see EJ1317203.]

When learners can comprehend 98% or more of the tokens within a text, the lexical difficulty of the text is unlikely to inhibit reading comprehension (Schmitt et al., 2011). This phenomenon will be referred to as the Coverage Comprehension Model (CCM). The CCM is present in countless articles that describe the percentage of tokens necessary to comprehend reading materials (e.g., Nation, 2006). Further, numerous studies operationalize the CCM to provide evidence that participants were able to comprehend reading materials (e.g., Feng & Webb, 2020) by estimating: (1) the lexical difficulty of a text; and (2) the lexical mastery level of a learner. However, the validity with which the CCM is operationalized is limited by the following four assumptions: (1) 26 out of 30 words on a levels test is an appropriate threshold for mastery of a 1,000-word band; (2) the word counting unit used when estimating the lexical difficulty of a text and the lexical ability of a learner is appropriate for the target learners; (3) the item format used in levels tests can appropriately capture the type of vocabulary knowledge necessary when reading; and (4) the number of items on a vocabulary levels test accurately represents the difficulty of the 1,000-word band. This paper applies the findings of research to evaluate the validity of the first two assumptions, and concludes that the validity with which the CCM is operationalized in research is limited.

Graded readers are a great asset to learners acquiring the vocabulary of another language. Homonyms, on the other hand, are a recognized source of trouble for students with that same goal. Publishers of graded readers control the presentation of old and new words, but does this control extend to homonyms? Are only the word forms controlled for--in which case, the unrelated meanings of "match" ("a pairing" and "a stick for starting fire") would together constitute two uses of the word? Or would these tally as separate words which, semantically and etymologically, they are? A comparison of a 4.2 million-word corpus of graded readers with previous research on the distributions of homonymic meanings in general English reveals that the meanings presented to learners are frequently quite different to those in general-purpose texts.

This study quantifies second language (L2) knowledge of aural single words and aural phrasal verbs (PVs) and investigates their relationship with L2 listening comprehension. An aural first language (L1) meaning recall test format was used to measure knowledge of 81 single-word and 81 PV target items (with equivalent frequencies of occurrence) among 224 Chinese tertiary-level learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL). Participants' L2 listening was measured with a version of the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). Participants' aural single-word and aural PV knowledge were compared, and their relationship with L2 listening were examined using correlation and multiple regression analysis. These analyses also included comparison between participants of relatively high (Independent Users) and relatively low (Basic Users) L2 listening proficiency. Although regression modelling showed that single-word test scores were most predictive of L2 listening comprehension, it also showed that PV test scores made a substantial contribution to the model's predictive capacity. In combination, single-word and PV test scores could predict 42.7% of the variance observed in the listening scores. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

In second language (L2) research, the lexical unit is often defined as a base word plus inflectional and derivational forms through Level 6 of Bauer and Nation's framework (WF6). WF6 use has been justified by the assumption that once a form is known, recognition of other WF6 members requires little extra effort. A more lenient view holds that an incomplete understanding of derivational forms is permissible if words containing the most frequent derivational affixes are known. This study assessed the validity of these views for L2 listening. Participants (N = 120) provided translations of 27 base words and 43 related affixational forms when listening. When participants knew one form (either the base word or an affixed form) they also knew the other just 25.1% of the time. For target words containing the most frequent derivational affixes, this was just 26.5%. Logistic regression found that learners' overall vocabulary level, several aspects of word frequency, and base word knowledge were all significant predictors of knowing affixed forms. However, when other variables were held constant, base word knowledge was a weak predictor of affixational form knowledge. These findings support neither the strict assumption nor the more lenient view of WF6 use for L2 listening among study participants.

In this focused methodological synthesis, the sample construction procedures of 110 second language (L2) instructed vocabulary interventions were assessed in relation to effect size-driven sample-size planning, randomization, and multisite usage. These three areas were investigated because inferential testing makes better generalizations when researchers consider them during the sample construction process. Only nine reports used effect sizes to plan or justify sample sizes in any fashion, with only one engaging in an "a priori" power procedure referencing vocabulary-centric effect sizes from previous research. Randomized assignment was observed in 56% of the reports while no report involved randomized sampling. Approximately 15% of the samples observed were constructed from multiple sites and none of these empirically investigated the effect of site clustering. Leveraging the synthesized findings, we conclude by offering suggestions for future L2 instructed vocabulary researchers to consider "a priori" effect size-driven sample planning processes, randomization, and multisite usage when constructing samples.

Reading rate, usually measured in words per minute, is a common operationalization of reading fluency in second language (L2) research and pedagogy. However, the impact of word length is often not addressed. This paper presents two studies showing how the number of characters in a text influences L2 reading time, independent of word counts, within classroom-based activities for Japanese university English as a Foreign Language students. In Study 1, students (N = 160) read two sets of graded texts manipulated to differ only in the total number of characters. The texts with more characters required significantly more time to read, with a small effect size. In Study 2, the average reading times for students (N = 27) throughout a semester-long timed reading course were strongly associated with text length as measured in characters, controlling for differences in word counts. Together these studies support the inclusion of character-based counting units when measuring L2 reading rate or reading amount.

We are encouraged by Cobb's (2022) description of changes to the Morpholex profiling tool (https://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/morpho/lex/) resulting in more accurate word classifications. This addresses one point in our recent commentary on Morpholex and on Laufer and Cobb's (2020) study using Morpholex (McLean & Stoeckel, 2021). However, Cobb seems to have overlooked or misunderstood some of our other concerns. In this response, we further clarify these issues and suggest three ways morphological text profiling might be improved. We then offer a partial replication of Laufer and Cobb's study to illustrate how those suggestions impact findings. [For Cobb's 2022 article, "Counting Affixes with Morpholex: A Response to McLean and Stoeckel (2021)," see EJ1343428.]

We compared three methods for increasing reading amount and reading self-efficacy among L2 learners. (1) We required a word-target group to read at least 2,500 words a week outside class. (2) We required a sustained silent reading (SSR) group to do (a) in class SSR for 15 minutes every week, and (b) to read one book per week. (3) We required a comparison group to read one book per week. In the post-treatment period, we required all participants to read one book per week outside class, and during the post-treatment, the word-target group read significantly more, relative to a previously established baseline. We argue that learners in the word-target group internalized extrinsic motivation from the word-targets, and this led them to do more free reading and increase their reading self-efficacy more than the other groups.

The last three decades have seen an increase of tests aimed at measuring an individual's vocabulary level or size. The target words used in these tests are typically sampled from word frequency lists, which are in turn based on language corpora. Conventionally, test developers sample items from frequency bands of 1000 words; different tests employ different sampling ratios. Some have as few as 5 or 10 items representing the underlying population of words, whereas other tests feature a larger number of items, such as 24, 30, or 40. However, very rarely are the sampling size choices supported by clear empirical evidence. Here, using a bootstrapping approach, we illustrate the effect that a sample-size increase has on confidence intervals of individual learner vocabulary knowledge estimates, and on the inferences that can safely be made from test scores. We draw on a unique dataset consisting of adult L1 Japanese test takers' performance on two English vocabulary test formats, each featuring 1000 words. Our analysis shows that there are few purposes and settings where as few as 5 to 10 sampled items from a 1000-word frequency band (1K) are sufficient. The use of 30 or more items per 1000-word frequency band and tests consisting of fewer bands is recommended.

Research suggests that testing (or retrieval) has the potential to enhance second language (L2) vocabulary learning. Given the positive effects of testing, how L2 vocabulary learning from tests can be optimized is an important question. One way to increase the benefits of testing may be to use cumulative tests, where not only recently studied but also previously studied materials are tested. This research compared the effects of cumulative and noncumulative quizzes on L2 vocabulary learning. Seventy-two Japanese university students were randomly assigned to the cumulative or noncumulative group and studied 80 low-frequency English vocabulary items over nine weekly classes. In both groups, participants were introduced to 10 target items in each class and completed a vocabulary quiz in the following class. In the noncumulative group, the 10 items introduced in the previous class appeared in vocabulary quizzes in the following class. In the cumulative group, not only target items introduced in the previous class but also items introduced in earlier classes were tested. Posttest results demonstrate that the cumulative tests may be twice (receptive) or three times (productive) more effective than noncumulative tests. The findings suggest that vocabulary learning can be improved significantly by making simple changes to vocabulary quizzes.

Two commonly used test types to assess vocabulary knowledge for the purpose of reading are size and levels tests. This article first reviews several frequently stated purposes of such tests (e.g., materials selection, tracking vocabulary growth) and provides a reasoned argument for the precision needed to serve such purposes. Then three sources of inaccuracy in existing tests are examined: the overestimation of lexical knowledge from guessing or use of test strategies under meaning-recognition item formats; the overestimation of vocabulary knowledge when receptive understanding of all word family members is assumed from a correct response to an item assessing knowledge of just one family member; and the limited precision that a small, random sample of target words has in representing the population of words from which it is drawn. The article concludes that existing tests lack the accuracy needed for many specified testing purposes and discusses possible improvements going forward.

Self-efficacy has emerged as a popular construct in second language research, especially in the frontline and practitioner-researcher spaces. A troubling trend in the relevant literature is that self-efficacy is often measured in a general or global manner. Such research ignores the fact that self-efficacy is a smaller context-driven construct that should be measured within a specific task or activity where time, place, and purpose domains are considered in the creation of the measurement. Task-based language teaching researchers have also largely neglected the affective factors that may influence task participation, including self-efficacy, despite its potential application to understanding task performance. In this report, we present an instrument specifically developed to measure English as a foreign language students' self-efficacy beliefs when performing a dialogic, synchronous, quasi-formal group discussion task. The instrument's underlying psychometric properties were assessed (N = 130; multisite sample from Japanese universities) and evidence suggested that it could measure a unidimensional construct with high reliability. The aggregate scale constructed from the instrument's items also displayed a central tendency and normal unimodal distribution. This was a positive finding and suggested that the instrument could be useful in producing a self-efficacy measurement for use in the testing designs preferred by second language researchers. The potential applications of this instrument are discussed while highlighting how this report acts as an illustration for investigators to use when researching self-efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated how students' self‐reported individual differences predicted second language (L2) spoken discussion task output, an objective behavioral outcome, in the Japanese university English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context. Although numerous psychological theories are used as a rationale for task‐based language teaching (TBLT), few studies have investigated the impact of individual differences variables on task performance. To address this gap, a cross‐validation procedure was used with students (N = 439) from two different universities. They completed questionnaires to measure willingness to communicate (WTC), speaking self‐efficacy (SSE), and perceived communicative competence (PCC). They also engaged in a quasiacademic eight‐minute group discussion task (TBLT design). This discussion was recorded and transcribed, with the number of words produced used as an objective measure of L2 task production. In the better fitting mediation structural equation model, the influences of SSE and PCC on spoken L2 task production were fully mediated by WTC (R2 =.21). A one‐page Accessible Summary of this article in nontechnical language is freely available in the Supporting Information online and at https://oasis‐database.org [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stuart McLean refers in this commentary to Jeffrey Huffman's article "Reading Rate Gains during a One-Semester Extensive Reading Course" (v26 n2 p17-33 Oct 2014) [See: EJ1044344], in which Huffman reports that extensive reading (ER) was an effective way to provide large amounts of comprehensible input to foreign language learners, but that many teachers and administrators remained unconvinced, and that there was still insufficient evidence to support the claims that have been made regarding its benefits. McLean infers that Huffman's research methodology included a number of novel characteristics that future ER research would benefit from utilizing. However, a significant difference in time on task between groups, combined with weekly timed-reading practice by only the ER group participants, results in the presence of not one independent variable (ER versus IR) but three (ER versus IR, weekly timed reading practice versus a lack thereof, and time on task). As a result, McLean argues that Huffman cannot validly infer so strongly that ER more effectively develops learners' reading rate than IR. McLean hoped that this discussion will encourage researchers to make appropriate inferences, and so provide stronger evidence for the inclusion of ER in language programs.