讀知識 (listi of mandarin vocabulary for hsk test)

8/11/2019 (LISTI OF MANDARIN VOCABULARY FOR HSK TEST)

1/29

125

University Students VocabularyKnowledge, Content Knowledge and

Reading Comprehension

Chin-Cheng Huang

Department of Modern Languages at National Pingtung University of Science and Technology

Abstract

University students are expected to be able to read English texts related to their discrete fieldsof study. Since vocabulary knowledge is essential to meeting this goal, this paper measures thevocabulary size of university students and their reading comprehension ability, with particular

reference to the effects of vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on readingcomprehension. The subjects were 246 university juniors who were non-English major. Theytook Nations (1990) Vocabulary Levels Test, an English passage, a recall protocol, and theInventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The reading comprehension scorewas calculated in an idea-unit analysis of students recall protocols. The results show thatuniversity students depend upon vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge to comprehend anyEnglish text they read, but they depend more upon vocabulary knowledge than upon contentknowledge. On the average, university students vocabulary knowledge does not reach thenecessary threshold of vocabulary knowledge. Although university students have rich contentknowledge, their lack of vocabulary knowledge markedly prevents them from applying theircontent knowledge to gaining information from a reading text. Most university students inTaiwan only know a few general academic words so that it is difficult for them to read academictexts printed in English. The researcher suggests that university students should rapidly increase

their vocabulary knowledge to more effectively promote their reading comprehension.

Key words: vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, reading comprehension, EFL students

Introduction

In Taiwan, as in several other countries where English is a foreign language (EFL), English isa required subject for students at junior and senior high schools. English teachers who teach at

O n v d unv v 38 @HP | ] 93 ~^G125153


2/29

126 nv

junior high and senior high levels must follow the national English curricula and English textbooks.High school students vocabulary knowledge depends upon the running words (tokens) in the

English textbooks. Huang (1997) analyzed the English textbooks used at the secondary level inTaiwan. According to Huangs study, the total number of frequently used English words in juniorhigh school textbooks was around 1,050, while that in senior high school textbooks was nearly2,800 words, including approximately 500 low-frequency words. He argued that high schoolgraduates were expected to know 3,850 words, excluding those learned from outside reading. Inuniversity, every freshman must learn freshman English without prior reference to national Englishcurricula or textbooks. English is not a required subject in the second year of university.Although most sophomores at university do not take English courses, they must be able to readEnglish textbooks related to their special fields of study.

Recently, several educators and instructors who teach at universities keep complaining that inTaiwan, the capability of university students to understand English is so poor that they feel thatgaining information from English textbooks in their fields of study is difficult and that they usuallyask their instructors to use textbooks printed in Chinese or translated into Chinese. Instructorsfind that many university students claim that textbooks contain so many unknown words and phrases that they cannot understand the meaning(s) of the texts. Undoubtedly, limited vocabularyknowledge prevents L2 readers from comprehending texts printed in English. Nurerni and Read(1999) determined that Indonesian university students who only had limited vocabulary knowledgealso encountered this same problem with reading. They worried that it was difficult forIndonesian freshmen to understand English texts and/or materials related to their major subjects.

Nation (2001) roughly divided vocabulary into four categories to explain the various impactof vocabulary knowledge on reading comprehension. They are high-frequency words, academicwords, technical words, and low-frequency words. Typically, over 80% of the running words(tokens) in a general text are high-frequency words and around 9% of running words in academictexts are general academic words. In fact, high-frequency words and general academic wordsrepresent the most necessary of vocabulary size. These two kinds of words play a critical role inuniversity students reading process. This study first explores university students vocabulary sizeand the relationship between their vocabulary knowledge and their reading comprehension to findout more about university students problems with reading. Therefore, this research focuses onthe following questions.

(1) What is the size of the vocabulary of university juniors and how good is their readingcomprehension?

(2) Do university students vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge influence theirreading comprehension?

Literature Review

In the second language (L2) reading process, many elements, learning skills, and contextsaffect university students reading comprehension. Either vocabulary knowledge or contentknowledge plays a critical role in reading performance. Therefore, the literature for the presentstudy concentrates on the impact of EFL readers vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge onreading comprehension.


3/29

j r J B P\ z 127

Vocabulary of L2 Readers

Although vocabulary knowledge is not the only factor that influences reading comprehension,it is accepted that L2 readers have to rely on their range of vocabulary to interpret reading passagesand obtain information from them. Unfortunately, some researchers (Laufer, 1992, 1997; Nation,1993; Ridgway, 1997; Smith, 1998) found that EFL readers vocabulary size is so limited that itcannot help them comprehend reading texts. Yoshida (1978) conducted a study to determine thesize of the English vocabulary of Japanese children, and found that a Japanese child who learnedEnglish as a foreign language in a nursery school, taking 2 to 3 hours of English classes a dayacquired 570 to 660 words annually in his/her receptive vocabulary. Barrow, Nakanishi andIshino (1999) measured vocabulary knowledge of Japanese college freshmen (N = 1283) anddiscovered that their average subject could recall 2,304 basic words. Barnard (1961) and Quinn(1968) found that Indian and Indonesian students who learned English as a foreign language (EFL)acquired only 1,000 to 2,000 words after five years of four or five English classes a week. Nurweni and Read (1999) administered a study at a university in Indonesia to determine whetherIndonesian university students vocabulary size had progressed over the 30 years since theaforementioned study. A total of 324 freshmen at a university completed Nations VocabularyLevels Test. The results revealed that their subjects had a vocabulary size of 1,226 frequentwords and 240 general academic words. Apparently, college EFL students vocabulary is smallerthan 3,000 words.

In Taiwan, Huangs (1999) research showed that Taiwanese senior high school studentsacquire only about 1,950 high-frequency words after five years of taking four English classes perweek. Huang (2001) also found that Taiwanese technological university/college students whomajored in the applied science and technology could identify only 1,690 frequent word familiesand about 140 general academic words. Their lack of vocabulary leads technological

university/college students to great difficulties in effectively comprehending textbooks printed inEnglish and in acquiring knowledge in their areas of study. Many EFL readers attribute theirfailure to comprehend English texts to insufficient vocabulary knowledge. They believe thatgreater English vocabulary knowledge enables them to extract more information from English passages.

Impact of Vocabulary Knowledge on Reading Comprehension

Richards (1976) and Nation (1990) claimed that to know a word was to master the followingdifferent kinds of knowledge: (1) the meaning(s) of the word, (2) the written form of the word, (3)the spoken form of the word, (4) the syntactic usage of the word, (5) the collocations of the word,

(6) the register of the word, (7) the associations of the word, (8) the frequency of the word, and (9)the equivalent to the word in the mother tongue. Based on the above kinds of knowledge,vocabulary knowledge is not only spelling and pronunciation of a word, but integrated knowledgeof a word. A text is not only a pile of words, but also meaningful information related to theinteraction of lexical knowledge and other factors such as experience and imagination. Vocabularyknowledge is strongly related to reading comprehension, because knowledge of a word involves atleast meaning, phonological and grammatical/morphological awareness (Schmitt, 2000).

Recently, several researchers, educators, and teachers have been eager to know the extent towhich reading comprehension depends on vocabulary knowledge. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995),Brisbois (1995), Gravers, Juel and Graves (1998), and Hulstijn and Bossers (1992) claimed thatabout 28%-58% of L2 reading comprehension depended upon the range of vocabulary knowledge.Laufer (1992) conducted a study to examine the relationship between the amount of receptive

words and reading comprehension. The results showed that subjects who understood 3,000 word


4/29

128 nv

families had a predicted 56% reading comprehension score, that increased by 7% for every further1,000 word families. Huang (1999) found that in Taiwan students reading comprehension scores

were 69% explained by their vocabulary knowledge score. Clearly, L2 reading comprehensiondepends strongly on vocabulary knowledge.Most college/university students who learn English as a foreign language are ESP learners

who learn English either for occupational or academic purposes (Kennedy & Bolitho, 1984).They must first acquire a certain number of high-frequency words since the 1,000 basic words ofEnglish cover around 75% of general texts and the 2,000 frequently used words coverapproximately 81% of general reading passages (Nation, 1993). ESP learners must still possesssome general academic words, which were called subtechnical vocabulary by Kennedy andBolitho, to understand general academic texts. In order to collect general academic words, Xueand Nation (1984) analyzed several corpora and composed a university word list (UWL) thatconsisted of about 800 word families that occurred frequently in academic texts used at universitylevel. Hwang (1989) found that Xue and Nations UWL offered 8.5% coverage of academic textswhile Coxhead (2000) found that his own chosen 570 academic word list (AWL) presentedapproximately 10% of all the words in an academic text. Nation and Hwang (1995) claimed that2,000 word families of general service vocabulary and the UWL might cover about 95% runningwords in general academic texts. Laufer (1989, 1992) stated that when EFL learners vocabularyexceeded 95% coverage of the words in a reading passage, they could successfully guess theunknown words and effectively achieve adequate comprehension. Obviously, Nation and Hwanginferred that the minimum vocabulary for L2 university students reading comprehension was2,000 high-frequency words and the UWL. In fact, university students who major in subject otherthan English must acquire some highly technical vocabulary and technical abbreviations that areintrinsic to their academic study. Although most of such technical words are low-frequency wordsto public readers, they are high-frequency words to university students in a specialized field.

In Taiwan, ESP students vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are beginning toattract the interest of researchers. L Z Q(1995) compared senior high school students andvocational high school students English proficiency and demonstrated that vocational high schoolstudents vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension were so poor that they could noteffectively gain information by reading passages. Ou (1997) analyzed the TOEFL (Test of Englishas a Foreign Language) scores of 514 seniors selected at two comprehensive universities and twotechnological universities in Taiwan. The results revealed that the technological universityseniors vocabulary scores (M =13.68) and reading comprehension scores (M = 11.35) were muchlower than those (M = 17.72; M = 15.63) of comprehensive university seniors and the differencewas statistically significant. He concluded that university students limited vocabulary hinderedtheir learning of English. That research only pointed out the deficiency in university studentsvocabulary. This study however plans to assess the exact number of words they receptively

understand.

Impact of Content Knowledge on Reading Comprehension

In the reading process of both native language and foreign language, the influence of contentknowledge on reading comprehension is a never-ending process. Most people believe that richercontent knowledge promotes superior insightful comprehension of reading text. Good readersuse content knowledge more effectively than poor readers do, especially when reading expository passages (Holmes, 1983). Poor readers may have trouble in activating related schemata tofacilitate comprehension.

When one reads a text, one first reads its title or topic sentence to predict its subject and


5/29

j r J B P\ z 129

possible contents. The prediction activates the readers related representations that may beappropriate or inappropriate. The relevant schemata provide the reader with an overall

understanding of the article and help the reader to select the appropriate meanings of ambiguouswords. However, inappropriate schemata mislead the reader to distort the meaning of words andthe text. Thus, the quantity and quality of prior topic knowledge possessed by a reader yielddifferent prediction patterns (Lawless, Brown, & Mills, 1998). Tyler (2001) further determinedthat nonnative speakers depend more on topic knowledge in reading comprehension than nativesspeakers. Johnson (1982) explored the influence of topic knowledge on comprehension and foundthat the more topic knowledge possessed by an EFL reader, the more appropriate schemata can beretrieved from long-term memory to guess or predict the meanings. Therefore, topic knowledge isalso an important factor in L2 comprehension.

Content familiarity is a greater predictor of reading comprehension than various linguisticfactors such as vocabulary knowledge and/or syntactic complexity (Akagawa, 1995; Carrell, 1983;Hammadou, 1991). Hammadou (2000) found that readers analogies only impair readingcomprehension slightly, but content knowledge more strongly influences reading comprehension. Nunan (1985) explored whether familiarity with content affected the perception of linguisticallymarked textual relationships was impacted by familiarity with content for L2 readers. The resultsindicated that existing contextual knowledge interacted with linguistic knowledge system tosupport reading comprehension. Nunan concluded that his study supported the claim that textualconnectivity results from content coherence rather than linguistic form (p.50). Inevitably,content knowledge is also critical in L2 reading comprehension. Meanwhile, the effect of theinteraction between content knowledge and linguistic knowledge, such as vocabulary knowledge, isalso a determinant on reading comprehension.

Impact of Threshold of Vocabulary KnowledgeThere are two ways to define a vocabulary threshold: One is to describe the vocabulary

threshold as an all-or-nothing phenomenon and the other is to declare it as a probabilistic boundary (p. 144) (Nation, 2001). The present study takes the second definition as a criterion toexplain the relationship between vocabulary size and successful reading. The total of threethousand word families is a vocabulary threshold, which when an ESL/EFL learner reaches this,he/she can gain adequate reading comprehension of general texts (Laufer, 1992; Laufer & Sim,1985). Although the effect of the size of vocabulary on reading comprehension is broad and deep,it is also limited. Some researchers (Berhartd & Kamil, 1995; Huang, 2000; Laufer, 1992; Laufer& Sim, 1985; Ridgway, 1997) have stated that vocabulary knowledge can really increase readingcomprehension scores, but its influence actually decreases or even disappears beyond a threshold.In other words, after the vocabulary threshold is attained, readers are no longer restrained bylinguistic factors. They can automatically transfer their reading skills from the L1 to L2 reading processes and activate their content knowledge, cultural knowledge, reading strategies and otherfactors, such as interest and motivation, to support reading comprehension. Ridgway (1997)claimed that the vocabulary knowledge only had an effect when readers L2 language proficiencywas between an upper and a lower threshold. Below the bottom threshold, readers do not havesufficient L2 linguistic knowledge to infer the meaning of the text and a short-circuit preventsthem from interpreting the reading passage. Above the upper threshold, readers seldom dependupon their vocabulary knowledge to interpret the text, but upon their prior knowledge, culturalknowledge and experience.

Laufer (1992) asked university freshmen (N = 92) to take two vocabulary size tests and toread two texts before answering 20 multiple-choice comprehension questions to study how many


6/29

130 nv

words were required to comprehend general text. She found that 3,000 word families or 5,000lexical items represented a turning point in vocabulary-threshold. Huang (1999) also found that

the 3,000-word level was a good water-shed for this vocabulary threshold. Before EFL readers pass the vocabulary threshold, they often have to guess the meaning of each word and/or eachsentence, rather than the meaning of the text as a whole. Accordingly, they only partiallyunderstand or even distort the meaning of a text.

Methodology

This study employed a positivist paradigm, using the Statistical Package for SocialScience (SPSS) as a key tool for its objective data analysis, as well as the following data collectioninstruments: (1) the Vocabulary Level Test (VLT), (2) a reading passage, (3) a recall protocol (RP),and (4) an Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire (ICKIQ).

Subjects

The participants in this study were 246 juniors with non-English majors from four differentcolleges/universities in northern, central, and southern parts of Taiwan. The students, aged between 21 and 23, came from metropolitan, suburban and rural districts. Since before 2000formal English education in Taiwan started from the first year of junior high school, the participants had learned English as a foreign language for at least 7 years, excluding extra learningsuch as children English.

Instruments

The data collection instruments used in this study were as follows: (1) Vocabulary Level Test(VLT) (see Appendix A), (2) a reading passage (see Appendix B), (3) a recall protocol (RP), and (4)an Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire (ICKIQ) (see Appendix C).

Vocabulary Level Test

The VLT was derived from the Nations (1990) Vocabulary Levels Test. The NationsVocabulary Levels Test (NVLT) is a paper-and-pencil test that includes the following five levels of


7/29

j r J B P\ z 131

word-frequencythe 2,000-word level, the 3,000-word level, the 5,000-word level, the universityword level (including specialized vocabulary used in university texts), and the 10,000-word Level.

The VLT in this study included the first four levels of the Nations Vocabulary Level Test.According to Chen (1997), Taiwanese university students vocabulary size is small and limited;therefore, this study did not use the NVLTs 10,000-word level, but included an additional1,000word level test that the researcher created to examine the subjects knowledge of the mostfrequently used words. In the 1,000-word level test, 36 words were randomly selected from the1,000 most frequent words in Wests (1953)General Service List and test items were composedfollowing the same format as that of the Nations Vocabulary Levels Test.

Reading Text

The English reading text was selected from Spargo and Willistons (1980) book,Timed Readings: Fifty 400-word Passages with Questions for Building Reading Speed (Book 6). Thereadability of the text was at the fifth level according to Frys (1977) Readability Graph. In thisarticle, although there was about 15% running words out of Wests General Service List (1953),some words excluded in Wests List frequently appeared in senior high school textbooks, such asfood, four, twenty, job, energy, cell, and our. To the subjects of this research, this article was notdifficult since nearly all were familiar with every word of the text. The content of the text was perceived as basic for university students. The subject matter of this text involved food nutritionso no cultural diversity existed between the author and the L2 readers.

Recall Protocol

The RP consisted of a free written recall of a passage after it had been read (Bernhardt, 1991).After the subjects had read the English passage, they were given ten minutes to write down inChinese as much as possible of what they had remembered from the text, without reference to thereading passage.

Content Knowledge Questionnaire

The ICKIQ that, written in Chinese, consisted of eight questions, the first six of whichmeasured the subjects content knowledge of the main ideas in that passage and the last two ofwhich questions assessed the subjects interest in the topic of the read English text.

Procedure

Data were collected in the last ten days of December. All subjects had to complete tests inthe same time period without using dictionaries. The test took about 50 minutes and wasconducted as follows:


8/29

132 nv

1.The supervisors of the tests took 2 minutes to delivery test sheets2.The supervisors of the tests took 2 minutes to explain the instructions for vocabulary test

(see the 1st

page of Appendix A)3.Students took 30 minutes to complete the VLT.4.They took 8 minutes to read the English text.5.They took 10 minutes to do the RP.6.They took 2 minutes to fill out the ICKIQ.

Data Analysis

Scoring

In this research, the dependent variable, reading comprehension score, involved the totalscore of the three parts on the recall protocolincluding the scores for main ideas, supporting ideasand details. Since a main idea is the most important part of a paragraph or an article and thesupporting ideas deriving from main ideas are more important than details, the scores of readingcomprehension were cumulated under the formula: the RP score = 3 the total number of mainideas + 2 the total number of supporting ideas + 1 the total number of details. The highest possible score in the reading comprehension was 40. The independent variables included thevocabulary knowledge score and the content background score. The vocabulary knowledgescores were judged with reference to five levels, the 1,000-word, 2,000-word, 3,000-word,5,000-word and university word level, while the background knowledge score was determinedfrom the content knowledge of the main ideas reported by the students, along with their interest inthe reading passage. Levels of vocabulary knowledge were determined according to the followingguideline. When a subjects vocabulary knowledge score at a certain level exceeded 12 (66.67%)out of 18, he/she was said to have met that vocabulary level (Nation 1990). Since the VLT in thisstudy included five levels, the highest possible score was 90 (1 point x 18 items x 5 levels). Thecontent knowledge scores were calculated from responses to the ICKIQ, using a five-point Likertscale, so the total possible scores were between 8 and 40.


9/29

j r J B P\ z 133

Analysis

The researcher used the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) to analyze the collecteddata to examine the correlation between the predictors and the criterion variable. This study first presents means, standard deviations, and percentage of variables; then, shows outcomes ofinferential statistics. Since one of the major purposes of the present study was to predict theeffects of vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on reading comprehension, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and the multiple regression statistical procedure were usedto analyze the collected data. In order to investigate whether there was a threshold of vocabularyrelevant to this study, the researcher split the scores of the 3,000-word level into twogroupsequal to and above 13 group and under 13 group. The independent-t test was applied toexamine whether the mean difference between two groups was significant or not. All hypotheses

were tested at the a = .01 level of significance using a two-tailed test.

Results and Discussions

This study presents the results of descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to discussthe relationship between vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and reading comprehension.Then, the discussion of findings focuses on answering the research questions.

Means and Standard Deviations of Variables

Vocabulary Knowledge

One of the major purposes of this study is to determine the average level of vocabularyknowledge of comprehensive university students. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations,

and numbers of students who reached the various vocabulary levels. The results imply that themean score at the 1.000-word level was 15.53 with a standard deviation of 2.30 and that at the2,000-word level was 12.66 with a standard deviation of 3.59. According to Nations (1990)criterion for reaching a certain level of vocabulary, comprehensive university students vocabularyknowledge reached the 2,000-word level, but did not reach the 3,000-word level since the mean atthis level was 10.55 with a standard deviation of 4.20 and the mean of the 5,000-word level wasonly 5.84 with a standard deviation of 3.36. The mean at university level was 6.06 with astandard deviation of 3.18.


10/29

134 nv

Table 1Means and Numbers of the Subjects Who Reached a Certain Level in the VLT

Mean SD Number (Reaching PercentageLevel (N = 246) a certain level)1,000-word 15.53 2.30 223 90.652,000-word 12.66 3.59 149 60.573,000-word 10.55 4.20 83 33.745,000-word 5.84 3.36 10 4.07University word 6.06 3.18 9 3.66 Note. The possible total score of the VLT is 90 and the possible total score of each vocabulary level is 18.

A subject who correctly answered more than 12 in a certain level reached that vocabulary level.

Although the subjects reached the 2,000-word level, only 149 (60.57%) of the 246 couldachieve that level. The remainder, around 40%, remembered fewer than 2,000 word families.Furthermore, 83 (33.76%) out of 246 reached the 3,000-word level while only ten (4.07%) attainedthe 5,000-word level. Only nine (3.66%) reached the university word level. Interestingly, eachincrease by one level of vocabulary caused 30% more students to fail to meet the anticipatedstandard.

Content Knowledge

The content knowledge, the other independent variable in this study, was measured from thesubjects self-evaluation in response to the Inventory of Content Knowledge and InterestQuestionnaire. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and percentages of the results of theInventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The mean score of contentknowledge was between 3.29 and 4.07 out of 5 and the difference between the mean scores ofcontent knowledge, as determined from question 1 to 6, was small. The subjects self-reported thatthey already had 70% to 80% of content knowledge of the English passage before the reading test.It is obvious that the subjects had rich content knowledge of the reading text.

Table 2Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages Associated with Responses to the

ICKIQ (N =246)

Items Means SD PercentageContent knowledge 1 4.01 .79 80.22Content knowledge 2 3.87 .99 77.48Content knowledge 3 3.67 .88 73.46Content knowledge 4 4.07 .77 81.30Content knowledge 5 3.70 .86 73.96Content knowledge 6 3.29 1.04 65.82Total of content knowledge 22.61 4.00 75.37Interest 1 3.29 .89 65.80Interest 2 3.35 .97 67.00Total (content and interest) 29.25 4.89 73.13

Note. The possible scores for each item were from 1 to 5 and the possible scores for total contentknowledge score were from 8 to 40.


11/29

j r J B P\ z 135

The readability of the English passage was at the fifth level according to Frys (1977)Readability Graph, which divided texts into seventeen levels according the number of syllables and

sentences per hundred words of a text, and the content concerned food and nutrition, so it was nottoo hard to understand. However, the degree of interest in reading this passage was betweensome and quite a bit (M = 3.29 and 3.35) in response to the ICKIQ. The subjects seemed notto activate their interest in this English passage.

Reading Comprehension

The reading comprehension score consisted of the main idea score, the supporting idea scoreand the detail score, and was the only dependent variable in this study. Since the subjects wrotethe information that they recalled in Chinese, they were free from interference from the targetlanguage. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and percentages of the main idea

scores, the supporting idea scores, and the detail scores in the recall protocol. The mean score ofreading comprehension was 14.30 (35.75%) out of 40, implying that the comprehensive universitystudents could recall about one third of the content knowledge after they read the English passage.The participants recalled more main ideas than supporting ideas or details. The mean of the mainidea score was 5.97 (49.75%) out of 12; the mean of the supporting idea score was 5.61 (31.17%)out of 18, and the mean of the detail score was 2.72 (27.20%) out of 10. The participants recalleddetails least effectively.

Table 3Means and Percentages of Recalled Main Ideas, Supporting Ideas and Details (N = 246)

Items Mean SD PercentageMain ideas 5.97 3.48 49.75Supporting ideas 5.61 3.44 31.17Details 2.72 1.47 27.20Reading comprehension 14.30 7.00 35.75

Note. The total possible score of main ideas was 12. The total score of supporting ideas was 18. The totalscore of details was 10. The total possible score of reading comprehension was 40.

Relations

Table 4 shows the correlations between the vocabulary knowledge score, the contentknowledge score, and the reading comprehension score to elucidate the strength of association between the dependent and independent variables. A highly significant correlation was found between the vocabulary knowledge score and the reading comprehension score (r = .70, p < .01),implying that a larger vocabulary enabled students to recall more information from the text theyread. The correlation between the reading comprehension score and the content knowledge scorewas moderate (Cohen, 1988) but statistically significant (r = .41, p < .01). The result expressedthat in reading, the subjects content knowledge was positively associated with their readingcomprehension. Although the vocabulary knowledge score significantly correlated with thecontent knowledge score, the strength of association was slight (r = .22, p < .01), implying thatwhile some subjects who had rich content knowledge had a large vocabulary size, others did not.Obviously, the relationship between the reading comprehension score and the vocabularyknowledge score is more robust than that of the content knowledge score and the readingcomprehension score and the vocabulary knowledge score.


12/29

136 nv

Table 4Correlations Between the Reading Comprehension Score and both the Vocabulary

Knowledge Score and the Content Knowledge Score (N = 246)Variables Vocabulary knowledge Content knowledge

Reading comprehension .70** .41**Vocabulary knowledge .22**

** p < .01 (two-tailed)

Results of Inferential Statistics

Vocabulary Threshold

According to Laufer (1992), the 3,000-word level is a threshold of vocabulary. One whofails to achieve this threshold feels it is difficult to comprehend general texts; even though onescontent knowledge is rich. Once a readers vocabulary knowledge passes this threshold, he/she isfree from the loading of vocabulary and other factors may play a more important role in the reading process. In order to examine whether there is a threshold of vocabulary in university studentsreading performance, the present study split the subjects into two groupsthe above group (thoseat or above 13 points in the 3,000-word level), and the below group (those below 13 points in the3,000-word level). Table 5 presents the result of an independentt -test conducted on the reading

comprehension scores and the content knowledge scores, divided in the 3,000-word level. Themean of the reading comprehension score of the above group was 20.34 with a standard deviationof 6.18 and that of the below group was 11.23 with a standard deviation of 5.15. The subjects inthe above group recalled more information than did those in the below group. The difference between the mean scores of the two groups was statistically significant,t (244) = 12.25, p < .01.The subjects in the above group gained more information from the text they read than did those inthe below group.

The mean of the content knowledge score of the above group was 30.10 with a standarddeviation of 4.31 and that of the below group was 28.82 with a standard deviation 5.12. Althoughthe subjects in the above group self-reported a slightly greater content knowledge of the reading passage than those in the below group, the difference between the means of content knowledgescores of the below group and that of the above groups was very slight and statisticallyinsignificant,t (244) = 2.06, p > .05. That the above group had a slightly higher contentknowledge score was attributed to chance. The subjects who passed the vocabulary thresholdmight not have higher content knowledge.


13/29

j r J B P\ z 137

Table 5Independent t -Tests of the Reading Comprehension Score and the Content Knowledge Score

by the 3,000-word LevelReading comprehension Content knowledge

Groups Mean SD t df Mean SD t dfAbove (n = 83) 20.34 6.18 12.25** 244 30.10 4.31 2.06 192Below (n = 163) 11.23 5.15 28.82 5.12

** p .01

Regression Model

The descriptive statistics include the subjects average vocabulary knowledge, contentknowledge and reading comprehension scores. A regression model was conducted to explore theextent to which the vocabulary knowledge score and the content knowledge score could predict thereading comprehension score. Table 6 displays the multiple regression of variance for the readingcomprehension score by the content knowledge score and the vocabulary knowledge score. Theresults of the analysis revealed that the subjects vocabulary knowledge score and contentknowledge score significantly influenced their reading comprehension score, F (2, 243) = 154.91, p < .01. That is, the influence of vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on readingcomprehension was statistically significant. The Pearson product-moment correlation betweendependent and independent variables was .75 and R2 was .56, implying that the vocabularyknowledge score and the content knowledge score could predict 56% of the reading comprehensionscore in this study. The remainder, about 44% of the reading comprehension score, could beexplained by reference to other variables such as motivation, reading skill and reading strategy.

Table 6Multiple Regression of Variance for the Reading Comprehension Score by the ContentKnowledge Score and the Vocabulary Knowledge Score

Model Sum of squares df Mean square FRegression 6719.39 2 154.91 154.91**Residual 5270.35 243 21.67Total 11989.74 245

Note. R2 = .56** p < .01

Although the multiple regression indicates that the effects of vocabulary knowledge andcontent knowledge on reading comprehension are statistically significant, this study has to considerthe influence of purely independent variables and the interaction between them. Table 7 showsthe coefficients of correlation between the reading comprehension score and the content knowledgescore and the vocabulary knowledge score. The coefficients of correlation between the readingcomprehension score and the vocabulary knowledge score,t (244) = 14.75, p < .01, and betweenthe reading comprehension and the content knowledge score,t (244) = 6.15, p < .01, werestatistically significant. This means that the content knowledge score and the vocabularyknowledge score individually influenced the reading comprehension score. Thus, the equation ofmultiple regression was Y^ (Z score) = .64 x vocabulary knowledge Z score + .27 x contentknowledge Z score.


14/29

138 nv

Table 7Coefficients of the Reading Comprehension Score by the Content Knowledge Score and the

Vocabulary Knowledge ScoreVariable B SE B ] t

(Constant) -13.36 1.94 -6.88Vocabulary knowledge .33 .02 .64 14.75**Content knowledge .38 .06 .27 6.15**

** p < .01

Accordingly, the subjects vocabulary knowledge score and content knowledge scoreexplained 40.96% and 7.29% of the reading comprehension score. Clearly, although both thevocabulary knowledge score and the content knowledge score affect the reading comprehensionscore, the vocabulary knowledge score had much more explanation of the reading comprehension

score than did the content knowledge score. Since the multiple regression could predict 56% ofthe reading comprehension score, the remainder (7.75%) of this score was governed by theinteraction between the vocabulary knowledge score and the content knowledge score ( L Ms,1992).

Discussion of Findings

Based on Nations (1990) criteria for attaining a certain vocabulary level, the results in thisstudy only yield a rough estimate of the size of vocabulary. A formula for measuring the exactsize of a readers vocabulary was developed by the researcher to compute the number ofreceptive/passive words. Since the VLT is a multiple-choice test, testees may have chosen their

answers by guessing. That deducting the probability of guessing correctly is important to measurea subjects exact word size. A test taker who has no idea about the target words but answers only by guessing can normally score 3 (18 items 1/6) out of 18.

Nation (1990) stated that [i]f someone scores 12 or less out of 18 in a section of the test, thenit is worth helping that learner study the vocabulary at that level (p. 262). If the subjectsvocabulary reaches a certain number of words, then the mean of the vocabulary knowledge score atthat level must be at least 12.01. If their mean of the vocabulary knowledge score at that level islower than 12.01, they fail to achieve that word level. For example, if the means of thevocabulary knowledge score are 15 for 1,000-word level, 13 for 2,000-word level, 11 for3,000-word level, and 9 for 5,000-word level. Since they pass the 2,000-word level and then failin the 3,000-word level, their vocabulary size is between 2,000 and 3,000 word families. Formeasuring more exact size of vocabulary, the researcher argues that the number of receptively

understood words is estimated according to the following formula:

The exact size of vocabulary = the total number of words known by the subjects + the totalnumber of words at the word level at which the subjects first failed

Mean score the expected number of correct guesses (3)The threshold level (12.01) the expected number of correct guesses (3)

The numbers of words at the 1,000-word level, the 2,000-word level and the 3,000-word levelare all 1,000, and the number at the 5,000-word level is 2,000 since the VLT does not include a


15/29

j r J B P\ z 139

4,000-word level. According to Xue and Nation (1984), the lexical items at university word levelinclude 740 word families. For instance, if the subjects means of the vocabulary knowledge

score in a study are 16.5 for the 1,000-word level, 14.5 for the 2,000-word level, 12.5 for3,000-word level, and 10.5 for 5,000-word level, their exact size of vocabulary will be 3,000 words(they have reached this level) + 2,000 (the interval between the 3,000-word and the 5,000 wordlevels is 2,000 words) x (10.5 3) / (12.1 3) = 3,000 + 2,000 x 7.5 / 9.5 = 4,579. The subjectsexact size of vocabulary knowledge is 4,579 word families.

Research Question 1

The outcomes in Tables 1 and 3 answer Research Question 1.What is the size of vocabulary of university juniors and how good is their reading

comprehension?

According to Nations (1990) criterion for reaching a certain vocabulary level,comprehensive university juniors reached the 2,000-word level but neither the 3,000-word level northe 5,000-word level. Therefore, the average size of the vocabulary of comprehensive university juniors is between 2,000 and 3,000 word families. The formula for the exact vocabulary sizeyields the subjects vocabulary size as 2,000 + 1,000 (10.55 3) (12.01 3) = 2,838.The result shows that comprehensive university students in Taiwan can recognize approximately2,840 word families on average. Taiwanese comprehensive university juniors know morefrequently used words than Japanese freshmen (Barrow, et al., 1999) and Indonesian freshmen(Nurweni & Read, 1999).

Although Taiwanese comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledgeapproached 3,000 basic words, only 83 (33.74%) out of 246 subjects in this study reached the3,000-word level, which is the threshold beyond which an ESL/EFL reader can effectively applytheir background knowledge, reading skills and reading strategies of their native language tocomprehend English passages (Huang, 1999; Laufer, 1997; Laufer & Sam, 1985). Clearly, thelack of vocabulary knowledge prevents most comprehensive university students, though goodreaders of Chinese texts, from using their rich background knowledge and powerful readingstrategies to understand the meaning of English texts. Moreover, only 10 (4.07%) of them in thisstudy reached the 5,000-word level. The message is clear, comprehensive university students inTaiwan must work hard to increase their vocabulary knowledge.

The university word level, including 740 general academic words, is used to predict whethera student has enough subtechnical vocabulary knowledge to read academic texts printed in English.The results of this work reveal that subjects mean at the university word level was 6.06, so thesubjects failed to reach this word level. Based on the formula for the exact size of theirvocabulary, the size of their general academic vocabulary was 740 (6.06 3) (12.01 3) =251. According to Nurweni and Read (1999), first-year students at an Indonesian university knewaround 240 (or 30%) of general academic words. Like Indonesian freshmen, the subjects in thisstudy did not have a sufficiently large general academic vocabulary to support their need to obtaininformation from academic passages. In fact, only nine out of 246 subjects achieved theuniversity word level, explaining why university instructors in Taiwan always complain thatuniversity students have difficulty in comprehending the academic textbooks printed in English.

Determining the level of the subjects reading comprehension is a major aim of this study.According to Table 3, comprehensive university students reading comprehension scores were notlarge since the subjects recalled only an average of approximately 36% of the information in theEnglish passage. Huang (1999) found that EFL readers who understood an English passage couldrecall about 53% of the information in the English texta little lower than the fraction they

recalled the information (60%) from a Chinese text with a content similar to that of the English text.


16/29

140 nv

Based on Huangs research, the subjects in this study comprehended only two thirds of the contentfrom the English text. When the study divided the subjects into two groupsone above the

vocabulary threshold and the other below the vocabulary threshold, the results indicated that theabove group showed a much better reading performance than did the below group. Apparently,the subjects in both groups had almost the same content knowledge, but the subjects in the belowgroup could not apply their rich content knowledge to gaining information from the reading textdue to the lack of enough vocabulary knowledge. This finding supported Laufers (1997)assertion that below a certain vocabulary level, an increase in the amount of vocabulary increasesreading comprehension.

Although this study revealed the subjects total comprehension scores, the reading problemsof comprehensive university students must also be addressed. Of the three components of thereading comprehension score, the main idea score was the highest at nearly 50% and the detailscore was the lowest at only 27%, implying that most subjects could understand the topic and themain themes and/or issues when they read the English text. Their weaknesses in readingcomprehension were that they could not recall more supporting ideas and details. The analysis ofthe subjects reading comprehension scores revealed that the subjects could understand the gist ofthe English passage, without completely comprehending the whole text since they failed to applyeffective L1 reading strategies and reading skills as they read.

(2) Research Question 2

The results in Tables 5 and 6 answer Research Question 2.Do university students vocabulary knowledge score and content knowledge score influence

their reading comprehension score?The results in Table 4 indicate that the subjects vocabulary knowledge score and content

knowledge score significantly affected their reading comprehension score. This finding impliesthat over half (56%) of the subjects reading comprehension was explained by their vocabularyknowledge and content knowledge. Specifically, the subjects vocabulary knowledge score can purely predict 40.96% of the reading comprehension score, but their content knowledge could predict only 7.29% of the reading comprehension score (Table 5). Clearly, the subjectsvocabulary knowledge score more strongly influenced the reading comprehension score than didthe content knowledge score. The subjects themselves reported that they had much contentknowledge related to the reading passage; however, their content knowledge score predicted asmall fraction of the reading comprehension score. The problem was that the subjects could notactivate their rich content knowledge when they read the English text. During the reading test, theresearcher found that the test takers read the text, word by word, and spent much time and energyto decode words. Some even translated and wrote the word in Chinese, rarely attending to theEnglish meaning of the reading text.

Since comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledge does not reach thevocabulary threshold, they struggle to guess unfamiliar words by using known words to extractmeaning from a general English text. During reading, they are busy recognizing and decodingwords, and thus have little time and energy to apply their rich content knowledge and powerfulreading strategies to verify the meaning of the text and extract information. Thus, the unknownwords serve to hinder their understanding of the content of the passage and/or make them distortthe meaning of sentences. This phenomenon is associated with Ridgways (1997)interactive-compensatory function that before readers reach a vocabulary threshold, they cannoteffectively apply their rich background knowledge, including content knowledge, to comprehend areading passage. When readers pass this threshold, however, they use a large number of readingstrategies, reading skills and experiences to help them guess the meaning of a text. The subjects


17/29

j r J B P\ z 141

vocabulary knowledge however is still beneath the vocabulary threshold for thoroughlycomprehending a text (Huang, 1999; Laugher & Sim, 1985), and so they depend greatly on the

words with which they are familiar to guess the meaning of the text. As Goodman (1967) claimed,reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game (p. 126).

Conclusion and Suggestions

This study yields the following valuable facts:1. On average, comprehensive university students vocabulary knowledge does not reach

their required vocabulary threshold.2. Comprehensive university students in Taiwan depend more on vocabulary knowledgethan content knowledge to comprehend texts they read.

3. A lack of vocabulary knowledge significantly prevents comprehensive universitystudents from applying their rich content knowledge successfully to better extract theinformation from read texts.

4. Most comprehensive university students in Taiwan know only a few general academicwords.

This studys results may provide testing institutes in Taiwan with some invaluableinformation. Understanding comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledgeand reading ability enables test specialists to develop more appropriate English tests that canactually assess undergraduate students reading comprehension and potential for learning English.

The results also provide editors of textbooks with much precious information for acceptingand promoting university texts. English textbooks related to university students major subjectshave long been criticized for using several low-frequency words and being rooted in westernculture. Based on university students vocabulary knowledge and reading ability, editors oftextbooks can select and/or compose more suitable texts. They must design some activities totrain readers how to use prior knowledge to compensate for a deficiency of vocabulary knowledge.

Both English teachers and teachers of specific subjects should plan to help their studentsreach the vocabulary threshold and the university word level as soon as possible by providing tasksto help students pre-read textbooks printed in English. In this way, comprehensive universitystudents knowledge of high-frequency words and general academic words and their readingcomprehension abilities, can be improved. Some university students still do not have muchknowledge about the structure of words and the organization of a text. Accordingly, teachersshould first introduce various techniques for memorizing unknown words, including using context,rote learning, keywords and affixing (Nation, 1993; Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000). Studentsshould vary reading strategies for comprehending texts, including guessing, using context clues(Kang, 1995) and using questions and answers (Q & A).

Although extensive reading is an effective way to promote students reading performance(Coady, 1997; Paribakht & Wesche, 1997), universities in Taiwan do not offer extensive reading programs and do not have available English materials. The reading method that is currentlyrecommended is to read storybooks, magazines, periodicals and newspapers printed in English.According to Hwang and Nation (1989) and Hwang (1989), stories, magazines and newspapersconstantly repeat some frequent words and technological terms related to a topic. Multiplerepetitions reduce readers lexical loading and activate their imagination, experience, and background knowledge to better extract information from the text when they read. The


18/29

142 nv

interaction between word knowledge, content knowledge and reading strategies also increasesreaders vocabulary knowledge and their knowledge of the world, while they improve their reading

ability.Students who plan to increase their vocabulary knowledge and improve their readingcomprehension must know that to successfully achieve their goal depends upon their own efforts,and not the efforts of others. Consequently, university students must develop the habit ofindependent reading as a source of entertainment, information, inspiration and self-improvement.Students can choose materials that they are interested to read and can read without any pressure.Frequent reading nurtures skills for learning and using language. The growth of reading skills candevelop knowledge of the world, and simultaneously amplify basic academic vocabulary andtechnical vocabulary (Nation, 1993). This virtuous circle (Nuttall, 1982) will eventually improveL2 reading. University students should read English materials daily to foster the desire to readvoluntarily.

Finally, this study only addresses the vocabulary size of comprehensive university studentsand the relationship between vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and readingcomprehension. The importance of vocabulary knowledge is such that further studies should beundertaken and multiple experiments conducted to determine which methods of vocabularyinstruction can most rapidly increase vocabulary knowledge and what reading strategies and skillscan effectively develop reading comprehension.

References

L Z Q. (1995)C ^ { p s C QG ^yQ | A 59-79C x_: b C

L Ms(1992) G zP | p Cx_G F CAkagawa, Y. (1995). The effects of background knowledge and careful attention on reading

comprehsnion and vocabulary acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TempleUniversity, Philadelphia, PA.

Barnard, H. (1961).Teachers book for advanced English vocabulary. Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Barrow, J., Nakanishi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999). Assessing Japanese college students vocabularyknowledge with a self-checking familiarity survey.System, 27, 223-247.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, &classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading:Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied

Linguistics, 16 (1), 15-34.Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading

Behavior, 27 (4), 565-584.Carrell, P. L. (1983). Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Language

Learning and Communication, 2 (1), 25-33.Chen, T. Y. (1997). Identifying language learning factors among junior college students through

diary studies. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference of English Teaching and Learningin the Republic of China (pp. 81-93). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.


19/29

j r J B P\ z 143

Coady, J. (1997). L2 vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. In J. Coady & T. Huckin(Eds.),Second Language Acquisition (pp. 225-237). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd

ed.). Hillsdage, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list.TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213-238.Fry, E. B. (1977). Frys readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17.

Journal of Reading, 21, 242-252.Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading

Specialist, 6, 126-135.Gravers, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21 st century. Needham

Height, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Hammadou, J. (1991). Interrelationships among prior knowledge, inference, and language

proficiency in foreign language reading.The Modern Language Journal, 75 (1), 27-38.Hammadou, J. (2000). The impact of analogy and content knowledge on reading comprehension:

What helps, what hurts. Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 38-50.Holmes. B. C. (1983). The effect or prior knowledge on the question answering of good and poorreaders. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15 (4), 1-18.

Huang, C. C. (1999). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and prior knowledge on readingcomprehension of EFL students in Taiwan. Unpubished doctoral dissertation, University ofOhio, Athens, OH.

Huang, C. C. (2000). A threshold for vocabulary knowledge on reading comprehension. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republicof China (pp. 132-144). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Huang, C. C. (2001). An investigation of ESP students vocabulary knowledge and readingcomprehension.Selected Papers from the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.435-445). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Huang, T. L. (1997). On the necessity of reinforcement of vocabulary teaching. Proceedings of theSixth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in The Republic of China (pp. 193-211).Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Hulstijn, J. H., & Bossers, B. (1992). Individual differences in L2 proficiency as a function of L1 proficiency. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (4), 341-353.

Hwang, K. (1989). Reading newspapers for the improvement of vocabulary and reading skills. Unpublished masters thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Hwang, K., & Nation, P. (1989). Reducing the vocabulary load and encouraging vocabularylearning through reading newspapers. Reading a Foreign Language, 6, 323-335.

Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge.TESOLQuarterly, 15, 169-181.

Kang, S. H. (1995). The effects of a context-embedded approach to second-language vocabularylearning.System, 23 (1), 43-55.

Kennedy, C., & Bolitho, R. (1984). English for specific purposes. Hong Kong: Macmillan.Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M.

Nordman (Eds.),Special language: From human thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316-323).Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? In J. L. Arnaud & H.Bejoint (Eds.),Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132). London: MacMillan.

Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you dont know, wordsyou think you know, and words you cant guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),Secondlanguage vocabulary acquisition (pp. 20-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B., & Sim, D. D. (1985). Measuring and explaining the threshold needed for English

academic purposes texts. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 405-413.


20/29

144 nv

Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., & Mills, R. (1998). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: Alook at hypertext processing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 847).

Nation, I. S. P. (1990).Teaching & learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.),Thebilingual lexicon (115-134). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Nation, I. S. P., & Hwang, K. (1995). Where would general service vocabulary stop and special purposes vocabulary begin?System, 23 (1), 35-41.

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Nunan, D. (1985). Content familiarity and the perception of textual relationships in secondlanguage reading. RELC Journal, 16 (1), 43-51.

Nurweni, A., & Read J. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian universitystudents. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2), 161-175.

Nuttall, C. (1982). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. London: Heinemann.Ou, H. C. (1997). A comparative study of English reading proficiency between comprehensiveuniversity and technological institute seniors.Studies in English Language and Literature, 2,

1-12.Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for

meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),Secondary language acquisition (pp. 174-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Quinn, G. (1968). The English vocabulary of some Indonesian University entrants. IKIP KristenSatya Watjana, Salatiga.

Richards, J. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching.TESOL Quarterly, 10 (1), 77-90.Ridgway, T. (1997). Thresholds of the background knowledge effect in foreign language reading.

Reading in a Foreign Language, 11 (1), 151-168.Rodriguez, M., & Sadoski, M. (2000). Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword

methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL classrooms, Language Learning, 50 (2), 385-412.Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.Smith, F. (1998).The book of learning and forgetting. New York: Teachers College, Columbia

University.Spargo, E., & Williston, G. R. (1980). Timed readings: Fifty 400-word passages with questions for

building reading speed (Book 6). Rovidence, RI: Jamestown.Tyle, M. (2001). Resource consumption as a function of topic knowledge in nonnative and native

comprehension. Language Learning, 51 (2), 257-280.West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.Xue, G., & Nation, I. S. P. (1984). A university word list. Language Learning and Communication,

3, 215-229.Yoshida, M. (1978). The acquisition of English vocabulary by a Japanese speaking child. In E. M.

Hatch (Ed.),Second language acquisition (pp. 91-100). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Z G92 ~430 G92 ~915

G92 ~910


21/29

j r J B P\ z 145

Appendix A

The Vocabulary Levels Test

y G O G

oO r J Cz k UD NAq r X A rt X Cz Xg b u CHU l C

1.business2.clock _____ part of a house3.horse _____ animal with four legs4.pencil _____ something used for writing5.shoe6.wall

HU @ G1.business2.clock 6 part of a house3.horse 3 animal with four legs4.pencil 4 something used for writing5.shoe6.wall

bo A r rO hl Az qk t X NC bW l A o rObusiness , clock , shoe .

{ b U@ A}l@ r C@ C


22/29

146 nv

1. do2. far _____ a metal of great value

3. gold _____ smallest or youngest4. clear _____ to make5. human6. least==================================================================

1. me2. or _____ at no time3. run _____ can be done; can happen4. never _____ not big; little5. small6. possible=================================================================1. add2. than _____ a number of people or things3. tree _____ a tall plant with leaves; wood comes from this4. group _____ to increase the number5. concern6. whether=================================================================

1. sing2. sure _____ not controlled by others3. prove _____ something that can help4. college _____ without doubt5. advantage6. independent================================================================

1. dry2. gas _____ not wet3. corn _____ to say something4. marry _____ to take husband or wife5. remark6. personal=================================================================

1. wise2. glass _____ understanding3. defeat _____ a window is made of this4. operate _____ a country without a king where people vote5. republic6. statement================================================================


23/29

j r J B P\ z 147

1.original2.private _____ complete3.royal _____ first4.slow _____ not public5.sorry6.total==================================================================

=

1.apply2.elect _____ choose by voting3.jump _____ become like water

4.manufacture _____ make5.melt6.threaten==================================================================

1.blame2.hide _____ keep away from sight3.hit _____ have a bad effect on something4.invite _____ ask5.pour6.spoil==================================================================

1.accident2.choice _____ having a high opinion of yourself3.debt _____ something you must pay4.fortune _____ loud, deep sound5.pride6.roar=================================================================

1.basket2.crop _____ money paid regularly3.flesh _____ heat4.salary _____ meat5.temperature6.thread==================================================================

1.birth2.dust _____ being born3.operation _____ game4.row _____ winning5.sport6.victory

==================================================================


24/29

148 nv

1.administration

2.angel _____ managing business and affairs3.front _____ spirit who serves God4.herd _____ group of animals5.mate6.pond==================================================================

1.bench2.charity _____ part of a country3.fort _____ help to the poor4.jar _____ long seat5.mirror6.province=================================================================

1.coach2.darling _____ a thin, flat piece cut from something3.echo _____ person who is loved very much4.interior _____ sound reflected back to you5.opera6.slice=================================================================

1.marble2.palm _____ inner surface of your hand3.ridge _____ excited feeling4.scheme _____ plan5.statue6.thrill=================================================================

1.discharge2.encounter _____use pictures or examples to show the meaning3.illustrate _____ meet4.knit _____ throw up into air5.prevail6.toss=================================================================

1.annual2.blank _____ happening once a year3.brilliant _____ certain4.concealed _____ wild5.definite6.savage=================================================================


25/29

j r J B P\ z 149

1.alcohol

2.apron _____ cloth worn in front to protect your clothes3.lure _____ stage of development4.mess _____ state of untidiness or dirtiness5.phase6.plank================================================================

1.circus2.jungle _____ speech given by a priest in a church3.nomination _____ seat without a back or arms4.sermon _____ musical instrument5.stool6.trumpet===============================================================

1.apparatus2.compliment _____ set of instruments or machinery3.revenue _____ money received by the government4.scrap _____ expression of admiration5.tile6.ward==============================================================

1.bruise2.exile _____ agreement using property as security for a debt3.ledge _____ narrow shelf4.mortgage _____ dark place on your body caused by hitting5.shovel6.switch==============================================================

1.blend2.devise _____ hold tightly in your arms3.embroider _____ plan or invent4.hug _____ mix5.imply6.paste==============================================================

1.desolate2.fragrant _____ good for your health3.gloomy _____ sweet-smelling4.profound _____ dark or sad5.radical6.wholesome=============================================================


26/29

150 nv

1.affluence

2.axis _____ introduction of a new thing3.episode _____ one event in a series4.innovation _____ wealth5.precision6.tissue=================================================================

1.deficiency2.magnitude _____ swinging from side to side3.oscillation _____ respect4.prestige _____ lack5.sanction6.specification================================================================

1.configuration2.discourse _____ shape3.hypothesis _____ speech4.intersection _____ theory5.partisan6.propensity=================================================================

1.anonymous2.indigenous _____ without the writers name3.maternal _____ least possible4.minimum _____ native5.nutrient6.modification================================================================

1.elementary2.negative _____ of the beginning3.static _____ not moving or changing4.random _____ final, furthest5.reluctant6.ultimate================================================================

1.coincide2.coordinate _____ prevent people from doing something they want to do3.expel _____ add to4.frustrate _____ send out by force5.supplement6.transfer================================================================


27/29

j r J B P\ z 151

APPENDIX B

Foods Provide Energy

Almost all foods give us energy in the form of nutrients. Some give us more energy thanothers. Energy is measured in calories. Foods rich in fats, starches or sugars have a lot ofcalories. Fat is a big source of energy.

At times you eat foods that have more energy, or calories, than you need. The extraenergy is then stored in the body as fat. If you eat too much, you become overweight. Whenyou eat fewer calories than the body uses, you lose weight.

The body can pick and choose what it needs from the nutrients in the diet. Your bodysees to it that each organ gets exactly the right amount of nutrients it needs. However, if the dietlacks some of the needed nutrients, the body has no way of getting them.

Your body keeps busy. It works twenty-four hours a day. It is always building itselfup, repairing itself, and getting rid of waste products. It needs a constant supply of nutrients to doits job. When it receives the nutrients, it sends them where they are needed.

Nutrients working with other nutrients make the difference in our health and well-being. No single nutrient can work properly alone. For example, it takes calcium to build strong bones, but that is only the beginning. Without vitamin D, the calcium cannot be taken into the body.The use of protein is another example. Protein forms part of every cell and all the fluids the travelin and around the cells. However, it takes vitamin C to help make the fluids between the cells.Without vitamin C, the protein could not do its job.

The foods you eat keep you healthy for today, but they also build your body for alifetime. They keep you well today, tomorrow and always.


28/29

152 nv

APPENDIX C

WHAT DID YOU KNOW BEFORE READING THIS TEXT?

Food Provides Energy

Item No. Item Content 1 2 3 4 51. Before reading this text how

much did you know about theidea thatfoods give us energy ?

None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot

2. Before reading this text howmuch did you know about the

idea thatenergy is measured incalories ? None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot

3. Before reading this text howmuch did you know about theidea thatour body has to dosomething with extra calories ?


4. Before reading this text howmuch did you know about theidea that our body can pick andchoose what it needs from thenutrients in the diet?


5. Before reading this text howmuch did you know about theidea that our body uses nutrientsto build itself up, repair itself,and get rid of waste products?


6. Before reading this text howmuch did you know about theidea that nutrients working withother nutrients make thedifference in our health?


7. How much did you like to readabout this topic?

Not atall Very little Some Quite a bit A lot

8. How much were you interestedin this topic? Not atall Very little Some Quite a bit A lot


29/29

j r J B P\ z 153

j r J B P\ z

F j ~y t

K n

] r J Oj \ M ~ ] r JqM \ z O A O r J P 246 jT r J B\ ^u B ^g@Mg e P C\ z H[ p C s G Aj P r J e H z A L r J { e { X hCxWj r Jq| V rJ eC ] A b\ ^ AL rJ A D e H z N C ] r J AL L k e H o TC P Aj j ] N r Jq AGL k z ^ N C s j t @ r J AHWi \ z O C

r G r J B B\ z B ^~y

讀知識 (listi of mandarin vocabulary for hsk test)

Documents