Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
91
English Teaching, Vol. 66, No.l , Spring 2011
Korean EFL Learners' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and Learner Proficiency
Sung-Yeon Kim (Hanyang University)
Young-sook Ryoo (University of Seoul)'
Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Young-sook. (2011). Korean EFL learners'
vocabulary use in reading-based writing: According to topic and learner
proficiency. English Teaching, 66(1),91-109.
The study investigated whether Korean EFL students' vocabulary used in reading
based writing differed according to writing topic and their reading and writing
proficiency. C이lege students enrolled in writing courses (n=95) were asked to write
argurnentative essays in response to two readings on judging people by appearance
(JPA) and disc10sing personal information ofserious criminals (DPI). These students
were divided into high and low proficiency writer groups and into 비gh and low
proficiency reader groups according to their writing and reading scores respectively.
The students' vocabulary used in writing was then analyzed by VocabProfile, which
provided fo따 lexical frequency Iists: the first 1000 frequent words (K 1) including
function words (F찌') and content words (CW), the second \000 frequent words (K2), academic word Iist (AWL), and offthe Iist words (OLW). 까le results indicated that
the topic JPA produced a higher proportion of Kl and content words, whereas DPI
generated more K2 and offthe Iist words. None ofthe vocabulary profiles, however, significantly differed according to the students’ reading proficiency. In contrast, proficient writers were found to use significantly more K 1 and function words than
their counteφ따ts . With the topic effect further considered, for JP A, proficient writers
used more K 1 words and function words whereas less proficient writers 따ed more
K2 and off the list words. With regard to DPl, proficient writers were found to use
more function words than low proficient writers. Findings are discussed in more
detail, along with implications.
1. INTRODUCTION
In recent ye따s, an integrated skill approach rather than a discrete skill approach has
• First author: Sung-Yeon Kim, Corresponding autl1or: Young-sook Ryoo
92 Kim, Sung-Y eon & Ryoo, Y oung-sook.
received more favorable attention from ELT practitioners. In particular, the use of
integrated reading and writing tasks has e매oyed popularity both for classroom instruction
and for assessment (Leki & Carson, 1997; Plakans, 2008; Weigle, 2004). The writing
component in the TOEFL iBT test is a good example of a reading integrated w디tingtask.
까ús reading-based writing 없sk, althou양1 it is a real-life challenge for L2 learners in
acadellÚc contexts (Baba, 2009), is etIective since it is designed to resolve problems of
conventional writing tests that lack authenticity and validity. According to Plakans (2008), reading integrated writing tasks are close to academic writing assignments and thus less
demanding from students' perspectives.
In a similar vein, Weigle (2004) illustrates some advantages of reading-based writing
tests over prompt-based writing tests. According to Weigle, the use of reading materials is
beneficial for test-takers in that they can write in response to the source texts. The source
texts can serve to activate writers' background knowledge about a topic and to facilitate
writers' idea generation.
Since source texts supply second language learners with more information, content, and
ideas for writing, L2 writers in Plakans (2008) were found to prefer a reading-based
writing task and plan more while performing reading-based writing tasks. Based on the
findings of the study, Plak없15 suggested that reading-based writing tasks should be used
for evaluating a writer’s ability to plan during the writing process.
It can be inferred from the earlier studies that providing relevant reading texts can be of
great help to EFL writing instruction because students can recycle some words or sentence
pattems from the source texts to produce writing. However, few studies have been
conducted to explore how reading can be integrated into writing and more specifically, how L2 learners use vocabulary in reading-based writing. The questions are even more
intriguing when we note L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge is not necessarily equal to
their ability to use vocabulary (Read, 1997, 2000).
In line with Read (1 997, 2000), Laufer and Nation (1 995) devised the Lexical
Frequency Profile (LFP) to assess L2 learners' vocabulary in writing and claimed that the
LFP is a reliable measure of lexical richness in L2 writing. They state that the LFP
“ provides similar stable results for two pieces of writing by the same person 때d
discriminates between lea
Korean EFL Le하ners’ Vocab비ary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 93
11. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1. Previous 8tudies on L2 Reading and Writing
As one ofthe early studies that explored the relation between reading and writing, Tsang
(1996) examined whether Hong Kong learners of English would benefit from extensive
reading in regards to the following sub-skills of writing: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. The findings of the study indicated that the extensive
reading expe끼ence helped the students with content delivery and language use when
writing. In relation to the fmding, Tsang (1996) argued for the need to expose students to
reading materials. Hinkel (2006) went so far as to argue that teachers should select reading
from various genres oftext (narrative, argumentative, expository, etc.) to facilitate learners'
noticing of grammar and vocabulary.
With the same argument reflected in teaching method, Plakans (2008) further supported
an integrated approach to teaching writing. Plakans' (2008) study offers a clear connection
between reading and writing. 까le study designed reading-to-write tasks and writing-on1y
tasks and compared the effectiveness of the two. The study used a think-aloud verbal
protocol to compare ten students' composing process in academic writing. Four
participants thought of the writing-only tasks as more difficult because they had to develop
their own ideas. By contrast, six writers reported they performed better on the reading-to
write tasks. Nine of the students actually reported that they preferred the reading-to-write
tasks to the writing-only tasks. In addition, while performing the reading-to-write task, hi양11y experienced and motivated writers interacted more actively with the source texts.
Based on the findings of the study, Plakans recommended that reading-to-write tasks
should be used to make inferences about writers' abilities.
The reading-writing connection was also examined with vocabulary being a medium of
the two. Webb (2009), for example, explored the effects of two different ηpes of
vocabulary practice on Japanese EFL students' English reading and writing. The study
examined whether ways of learning vocabulary would affect reading and writing. One
group of students learned nonsense vocabulary while performing a receptive learning task;
the other group performed a productive learning task for vocabulary learning. The results
showed that the receptive task (word translation of L2 into Ll) led to improvement in
reading comprehension, whereas the productive task (word translation of Ll in
94 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Young-sook.
examine the relation. For ex따nple, it would be helpful to take into account L2 le따ners’
reading and writing proficiency with regard to their vocabulary knowledge in writing. The
relationship will be interesting to investigate since L2 leamers' vocabulary knowledge is
intrinsically connected to text comprehension (reading) and production (writing).
2. L2 Learners' Vocabulary Knowledge and Language Proficiency
It has been pointed out that L21eamers' vocabulary knowledge is closely related to their
language proficiency and researchers have σied to explore what is meant by knowing a
word in L2. Previous studies (Morris & Cobb, 2004; Muncie, 2002; Qian, 2002; Saville
Troike, 1984) have argued that vocabulary is central to second language leaming and
teaching and further suggested that measures of vocabulary knowledge are useful
indicators ofL2 proficiency.
As one of the earlier studies, Saville-Troike (1984) explored the relationship between
EFL children’s English language performance and their academic achievement. The study
found that the children’s accuracy in English morphology and syntax in spoken language
was of little importance to their academic achievement and that the correlation between
their reading achievement and grarnmatical accuracy was very weak (r =.025). Reporting
the findings, Saville-Troike claimed that vocabulary knowledge was the single most
important aspect of second language competence p따ticularly when the leamers are
leaming an L2 in the target language.
With more focus on different types of lexical competence, Laufer and Goldstein (2004)
examined what type of vocabulary knowledge was the best indicator of general language
competence. F or this question, Lauf농r and Goldstein divided L2 leamers' vocab비따y
knowledge into the following four categories: active recall, passive recall, active
recognition, and passive recognition. πleir study found that the best predictor of success in
foreign language class was passive recall of word meaning. Based on the findings of the
study, they suggested that vocabulary knowledge is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon and
is more related to what learners are required to do with the knowledge.
Another line of argUDlent on the role of vocabul없y was made by Morris and Cobb
(2004). Their study reported that vocab띠하y profiles instead of passive recall of words
would function as useful measures of leamer proficiency in higher education. 깐leir study
noted some correlations between TESL students' vocabulary profiles and their academic
performance in a pedagogical grarnmar course. The hi양lest correlation was found between
the use of academic words and grades in the grarnmar course. Two significant correlations
were also obtained between 1,000 most frequent words (K l) and grades, and between
function words and grades. In a comparison of the TESL students and native speakers, the
study found
Korean EFL Learners' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 95
words from the first one thousand words (Kl) and the function words (FW). Compared to Morris and Cobb, other studies paid special attention to the association
between vocabulary knowledge and reading proficiency (Nassai, 2004; Qian, 2002) on the
grounds that reading exposes L2 learners to vocabulary, and thus facilitates the acquisition
of reading fluency. For instance, Nass매 (2004) found that vocabulary knowledge, P따ticularly the depth of L2 vocabulary knowledge, was sσongly correlated with learners’
ability to read and understand written texts. It can be inferred from the finding that L2
vocabulary knowledge plays a crucial role in reading comprehension.
As to the relationship between different aspects of vocabulary knowledge and reading
skills, Qian (2002) investigated whether the breadth or the depth of vocabulary would
influence L2 learners’ reading process. Qian (2002) defined the breadth of vocabulary (or
vocabulary size) as the number ofwords one knows, and the depth ofvocabulary as how
well one knows words. The study found that the depth of vocabulary was as important as
vocabulary size as an indicator ofL2 students' academic reading performance. Qian further
suggested that tests that measure both the depth and the size of vocabulary should be used
to better predict learners' reading performance.
In a more recent study, Qian (2005) investigated L2 learners’ use of vocabulary
knowledge in the process of making lexical inferences while reading. The results of the
study indicated that the depth of vocabulary knowledge contributes to reading
comprehension for Chinese and Korean ESL learners of English. Based on the findings, Qian emphasized the need to foster the depth of learners' vocabulary knowledge and
advised L2 instructors to focus on this for their classroom teaching.
The studies reviewed thus far examined the relationship between L2 learners’
vocabulary knowledge and their reading comprehension 뻐d found that vocabulary
knowledge was a sπong predictor of learner performance in reading. There are also studies
interested in the relationship between L2 learners’ vocab비따y knowledge and writing
performance.
For instance, Engber (1995) investigated the relationship between various lexical
measures and writing quality. The study compared the quality of student writing in terms
of four measures of lexical richness: lexical variation, error-free variation, percentage of
lexical error, and lexical density. The study noted the hi방le
96 Kim, Sung-Y eon & Ryoo, Y oung-sook.
sho비d note that students’ use of vocabulary might differ according to their proficiency
levels. Thus, the study aims to examine how learners with different levels of reading and
writing proficiency use vocabulary in writing.
III.METHOD
1. Research Questions
For the purpose ofthe study, the following research questions were posed:
1. Are there differences in learners' use ofvocabulary according to writing topic?
2. How do students with different levels of reading proficiency use vocabulary in
reading-based writing?
3. How do students with different levels of writing proficiency use vocablilary in
reading-based writing?
2. Participants
The participants of the study were freshmen at a university in Seoul. The students had
similar educational backgrounds since they were newly admitted to a top-tier university
after taking the Korean scholastic aptitude test (SAT). However, they were from different
fields of study: industrial design, environmental sculpture, music, statistics, physics, life
science, law, business administration, and environmental engineering.
The number ofthe students was originally ninety-five, but for a clear comparison ofthe
hi양1 and the low proficiency group, the students rated as intermediate level were excluded
from the data. With regard to reading proficiency, there were 30 for the hi방1 proficiency
group and 25 for the low group. In terms of w디ting performance, 21 students were
classified as hi양피y proficient whereas 19 were grouped as a low group.
3. Data Collection Procedure
For data collection, students were asked to take both reading and writing tests. The
reading test extracted from a TOEFL preparation book (Cho, 2002) contained three
passages with five questions for each passage. The total number of questions being 15, the
maximum score students could obtain was 15. It took 15 minutes to conduct the reading
test.
According to the reading test results, the students were assigned either to a hi맹
Korean EFL Leamers' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 97
proficiency group (RH) or to a low proficiency group (RL). πle students who obtained ten
or above were categorized as a hi맹 proficiency group (n=30, RH) and those with below
five as a low proficiency group (n=25, RL). The students with scores of six to nine were
excluded from the data analysis for a clear comp때son of the two groups.
After the reading test was administered, the students were asked to write argumentative
essays on two topics. The topics were chosen to induce learning interest from students, as
shown in the following:
• One should never judge a person by extemal appearance (JP A).
• Personal information of serious criminal suspects should be revealed (DPI).
까le fust one (JPA) was selected as an easier topic than the other one (DPI). Newspaper
articles on the topics were given to the students so that they could read the materials prior
to writing. They were not allowed to utilize any other kind of extemal aids including
dictionaries while writing. They had an hour to complete each writing task in class, and
they were told to produce a 300-word written text.
At the end of the task completion, two raters holistically scored student writing on
content and language (i.e., grammar and vocabulary). The two raters had been teaching
English writing to Korean c이lege students for five and ten years respectively. They had a
mock norming session in which they assessed several students' writing s따nples and
discussed the results of scoring. When there were disp때ties between the two raters, they
discussed reasons for their rating, and through discussion reached a consensus. The student
writing rated as neither high nor low got excluded from the data set tQ make sure there is
an obvious gap between the two writing proficiency groups. According to the fmalized
scores, 21 students belonged to the highly proficient writer group (WH) and 19 to the low
proficient group (WL).
4. Data Analysis
For data analysis, the students’ written essays were typed and converted into text files.
깐le text files were analyzed with the on-line computer program called VocabPr,야le. 까le
VocabPr,껴le program enabled us to obtain each student’s vocabulary profile in terms of
the following frequency word lists: the most frequent 1000 words (Kl); the second 1000
(K2); the Academic Word List (AWL) and words that do not appear on the other lists
(OLW).
In addition, function words (FW) 없ld content words (CW) as subsets of Kl were also
chosen for data analysis. πlese categorized frequency lists assume that the higher the
percentage of infrequent words, the larger the subject’s productive vocabulary. SPSS 18.0
98 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Y oung-sook.
was run to see whether there were statistical differences in learners’ productive vocabulary
according to writing topic and their reading and writing proficiency.
IV. RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION
1. Students’ Vocabulary Level and Writing Topic
To examine if and to what extent students' vocabulary use differed according to writing
topics (JPA and DPI), a multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) was run, with topic
as an independent variable and vocabulary profiles as dependent variables. Table 1
summarizes the res띠ts of the between subject effects obtained from the MANOVA. As
shown in Table 1, significant differences were found in most of the vocabulary profiles:
Kl , CW, K2, and OLW. In other words, depending on the writing topic, the students
differed in their use of content words, Kl and K2 words, and the words not in the list.
Source
Writing topics
TABLE 1 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Topic
Dependent Mean square df F variables Kl FW CW K2 AWL OLW
2354.739 .223 2651.066 1823.669 286.738 96.220
116.577 .006 153 .422 236.231 3.335 12.175
Sig.
.000
.937
.000
.000
.069
.001
To examine specific details, descriptive statistics were also obtained. Table 2
demonstrates mean differences in the six lists according to writing topic. As seen in Table
2, JPA presented as an easier topic produced more Kl and content words. on the other
hand, DPI prepared as a more challenging topic involved the use of more advanced
vocabul따y, i.e., K2 words. It is interesting in that writing topics influenced the kinds of
vocabulary the student used in writing. As expected, an easier topic was associated with
the use of the first 1000 words (K 1) and content words whereas a more difficu1t topic was
associated with the use ofthe second 1000 words (K2). In the same vein, academic words were predicted to be more frequent for a more
difficult topic, DPI. Contradictory to the expectation, however, academic words were
frequently used for JPA, an easier topic. The seemingly different mean scores may be
attributable to the 1따ge gap in stand따d deviations (SDJP~13.05 vs. SDDPI =1.3). Although
the mean difference may seem more than expected due to the standard deviations, it was
Korean EFL Leamers' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 99
not significant in statistical testing.
Kl Jl’A 87.200 4.897 DPI 80.159 4.051
FW JPA 47 .429 4.880 DPI 47.360 6.862
CW JPA 39.771 4.037 DPI 32.300 4.274
K2 JPA 3.953 2.121 DPI 10.149 3.308
AWL JPA 5.402 13.049 DPI 2.945 1.300
OLW JPA 5.323 3.147 DPI 6.746 2.430
Note: JPA Gudging people by appearance), DPI (disctosing personal inforrnation ofserious c더minals)
It is interesting to note that the vocabulary profile in leamer writing, as shown in Table 2, indicates a similar pattem to the lexical disπibution in the original texts. Table 3
summarizes the results from the lexical frequency profile (LFP) analysis of the two source
texts given to the students. As shown in Table 3, the text on an easier topic, JPA was found
to contain a greater proportion of Kl and content words, whereas the text on DPI
contained more advanced vocabulary, such as K2 and academic words and off the list
words. The finding implies that the lexical disσibution of the source texts aff농cts the
vocabulary profiles of leamer w디ting.
TABLE3 Analysis ofVocabulary Distribution in Two Source Texts
KFW CW K2 AWL
78.88 42 .48 36.4 1 5.83 3.64 JPA DPI 71.48 42.96 28.52 11
뻐-뻐
떠
5.15
Note: Each number represents percentages ofthe vocabulary used in the source texts.
To sum up, it can be inferred that writing topics and more specifically, relevant readings
influence student writing, particularly their vocabulary use. In other words, depending on
writing topics, the kinds of words EFL leamers use are likely to vary sigr디ficantly.
Therefore, classroom teachers should consider writing topics as an important factor when
designing writing tasks or tests, since it can affect the quality of vocab비ary and writing
100 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Y oung-sook.
students would produce.
It is noteworthy that the fmdings ofthe study do not confinn Laufer and Nation’s (1 995)
study. Laufer and Nation c1aimed that two different pieces of writing by the same writer
have similar lexical frequency profiles and that the LFP can provide stable results for two
pieces of writin:g done by the same learner. Un1ike what they have argued, the present
study found that the LFP may not be so stable, in: that it varied according to writin:g topic.
ηle finding of the study, however, is consistent with Reid (1 990) and Tedick (1 990), which demonstrated that topic is an important factor affecting L2 le하ners’ vocabulary use
in English writing.
2. Students' Reading Proficiency and Vocabulary Use
The total number of student writings ended up to be 60 for the highly proficient
reader group (RH) and 50 for the low proficient reader group (RL) since the students in
each group (RH, n=30; RL, n=25) produced two pieces of writing on the two different
topics (JP A and DPI). The written essays were analyzed with VocabProfile to obtain
lexical frequency profiles. A MANOV A was then run with reading proficiency levels as
independent variables and lexical profiles as dependent variables. As seen in Table 4, none of the profiles were found to be significantly different according to the reading
proficiency level. In other words, the kinds of words learner used did not vary so much
between high proficient readers and low proficient readers.
TABLE4 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Reading Proficiency
Source Dependent Mean square df F Sig. variables Kl 33.550 1.041 .3 10 FW 16.079 .390 .534
Reading CW 5.497 .160 .690 proficiency K2 10.386 .644 .424
A WL 108.321 1.434 .234 OLW 27.285 3.506 .064
Table 5 displays the descriptive statistics of each vocabulary profile according to the
students' reading proficiency levels. Descriptive statistics also display the same pattern:
min:imal differences in mean scores due to reading proficiency. Highly proficient readers
used a few more function words, academic words and words from the Kl list; low
proficient readers used sli양lt1y more content words and K2 words, which may be due to
their use of writing strategies. π1ey mi양1t have sirnply referred to the source texts, from
which they copied some advanced words or words that carry important meaning.
Korean EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 101
TABLE5 Descriptive Statistics: Reading Proficiency
Dependent variables Reading proficiency Mean SD N
Kl RH 84.304 5.212 60 RL 83.195 6.191 50
FW RH 47.730 7.366 60 RL 46.962 5.050 50
CW RH 35.785 6.026 60 RL 36.234 5.649 50
K2 RH 6.756 3.610 60 RL 7.373 4.457 50
AWL RH 4.969 11 .678 60 RL 2.976 1.517 50
OLW RH 5.455 2.373 60 RL 6.455 3.221 50
TABLE6 Tests ofBetween-Su펙ects Effects: Reading ProficiencμJPA)
Source Dependent Meansquare df F Sig variables Kl .332 .014 .907
Reading FW .130 .005 .943 proficiency CW .047 .002 .961 (JPA) K2 .490 .102 .751
AWL 199.794 1.349 .251 OLW 19.706 2.217 .142
To further examine whether the overal1 eff농cts of reading proficiency remains the same
across difIerent topics, a MANOVA was perfonned for each topic. Table 6 and Table 7
summarize the results of the analysis. As indicated in Table 6, when the students were
asked to write about judging people by appe앙없lce, their use of vocabulary did not difIer
accon;ling to their reading proficiency. The student writing on a more difficult topic also
displayed similar lexical profiles regardless ofthe two proficiency groups (Table 7).
The finding indicates that the students' reading proficiency did not contribute to
significant difIerences in their English vocabulary profiles shown in writing and that
writing topics did not create significant eff농cts, either. 까lÏs suggests that leamers’ LFPs
were not so much related to their reading proficiency. More specifical1y, the LFP does not
seem strong enou양1 to difIerentiate advanced readers from low proficient readers. As
Laufer and Nation (1995) reported, the LFP may be a good index oflexical proficiency. 1t
may thus be used to difIerentiate the lexical quality of leamer writing at difIerent levels of
proficiency, rather than te l1 good readers from poor ones.
102
Source
Reading proficiency (DPI)
Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Young-sook.
TABLE7 Tests of Between-Subjects Eff농cts: Reading Proficiency (DPI)
Dependent variables Mean squ없e df F Sig.
Kl 57.998 3.958 .052 FW 28.203 .480 .492 CW 12.470 .693 .409 K2 27.639 3.047 .087 AWL .341 .182 .671 OLW 8.691 1.547 .219
To put it difIerently, the students' reading proficiency may not guarantee their lexical
proficiency in writing. The finding that their reading proficiency did not predict their
lexical proficiency in writing may be because L2 reading comprehension involves various
factors, such as learners' background knowledge, density ofunknown words in a passage, and learners' ability to infer from the passage,.etc. Another possible explanation is that L2
learners’ knowledge of receptive vocabulary difIers froin their ability to use productive
vocabulary. Thus, being able to recognize words does not necessarily mean the active use
ofthe words in writing, since the two types ofvocabulary are two difIerent entities.
3. Students’ Writing Proficiency and Vocabula깨 Use
The total number of student writings was 42 for the hi양1 proficiency group (WH) and
38 for the low proficiency group (WL) because the students in each group (WH, n=21;
WL, n=19) wrote two essays on the two difIerent topics (JPA and DPI). Student writing
was then analyzed with the on-line computer program, VocabPl1생le to obtain the students’
vocabulary profiles. Then, a MANOVA was performed to compare lexical frequency
profiles of the high and the low group. Table 8 presents the efIects of writing proficiency
on learners’ vocabulary profiles.
As seen in the table, statistically significant difIerences were found in Kl and function
words. In other words, advanced writers difIered from low proficient writers in the way
they used . the function words and the Kl words. For more details about the group
difIerence, descriptive statistics were obtained, as summarized in Table 9. In the
comparison of the mean scores across the two proficiency groups, we can see that
advanced writers used more Kl words and function words than their counterparts, which
confirms the results from s떠.tistical testing. According to desc디ptive s빼stics alone, hi빼y
proficient writers also used more academic words than low proficient writers, althou방1 the
difIerences were negligible.
Korean EFL Leamers' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 103
TABLE8 Tests of Betweeo-Subjects Eπects: Writiog Proficieocy
Source Dependent variables Mean square df F Sig.
K 1 176.577 5.606 .020 FW 373.171 15.949 .000
Writing CW 36.433 1.321 .254 proficiency K2 43.804 2.3 11 .133
AWL 65.133 .626 .431 OLW 27.695 3.166 .079
It is interesting that the low proficient writers produced sli야tly more K2 words, content
words, and off the list words, although the differences were not statistically significant.
This finding conσadicts the general expectation that advanced writers would use more
sophisticated vocabulary such as K2 words and OLWs in their writing. It is noteworthy
that the . students with low levels of reading proficiency used more K2 words and off the
list words. This may be p따tly due to their strategy use. That is, when students have lirnited
proficiency in reading and writing, they are prone to use advanced vocabulary as well as
content words in the source texts.
TABLE 9 Descriptive Statistics: Writio융 Proficieocy
Dependent variables Writing proficiency Mean SD N
KI WH 84.927 5.750 42 WL 81.952 5.456 38
FW WH 49.468 4.686 42 WL 45.143 4.999 38
CW WH 35 .458 5.4 19 42 WL 36.809 5.060 38
K2 WH 6.367 4.308 42 WL 7.849 4.404 38
AWL WH 5.182 13.941 42 WL 3.375 1.996 38
OLW WH 5.646 2.628 42 WL 6.824 3.285 38
For a further comp때son of the two proficiency groups according to the two different
topics, a MANOVA was performed for both JPA and DPI (see Table 10 and Table 11).
Surprisingly, the topic-based comparison yielded different results. As indicated in Table 10, significant mean differences were found for JPA in terms ofKl words, K2 words, function
words, and OLW.
104 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Young-sook.
TABLE 10 Tests ofBetween-Subjects Effects: Writing Proficiency (JPA)
Source Dependent var떠b1es Mean square df F Sig.
K1 196.450 9.500 .004 Writing FW 223.707 12.252 .001 proficiency CW .903 .070 .792
K2 21.543 5.666 .022 A WL 139.584 .680 .415 OLW 60.625 6.168 .018
on the other hand, for DPI the significant mean difference was noted only for function
words, as shown in Table 11. It can be inferred from the finding that function words can be
a good indicator of learners' writing proficiency, regardless of topics. More detailed
comp않isons are given in Table 12 and Table 13, which summarize descriptive statistics for
the two topics according to writing proficiency.
TABLE 11 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects: Writing Proficiency (DPI)
Source Dependent variables Mean square df F Sig.
Writing proficiency
KI FW CW K2 AWL OLW
22.814 152.829 57.548 22.263
.161
.118
1.266 .268 5.149 .029 3.191 .082 1.705 .199 .105 .747 .018 .894
As shown in Table 12, in writing on a relatively easy topic, high1y proficient writers
(WH) generated a greater amount of Kl words and function words, compared to their
counterp없잉. On the other hand, low proficient writers (WL) produced sli방ltly more K2
words and off the list words, which may have been due to their sσategy use. The
differences in descriptive statistics confmn the findings from the MANOVA. The notable
difference between the two groups in their use of academic words, which may be due to
the big standard deviation of the hi앙11y proficient group, did not lead to a statistically
significant one.
For a more difficult topic, the only significant difference was noted in the use of
function words (Table 11). π1Ís was also observed in descriptive statistics, as in Table 13.
Althou양1 statistically non-significant, the proficient group used slightly more Kl words
and off the list words than the low proficiency group. The students with limited
proficiency in writing used a few more K2 words, content words and academic words. All
these mean differences, however, were not big enou앙1 to lead to statistically significant
results (see Table 11).
Korean EFL Leamers' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 105
TABLE 12 Desc꺼ptive Statistics: Writin훌 Proficiency (JPA)
Dependent variables Writing proficiency
Mean SD N (JPA)
K1 WH 89.056 3.806 21 WL 84.618 5.250 19
FW WH 49.641 4.3 12 21 WL 44.905 4.229 19
CW WH 39.413 3.506 21 WL 39.714 3.672 19
K2 WH 3.136 1.660 21 WL 4.606 2.228 19
AWL WH 7.608 19.609 21 WL 3.867 2.477 19
OLW WH 4.445 2.064 21 WL 6.911 4.002 19
TABLE 13 Descriptive Statistics: W꺼ting Proficiency (DPI)
Dependent variables Writing proficiency
Mean SD N (DPl)
K1 WH 80.798 4.182 21 WL 79.286 4.316 19
FW WH 49.295 5.134 21 WL 45 .381 5.777 19
CW WH 31.503 3.881 21 WL 33.905 4.619 19
K2 WH 9.598 3.657 21 WL 11.092 3.563 19
AWL WH 2.757 1.232 21 WL 2.884 1.242 19
OLW WH 6.846 2.621 21 WL 6.737 2.480 19
From the students' vocabulary profiles according to writing proficiency, we can see that
the more advanced the learners were, the more function words they used in their writing.
The finding indicates that the use of function words is associated with students' writing
proficiency. One possible explanation about the fmding is that proficient L2 writers are
more familiar with using various function words such as articles, prepositions, relative
pronouns, etc. Unlike advanced writers, low proficient writers have 따lÏted knowledge
about function words and thus are not able to use them in language production.
The 마lding that hi방lly rated writing contained more function words implies that
function words may be a major indicator of students’ writing proficiency. A similar
conclusion was also drawn by Morris and Tremblay (2002) as cited in Morris and Cobb
106 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Y oung-sook.
(2004). Moπis and Tremblay found that hi양ùy rated students’ essays carried more
function words.
v. CONCLUSION
The present study investigated the relationship between Korean c이lege students' lexical
proficiency and their reading and writing proficiency. In addition, the study examined
whether writing topic influences Korean EFL leamers’ vocabulary use in reading-based
English writing.
The results of the study indicated that the students' use of vocabulary in their writing
differed significantly according to topic. Differences were found in almost all of the
vocabulary lists, such as Kl , CW, K2, and OLW. More specifically, an easier topic was
associated with the use ofthe first 1000 words (Kl) and content words; a more difficult
topic was associated with the use ofthe second 1000 words (K2). πlÎs finding tells us how
the students' written vocabulary was affected by source texts provided for the in-class
writing task.
With regard to the relationship between reading proficiency and lexical profiles, none of
the vocabulary profiles were found to be si뺑ficantly different according to reading
proficiency. on the other hand, proficient writers were found to produce more Kl words
and fimction words. According to topic-based comparison, for JPA, proficient writers
generated more KI words and fimction words, whereas less proficient writers produced a
hi양ler proportion of K2 and OLW. This indicates that writing proficiency involves more
dexterous use of words that are highly frequent, not necessarily the ability to use more
sophisticated words. For a more difficult topic, DPI, proficient writers were found to use
more function words than their counterparts.
The present study has several important pedagogical implications. First, writing topics
and reading materials should be fully considered when providing reading-based writing
tasks since different topics can lead to significantly different vocabulary profiles. πle
present study found that students relied on the source texts provided for a writing task,
regardless of their language proficiency levels. Therefore, when providing reading-based
writing tasks for students, the reading material is an important factor to consider as well as
writing topic. Classroom teachers should also design tasks that encourage the students to
make a full use of the source texts.
Another finding of the study showed that EFL learners' lexical proficiency assessed by
the LFP was not related to their reading proficiency. In other words, the students' reading
proficiency did not show significantly different vocabulary size assessed by the LFP. It
s
Korean EFL Learners' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and ... 107
context (reading) and the ability to use them in context (writing). π1Ïs finding is
particularly informative for classroom teachers because previous studies have shown that
L2 learners' acquisition of productive vocabulary usually comes after their receptive
vocabulary, and thus L2 leamers' receptive vocabulary seems to be larger than productive
vocabulary.
In addition, it is important to note that the LFP may not be the best predictor of Korean
college students' reading proficiency although the LFP has been shown to reliably
differentiate leamers with different proficiency levels. The results of the study do not seem
to support this, in that the LFPs of the two different reading proficiency groups did not
show a significant difference. Therefore, classroom teachers need to be cautious about
using the LFP as an indicator ofEFL learners' English proficiency.
Finally, the inclusion of vocabulary profiles as part of writing assessment is worthy of
consideration. The students' vocab비ary profiles were significantly different according to
their writing performance. The study results revealed that students' writing performance
was definitely affected by their vocabul없Y in writing because hi앙dy-rated writing showed
that the students made a more use offunction words. This finding also tells us that students
should leam how to make appropriate use of function words to obtain hi앙1 ratings on their
wntmg.
πle findings of the present study, while 띠teresting and informative, should be
confirmed in a replication study with more participants, different types of writing tasks, and other types of language proficiency tests. In other words, future studies should
consider the effect of different writing tasks on students’ vocabulary profiles according to
language proficiency levels. The analysis of the writing task effects on students'
vocabulary profiles may provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between L2
writing and vocabulary knowledge (LFP). Further research is also needed to explore
whether different types of language proficiency tests would yield different results for the
relationship between leamers' vocabulary knowledge (LFP) and their language proficiency.
In particul따~ the relationship between comprehension 뻐d production of L2 vocab비ary
may provide some guidance for future English writing classes for Korean c이lege students.
REFERENCES
Baba, K. (2009). Aspects of lexical proficiency in writing sunlffiaries in a foreign language.
Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 18, 191-208.
Cho, D. (2002). Hackers TOEFL reading. Seoul: Hackers Language Institute.
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL
compositions. Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 4, 139-155.
108 Kim, Sung-Yeon & Ryoo, Young-sook.
Hinkel, E. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching the four skills. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 109-132.
La따er, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, sσength, and
computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54, 399-436.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1 995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written
production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Completely different worlds: EAP and the writing
experiences ofESL students in university courses. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 39-69.
Morris, L., & Cobb, T (2004). Vocabu1ary profiles as predictors of the academic
performance ofTeaching English as a Second Language σainees. System, 32, 75-78.
Morris, L., & Tremblay, M. (2002, June). 1꺼e interaction of morphology and lexis in the
development in ESL learners. Paper presented at the Canadian Association of
Applied Linguistics Conference, Toronto.
Muncie, J. (2002). Process writing and vocabulary development: Comparing Lexica1
Frequency Profiles across drafts. System, 30, 225-235.
Nassaji, H. (2004). The relationship between depth of vocabulary knowledge and L2
learners' lexical inferencing strategy use and success. 1까e Canadian λlodern
Language Review, 61, 107-134.
Plakans, L. (2008). Comparing composing processes in writing-only and reading-to-write
test tasks. Assessing Writing, 13, 111-129.
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513-536.
Qian, D. D. (2005). Demystifying lexical inferencing: The role of aspects of vocabulary
knowledge. TESL Canada Journal, 22 (2), 34-54.
Read, J. (1997). Vocabulary and testing. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulaη Descrψtion and acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 303-320). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reid, J. (1990). Responding to diff농rent topic types: A q뻐ntitative ana1ysis from a
contrastive rhetoric perspe이ive. In D. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing:
Research ins땅htsfor the classroom (pp. 191-210). New York: Longman.
Saville-Troike, M. (1 984). What really matters in second language leaming for academic
achievement? TESOL Quarterly, 18, 199-219.
Tedick, D. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Su비ect-matter knowledge and its impact on
performance. English for φec떠'c Purposes, 9, 123-
Korean EFL Leamers' Vocabulary Use in Reading-based Writing: According to Topic and .. . 109
and writing. The Canadian Modern Laη'guage Review, 65, 441-470.
Weigle, S. C. (2004). Integrating reading and writing in a cornpetency test for non
native speakers ofEnglish. Assessing Writing, 9, 27-55 .
Applicable levels: primary, secondary, tertiary Key words: vocabulary profiles, lexical frequency profile (LFP), reading integrated writing,
reading proficiency, writing proficiency, topic
‘ . Sung-Y eon Kim - 끼."Hanyang University
:;~{1.,7 Haengdangdong, Seongdonggu 익 Sëoul (1 33-791), Korea
TEL: (02) 2220-1141 E-mail: sung양‘k이im@h뼈lanyan탬l땅g.ac . k‘kr 〈αr
Young씌ook Ryoo 101-401', Hanyang Su-ja-in Apt. Bora-dòng Kiheung-gu Yongin-si Kyungki-do, 446-904, Korea Tel: 010-6360-1756 E-mail: ysryoo2@hanmai l.net
ReceNed in Decémber, 2010 Reviewed in:[ebruary, 2011 Revised version received in March, 2011
-.、"'"
‘