125

University Students Vocabulary

Knowledge, 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 fields
of study. Since vocabulary knowledge is essential to meeting this goal, this paper measures the
vocabulary size of university students and their reading comprehension ability, with particular
reference to the effects of vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on reading
comprehension. The subjects were 246 university juniors who were non-English major. They
took Nations (1990) Vocabulary Levels Test, an English passage, a recall protocol, and the
Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The reading comprehension score
was calculated in an idea-unit analysis of students recall protocols. The results show that
university students depend upon vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge to comprehend any
English text they read, but they depend more upon vocabulary knowledge than upon content
knowledge. On the average, university students vocabulary knowledge does not reach the
necessary threshold of vocabulary knowledge. Although university students have rich content
knowledge, their lack of vocabulary knowledge markedly prevents them from applying their
content knowledge to gaining information from a reading text. Most university students in
Taiwan only know a few general academic words so that it is difficult for them to read academic
texts 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 is
a required subject for students at junior and senior high schools. English teachers who teach at
O n v d |
unv v 38 @ HP | ] 93 ~ ^ G125 153



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 in
Taiwan. According to Huangs study, the total number of frequently used English words in junior
high school textbooks was around 1,050, while that in senior high school textbooks was nearly
2,800 words, including approximately 500 low-frequency words. He argued that high school
graduates were expected to know 3,850 words, excluding those learned from outside reading. In
university, every freshman must learn freshman English without prior reference to national English
curricula 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 read
English textbooks related to their special fields of study.
Recently, several educators and instructors who teach at universities keep complaining that in
Taiwan, the capability of university students to understand English is so poor that they feel that
gaining information from English textbooks in their fields of study is difficult and that they usually
ask their instructors to use textbooks printed in Chinese or translated into Chinese. Instructors
find 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 vocabulary
knowledge prevents L2 readers from comprehending texts printed in English. Nurerni and Read
(1999) determined that Indonesian university students who only had limited vocabulary knowledge
also encountered this same problem with reading. They worried that it was difficult for
Indonesian 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 impact
of vocabulary knowledge on reading comprehension. They are high-frequency words, academic
words, 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 academic
texts are general academic words. In fact, high-frequency words and general academic words
represent the most necessary of vocabulary size. These two kinds of words play a critical role in
university students reading process. This study first explores university students vocabulary size
and the relationship between their vocabulary knowledge and their reading comprehension to find
out more about university students problems with reading. Therefore, this research focuses on
the following questions.
(1) What is the size of the vocabulary of university juniors and how good is their reading
comprehension?
(2) Do university students vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge influence their
reading comprehension?
Literature Review
In the second language (L2) reading process, many elements, learning skills, and contexts
affect university students reading comprehension. Either vocabulary knowledge or content
knowledge plays a critical role in reading performance. Therefore, the literature for the present
study concentrates on the impact of EFL readers vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on
reading comprehension.




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 passages
and 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 it
cannot help them comprehend reading texts. Yoshida (1978) conducted a study to determine the
size of the English vocabulary of Japanese children, and found that a Japanese child who learned
English as a foreign language in a nursery school, taking 2 to 3 hours of English classes a day
acquired 570 to 660 words annually in his/her receptive vocabulary. Barrow, Nakanishi and
Ishino (1999) measured vocabulary knowledge of Japanese college freshmen (N = 1283) and
discovered 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 whether
Indonesian university students vocabulary size had progressed over the 30 years since the
aforementioned study. A total of 324 freshmen at a university completed Nations Vocabulary
Levels Test. The results revealed that their subjects had a vocabulary size of 1,226 frequent
words and 240 general academic words. Apparently, college EFL students vocabulary is smaller
than 3,000 words.
In Taiwan, Huangs (1999) research showed that Taiwanese senior high school students
acquire only about 1,950 high-frequency words after five years of taking four English classes per
week. Huang (2001) also found that Taiwanese technological university/college students who
majored in the applied science and technology could identify only 1,690 frequent word families
and about 140 general academic words. Their lack of vocabulary leads technological
university/college students to great difficulties in effectively comprehending textbooks printed in
English and in acquiring knowledge in their areas of study. Many EFL readers attribute their
failure to comprehend English texts to insufficient vocabulary knowledge. They believe that
greater 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 following
different 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 knowledge
of a word. A text is not only a pile of words, but also meaningful information related to the
interaction of lexical knowledge and other factors such as experience and imagination. Vocabulary
knowledge is strongly related to reading comprehension, because knowledge of a word involves at
least meaning, phonological and grammatical/morphological awareness (Schmitt, 2000).
Recently, several researchers, educators, and teachers have been eager to know the extent to
which reading comprehension depends on vocabulary knowledge. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995),
Brisbois (1995), Gravers, Juel and Graves (1998), and Hulstijn and Bossers (1992) claimed that
about 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



128 nv
families had a predicted 56% reading comprehension score, that increased by 7% for every further
1,000 word families. Huang (1999) found that in Taiwan students reading comprehension scores
were 69% explained by their vocabulary knowledge score. Clearly, L2 reading comprehension
depends 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 of
English cover around 75% of general texts and the 2,000 frequently used words cover
approximately 81% of general reading passages (Nation, 1993). ESP learners must still possess
some general academic words, which were called subtechnical vocabulary by Kennedy and
Bolitho, to understand general academic texts. In order to collect general academic words, Xue
and Nation (1984) analyzed several corpora and composed a university word list (UWL) that
consisted of about 800 word families that occurred frequently in academic texts used at university
level. Hwang (1989) found that Xue and Nations UWL offered 8.5% coverage of academic texts
while Coxhead (2000) found that his own chosen 570 academic word list (AWL) presented
approximately 10% of all the words in an academic text. Nation and Hwang (1995) claimed that
2,000 word families of general service vocabulary and the UWL might cover about 95% running
words in general academic texts. Laufer (1989, 1992) stated that when EFL learners vocabulary
exceeded 95% coverage of the words in a reading passage, they could successfully guess the
unknown words and effectively achieve adequate comprehension. Obviously, Nation and Hwang
inferred that the minimum vocabulary for L2 university students reading comprehension was
2,000 high-frequency words and the UWL. In fact, university students who major in subject other
than English must acquire some highly technical vocabulary and technical abbreviations that are
intrinsic to their academic study. Although most of such technical words are low-frequency words
to 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 to
attract the interest of researchers. L- Z Q(1995) compared senior high school students and
vocational high school students English proficiency and demonstrated that vocational high school
students vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension were so poor that they could not
effectively gain information by reading passages. Ou (1997) analyzed the TOEFL (Test of English
as a Foreign Language) scores of 514 seniors selected at two comprehensive universities and two
technological universities in Taiwan. The results revealed that the technological university
seniors vocabulary scores (M =13.68) and reading comprehension scores (M = 11.35) were much
lower than those (M = 17.72; M = 15.63) of comprehensive university seniors and the difference
was statistically significant. He concluded that university students limited vocabulary hindered
their learning of English. That research only pointed out the deficiency in university students
vocabulary. 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 content
knowledge on reading comprehension is a never-ending process. Most people believe that richer
content knowledge promotes superior insightful comprehension of reading text. Good readers
use content knowledge more effectively than poor readers do, especially when reading expository
passages (Holmes, 1983). Poor readers may have trouble in activating related schemata to
facilitate comprehension.
When one reads a text, one first reads its title or topic sentence to predict its subject and



j r J B P\ z 129
possible contents. The prediction activates the readers related representations that may be
appropriate 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 ambiguous
words. However, inappropriate schemata mislead the reader to distort the meaning of words and
the text. Thus, the quantity and quality of prior topic knowledge possessed by a reader yield
different prediction patterns (Lawless, Brown, & Mills, 1998). Tyler (2001) further determined
that nonnative speakers depend more on topic knowledge in reading comprehension than natives
speakers. Johnson (1982) explored the influence of topic knowledge on comprehension and found
that the more topic knowledge possessed by an EFL reader, the more appropriate schemata can be
retrieved from long-term memory to guess or predict the meanings. Therefore, topic knowledge is
also an important factor in L2 comprehension.
Content familiarity is a greater predictor of reading comprehension than various linguistic
factors such as vocabulary knowledge and/or syntactic complexity (Akagawa, 1995; Carrell, 1983;
Hammadou, 1991). Hammadou (2000) found that readers analogies only impair reading
comprehension slightly, but content knowledge more strongly influences reading comprehension.
Nunan (1985) explored whether familiarity with content affected the perception of linguistically
marked textual relationships was impacted by familiarity with content for L2 readers. The results
indicated that existing contextual knowledge interacted with linguistic knowledge system to
support reading comprehension. Nunan concluded that his study supported the claim that textual
connectivity results from content coherence rather than linguistic form (p.50). Inevitably,
content knowledge is also critical in L2 reading comprehension. Meanwhile, the effect of the
interaction between content knowledge and linguistic knowledge, such as vocabulary knowledge, is
also a determinant on reading comprehension.

Impact of Threshold of Vocabulary Knowledge
There 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 to
explain the relationship between vocabulary size and successful reading. The total of three
thousand 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 reading
comprehension 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 by
linguistic 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 other
factors, such as interest and motivation, to support reading comprehension. Ridgway (1997)
claimed that the vocabulary knowledge only had an effect when readers L2 language proficiency
was between an upper and a lower threshold. Below the bottom threshold, readers do not have
sufficient L2 linguistic knowledge to infer the meaning of the text and a short-circuit prevents
them from interpreting the reading passage. Above the upper threshold, readers seldom depend
upon their vocabulary knowledge to interpret the text, but upon their prior knowledge, cultural
knowledge and experience.
Laufer (1992) asked university freshmen (N = 92) to take two vocabulary size tests and to
read two texts before answering 20 multiple-choice comprehension questions to study how many



130 nv
words were required to comprehend general text. She found that 3,000 word families or 5,000
lexical 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 each
sentence, rather than the meaning of the text as a whole. Accordingly, they only partially
understand or even distort the meaning of a text.
Methodology
This study employed a positivist paradigm, using the Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS) as a key tool for its objective data analysis, as well as the following data collection
instruments: (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 different
colleges/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 2000
formal 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 learning
such 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 Nations
Vocabulary Levels Test (NVLT) is a paper-and-pencil test that includes the following five levels of



j r J B P\ z 131
word-frequencythe 2,000-word level, the 3,000-word level, the 5,000-word level, the university
word 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 additional
1,000word level test that the researcher created to examine the subjects knowledge of the most
frequently used words. In the 1,000-word level test, 36 words were randomly selected from the
1,000 most frequent words in Wests (1953) General Service List and test items were composed
following 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). The
readability of the text was at the fifth level according to Frys (1977) Readability Graph. In this
article, 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 as
food, four, twenty, job, energy, cell, and our. To the subjects of this research, this article was not
difficult 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 nutrition
so 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 in
Chinese as much as possible of what they had remembered from the text, without reference to the
reading passage.

Content Knowledge Questionnaire
The ICKIQ that, written in Chinese, consisted of eight questions, the first six of which
measured the subjects content knowledge of the main ideas in that passage and the last two of
which 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 in
the same time period without using dictionaries. The test took about 50 minutes and was
conducted as follows:



132 nv
1.The supervisors of the tests took 2 minutes to delivery test sheets
2.The supervisors of the tests took 2 minutes to explain the instructions for vocabulary test
(see the 1
st
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 total
score of the three parts on the recall protocolincluding the scores for main ideas, supporting ideas
and details. Since a main idea is the most important part of a paragraph or an article and the
supporting ideas deriving from main ideas are more important than details, the scores of reading
comprehension were cumulated under the formula: the RP score = 3 the total number of main
ideas + 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 the
vocabulary knowledge score and the content background score. The vocabulary knowledge
scores 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 determined
from the content knowledge of the main ideas reported by the students, along with their interest in
the reading passage. Levels of vocabulary knowledge were determined according to the following
guideline. 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 this
study included five levels, the highest possible score was 90 (1 point x 18 items x 5 levels). The
content knowledge scores were calculated from responses to the ICKIQ, using a five-point Likert
scale, so the total possible scores were between 8 and 40.



j r J B P\ z 133
Analysis
The researcher used the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) to analyze the collected
data 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 of
inferential statistics. Since one of the major purposes of the present study was to predict the
effects of vocabulary knowledge and content knowledge on reading comprehension, the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient and the multiple regression statistical procedure were used
to analyze the collected data. In order to investigate whether there was a threshold of vocabulary
relevant to this study, the researcher split the scores of the 3,000-word level into two
groupsequal to and above 13 group and under 13 group. The independent-t test was applied to
examine 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 discuss
the 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 vocabulary
knowledge 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 the
mean score at the 1.000-word level was 15.53 with a standard deviation of 2.30 and that at the
2,000-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 vocabulary
knowledge reached the 2,000-word level, but did not reach the 3,000-word level since the mean at
this level was 10.55 with a standard deviation of 4.20 and the mean of the 5,000-word level was
only 5.84 with a standard deviation of 3.36. The mean at university level was 6.06 with a
standard deviation of 3.18.








134 nv
Table 1
Means and Numbers of the Subjects Who Reached a Certain Level in the VLT
Mean SD Number (Reaching Percentage
Level (N = 246) a certain level)
1,000-word 15.53 2.30 223 90.65
2,000-word 12.66 3.59 149 60.57
3,000-word 10.55 4.20 83 33.74
5,000-word 5.84 3.36 10 4.07
University 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 could
achieve 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%) attained
the 5,000-word level. Only nine (3.66%) reached the university word level. Interestingly, each
increase by one level of vocabulary caused 30% more students to fail to meet the anticipated
standard.
Content Knowledge
The content knowledge, the other independent variable in this study, was measured from the
subjects self-evaluation in response to the Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest
Questionnaire. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and percentages of the results of the
Inventory of Content Knowledge and Interest Questionnaire. The mean score of content
knowledge was between 3.29 and 4.07 out of 5 and the difference between the mean scores of
content knowledge, as determined from question 1 to 6, was small. The subjects self-reported that
they 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 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Percentages Associated with Responses to the
ICKIQ (N =246)
Items Means SD Percentage
Content knowledge 1 4.01 .79 80.22
Content knowledge 2 3.87 .99 77.48
Content knowledge 3 3.67 .88 73.46
Content knowledge 4 4.07 .77 81.30
Content knowledge 5 3.70 .86 73.96
Content knowledge 6 3.29 1.04 65.82
Total of content knowledge 22.61 4.00 75.37
Interest 1 3.29 .89 65.80
Interest 2 3.35 .97 67.00
Total (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 content
knowledge score were from 8 to 40.





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 not
too hard to understand. However, the degree of interest in reading this passage was between
some and quite a bit (M = 3.29 and 3.35) in response to the ICKIQ. The subjects seemed not
to activate their interest in this English passage.
Reading Comprehension
The reading comprehension score consisted of the main idea score, the supporting idea score
and the detail score, and was the only dependent variable in this study. Since the subjects wrote
the information that they recalled in Chinese, they were free from interference from the target
language. 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 of
reading comprehension was 14.30 (35.75%) out of 40, implying that the comprehensive university
students 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 main
idea 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 recalled
details least effectively.

Table 3
Means and Percentages of Recalled Main Ideas, Supporting Ideas and Details (N = 246)
Items Mean SD Percentage
Main ideas 5.97 3.48 49.75
Supporting ideas 5.61 3.44 31.17
Details 2.72 1.47 27.20
Reading 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 total
score 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 content
knowledge 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 they
read. The correlation between the reading comprehension score and the content knowledge score
was moderate (Cohen, 1988) but statistically significant (r = .41, p < .01). The result expressed
that in reading, the subjects content knowledge was positively associated with their reading
comprehension. Although the vocabulary knowledge score significantly correlated with the
content knowledge score, the strength of association was slight (r = .22, p < .01), implying that
while 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 vocabulary
knowledge score is more robust than that of the content knowledge score and the reading
comprehension score and the vocabulary knowledge score.




136 nv
Table 4
Correlations 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 who
fails to achieve this threshold feels it is difficult to comprehend general texts; even though ones
content knowledge is rich. Once a readers vocabulary knowledge passes this threshold, he/she is
free 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 students
reading performance, the present study split the subjects into two groupsthe above group (those
at or above 13 points in the 3,000-word level), and the below group (those below 13 points in the
3,000-word level). Table 5 presents the result of an independent t-test conducted on the reading
comprehension scores and the content knowledge scores, divided in the 3,000-word level. The
mean of the reading comprehension score of the above group was 20.34 with a standard deviation
of 6.18 and that of the below group was 11.23 with a standard deviation of 5.15. The subjects in
the 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 in
the below group.
The mean of the content knowledge score of the above group was 30.10 with a standard
deviation of 4.31 and that of the below group was 28.82 with a standard deviation 5.12. Although
the 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 knowledge
scores of the below group and that of the above groups was very slight and statistically
insignificant, t (244) = 2.06, p > .05. That the above group had a slightly higher content
knowledge score was attributed to chance. The subjects who passed the vocabulary threshold
might not have higher content knowledge.




j r J B P\ z 137
Table 5
Independent t-Tests of the Reading Comprehension Score and the Content Knowledge Score
by the 3,000-word Level
Reading comprehension Content knowledge
Groups Mean SD t df Mean SD t df
Above (n = 83) 20.34 6.18 12.25** 244 30.10 4.31 2.06 192
Below (n = 163) 11.23 5.15 28.82 5.12
**p .01
Regression Model
The descriptive statistics include the subjects average vocabulary knowledge, content
knowledge and reading comprehension scores. A regression model was conducted to explore the
extent to which the vocabulary knowledge score and the content knowledge score could predict the
reading comprehension score. Table 6 displays the multiple regression of variance for the reading
comprehension score by the content knowledge score and the vocabulary knowledge score. The
results of the analysis revealed that the subjects vocabulary knowledge score and content
knowledge 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 reading
comprehension was statistically significant. The Pearson product-moment correlation between
dependent and independent variables was .75 and R
2
was .56, implying that the vocabulary
knowledge score and the content knowledge score could predict 56% of the reading comprehension
score in this study. The remainder, about 44% of the reading comprehension score, could be
explained by reference to other variables such as motivation, reading skill and reading strategy.

Table 6
Multiple Regression of Variance for the Reading Comprehension Score by the Content
Knowledge Score and the Vocabulary Knowledge Score
Model Sum of squares df Mean square F
Regression 6719.39 2 154.91 154.91**
Residual 5270.35 243 21.67
Total 11989.74 245
Note. R
2
= .56
**p < .01

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





138 nv
Table 7
Coefficients of the Reading Comprehension Score by the Content Knowledge Score and the
Vocabulary Knowledge Score
Variable B SE B ] t
(Constant) -13.36 1.94 -6.88
Vocabulary knowledge .33 .02 .64 14.75**
Content knowledge .38 .06 .27 6.15**
**p < .01

Accordingly, the subjects vocabulary knowledge score and content knowledge score
explained 40.96% and 7.29% of the reading comprehension score. Clearly, although both the
vocabulary knowledge score and the content knowledge score affect the reading comprehension
score, 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% of
the reading comprehension score, the remainder (7.75%) of this score was governed by the
interaction 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 this
study only yield a rough estimate of the size of vocabulary. A formula for measuring the exact
size of a readers vocabulary was developed by the researcher to compute the number of
receptive/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 measure
a 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, then
it is worth helping that learner study the vocabulary at that level (p. 262). If the subjects
vocabulary reaches a certain number of words, then the mean of the vocabulary knowledge score at
that level must be at least 12.01. If their mean of the vocabulary knowledge score at that level is
lower than 12.01, they fail to achieve that word level. For example, if the means of the
vocabulary knowledge score are 15 for 1,000-word level, 13 for 2,000-word level, 11 for
3,000-word level, and 9 for 5,000-word level. Since they pass the 2,000-word level and then fail
in the 3,000-word level, their vocabulary size is between 2,000 and 3,000 word families. For
measuring 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 total
number 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 level
are all 1,000, and the number at the 5,000-word level is 2,000 since the VLT does not include a



j r J B P\ z 139
4,000-word level. According to Xue and Nation (1984), the lexical items at university word level
include 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 for
3,000-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 word
levels is 2,000 words) x (10.5 3) / (12.1 3) = 3,000 + 2,000 x 7.5 / 9.5 = 4,579. The subjects
exact 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 nor
the 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 size
yields 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 approximately
2,840 word families on average. Taiwanese comprehensive university juniors know more
frequently used words than Japanese freshmen (Barrow, et al., 1999) and Indonesian freshmen
(Nurweni & Read, 1999).
Although Taiwanese comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledge
approached 3,000 basic words, only 83 (33.74%) out of 246 subjects in this study reached the
3,000-word level, which is the threshold beyond which an ESL/EFL reader can effectively apply
their background knowledge, reading skills and reading strategies of their native language to
comprehend English passages (Huang, 1999; Laufer, 1997; Laufer & Sam, 1985). Clearly, the
lack of vocabulary knowledge prevents most comprehensive university students, though good
readers of Chinese texts, from using their rich background knowledge and powerful reading
strategies to understand the meaning of English texts. Moreover, only 10 (4.07%) of them in this
study reached the 5,000-word level. The message is clear, comprehensive university students in
Taiwan must work hard to increase their vocabulary knowledge.
The university word level, including 740 general academic words, is used to predict whether
a 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 the
subjects failed to reach this word level. Based on the formula for the exact size of their
vocabulary, 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 knew
around 240 (or 30%) of general academic words. Like Indonesian freshmen, the subjects in this
study did not have a sufficiently large general academic vocabulary to support their need to obtain
information from academic passages. In fact, only nine out of 246 subjects achieved the
university word level, explaining why university instructors in Taiwan always complain that
university 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 not
large since the subjects recalled only an average of approximately 36% of the information in the
English passage. Huang (1999) found that EFL readers who understood an English passage could
recall 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.



140 nv
Based on Huangs research, the subjects in this study comprehended only two thirds of the content
from 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 the
above 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 below
group could not apply their rich content knowledge to gaining information from the reading text
due 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 increases
reading comprehension.
Although this study revealed the subjects total comprehension scores, the reading problems
of comprehensive university students must also be addressed. Of the three components of the
reading comprehension score, the main idea score was the highest at nearly 50% and the detail
score was the lowest at only 27%, implying that most subjects could understand the topic and the
main themes and/or issues when they read the English text. Their weaknesses in reading
comprehension were that they could not recall more supporting ideas and details. The analysis of
the subjects reading comprehension scores revealed that the subjects could understand the gist of
the English passage, without completely comprehending the whole text since they failed to apply
effective 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 implies
that over half (56%) of the subjects reading comprehension was explained by their vocabulary
knowledge 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 subjects
vocabulary knowledge score more strongly influenced the reading comprehension score than did
the content knowledge score. The subjects themselves reported that they had much content
knowledge related to the reading passage; however, their content knowledge score predicted a
small fraction of the reading comprehension score. The problem was that the subjects could not
activate their rich content knowledge when they read the English text. During the reading test, the
researcher found that the test takers read the text, word by word, and spent much time and energy
to decode words. Some even translated and wrote the word in Chinese, rarely attending to the
English meaning of the reading text.
Since comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledge does not reach the
vocabulary threshold, they struggle to guess unfamiliar words by using known words to extract
meaning from a general English text. During reading, they are busy recognizing and decoding
words, and thus have little time and energy to apply their rich content knowledge and powerful
reading strategies to verify the meaning of the text and extract information. Thus, the unknown
words serve to hinder their understanding of the content of the passage and/or make them distort
the meaning of sentences. This phenomenon is associated with Ridgways (1997)
interactive-compensatory function that before readers reach a vocabulary threshold, they cannot
effectively apply their rich background knowledge, including content knowledge, to comprehend a
reading passage. When readers pass this threshold, however, they use a large number of reading
strategies, reading skills and experiences to help them guess the meaning of a text. The subjects



j r J B P\ z 141
vocabulary knowledge however is still beneath the vocabulary threshold for thoroughly
comprehending 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 knowledge
than content knowledge to comprehend texts they read.
3. A lack of vocabulary knowledge significantly prevents comprehensive university
students from applying their rich content knowledge successfully to better extract the
information from read texts.
4. Most comprehensive university students in Taiwan know only a few general academic
words.
This studys results may provide testing institutes in Taiwan with some invaluable
information. Understanding comprehensive university students average vocabulary knowledge
and reading ability enables test specialists to develop more appropriate English tests that can
actually assess undergraduate students reading comprehension and potential for learning English.
The results also provide editors of textbooks with much precious information for accepting
and promoting university texts. English textbooks related to university students major subjects
have long been criticized for using several low-frequency words and being rooted in western
culture. Based on university students vocabulary knowledge and reading ability, editors of
textbooks can select and/or compose more suitable texts. They must design some activities to
train 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 students
reach the vocabulary threshold and the university word level as soon as possible by providing tasks
to help students pre-read textbooks printed in English. In this way, comprehensive university
students knowledge of high-frequency words and general academic words and their reading
comprehension abilities, can be improved. Some university students still do not have much
knowledge about the structure of words and the organization of a text. Accordingly, teachers
should first introduce various techniques for memorizing unknown words, including using context,
rote learning, keywords and affixing (Nation, 1993; Rodriguez & Sadoski, 2000). Students
should 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 currently
recommended is to read storybooks, magazines, periodicals and newspapers printed in English.
According to Hwang and Nation (1989) and Hwang (1989), stories, magazines and newspapers
constantly repeat some frequent words and technological terms related to a topic. Multiple
repetitions reduce readers lexical loading and activate their imagination, experience, and
background knowledge to better extract information from the text when they read. The



142 nv
interaction between word knowledge, content knowledge and reading strategies also increases
readers 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 reading
comprehension 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 of
independent 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 can
develop knowledge of the world, and simultaneously amplify basic academic vocabulary and
technical vocabulary (Nation, 1993). This virtuous circle (Nuttall, 1982) will eventually improve
L2 reading. University students should read English materials daily to foster the desire to read
voluntarily.
Finally, this study only addresses the vocabulary size of comprehensive university students
and the relationship between vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and reading
comprehension. The importance of vocabulary knowledge is such that further studies should be
undertaken and multiple experiments conducted to determine which methods of vocabulary
instruction can most rapidly increase vocabulary knowledge and what reading strategies and skills
can effectively develop reading comprehension.
References
L- Z Q. (1995) C - ^ { p s C QG - ^y
Q | A - 59-79 C x_: b C
L Ms(1992) G zP | - p Cx_ G F C
Akagawa, Y. (1995). The effects of background knowledge and careful attention on reading
comprehsnion and vocabulary acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA.
Barnard, H. (1961). Teachers book for advanced English vocabulary. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Barrow, J., Nakanishi, Y., & Ishino, H. (1999). Assessing Japanese college students vocabulary
knowledge 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 Learning
in the Republic of China (pp. 81-93). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.



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 (2
nd
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 poor
readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 1-18.
Huang, C. C. (1999). The effects of vocabulary knowledge and prior knowledge on reading
comprehension of EFL students in Taiwan. Unpubished doctoral dissertation, University of
Ohio, 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 Republic
of China (pp. 132-144). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.
Huang, C. C. (2001). An investigation of ESP students vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension. 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 the
Sixth 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 vocabulary
learning through reading newspapers. Reading a Foreign Language, 6, 323-335.
Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 15, 169-181.
Kang, S. H. (1995). The effects of a context-embedded approach to second-language vocabulary
learning. 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, words
you think you know, and words you cant guess. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second
language 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.



144 nv
Lawless, K. A., Brown, S. W., & Mills, R. (1998). Knowledge, interest, recall and navigation: A
look 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.), The
bilingual 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: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1985). Content familiarity and the perception of textual relationships in second
language reading. RELC Journal, 16(1), 43-51.
Nurweni, A., & Read J. (1999). The English vocabulary knowledge of Indonesian university
students. 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 comprehensive
university 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 Kristen
Satya 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




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 r
t X Cz Xg b u CHU l C

1.business
2.clock _____ part of a house
3.horse _____ animal with four legs
4.pencil _____ something used for writing
5.shoe
6.wall

HU @ G
1.business
2.clock 6 part of a house
3.horse 3 animal with four legs
4.pencil 4 something used for writing
5.shoe
6.wall



b o A - r rO hl Az qk - t
X N C bW- l A o rO business, clock, shoe.








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



146 nv
1. do
2. far _____ a metal of great value
3. gold _____ smallest or youngest
4. clear _____ to make
5. human
6. least
==================================================================

1. me
2. or _____ at no time
3. run _____ can be done; can happen
4. never _____ not big; little
5. small
6. possible
=================================================================

1. add
2. than _____ a number of people or things
3. tree _____ a tall plant with leaves; wood comes from this
4. group _____ to increase the number
5. concern
6. whether
=================================================================

1. sing
2. sure _____ not controlled by others
3. prove _____ something that can help
4. college _____ without doubt
5. advantage
6. independent
================================================================

1. dry
2. gas _____ not wet
3. corn _____ to say something
4. marry _____ to take husband or wife
5. remark
6. personal
=================================================================

1. wise
2. glass _____ understanding
3. defeat _____ a window is made of this
4. operate _____ a country without a king where people vote
5. republic
6. statement
================================================================



j r J B P\ z 147


1.original
2.private _____ complete
3.royal _____ first
4.slow _____ not public
5.sorry
6.total
==================================================================
=

1.apply
2.elect _____ choose by voting
3.jump _____ become like water
4.manufacture _____ make
5.melt
6.threaten
==================================================================

1.blame
2.hide _____ keep away from sight
3.hit _____ have a bad effect on something
4.invite _____ ask
5.pour
6.spoil
==================================================================

1.accident
2.choice _____ having a high opinion of yourself
3.debt _____ something you must pay
4.fortune _____ loud, deep sound
5.pride
6.roar
=================================================================

1.basket
2.crop _____ money paid regularly
3.flesh _____ heat
4.salary _____ meat
5.temperature
6.thread
==================================================================

1.birth
2.dust _____ being born
3.operation _____ game
4.row _____ winning
5.sport
6.victory
==================================================================



148 nv

1.administration
2.angel _____ managing business and affairs
3.front _____ spirit who serves God
4.herd _____ group of animals
5.mate
6.pond
==================================================================

1.bench
2.charity _____ part of a country
3.fort _____ help to the poor
4.jar _____ long seat
5.mirror
6.province
=================================================================

1.coach
2.darling _____ a thin, flat piece cut from something
3.echo _____ person who is loved very much
4.interior _____ sound reflected back to you
5.opera
6.slice
=================================================================

1.marble
2.palm _____ inner surface of your hand
3.ridge _____ excited feeling
4.scheme _____ plan
5.statue
6.thrill
=================================================================

1.discharge
2.encounter _____use pictures or examples to show the meaning
3.illustrate _____ meet
4.knit _____ throw up into air
5.prevail
6.toss
=================================================================

1.annual
2.blank _____ happening once a year
3.brilliant _____ certain
4.concealed _____ wild
5.definite
6.savage
=================================================================



j r J B P\ z 149

1.alcohol
2.apron _____ cloth worn in front to protect your clothes
3.lure _____ stage of development
4.mess _____ state of untidiness or dirtiness
5.phase
6.plank
================================================================

1.circus
2.jungle _____ speech given by a priest in a church
3.nomination _____ seat without a back or arms
4.sermon _____ musical instrument
5.stool
6.trumpet
===============================================================

1.apparatus
2.compliment _____ set of instruments or machinery
3.revenue _____ money received by the government
4.scrap _____ expression of admiration
5.tile
6.ward
==============================================================

1.bruise
2.exile _____ agreement using property as security for a debt
3.ledge _____ narrow shelf
4.mortgage _____ dark place on your body caused by hitting
5.shovel
6.switch
==============================================================

1.blend
2.devise _____ hold tightly in your arms
3.embroider _____ plan or invent
4.hug _____ mix
5.imply
6.paste
==============================================================

1.desolate
2.fragrant _____ good for your health
3.gloomy _____ sweet-smelling
4.profound _____ dark or sad
5.radical
6.wholesome
=============================================================



150 nv

1.affluence
2.axis _____ introduction of a new thing
3.episode _____ one event in a series
4.innovation _____ wealth
5.precision
6.tissue
=================================================================

1.deficiency
2.magnitude _____ swinging from side to side
3.oscillation _____ respect
4.prestige _____ lack
5.sanction
6.specification
================================================================

1.configuration
2.discourse _____ shape
3.hypothesis _____ speech
4.intersection _____ theory
5.partisan
6.propensity
=================================================================

1.anonymous
2.indigenous _____ without the writers name
3.maternal _____ least possible
4.minimum _____ native
5.nutrient
6.modification
================================================================

1.elementary
2.negative _____ of the beginning
3.static _____ not moving or changing
4.random _____ final, furthest
5.reluctant
6.ultimate
================================================================

1.coincide
2.coordinate _____ prevent people from doing something they want to do
3.expel _____ add to
4.frustrate _____ send out by force
5.supplement
6.transfer
================================================================



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 than
others. Energy is measured in calories. Foods rich in fats, starches or sugars have a lot of
calories. Fat is a big source of energy.
At times you eat foods that have more energy, or calories, than you need. The extra
energy is then stored in the body as fat. If you eat too much, you become overweight. When
you 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 body
sees to it that each organ gets exactly the right amount of nutrients it needs. However, if the diet
lacks 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 itself
up, repairing itself, and getting rid of waste products. It needs a constant supply of nutrients to do
its 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 travel
in 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 a
lifetime. They keep you well today, tomorrow and always.




152 nv
APPENDIX C
WHAT DID YOU KNOW BEFORE READING THIS TEXT?
Food Provides Energy
Item No. Item Content 1 2 3 4 5
1. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that foods give us energy?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
2. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that energy is measured in
calories?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
3. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that our body has to do
something with extra calories?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
4. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that our body can pick and
choose what it needs from the
nutrients in the diet?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
5. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that our body uses nutrients
to build itself up, repair itself,
and get rid of waste products?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
6. Before reading this text how
much did you know about the
idea that nutrients working with
other nutrients make the
difference in our health?
None Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
7. How much did you like to read
about this topic?
Not at
all
Very little Some Quite a bit A lot
8. How much were you interested
in this topic?
Not at
all
Very little Some Quite a bit A lot




j r J B P\ z 153
j r J B P\ z

F j ~y t
K - n
] r J Oj \ M ~ - ] A s b j
r JqM \ z O A O r J P \ z vT C` @ 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 h CxWj - r
Jq| V r J e C ] A b\ - ^ AL- r J A D
e H z N C ] r J AL- L k e H o T C P A
j 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