The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in Singapore

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/249768964
The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The

Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in
Singapore
Article in RELC Journal · April 2008

DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091140
CITATIONS READS
65 14,943
2 authors, including:
Lawrence Jun Zhang

University of Auckland
208 PUBLICATIONS 2,372 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
A developmental study of Chinese EAP learners’ self-regulated learning in blended learning environment View project
teacher education View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Lawrence Jun Zhang on 02 February 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

RELC Journal
http://rel.sagepub.com/
The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary

School Students Learning English in Singapore
Lawrence Jun Zhang and Suaini Bin Anual
RELC Journal 2008 39: 51
DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091140
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rel.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for RELC Journal can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rel.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://rel.sagepub.com/content/39/1/51.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Apr 11, 2008
What is This?
Downloaded from rel.sagepub.com at The University of Auckland Library on February 17, 2014
Article
The Role of Vocabulary in Reading

Comprehension:
The Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in
Singapore
Lawrence Jun Zhang

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
lawrence.zhang@nie.edu.sg
Suaini Bin Anual

Compassvale Secondary School, Singapore
Abstract ■ The crucial role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension has

been well recognized in first language (L1) situations and this has appeared to be true
of second language (L2) settings as well. However, in relation to a sociocultural con-
text such as Singapore, where English is designated as an L1 in the school curriculum
but the majority of students still learn it as an L2, little is known about how students’
vocabulary size could affect their reading comprehension. Given that students and
teachers often cite vocabulary as the biggest hurdle in reading, this study was under-
taken to explore the role of vocabulary in reading comprehension. Thirty-seven year-
4 secondary students in a neighbourhood school in Singapore participated in this
study. The Vocabulary Levels Tests were used to measure students’ vocabulary
knowledge in relation to the different measures intended to test their reading com-
prehension and summary abilities. Results suggest that students’ vocabulary knowl-
edge at the 2,000-word and the 3,000-word levels was correlated to their reading
comprehension. Significant correlation yielded only for the short-answer questions,
but not for the summary. Pedagogical implications and recommendations for further
research are also discussed.
Keywords ■ L2 learning and teaching, reading comprehension, secondary school

students, Singapore, vocabulary knowledge.
Vol 39(1) 51-76 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091140

© 2008 SAGE Publications, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
http://RELC.sagepub.com
52
Regional Language Centre Journal 39.1
Introduction
The crucial role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension has
been well recognized in first language (L1) situations and this has
appeared to be true of second language (L2) settings as well. However, in
relation to a sociocultural context such as Singapore, where English is
designated as an L1 in the school curriculum but the majority of students
still learn it as an L2 (Cheah 2004; Gopinathan 2004; Pakir 2004), little is
known about how vocabulary knowledge could affect reading compre-
hension. Teachers of English in secondary schools in Singapore have been
frequently confronted with the problems of students’ inability to handle
‘difficult words’ in reading comprehension. Comprehension scores of the
students are usually low. In some neighbourhood schools, the majority of
students’ comprehension scores are below 50% and the school in which
our data was collected falls into this category. A survey we conducted in
2002 with the secondary year-4 Normal Academic Course students
indicated that they did not understand the passages they read because they
did not know the words in those passages.1
The students on whom we report in this paper were mainly average to
below average English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students in terms of
language proficiency as measured by the school’s English Language
examination, but they were students taking the Express Course. They
came from families where English is not the dominant language for com-
munication and most parents do not speak or read in English at all. The
English teacher of this group of year-4 Express Course students remarked
that only 40% of the students in her class were ‘readers’ and their com-
prehension performance was average to below average. When prompted
for the possible reasons for their weaknesses in comprehension, the
teacher cited vocabulary as the major source of difficulty. These students
did not know many of the words in the passage that they read, and they
had difficulties in answering the questions which elicited the meaning of
words in the text. Given that reading lessons were mainly answering com-
prehension questions which put a premium on word knowledge, it was of
no surprise that their comprehension performance was affected negatively
by the relative insufficiency of vocabulary. These students will be taking
the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (Ordinary)
Level Examinations (GCE ‘O’ Levels), including English Language, next
year, which are required of them in order to graduate from secondary
schools. The Mid-Year School Examination results already suggested
53
The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension
that these students’ reading comprehension performance was below the

expected level. An investigation into the nature of the connection between
vocabulary and reading comprehension for this group of students seems to
be called for.
Laufer and Yano (2001: 549) have succinctly situated the lexical plight
of L2 learners. They state that, in academic settings, L2 learners are
expected to cope with a vast amount of reading materials meant for native
speakers, and yet studies conducted across high schools and universities
indicate that their vocabulary knowledge ‘does not amount to a quarter of
the vocabulary known by their native speaking peers’. L2 learners are
bound to meet many unfamiliar words in the course of their studies. This
problem applies equally to ESL secondary school students who must cope
with the reading materials in content areas, such as history, social studies
and geography, and pass in the reading comprehension examination. The
problem is confounded by the fact that vocabulary learning is not the top
priority in language classes, and not even considered in content areas.
What is the vocabulary size of these students? Do they have adequate
high-frequency words to cope with the reading materials to begin with?
However, no data is available on their vocabulary knowledge. Surely, if
we are to embark on a vocabulary instruction programme, we need to
have some data on their vocabulary size first. If it is the case that their
vocabulary knowledge is below the 5,000-word level based on the
Vocabulary Levels Test, the immediate measure will be to embark on
explicit teaching of the low frequency words, or teach vocabulary learning
strategies to these students.
Curtis (1987) provides a convincing rationale for measuring learners’
vocabulary size. She states that research has shown that readers’ knowl-
edge base may affect their success in comprehension. She further adds
that:
With the exception of students who have rich knowledge bases but
experience difficulty in word recognition, students with low vocabulary
scores are those who are missing information that can affect their
comprehension and their ability to use reading as a means for acquiring
new knowledge. Vocabulary testing can tell us which students need
instruction in the kinds of knowledge they have been unable to acquire
on their own (Curtis 1987: 48).
Although these are interesting issues, what we are interested in exam-

ining is the role of vocabulary in reading comprehension. The motivation
to investigate learners’ vocabulary knowledge has both practical and
54
theoretical dimensions. As recommended by several researchers (e.g.

Cameron 2002; Nation 2001; Schmitt 2000), measuring students’ vocabu-
lary size at the beginning of a course allows teachers to establish the
language goals for the course within communicative language teaching.
We believe that investigating vocabulary knowledge is a worthwhile enter-
prise in Singapore, not only for pedagogical purposes but also for the
insights it affords into the cognitive processes involved in reading and
vocabulary acquisition. Any research that attempts to do so may advance
our understanding of the nature of vocabulary knowledge and its relation
to reading comprehension.
Review of the Literature

Vocabulary Size and Reading Comprehension
The role of vocabulary in reading comprehension is an intriguing and
complex one. To construct a mental representation of text, that is, to
understand text meaning, one will have to be able to decode the printed
message (Adams 2004; Alderson 2000; Day and Bamford 1998). Inability
to recognize words in text and the presence of high density of unknown
words in a text may impair comprehension (Chall 1987; Curtis 1987;
Nation 2001). Beck, Mckeown and Omanson (1987: 148) remark that
‘given the complexity of processing involved in comprehending text, a
high level of word knowledge may be needed’. Fast and efficient word
recognition, word encoding and lexical access are necessary for higher
level of meaning construction (Adams 2004; Just and Carpenter 1987;
Lesgold and Perfetti 1981). The difference between skilled and less skilled
readers is usually attributed to slower and inefficient lexical access and
semantic processing (Bernhardt 2005; Grabe and Stoller 2002; Nassaji
2003; Segalowitz, Poulsen and Komoda 1991).
Consistent and reliable correlations between vocabulary and compre-
hension have been found in numerous factorial analytic studies (Anderson
and Freebody 1983a, 1983b; Mezynski 1983). Readability indexes, not
surprisingly, include vocabulary as a major component, suggesting that
word difficulty affects text comprehension (Chall 1987; Graves 1986;
Stahl 2003). Stahl (2003: 246) emphasizes that studies from readability
formulae have ‘found that the most important factor in determining the
difficulty of a text is the difficulty of the words’. Vocabulary size is thus
a reliable predictor of reading comprehension. Anderson and Freebody
(1983a: 367) state that ‘people who do not know the meanings of very
55
many words are most probably poor readers’. Sternberg (1987: 90) adds
that ‘one’s level of vocabulary is highly predictive, if not deterministic, of
one’s level of reading comprehension’. Within the context of second lan-
guage research in reading, findings on the reading processes and vocabu-
lary threshold have consistently shown the significant contribution and the
importance of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension perform-
ance (Barnett 1986; Fukkink, Hulstijn and Simis 2005; Garcia 1991; Koda
1994; Laufer 1997; Zhang 2000, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b; see Alderson 2000;
Bernhardt 2005; Koda 2005; Nation 2001, for reviews).
Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

Several researchers in the field of vocabulary and reading have under-
scored the importance and the usefulness of measuring vocabulary knowl-
edge (Anderson and Freebody 1983b; Cameron 2002; Curtis 1987; Graves
1986; Nation 2001; Read 1989, 2000). However, it is difficult to reach a
consensus on what is involved in word knowledge and how to measure
vocabulary knowledge due to the complexity of the construct of what it
means to know a word. Numerous efforts to define what is involved in
knowing a word have yet to come out with a consensus on what the
construct, word, or vocabulary knowledge entails. In what follows, we
provide a brief review of the various attempts to measure vocabulary
knowledge before we present our study.
Studies on vocabulary acquisition and use within SLA and applied
linguistics that have attempted to define and investigate the nature of
vocabulary knowledge and use widely acknowledge the complexity of
the task (Alderson 2000; Nation 2001; Read 1989, 2000; Schmitt 2000).
Word knowledge has been problematized within a broad conceptual
framework for the purpose of teaching vocabulary and estimating learners’
vocabulary size. Knowing a word involves more than mapping concept to
its referent, or form to meaning. Richards (1976) made several assump-
tions on word knowledge, which included knowledge of word meanings/
semantic, usage, constraints, its morphology, associations, and contextual
meaning. Recent research findings corroborate Richards’ findings (see,
e.g., Bernhardt 2005; Koda 2005; Zhang 2002b; Zhang, Gu and Hu 2007
in press).
Although Richards’ (1976) framework is inclusive, in many respects
it is still not comprehensive enough. Aspects of word knowledge such as
orthography, phonology and collocation are neglected. Nation (2001), by
expanding Richards’ framework, has conceptualized aspects of word
56
knowledge that include receptive and productive use. Basically, vocabu-

lary knowledge is categorized into three broad dimensions: form, mean-
ing, and use. Mastery of these aspects of word knowledge is believed to
enable the learners to attain native-like competency and fluency (Schmitt
and Meara 1997). However, the purely descriptive nature of both Richards’
and Nation’s frameworks invites criticism as they lack ‘the power to
explain the processes of acquisition for the different kinds of word
knowledge or the mechanisms by which they interrelate’ (Schmitt and
Meara 1997: 18).
Weaknesses in descriptive frameworks are also noted for not accom-
modating the effects of context on lexical meaning (Chapelle 1994; Read
2000). Chapelle (1994: 164) has proposed that vocabulary ability can be
investigated along the following three components: (1) the context of lan-
guage use; (2) vocabulary knowledge and processes; and (3) the meta-
cognitive strategies required for vocabulary use in context. Chapelle (1994)
suggested that vocabulary be investigated with reference to a specific
context. Building on Halliday and Hassan’s (1989) theory of context,
Chapelle (1994: 164) argues that ‘because of differences in field, tenor and
mode, learners’ vocabulary would differ depending on whether they are
reading a newspaper at home, or listening to a chemistry lecture in a
classroom’. It appears reasonable then that, since word meaning and use
vary in different contexts and situations of language use, investigating and
testing vocabulary ability should be taken not only from a purely linguistic
perspective but also from a social perspective (Read 2000).
However, since there is no reliable measurement of vocabulary ability,
which is sensitive enough to demonstrate the effects of learning from
different contexts, and that there is not a generally accepted model of
vocabulary acquisition, researchers have mainly restricted themselves to
measuring vocabulary size or breadth of vocabulary knowledge using
Vocabulary Levels Tests or the Eurocentres Vocabulary Size Test (Schmitt
and Meara 1997; Wesche and Paribakht 1996).
Since the vocabulary size tests only capture the amount of words based
on the selection of high-frequency words, and only test word recognition,
or receptive vocabulary, inherent weaknesses exist. This has prompted
several researchers to design tests that capture how well learners know a
word, quality or depth of word knowledge (Qian 1999, 2002; Qian and
Schedl 2004; Read 1993, 2000; Wesche and Paribakht 1996).
These L2 studies are motivated by the need to capture the relationship
between the two dimensions of word knowledge (breadth and depth) and
57
the relationship of these dimensions to reading comprehension. Greidanus

and Nienhuis (2001: 568), for example, examined learners’ knowledge of
‘semantic and syntagmatic aspects of the deep-word knowledge’; and
Schmitt and Meara (1997) explored the quantitative (breadth of vocabu-
lary knowledge) and qualitative (depth of vocabulary knowledge) aspects
of learners’ vocabulary knowledge, as well as their relationships with
language proficiency.
Qian (2002) has proposed a model that captures vocabulary size,
depth of vocabulary knowledge, lexical organization and automaticity of
receptive-productive knowledge. Empirically testing this model with
learners of English as a second language, Qian (2002; Qian and Schedl
2004) posited that both breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge play a
significant role in reading comprehension. These studies have provided
insights not only into how well L2 learners are coping with vocabulary
learning, but also into the cognitive and metacognitive mechanisms
involved in acquiring word knowledge (Chapelle 1998; Ellis 1997; Zhang
2000; Zhang, Gu and Hu 2007 in press).
Density of Unknown Words and Comprehension

Numerous studies have been conducted to explore the threshold needed
for reading comprehension, presumably on the assumption that vocabulary
is a significant component of reading comprehension, and a vocabulary
threshold must be crossed before successful reading is possible. Laufer
and Sim (1985: 409) report that for success in academic reading, L2
readers’ most urgent need is vocabulary, be it ‘conceptual’ or ‘semantic’.
They suggest that the reading threshold (those taking the First Certificate
in English Exam) is about 65-70%. However, the exact nature of the
vocabulary threshold remains to be explored. Laufer (1992a), using the
Vocabulary Levels Test and Eurocentres Vocabulary Test, investigated
the relationship between vocabulary size and reading scores, and found
that at all levels (less than 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, 5,000) there were signifi-
cant correlations between vocabulary scores and comprehension scores.
Her results support the conclusion in L1 studies that vocabulary is a strong
and stable predictor of reading comprehension. The turning point seemed
to be at the 3,000 level where there were more ‘readers’, ‘learners who
scored 56% and above on the reading test’ than ‘non readers’ (Laufer and
Sim 1985: 128). In addition, Laufer (1992a: 130) extrapolates that ‘the
knowledge of 3,000 word families would result in a reading score of 56
58
percent [sic], 4,000 in 63 percent [sic], 5,000 in 70 percent [sic], 6,000 in

76 percent’.
In another study, Laufer (1992b) reports that at the 3,000 level reading
would be satisfactory regardless of general language ability; only at the
5,000 to 6,000-level of lexical items, does the influence of general lan-
guage ability on reading become ambiguous. Laufer (1992b) reiterates
what L2 reading researchers and instructors have asserted: inadequacy of
vocabulary knowledge continues to be a stumbling block in reading per-
formance of many L2 learners.
Four more studies, Liu and Nation (1985), Hirsh and Nation (1992),
Carver (1994), and Hu and Nation (2000), examine the role of vocabulary
knowledge in reading from the perspective of lexical coverage, that is, the
percentage of unknown words that might affect reading for pleasure and
acquisition of word meanings. Liu and Nation (1985) suggest that a 95%
coverage is needed for sufficient comprehension, while Hirsh and Nation
(1992) maintain that to read unsimplified fiction for pleasure learners need
about 5,000 words, below which reading will be laborious; this amounts to
about 95-98% of lexical coverage. In a somewhat complicated proce-
dure, Carver (1994) investigates the relationship between the number of
unknown words and the relative difficulty of a passage. Relative difficulty
is conceptualized by measuring the difficulty level of the passage to the
ability level of the learner; if the two levels are equivalent, then the text is
neither hard nor difficult. It matches the learner’s vocabulary knowledge
with about 1% of unknown words. Difficult texts, those that are above the
learner’s ability level, contain about 2% or more of unknown basic words.
Lastly, Hu and Nation (2000) explore the optimum level of text cover-
age for adequate comprehension by manipulating text difficulty. Sixty-six
L2 learners at pre-university level read one of the four versions of the
same text. The first version, 95% contains low-frequency words, 5% of
the running words are replaced by nonsense words; the second version has
10% nonsense words; the third, 20% nonsense words; the last version,
100% low-frequency words within the most frequent 2,000 words of
English selected from West’s (1953) General Service List of English
Words. After reading the text, each group is tested with two different
comprehension measures: multiple choice questions (MCQ) and Cued
Written Recall. The passages are taken away before learners take the
comprehension tests.
Results on both measures indicate that the vocabulary threshold level
for sufficient comprehension is between 80% and 90% at least for this
59
group of learners, since no learners reading at the 80% level attain ade-
quate comprehension. However, it must be noted that the criterion for
adequate comprehension is set at 86%, or, 12 out of 14 possible correct
answers. One could also take issue with the generalizability of the findings
since the number of subjects for each version is really small, ranging from
16 to 17 subjects for each version of the texts. Nevertheless, the findings
may be taken as potential for further research and confirmation.
Vocabulary Difficulty and Text Comprehension

Different perspectives on the role of vocabulary afford significant insights
into how vocabulary difficulty might affect L1 reading comprehension.
The experiments conducted by Freebody and Anderson (1983) and Ander-
son and Freebody (1983a, 1983b) showed that though vocabulary diffi-
culty influenced text comprehension, ‘the effects of difficulty were not as
strong as one might expect on the basis of readability research’ (Anderson
and Freebody 1983a: 254). The researchers noted that it took a high pro-
portion of unfamiliar words for comprehension performance to decrease,
about 50% of substance words and 50 rare words out of 300 words.
Another significant finding, insofar as the effect of vocabulary difficulty
on comprehension is concerned, was that when difficult words were
placed in unimportant propositions, students’ summaries were better than
when difficult words were placed in key propositions.
Anderson and Freebody (1983a: 249) suggested that hard words in
unimportant propositions were ignored; that is, students skipped these
difficult words. This means that they have ‘fewer propositions to be
processed and results in better encoding or greater propositions to be
processed’. This enables them to encode and process hard words in impor-
tant propositions for recall and summary. More cognitive resources are
also made available for processing and understanding hard words in
important or key propositions (van Dijk and Kintsch 1983; Weaver and
Kintsch 1991; Zhang 2001a, 2002a; Zhang, Gu and Hu 2007 in press).
Another noteworthy finding in the above research is that cohesiveness
of text and familiar schema do not interact with vocabulary difficulty. In
other words, a coherent text does not offset or reduce the negative effect
of vocabulary difficulty in comprehension; similarly the familiar schema
does not seem to matter in the presence of too many difficult words in a
text.
In another study, Freebody and Anderson (1983) found main effects for
vocabulary difficulty in the first experiment, and significant main effects
60
for vocabulary difficulty in the second experiment. Reading performance

was higher in the passages with easy words compared with the reading
performance in the passages with difficult words. Again, it was found that
prior knowledge did not compensate for word difficulty. Both these experi-
ments suggest that vocabulary difficulty reduces reading performance as
measured by recall, summary and sentence verification.
Investigating the claim of the interactive-compensatory hypothesis
that deficit in one component of knowledge representations can be com-
pensated for by other knowledge sources such as prior knowledge, Stahl
and Jacobson (1986: 309) sought to re-examine this issue by ‘looking at
the effects of vocabulary difficulty and prior knowledge, both interac-
tively, on the comprehension of a social studies passage with unfamiliar
subject matter’. The findings reinforced Anderson and Freebody’s (1983a,
1983b), and Freebody and Anderson’s (1983) studies that vocabulary dif-
ficulty had strong effects on comprehension. Groups which were given
the high-frequency vocabulary did better than the groups given difficult
vocabulary. The researcher did not find any compensatory effect of prior
knowledge. Stahl and Jacobson (1986: 316) observed that ‘if the vocabu-
lary was too difficult or the subject lacked the prior knowledge necessary
to comprehend a passage, subjects apparently did not compensate for the
needs using other knowledge sources but, instead, comprehended at lower
level’. Stahl and Jacobson’s (1986) findings seem to indicate that students’
comprehension suffers when there are too many difficult words.
In a similar effort, Stahl, Jacobson, Davis and Davis (1989: 29) investi-
gated the role of vocabulary and prior knowledge in comprehension.
Specifically, they wanted to find the differential effects of vocabulary
difficulty and prior knowledge on comprehension, and to confirm whether
there are ‘compensatory interactions between vocabulary difficulty and
prior knowledge in text comprehension’. The researchers failed to con-
firm the interactive-compensatory hypothesis as there was no interaction
between vocabulary difficulty and prior knowledge. However, strong
evidence was found for the vocabulary and comprehension connections
as the main effect for vocabulary difficulty was statistically significant;
higher comprehension scores were found for passages with easy words
than for passages with difficult words.
One of the first research studies that cautioned against a predictive
relationship between prior knowledge or background knowledge and
second language reading is that conducted by Bernhardt (1991). Bernhardt
reported that the effects of background knowledge were correlated
61
statistically significantly with recall protocol scores on the topic (r = .27, p

< .05), but she pointed out that the correlations were weak, rejecting a
strong claim of the significance of prior or background knowledge. In
other words, prior knowledge or background knowledge did not seem to
play a more important role than vocabulary (see also Bernhardt 2005, for a
recent update).
A noteworthy finding in this research is the insight into qualitative
aspects of how vocabulary difficulty affects comprehension: difficult
words in text affect the literal level of comprehension, that is, the support-
ing propositions, more than the global, macrostructure of text. It suggests
that the presence of difficult words in text affects the processing of local,
micro-level propositions. Students are able to recall bits and pieces of
information, a disordered recall, but unable to replace exact words in a
cloze task, suggesting their inability to integrate propositions. This finding
lends support to the hypothesis that difficult words in text impair compre-
hension of global, coherent text representation (Kintsch 1986; 1988).
In summary, the above studies clearly show that the role of vocabulary
knowledge in reading comprehension is certainly complex. While we
know that too many unknown words may inhibit learners’ comprehension
of text, we are still uncertain about how word forms, the shades of mean-
ings they might take in different contexts, and the different position of
these words in text may influence learners’ comprehension of text. Since
vocabulary knowledge is conflated with background knowledge, as
posited by the knowledge hypothesis, it is difficult to determine the exact
source of problems when comprehension fails (Davey 1987; Freebody and
Anderson 1983; Mezynski 1983).
Based on the findings of research on the effects of vocabulary difficulty
in text comprehension, it appears that if a text contains too many difficult
words for the students, that is, high-frequency words, or words beyond
their vocabulary knowledge, comprehension will diminish even if the text
is highly cohesive. Similarly, having the background knowledge for the
text to be read does not necessarily alleviate the effects of vocabulary
difficulty, that is, text comprehension will still suffer. Unfortunately, little
is known about how vocabulary knowledge is related to a group of Sin-
gaporean secondary school students’ reading comprehension performance.
Method
Our study was undertaken with a view to investigating empirically a group
of secondary year-4 Express Course students’ vocabulary knowledge and
62
their performance on reading comprehension-related tasks, with a focus on

the role of vocabulary. Due to a unique bilingual policy implemented in
the education system (i.e. all pupils are required to take English as an L1
subject and their respective mother tongues as their L2 subjects), pupils
in the same class might come from families with different amounts of
English input. However, given that the participants in the present study
were secondary school pupils, it was confirmed that their six years of
primary schooling helped them to be on equal footing by the time they
started their secondary school education, as reflected on their Primary
School Leaving Examination (PSLE) results. This study specifically
intended to address the following two research questions:
1. To what extent does vocabulary size of this group of students
correlate with their reading comprehension performance?
2. How does vocabulary difficulty in an expository text affect their
reading comprehension performance?
Participants
Thirty-seven students from a neighbourhood secondary school participated
in this study. They had all completed six years of primary school educa-
tion in English as the medium of instruction in the Singapore education
system where English is publicly known as the ‘common language’ for all
Singaporeans (Ho and Alsagoff 1998). They were placed in the Express
Course because of their relatively successful performance on the PSLE
examinations in English, Mathematics, Science, and Mother Tongue,
which were the major subjects taken into account when they were assessed
for placement into various courses in the Singapore secondary schools.
Data Collection
Vocabulary Levels Tests Version 2 (Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001)
initially developed by Paul Nation, and revised by Norbert Schmitt and
associates, were adopted for collecting the data in this study. The Vocabu-
lary Levels Tests are widely used as measures of L2 students’ vocabulary
sizes. The reported reliability is .922 for the 2,000 Word Level Test, .927
for the 3,000 Word Level Test, and .927 for the 5,000 Word Level Test
(Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham 2001).
The Vocabulary Levels Tests Version 2 (2,000 Word Level Test, 3,000
Word Level Test, and 5,000 Word Level Test) were administered in Term
63
3 during curriculum time. The students were informed that the purpose of
the vocabulary test was to find out the extent of their vocabulary
knowledge. They were told to complete every item, and not to leave any
blanks. All 37 students present on that day participated in this study and
completed the test.
A week later, the students’ comprehension performance was assessed
using the 2003 GCE ‘O’ Level English Language Paper 2 passage. It was
a 300-word expository passage entitled ‘How Money Began’. The passage
traced the development of the concept of money, from barter trading to the
use of metals, cowry shells to the modern idea of money as a medium of
exchange. None of the students had been exposed to this text before.
All the 37 students were invited to take the test. They were given one
hour and 40 minutes to complete the test which was the actual time frame
given in the GCE ‘O’ Level English Language Paper 2 Examination. The
students took the comprehension test during their English Language
afternoon study programme on Wednesday. This was the slot allocated
for secondary year-4 Express Course and year-5 Normal Academic Course
students to complete comprehension or writing tasks. The comprehension
test consisted of two parts, one consisting of short-answer questions (25
marks), and the other, a summary question (25 marks). The short answer-
questions were comprised of literal and inferential questions. There were
also four questions on vocabulary where the students were asked to
explain the meanings of the given words. Marks were awarded only when
the students used their own words in explaining the meanings of these
words, and that the words substituted must fit the context of the passage.
The summary question required students to summarize the main ideas or
points in the passage. Marks were awarded both for accuracy in sum-
marizing the points and the use of language. To guarantee inter-rater
reliability all the reading-related tests were marked by another teacher,
who had many years of experience setting and marking reading compre-
hension tests. Final inter-rater reliability was acceptable (r = .89).
In addition, in order to find out the number of difficult words in reading
the passage, the students were instructed to circle the words in the passage
they thought to be difficult. All 37 students were able to complete the
comprehension test within the stipulated time.
Data Analysis
The main method used for processing the data was correlation analysis
using the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). The means, stan-
64
dard deviations and correlation coefficients were obtained for the inde-
pendent variables (Vocabulary Levels Test, means for number of difficult
words, and students’ rating for vocabulary difficulty) and dependent
variables (Comprehension Scores, Short-answer Questions and Summary).
By using correlation statistics, we intended to determine whether or
not the vocabulary size of these learners was correlated with their com-
prehension performance as measured by the short-answer questions and
the summary question. In other words, we were able to address the ques-
tion: to what extent students’ vocabulary size and vocabulary difficulty
were reliable indicators of students’ comprehension performance.
Results and Discussion

The mean scores for the independent variables (Vocabulary Levels Test
and number of difficult words) and the dependent variables (short-answer
questions, summary and comprehension) are presented in Table 1. The
group’s mean scores for each vocabulary level test are very high given the
maximum possible scores of 30. The mean scores for short-answer
questions are low given the maximum possible scores of 25; similarly the
mean scores for the summary question are also low given the maximum
possible scores of 25. The overall comprehension scores obtained by
adding the scores for the short-answer questions and the summary ques-
tion are therefore low, given the maximum possible scores of 50.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Student Performance

on Vocabulary Levels Tests (N = 37)
Tests Full Marks of Mean Std. Deviation

Each Test
VLT 2,000 30 29.71 .629
VLT 3,000 30 28.85 1.26
VLT 5,000 30 27.00 2.99
No. of Difficult Words N.A. 02.82 2.51
Short-answer Questions 25 08.50 2.45
Summary 25 12.53 2.43
Reading Comprehension 50 21.03 4.13
(Combining Short-answer
Questions and the Summary)
65
The high mean scores for the Vocabulary Levels Test at the 2,000-word
and 3,000-words levels indicated that the group had sufficient vocabulary
knowledge of high frequency words. However, results for the 5,000-word
level suggested that this group might not have adequate mastery at this
level yet. Qian (2002: 525-26) remarks that the 5,000-word level ‘is a
boundary level between high-frequency level and low-frequency level’.
Since they are ‘O’ level candidates and reading materials at this level
consist mainly of low-frequency words, they may encounter many difficult
words in their reading materials, which in turn may adversely affect their
comprehension of the reading materials. This partly explains the low mean
scores for the comprehension task, both for the short-answer questions and
the summary question. We will discuss this issue further in the next
section where we present the correlation results.
Table 2 shows the two-tailed correlations between the independent
variables and the dependent variables. Significant correlation was found
between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension at the 2,000-
word level (r = .423, p < .01). Although a positive correlation was found
between VLT 2,000 and the summary task, the correlation was not statis-
tically significant. At the 3,000-word level, significant correlation yielded
only for the short-answer questions as in the VLT 2,000 (r = .848, p <
.01), but not for the Summary task, and this in turn affected the results of
the correlation between VLT 3,000 and the reading comprehension task.
The correlation between VLT 5,000 and the reading comprehension task
was not found statistically significant. In other words, at the 5,000-word
level, results did not indicate any significant correlations for the two com-
prehension tasks.
Students’ perception of the number of difficult words did not correlate
significantly with comprehension. Although students indicated that there
were few difficult words in the passage, their performance in the short-
answer questions and summary proved otherwise. This could either sug-
gest that students underestimated the difficult words in the passage or their
judgment of vocabulary difficulty was unreliable. This issue requires
further investigation, as many variables might play their roles in reading
comprehension, as rightly pointed out by Bernhardt (2005), Grabe and
Stoller (2002) and Nassaji (2003), among others. The significant correla-
tions obtained between the vocabulary level scores at the 2,000-word and
3,000-word levels and reading comprehension as measured by the short
answer questions seem to suggest that vocabulary knowledge of 2,000-
and 3,000-word levels is predictive of comprehension performance.
66
Table 2. Correlations among Scores on the VLT 2,000, VLT 3,000, VLT 5,000,
Number of Difficult Words, Short-answer Questions, Summary and Reading
Comprehension (N = 37)
Short-
VLT VLT VLT Difficult Reading
answer Summary
2,000 3,000 5,000 Words Comprehension
Questions
VLT2,000 1.00* .212* .242* .101* .432* .284* .423*

VLT3,000 .212* 1.00* .532** -.105* .358* .125* .287*
VLT5,000 .242* .532** 1.00* -.422* .091* .100* .113*

No. of Difficult
.101* -.105* -.422* 1.00* .074* .235* .182*
Words
Short-answer
.432* .358* .091* .074* 1.00* .433* .848**
Questions
Summary .284* .125* .100* .235* .433* 1.00* .845**
Reading
.423* .287* .113* .182* .848** .845** 1.00*
Comprehension
* Correlation is significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at p < .001 (2-tailed).
Generally speaking and from the perspective of language testing, the

short-answer questions are set to test students’ ability to understand the
literal and inferential meanings of the reading materials. These are also
questions that test the details or micro-propositions of the text. Also,
although the GCE ‘O’ Level English Language Paper 2 mainly tests
students’ reading comprehension ability, it also tests students’ vocabulary
knowledge. There are four questions within the reading comprehension test
that specifically assess candidates’ vocabulary knowledge. Candidates are
expected to supply synonyms or synonymous expressions that explain the
meaning of the words tested, with maximum possible scores of 11 to be
earned.
The Singapore Ministry of Education Marking Guidelines (based on the
document of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate)
unambiguously state that marks are not awarded for candidates who do not
use their own words in answering the questions. In addition, the words that
students substitute must fit the context of the passage. An analysis of the
results obtained by looking at the number of students who attained at least
five marks for the questions that required them to use their own words and
the vocabulary questions indicated that none of the 37 students obtained
this score. Only two students obtained a score of four out of 11 marks; the
67
rest of the students obtained three marks and below. Students lost substan-
tial marks because of their inability to cope with these questions. This sug-
gests that vocabulary difficulty affects their comprehension performance
which partly explains the low mean score for the short-answer questions.
Another possible explanation for the low mean scores for short-answer
questions is that in answering questions that demand that students use their
own words, students are tested on both comprehension and production
skills. To get the answers students must understand the information, locate
the information and retrieve from memory the synonyms for these words.
Therefore, two skills are tested, which increases the difficulty of these
questions. Reading and writing are inter-related but quite disparate skills
(Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987). Insofar as vocabulary knowledge is con-
cerned, these questions test both breadth and depth of vocabulary knowl-
edge, which again enhances the difficulty of the questions.
The significant correlations obtained between students’ vocabulary
knowledge at the 2,000-word and 3,000-word levels and the short-answer
questions suggest that vocabulary knowledge of high-frequency words is
necessary but not sufficient for students to do well in the short-answer
questions. Vocabulary knowledge of low-frequency words is required
since close to 50% of the marks are allocated to questions that elicit stu-
dents’ vocabulary knowledge (mainly low-frequency words and syno-
nyms), not just the ability to locate information in the text. Low-frequency
words occur infrequently in any text. They are mainly moderate-frequency
words that are not listed in the high-frequency list, words that we rarely
use and encounter in our daily language. These low-frequency words,
especially technical words for other subject areas, usually make up 5% of
the words in an academic text (Nation 2001).
The non-significant correlations between vocabulary knowledge and
the students’ performance scores on the summary task may be partly due
to the effect of task type. The GCE ‘O’ Level Summary task tests
students’ ability to identify the gist of the passage or the macro-
propositions of text. Students must understand the main points of the
passage and organize the pieces of information and present them in a
coherent paragraph. Marks are awarded for the ability to present the
main points in an organized manner and for students using their own
words. Students can score 15 marks out of the maximum 15 marks, while
a maximum of 10 marks are awarded for using their own words and
correct grammar. The maximum possible score for the summary is 25.
We mentioned earlier that the students’ mean scores for summary were
68
low: 12.5. This indicates that the students did not have sufficient grasp of
the text, and that their vocabulary knowledge of high-frequency words
was insufficient to cope with the summary task. Inability to adequately
understand, locate and integrate information may affect their perform-
ance in the summary task. The low scores were also attributed to inade-
quacy in vocabulary knowledge, namely in a lack of the breadth of
vocabulary knowledge, as the summary task also tested their ability to
use their own words. This means that they must know sufficient low-
frequency words and synonyms.
Taken together, the above findings answer the second research ques-
tion: How does vocabulary difficulty in an expository text affect stu-
dents’ comprehension performance? Evidently, the inability to substitute
words that fit the context of the passage and the inadequacy in depth of
vocabulary knowledge adversely affects the comprehension scores of
these learners.
Our finding that there is no statistically significant correlation between
the 5,000-word level vocabulary test scores and the reading comprehen-
sion scores does not lend support to studies by Laufer (1992a, 1992b) and
Qian (2002). Studies by Laufer and Qian showed significant correlations
between both low- and high-frequency vocabulary and reading compre-
hension. We assume that the slightly different findings might have been
due to the different ways in which we measured students’ vocabulary
knowledge and reading comprehension. For example, Laufer grouped her
participants according to their performance on the Vocabulary Levels
Tests, and the reading comprehension scores were obtained using multiple-
choice questions. In our case, we simply administered the Vocabulary
Levels Tests to all participants. The results from the present study might
have turned out differently if we had used the same task format as these
researchers. Testing reading comprehension using MCQ format could be
relatively easier compared to the short-answer questions and the summary
format used in this study. As explained earlier, the short-answer questions,
the summary question, and the marking schemes following the format of
GCE ‘O’ Level were an entirely different comprehension format from the
MCQ format. In a way, task type might also have a bearing on com-
prehension performance.
Conclusion
The major outcome of this study supports the claim that the role of
vocabulary in reading comprehension is complex. The results of the
69
Vocabulary Levels Tests indicate that these students have, to a certain

extent, adequate mastery of the high-frequency words. Their relatively
small vocabulary size, however, does not enable them to cope sufficiently
with an expository text that contains low-frequency words. For these
students, vocabulary difficulty has to be seen from the perspective of
inadequacy in depth or quality of vocabulary knowledge. The present
study lends support to Qian’s (1999, 2002) claim that depth of vocabulary
knowledge is important in reading comprehension. The low scores for
both the short-answer questions and the summary are indicative of stu-
dents’ inability to cope with questions that tap into their depth of vocabu-
lary knowledge. Quality of word knowledge includes knowledge of
synonymy, polysemy and collocation. The comprehension questions and
the summary question that these students must cope with require them to
demonstrate an ability to use different senses of the given words, the
synonyms for words in the passage, and infer the meanings of the words in
the passage, but the participants in the study did not show that they were
adequately equipped with such vocabulary knowledge.
The results of this study also support the contention that vocabulary
difficulty affects reading comprehension (e.g. Adams 2004; Laufer 1992a,
1992b, 1997; Nation 2001; Qian 2002; Stahl 1986). The words in the text
which students could not substitute with their own words and the vocabu-
lary questions in the passage constitute difficult words for these students.
They affect adversely these students’ overall comprehension scores as
indicated by the low mean scores for comprehension of below 50%.
We suspect that different task formats might have affected compre-
hension performance, especially in reference to our study reported here.
This perhaps explains the correlations between vocabulary and reading
comprehension found in studies that used the MCQ format to test reading
comprehension. At least for the students in these studies, non-significant
correlation between vocabulary and reading may be attributed to the
nature of the task format. Alderson (2000) has noted that variables such
as task type or format may affect reading performance. Further research
into the implications of specific question types such as inferential ques-
tions and embedded-vocabulary questions in comprehension on reading
comprehension may be needed.
Implications for Pedagogy

Although the small sample size of the research design and the correlation
statistics restrict the generalizability of the findings, some pedagogical
70
implications can be drawn tentatively for schools that share similar

demographic features. Specifically, we would like to encourage teachers to
make available words at the 5,000 level to students so that students can be
exposed to these words in their daily reading or entertainment literacy
encounters. Given these students’ low comprehension results, we recom-
mend that they continue to develop their knowledge of high-frequency
words and at the same time expand their knowledge of low-frequency
words, that is, words that do not occur frequently in any given text, words
that we rarely use and meet in our daily language, technical words for
other subject areas and words in an academic text. Students also have to
enhance the quality of word knowledge through reading and answering
questions with texts containing low-frequency words, and academic
vocabulary. Adequate practice in inferring and explaining meaning of
words in contexts seems to be in order.
Teachers’ selection of readings from newspapers or magazines that
contain words that are useful but of low frequency will be equally bene-
ficial to students’ development of sensitivity to new words and to various
ways of inferring new word meanings based on contextual or co-textual
clues (see, e.g., Zhang 2002b). Through teachers’ scaffolding, students
may learn how to infer meanings of those low-frequency but useful words
and this is particularly helpful, as research has shown the importance of
the connections between word recognition and reading as well as the
significance of learning strategies in language learning (Adams 2004;
Zhang 2002a, 2003; Zhang, Gu and Hu 2007 in press). Students will be
able to see how the teacher solves the vocabulary problem in reading and
learn from it. Consistently systematic pedagogical practice of this kind
will help to improve students’ reading comprehension in the long run
(Zhang 2008). Teachers should also encourage students to engage in extra-
curricular extensive reading activities (e.g. Zhang 2001b, 2003), as there is
some cumulative evidence indicating the power of extensive reading in
helping learners to enhance language skills and reading abilities at the
same time (see, e.g., Day and Bamford 1998; Krashen 2004; Nation 2001).
NOTE
1. Students in the education system in Singapore have to sit the Primary School
Leaving Examinations (PSLE) and undergo a selection procedure upon graduation
from primary schools in order to qualify for a place in secondary schools. They are
placed in three streams: the best able cohort takes the four-year Academic Express or
Special Course (in cases where the students are strong in English and Higher Mother
71
Tongue), and the less able are given the five-year Normal Academic Course, both of
whom are eligible to take the Cambridge-Singapore General Certificate of Education
at the Ordinary (O-Levels) and Normal (N-Levels) examinations respectively. Those
who do not perform well on the PSLE are given a Normal Technical Course which
prepares them with vocational training at the institutes of technical education (see
Cheah 2004; Gopinathan 2004, for more information).
REFERENCES
Adams, Marilyn Jager
2004 ‘Modelling Connections between Word Recognition and Reading’, in
R. Ruddell and N. Urnau (eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of
Reading (Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 5th edn): 1219-
43.
Alderson, J. Charles
2000 Assessing Reading (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Anderson, Richard C., and Peter Freebody
1983a ‘Reading Comprehension and the Assessment and Acquisition of Word
Knowledge’, in B. Huston (ed.), Advances in Reading Research (Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press): II, 231-56.
1983b ‘Vocabulary Knowledge’, in R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell and H. Singer (eds.),
Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (Newark, DE: International
Reading Association): 343-71.
Arnaud, Pierre J.L., and Henri Bejoint (eds.)
1992 Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (London: Macmillan).
Barnett, Marva A.
1986 ‘Syntactic and Lexical/Semantic Skills in Foreign Language Reading: Impor-
tance and Interaction’, Modern Language Journal 70(4): 343-49.
Beck, Isabella L., Margaret G. Mckeown and Richard C. Omanson
1987 ‘The Effects and Use of Diverse Vocabulary Instruction Techniques’, in M.G.
McKeown and M.E. Curtis (eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition
(Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum): 147-63.
Bereiter, Carl, and Marlene Scardamalia
1987 The Psychology of Written Communication (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
Bernhardt, Elizabeth
1991 Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical, Empirical, and
Classroom Perspectives (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
2005 ‘Progress and Procrastination in Second Language Reading’, Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics 25: 133-50.
Cameron, Lynne
2002 ‘Measuring Vocabulary Size in English as an Additional Language’,
Language Teaching Research 92(2): 145-73.
Carver, Ronald P.
1994 ‘Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the
Relative Difficulty of the Text: Implications for Instruction’, Journal of
Reading Behavior 26(4): 413-37.
72
Chall, Joanne S.
1987 ‘Two Vocabularies for Reading: Recognition and Meaning’, in M.G.
McKeown and M.E. Curtis (eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition
(Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum): 7-17.
Chapelle, Carol A.
1994 ‘Are C-tests Valid Measures for L2 Vocabulary Research?’, Second Lan-
guage Research 10(2): 157-58.
1998 ‘Construct Definition and Validity Inquiry in SLA Research’, in L.F. Bach-
man and A.D. Cohen (eds.), Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition
and Language Testing Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press):
32-70
Cheah, Yin Mee
2004 ‘English Language Teaching in Singapore Today’, in W.K. Ho and R. Wong
(eds.), English Language Teaching in East Asia Today: Changing Policies
and Practices (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic): 351-74.
Cronbach, Lee J.
1942 ‘Analysis of Techniques of Diagnostic Vocabulary Testing’, Journal of
Educational Research 36(2): 206-17.
Curtis, Mary E.
1987 ‘Vocabulary Testing and Instruction’, in M.G. McKeown and M.E. Curtis
(eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (Hillside, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum): 37-51.
Davey, Beth
1987 ‘Relations between Word Knowledge and Comprehension: Generalization
across Tasks and Readers’, Journal of Educational Research 80(2): 179-83.
Day, R. Richard, and Julian Bamford
1998 Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Dollerup, Cay, E. Glahn and C. Rosenberg
1989 ‘Vocabularies in the Reading Process’, AILA Review 6: 21-33.
Ellis, Norbert C.
1997 ‘Vocabulary Acquisition: Word Structure, Collocation, Word-class, and
Meaning’, in N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description,
Acquisition and Pedagogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 122-39.
Freebody, Peter, and Richard C. Anderson
1983 ‘Effects of Vocabulary Difficulty, Text Cohesion, and Schema Availability
on Reading Comprehension’, Reading Research Quarterly 18(2): 277-305.
Fukkink, Ruben G., Jan Hulstijn and Annegien Simis
2005 ‘Does Training of Second-language Word Recognition Skills Affect Reading
Comprehension? An Experimental Study’, Modern Language Journal 89(1):
54-75.
Garcia, Georgia Ernest
1991 ‘Factors Influencing the English Reading Test Performance of Spanish-
speaking Hispanic Students’, Reading Research Quarterly 26(3): 371-92.
Gopinathan, S.
2004 ‘Language Policy Changes 1979–1997: Politics and Pedagogy’, in S. Gopina-
than, A. Pakir, W.K. Ho and V. Saravanan (eds.), Language, Society and
73
Education in Singapore (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2nd edn):

19-44.
Grabe, William, and Fredericka L. Stoller
2002 Teaching and Researching Reading (London: Pearson Longman).
Graves, Michael F.
1986 ‘Vocabulary Learning and Instruction’, in E.Z. Rothkopf (ed.), Review of
Research in Education 13: 49-89.
Greidanus, Tine, and Lydius Nienhuis
2001 ‘Testing the Quality of Word Knowledge in a Second Language by Means of
Word Associations: Types of Distracters and Types of Associations’, Modern
Language Journal 85(4): 567-77.
Halliday, Michael A.K., and Ruqaiya Hassan
1989 Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Per-
spective (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Hirsh, David, and I.S. Paul Nation
1992 ‘What Vocabulary Size Is Needed to Read Unsimplified Texts for Pleasure?’,
Reading in a Foreign Language 8(2): 689-96.
Ho, Chee Lick, and Lubna Alsagoff
1998 ‘English as the Common Language in Multicultural Singapore’, in J. Foley,
L. Alsagoff, Z. Bao, W. Bokhorst-Heng, A. Gupta, C. Ho, T. Kandiah,
I. Talib and L. Wee (eds.), English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections
from Singapore (Singapore: Oxford University Press): 201-17.
Hu, Marcella Hsueh-Chao, and I.S. Paul Nation
2000 ‘Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading Comprehension’, Reading in a
Foreign Language 13(2): 403-30.
Just, Marcel Adam, and Patricia A. Carpenter
1987 The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension (Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon).
Kintsch, Walter
1986 ‘Learning from Text’, Cognition and Instruction 3(2): 87-108.
1988 ‘The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-
Integration Model’, Psychological Review 95(2): 163-82.
Koda, Keiko
1994 ‘Second Language Reading Research: Problems and Possibilities’, Applied
Psycholinguistics 15(1): 1-28.
2005 Insights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-linguistic Approach
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Krashen, Stephen D.
2004 The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research (Westport, CT: Libraries
Unlimited, 2nd edn).
Laufer, Batia
1992a ‘How Much Lexis Is Necessary for Reading Comprehension?’, in P. Arnaud
and H. Benoit (eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (London:
Macmillan): 126-32.
1992b ‘Reading in a Foreign Language: How Does L2 Lexical Knowledge Interact
with the Reader’s General Academic Ability?’, Journal of Research in Read-
ing 15(2): 95-103.
74
1997 ‘The Lexical Plight in Second Language Reading: Words You Don’t Know,
Words You Think You Know, and Words You Can’t Guess’, in James Coady
and Tom Huckins (eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press): 20-34.
Laufer, Batia, and Donald D. Sim
1985 ‘Measuring and Explaining the Threshold Needed for English for Academic
Purposes Tests’, Foreign Language Annals 18(3): 405-13.
Laufer, Batia, and Yasukata Yano
2001 ‘Understanding Unfamiliar Words in a Text: Do L2 Learners Understand
How Much They Don’t Understand?’, Reading in a Foreign Language 13(2):
549-66.
Lesgold, Alan M., and Charles A. Perfetti
1978 ‘Interactive Processes in Reading Comprehension’, Discourse Processes 1(4):
323-36.
Liu, Na, and I.S. Paul Nation
1985 ‘Factors Affecting Guessing Vocabulary in Context’, RELC Journal 16(1):
33-42.
Meara, Paul
1997 ‘Towards a New Approach to Modelling Vocabulary Acquisition’, in
N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition
and Pedagogy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 109-21.
Mezynski, Karen
1983 ‘Issues Concerning the Acquisition of Knowledge: Effects of Vocabulary
Training on Reading Comprehension’, Review of Educational Research 53(2):
53-79.
Nassaji, Hossein
2003 ‘Higher-level and Lower-level Text Processing Skills in Advanced ESL
Reading Comprehension’, Modern Language Journal 87(2): 261-76.
Nation, I.S. Paul
2001 Learning Vocabulary in Another Language (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press).
Pakir, Anne
2004 ‘Medium-of-Instruction Policy in Singapore’, in J. Tollefson and A. Tsui (eds.),
Medium of Instruction Policies (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum): 117-33.
Pulido, Diana
2003 ‘Modelling the Role of Second Language Proficiency and Topic Familiarity
in Second Language Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading’,
Language Learning 53(2): 233-84.
Qian, David D.
1999 ‘Assessing the Roles of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge in
Reading Comprehension’, Canadian Modern Language Review 56(3): 282-
308.
2002 ‘Investigating the Relationship between Vocabulary Knowledge and Aca-
demic Reading Performance: An Assessment Perspective’, Language Learn-
ing 52(4): 513-36.
Qian, David D. and Mary Schedl
2004 ‘Evaluation of an In-depth Vocabulary Knowledge Measure for Assessing
Reading Performance’, Language Testing 21(1): 28-52.
75
Read, John
1989 ‘Measuring the Vocabulary Knowledge of Second Language Learners’,
RELC Journal 19(1): 12-25.
1993 ‘The Development of a New Measure of L2 Vocabulary Knowledge’, Lan-
guage Testing 10(3): 355-71.
2000 Assessing Vocabulary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Richards, Jack C.
1976 ‘The Role of Vocabulary Teaching’, TESOL Quarterly 10(1): 77-89.
Schmitt, Norbert
2000 Vocabulary in Language Teaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Schmitt, Norbert, and Paul Meara
1997 ‘Researching Vocabulary through a Word Knowledge Framework: Word
Associations and Verbal Suffixes’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition
19(1): 17-36.
Schmitt, Norbert, Diane Schmitt and Caroline Clapham
2001 ‘Developing and Exploring the Behaviour of Two New Versions of the
Vocabulary Levels Test’, Language Testing 18(1): 55-88.
Segalowitz, Norman, Catherine Poulsen and Melvin Komoda
1991 ‘Lower-level Components of Reading Skill in Higher-level Bilinguals: Impli-
cations for Reading Instruction’, AILA Review 8: 15-30.
Stahl, Stevens A.
2003 ‘Vocabulary and Readability: How Knowing Word Meanings Affects Com-
prehension’, Topics in Language Disorders 23(3): 241-47.
Stahl, Stevens A., and Michael G. Jacobson
1986 ‘Vocabulary Difficulty, Prior Knowledge, and Text Comprehension’, Journal
of Reading Behaviour 18(3): 309-24.
Stahl, Stevens A., Michael G. Jacobson, Charlotte E. Davis and Robin L. Davis
1989 ‘Prior Knowledge and Difficult Vocabulary in the Comprehension of Unfa-
miliar Text’, Reading Research Quarterly 24(1): 27-43.
Sternberg, Robert J.
1987 ‘Most Vocabulary Is Learned from Context’, in M.G. McKeown and M.E.
Curtis (eds.), The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (Hillside, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum): 89-105.
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus, and Walter Kintsch
1983 Strategies of Discourse Comprehension (New York: Academic Press).
Weaver, C.A., and Walter Kintsch
1991 ‘Expository Text’, in R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal and P.D. Pearson
(eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (New York: Longman): II, 230-45.
Wesche, Marjorie, and T. Sima Paribakht
1996 ‘Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth versus Breadth’,
Canadian Modern Language Review 53(1): 13-40.
Zhang, Lawrence Jun
2000 ‘Metacognition in L2 Reading Literacy Acquisition: The Case of Ten Chinese
Students Learning to Read EFL’, in A. Brown (ed.), English in Southeast Asia
’99: Developing Multiliteracies (Singapore: Nanyang Technological Univer-
sity): 83-96.
2001a ‘Awareness in Reading: EFL Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge of Reading
Strategies in an Input-poor Environment’, Language Awareness 10(4): 268-88.
76
2001b‘Nurturing ESL Reader Autonomy’, Guidelines 23(1): 36-40.

2002a‘Exploring EFL Reading as a Metacognitive Experience: Reader Awareness
and Reading Performance’, Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 12:
65-90.
2002b ‘Metamorphological Awareness and EFL Students’ Memory, Retention, and
Retrieval of English Adjectival Lexicons’, Perceptual and Motor Skills 95(3):
934-44.
2003 ‘Research into Chinese EFL Learner Strategies: Methods, Findings and
Instructional Issues’, RELC Journal 34(3): 284-322.
2008 ‘Constructivist Pedagogy in Strategic Reading Instruction: Exploring Path–
ways to Learner Development in the English-as-a-second-language Class–
room’, Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning
Sciences 36(2): 89-130, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9025-6.
Zhang, Lawrence Jun, Peter Yongqi Gu and Guangwei Hu
2007 ‘A Cognitive Perspective on Singaporean Primary School Pupils’ Use of
Reading Strategies in Learning to Read in English’, British Journal of
Educational Psychology at http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218179.
View publication stats

The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in Singapore

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary School Students Learning English in Singapore

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The

Article in RELC Journal · April 2008

Lawrence Jun Zhang

teacher education View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Role of Vocabulary in Reading Comprehension: The Case of Secondary

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://rel.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Apr 11, 2008

The Role of Vocabulary in Reading

Lawrence Jun Zhang

Suaini Bin Anual

Abstract ■ The crucial role of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension has

Keywords ■ L2 learning and teaching, reading comprehension, secondary school

Vol 39(1) 51-76 | DOI: 10.1177/0033688208091140

that these students’ reading comprehension performance was below the

Although these are interesting issues, what we are interested in exam-

theoretical dimensions. As recommended by several researchers (e.g.

Review of the Literature

Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge

knowledge that include receptive and productive use. Basically, vocabu-

the relationship of these dimensions to reading comprehension. Greidanus

Density of Unknown Words and Comprehension

percent [sic], 4,000 in 63 percent [sic], 5,000 in 70 percent [sic], 6,000 in

Vocabulary Difficulty and Text Comprehension

for vocabulary difficulty in the second experiment. Reading performance

statistically significantly with recall protocol scores on the topic (r = .27, p

their performance on reading comprehension-related tasks, with a focus on

Results and Discussion

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Student Performance

Tests Full Marks of Mean Std. Deviation

VLT2,000 1.00* .212* .242* .101* .432* .284* .423*

VLT5,000 .242* .532** 1.00* -.422* .091* .100* .113*

* Correlation is significant at p < .01 (2-tailed).

Generally speaking and from the perspective of language testing, the

Vocabulary Levels Tests indicate that these students have, to a certain

Implications for Pedagogy

implications can be drawn tentatively for schools that share similar

Education in Singapore (Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2nd edn):

2001b‘Nurturing ESL Reader Autonomy’, Guidelines 23(1): 36-40.

You might also like