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

net/publication/363861737

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation

Article in IUP Journal of English Studies · September 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 222

2 authors:

Alice Su Chu Wong Jocelyn Yee Vun Lee

Universiti Teknologi MARA Kota Kinabalu Sabah Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
12 PUBLICATIONS 38 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

reading engagement View project

Reading comprehension and critical reading of ELL students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alice Su Chu Wong on 13 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Online Reading Habits and L2
Vocabulary Size: A Correlation
Alice Su Chu Wong* and Jocelyn Yee Vun Lee**
A sizable number of studies have been done on English Language
Learners’ (ELL) reading habits. While many of these studies were done
in English-speaking countries, very few empirical investigations have
been done in the Asian context. The present study aims to investigate
the online reading habits of ELL first year diploma students in Malaysia,
their vocabulary size and the correlation between the two. Using a mixed
method of an online reading survey, a qualitative online interview and a
series of vocabulary tests (receptive and productive), the study
discovered that 91% of students have read English online materials and
79% preferred getting online resources to do their assignments. Yet,
almost half of the participants reported that they did not like to read long
articles online. The results also revealed that students had difficulties
doing the University Word List for receptive vocabulary test, and overall,
students had difficulties in the productive vocabulary level test beyond
the 2000 level. These findings suggest that online reading habits may
hinder or promote the acquisition of receptive and productive vocabulary.

T
echnology has become an indispensable tool in education. Over the past decade,
we have seen a rapid change in the way educational materials are accessed by
educators and learners. Due to technological advances, electronic reading materials
have proliferated to create a digital reading environment free for all. In this new
environment, “twenty-first century students are surrounded by technology that brings the
world to their fingertips” (Long and Szabo 2016, 2) and they have the liberty and ease to
read content in electronic mode whenever and wherever they want. When it comes to
academic assignment, it is found that college students tend to rely more on computer-
based resources (such as online video, online news and social media platforms) than
paper-based resources. Undoubtedly, college students are required to engage in electronic
reading to fulfill many academic demands of university courses. However, when their
social lives are mediated by the Internet, it is not known whether they might also read for
pleasure. Some may argue that the hours students spend on the Internet may affect their
attention spans and impede meaningful reading. Others may concede that the Internet in

* Senior Lecturer, Academy of Language Studies, MARA University of Technology, Sabah, Malaysia; and is
the corresponding author. Email: lizee@uitm.edu.my
** Senior Lecturer, Academy of Language Studies, MARA University of Technology, Sabah, Malaysia.
Email: jocel749@uitm.edu.my

© 2022Reading
Online IUP. AllHabits
Rightsand
Reserved.
L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 71
social lives are mediated by the Internet, it is not known whether they might also read for
pleasure. Some may argue that the hours students spend on the Internet may affect their
attention spans and impede meaningful reading. Others may concede that the Internet in
the new digital environment can inspire students to read online more extensively. Indeed,
it is uncertain what Malaysian students’ reading patterns are or whether they engage in
online reading when they are using electronic media. Hence, the purpose of the present
study is to determine whether the first year students of English Language Learners (ELL)
course spend time reading online as they navigate the Internet.
Our interest in studying the online reading habits stemmed from four reasons. First,
our review of literature indicated that the research exploring the reading habits and practices
of university students in the ELL context is quite limited, and the results were sometimes
inconsistent. Second, emphasis of published research appeared to have been placed on
the study of the perceptions of ELL students’ reading online (Florez et al. 2012; Chen
2015; and Gilbert 2017), the strategies students employed (Tseng 2008; Poole and Mokhtari
2008; Mesgar et al. 2012; and Johnson 2013), the recreational habits of ELL elementary
and secondary students (Olszak 2015), the impact of the Internet on the practice of
reading (Mokhtari et al. 2009; and Tanjung et al. 2017) or the use of the Internet among
undergraduates (Lim et al. 2013). Research on reading in Malaysia is mainly concerned
with reading of printed texts (Pandian 1997, 2000; Chin et al. 2007; and Lee and Wong
2017).
Before we discuss students’ online reading habits, it is worthwhile to define what
leisure reading is according to The International Reading Association or IRA. Leisure
reading is “independent, self-selected reading of a continuous text for personal and social
purposes.” Students choose to do at their own initiatives. Leisure reading is also called
recreational reading, pleasure reading, free voluntary reading, spare time reading and
independent reading. Readers may read a variety of texts ranging from fiction, nonfiction,
magazines to newspapers. This kind of reading, to a large extent, is intrinsically or socially
motivated and a pleasurable activity for the reader (IRA 2014).
Instead of actually turning the pages, many students have switched to the digital platform
which we now call online reading. The increasing amount of time people spend on electronic
media has affected their reading habits (Chou 2001; Lenhart et al. 2010; Junco 2011;
Rosen et al. 2013; and Chen and Yan 2016). Liu (2005) and Picton (2014) highlight that
reading on screen or screen-based reading has been the most common habit for younger
generation. The characteristics of screen-based reading are that students spend more
time browsing and scanning, keyword searching, and reading selectively. Yet students
spend relatively little amount of time on in-depth reading, such as reading critically and
analytically (e.g., Rowlands et al. 2008; and Cull 2011). After providing this definition, we
now look at the reading trend in Malaysia. We will then look at the online reading habits
in Malaysia, with a particular focus on university students and determine the relationship
between online reading habits and vocabulary knowledge.

2 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

Literature Review
As previously mentioned, a sizable number of studies on reading habits in Malaysia
were concerned with reading printed texts. Several studies in Malaysia have
reported that matriculation and university students seldom read printed texts
(Pandian and Ibrahim 1997; Abidin et al. 2011; Subashini and Balakrishnan 2013; and
Shameem 2016). In other words, university students spend very little time on
leisure reading. These students disagreed that reading is an enjoyable activity
(Pandian and Ibrahim 1997; Abidin et al. 2011; Subashini and Balakrishnan 2013; and
Shameem, 2016), and they perceived reading as a difficult task (Annamalai and
Muniandy 2013). Pandian (2000) called these students reluctant readers. These readers
shared a similar trait—they do not read, albeit perceiving reading as an important
activity (Chin et al. 2007). In a more recent study, Lee and Wong (2017) report that
over half of the 33 respondents agreed that reading is useful for those who want to
study. In a more recent study, Lee and Wong (2017) reported over half of the 33
respondents agreed that reading is useful for those who want to study. Although about
80% of them agreed that reading is better than doing other activities, this may not
necessarily mean that they would read; it could mean that they wish they had read
more.

Online Activities and Online Reading Habits in Malaysia

Access to new forms of media is becoming widespread in Malaysia since the start
of Internet service in the country in 1992. It is reported that Malaysian
undergraduates spend more than 6 hours online using social media technologies (Lim
et al. 2014). In a report from the Pew Research Centre, 70% of users logged into
Facebook at least once a day, and about 45% logged into the site several times a day
(Duggan et al. 2015). Lee and Wong (2018) have identified some popular social
network platforms on mobile and web apps favored by youngsters in Malaysia,
namely, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, and Google
Plus.
Because of the accessibility to digital information and the increasing amount
of time people spend reading electronic media, the digital environment has begun to
affect people’s reading habits (Chou 2001; Lenhart et al. 2010; Junco 2011; Rosen et
al. 2013; and Chen and Yan 2016). The Internet has a profound impact on students’
reading. Young people today are more digital active than any previous generation as
reported by Pew Research Centre (Zickuhr and Smoth 2012). Reading on digital
devices or online reading can be considered as a form of reading. However, whether
students engage deeply with a digital text in the same way they do when reading a
printed text is unknown. Studies such as Liu (2005) and Picton (2014) have shown that
screen-based reading has been the most common habit for young people. Screen-based
reading involves readers spending more time browsing and scanning, than reading in-
depth. Attention span for screed-based readers is also shorter. In print reading,
annotating and highlighting is common. Yet, it has not “migrated” to the digital
environment when people read electronic texts (Liu 2005, 707).
Reading research in the digital environment of ELL university students is scarce.
Most of the studies conducted were on students’ Internet usage. In Annamalai and
Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 3
Muniandy’s (2013) study, over half of the polytechnic students (56%) liked surfing the
Internet as their leisure activity. In a similar vein, Soh et al. (2013) claimed that the top
three drivers for secondary school students in urban schools in Malaysia to spend a
considerable amount of time online are: entertainment, social interaction, and
shopping. Likewise, Abidin, Pourmohammadi, Varasingam and Ooi (2014) reported
that secondary school students spent more time on social networking than reading
online. Although a more recent study was not on students’ online reading habits, Siraj
et al. (2015) reported that Internet dependency did not influence university students’
academic performance. In their study, the researchers found that the main purpose of
university students’ Internet usage was related to their course and assignment. The
survey respondents—186 in all—perceived that the Internet acts as a supplement to the
information given by the lecturers. They claimed that there is a relationship between
students’ Internet usage and their CGPA and concluded that high Internet usage brings
better academic performance and improves their general study skills. Despite its
generalizability, the study by Siraj et al. (2015) suffers from a major drawback. Since
the participants are fourth-year university medical students, in principle they would
use the Internet for researching and doing their assignments. There is no good
reason why they would not use the Internet for course-related information. Hence, it
remains an empirical question as to whether university students would read online
as a form of leisure reading.
Yeap et al. (2015) reiterated that university students are highly active users of
the Internet. In their case study, all the eight undergraduates were cognizant of the
number of hours they were online using their laptops or personal computers. Out
of the eight participants, only one had phone Internet plan. The participants admitted
that they had a hard time limiting the use of the Internet. Although their study was
on reading printed texts, the participants in Lee and Wong’s (2017) study, on the
contrary, had full access to the Internet on their phones. This only shows that in this
age of digital domination, the digital revolution has fully grabbed our attention and
hence the surge in the usage of the Internet among university students is only to be
expected. Therefore, it is interesting to determine whether university students read
online for pleasure. The following section discusses vocabulary size and its relation
to reading.

Vocabulary Knowledge and Its Relation to Reading

Vocabulary knowledge has long been regarded as an important factor in second
language proficiency (Nation 2001; and Morris and Cobb 2004). Numerous studies
have shown that vocabulary size has a linear relationship with the development of
other language skills such as reading and writing (Meara 1996). According to
Schmitt (2000, 2008), language learners need at least a vocabulary size of 3,000-5,000
words for written material, 5,000-7,000 words for oral discourse, 8,000-9,000-word
families for reading and close to 10,000 words for academic success. It is also said that
university students must acquire at least a lexical base of 10,000-11,000-word level to
understand university texts (Hulstijin et al. 1996). In comparison to this proposed
baseline, Malaysian students fall far behind. Findings in the literature have shown that
Malaysian ELLs in higher learning institutions

4 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

have poor vocabulary knowledge (Zakaria 2005; Abmanan, Jamian 2008; Mokhtar 2010;
and Azizan et al. 2017). One of the reasons for this vocabulary discrepancy is the fact
that vocabulary lessons are not emphasized in most of the English classes. According to
Hassan and Fauzee (2002), vocabulary exercises ranked fourth out of the nine language
activities in an ESL lesson. Similarly, Kaur et al. (2017) reiterated that vocabulary learning
is the least favored by the students.
Apart from the lack of vocabulary intervention in the classroom, students’ lack of
vocabulary skills may also be attributed to their poor reading habits. Over the years, many
correlational studies on reading and vocabulary in second language have reported the
effects of reading on vocabulary development (Pigada and Schmitt 2006; Rott 2007; and
Schmitt 2008). As Brown et al. (2008) affirmed, when learners engage in extensive
reading activity, incidental learning may occur as students will learn certain new words in
their lexicons and gradually increase their vocabulary size. Vocabulary items which are
exposed more frequently are more likely to be learned and retained (Brown et al. 2008).
In the same vein, Smith (1996) argued that adults who read more are considered to have
greater literacy performance as reading practice enhances literacy skills. This means
that avid readers demonstrate higher literacy skills. Other studies have also reported that
vocabulary acquisition is an ongoing process (Schmitt 2008; and Laufer 2009). For complete
word knowledge to develop, repeated exposure to unfamiliar or partially known words in
one or multiple texts is necessary (Paribakht and Wesche 1999). With the emergence of
the new digital environment and changes in students’ reading patterns, it would be
interesting to investigate the students’ vocabulary size—a way to determine whether
students read online as they navigate the Internet.

Research Questions
This study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the online reading habits of ELL students in Malaysia?
2. What is the English vocabulary knowledge of ELL first year diploma students in
Malaysia?
3. What are students’ Internet activities in the college?
4. What is the relationship between ELL first year diploma students’ online reading
habits and their English vocabulary knowledge?
5. What do students expect their teachers to do in the classroom to improve their
vocabulary?

Data and Methodology

Design
The study is primarily quantitative in nature, which involves descriptive and inferential
analyses. Data was collected during one class session, where a Vocabulary Level Test
(VLT), a Productive Vocabulary Level Test (PVLT) and an online reading habit
questionnaire were administered.

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 5

Data Collection and Instrument
Online Reading Habit Questionnaire
An online reading habit questionnaire was used to elicit information on participants’
online reading habits. The questionnaire consisted of two sections: A and B. Section A
contained 10 items which elicited information regarding participants’ online reading
habits, while Section B contained five items which elicited information regarding
students’ use of smartphones and the Internet. A reliability analysis was carried out on
the online reading habits scale comprising 10 items. Cronbach’s alpha showed that
the questionnaire had reached acceptable reliability, α = 0.61. According to Hinton et
al. (2014), an alpha score between 0.5 to 0.75 is generally accepted as indicating a
moderately reliable scale. All the items were presented in English and Malay and
the questionnaire was distributed through Survey Monkey.

Vocabulary Level Test

The present study used Nation (1990) receptive vocabulary tests to measure
participants’ vocabulary knowledge as it has been proven to be a reliable tool for
determining vocabulary knowledge. According to Shen (2008), the VLT has been
extensively used, based on evidence of its validity to measure students’ range of
vocabulary. In this regard, students’ vocabulary is a representative of their second
language proficiency. The test consists of five sections of five frequency bands: 2,000;
3,000; 5,000; 10,000 levels; and academic vocabulary that was not frequency-based.
The electronic version of the VLT had six clusters in each section. For each
section, the participants are provided with six target words and three meanings.
Participants were asked to choose the right target words to go with each meaning,
and each correct answer was given one point. The maximum score for each section
was eighteen. Mastery level means the score being a high proportion of correct
answers at that level. In this study, a score of 14 out of 18 or 80% was considered
as mastery level. In the data analysis, the participants’ overall scores were used.
One of the reasons for selecting this test among alternative vocabulary size tests was
its coverage which involved all four-word frequency levels as well as academic
vocabulary.
Productive Vocabulary Level Test
To assess the productive vocabulary size of the participants, the PVLT developed
by Laufer and Nation (1999) was chosen. Although there are three main productive
vocabulary tests in the literature—Lexical Frequency Profile or LFP (Laufer and
Nation 1995), PVLT (Laufer and Nation 1999) and the Lex30 (Meara and Fitzpatrick
2000)—the PVLT was chosen as it is a reliable, valid and practical measure of
vocabulary growth. The PVLT was intended to assess students’ controlled productive
vocabulary, in contrast to receptive vocabulary as measured by the VLT. The PVLT
measured students’ productive knowledge in a limited context, i.e., fill-in task, where a
sentence context was provided and students had to provide the missing word. A
number of letters were provided for each item as clues. The test comprised five
sections; 2,000 level; 3,000 level; 5,000 level; academic

6 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

word level; and 10,000 level. The maximum possible score for each section was 18 and
participants were given 45 minutes to complete the test.
Online Interview
In order to address Research Question 5, students were invited to participate in an online
interview. The online interview consisted of four open-ended questions which asked
students the reasons for poor mastery in reading, the use of reading strategies when
faced with unfamiliar words, the suggestions on classroom activities to increase English
vocabulary and the suggestions they wish their lecturer would do in class to improve their
English learning. Altogether, 24 students participated in the interview (see Appendix).

Data Analysis
In order to analyze the research data, SPSS (Version 23) was used to perform both
descriptive and inferential analysis. Frequency distribution was carried out to describe
the participants’ online reading habits, Internet activities and vocabulary levels. Meanwhile,
bivariate correlations were used to investigate the relationship between participants reading
habits and their vocabulary size. As the data were not normal, Spearman-Rho correlation
test was performed to determine the association between vocabulary scores and
questionnaire items. Participants’ online reading habits were matched with individual
students’ vocabulary size to determine the strength of the relationship between the two
variables.

Participants
A convenience sample of 107 ELL university students majoring in different fields of study
was used. Out of 107, 27% were males and 73% were females. Participants were in
their first-year diploma studies and were taking English as a prerequisite course. The
participants were all indigenous students whose age ranged from 18 to 20. English was
not their first language but all of them had learnt the target language for more than 12
years before enrolling in the university.

Results
The results are presented in terms of descriptive and inferential statistics for each research
question. Since the study focused on students’ online reading habits, it was important to
ascertain whether students had access to electronic media. A general survey revealed
that all the participants owned a smartphone, 83% owned a laptop and 98% of the
participants had Internet access to their phones.
RQ 1: What are the online reading habits of ELL students in Malaysia?
Table 1 presents students’ online reading habits. As can be seen, 76% of the participants
would read English materials in their free time and a majority reported they have read
English online articles or texts. If given a choice, students would rather check their friends’
FB post compared to reading online texts and 45% reported they would only read something
online if it was needed for an assignment. With regard to preferences in article length,

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 7

44% of students did not like long online articles whereas 17% reported ‘Not Sure’ indicating
a neutral stand. The findings indicated that 51% of students loved reading printed texts
more than electronic texts. The results also indicated that 47% of students preferred
watching news on YouTube compared to reading it online. Another finding indicated that
53% of the students disagreed that they would only read something if it was recommended
by their lecturer. It appears that many students (59%) still go to the library to borrow
books. Although 51% of the students indicated that they loved reading printed texts, 79%
preferred getting online reading resources to do their assignments.

Table 1: Online Reading Habit (in %)

Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly
Disagree Sure Agree

I would read EM in my free time. 0 1 23 60 16

I have never read ENG online articles/texts. 38 53 4 5 0
I’d rather check friends’ FB post compared to 8.4 32 15 33 11
reading online texts.
I’d only read something online if it is needed for 6.5 36 11 36 9
assignment.
I do not like to read long articles online. 3 36 17 38 6
I love reading printed texts more than electronic texts. 3 22 24 40 11
If given a choice, I’d rather watch the news on 6 36 11 32 15
YouTube than read it online.
I would only read something in English if it is 8 45 6 30 11
recommended by my lecturer.
I do not go to the library to borrow books anymore. 17 42 11 22 8
I prefer getting online reading resources to do my 2 10 9 59 20
assignments.
Note: N = 107.

RQ 2: What is the English vocabulary knowledge of ELL first year diploma

students in Malaysia?
Figure 1 presents the pattern of mastery of the receptive VLT among the participants.
As presented, there is a stair-step pattern of mastery of the ascending frequency
levels. A majority of participants (76%) mastered the 2,000-word level, whereas 51%
reached the criteria of mastery for the 3,000-word-level. However, very few
participants achieved the level of mastery for the 5,000 and 10,000-word levels as
well as the academic vocabulary test. Overall, it can be concluded that participants
did not do very well in the VLT.
Further analysis of students’ receptive vocabulary size is shown in Table 2. As can
be seen, scores for 2,000-level test ranged from 5 to 18, with a mean of 15 and a
standard deviation of 2.47. For the 3,000-level test, scores ranged from 5 to 18, with a
mean of 14
8 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022
 Figure 1: Pattern of Mastery of the Receptive Vocabulary Test

100

80 76

60
51

40

24
20
11
3
0
2000 3000 5000 Academic 10000
and a standard deviation of 3.33. For the 5,000-word-level test, scores ranged from 3 to
18, with a mean of 11 and a standard deviation of 3.2. For the academic level test,
scores ranged from 3 to 18 with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.0. For the
10,000-word-level test, scores ranged from 1 to 17 with a mean of 6.1 and a standard
deviation of 3.2. These distributions suggest that the 2,000-word-level and the
3,000-word-level were not too difficult for the students given the relatively high
mean scores and that some individuals achieved maximum possible scores. The
results also suggest that the 5,000-level and academic level tests were difficult for the
students given the low mean scores and the fact that some individuals scored 3. The
10,000-level test was the most difficult for the students given the relatively low mean
scores.
The next section of the vocabulary test was concerned with students’
productive vocabulary size. It is apparent that a majority of students did not achieve
mastery level for the productive vocabulary size (Figure 2). Only 27% of the
participants achieved mastery level for the 2,000-word-level, whereas 3% of
participants achieved mastery level for the 5,000-word-level. None of the
participants achieved mastery level for the 3,000-word-level, 10,000-word-level and
academic vocabulary test.
Table 3 further presents a detailed analysis of students’ PVLT scores. As can be
seen, scores for 2,000-level test ranged from 11 to 100, with a mean of 64 and a
standard deviation of 20. For the 3,000-level test, scores ranged from 11 to 77, with a
mean of 33.8 and a standard deviation of 17. For the 5,000-level test, scores ranged
from 5 to 88, with a mean of 27 and a standard deviation of 16. For the academic level
test, scores ranged from 0 to 72 with a mean of 24 and a standard deviation of 16. For
Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 9
 Table 2: Receptive Vocabulary Test Scores of ELL Students

Minimum Maximum Maximum Mean SD

Possible Score
2,000 Level 5.00 18.00 18.00 15.1215 2.47138
3,000 Level 5.00 18.00 18.00 14.0280 3.33494
5,000 Level 3.00 18.00 18.00 11.7196 3.28460
Academic Level 3.00 18.00 18.00 10.1495 3.06164
10,000 Level 1.00 17.00 18.00 6.1402 3.22855
Note: N = 107.

Figure 2: Pattern of Mastery of the Productive Vocabulary Level Tests (in %)

100

80

60

40
27

20

0 3 0 0
0
2000 3000 5000 Academic 10000

Table 3: Productive Vocabulary Test Scores of ELL Students

Minimum Maximum Maximum Mean SD

Possible Score
2,000 Level 11.00 100.00 100.00 64.4860 20.08865
3,000 Level 11.00 77.00 100.00 33.8411 17.11953
5,000 Level 5.00 88.00 100.00 27.6916 16.33691
Academic Level 0.00 72.00 100.00 24.3645 15.65332
10,000 Level 0.00 77.00 100.00 13.0561 12.03754
Note: N = 107.

10 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

the 10,000-level test, scores ranged from 0 to 77 with a mean of 13 and a standard
deviation of 12. These distributions suggest that the 2,000; 3,000; 5,000-word level
tests; and academic level test were difficult for the students given the low mean scores
and the fact that some individuals scored 0. Among the five tests, the 10000-word level
proved to be the most difficult for the students given the relatively low mean scores
(13).
RQ3: What are students’ Internet activities?
Table 4 presents students’ Internet activities. As can be seen, 37% of the students
always downloaded English articles and 42% of them downloaded videos using the
data in their cell phones. However, when they were at free Wi-Fi zones/hotspots,
41% rarely and never downloaded articles. When students were doing their
assignment, 44% said they checked their phones.

Table 4: Students’ Internet Activities (in %)

Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Very

Frequently

I download articles/texts in 3 19 41 28 9
English using the data in my cell phone
I download videos using the data in 5 24 29 25 17
my cell phone
I download English articles when 8 33 37 18 3
I am at free WiFi zones/hotspots
I check my mobile phone while 2 20 33 34 10
I am doing my assignment
How often do you check your 2 20 34 34 10
mobile phone while doing assignment?

Note: N = 107.

Figure 3 depicts the number of hours students spent surfing the Internet in a day. As
presented, 57% of the respondents spent more than five hours online, whereas 33%
spent between three to four hours online. Only 9% of the students spent fewer than two
hours. This suggests that ELL university students are heavy Internet users.
RQ4: What is the relationship between ELL first year diploma students’ online
reading habits and their English vocabulary knowledge?
A correlational analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between students’
online reading habits and their receptive vocabulary size. A two-tailed test of significance
indicated that there was a significant relationship between the two variables. As presented
in Table 5, some items were found to be significantly correlated with students’ vocabulary
size. Item 1 (I would read English materials in my free time) had a positive relationship
with students’ receptive vocabulary, whereas Item 2 (I have never read English online
materials) had a negative relationship with vocabulary size. These results indicate that
the more time students invested in reading English online materials, the higher their
vocabulary size. Further analysis also shows a negative relationship between Item 3 (I’d

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 11

 Figure 3: Hours Spent Online (in %)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
Hours Spent online

0-2 Hours 3-4 Hours 5-6 Hours 7-8 Hours More than 8 Hours

Table 5: Correlation Between Online Reading Habits and Receptive Vocabulary Size

2,000 3,000 5,000 AW 10,000

Level Level Level Level

Item 1 I would read EM in my free time. 0.283** 0.202* 0.276** 0.319** 0.275**
Item 2 I have never read ENG online articles/texts –0.300** –0.253** –0.165 –0.268** –0.277**
Item 3 I’d rather check friends’ FB post compared –0.193* –0.221* –0.384** –0.278** –0.267**
to reading online texts
Item 4 I’d only read something online if it is needed –0.247** –0.282** –0.287** –0.305** –0.162**
for assignment
Item 5 I do not like to read long articles online –0.046 –0.007 –0.115 –0.136 –0.107
Item 6 I love reading printed texts more than 0.055 –0.117 0.081 –0.090 0.176
electronic texts
Item 7 If given a choice, I’d rather watch the news –0.071 –0.044 –0.221* –0.114 –0.075
on YouTube than read it online
Item 8 I would only read something in English if it –0.055 –0.088 –0.182 –0.215* –0.193*
is recommended by my lecturer
Item 9 I do not go to the library to borrow books 0.063 0.054 –0.008 –0.026 –0.044
anymore
Item 10 I prefer getting online reading resources 0.049 0.059 0.061 0.055 0.018
to do my assignments.
Note: N = 107; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

12 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

rather check friend’s’ FB posts compared to reading online texts) and vocabulary size. In
a similar trend, there is evidence of a negative correlation between Item 4 (I’d only read
something online if it is needed for assignment). There is also a trend towards a negative
relationship between the habit of reading something in English only if it is recommended
by the lecturer (Item 8) and vocabulary size. No significant correlations were found
between the other items and vocabulary size.
Table 6 presents the correlation analysis between students’ online readinng habits and
productive vocabulary size. Item 1 (I would read English materials in my free time) had a
positive relationship with students’ receptive vocabulary whereas Item 2 (I have never
read English online materials) had a negative relationship with vocabulary size. Item 3
(I’d rather check friends’ FB posts compared to reading online texts) seems to be negatively
correlated with productive vocabulary size. This indicates that students who preferred
to check Facebook posts rather than reading online text, tend to have lower
productive vocabulary size. Further analysis also indicates negative correlation
between Item 4 (I’d only read something online if it is needed for assignment) and
productive vocabulary size. There is also an indication of a relationship between Item 5
and productive vocabulary size. However, no relationship was found between Item
6 and productive vocabulary size. A trend towards negative correlation can further be
seen between Item 7 (If given a choice, I’d rather watch the news on YouTube than
read it online) and productive vocabulary size. Similarly, Item 8 (I would only
read something in English if it is recommended by my lecturer) was also negatively
correlated with productive vocabulary

Table 6: Correlation Between Online Reading Habit and Productive Vocabulary Test

2,000 3,000 5,000 UWL 10,000

Le ve l Le ve l Le ve l Le ve l

Item 1 I would read EM in my free time. 0 .3 0 5** 0.168 0.24 5* 0.26 6* 0.22 9*
Item 2 I have never read ENG online articles/texts – 0.36 5** – 0.36 2** – 0.26 9** – 0.33 0** – 0.25 3**
Item 3 I’d rather check friends’ FB post compared –0.180 –0.184 – 0.35 1** –0 .22 0* –0 .19 2*
to reading online texts
Item 4 I’d only read something online if it is needed – 0.32 5** – 0.33 4** – 0.42 9** – 0.40 7** – 0.39 5**
for assignment
Item 5 I do not like to read long articles online –0.119 – 0.25 3** –0.140 –0 .24 5* –0.105
Item 6 I love reading printed texts more than –0.002 –0.037 –0.033 –0.139 –0.085
electronic texts
Item 7 If given a choice, I’d rather watch the news –0.142 –0.124 – 0.25 7** – 0.33 3** – 0.24 1**
on YouTube than read it online
Item 8 I would only read something in English –0.142 –0.124 – 0.25 7** – 0.33 3** –0 .24 1*
if it is recommended by my lecturer
Item 9 I do not go to the library to borrow –0.073 –0.037 –0.029 –0.055 –0.049
books anymore
Item 10 I prefer getting online reading resources –0.021 0.024 0.110 0.086 0.088
to do my assignments.

Note: N = 107; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 13

size. No significant correlations were found between productive vocabulary size and the
remaining items.
RQ5: What do students expect their teachers to do in the classroom to improve
their vocabulary?
RQ5 was formulated to gain students’ insights on activities deemed effective for the
teaching and learning of vocabulary in the English classroom. The findings from the
online interview revealed that 60% of students had poor mastery of the English language
and thus lack of interest in reading. This suggests that students associated their mastery
in English language with reading, which implies an awareness among the students of the
importance of reading. Further analysis revealed that when reading, 80% of the respondents
would use a dictionary to search for the meanings of unfamiliar words. Nevertheless,
Google Translate seems to be the more preferred tool for reading. When asked about
their insights on activities useful in the English class, 67% expressed that they would like
their lecturers to teach vocabulary. Additionally, half of the students expected their lecturers
to assign reading texts to be discussed in the class.

Conclusion
This study investigated the online reading habits of ELL first year diploma students in
Malaysia, their vocabulary size and the relationship between the two. The study yielded
five key findings. Firstly, it was discovered that most of the students’ impetus to read
stems from classroom assignment given by the lecturers. This was expected as most
course assignments bear weightage in students’ final grades. Objectively, students who
are given a purpose to do online reading would perform meaningful reading as they are
committed to the task. This finding is consistent with that of Wesch (2007) which reported
that a university student will complete 49% of their reading assignment as part of their
course requirements. In a similar vein, Svinicki (2004) mentioned that people learn what
they regard as significant to their lives. It can thus be suggested that task-based reading
activities which involve researching online materials would be productive for students’
reading development. Findings from the online interview further supported the role of
lecturer as a motivator as students revealed that articles recommended by lecturers are
deemed important as this could strengthen their reading habits.
The second key finding indicates that students disliked reading long online articles.
There are several reasons that can be attributed to this. According to Nilson (2016),
millennial students tend to view the assignments, readings, and tests as barriers. Nilson
added that one of the most common reasons for the lack of interest in reading is that
students do not want to read due to poor reading skills. Considering the findings on
vocabulary knowledge, it is probably safe to say that students’ lack of interest is due to
limited vocabulary which impedes comprehension. One cannot find pleasure in something
that they do not understand. Another possible explanation is that students are also easily
distracted from a reading and may have trouble focusing on more than a few web pages
at a time. This makes sense, considering that they grew up seeing texts on digital screens.

14 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

Students have problems to keep track of where and what they are reading as they navigate
through web-based text. They might lose the continuity due to the length of the text when
scrolling up and down. The overwhelming hyperlinks might also contribute to the feeling
of distraction.
The third key finding indicates that over 75% of the participants were unanimous in
obtaining online resources to do their assignment. Web-based texts are instant and the
resources are plentiful online than a print environment. This explains why students prefer
searching for sources online. Like what has been discussed earlier, specific task or project-
based work should be assigned to students on a regular basis. When the task is purposeful,
students’ reading will become meaningful. An added value of such assignment is, students
get to interact with multiple texts, as they are required to undertake and complete the task
within a specified period of time.
The fourth key finding relates to students’ receptive and productive vocabulary size.
The findings revealed that participants have not acquired the necessary vocabulary size
required for university studies. With regard to receptive vocabulary size, it was
discovered that students only mastered the 2,000-word level (75%) and 3,000-word
level (51%). Only a minority number of students achieved the level of mastery for
the 5,000 and 10,000-word levels as well as the academic vocabulary test. A similar
trend was discovered for the productive vocabulary size whereby it was found that
students were only capable of doing the 2,000 productive level test. The results
indicated that the 3,000; 5,000; Academic level and 10,000 level tests were too
challenging for the students given the low mean scores and the fact that some
individuals scored 0. This finding confirms that of Harji et al.(2015), which
revealed that undergraduates lack sufficient vocabulary for university studies. This is
alarming as a threshold level of vocabulary is required for successful language
learning. As mentioned in previous studies (Hsueh-Chao and Nation 2000; Morris
and Cobb 2004; and Waring and Nation 2004), vocabulary knowledge is a significant
predictor of academic performance and a prerequisite for academic success.
The fifth key finding relates to the relationship between students’ online reading
habits and vocabulary size. The findings showed that positive online reading habits
were significantly correlated with students’ vocabulary size, whereas negative online
reading habits predicted lower scores in receptive and productive vocabulary tests.
This implies that there needs to be an emphasis on inculcating reading habits for the
development of vocabulary and literacy skills among ELL learners. The findings
seem to suggest that school teachers should encourage ELL students to read English
online materials and to explicitly teach vocabulary.
The findings of the present study bear important pedagogical implications. They
indicate that positive online reading habits may help develop vocabulary skills. Hence,
there is a need to emphasize the teaching of academic vocabulary in the English
classroom to ensure success in language acquisition and other academic pursuits.
Language instructors should integrate the teaching of vocabulary in their English
lessons as well as encourage the habit of reading among students. In an age where
digital technology is pervasive, it

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 15

would seem appropriate for teachers to develop and improve students’ digital literacy
skills.
Limitations and Future Research: There are a number of limitations suggesting that
the results in this study should be considered with caution. A major limitation was that the
data collected from 107 participants may not be able to represent the online reading
habits of ELL university students in Malaysia. A replication of the same study with a
larger sample size would provide more reliable and generalizable results. Another limitation
was the divided views for some of the items in the online reading habit section. Although
some items produced conclusive and interesting findings, some remained inconclusive.
Hence, future studies could possibly include a qualitative measure to ascertain students’
reading habits to yield more decisive responses. This data could then be triangulated with
the quantitative data so that a more substantive conclusion regarding students’ reading
habit can be made. Future research that considers change in students’ online reading is
planned. This may entail an investigation of students’ online reading habits and the different
strategies for online reading, online activities, vocabulary size and how these variables
correlate with each other. ✢

References

Abidin, M J Z, M Pourmohammadi and C L Ooi. 2011. “The Reading Habits of

Malaysian
Chinese University Students.” Journal of Studies in Education. 1.1:1-13. DOI: http:/
/doi.org/10.5296/jse.v1i1.1037
Annamalai, S, and B Muniandy. 2013. “Reading Habit and Attitude Among Malaysian
Polytechnic Students.” International Online Journal of Educational Sciences.
5.1:32-41.
Brown, R, R Waring and S Donkaewbua. 2008. “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition from
Reading, Reading-While-Listening and Listening to Stories.” Reading in a Foreign
Language. 20.2:136-163.
Chen, Q and Z Yan. 2016. “Does Multitasking in Mobile Phones Affect Learning? A
Review.” Computer in Human Habits. 54:34-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2015.07.047
Chin, D, J Lee, and X Thayalan. 2007. “Reading Habits and the Influence of Reading on
the English Language Proficiency Among Students at UiTM Sabah.”
http://eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/4360/
Chou, C. 2001. “Internet Heavy Use and Addiction Among Taiwanese College Students:
An Online Interview Study.” Cyber Psychology and Habits. 4.5:573-585. DOI:
10.1089/109493101753235160

16 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

Cull, B W. 2011. “Reading Revolutions: Online Digital Text and Implications for Reading
in Academe.” Peer Review Journal on the Internet. 16.6. Retrieved from http://
journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/3340/2985
Duggan, M, N B Ellison, C Lampe et al. 2015. “Social Media Update 2014.” Washington,
DC: Pew Internet and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/
01/09/social-media-update-2014/
Florez, E G, J E Pineda and N M Garcia. 2012. “EFL Students’ Perceptions About a Web-
Based English Reading Comprehension Course.” Profile. 14.2:113-129.
Gilbert, J. 2017. “A Study of ESL Students’ Perceptions of Their Digital Reading.” The
Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 17.2:179-195.
Harji, M B., K Balakrishnan, S K Bhar and K Letchumanan. 2015. “Vocabulary Levels
and Size of Malaysian Undergraduates.” English Language Teaching. 8.9:119. DOI:
10.5539/elt.v8n9p119
Hassan, F and S N Fauzee. 2002. “Why Aren’t Students Proficient in ESL: The Teachers’
Perspective.” The English Teacher. 31:107-123.
Hsueh-Chao, M H and P Nation. 2000. Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading
Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language. 13.1:403-430. Retrieved from
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/PastIssues/rfl131hsuehchao.pdf
Hinton, P R, I McMurray and C Brownlow. 2014. SPSS Explained. Routledge.
Hulstijn, J, M Hollander and T Greidanus. 1996. “Incidental Vocabulary Learning by
Advanced Foreign Language Students: The Influence of Marginal Glosses, Dictionary
Use, and Reoccurrence of Unknown Words.” The Modern Language Journal.
80:327-339.
International Reading Association (IRA). 2014. “Leisure Reading.” Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Jamian, L S, G K Sidhu and M Muzafar. 2008. “Assessing UiTM TESL Students’
Knowledge of Vocabulary.” Asian Journal of University Education. 4.2:79-100.
Johnson, J W. 2013. “A Comparison Study of the Use of Paper versus Digital Textbooks
by Undergraduate Students.” Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana State University. Retrieved
from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558859
Junco, R. 2011. “Too Much Face and Not Enough Books: The Relationship Between
Multiple Indices of Facebook Use and Academic Performance.” Computers in Human
Habits. 28.1:187-198. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026
Kaur, N, N H Othman and M K K Abdullah. 2017. “Lexical Competence Among Tertiary
Students: Teacher-Student Perspectives.” The English Teacher. 15:90-104. Retrieved
from www.melta.org.my/journals/index.php/tet/article/download/298/195
Laufer, B and P Nation. 1999. “A Vocabulary-Size Test of Controlled Productive Ability.”
Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 17
 Language Testing. 16.1:33-51.
Laufer, B. 2009. “Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition from Language Input and
from Form-Focused Activities.” Language Teaching. 42.3:341-354.
Lee, J Y V and S C Wong. 2017. “The Relationship Between Leisure Reading Habits,
Vocabulary and Writing of English Language Learners (ELLs).” LEiA. 8.2:157-175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/17/V8/I2/A03/Lee_Wong
Lenhart, A, K Purcell, A Smith and K Zickuhr. 2010. “Social Media and Mobile Internet
Use Among Teens and Young Adults.” Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525056.pdf
Lim, J S Y, S Agostinho, B Harper and J F Chicharo. 2014. “The Engagement of Social
Media Technologies by Undergraduate Informatics Students for Academic Purpose
in Malaysia.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. 12.3.
Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/10.1108/JICES-03-2014-0016
Liu, Z. 2005. “Reading Habits in the Digital Environment: Changes in Reading Habits
Over the Past Ten Years.” Journal of Documentation. 61.6:700-712. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410510632040
Long, D and S Szabo. 2016. “E-Readers and the Effects on Students’ Reading Motivation,
Attitude and Comprehension During Guided Reading.” Cogent Education. 3.1.
1197818.
Ministry of Education 1997. Pendididkan di Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Pencetakan National.
Meara, P. 1996. “The Vocabulary Knowledge Framework.” Vocabulary Acquisition
Research Group Virtual Library.
Mesgar, M, N A Bakar and Z Amir. 2012. “Online Metacognitive Reading Strategies
Used by Postgraduate ESL Readers of Academic Texts.” International Journal of
Asian Social Science. 2.10:1779-1794.
Mokhtar, AA. 2010. “Achieving Native-Like English Lexical Knowledge: The Non-Native
Story.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 1.4:343-352.
Mokhtari, K, C A Reichard and A Gardner. 2009. “The Impact of Internet and Television
Use on the Reading Habits and Practices of College Sudents.” Journal of Adolesccent
& Adult Literacy. 52.7:609-619. DOI: 10.1598/JAAL.52.7.6
Mokhtari, K and R Sheorey. 2002. “Measuring ESL Students’ Awareness of Reading
Strategies.” Journal of Developmental Education. 25.3:2-10.
Morris, L and T Cobb. 2004. “Vocabulary Profiles as Predictors of the Academic
Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees.” System.
32.1:75-87. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.05.001
Nation, I S P and D Nation. 1990. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
18 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022
Nation, I S. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Nilson, L B. 2016. Teaching At Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College
Instructors. John Wiley & Sons.
Olszak, I. 2015. “The Effect of Online Tools on Reading Habits Among Teenage Students:
Model of Chances and Dangers.” English for Specific Purposes World. 16.45.
Pandian, A. 2000. A Study on Readership Habits Among Multi-Ethnic, Multi-Lingual
Malaysian Students. Paper Presented at the Seventh International Literacy and
Educational Research Network (LERN) Conference. http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/
Articles/aug01/pandian1.htm
Pandian, A and A L Ibrahim. 1997. “Whither Reading in Malaysia: Confronting Reading
Reluctancy Among Pre-University Students.” In Reading in Malaysia. Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11779029.pdf
Paribakht, T S and M Wesche. 1999. “Reading and ‘Incidental’ L2 Vocabulary Acquisition:
An Introspective Study of Lexical Inferencing.” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 21.2:195-224.
Picton, I. 2014. The Impact of Ebooks on the Reading Motivation and Reading Skills
of Children and Young People: A Rapid Literature Review. London: National
Literacy Trust. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560635.pdf
Pigada, M and N Schmitt. 2006. “Vocabulary Acquisition from Extensive Reading: A
Case Study.” Reading in a Foreign Language. 18.1:1-28.
Poole, A and K Mokhtari. 2008. “ESL Students’ Use of Reading Strategies When Reading
Online and in Print.” Reading Strategies of First-and Second-Language Learners:
See How They Read (197-213). Edited by K Mokhtari and R Sheorey. Norwood,
MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Rowlands, I, D Nicholas, P Williams et al. 2008. “The Google Generation: The Information
Habits of the Researcher of the Future.” Aslib Proceedings. 60.4:290-310. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012530810887953
Rosen, L D, L M Carrier and N A Cheever. 2013. “Facebook and Texting Made Me Do
It: Media-Induced Task-Switching While Studying.” Computers in Human Behavior.
29.3:948-958. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001
Rott, S. 2007. “The Effect of Frequency of Input-Enhancements on Word Learning and
Text Comprehension.” Language Learning. 57.2:165-199.
Shameen, A. 2016. “Reading Habits and Attitudes of UMSKAL Undergraduates.”
International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. 5.2:189-201.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.2p.189
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 19

Schmitt, N. 2008. “Instructed Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Language
Teaching Research. 12.3:329-363.
Shen, Z. 2008. “The Roles of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge in EFL
Reading Performance.” Asian Social Science. 4.12:135-137.
Siraj, H H, A Salam, N A Hasan et al. 2015. “Internet Usage and Academic Performance:
A Study in a Malaysian Public University.” International Medical Journal.
22.2:83-86.
Smith, M C. 1996. “Differences in Adults’ Reading Practices and Literacy Proficiencies.”
Reading Research Quarterly. 31.2:196-219.
Soh, P C, B H Teh, Y H Hong et al. 2013. “Exploring Gender Differences in Malaysian
Urban Adolescent Internet Usage.” First Monday. 18.9. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v18i9.4334
Subashini, A and M Balakrishnan. 2013. “Reading Habits and Attitudes Among Malaysian
Polytechnic Students.” International Online Journal of Educational Science. 5.1:32-41.
Svinicki, M D. 2004. Learning and Motivation in the Postsecondary Classroom. Anker
Publishing Company.
Tanjung, F Z, R Ridwan and U A Gultom. 2017. “Reading Habits in Digital Era: A Research
on the Students in Borneo University”. Language and Language Teaching Journal.
20.2:1410-1720. Retrieved from http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT
Tseng, M. 2007. “An Investigation of EFL Learners’ Online Reading Skills.” Journal of
Nanya Institute of Technology. 27:111-127.
Yeap, J A L, S Ramayah Kurnia, H A Halim and N H Ahmad. 2015. “The Assessment of
Internet Addiction Among University Students: Some Findings Form a Focus Group
Study.” Technical Gazette. 22.1:105-111.
Yunus, M M, M A Lubis and C P Lin. 2009. “Language Learning via ICT: Uses, Challenges
and Issues.” WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications.
9.6:1453-1467.
Waring, R and I S P Nation. 2004. “Second Language Reading and Incidental Vocabulary
Learning.” Angles on the English Speaking World. 4:97-110.
Wesch, M. 2007. “Human Futures for Technology and Education.” In Teaching and
Learning With Technology Conference.
Zakaria, Z. 2005. “Dictionary as Tool in Vocabulary Acquisition for Rural Students.”
Unpublished Master’s Thesis. Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Zickuhr, K and A Smoth. 2012. “Digital Differences.” Washington, DC: Pew Internet
and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/
Digitaldifferences.aspx

20 The IUP Journal of English Studies • Vol. 17, No. 1, 2022

 Appendix

Online Interview Questions

1. A lot of students agree that reading is important and that they engage in online
reading. However, many students still have a poor mastery of the English language.
Why do you think this happens?
2. When you come across English words that you do not know/understand when you
are reading online, do you do anything about it? Explain.
3. What do you want your English lecturer to do in class to help you increase your
English vocabulary? Explain.
4. What kind of method do you want your lecturer to use in class to improve your
English learning in terms of reading and vocabulary?

Reference # 43J-2022-03-0X-01

Online Reading Habits and L2 Vocabulary Size: A Correlation 21

View publication stats