T1 112010082 Full text
Vocabulary Profile of Introduction to Language Education Textbook
Argo Dhea Galuh Kirana Ardyny
Satya Wacana Christian University
Abstract
Vocabulary is a very important element in language learning as it conveys the
meaning of certain words. Problems might occur if foreign language learners are not
familiar with the words given. The objective of this study was to identify the
vocabulary profile of the material in the Introduction to Language Education (2013)
course. Based on the purpose, a descriptive method was used and all pages in the
course book were used as the samples of the study. The analysis used an electronic
tool, named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 developed by Cobb (1999). The study
revealed three results; (1) 80,81% of the course book was understandable for
university level while the rest of 19,19% was need much effort to comprehend; (2)
unit 1 of the course book could be relatively easy to comprehend because it had the
highest proportion of 1000 word list (K1) and the lowest proportion of Academic
Word List (AWL), while unit 5 could be hard to comprehend because of its lowest
proportion of K1 and its highest proportion of AWL; (3) unit 7 did not show the
contrastive result of K1 and AWL however it still concluded as unit which was hard
to comprehend.
Keyword: Vocabulary, Vocabulary Profile, Academic Word List, Compleat Lexical
Tutor
Introduction
Vocabulary is evidently a very important element within a language since the
majority of meaning is lexically carried. Vocabularies together with grammar are the
building blocks of language. According to Chapelle & Jamieson (2008), the building
blocks are vocabulary words and phrases and the glue is grammar which holds them
1
together. If foreign language learners only have grammar knowledge but do not have
any sufficient vocabulary knowledge, they will get nothing. A hindrance might occur
when foreign language learners do a reading activity and come across unfamiliar
words. It is often possible to guess their meaning if the other words are recognizable.
The problem is if there are lots of unknown words frequently appear in the text. Thus
foreign language learners cannot expect to succeed on assignments because they do
not understand the directions. According to Nation (2001) learning occurs if at least
95% of the running words are recognizable. Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) also
suggested that it is required to reach 95% of text coverage to be familiar with other
words. Therefore, foreign language learners should be encouraged to improve their
vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.
There are many strategies of learning vocabulary used by foreign language
learners to improve their vocabulary knowledge. Several vocabulary learning
strategies aim to comprehend the meaning of certain word, sentence or paragraph.
One strategy is by examining vocabulary profile. Knowing vocabulary profile of a
particular text helps foreign language learners to decide the most suitable material
based on their own familiar words list. Vocabulary profile is also significant to help
learners choose the vocabulary learning. Morris and Cobb (2004) stated, “Vocabulary
profiles proved to be useful in carrying out a finer assessment of the language skills
of high proficiency of nonnative speakers than oral interview can offer.” Examining
vocabulary profile of certain texts can be done by using vocabulary tool developed by
2
Cobb (ND) named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 and can be accessed at
http://lectutor.ca.
Previous studies explored the potential for using vocabulary profiles as
predictors of academic and pedagogic success and grammatical and lexical
knowledge (Cobb, T. & Morris, L., 2004; Morris, L., 2001). The studies were
gathering TESL and TEFL trainee as the participants and using trainees’ text,
establishments, and argumentative essay as the data. This study proved that there was
significance correlation between academic performance in the training program and
the first 1000 word list (K1), Academic Word List (AWL), and AWL + Off-List (OL)
(Morris, L. 2001). Moreover, Cobb and Morris (2004) also proposed that vocabulary
profile analysis was considered as part of an admission test for TESL trainees.
Furthermore, there was also study in examining vocabulary profile, but it had focused
on spoken language assessment as a measure of vocabulary sophistication which
carried out spontaneous speech context as the data (Yoon, Bhat, and Zechner, 2012).
This study resulted that vocabulary profile demonstrated strong correlation with
human proficiency scores. However there is no other study examining vocabulary
profile of course book using the Compleat Lextutor, v.4. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the use of vocabulary list in Introduction to Language Education. To
achieve this objective, the current research aimed to identify the vocabulary profile of
the material, Introduction to Language and Education (2013) textbook in the course
whether the vocabulary belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list (K2),
Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or others. Based on the above research
3
objective, the research question was, what is the vocabulary profile of the course
book in Introduction to Language Education? This study could be beneficial for
teachers because by knowing the vocabulary profile of course book, teachers can pay
attention to the words contained in the textbook and decide what words may create
difficulties for students. The teacher would also be able to select suitable reading
material.
Literature Review
Vocabulary is known as a very important element within a language since the
majority of its meaning is carried lexically. Vocabulary according to Nation (2001) is
divided into four major types. They are high-frequency words, academic vocabulary,
and technical vocabulary and low-frequency words. This type distinguishing is made
in order to decide which of these types contains the words that foreign language
learners need (Nation, 2001). The high frequency words are words which cover about
80% in a particular text. This type frequently occurs in all kinds of texts. Schmitt and
Schmitt (2012) argued that, “High-frequency English vocabulary should include the
most frequent 3,000 word families,” (pg. 1). On his previous study, Schmitt (2000)
also stated that the 2000 words level is the basic initial goal of many second language
learners thus it offer poor opportunity for deepening word knowledge (Matsuoka and
Hirsh, 2010). Cobb (ND) also stated that, “The first 2000 words have been identified
and made somewhat easy to learn,” (pg. 5). On the other hand, the academic
vocabulary occurs frequently in most kinds of academic texts and only covers 10% of
4
the running words in an academic text (Coxhead, 2000). According to Cohen,
Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrara, and Fine, academic vocabulary causes a great
deal of difficulty for learners, (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 213). In her study,
Coxhead (2000) also stated that by focusing on academic vocabulary, learners get the
chance to make this significant vocabulary a part of working knowledge of the
language and thus make learners’ academic study more controllable. Corson argued
that, “Good knowledge of academic vocabulary is essentially for success at higher
levels of education” (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 230). Besides, the technical
vocabulary only appears sometimes frequently in specialized texts and covers only
3% of the running words in a specialized texts. Different with the other type, the lowfrequency words are words which rarely appear in a text or only cover 4% of the
words in any texts (Nation, 2001). In his study, Cobb (ND) also stated that, “these
words are difficult to learn because they are relatively infrequent and are not
encountered over and over again.” Dissimilar with Nation (1990), Schmitt and
Schmitt (2012) proposed the other type of vocabulary which is mid-frequency
vocabulary. This type is labeled the vocabulary between high-frequency (3,000) and
low-frequency (9,000+).
While knowing the types of vocabulary, knowing vocabulary size or the
vocabulary knowledge owned by particular person is something that cannot be
neglected in learning vocabulary. According to Waring and Nation (1997), non-native
English language learners who already studied English as foreign language for almost
several years suggested to know much less than 5,000 word families. Laufer (2010)
5
in her study stated that, “Small increments of vocabulary knowledge contribute to
reading comprehension” (pg. 15). Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) in their study also
claimed that strong link between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension
is presence. Thus non-native English language learners should develop their
vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.
One of vocabulary learning strategies whose aim to comprehend the meaning
of word, sentence, or paragraph is examining vocabulary profile of certain text.
Vocabulary profile or Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) contains the frequency of the
word list that occurs in a certain text. According to Nation (2001), word list is as
source of useful information about particular words and as a collection of the most
important vocabulary for learners of English. The word list is given in a percentage so
the user of the list can easily decide which meaning and use is the most important.
Nation (1990) distinguishes word list into four different types. They are the first
thousand most common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List
(Coxhead, 2000), and off-list words (OL). Morris and Cobb (2004) stated that,
“Vocabulary profile provides breakdowns that include percentages from the type of
word list”. According to Meara (2005), LFP was first introduced by Nation as a tool
of assessment if a particular text is suitable for use with learners at particular level or
proficiency. Bardel and Lindqvist (2011) also suggested that one way to measure
lexical richness from a frequency-based is to use the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP)
proposed by Laufer and Nation (1995). This instrument measures the proportion of
6
low-frequency versus high-frequency words in a learner’s production by means of the
computer program Vocabprofile (www.lextutor.ca/vp) (Bardel & Lindqvist, 2011).
The Study
This study examined vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language
Education (2013) course book used by English Teacher Education Program students.
This study used all pages in the course book as the sample of the research to indentify
the vocabulary profile of the textbook. The selection was based on the following
reason: (1) this course is one of requirement courses for English Teacher Education
Program students, (2) this book is in university level, and (3) this book is a base of
English education course. A descriptive method was used to identify the vocabulary
profile of material whether they belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list
(K2), the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or other.
The analysis used an electronic tool named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4.
This instrument is an online vocabulary profiler created by Tom Cobb in 1999 which
can be accessed at http://www.lextutor.ca/. This tool can calculate the type ratio
(TTR) and the percentage of words of the text falling into the first thousand most
common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list
words (OL), and function words (F). The step of the analyzing was to open the
vocabulary profiler website on http://www.lextutor.ca/. Then click on VP Classic v.4
to go to vocabulary profiler tools. After that, copy the text that would be analyzed and
paste into the rectangle given. Then click submit button under the rectangle. The
7
vocabulary profile of the certain text would appear. After that save the result provided
by the program. This program can also be saved in Microsoft Word by clicking
Edit/print-friendly table for further reading and analysis of the vocabulary profile.
The data were automatically calculated by The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4
tool. The data were grouped into the first thousand most common (K1), the second
thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list words (OL), and function
words (F). The analysis also showed the breakdown of the word family list.
Findings and Discussion
The discussion of this chapter presents the answer of the research question,
“What is the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education course book?”
This study shows identification of vocabulary profile of the Introduction to Language
Education (2013) course book. 17487 words of the course book were calculated and
analyzed using The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 . The vocabulary profile was
presented in a form of percentage. The finding was divided into two major parts;
vocabulary profile in general and comparison of each vocabulary category across
unit. The percentage of each vocabulary profile was achieved from calculating the
vocabulary items whether they belonged to 1000 word list (K1), 2000 word list (K2),
Academic Word List (AWL), or other. Spelling mistake were corrected so that the
proportion of low frequency words would not be twisted.
8
Vocabulary Profile in general
The following section shows the identification of vocabulary profile of
Introduction to Language Education course book in general. The comparison across
category indicates that the majority 76,51% of vocabulary fall under most frequent
1000 words of English (K1) and were represented by the word like language,
number, learning, and teaching. Then 4,30% of vocabulary fall under the second
most frequent thousand words of English (1001 to 2000 / K2). The words included on
K2 were rival, telephone, composite, and essentially. The 10,47% vocabulary fall
under the academic words of English (Academic Word List or AWL). Words such as
attribute, source, communication, and acquisition were the examples. The rest 8,72%
under the word list which were not found on the other lists and were represented by
the word like sociolinguistics, gestures, vocal, conventionalized.
From the comparison, 80,81% of the course book that were contained with
76,51% of K1 and 4,30% of K2, could be assumed understandable for university
learners. While the rest 19,19% of the course book were infrequently appeared in the
course book, therefore still needs much effort to comprehend.
9
100.00%
80.00%
76.51%
60.00%
40.00%
Series 1
20.00%
4.30%
10.47%
8.72%
AWL
Off-List
0.00%
K1
K2
Figure 1. Vocabulary Profile of Introduction to Language Education Course Book
Below is the comparison of each category across unit. The category gives the
breakdown of each category across unit into K1, K2, AWL, and Off-List category.
K1 Category (1-1000 words)
Figure 2 provides comparison of K1 category across units in the course book.
From the finding, unit 1 had the highest proportion of K1 words (81,02%). The next
highest proportion was unit 7 with 78,91% and the third highest proportion was unit 2
(78,74%). Unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had approximately similar proportion of
K1. They were unit 3 with 74,34%; unit 4 with 74,27%; unit 5 with 73,92%; and unit
6 with 75,07%.
10
82.00% 81.02%
80.00%
78.91%
78.74%
78.00%
76.00%
74.34%
74.27%
75.07%
73.92%
74.00%
72.00%
70.00%
K1 (2)
Figure 2. Comparison K1 across units
The proportion of K1 seems to depend on the topic discussed in each unit. If
the topic discussed general thing, the proportion of K1 and the comprehensibility of
the topic could be high because the proportions of K1 words was high. Unit 1 had the
highest proportion of K1 because the topic was about introduction to language,
acquisition, learning, and teaching. Thus it used words which belonged to K1 to
explain the concepts in introduction. Due to the high proportion, unit 1 could be easy
to comprehend compared to the other units. Different with unit 1, the proportion of
K1 in unit 7 was less 2,11 point than unit 1 but still remained the second highest
proportion among all units. In unit 7, the topic discussed was about the affect of
language education, thus the proportion of K1 was not as high as the proportion on
unit 1. The third highest proportion of K1 was unit 2 with a topic still about
11
introduction but it more focused on language education, It did not use as many words
that belonged to K1 category in unit 1. While unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had
approximately similar proportion of K1 because the units had more serious on details
about language education, thus, the proportion of K1 words used in each unit were
lower than that in unit 1, 2 or 7.
K2 Category (1001-2000 words)
Figure 3 provides the comparison of K2 used in every unit from the course
book. From the findings, unit 4 had the highest proportion of K2 category (5,86%).
The next highest proportion was unit 6 with 5,16% and the third highest proportion
was unit 7 (4,19%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, and unit 5 had approximately similar
proportion of K2. They were unit 1 with 4,01%; unit 2 with 3,94%; unit 3 with
3,80%; and unit 5 with 3,61%.
7.00%
6.00%
5.00% 4.01%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
5.86%
3.94%
3.80%
5.16%
3.61%
4.19%
K2 (2)
Figure 3. Comparison K2 for each unit
12
From K2 perspective, it could be assumed that the higher the proportion of K2
in certain unit, the harder the unit is to comprehend. Thus from the finding, the
highest proportion of K2 was unit 4 with the topic about the explanation on how first
language is acquired. In explaining this topic, unit 4 used more K2 words. Similar
with unit 4, unit 6 which had the second highest proportion of K2, indicating that this
unit was also hard to comprehend. Since the topic discussed in unit 6 was about affect
in language learning, unit 6 needed more complex words that included in K2 word
category. The third highest proportion of K2 was unit 7. In this unit the K2 words
were used more to explain about using a second language. Thus this unit also
remained as unit which could be hard to comprehend.
Academic Word List
Figure 4 provides the comparison between Academic Word List (AWL) used
in every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest
proportion of AWL category (11,92%). The next highest proportion was unit 6 with
11,36% and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,84%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3,
and unit 4 had approximately similar proportion of AWL. They are unit 1 with
9,31%; unit 2 with 10,73%; unit 3 with 8,48%; and unit 4 with 9,67%.
13
14.00%
12.00%
9.31%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
11.92%
10.73%
8.48%
11.36%
9.67%
10.84%
AWL
Figure 4. Comparison AWL for each unit
AWL words category represents the most difficult words to comprehend.
Thus, it could be concluded that high proportion of AWL may cause comprehension
of the unit difficult. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest proportion of AWL.
Therefore, unit 5 considered as unit which was hard to comprehend. This happened
because its topic was about learning a second language which needed more academic
words such as acquisitions, maturation, constraints, and adulthood . The second
highest proportion of AWL was unit 6 which discussed affect in language learning.
Because the topic had several terms in explaining the affect, the proportion of AWL
in this unit was high. The third highest proportion of AWL was unit 7. This unit
discussed about using a second language, thus academic words used to explain the
topic.
14
Off-List Category
Figure 5 provides the comparison between Off-List words category used in
every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 3 had the highest proportion
of Off-List category (14,88%). The next highest proportion was unit 5 with 12,58%
and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,22%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 4, and unit 7
had approximately similar proportion of Off-List category. They are unit 1 with
5,68%; unit 2 with 6,60%; unit 4 with 10,47%; and unit 7 with 7,18%.
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00% 5.68%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
14.88%
12.58%
10.47%
10.22%
7.18%
6.60%
Off-List
Figure 5. Comparison Off-List Category of Each Unit
Off-List category was not included in K1, K2 or AWL category. Off-List
category usually contains proper names, other language terms, and misspell words.
Unit 3 that had the highest number of Off-List category explained the history of
language education in Indonesia, thus, it contained several Indonesian terms in
language education and name of scholars. Unit 5 remained as the second highest
proportion of Off-list category because it contained several scholar names such as
15
Krashen, Gass, Swain, Van Lier, and Varonis discussed the theory about learning a
second language. In explaining about using a second language, unit 7 also used
several Indonesian terms in comparing about English education in English speaking
countries and that in Indonesia.
Conclusion
This study aims to identify the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language
and Education (2013) course book. The findings have presented identification of
vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education (2013) course book. From
the study, it revealed three major results. First, it could be concluded that 80,81% of
the course book could be understandable for university learners. While the rest
19,19% of it still might need much effort to comprehend. Second, unit 1 could be
concluded as relatively easy to comprehend because it had the highest proportion of
K1 words (81,02%) and the lowest proportion of AWL (9,31%). The large proportion
of high frequency words in the unit may relate to the relatively easy comprehension
level of the unit and topic discussed in the unit. On the other hand, unit 5 could be
hard to comprehend because it had the lowest proportion of K1 (73,92%) and the
highest proportion of AWL (11,92%). The large proportion of AWL vocabulary may
negatively affect comprehension of the unit. Third, unit 7 had the second highest
proportion of K1 and third highest proportion of AWL. Conversely, it did not show
the contrastive result as unit 1 and unit 5 did. This phenomenon could be happened
based on the length of the text in unit 7, which was 3034 words and the topic
16
discussed. Nevertheless, unit 7 could be assumed as hard to comprehend because it
had the third highest proportion of AWL.
However, this study still has limitation. The limitation is that this study only
used one text book which was at university level to be analyzed. Having more than
one book to be analyzed will be more beneficial for the reliability of the study.
By knowing the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education
(2013) course book, teachers should be more aware with the words contained in the
course book so that they can decide the choice of words in creating materials for the
students. Furthermore teachers can also explain more about the difficult words. More
research related to vocabulary profile of course book in another scope can also be
beneficial for teachers to help them select reading materials (spoken or written) that
are suitable with the learners.
17
Acknowledgement
This study was done with a lot of support. Therefore, I would like to thank the
Lord for His blessing and guidance in finishing this study. I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Gusti Astika, M. A. for his immeasurable
supervision and help during the completion of my thesis, and also my examiner,
Rindang Widiningrum, M. Hum for the fundamental suggestion and guidance for this
thesis.
I also would like to express my big gratitude to my beloved mom (Sri Sulastri
Benedicta) and dad (Subardi) for their understanding and immense support so I can
finish this thesis. Big grateful is also given to Faustinus Adven Kristanto, for giving
me endless support, restless companion, and keeping me believe that I can do and
finish this thesis. My big thank is also given to my friends; Adina, Dewi, Aditya,
Lintang, Nindi, Titania, and Zale for the happiness and tears we shared together. Then
I also want to say thank you for Tenners family as my second family. Thanks for the
happiness, laughter, and togetherness that make my 4 years in ED SWCU extremely
pleasurable and unforgettable. Last, I also would like to give my appreciation to all
lecturers in ED SWCU for guiding, teaching, and educating me throughout my 4
years study.
18
References
Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2011). Developing a Lexical Profiler for Spoken French
L2 and Italian L2. Eurosla , 75-93.
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with Call: Practical
approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York: Pearson
Education.
Cobb, T. (ND). The original idea behind this website: Why & how to use frequency
lists to learn words. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from Compleat Lexical Tutor:
http://www.lextutor.ca/research/.
Cobb, T., & Morris, L. (2004) Analysis of TESL and TEFL Trainees' grammatical
and lexical knowledge.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly , 34 (2), pp.
213-238.
Introduction to Language Education. (2013). A Course book, Satya Wacana
Christian University. Salatiga
Laufer, B. (2010). Lexical Threshold Revisited: Lexical Text Coverage, Learners'
VOcabulary Size, and Reading Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 22 (1), 15-30.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2
Written Production. Applied Linguistic , 16 (3), 307-322.
19
Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary Learning through Reading: Does an
ELT Course Book Provide Good Opportunity? Reading in a Foreign
Language , 22 (1), 56-70.
Meara, P. (2005). Lexical Frequency Profiles: A Monte Carlo Analysis. Applied
Linguistics , 26 (1), 32-47.
Morris, L. (2001, November). The Use of Vocabulary Profiles in Predicting the
Academic and Pedagogic Performance of TESL Trainees. International Language in
Education Conference .
Morris, L., & Cobb, T. (2004). Vocabulary Profile as Predictorsof the Academic
Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees. System 32 ,
75-87.
Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle and heinle.
Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage, and Word List. In
N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy, Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
20
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2012). A Reassessment of Frequency and Vocabulary
Size in L2 Vocabulary Teaching. Cambridge Journal , 1-20.
Yoon, S.-Y., Bhat, S., & Zechner, K. (2012). Vocabulary Profile as a Measure of
Vocabulary Sophistication. The 7th Workshop on the Innovative Use of NLP
for Building Educational Applications (pp. 180-189). Canada: Association for
Computational Linguistic.
21
22
Argo Dhea Galuh Kirana Ardyny
Satya Wacana Christian University
Abstract
Vocabulary is a very important element in language learning as it conveys the
meaning of certain words. Problems might occur if foreign language learners are not
familiar with the words given. The objective of this study was to identify the
vocabulary profile of the material in the Introduction to Language Education (2013)
course. Based on the purpose, a descriptive method was used and all pages in the
course book were used as the samples of the study. The analysis used an electronic
tool, named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 developed by Cobb (1999). The study
revealed three results; (1) 80,81% of the course book was understandable for
university level while the rest of 19,19% was need much effort to comprehend; (2)
unit 1 of the course book could be relatively easy to comprehend because it had the
highest proportion of 1000 word list (K1) and the lowest proportion of Academic
Word List (AWL), while unit 5 could be hard to comprehend because of its lowest
proportion of K1 and its highest proportion of AWL; (3) unit 7 did not show the
contrastive result of K1 and AWL however it still concluded as unit which was hard
to comprehend.
Keyword: Vocabulary, Vocabulary Profile, Academic Word List, Compleat Lexical
Tutor
Introduction
Vocabulary is evidently a very important element within a language since the
majority of meaning is lexically carried. Vocabularies together with grammar are the
building blocks of language. According to Chapelle & Jamieson (2008), the building
blocks are vocabulary words and phrases and the glue is grammar which holds them
1
together. If foreign language learners only have grammar knowledge but do not have
any sufficient vocabulary knowledge, they will get nothing. A hindrance might occur
when foreign language learners do a reading activity and come across unfamiliar
words. It is often possible to guess their meaning if the other words are recognizable.
The problem is if there are lots of unknown words frequently appear in the text. Thus
foreign language learners cannot expect to succeed on assignments because they do
not understand the directions. According to Nation (2001) learning occurs if at least
95% of the running words are recognizable. Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) also
suggested that it is required to reach 95% of text coverage to be familiar with other
words. Therefore, foreign language learners should be encouraged to improve their
vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.
There are many strategies of learning vocabulary used by foreign language
learners to improve their vocabulary knowledge. Several vocabulary learning
strategies aim to comprehend the meaning of certain word, sentence or paragraph.
One strategy is by examining vocabulary profile. Knowing vocabulary profile of a
particular text helps foreign language learners to decide the most suitable material
based on their own familiar words list. Vocabulary profile is also significant to help
learners choose the vocabulary learning. Morris and Cobb (2004) stated, “Vocabulary
profiles proved to be useful in carrying out a finer assessment of the language skills
of high proficiency of nonnative speakers than oral interview can offer.” Examining
vocabulary profile of certain texts can be done by using vocabulary tool developed by
2
Cobb (ND) named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 and can be accessed at
http://lectutor.ca.
Previous studies explored the potential for using vocabulary profiles as
predictors of academic and pedagogic success and grammatical and lexical
knowledge (Cobb, T. & Morris, L., 2004; Morris, L., 2001). The studies were
gathering TESL and TEFL trainee as the participants and using trainees’ text,
establishments, and argumentative essay as the data. This study proved that there was
significance correlation between academic performance in the training program and
the first 1000 word list (K1), Academic Word List (AWL), and AWL + Off-List (OL)
(Morris, L. 2001). Moreover, Cobb and Morris (2004) also proposed that vocabulary
profile analysis was considered as part of an admission test for TESL trainees.
Furthermore, there was also study in examining vocabulary profile, but it had focused
on spoken language assessment as a measure of vocabulary sophistication which
carried out spontaneous speech context as the data (Yoon, Bhat, and Zechner, 2012).
This study resulted that vocabulary profile demonstrated strong correlation with
human proficiency scores. However there is no other study examining vocabulary
profile of course book using the Compleat Lextutor, v.4. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate the use of vocabulary list in Introduction to Language Education. To
achieve this objective, the current research aimed to identify the vocabulary profile of
the material, Introduction to Language and Education (2013) textbook in the course
whether the vocabulary belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list (K2),
Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or others. Based on the above research
3
objective, the research question was, what is the vocabulary profile of the course
book in Introduction to Language Education? This study could be beneficial for
teachers because by knowing the vocabulary profile of course book, teachers can pay
attention to the words contained in the textbook and decide what words may create
difficulties for students. The teacher would also be able to select suitable reading
material.
Literature Review
Vocabulary is known as a very important element within a language since the
majority of its meaning is carried lexically. Vocabulary according to Nation (2001) is
divided into four major types. They are high-frequency words, academic vocabulary,
and technical vocabulary and low-frequency words. This type distinguishing is made
in order to decide which of these types contains the words that foreign language
learners need (Nation, 2001). The high frequency words are words which cover about
80% in a particular text. This type frequently occurs in all kinds of texts. Schmitt and
Schmitt (2012) argued that, “High-frequency English vocabulary should include the
most frequent 3,000 word families,” (pg. 1). On his previous study, Schmitt (2000)
also stated that the 2000 words level is the basic initial goal of many second language
learners thus it offer poor opportunity for deepening word knowledge (Matsuoka and
Hirsh, 2010). Cobb (ND) also stated that, “The first 2000 words have been identified
and made somewhat easy to learn,” (pg. 5). On the other hand, the academic
vocabulary occurs frequently in most kinds of academic texts and only covers 10% of
4
the running words in an academic text (Coxhead, 2000). According to Cohen,
Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrara, and Fine, academic vocabulary causes a great
deal of difficulty for learners, (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 213). In her study,
Coxhead (2000) also stated that by focusing on academic vocabulary, learners get the
chance to make this significant vocabulary a part of working knowledge of the
language and thus make learners’ academic study more controllable. Corson argued
that, “Good knowledge of academic vocabulary is essentially for success at higher
levels of education” (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 230). Besides, the technical
vocabulary only appears sometimes frequently in specialized texts and covers only
3% of the running words in a specialized texts. Different with the other type, the lowfrequency words are words which rarely appear in a text or only cover 4% of the
words in any texts (Nation, 2001). In his study, Cobb (ND) also stated that, “these
words are difficult to learn because they are relatively infrequent and are not
encountered over and over again.” Dissimilar with Nation (1990), Schmitt and
Schmitt (2012) proposed the other type of vocabulary which is mid-frequency
vocabulary. This type is labeled the vocabulary between high-frequency (3,000) and
low-frequency (9,000+).
While knowing the types of vocabulary, knowing vocabulary size or the
vocabulary knowledge owned by particular person is something that cannot be
neglected in learning vocabulary. According to Waring and Nation (1997), non-native
English language learners who already studied English as foreign language for almost
several years suggested to know much less than 5,000 word families. Laufer (2010)
5
in her study stated that, “Small increments of vocabulary knowledge contribute to
reading comprehension” (pg. 15). Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) in their study also
claimed that strong link between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension
is presence. Thus non-native English language learners should develop their
vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.
One of vocabulary learning strategies whose aim to comprehend the meaning
of word, sentence, or paragraph is examining vocabulary profile of certain text.
Vocabulary profile or Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) contains the frequency of the
word list that occurs in a certain text. According to Nation (2001), word list is as
source of useful information about particular words and as a collection of the most
important vocabulary for learners of English. The word list is given in a percentage so
the user of the list can easily decide which meaning and use is the most important.
Nation (1990) distinguishes word list into four different types. They are the first
thousand most common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List
(Coxhead, 2000), and off-list words (OL). Morris and Cobb (2004) stated that,
“Vocabulary profile provides breakdowns that include percentages from the type of
word list”. According to Meara (2005), LFP was first introduced by Nation as a tool
of assessment if a particular text is suitable for use with learners at particular level or
proficiency. Bardel and Lindqvist (2011) also suggested that one way to measure
lexical richness from a frequency-based is to use the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP)
proposed by Laufer and Nation (1995). This instrument measures the proportion of
6
low-frequency versus high-frequency words in a learner’s production by means of the
computer program Vocabprofile (www.lextutor.ca/vp) (Bardel & Lindqvist, 2011).
The Study
This study examined vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language
Education (2013) course book used by English Teacher Education Program students.
This study used all pages in the course book as the sample of the research to indentify
the vocabulary profile of the textbook. The selection was based on the following
reason: (1) this course is one of requirement courses for English Teacher Education
Program students, (2) this book is in university level, and (3) this book is a base of
English education course. A descriptive method was used to identify the vocabulary
profile of material whether they belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list
(K2), the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or other.
The analysis used an electronic tool named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4.
This instrument is an online vocabulary profiler created by Tom Cobb in 1999 which
can be accessed at http://www.lextutor.ca/. This tool can calculate the type ratio
(TTR) and the percentage of words of the text falling into the first thousand most
common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list
words (OL), and function words (F). The step of the analyzing was to open the
vocabulary profiler website on http://www.lextutor.ca/. Then click on VP Classic v.4
to go to vocabulary profiler tools. After that, copy the text that would be analyzed and
paste into the rectangle given. Then click submit button under the rectangle. The
7
vocabulary profile of the certain text would appear. After that save the result provided
by the program. This program can also be saved in Microsoft Word by clicking
Edit/print-friendly table for further reading and analysis of the vocabulary profile.
The data were automatically calculated by The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4
tool. The data were grouped into the first thousand most common (K1), the second
thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list words (OL), and function
words (F). The analysis also showed the breakdown of the word family list.
Findings and Discussion
The discussion of this chapter presents the answer of the research question,
“What is the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education course book?”
This study shows identification of vocabulary profile of the Introduction to Language
Education (2013) course book. 17487 words of the course book were calculated and
analyzed using The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 . The vocabulary profile was
presented in a form of percentage. The finding was divided into two major parts;
vocabulary profile in general and comparison of each vocabulary category across
unit. The percentage of each vocabulary profile was achieved from calculating the
vocabulary items whether they belonged to 1000 word list (K1), 2000 word list (K2),
Academic Word List (AWL), or other. Spelling mistake were corrected so that the
proportion of low frequency words would not be twisted.
8
Vocabulary Profile in general
The following section shows the identification of vocabulary profile of
Introduction to Language Education course book in general. The comparison across
category indicates that the majority 76,51% of vocabulary fall under most frequent
1000 words of English (K1) and were represented by the word like language,
number, learning, and teaching. Then 4,30% of vocabulary fall under the second
most frequent thousand words of English (1001 to 2000 / K2). The words included on
K2 were rival, telephone, composite, and essentially. The 10,47% vocabulary fall
under the academic words of English (Academic Word List or AWL). Words such as
attribute, source, communication, and acquisition were the examples. The rest 8,72%
under the word list which were not found on the other lists and were represented by
the word like sociolinguistics, gestures, vocal, conventionalized.
From the comparison, 80,81% of the course book that were contained with
76,51% of K1 and 4,30% of K2, could be assumed understandable for university
learners. While the rest 19,19% of the course book were infrequently appeared in the
course book, therefore still needs much effort to comprehend.
9
100.00%
80.00%
76.51%
60.00%
40.00%
Series 1
20.00%
4.30%
10.47%
8.72%
AWL
Off-List
0.00%
K1
K2
Figure 1. Vocabulary Profile of Introduction to Language Education Course Book
Below is the comparison of each category across unit. The category gives the
breakdown of each category across unit into K1, K2, AWL, and Off-List category.
K1 Category (1-1000 words)
Figure 2 provides comparison of K1 category across units in the course book.
From the finding, unit 1 had the highest proportion of K1 words (81,02%). The next
highest proportion was unit 7 with 78,91% and the third highest proportion was unit 2
(78,74%). Unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had approximately similar proportion of
K1. They were unit 3 with 74,34%; unit 4 with 74,27%; unit 5 with 73,92%; and unit
6 with 75,07%.
10
82.00% 81.02%
80.00%
78.91%
78.74%
78.00%
76.00%
74.34%
74.27%
75.07%
73.92%
74.00%
72.00%
70.00%
K1 (2)
Figure 2. Comparison K1 across units
The proportion of K1 seems to depend on the topic discussed in each unit. If
the topic discussed general thing, the proportion of K1 and the comprehensibility of
the topic could be high because the proportions of K1 words was high. Unit 1 had the
highest proportion of K1 because the topic was about introduction to language,
acquisition, learning, and teaching. Thus it used words which belonged to K1 to
explain the concepts in introduction. Due to the high proportion, unit 1 could be easy
to comprehend compared to the other units. Different with unit 1, the proportion of
K1 in unit 7 was less 2,11 point than unit 1 but still remained the second highest
proportion among all units. In unit 7, the topic discussed was about the affect of
language education, thus the proportion of K1 was not as high as the proportion on
unit 1. The third highest proportion of K1 was unit 2 with a topic still about
11
introduction but it more focused on language education, It did not use as many words
that belonged to K1 category in unit 1. While unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had
approximately similar proportion of K1 because the units had more serious on details
about language education, thus, the proportion of K1 words used in each unit were
lower than that in unit 1, 2 or 7.
K2 Category (1001-2000 words)
Figure 3 provides the comparison of K2 used in every unit from the course
book. From the findings, unit 4 had the highest proportion of K2 category (5,86%).
The next highest proportion was unit 6 with 5,16% and the third highest proportion
was unit 7 (4,19%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, and unit 5 had approximately similar
proportion of K2. They were unit 1 with 4,01%; unit 2 with 3,94%; unit 3 with
3,80%; and unit 5 with 3,61%.
7.00%
6.00%
5.00% 4.01%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
5.86%
3.94%
3.80%
5.16%
3.61%
4.19%
K2 (2)
Figure 3. Comparison K2 for each unit
12
From K2 perspective, it could be assumed that the higher the proportion of K2
in certain unit, the harder the unit is to comprehend. Thus from the finding, the
highest proportion of K2 was unit 4 with the topic about the explanation on how first
language is acquired. In explaining this topic, unit 4 used more K2 words. Similar
with unit 4, unit 6 which had the second highest proportion of K2, indicating that this
unit was also hard to comprehend. Since the topic discussed in unit 6 was about affect
in language learning, unit 6 needed more complex words that included in K2 word
category. The third highest proportion of K2 was unit 7. In this unit the K2 words
were used more to explain about using a second language. Thus this unit also
remained as unit which could be hard to comprehend.
Academic Word List
Figure 4 provides the comparison between Academic Word List (AWL) used
in every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest
proportion of AWL category (11,92%). The next highest proportion was unit 6 with
11,36% and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,84%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3,
and unit 4 had approximately similar proportion of AWL. They are unit 1 with
9,31%; unit 2 with 10,73%; unit 3 with 8,48%; and unit 4 with 9,67%.
13
14.00%
12.00%
9.31%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
11.92%
10.73%
8.48%
11.36%
9.67%
10.84%
AWL
Figure 4. Comparison AWL for each unit
AWL words category represents the most difficult words to comprehend.
Thus, it could be concluded that high proportion of AWL may cause comprehension
of the unit difficult. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest proportion of AWL.
Therefore, unit 5 considered as unit which was hard to comprehend. This happened
because its topic was about learning a second language which needed more academic
words such as acquisitions, maturation, constraints, and adulthood . The second
highest proportion of AWL was unit 6 which discussed affect in language learning.
Because the topic had several terms in explaining the affect, the proportion of AWL
in this unit was high. The third highest proportion of AWL was unit 7. This unit
discussed about using a second language, thus academic words used to explain the
topic.
14
Off-List Category
Figure 5 provides the comparison between Off-List words category used in
every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 3 had the highest proportion
of Off-List category (14,88%). The next highest proportion was unit 5 with 12,58%
and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,22%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 4, and unit 7
had approximately similar proportion of Off-List category. They are unit 1 with
5,68%; unit 2 with 6,60%; unit 4 with 10,47%; and unit 7 with 7,18%.
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00% 5.68%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
14.88%
12.58%
10.47%
10.22%
7.18%
6.60%
Off-List
Figure 5. Comparison Off-List Category of Each Unit
Off-List category was not included in K1, K2 or AWL category. Off-List
category usually contains proper names, other language terms, and misspell words.
Unit 3 that had the highest number of Off-List category explained the history of
language education in Indonesia, thus, it contained several Indonesian terms in
language education and name of scholars. Unit 5 remained as the second highest
proportion of Off-list category because it contained several scholar names such as
15
Krashen, Gass, Swain, Van Lier, and Varonis discussed the theory about learning a
second language. In explaining about using a second language, unit 7 also used
several Indonesian terms in comparing about English education in English speaking
countries and that in Indonesia.
Conclusion
This study aims to identify the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language
and Education (2013) course book. The findings have presented identification of
vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education (2013) course book. From
the study, it revealed three major results. First, it could be concluded that 80,81% of
the course book could be understandable for university learners. While the rest
19,19% of it still might need much effort to comprehend. Second, unit 1 could be
concluded as relatively easy to comprehend because it had the highest proportion of
K1 words (81,02%) and the lowest proportion of AWL (9,31%). The large proportion
of high frequency words in the unit may relate to the relatively easy comprehension
level of the unit and topic discussed in the unit. On the other hand, unit 5 could be
hard to comprehend because it had the lowest proportion of K1 (73,92%) and the
highest proportion of AWL (11,92%). The large proportion of AWL vocabulary may
negatively affect comprehension of the unit. Third, unit 7 had the second highest
proportion of K1 and third highest proportion of AWL. Conversely, it did not show
the contrastive result as unit 1 and unit 5 did. This phenomenon could be happened
based on the length of the text in unit 7, which was 3034 words and the topic
16
discussed. Nevertheless, unit 7 could be assumed as hard to comprehend because it
had the third highest proportion of AWL.
However, this study still has limitation. The limitation is that this study only
used one text book which was at university level to be analyzed. Having more than
one book to be analyzed will be more beneficial for the reliability of the study.
By knowing the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education
(2013) course book, teachers should be more aware with the words contained in the
course book so that they can decide the choice of words in creating materials for the
students. Furthermore teachers can also explain more about the difficult words. More
research related to vocabulary profile of course book in another scope can also be
beneficial for teachers to help them select reading materials (spoken or written) that
are suitable with the learners.
17
Acknowledgement
This study was done with a lot of support. Therefore, I would like to thank the
Lord for His blessing and guidance in finishing this study. I would like to express my
sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Gusti Astika, M. A. for his immeasurable
supervision and help during the completion of my thesis, and also my examiner,
Rindang Widiningrum, M. Hum for the fundamental suggestion and guidance for this
thesis.
I also would like to express my big gratitude to my beloved mom (Sri Sulastri
Benedicta) and dad (Subardi) for their understanding and immense support so I can
finish this thesis. Big grateful is also given to Faustinus Adven Kristanto, for giving
me endless support, restless companion, and keeping me believe that I can do and
finish this thesis. My big thank is also given to my friends; Adina, Dewi, Aditya,
Lintang, Nindi, Titania, and Zale for the happiness and tears we shared together. Then
I also want to say thank you for Tenners family as my second family. Thanks for the
happiness, laughter, and togetherness that make my 4 years in ED SWCU extremely
pleasurable and unforgettable. Last, I also would like to give my appreciation to all
lecturers in ED SWCU for guiding, teaching, and educating me throughout my 4
years study.
18
References
Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2011). Developing a Lexical Profiler for Spoken French
L2 and Italian L2. Eurosla , 75-93.
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with Call: Practical
approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York: Pearson
Education.
Cobb, T. (ND). The original idea behind this website: Why & how to use frequency
lists to learn words. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from Compleat Lexical Tutor:
http://www.lextutor.ca/research/.
Cobb, T., & Morris, L. (2004) Analysis of TESL and TEFL Trainees' grammatical
and lexical knowledge.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly , 34 (2), pp.
213-238.
Introduction to Language Education. (2013). A Course book, Satya Wacana
Christian University. Salatiga
Laufer, B. (2010). Lexical Threshold Revisited: Lexical Text Coverage, Learners'
VOcabulary Size, and Reading Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign
Language , 22 (1), 15-30.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2
Written Production. Applied Linguistic , 16 (3), 307-322.
19
Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary Learning through Reading: Does an
ELT Course Book Provide Good Opportunity? Reading in a Foreign
Language , 22 (1), 56-70.
Meara, P. (2005). Lexical Frequency Profiles: A Monte Carlo Analysis. Applied
Linguistics , 26 (1), 32-47.
Morris, L. (2001, November). The Use of Vocabulary Profiles in Predicting the
Academic and Pedagogic Performance of TESL Trainees. International Language in
Education Conference .
Morris, L., & Cobb, T. (2004). Vocabulary Profile as Predictorsof the Academic
Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees. System 32 ,
75-87.
Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle and heinle.
Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage, and Word List. In
N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy, Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
20
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2012). A Reassessment of Frequency and Vocabulary
Size in L2 Vocabulary Teaching. Cambridge Journal , 1-20.
Yoon, S.-Y., Bhat, S., & Zechner, K. (2012). Vocabulary Profile as a Measure of
Vocabulary Sophistication. The 7th Workshop on the Innovative Use of NLP
for Building Educational Applications (pp. 180-189). Canada: Association for
Computational Linguistic.
21
22