Etymology

2.2 Use of Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Knowledge

The idea of a dichotomy between receptive vocabulary and productive vocabulary has been globally accepted by most researchers. Hence, Melka points out the impossibility of having a clear and adequate definition to distinguish between the two notions. However, Melka provides a possible definition of receptive knowledge as the ability to understand vocabulary in reading and/or listening whereas productive knowledge is defined as the ability to use vocabulary in writing and/or speaking. The terms receptive vocabulary, passive vocabulary, reception and comprehension, active vocabulary, productive vocabulary and
16
production are often used in discussions of receptive and/or productive language

knowledge. Many researchers perceive receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge as being a continuum.

In addition, the relationship between these two aspects of lexical knowledge is said to prove to be of some difficulty. Yet in spite of the difference between receptive and productive word knowledge, it is commonly accepted by most researchers that the development of word knowledge precedes from the receptive to the productive. Melka further suggests that learners incrementally move from receptive mastery to productive mastery as their lexical knowledge increases. However, it is difficult to decide on a threshold between receptive and productive mastery; and the amount of vocabulary needed to move from receptive to productive use, 2000. This might be due to the influence of test types and lack of evidence of what constitute receptive and productive mastery. In a cross-sectional study, Laufer examined the growth and relationship between receptive, controlled productive and free productive vocabulary knowledge over an interval of one year.
The subjects in her study were 26 grade 10 and 22 grade 11 native speakers of Hebrew who studied English as a foreign language (EFL) for 6 and 7 years respectively. The students came from the same background and did not have native English-speaking parents. The study incorporated three different measurements: Vocabulary Level Test (Nation, 1983, 1990) for receptive knowledge, Controlled Productive Vocabulary Levels Test for controlled productive knowledge, and Lexical Frequency Profile ( for writing composition or free productive knowledge. All three tests were given in one week during normal class hours, with the first two tests taking about 20-30 minutes and the last test about 90 minutes to complete. The results of these tests yielded some interesting results. [16]
The growth of the learners’ receptive knowledge is clearly impressive. It appears that the learners increased their receptive vocabulary knowledge by 84% as they moved from 10th to 11th grade. In other words, the results indicate that the learners gained about 1600 word in one year. Similarly, the controlled productive knowledge of the learners improved by about 50%, gaining about 850 words in one
17
year. On the other hand, the results from the free productive test did not reveal any

significant growth. Therefore, both receptive and controlled productive vocabulary knowledge seemed to develop gradually over time, while the free productive ability seemed to lag behind. [13]

Passive Controlled active Free active 10th graders 1.900 1.700 71 % 11th graders 3.500 2.550 67 % Gain in % 84% 50% ----- According to Laufer, the relationship between receptive, controlled and free productive knowledge can be ascertained by examining the ratio between them. For receptive and controlled productive knowledge, the ratio is 89% in grade 10 while it goes down to 72% in grade 11. Laufer suggests that such results could lead to the speculation that possessing high receptive vocabulary knowledge means further widening the gap with the controlled productive vocabulary knowledge. In other words, learners acquire a lot of vocabulary receptively and multiple exposures reinforce development of their receptive vocabulary knowledge, while they normally tend to use a number of the most frequent words and expressions in communication. Last but not least, the ratio between free productive vocabulary and other aspects of vocabulary knowledge is impossible to ascertain because the measurement was based on words’ frequency not the subjects’ knowledge of the word.
As informative as it might be, while this study highlights the growth of receptive and productive knowledge and compared the ratios obtaining between them, it did so without addressing the amount of vocabulary knowledge needed to move to productive use. As mentioned above in this section, this proves to be of some difficulty and requires further investigation. Min attempted to explore the effectiveness of reading supplemented with vocabulary tasks versus reading only for vocabulary growth in an instructional setting. One of the research questions attempted to be answered in Min’s study was whether reading instruction in combination with vocabulary focused activities or a narrow reading treatment would explain the incremental nature of receptive and productive vocabulary learning over a period of three months. The study involved 50 Chinese high school students in Taiwan. Participants were divided into two groups: experimental group
18
(n=25) and control group (n=25). The instruction treatments were given in five

sessions of two hours each within the normal English class.

Learners were asked their degrees of receptive and productive knowledge of the target words using the Vocabulary Knowledge Scale. The researcher administered a pre-test (50 target words) before the treatment to corroborate that these words were not known. Post-test and delayed test (after the instruction period and again three months later) were conducted to provide information on the acquisition and retention of meaning of the unknown words.

Breakdown responses over types of vocabulary knowledge for both groups Partially Group Test Unknown Known Receptive Productive Total1 RV Pretest Note. 1Total number of responses = 1,250.
The three measurement periods were analysed with t-tests which indicated that the instruction given to the experimental group had a positive and significant effect than their control counterparts (t=9.08, p<.01) at the time of acquisition and (t=5.10, p<.01) at the time of retention. The results of the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge tests are presented in Table 5 above. The findings showed that the learners who had the treatment made gains of 32.32% in receptive word knowledge and of 36.24% in productive word knowledge. Despite the fact that the control group acquired a large amount of vocabulary, it made less gain of 26.88% in receptive word knowledge and of 18.32% in productive word knowledge. Consequently, we can say that the instructional treatment helped to improve certain aspects of word knowledge such as recognition and production incrementally and simultaneously over time.
As noted in Chapter 1, estimates of the number of words in native English-speaking students’ reading vocabularies vary considerably depending on how the estimate is made. Many of these estimates can be dismissed or at least very strong-ly questioned because of such factors as the size of the dictionary from which words were sampled, the definition of what constitutes a word, the method of test-ing, the sampling procedures used, and such ad hoc requirements as that a word appear in a number of different dictionaries.
19
The most unbiased estimate of the size of native English-speaking students’

reading vocabularies comes, in our judgment, from work done by Nagy and Herman. Using data gathered from the Nagy and Anderson study, Nagy and Herman recalibrated earlier estimates and concluded that 3rd-graders’ reading vocabularies average about 10,000 words, that 12th-graders’ reading vocabularies average about 40,000 words, and that schoolchildren therefore learn about 3,000 words each year. These figures refer to word families as previously described, but they do not include idioms, other multiword units, multiple meanings, or proper nouns, which would raise the figure considerably. All in all, our best estimate— based on the work of Anderson and Nagy Anglin Miller and Wakefield Nagy and Anderson Nagy and Herman and White, Graves, and Slater —is that average 12th-graders know something like 50,000 word families and learn from 3,000 to 4,000 words each year. These figures, however, are for native English speakers. ELLs, of course, have smaller English vocabularies. Moreover, the vocabularies of ELLs vary tremendously depending on their levels of first-language literacy development and second-language proficiency. The goal is to help all students develop an extensive vocabulary—something like 50,000 words—over their years in school. Based on this goal, many ELLs face a huge word-learning task.
There is one other crucial fact about the vocabulary-learning task that students face: The English language includes a very large number of infrequent words and a very small number of frequent words. Here are some examples of just how important frequent words are: The 100 most frequent words account for about 50% of the words in a typical text; the 1,000 most frequent words for about 70%; and the 5,000 most frequent words for about 80%. If a student does not know these very frequent words, he will be repeatedly stumbling over the words in anything other than a book with severely controlled vocabulary.

20
As we see it, the bottom line with respect to the number of words students

eventually learn and what to do about helping them learn them is this: There are far too many words to teach all of them directly. There is a much smaller number of frequent words, and these can be taught directly. Teaching 2,000 to 4,000 of the most frequent word families directly, or at least ensuring that all children know these words as soon as possible, is a feasible task. In Chapter 3, we will discuss ways of selecting and teaching these very frequent words; and in Chapter 4, we will suggest how to select and teach less frequent words.
With regard to ELLs, several studies have shown that while ELLs’ vocabulary growth rates are similar to and may even surpass those of native English speakers, they are typically 2 to 3 years behind native English-speaking students in vocabulary knowledge, and a large vocabulary gap remains. Additionally, some data indicate that the sequence in which ELLs learn words is similar to that in which native English speakers learn them. We can draw some important conclusions from this information: It is crucial to provide early, systematic, effective vocabulary instruction for ELLs to enable them to catch up to their native English-speaking peers as soon as possible, thus enabling them to take advantage of grade-appropriate instruction across the content areas.[19]

2.1 Teaching students who are clearly of different levels.

You may often be teaching a class which has students who are clearly of

different levels. They may have different starting levels of English or they may learn at very different speeds - for any number of reasons.

These are several strategies that a teacher can use to deal with this situation. This is

the first of two articles on the topic.

The second article covers...

21
Range of tasks

Extra work / Homework Student nomination
Supporting the weaker students Error correction

This first article deals with the following strategies.

Discussion and needs analysis

Student self-awareness

Work groupings
Discussion and needs analysis

It is easy for students to get frustrated in a class of mixed ability. Stronger students may feel held back, weaker students may feel pressured. The teacher may feel stressed. The best solution to this is to have an open-class discussion about the classroom situation - to ensure the best for everyone it is better to acknowledge the situation and for everyone to agree how to deal with it. It is probably best to stage and structure the discussion.

Needs Analysis

Use a needs analysis to prompt the students to reflect upon their learning style, learning strategies, language needs, learning enjoyment, motivation, language strengths and weaknesses.

Questions that might be included are...

What kinds of class activities do you enjoy / benefit from?

Which language skill do you most wish to develop?

Do you prefer working individually or with a partner?

22
Would you rather sit and listen to the teacher all lesson or participate in group

work?

Students compare their answers in pairs or small groups. You should collect the information and prepare a statistical representation of the key questions and answers. This will help to develop the sense of shared community in the class.

Explain and discuss

Explain the mixed-level situation to the students and give a list of possible

approaches to the teaching and learning. In pairs, the students rank the approaches/ideas according to their suitability for the situation.

Following feedback, you should highlight the strategies you plan to use.
A student contract

Developing with the students, or perhaps writing it yourself, a contract of behavior for activities is a useful device. 'I will help and support my activity partner.' 'I will participate in group work.'

Tell them what you are going to do

If you think your students are not mature enough to carry out this kind of reflection, explain the situation to the class and tell them what strategies you will be using. If students know what to expect, you can hope that they will cooperate.

All of the above work could be done in the mother tongue, although I feel it is best done primarily in the target language (as it draws attention to the fact that this is a learning language issue.)

Student self-awareness

Encourage students to develop an awareness of their own language abilities and learning needs. What are their strengths and weaknesses, and how can they focus on these? How can they measure their own progress

23
This may take the form of a learner's diary, regular self-assessment, keeping

records of mistakes, keeping a record of things learnt.

Work groupings

Varying the way students work in the class will help meet the variety of levels in the class.

Pair work

You can pair strong with strong, weak with weak, or strong with weak. Perhaps in

a very controlled activity, the strong with weak will work well. In a freer activity, perhaps strong with strong will be of benefit. Variety in the pairings is the key here - and you should also be sensitive to the general relationships between different students, and learn to note who works well with whom.

Group work

These groups could be of mixed levels or similar ones. The hope is that in a smaller group, the weaker student will feel more able to contribute. Also, if the group is working with a set of information, divide the information between the students, forcing them to work together.

You may consider dividing your class into groups by level for the whole lesson, enabling you to give a different level or number of tasks to each group. Discussion of this strategy with the class should help prevent stigmatization.

Whole class - mingles


This is a favored strategy of mine. A mingle activity involves students talking or interacting with many different members of the class in a short period of time in order to achieve a task. This means that any one student will work with students at different levels - experiencing stronger and weaker levels of communication. This supports the weaker students and provides opportunities for the stronger ones.

A classic activity is a 'Find someone who...'

24
In this activity the student has to survey the class to find people who…(for

example)

…have got something - Do you have a CD player? Or… …have done something - Have you eaten fish and chips? Or… …like something - Do you like tennis?

If a student answers yes to a question, then the other student should ask for more information. If a student answers no, then the other should find a new person to ask, and may come back to the first student with another question later on.

The potential for this is endless. It is a great way to provide practice of a particular language structure/area (10 questions all using the past simple) and provides controlled practice as well as the opportunity for further freer discussion. It also creates a lively classroom dynamic.

Mingles can take many forms - students may have to find the person who has a matching word to theirs, or the second half of a split sentence. The students may all have the same or different questions, or a mixture. The key is the general principle of an information gap or communicative need.

Overall, variety in the types of working groups, and an open discussion of the class

situation will help to deal with some of the difficulties that are present in mixed ability classes. The aim of these strategies is to create a positive working environment, which is all part of ensuring better learning.

25
Conclusion

This paper comprises reviews and discussions of relevant studies concerning the incremental nature of vocabulary acquisition. Learners’ size of their SL/FL vocabulary gradually develops in a number of ways, with multiple exposures to target words enhancing the process. We can infer that vocabulary learning is not limited to the meaning facet of word knowledge and that other facets of lexical knowledge are part of the learning process. This implies that the description of vocabulary knowledge based on the meaning aspect is not accurate and does not do justice to the complexity of word knowledge. We have seen that the mastery of word knowledge is best seen as being on a continuum, both overall as well as in respect of single word knowledge.
Moreover, this knowledge involves recognizing the word when it is read or heard (receptive knowledge) or being able to use it in writing or speaking (productive knowledge). We have also discussed how the level of mastery of receptive and productive knowledge can vary, thus providing evidence of the gradual and complicated nature of the process of vocabulary acquisition. The inconsistency of the degrees of knowledge between the receptive and productive forms often stems from the lack of conceptualization of what receptive and productive mastery of word entails. The issue of drawing a line between receptive and productive knowledge has been raised but research has not yet been able to come to any conclusion. That is it is still unknown what type and amount of vocabulary knowledge are necessary to push the language learners to the productive level of mastery.
The breadth of vocabulary knowledge refers to the size or quantity of vocabulary which is partially or fully known by learners. It is considered a continuum, ranging from partial to full knowledge. Moreover, Schmitt suggests that all vocabulary knowledge can be ranged on a cline as being not known-partially-fully known applying this to spelling, as shown in.

26
Aspects of lexical knowledge ranging from zero to partial to precise from

Milton investigated the annual growth of the vocabulary size of British learners of French up to graduation from a language school. His study offered a good example of documenting the incremental development of lexical knowledge over time, particularly at the beginning stages of the learning process. He used a French vocabulary size test which incorporated Bardot’s frequency levels.
The breadth of vocabulary knowledge refers to the size or quantity of vocabulary which is partially or fully known by learners. It is considered a continuum, ranging from partial to full knowledge. Moreover, Schmitt suggests that all vocabulary knowledge can be ranged on a cline as being not known-partially-fully known applying this to spelling, as shown in.
Aspects of lexical knowledge ranging from zero to partial to precise from Milton investigated the annual growth of the vocabulary size of British learners of French up to graduation from a language school. His study offered a good example of documenting the incremental development of lexical knowledge over time, particularly at the beginning stages of the learning process. He used a French vocabulary size test which incorporated Bardot’s frequency levels.
The growth of the learners’ receptive knowledge is clearly impressive. It appears that the learners increased their receptive vocabulary knowledge by 84% as they moved from 10th to 11th grade. In other words, the results indicate that the learners gained about 1600 word in one year. Similarly, the controlled productive knowledge of the learners improved by about 50%, gaining about 850 words in one year. On the other hand, the results from the free productive test did not reveal any significant growth. Therefore, both receptive and controlled productive vocabulary knowledge seemed to develop gradually over time, while the free productive ability seemed to lag behind.

27
USED LITERATURE

1. Ainslie, Susan. (1994). Mixed Ability Teaching: Meeting Learners.needs. Netword 3: Teaching Language to Adults. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
2. Baker, Joanna. (2000). The English language teacher’s handbook: how to teach large classes with few resources. New York: Continuum; London: Cassel.
3. Berry, Eve and Williams, Molly. (1992). Teaching Strategies for Multilevel ESL classes. Facilitator’s Guide. Oregon: Clackamas Community College.
4. Bowman, Brenda. (1992). Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Large Multilevel Classes. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
5. Brown, Douglas H. (2002). Strategies for Success: a practical guide to learning English. New York: Longman.
6. Dornyei, Zoltan. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Goldstein, Sam. (1998). Overcoming underachieving: an action guide to helping your child succeed in school. New York; Chicester: J. Wiley & Sons.
8. Green, Simon. (2000). New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
9. Hess, Natalie. (2001). Teaching Large Multilevel Classes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.Kelly, A.V. (1974). Teaching mixed ability classes: an individualized approach. London: Harper & Row Ltd.
11.Leiding, Darlene. (2002). The won’t learners: an answer to their cry. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press.
12.Lessow-Hurley, Judith. (2003). Meeting the Needs of Second Language Learners: An educators guide. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
28
13.Shank, Cathy C, and Terrill Lynda R. (1995). Teaching Multilevel Adult ESL

Classes. Eric Digests. Washington DC: Adjunct ERIC Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education.
14.Supplee, Patricia L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever: program strategy and design. New York: Teachers College Press.

29