Measuring vocabulary size

by myq

Oct 2, 2011

Dear Teachers,

Vocabulary size has been considered a good predictor of overall language ability as well as more specialised skills such as reading. Some researchers even suggest that differences in vocabulary size represent the biggest challenge to literacy education in America.

To help facilitate accurate measurements of vocabulary knowledge, including vocabulary size, a website has been created which allows teachers to efficiently assess their students' abilities. The site currently offers a test of vocabulary size and a test of word parts (affix) knowledge. Other tests are planned as well as additions to the question pools of the existing tests.

The tests can be found at [link removed]

If you register for a teacher account, you will have access to a set of additional features. You will be able to set up test sessions for your classes which collate the results from your students into a simple report. That means you don't have to worry about marking...See More

Comment

(6)

report post

view previous comments

Sara I'd say several things but one would be - either I used the site wrong or - it's not an appropriate test of vocabulary for native English speakers. The way the answers are written strongly suggests that the test was intended for English language learners and that it was written by a non-native speaker. Native English speakers do not conceive of a '...See More

Oct 13, 2011

report post

myq I would like to ask for your constructive criticism of this >> service from a teacher's perspective. Do you find it useful? >> Intuitive? Worthwhile? Any suggestions are appreciated and >> will be considered for future improvements. >> >> Thank you for your time. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Myq Larson ...See More

Oct 19, 2011

report post

myq Thanks for your reply, Sam. I'm sure the creator of the test can use your feedback to improve it.

I can comment on a few things though:

On 10/09/11, Sam J wrote: > I would not use this with my students for several reasons. > Firstly, the sentence structure was awkward and the definitions > were obscure. I felt that the cr...See More

Oct 19, 2011

report post

Sara On 10/19/11, myq wrote:

Your post and responses are interesting but 'the bottom line' - right out of the Dictionary for Cultural Literacy - is that vocabulary is best instructed by reading. While the debate continues among the less enlightened, there's a wealth of research to demonstrate that the way we learn new words and improve our voc...See MoreOn 10/19/11, myq wrote:

Your post and responses are interesting but 'the bottom line' - right out of the Dictionary for Cultural Literacy - is that vocabulary is best instructed by reading. While the debate continues among the less enlightened, there's a wealth of research to demonstrate that the way we learn new words and improve our vocabularies is by ... reading.

So to stop other avenues of reading instruction and focus on 'vocabulary enrichment' in an effort to improve reading skills - well, that ultimately makes No sense. So the goal of this test is, kindly, a flawed goal.

Many tests - not just this one - give us information we can't use in any meaningful way. The U.S. is in part bankrupted by the constant, endless medical tests that we administer that in no way change the course of treatment. Don't get me wrong, we love expensive and useless tests here.

And yes, we give yearly government-mandated tests here now and we've recently passed a law that says the results of these tests are not to be held in very serious regard. We will of course continue to administer the tests...

But the real bottom line is - would you charge for these tests? This is a product you're hoping to sell?

To that end I'd ask - how can you design a single test on vocabulary to be used by 'all ability levels'?? That makes no sense.

And answers that are 'more correct' rather than 'absolutely correct' makes little sense too. Testing is never a perfect process and standardized tests often read 'Choose the most correct answer' but the fact remains - the definitions on this test don't work for American English. They're simply not correct. We'd define a drawer as a compartment in a piece of furniture. It is NOT by any means a 'sliding box'. A box is something separate from furniture. A box is a discrete unit of its own. These answers were not written by a native speaker and as another poster told you as well as myself, they don't work.

And how would this test be better if the American people were bilingual??? Then we wouldn't know that a drawer isn't a sliding box? We'd somehow know English less well if we also spoke Spanish?

Which increasingly more and more of us do but your point there makes no sense either. Beware blindly defending something on its merits when it may not have any.

But if there's any place where you could sell yet another useless diagnostic computerized test, it's certainly in the U.S. but I'd caution you - we've written some very bad checks here lately and there's no end in sight. Get the money up front and not in U.S. dollars... Warm wishes-

> > On 10/13/11, Sara wrote: > > The way the answers are written > > strongly suggests that the test was intended for English > > language learners and that it was written by a non-native > > speaker. > > This is a common reaction which I believe is an unfortunate by > product of one of the creator's design goals. The idea was to > create a single test which could be used for all ability levels. > That means a very young child or beginning learner could take the > same test as an adult or advanced learner. For that goal to be > met, the words used in the options need to be quite high frequency > to ensure that understanding the options does not become a barrier > to selecting the correct option. > > From the feedback and results collected so far, this may have > been an over ambitious goal. One of the reasons for > 'computerising' the test is to make it easier to address some of > the issues that have come up. The next stage of development will > likely focus on taking the subject's age and L1 as input and > selecting from a pool of items that most likely match what would > be expected given those two variables. Further items would depend > on subject's performance on the items from the initial estimate. > > > Native English speakers do not conceive of a 'drawer' > > as a 'sliding box'... but I get what was meant. Further, 'Saw' > > and 'looked at' are not really the same thing in American > > English - to 'look at' something implies that you were doing so > > for a reason. To 'see' something or to have seen something is a > > more passive thing than to have 'looked at' it. > > This is also a common misunderstanding of the test's goals. I > can't fault people for misunderstanding because the test > documentation hasn't been put up on the website yet. But > basically, the options are not designed to be complete definitions > because a) that would require longer, more detailed options which > increases the length of the test and b) the level of word > knowledge tested is somewhere beyond the recognition level but not > to the depth that an extremely accurate definition would be > required. Also, in terms of test design, most MCQ tests are > designed to have one option which is 'more correct' than the > others, but not necessarily 'Absolutely Correct' in all possible > scenarios. > > The option for drawer could be 'a box-like device which is > designed to slide in and out of an enclosure', but the increase in > reading time would not really improve the performance of the > existing option 'sliding box' especially when compared with the > other options. > > > Perhaps I used the site wrong or took the wrong test but the > > test I took would not be the right one for native American > > English speakers. > > You took the right test. The challenge is measuring English > using English. The other versions, where the options have been > translated into other languages, is a much, much easier way to > test English vocabulary size. 'See' can be translated directly > into à¸”à¸¹ for Thai, and drawer can be translated as à¸¥à¸´à¹‰à¸™à¸Šà¸±à¸. It would be > easier if Americans were bilingual, but most aren't. So somehow a > test would need to use English to test English, while also being > fairly quick to complete, easy to administer, and accurate. It's a > challenge. > > > That said I'd also say - testing students' vocabularies with > > such a tool - what would the point be?? When their vocabularies > > are found wanting by virtue of such a test, students would then > > have their vocabularies enriched? > > I believe that the primary motivation for making this test was > actually based on that claim by teachers in English classes in New > Zealand. When reading problems are identified, one of the most > common claims is that the reader must have a deficient vocabulary. > Testing these students has shown that for many of the poorly > performing readers, their vocabulary size was actually within the > normal range for their peer group, so focusing on teaching them > more vocabulary as opposed to other reading-related skills is > probably a waste of time. > > The test is not designed to be a formative test. It's designed > to be a diagnostic to help identify those who may benefit from > additional focus on vocabulary and those who would not (which is > usually the majority). It's also designed to track development > over time just as most standardised tests do. > > > We already work constantly to enrich our students' vocabularies > > - for better or worse. Students in the U.S. now must take > > yearly government mandated tests - why do they need to take > > your test in addition to all the government tests?? > > Wow, it seems like things have changed a lot since I was > there. When I was in high school, I remember learning 15 or 20 > idioms per week from the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, but > standardised tests were only given every 3 or 4 (or maybe even 5) > years. > > But I guess I would answer your question by saying that the > tests on VocabularySize.com are not designed to be achievement > tests, nor standards test. They are diagnostic tests to help > identify those who may or may not benefit from additional > vocabulary instruction. Norms are being compiled at the moment and > will hopefully go up, along with other documentation for teachers, > in the near future. > > Thanks again for your time and comments. They are appreciated. > > Cheers, > > Myq >

Oct 20, 2011

report post

myq Hi Sara,

Thank you again for your ideas and comments. I'd just like to point out a few things that you may have misunderstood in my response.

On 10/20/11, Sara wrote: > On 10/19/11, myq wrote: > > Your post and responses are interesting but 'the bottom line' - right > out of the Dictionary for Cultural Literacy - is th...See More