The Size of Multi-Word Units Used in English O-NET Exams and the Influence of Multi-Word Units Used in English O-NET Exams on Learners’ Test Performance
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aimed to study 1) the percentage of multi-word units used in
English O-NET exams, 2) the influence of multi-word units used in English O-NET
exams on learners’ test performance, and 3) the multi-word level of learners. The participants in this study were 321 Thai students of grade 12. There were 3 research instruments consisting of 1) the English O-NET exams for grade 12 students, 2) the instruments for analyzing multi-word units, and 3) the multi-word test. The findings showed that the average amount of multi-word units used in the 2005-2010 and 2015-2018 O-NET exams was 1.48%. In analyzing the average amount of multi-word units in each O-NET exam, the results revealed that the highest amount of multi-word units was found in the 2016 O-NET (2.40%). In total, the average amount of multi-word units used in the O-NET exams (1.48%) did not affect the participants’ text comprehension and test performance because the amount was less than the sufficient number for learners to comprehend each text at 2% (Hu & Nation, 2000; Schmitt, Jiang & Grabe, 2011). However, among all the O-NET exams, the amount of multi-word units which is more than the adequate number for their text comprehension at 2% can be found merely in the 2016 O-NET (2.40%); this amount of multi-word units affected the participants’ text comprehension and test performance. According to the participants’ knowledge of multi-word units, they had the average scores of 8.63 or 17.26%. This research work will benefit greatly the O-NET development committees by contributing to the planning and improvement of the use of multi-word units in English O-NET exams. Moreover, it also raises teachers’ awareness about students’ low level of multi-word knowledge and might encourage them to teach English multi-word units explicitly in class.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ต้นฉบับที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารคณะศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ถือเป็นกรรมสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ห้ามนำข้อความทั้งหมดหรือบางส่วนไปพิมพ์ซ้ำ เว้นเสียแต่จะได้รับอนุญาตจากมหาวิทยาลัยฯ เป็นลายลักษณ์อักษรReferences
Alejo, R. (2010). Making sense of phrasal verbs: A cognitive linguistic account of L2 learning. AILA Review. 23, 50-71.
Alali, F., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Teaching formulaic sequences: The same or different from teaching single words? TESOL Journal. 3, 153-180.
Biber, D. (2009). A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 14, 275-311.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England: Longman.
Carpuat, M., & Diab, M. (2010). Task-based Evaluation of Multiword Expressions: a Pilot Study in Statistical Machine Translation. Human Language Technologies: Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Los Angeles, California, USA.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2005). The Frequency and Use of Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Prose. Lexicographica. 20, 56-71.
De Cock, S. (2000). Repetitive phrasal chunkiness and advanced EFL speech and writing. In C. Mair, & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the twentieth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 20) (pp. 51–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Dagut, M., & Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7, 73-79.
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text. 20(1), 29–62.
Fellbaum, C. (2011). Idioms and collocations. In C. Maienborn, K, von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. 145(160), 3-18.
Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English Collocations: Developing Receptive Tests for Use with Advanced Swedish Learners (Doctoral Dissertation). Språk- och litteraturcentrum, Lunds universitet.
Howarth, P. (1998). The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language. 13(1), 403-430.
Hulstijn, J. H., & Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 11, 241-255.
Huning, M., & Schlucker, B. (2015). Multi-word expressions. In Muller, Peter O. et al. (Eds). Word formation. An international handbook of the language of Europe. Berlin/Boston:De Gruyter.
Liao, Y. D., & Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning. 5(2), 193-226.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different? Applied Linguistic. 19(2), 255-271.
Laufer, B., & Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 15(1), 35-48.
Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language learning. 61(2), 647-672.
Meara, P., & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing. 4, 142-151.
Mi-Lim, R. (2013). A Corpus-based Study of the Use of Phrasal Verbs in Korean EFL Students' Writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL. 10(2).
Nation, I.S.P. (1983). Testing and teacher vocabulary. Guidelines. 5, 12-25.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I.S.P., & Beglar, D. (2007) A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher. 31(7), 9-13.
Nation, I.S.P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards, R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman.
Pongpairoj, N., & Kosolsombat, P. (2017). Avoidance of L2 English phrasal verbs by L1 Thai learners. Journal of Letters. 46(2), 171–216.
Pillai, A., & Nirattisai, S. (2016). Check Up Word Program. Unpublished program.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan: Hampshire, England.
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. P. (2011). The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading Comprehension. Modern Language Journal. 95(1), 26-43.
Svensson, M. H. (2008). A very complex criterion of fixedness: Non-compositionality. InS. Granger and F. Meunier (eds.), Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Vilkaite, L. (2016). Formulaic language is not all the same: comparing the frequency of idiomatic phrases, collocations, lexical bundles, and phrasal verbs. Taikomoji kalbotyra. 8.
Wei, N., & Li, J. (2013). A new computing method for extracting contiguous phraseological sequences from academic text corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 18(4), 506–535.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: An exploration of the foundations of fluency. Canadian Modern Language Review. 63(1), 13-33
Wray, A. (2009). Future directions in formulaic language research. Journal of Foreign Language. 32(6), 2-10.
Wray, A., & Perkin, M. R. (2000). The function of formulaic language: An intergrated model. Language and Communication. 20(1), 1-28.
Yamane, T. (1973). Statistics an introduction analysis. New York: Harper & Row Publisher.