Research Perspectives in Language and Education

David Hirsh

In their co-authored paper, Rahma Fitriana and David Hirsh shed light on student perceptions towards translanguaging practices among bilingual university students in Indonesia in a language classroom setting. The study presents a multifaceted model of student perceptions of translanguaging, with suggestions that a translanguaging approach to language use in the classroom can be facilitative of learning in various dimensions.

Mariana Sáez examines language learning strategy activities appearing in textbooks at three levels of the education system (Grades 5, 7 and 9) in language classrooms in Chile. Exploring memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, the study displays patterns of strategy use in the textbooks in a general sense, and also across the three grade levels reflective of students at different stages of language learning.

Wenjun Bu and David Hirsh explore Chinese students’ considerations of oral participation and quietness during tutorials in a postgraduate coursework program in an Australian university. The findings shed light on the underlying considerations of Chinese international students’ choice to speak or not to speak in Australian tutorials, and their perceptions towards quietness in tutorials.

In the final chapter of the volume, Qian Yang and David Hirsh investigate the adaptation experiences of international students in a postgraduate coursework program in an Australian university. The study offers a series of suggestions for improving international student experiences and performance in higher education, particularly for students from East Asia studying in Anglo-Western universities.

This volume presents a range of research methodologies and, in this regard, there are insights offered for future research students. Suggestions for further research are provided to guide research students seeking to embark on their own studies of language and education, as well as implications for language teachers, EFL textbook developers, and providers of international education.

Xuan Wang

Literature Review

Receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge relates to the different forms of word knowledge

Vocabulary size can be measured scholarly through a number of approaches, particularly with the help of the constructs of receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge. A positive and significant correlation (r = 0.78) between receptive and productive vocabulary size has been found in the literature (Laufer 1998), and language learners’ receptive vocabulary size is larger than their productive vocabulary size (Fan 2000; Laufer 1998; Webb 2008). This is because receptive and productive vocabulary relate to the different forms of word knowledge possessed by a language learner, and productive learning is more difficult than receptive learning. In the receptive process, learners develop an understanding of the form of a word and begin to learn its meaning, but they may not necessarily use this word. Productive knowledge, on the other hand, is gained through a learner implementing their productive skills, such as speaking and writing. In addition, in formal language learning conditions, learners receive more practice in receptive rather than productive learning conditions, which may be a significant factor in accounting for differences in the amount of vocabulary acquired through receptive or productive learning.

The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary size varies from study to study due to learners’ varied language proficiency (Fan 2000), where researchers use measures that include full as well as partial knowledge (Webb 2008) and different modes of vocabulary instruction (Moskovsky et al. 2015). However, receptive and productive learning processes are not mutually exclusive, as there are productive features of receptive learning and vice versa. There are complex interactions between receptive and productive knowledge in language acquisition. For example, when listening or reading, learners not only receive knowledge of new words but also produce meaning. In a study by Webb (2009), receptive learning contributed more to receptive knowledge of meaning than productive learning, while productive learning resulted in higher achievement in multi-aspect vocabulary knowledge both receptively and productively. These findings indicated that solely employing productive learning of word pairs may be more effective than employing receptive learning of word pairs alone. As Zhong (2018) demonstrated, productive word use in prompted sentence writing was primarily related to receptive knowledge of form and meaning. Webb (2009) and Zhong’s (2018) studies both indicated the importance of productive learning in acquiring vocabulary, yet the interaction between receptive learning and productive vocabulary knowledge still requires further exploration. Accordingly, the breadth of productive vocabulary knowledge is a focus of the current study, and its interaction with receptive learning is also considered.

Divergent attitudes towards whether receptive vocabulary knowledge is the most important factor in influencing reading comprehension

Enriching the measurements for vocabulary size when exploring the relationship between reading ability and vocabulary knowledge

In order to avoid representing the wrong form of vocabulary knowledge, Milton, Wade and Hopkins (2010) enriched the measurements for vocabulary size by investigating vocabulary knowledge in two different formats: written and aural tests. X-Lex (Meara/Milton 2003) was used to measure written vocabulary size and A-Lex (Mil-ton/Hopkins 2006) was employed to measure vocabulary size in an aural format. IELTS sub-scores from 30 English as a second language (ESL) intermediate- and advanced-level learners were used to represent their performance of four different learning skills. Milton et al. (2010) suggested that it was not necessary to measure vocabulary knowledge in both written and aural forms and that only one form is required. Although they deny the importance of aural forms when measuring the relationship between reading ability and vocabulary knowledge, their research has raised awareness of the need to enrich the measures used for vocabulary size.

In summary, L2 learners require different dimensions of word knowledge to achieve sufficient receptive and productive vocabulary size; likewise, it is necessary to add the productive measures in order to fully assess the nature of vocabulary knowledge. While many studies in the literature have explored the relationship between reading ability and receptive vocabulary size, few studies could be identified that explore the relationship between reading ability and productive vocabulary size. This study endeavored to explore this link from three dimensions: the relationship between reading ability and receptive vocabulary size, the relationship between reading ability and controlled productive vocabulary size and, finally, the relationship between reading ability and free-productive vocabulary size.

Research Questions

1. Does receptive vocabulary size significantly differ from productive vocabulary size?