COMPARING MASTERY SENTENCE TEST SCORES WITH L2 TO L1 TRANSLATION TEST SCORES

Raymond Stubbe, Kousuke Nakashima

DOI Number
10.22190/JTESAP1704719S
First page
719
Last page
726

Abstract


Mastery sentences, in which students compose a sentence demonstrating their understanding of a given English word, are recognized as an effective means of promoting vocabulary learning (Masson, 2012). As explained in Gallacher (2015, p.76) a “successful mastery sentence thus becomes one in which the target word, if removed, could only be replaced by a direct synonym.” Early in the spring 2017 semester, students were advised that their vocabulary midterm test would be a Mastery Sentence test of 10 items. An explanation of Mastery Sentences was provided, as were successful and poor examples. High-beginner first year students, enrolled in a mandatory English class at a university in southern Japan (n = 209), took a Mastery Sentence midterm test of 10 items selected from their assigned vocabulary word list of 40 words. This test was given at the beginning of one class in June 2017. Towards the end of that same 90 minute class, students took an English to Japanese translation test of those same 10 individual items. Unfortunately, 81 students had perfect scores on the translation test, leading to a ceiling effect. These 81 were deleted from the data pool, leaving 128. Overall, mastery sentence test scores were higher than translation test scores. Results found that for 19% of the possible pairings, the mastery sentences did not match the translation; neither both were correct or both were incorrect. Also for half of the tested items more than 21% showed the same mismatch. It was concluded that mastery sentences did not consistently reflect actual word meaning knowledge.


Keywords

mastery sentences, L2 to L1 translation test, vocabulary

Full Text:

PDF

References


Author (2014). Some paper. Some journal 3 (1), 29–43.

Author & Author 2. (2012). Some paper. Some journal 1 (1), 10-11.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.

Eyckmans, J. (2004). Measuring receptive vocabulary size. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT (Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap).

Folse, K. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293. doi: 10.2307/40264523

Gallacher, A. (2015). Mastery Sentences: A window into the interplay between word knowledge types. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction 4 (1), 74-82.

Hulstijn, J., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539–558.

Kim, Y. (2008). The Role of Task-Induced Involvement and Learner Proficiency in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition. Language Learning 58 (2), 285-325.

Laufer, B. (2003). Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review/ LaRevue canadienne des langues vivantes, 59(4), 567-587. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.59.4.567.

Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning, 54(3), 399–436. doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x

Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22, 1–26.

Laufer, B. & Paribakht, T.S., 1998. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), pp.365-391. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00046

McLean, S., Stewart, J. & Kramer, B. (2016). A Comparison of multiple-choice and yes/no test formats with a meaning-recall knowledge criterion. Vocab@Tokyo Conference Handbook, 127-128.

McNeil, A. (1996). Vocabulary knowledge profiles: evidence from Chinese-speaking ESL teachers. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1), 39–64.

Masson, M. (2012). Student feedback regarding the use of ‘mastery sentences’. Vocabulary Education and Research Bulletin 1 (1), 5-6.

Meara, P. (1996). The vocabulary knowledge frame work. Retrieved June 15, 2017 from: http://www.lognostics.co.uk/vlibrary/meara1996c.pdf

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I.S.P., & Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analyzing vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle.

Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 9–29.

Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Scoring Yes–No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches. Language Testing, 29(4), 489-509.

Pichette, F., de Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2011). Sentence Reading and Writing for Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 1-18. doi: 10.1093/applin/amr037

Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. NY, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stewart, J., McLean, S. & Kramer, B. (2016). Two Empirical Examinations of the Effect of Guessing on VST Scores. Vocab@Tokyo Conference Handbook, 121-122.

Stoeckel, T. & Stewart, J. (2016). The “I don’t know” option and L1 answer choices: A comparison of four variants of the Vocabulary Size Test. Vocab@Tokyo Handbook, 133-134

Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15 (2), 130-163. Retrieved June 15, 2017 from: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/October2003/waring/waring.pdf.

Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and Productive Vocabulary Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.

Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth vs. breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–39.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)

ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)



Publisher:

University of Niš

Univerzitetski trg 2, 18000 Niš, Serbia
Phone:    +381 18 257 095
Telefax:  +381 18 257 950


© 2013 by University of Niš, Serbia