Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching

Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz
SSLLT 11 (3). 2021. 351-376
http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.3.3
http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt

Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English

as an additional language learners’
reading comprehension

Gavin Brooks
Kwansei Gakuin University, Sanda, Japan
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9839-1593
[email protected]

Jon Clenton
Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3048-8807
[email protected]

Simon Fraser
Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8151-4625
[email protected]

Abstract
This exploratory study represents an attempt to investigate the factors that
may affect the reading comprehension abilities of English as an additional lan-
guage (EAL) learners. For this study, we examined a participant group of 31
(25 EAL and 6 first language English) learners studying at an international
school in Japan. We assessed the participants according to four factors shown
to influence reading comprehension: vocabulary knowledge, word decoding
skills, reading fluency, and general linguistic ability. Our results show that dif-
ferences in vocabulary knowledge show more variance in reading comprehen-
sion scores than the other factors examined in this study, highlighting the im-
portance of vocabulary knowledge for reading comprehension. However,
other factors such as reading fluency and general linguistic knowledge are also

351
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

shown to be moderate to strong predictors of reading comprehension. Based

on these results, we suggest that EAL learners need targeted language support
to enhance academic text comprehension.

Keywords: English as an additional language (EAL); vocabulary knowledge;

general language ability; reading comprehension

1. Introduction

In recent years, pressure has been rising worldwide to provide support for learn-
ers without English as their first language (Murphy, 2014). Such pressure is evi-
dent in the UK, for instance, with schools experiencing increases as dramatic as
16.2% (2013) in the number of learners whose home language is one other than
English (Strand et al., 2015). To support education in light of such increases, a
better understanding of the needs of these English as an additional language
(EAL) learners is an essential and urgent requirement (Hawkins, 2005).
One specific aspect of knowledge with which EAL learners have been
shown to struggle is vocabulary. Typically, EAL learners start their educational
careers with significantly lower levels of vocabulary knowledge compared to
their first language English (FLE) counterparts (NALDIC, 2015). Moreover, EAL
learners also typically take longer to master the high-frequency vocabulary es-
sential for academic success (Coxhead & Boutorwick, 2018). While previous re-
search (e.g., August et al., 2005; Coxhead & Boutorwick, 2018) supports the as-
sertion that EAL learners likely have less developed vocabularies than their FLE
counterparts, what remains unclear is how such discrepancies impact their abil-
ity to function in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) classrooms.
One area where this acknowledged lack of vocabulary knowledge (Murphy
& Unthiah, 2015) has the potential to influence EAL learner academic success is
reading comprehension, a specific and manifestly important academic skill EAL
learners have been shown to struggle with (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003). Vocabu-
lary is central to the reading process, and learners who are unable to master the
vocabulary of the texts that are being used in their classes often struggle to com-
prehend the required classroom reading (Coxhead et al., 2010). While it is unclear
precisely how much vocabulary EAL learners need to succeed academically in EMI
schools, research has shown that EAL learners often struggle with two types of
vocabulary that are known to be essential for academic success, that is, high-fre-
quency and academic vocabulary (Coxhead & Boutorwick, 2018).
The exact number of words learners need to know to understand a given
text is grade and subject dependent (Green & Lambert, 2019; Greene & Coxhead,

352
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

2015). However, research acknowledges that knowledge of both high-frequency

and academic vocabulary, in a generic sense, is essential across all grades and sub-
jects (Nation, 2016). Laufer (1997) suggested that, in order to understand a text,
learners need to be able to automatically access at least the 3,000 most frequent
word families. For EAL learners studying in a classroom where English is the medium
of instruction, the number of words required is higher: Nation (2006), for instance,
indicates that students need to know the first 8,000 to 9,000 word families to be
able to understand the types of literary novels EAL students are expected to engage
with in the classroom. This number is relatively consistent over many different types
of literary works and non-fiction books (Coxhead, 2012).
Vocabulary knowledge is also vital for EAL learners to be able to succeed
in technical subjects like math and science (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020). For
example, a study by Greene and Coxhead (2015), examining the range and fre-
quency of words found in a corpus compiled from science textbooks being used
by middle-school classrooms in the USA, found that eighth-grade students
would need a vocabulary of at least the first 7,000 word families to understand
these texts. This number is supported by a similar study done by Coxhead et al.
(2010) on high school science textbooks being used in New Zealand. They found
that learners would need to know between 11,000 (for Grade 9 and 10) to 15,000
word families (for Grade 11) plus proper nouns to reach the 98% coverage Nation
(2006) found to be necessary for comprehension. Given that many EAL learners
reportedly fail to master even the 2,000 most frequent words right up until the
ninth grade (Coxhead & Boutorwick, 2018), it is evident that they would struggle
when having to comprehend such texts. However, despite the clear need for
vocabulary knowledge across grades and subjects, it is still unclear to what de-
gree discrepancies in the vocabulary knowledge of EAL learners will impact their
ability to succeed academically in the EMI classroom. The current study, there-
fore, is designed to respond to this gap, following up on the call by a variety of
researchers for more studies explicitly designed to provide a better understand-
ing of the academic challenges faced by EAL learners worldwide (e.g., Graves et
al., 2012; Henriksen & Danelund, 2015; Oxley & de Cat, 2019).

2. Literature review

2.1. The importance of reading comprehension for EAL learners

Reading comprehension difficulties are a primary reason for EAL academic un-
derperformance (Murphy & Unthiah, 2015). In the UK, both research (Twist et
al., 2007) and national test scores (Burgoyne et al., 2009) indicate that a lack of
reading comprehension in English is one of the main reasons why EAL learners

353
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

consistently struggle academically in comparison to their FLE peers. Because of

the various components involved in creating meaning from a written text, read-
ing comprehension is a complex skill for EAL learners to master. Lower levels of
grammatical and lexical EAL proficiency are often compounded by commensu-
rate unfamiliarity with cultural references found in classroom texts (Hill, 2011).
Such difficulties need to be considered in light of other issues that relate to
learner strategies: Strategies that help to facilitate reading comprehension are
an essential component for the meaningful understanding of written input (Lin,
2010), and reading comprehension itself is an integral part of the reorganization
and evaluation modes of comprehension necessary for academic success (Hill,
2011). Accordingly, EAL learners are at a much higher risk of prolonged academic
failure because many enter the (English language) education system after clas-
ses have begun (Fawcett & Lynch, 2000). Because of this, the acquisition of the
essential skills they require to be able to read at the same level as their peers
can take a considerable amount of time and effort to develop (Murphy, 2014).
To address these concerns, a better understanding of the underlying factors re-
sponsible for this group of learners, struggle to comprehend texts written in
English is essential.

2.2. Factors influencing EAL learners’ reading comprehension

The above section has outlined the importance of reading comprehension for
EAL learners; here, we detail the factors acknowledged to influence reading
comprehension. While reading comprehension is a complex process and a diffi-
cult skill to assess, various influencing factors have been found to affect a
learner’s ability to comprehend English language texts (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg,
2014). These factors include, but are not exclusive to: vocabulary knowledge
(Qian, 2002), the ability to decode the English orthographic representation of
words (Melby-Lervåg et al., 2012), reading fluency (Fraser, 2007), and general
language proficiency (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020). The following subsections
explore these different factors, attempting to summarize some of the major
findings relevant to the study reported later in the current paper.

2.2.1. Vocabulary knowledge

Vocabulary knowledge has been shown to be a key predictor of reading com-

prehension for both EAL learners (Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014; Lervåg &
Aukrust, 2010) and FLE learners (Ouellette & Beers, 2010; Tunmer & Chapman,
2012). Such vocabulary studies indicate that poor vocabulary skills can signifi-
cantly limit a learner’s ability to comprehend written texts (Burgoyne et al., 2009).

354
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

While higher levels of vocabulary coverage (e.g., 98% to 100%) do not necessarily
result in 100% comprehension, studies indicate that vocabulary knowledge is a
necessary condition for comprehension (e.g., Hsueh-Chao & Nation, 2000; Laufer,
1989; Schmitt et al., 2011). In the classroom, lack of vocabulary knowledge can
make it challenging for EAL learners to use written texts to complete tasks and
answer questions (Burgoyne et al., 2009), which can result in EAL learners strug-
gling academically.

2.2.2. Word decoding skills

To effectively comprehend texts, learners need to both decode words in texts (word
recognition) and use lexical information to understand meaning at both sentence
and discourse levels (Hoover & Gough, 1990). The simple view of reading empha-
sizes that decoding and comprehension are separate skills and function inde-
pendently of each other (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). It is, therefore, possible for learn-
ers to achieve good comprehension skills while having poor decoding skills (such as
for the learners with dyslexia). There are also learners, known as poor comprehend-
ers who have good decoding skills but poor comprehension skills (Yuill & Oakhill,
1991). Research suggests that such findings are equivocal for EAL learners. While
most research shows that EAL learners struggle with reading comprehension skills
despite having good decoding skills (Burgoyne et al., 2009; Hutchinson et al., 2003),
some studies suggest that there are situations where EAL learners also struggle with
decoding skills (García & Cain, 2014; K. Nation & Snowling, 2014).

2.2.3. Reading fluency

The National Reading Panel (2000) defines reading fluency as the ability to read a text
quickly, accurately, and with proper expression, which refers to the ability to use the
appropriate pauses and intonation when reading a text aloud. A fluent reader is one
that can read both accurately and fast (Grabe, 2010). Fluency is seen as an essential
aspect of reading comprehension because it is indicative of the amount of cognitive
resources the reader has to allocate to word decoding and word recognition (Adlof et
al., 2006). As readers become able to decode and recognize words faster and more
automatically, they are able to allocate more of their limited cognitive resources to
the task of textual comprehension (Geva & Zadeh, 2006). Accordingly, both L1 (Geva
& Zadeh, 2006) and L2 (Fraser, 2007; Jiang et al., 2012) studies show strong and sig-
nificant correlations between fluency and reading comprehension.
However, despite the apparent link between fluency and reading compre-
hension, for EAL learners, high levels of reading fluency may not correlate with
good reading comprehension (Lesaux et al., 2010). A study by Rasinski et al. (2011)

355
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

with 16,143 Grade 4 through 10 students studying at schools in the USA found that
improvements in fluency resulted in better reading comprehension, for all groups
except EAL learners. EAL specific studies (e.g., Farnia & Geva, 2011; Lee & Chen,
2019) suggest an evolving proficiency dynamic: Where for less proficient L2 learn-
ers, fluency can contribute independently to reading comprehension, while for
more proficient L2 learners reading comprehension is better explained by the inter-
action between reading fluency, oral proficiency, and vocabulary.

2.2.4. General language ability

While most researchers agree that language ability is multidimensional (Bach-

man & Palmer, 2010), renewed interest is emerging in language testing regard-
ing how these discrete dimensions of proficiency can be united under an over-
arching construct (e.g., Harsch, 2014; Wang & Treffers-Daller, 2017). This notion
of general language ability allows for individual learner language proficiency to
be conceptualized as both unitary and divisible, depending on the purpose of
the assessment and the level of abstraction (Harsch, 2014). By including both
holistic and discrete measures of language proficiency in our study of EAL learn-
ers’ reading comprehension, we are able to explore the extent to which measures
of specific components of language ability, such as scores on a vocabulary levels
test, are able to explain variance in reading comprehension over and above
measures of the participants’ general language ability.
While the contribution that specific language skills, such as vocabulary
and word decoding skills, make to reading comprehension is widely acknowl-
edged, the contribution of general language ability to reading comprehension
appears comparatively under-researched. One potential reason for this imbal-
ance might relate to the reported difficulty in assessing EAL learners’ general
language abilities. One recent study (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020), however,
showed that the C-test was useful in understanding the specific language profi-
ciency profiles of EAL learners. The C-test measures general language ability by
making use of the reduced redundancy principle (RRP), testing learner linguistic
knowledge by introducing interference and seeing how well the test taker can use
their other linguistic skills to compensate (Babaii & Ansary, 2001). The C-test ap-
pears to be an effective measure of linguistic proficiency for the EAL learner be-
cause it measures both micro-level skills (word-level skills) and macro-level skills.
Gaps in the text can only be completed if test takers understand and take into
account the broader grammar or vocabulary of the text (Baghaei & Grotjahn,
2014). C-test scores have been reported to correlate strongly with scores on more
comprehensive written and spoken tests (Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006), as well as to
provide indications of global language proficiency (Dörnyei & Katona, 1992). The

356
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

current study aims to shed more light on the relationship between vocabulary and
reading comprehension by including the C-test to measure the learners’ general
language ability along with a measure of both decoding and vocabulary skills.

2.2.5. Multiple factors

While the majority of the studies discussed above focus on the effects of a single fac-
tor on reading comprehension, studies have also looked at the effects of multiple fac-
tors with regard to their effect on reading comprehension. Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg
(2014) conducted a meta-analysis on 82 studies that look at both L1 and L2 reading
comprehension in relation to a number of factors, including language comprehen-
sion, phonetic awareness, and decoding skills. They found that in these studies both
language comprehension and decoding were factors as to why second-language
learners lagged behind their first-language counterparts in reading comprehension.
Another meta-analysis of 58 studies conducted by Jeon and Yamashita (2014) found
that grammatical knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, and word decoding skills were
the three strongest correlates of reading comprehension for L2 learners.
In a longitudinal study of young learners (Grade 1 to 3), Bellocchi et al.
(2017) looked at how seven different factors influenced learners’ reading com-
prehension for both L1 and L2 Italian speakers. While both vocabulary and letter
knowledge were shown to be significant predictors for the L1 Italian learners,
the only significant predictor for the L2 Italian learners was morphosyntactic
comprehension. These results were different from those obtained by Tunmer
and Chapman (2012), who looked at the factors affecting reading comprehen-
sion with third-grade EAL learners studying at primary schools in New Zealand.
They found that vocabulary, word recognition, and listening comprehension all
made unique and significant contributions to reading comprehension.

2.3. Assessing reading comprehension

To accurately measure learners’ reading ability, it is first necessary to find an assess-

ment tool that measures the constructs that directly relate to reading comprehen-
sion (Ready et al., 2013). According to Treffers-Daller and Huang (2020), the most
widely accepted description of the construct of reading comprehension is Gough
and Tunmer’s (1986) simple view of reading. The simple view of reading states that
a learner’s reading ability is defined by two different factors, that is, their ability to
decode words and their linguistic comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990). First,
decoding refers to the learner’s ability to link the symbols written on the page and
the appropriate entry in their mental lexicon. This process requires the learner to
make use of letter-sound relationships to identify unfamiliar words in the text and

357
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

to be able to connect these printed words with the spoken counterparts in their
lexical memory (Tunmer & Nicholson, 2011). Beyond allowing the learner to read
the text in front of them, this process also enables them to develop detailed ortho-
graphic representations of words required for the automatization of word recogni-
tion (Ehri, 2005). A second important factor for reading ability is the learner’s ability
to use the lexical information they have decoded from the text to construct mean-
ing at both the sentence and discourse level (Gough & Tunmer, 1986).
The York Assessment of Reading Comprehension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2009)
is a comprehensive test of reading, which was developed based on the simple view
of reading. The test was initially developed for 11- to 16-year-old learners studying
in the UK. While the test has been validated for and used extensively to assess FLE
speakers, it is also suitable for non-native speakers of English studying in an EMI
secondary school context. The original sample of learners that was used to stand-
ardize the test includes data from 89 EAL learners who were studying at schools in
the UK. Furthermore, this test has been used and validated as a measure of L2 Eng-
lish learners’ reading comprehension skills in previous studies (e.g., Treffers-Daller
& Huang, 2020). While the scores of non-native speakers will usually fall below
those of native speakers, the test is still able to provide insight into how well EAL
learners are able to meet the reading comprehension levels required for their grade
level (see https://www.gl-assessment.co.uk/support/yarc-support).

3. The current study

While numerous studies have investigated the importance of vocabulary for

reading comprehension, most have focused on adult EFL or ESL learners (e.g.,
Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010; Qian, 2002). Even studies that have investi-
gated young learners have usually done so in the context of EFL language classes
(Henriksen et al., 2004; Stæhr, 2008). Studies that have investigated vocabulary
across age groups or learning environments suggest that the relationship be-
tween vocabulary and reading comprehension may vary according to participant
age (e.g., Schoonen et al., 1998), linguistic background (Geva & Farnia, 2012), and
learning context (e.g., Miralpeix & Muñoz, 2018). An agreed understanding of the
relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension is further compli-
cated by the fact that there are a number of additional factors that appear to in-
fluence reading comprehension. Those most cited in the literature are word de-
coding skills (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003), reading fluency (Geva & Zadeh, 2006),
and general language proficiency (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020).
Accordingly, the current study contributes to discussions on the relationship
between reading comprehension and vocabulary by considering this relationship in
the context of a specific group of learners: young EAL learners. We build on earlier

358
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

studies that have investigated reading comprehension influences and investigate

the relationship between vocabulary and reading comprehension in light of the
three most cited areas in the literature, namely: (a) word decoding skills, (b) reading
fluency, and (c) general linguistic ability. Our two research questions are:

1. To what degree does vocabulary knowledge correlate with reading com-

prehension, and how does this relationship compare with the way read-
ing comprehension correlates with other factors such as the learners’
word decoding skills, fluency, and general language ability?
2. Does vocabulary knowledge have a significant and independent effect
on learners’ reading comprehension ability?

4. Methodology

4.1. Participants

Thirty-one learners (N = 31) took part in the study (11 male and 20 female learners).
The student population of the school was heterogeneous and the participants in
this study are representative of the mix of nationalities and language backgrounds
that is commonly seen in international schools. Students were grouped using their
survey data as FLE or EAL speakers. Twenty-five (seven male and 18 female) stu-
dents were identified as EAL speakers and six (four male and two female) were iden-
tified as L1 (English) speakers. Of the 25 who were identified as EAL, 17 (five male
and 12 female) were classified as non-native speakers of English as an additional
language (NNSEAL), students identified by their classroom teachers as requiring ad-
ditional language support in the classroom. With the exception of one learner who
had just turned 16, all of the learners in this study ranged in age from 11 to 15.
Furthermore, all the participants had studied in English in the international school
context for at least two years. The EAL learners came from a diverse background of
first languages, including Japanese, Korean, Dutch and Croatian. The study took
place at an international school in western Japan. Outside of a specific Japanese
language class, instruction in the school is delivered exclusively in English. The
school curriculum follows the International Baccalaureate Middle School and Di-
ploma programs. Informed consent was obtained from the learners and their re-
spective parents or guardians prior to the start of the study.

4.2. Survey instruments and procedure

Data collection took place over two months between December 2017 and January
2018, during two sessions. During the first session, learners were given a battery of

359
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

two language tests, along with a survey designed to provide insight into their lan-
guage background. During the second session, learners were interviewed individu-
ally and given Snowling et al.’s (2009) York Assessment of Reading for Comprehen-
sion as well as a Single Word Reading Test (SWRT). The first session took about an
hour to complete, while the second session took about 45 minutes per learner.
In the first session, learners were given the language survey, the C-test
and the New Vocabulary Levels Test (nVLT; see below) during regular class time.
The assessments were distributed and monitored by the learners’ regular class-
room teachers. While an hour was scheduled for the first session, most partici-
pants were able to complete the survey and assessments in around 45 minutes.
The C-test was used to measure learners’ general language ability. The C-
test is a modified version of a cloze test that requires test takers to complete the
missing parts of words in a text. As discussed above, the C-test uses RRP to
measures test takers’ micro-level skills (word-level skills) and macro-level skills
(Babaii & Ansary, 2001), and has been used effectively in the past to get a clearer
picture of EAL learners’ general language knowledge (e.g., Trakulphadetkrai et al.,
2020). In an earlier version of the C-test, Raatz and Klein-Braley (1981) deleted
the second part of every other word to present a consistent format (e.g., “The
deleted parts are given in bold”). Subsequently, others (e.g., Kamimoto, 1993)
suggested that a format where appropriate words are selected at random inter-
vals throughout the text would be more effective at measuring underlying lan-
guage proficiency. Kamimoto (1993) also emphasizes the importance of topic fa-
miliarity and text readability when constructing the C-test. The C-test we opted to
use had been validated in a number of previous studies (e.g., Ishihara et al., 2003;
Neff, 2015) and included text related to situations and contexts that would be
easily understood by EAL learners studying in Japan. The C-test was also prepared
following the principles for word deletion described by Kamimoto (1993), and 20
words, selected at random intervals, were deleted from each of the passages, in-
stead of reducing every second word as is done in some C-tests.
The C-test was scored by two raters with any discrepancies discussed. Al-
together, 12 responses across the three passages were highlighted. These re-
sponses ranged from misspellings (e.g., different vs. diffrent), grammatical errors
(e.g., group vs. groups) and semantic differences (e.g., where vs. wherever). While
some studies that use C-tests with adults only accept correctly spelt answers
(Eckes & Grotjahn, 2006), studies with younger learners often overlook minor
spelling errors (Linnemann & Wilbert, 2010; Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020). For
example, Trakulphaderkrai et al.’s (2020) study of young EAL learners awarded
a point for grammatically and semantically correct variations as well as simple
misspellings. In our study, with careful consideration of the learners’ age and
proficiency, we awarded points for words with minor spelling errors provided they

360
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

were grammatically correct, as this could be seen as a demonstration of com-

prehension by the learner. Each item on the test was worth two points, and the
maximum score possible on the C-test was 100.
The other assessment that the participants completed during the first ses-
sion was McLean and Kramer’s (2016) New Vocabulary Levels Test. The nVLT was
chosen over the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT; Schmitt et al., 2001) because it was
developed using a more modern set of word lists, that is, Nation’s (2012) British
National Corpus (BNC)/Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) word
lists. The nVLT is a test of word families and includes a measure for each of the
first 5,000-word bands as well as the Academic Word List (AWL). The use of mul-
tiple-choice questions also made it easier to examine the test residuals for possi-
ble mis-fitting items or participants (Kremmel, 2018). In the nVLT, each word band
consists of 24 items, while the section assessing the AWL is made up of 30 items.
Following earlier studies (Coxhead & Boutorwick, 2018; Read, 1988; Schmitt et
al., 2001), the level of mastery was set at 86%. Learners needed a score of 21 or
more on each of the frequency bands to be considered to have mastery of a spe-
cific band. For the AWL section, a score of 26 or higher was used.
The second session, in which the YARC test was conducted, consisted of
participants completing two different assessments, the first of which was the
SWRT, a test of word decoding. The SWRT assessment consists of 70 words
grouped into bands of ten, with the words becoming progressively more difficult
as test-takers advance through the test. The first band consists of words such as
see and look, and the seventh band is made up of words such as lacerate and
pharmaceutical. The SWRT, which can be done independently or as part of the
YARC procedure, serves a dual purpose: The first is to provide information about
test taker decoding skills whereas the second is as a diagnostic, positioning test
takers at the correct level of the YARC test and determining the passages they
are to read. The YARC test was then used to assess the learners’ reading ability
(accuracy, comprehension, and rate).
The YARC test consists of three levels, and each level has three sections.
For the first section, the participants are asked to read two passages, one fiction
and one non-fiction. These passages are read silently. After the participants have
finished reading the passage, they have to answer thirteen comprehension
questions, each one worth one point, about the passage. While answering the
questions, the participants are able to refer back to the passage. For the second
part of the YARC, the participants are asked to summarize the passage that they
just read from memory. The summarization part of the assessment is worth
eight or nine points, depending on the passage, with one point awarded for each
of the key details from the passage that the participant is able to recall and sum-
marize. Part three of the YARC assesses reading fluency. For this section, the

361
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

participants are asked to read a passage out loud. Depending on the level, the
passage contains 129 or 137 words. One point is awarded for each word read
correctly, and the reading rate is calculated by dividing the number of words
read correctly by the time taken to read the passage. The test taker’s age, along
with the difficulty of the passage they read, and the number of words they read
per second is used to determine a reading fluency score out of 130. The stand-
ardized scores for the YARC test, rather than the raw scores, were used for anal-
ysis. This was done because the YARC consists of different passages for different
proficiency levels. The YARC provides a way to convert the raw scores from each
of the passages to an ability score that provides an estimate of the participant’s
level based on the abilities being measured in that passage. To determine the
test taker’s reading comprehension performance in relation to standardized
norms, these ability scores are then converted to standardized scores. The
standardized scores were calculated out of the 130 points possible.
Thus, for each participant, five separate data points were obtained: (a) a
measure of their general language ability in English, as given by the C-test; (b) a
measure of their vocabulary knowledge provided by the nVLT; (c) a measure of
their word decoding skills, as measured by the SWRT; (d) a measure of their
reading fluency, as given by their scores on the fluency passage of the YARC as-
sessment; and (e) a measure of their reading comprehension scores, as given by
the YARC reading comprehension assessment.

4.3. Analysis

The descriptive statistics of both the response variable and the explanatory var-
iables are provided in Table 1. We also investigated if the scores on the different
assessments were normally distributed. No significant differences were found
with the normal distribution for any of the test results, and the scatter plots of
the response and explanatory variables showed that they were distributed in a
linear pattern. Furthermore, no floor or ceiling effects were found.

Table 1 Means and standard deviations of all variables (N = 31)

Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Reading comprehension 108.19 12.74 79 128
nVLT 124.19 22.27 58 147
C-test 77.23 20.72 14 98
SWRT 58.06 7.97 35 69
Fluency 104.13 14.63 70 130
Note. Reading comprehension = YARC reading comprehension ability scores (maximum 130); nVLT = raw
scores of the nVLT (maximum 150); C-test = raw scores of the C-test (maximum 100); SWRT = raw scores
on the SWRT (maximum 70); fluency = YARC reading fluency standardized scores (maximum 130)

362
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

An initial overview of the nVLT scores (see Table 2) indicates that there was still
a high number of learners who had not achieved mastery of the mid-frequency word
bands or the AWL. Mirroring the results found in previous studies (Coxhead & Bou-
torwick, 2018), we found that prior to Grade 9 a high number of the participants were
still unable to master the high-frequency words in the 2,000 and 3,000-word bands,
and learners from all grade levels struggled to master the AWL. Given the importance
of the AWL for the understanding of school textbooks (Greene & Coxhead, 2015;
Nagy & Anderson, 1984), a lack of mastery of these vocabulary items would mean
that these learners would struggle to be able to read at their grade level.

Table 2 Mastery of vocabulary by grades (all learners)

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 AWL
Grades 6 to 8 (N = 17) 100% 65% 29% 53% 53% 29%
Grades 9 to 10 (N = 14) 100% 100% 43% 43% 64% 57%
Note. AWL = Academic Word List

Furthermore, EAL participants were much more likely to struggle to mas-

ter high-frequency vocabulary than FLE learners (see Table 3). Only one of the
FLE participants (a Grade 7 student) did not show mastery of the 5,000 most
frequent word families. However, there were two FLE learners who did not show
mastery of the AWL, indicating that vocabulary knowledge may still be an issue
even with this group of learners.

Table 3 Mastery of vocabulary by language background

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 AWL
FLE (N = 6) 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 67%
EAL (N = 25) 100% 76% 28% 48% 44% 28%
Note. FLE = first language English; EAL = English as an additional language learner; AWL = Academic Word List

For each of the nVLT, C-test and YARC assessments validity was assessed
using a combination of a Rasch analysis (nVLT and C-test; Beglar, 2010) and
Cronbach’s alpha (CA) (C-test and YARC; Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020). For the
C-test, the Rasch analysis showed a good fit to the model and there were no
mis-fitting questions or learners found in the residuals. The reliability of the C-
test was high with a CA coefficient of .824. Together, these show that the C-test
was a reliable measure of the participants’ general language ability. Overall, the
majority of the nVLT scores displayed a good fit to the Rasch model. However,
one Grade 10 EAL learner was shown to have a very high Outfit Score (Zstd =
8.76), so his results were removed from the analysis. The residuals showed no
other problems with the fit of the learners’ scores. The YARC was also shown to
be highly reliable with a CA coefficient of .936.

363
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

5. Results

In order to address the first research question (To what degree does vocabulary
knowledge correlate with reading comprehension, and how does this relationship
compare with the way reading comprehension correlates with other factors such as
the learners’ word decoding skills, fluency, and general language ability?), bivariate
correlational analyses were conducted using the scores on the assessments in rela-
tion to the learners’ reading comprehension scores. Table 4 gives an overview of all
Pearson correlations between the variables for all learners. It reveals that the YARC
reading comprehension correlated most strongly with the nVLT (.86***), and the C-
test (.83***). The learners’ SWRT and fluency scores showed moderate and statis-
tically significant correlations with reading comprehension, with r values of .67***
and .70***, respectively. The fact that both the participants’ reading rates and their
word decoding skills correlated moderately and significantly with their YARC read-
ing comprehension scores means that the test potentially taps into the word de-
coding dimensions of reading detailed by the simple view of reading.

Table 4 Correlations between variables (N = 31)

C-test SWRT YARC fluency YARC comprehension
nVLT .90*** [.79, .95] .86*** [.73, .93] .73*** [.50, .86] .86*** [.73, .93]
C-test .85*** [.70, .92] .71*** [.47, .85] .83*** [.68, .92]
SWRT .74** [.52, .87] .67*** [.42, .83]
YARC fluency .70*** [.47, .85]
Note. SWRT = Single Word Reading Test; YARC = York Assessment of Reading Comprehension; nVLT =
New Vocabulary Levels Test. ** correlation significant at p < .01; *** correlation significant at p < .001;
values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation

Similar correlations were found when examining data from only the EAL
learners (see Table 5). Again, for this group of learners both the nVLT and C-test
correlate most strongly with reading comprehension with r values of .86*** and
.87***, respectively.

Table 5 Correlations between variables for EAL learners (N = 25)

C-test SWRT YARC fluency YARC comprehension
nVLT .90*** [.78, .96] .89*** [.75, .95] .71*** [.43, .86] .86*** [.70, .94]
C-test .84*** [.67, .93] .74*** [.49, .88] .87*** [.73, .94]
SWRT .74** [.49, .88] .70*** [.42, .86]
YARC fluency .69*** [.41, .85]
Note. SWRT = Single Word Reading Test; YARC = York Assessment of Reading Comprehension; nVLT =
New Vocabulary Levels Test. ** correlation significant at p < .01; *** correlation significant at p < .001;
values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation

364
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

Moving on to the second research question (Does vocabulary knowledge

have a significant and independent effect on learners’ reading comprehension
ability?), a partial correlation test was run (see Table 6) to determine the rela-
tionship between the participants’ reading comprehension and their vocabulary
ability whilst controlling for general language ability (C-test), reading fluency
(fluency), and word decoding skills (SWRT). In order to help compensate for the
small sample size the partial correlational analysis was done using bootstrapping
(Field et al., 2012). Bootstrapping provides a more robust method for examining
small sample sizes by estimating the properties of the sampling distribution
from the sample data (Bruce, 2015). It does this by treating the sample data as
the population and drawing smaller samples from this data, putting back the
data before a new case is drawn. The correlational coefficient can then be cal-
culated from each of these samples and the standard deviation of the sampling
distribution of the bootstrapped samples can be used to estimate the standard
error of the correlational coefficient (see Wright et al., 2011). From this standard
error, confidence intervals and significance tests can be computed.
The partial correlational test showed that there was a strong and statistically
significant partial correlation between the nVLT scores and reading comprehension
(r = .57, p < .001) whilst controlling for the other variables. In this model vocabulary
can be said to account for around 33% of the variance seen in the participants’ read-
ing comprehension scores, indicating that vocabulary does indeed have a strong
and independent effect on the participants’ reading comprehension.

Table 6 Partial correlational analysis of VLT and reading comprehension (N = 31)

Control variables Independent Reading
variable comprehension
C-test, SWRT, & nVLT Correlation .573***
YARC fluency
Significance (2-tailed) .001
Bootstrapa Bias -.057
Std. error .186
BCa 95% Confidence interval Lower .194
Upper .762
Note. SWRT = Single Word Reading Test; YARC = York Assessment of Reading Comprehension; nVLT = New
Vocabulary Levels Test. *** partial correlation significant at p < .001. a = bootstrap results are based on 2000
bootstrap samples

Further partial correlation analyses were then used to determine if the

effects of general language ability, word decoding, and fluency still correlated to
reading comprehension when vocabulary knowledge was accounted for (see Ta-
ble 7). In all cases, when controlling for vocabulary knowledge, the other assess-
ments did not show strong or significant correlational relationships with reading

365
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

comprehension. This would seem to indicate that these factors do not explain a
significant level of the variance in reading comprehension scores after vocabu-
lary knowledge has been taken into account. This serves to further highlight the
importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension.

Table 7 Partial correlational analysis of the C-test, SWRT, fluency, and reading
comprehension while controlling for vocabulary knowledge (N = 31)
Control Independent Reading
variables variable comprehension
nVLT C-test Correlation .273
Significance (2-tailed) .144
Bootstrapa Bias -.035
Std. error .149
BCa 95% Confidence interval Lower -.027
Upper .721
nVLT SWRT Correlation -.279
Significance (2-tailed) .136
Bootstrapa Bias .027
Std. error .198
BCa 95% Confidence interval Lower -.654
Upper .275
nVLT YARC Correlation .225
fluency
Significance (2-tailed) .232
Bootstrapa Bias -.003
Std. error .139
BCa 95% Confidence interval Lower -.043
Upper .488
Note. SWRT = Single Word Reading Test; YARC = York Assessment of Reading Comprehension; nVLT =
New Vocabulary Levels Test. a = bootstrap results are based on 2000 bootstrap samples

6. Discussion

The findings presented in this paper align with a growing body of EAL learner
research indicating a critical relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension (Burgoyne et al., 2009; Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014; K.
Nation & Snowling, 2004). Similar to Burgoyne et al. (2009), our results show
that vocabulary knowledge had the strongest correlation to the participants’
reading comprehension abilities when compared to factors such as fluency or
word decoding. Accordingly, we agree with Burgoyne et al.’s (2009) assertion of
the central place for strengthening vocabulary knowledge to improve EAL learn-
ers’ reading ability. We also saw moderate correlations between reading com-
prehension and reading fluency, as Grabe (2010) predicted, and word decoding.
While some previous studies have shown stronger correlations between word

366
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

decoding skills and reading comprehension (e.g., Nation & Snowling, 2004), the most
probable reason for this difference is that these studies have tended to involve
younger EAL learners and the relationship between word decoding and reading
comprehension has been shown to decrease with age (Garcia & Cain, 2014).
One important difference between the current study and earlier studies re-
lates to the context. While earlier EAL learner reading comprehension studies have
come from predominantly English speaking countries, the current study focuses on
learners in an international school context. We suggest, accordingly, that findings in
the current study might not entirely align with studies such as Hutchinson et al.
(2003), who looked at young EAL learners studying in the UK. While Hutchinson et
al. (2003) report that their EAL learners had lower vocabulary knowledge, the learn-
ers in their study only showed a two-year lag in receptive vocabulary knowledge
compared to FLE counterparts. By contrast, in the current study, our findings suggest
a significantly larger gap in the levels of vocabulary knowledge between the EAL and
FLE participants. This finding is consistent with other studies that have measured EAL
learner vocabulary knowledge in an international school context (Coxhead & Bou-
torwick, 2018). One potential reason for such differences when comparing our find-
ings and Coxhead and Boutorwick’s (2018) with those of Hutchinson et al. (2003)
might relate to the limited opportunities EALs have to use English outside of the
classroom in the international school context. When considered in conjunction with
the strong and significant correlation between vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension outlined above, such lower levels of vocabulary knowledge among
international school EAL learners underline the primary importance of vocabulary
intervention for this group of learners. Furthermore, on the basis that the interna-
tional school EAL learners appear to exhibit different linguistic profiles when com-
pared to EAL learners in predominantly English language speaking contexts, addi-
tional studies are necessary to determine EAL learner needs in international con-
texts. We believe that the current study is an important step in this direction.
An additional strength of the current study rests with the inclusion of tests
for general language ability (C-test) as well as word decoding skills (SWRT) along-
side vocabulary knowledge. By including such additional tests, the current study
provides a platform to investigate the potential contributions different aspects
of language knowledge make towards EAL learner reading comprehension.
While still a relatively new area of research, studies are beginning to examine
how different aspects of language knowledge along with more holistic measures
of general language proficiency correlate to skills such as listening comprehen-
sion (Wang & Treffers-Daller, 2017), reading comprehension (Droop & Verhoeven,
2003), and mathematics (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2017). Our results add to this
growing body of research and are supportive of the contribution general language
ability provides to reading comprehension (Droop & Verhoeven, 2003). The strong

367
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

correlation seen in our study between general language ability and reading compre-
hension might relate to suggestions (Trakulphadetkrai et al., 2020) that less successful
readers tend to focus on smaller units (word or sentence level) when constructing
meaning from written text, whereas more proficient and successful learners may em-
ploy a wider range of top-down, global strategies for text comprehension. As the C-
test requires learners to use a combination of bottom-up, word-based strategies
along with top-down, text-based strategies (Babaii & Ansary, 2001), the strong and
significant relationship between reading comprehension and this measure of general
linguistic knowledge seen in this study suggests that the C-test could provide a useful
tool for teachers to use in EAL classrooms, with a wide range of learner proficiencies,
to identify learners struggling with reading comprehension.

7. Limitations and implications

The current study has some limitations that need to be considered when interpreting
its findings. One potential issue concerns the vocabulary assessment tool being used
in the study, which is intended for use with adult learners. Currently, there are limited
assessment tools available specifically for EAL learners, and none that are designed to
measure the vocabulary knowledge of the type of EAL learners that participated in
this study. While some overlap of knowledge is likely, without further research, it re-
mains a challenge to determine the extent to which the word-frequency lists devel-
oped for adults, or the methods of assessing learners’ mastery of those frequency
bands, are appropriate for the young EAL learners. However, previous studies (Green
& Lambert, 2019; Greene & Coxhead, 2015) have shown that there are a number of
important differences between the vocabulary EAL learners are likely to encounter in
the classroom, compared to frequency lists developed for adult learners. Accordingly,
as part of a larger ongoing project, we are developing and testing vocabulary assess-
ment tools that can specifically be applied to young EAL learner assessment, which
we aim to publish in the future. Further limitations of the current study relate to the
context of the research. While our data represent assessments conducted with learn-
ers from diverse linguistic backgrounds, the study focuses exclusively on learners
studying in the Japanese context. We intend to expand the scope our study in the
future by investigating participants from international schools outside of Japan, in or-
der to explore the extent to which our findings can be applied elsewhere. Further-
more, the number of participants assessed in this study was relatively small, and so
we also hope to extend our research to other international schools in Japan to in-
crease the number of learners participating in the study.
Despite the limitations discussed above, the current study offers two important
implications for the classroom. First, as other researchers have advocated (e.g.,
Coxhead et al., 2010; Green & Lambert, 2019), EAL teachers who wish to improve

368
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

their learners’ reading comprehension should focus first and foremost on improving
their learners’ vocabulary knowledge. Given that the current study was not an in-
tervention study, we cannot use our results to offer suggestions regarding the spe-
cific types of vocabulary instruction teachers should follow. However, ample sup-
port from previous studies shows that a principled approach to the teaching of vo-
cabulary, with both intentional vocabulary learning activities and sufficient oppor-
tunities for incidental learning, can aid EAL learners in improving their reading com-
prehension (Greene & Coxhead, 2015; Murphy & Unthiah, 2015). Second, the re-
sults of our study demonstrate the potential benefits of using vocabulary assess-
ment as a pedagogical tool to help identify learners who may need additional sup-
port in the classroom; something other researchers in the field (e.g., Coxhead &
Boutorwick, 2018; Greene & Coxhead, 2015) also endorse.

8. Conclusion

Given that our study has demonstrated that vocabulary knowledge appears so
important for EAL learners, we feel that it is essential for teachers to provide vo-
cabulary support for both EAL and FLE learners in the classroom. Furthermore,
the apparent importance of vocabulary for EAL learners’ reading comprehension
indicates that teachers should focus on improving these learners’ vocabulary
knowledge. Teaching EAL learners the vocabulary they need to succeed academi-
cally is something that can be done both inside the classroom and through pullout
programs. EAL and FLE learners alike should be encouraged to expand the depth
and breadth of their vocabulary knowledge as both have been shown to be im-
portant factors for reading comprehension in both this and other studies (e.g.,
Treffers-Daller & Huang, 2020). This greater focus on vocabulary in the classroom
is essential if EAL learners are to be able to comprehend the texts that they are
being asked to read for class. However, it is important to stress that vocabulary
must be looked at in the context of the other factors that have been shown to
influence reading comprehension, such as reading fluency and general language
ability. As such, it would be prudent for teachers, even in the EAL context where
there is often a greater focus on having students learn the content of the course
rather than the language itself, to incorporate tasks that help students to improve
their overall English language abilities as well as their reading fluency.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research under Grant num-
ber 17K03035.

369
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

References

Adlof, S. M., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2006). Should the simple view of reading
include a fluency component? Reading and Writing, 19(9), 933-958. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9024-z
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research
& Practice: A Publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for
Exceptional Children, 20(1), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.20
05.00120.x
Babaii, E., & Ansary, H. (2001). The C-test: A valid operationalization of reduced re-
dundancy principle. System, 29(2), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-2
51x(01)00012-4
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (2010). Language assessment in practice. Oxford
University Press.
Baghaei, P., & Grotjahn, R. (2014). Establishing the construct validity of conver-
sational C-tests using a multidimensional Rasch model. Psychological Test
and Assessment Modeling, 56, 60-82. https://www.psychologie-aktuell.c
om/fileadmin/download/ptam/1-2014_20140324/04_Baghaei.pdf
Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the Vocabulary Size Test. Language
Testing, 27(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209340194
Bellocchi, S., Tobia, V., & Bonifacci, P. (2017). Predictors of reading and compre-
hension abilities in bilingual and monolingual children: A longitudinal study
on a transparent language. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1311-1334. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9725-5
Bruce, P. C. (2015). Introductory statistics and analytics. John Wiley & Sons.
Burgoyne, K., Kelly, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., & Spooner, A. (2009). The comprehen-
sion skills of children learning English as an additional language. The British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1348
/000709909X422530
Coxhead, A. (2012). Researching vocabulary in secondary school English texts: ‘The
hunger games’ and more. English in Aotearoa, 78, 34-41. https://doi.org/10.
3316/informit.984965735419059
Coxhead, A., & Boutorwick, T. J. (2018). Longitudinal vocabulary development in an
EMI international school context: Learners and texts in EAL, maths, and sci-
ence. TESOL Quarterly, 52(3), 588-610. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.450
Coxhead, A., Stevens, L., & Tinkle, J. (2010). Why might secondary science textbooks
be difficult to read. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 37-52.

370
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

Dörnyei, Z., & Katona, L. (1992). Validation of the C-test amongst Hungarian EFL
learners. Language Testing, 9(2), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265
53229200900206
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in
first-and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1),
78-103. https://doi.org/10.1598/rrq.38.1.4
Eckes, T., & Grotjahn, R. (2006). A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Lan-
guage Testing, 23(3), 290-325. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt330oa
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific
Studies of Reading: The Official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study
of Reading, 9(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Farnia, F., & Geva, E. (2011). Cognitive correlates of vocabulary growth in English
language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(4), 711-738. https://doi.
org/10.1017/s0142716411000038
Fawcett, A. J., & Lynch, L. (2000). Systematic identification and intervention for
reading difficulty: Case studies of children with EAL. Dyslexia, 6(1), 57-71.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0909(200001/03)6:1<57::AID-DYS163>3.0.CO;2-W
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage.
Fraser, C. A. (2007). Reading rate in L1 mandarin Chinese and L2 English across
five reading tasks. Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 372-394. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00587.x
García, J. R., & Cain, K. (2014). Decoding and reading comprehension: A meta-
analysis to identify which reader and assessment characteristics influence
the strength of the relationship in English. Review of Educational Re-
search, 84(1), 74-111. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499616
Geva, E., & Farnia, F. (2012). Developmental changes in the nature of language
proficiency and reading fluency paint a more complex view of reading
comprehension in ELL and EL1. Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1819-1845.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9333-8
Geva, E., & Zadeh, Z. Y. (2006). Reading efficiency in native English-speaking and
English-as-a-second-language children: The role of oral proficiency and
underlying cognitive-linguistic processes. Scientific Studies of Reading:
The Official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 10(1),
31-57. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1001_3
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial
and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Grabe, W. (2010). Fluency in reading: Thirty-five years later. Reading in a Foreign Language,
22(1), 71-83. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/66645
Graves, M. F., August, D., & Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2012). Teaching vocabulary to
English language learners. Teachers College Press.

371
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

Green, C., & Lambert, J. (2019). Position vectors, homologous chromosomes and
gamma rays: Promoting disciplinary literacy through Secondary Phrase Lists. Eng-
lish for Specific Purposes, 53, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.08.004
Greene, J. W., & Coxhead, A. J. (2015). Academic vocabulary for middle school
students. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Harsch, C. (2014). General language proficiency revisited: Current and future is-
sues. Language Assessment Quarterly, 11(2), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15434303.2014.902059
Hawkins, E. (2005). Out of this nettle, drop-out, we pluck this flower, opportunity:
Re-thinking the school foreign language apprenticeship. The Language Learn-
ing Journal, 32(1), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730585200141
Henriksen, B., Albrechtsen, D., & Haastrup, K. (2004). The relationship between
vocabulary size and reading comprehension in the L2. Angles on the Eng-
lish-Speaking World, 4(1), 129-140.
Henriksen, B., & Danelund, L. (2015). Studies of Danish L2 learners’ vocabulary
knowledge and the lexical richness of their written production in English.
In P. Pietilä, K. Doró, & P. Renata (Eds.), Lexical issues in L2 writing (pp. 29-
55). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hill, C. (2011). What can teachers do to improve reading comprehension?: An ex-
amination of second language reading research and implications for English
language teaching practices. The Arbutus Review, 2(1), 62-74. https://doi.org
/10.18357/tar2120119063
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and
Writing, 2, 127-160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799
Hsueh-Chao, M. H., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and read-
ing comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403-430. https:
//doi.org/10125/66973
Hutchinson, J. M., Whiteley, H. E., Smith, C. D., & Connors, L. (2003). The developmental
progression of comprehension-related skills in children learning EAL. Journal of
Research in Reading, 26(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.261003
Ishihara, K., Hiser, E., & Okada, T. (2003). Modifying C-test for practical purposes.
Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 5(4), 539-568. https://doi.org/
10.14988/pa.2017.0000004420
Jeon, E. H., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates:
A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64(1), 160-212. https://doi.org/10.1
111/lang.12034
Jiang, X., Sawaki, Y., & Sabatini, J. (2012). Word reading efficiency, text reading fluency,
and reading comprehension among Chinese learners of English. Reading Psy-
chology, 33(4), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2010.526051

372
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

Kamimoto, T. (1993). Tailoring the test to fit the students: Improvement of the
C-test through classical item analysis. Language Laboratory, 30, 47-61.
https://doi.org/10.24539/llaj.30.0_47
Kremmel, B. (2018). Development and initial validation of a diagnostic computer-
adaptive profiler of vocabulary knowledge (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nottingham). Nottingham eTheses. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/49085/
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension.
In C. Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), From humans thinking to thinking ma-
chines (pp. 316-323). Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t
know, words you think you know, and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady
& T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for
pedagogy (pp. 20-34). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.10
17/CBO9781139524643.004
Laufer, B., & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010). Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text
coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 22(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10125/66648
Lee, K., & Chen, X. (2019). An emergent interaction between reading fluency and vo-
cabulary in the prediction of reading comprehension among French immersion
elementary students. Reading and Writing, 32(7), 1657-1679. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11145-018-9920-z
Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant
of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second
language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Dis-
ciplines, 51(5), 612-620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02185.x
Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles:
Language minority learners’ word reading, vocabulary, and reading com-
prehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6),
475-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.004
Lin, L.-F. (2010). The impact of the retelling technique on Chinese students’ Eng-
lish reading comprehension. Asian EFL Journal, 12(2), 163-191. http://asi
an-efl-journal.com/PDF/June-2010.pdf
Linnemann, M., & Wilbert, J. (2010). The C-test: A valid instrument for screening
language skills and reading comprehension of children with learning prob-
lems. In R. Grotjahn (Ed.), C-test: Contributions from current research (pp.
113-124). Peter Lang.
McLean, S., & Kramer, B. (2016). The creation of a new vocabulary levels test.
Shiken, 19(1), 1-9. http://teval.jalt.org/node/33
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A. (2014). Reading comprehension and its underly-
ing components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies

373
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

comparing first-and second-language learners. Psychological Bulletin,

140(2), 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033890.supp
Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and
their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 138(2), 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
Miralpeix, I., & Muñoz, C. (2018). Receptive vocabulary size and its relationship
to EFL language skills. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Lan-
guage Teaching, 56(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0016
Murphy, V. A. (2014). Second language learning in the early school years: Trends
and contexts. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, V. A., & Unthiah, A. (2015). A systematic review of intervention research
examining English language and literacy development in children with English
as an Additional Language (EAL). Educational Endowment Foundation. http://
www.naldic.org.uk/Resources/NALDIC/Research%20and%20Information/D
ocuments/eal-systematic-review-prof-v-murphy.pdf
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed
school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304-330. https://doi.org
/10.2307/747823
NALDIC. (2015). EAL Achievement: The latest information on how well EAL learners do
in standardized assessments compared to all students. National Association for
Language Development in the Curriculum. https://www.naldic.org.uk/rese
arch-and-information/eal-statistics/ealachievement/
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader lan-
guage skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research
in Reading, 27(4), 342-356. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00238.x
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
Nation, P. (2012). The BNC/COCA word family lists. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/ass
ets/pdf_file/0005/1857641/about-bnc-coca-vocabulary-list.pdf
Nation, P. (2016). Making and using word lists for language learning and testing.
John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.208
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment
of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading in-
struction (NIH Pub. No. 00-4769). National Institutes of Health, National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/defau
lt/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
Neff, P. (2015). Peer review use in the EFL writing classroom (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Temple University, Japan Campus). Temple University Electronic Theses
and Dissertations. https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p2458
01coll10/id/329588/rec/1

374
 Exploring the importance of vocabulary for English as an additional language learners’ reading. . .

Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vo-
cabulary and visual-word recognition complicate the story. Reading and
Writing, 23(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1
Oxley, E., & de Cat, C. (2019). A systematic review of language and literacy inter-
ventions in children and adolescents with English as an additional language
(EAL). The Language Learning Journal, 49(3), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080
/09571736.2019.1597146
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge
and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language
Learning, 52(3), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00193
Raatz, U., & Klein-Braley, C. (1981). The C-test: A modification of the cloze pro-
cedure. In C. Klein-Braley & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Practice and problems
in language testing 7 (pp. 113-138). University of Essex.
Rasinski, T., Samuels, S. J., Hiebert, E., Petscher, Y., & Feller, K. (2011). The relation-
ship between a silent reading fluency instructional protocol on students’
reading comprehension and achievement in an urban school setting. Reading
Psychology, 32(1), 75-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903346873
Read, J. (1988). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners.
RELC Journal, 19(2), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828801900202
Ready, R. E., Chaudhry, M. F., Schatz, K. C., & Strazzullo, S. (2013). “Passageless”
administration of the Nelson–Denny Reading Comprehension Test: Asso-
ciations with IQ and reading skills. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(4),
377-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412468160
Schmitt, N., Jiang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a
text and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 26-43.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01146.x
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the be-
haviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Test-
ing, 18(1), 55-88. https://doi.org/10.1191/026553201668475857
Schoonen, R., Hulstijn, J., & Bossers, B. (1998). Metacognitive and language-spe-
cific knowledge in native and foreign language reading comprehension:
An empirical study among dutch students in grades 6, 8 and 10. Language
Learning, 48(1), 71-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00033
Snowling, M. J., Stothard, S. E., Clarke, P., Bowyer-Crane, C., Harrington, A., True-
love, E., Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (2009). YARC York Assessment of Reading
for Comprehension Passage Reading. GL.
Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing.
Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/095717
30802389975

375
Gavin Brooks, Jon Clenton, Simon Fraser

Strand, S., Malmberg, L., & Hall, J. (2015). English as an Additional Language (EAL)
and educational achievement in England: An analysis of the National Pupil Da-
tabase. Educational Endowment Foundation. https://doi.org/10871/23323
Trakulphadetkrai, N. V., Courtney, L., Clenton, J., Treffers-Daller, J., & Tsakalaki,
A. (2020). The contribution of general language ability, reading compre-
hension and working memory to mathematics achievement among chil-
dren with English as additional language (EAL): An exploratory study. In-
ternational Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(4), 473-
487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1373742
Treffers-Daller, J., & Huang, J. (2020). Measuring reading and vocabulary with the
Test for English Majors Band 4: A concurrent validity study. In J. Clenton & P.
Booth (Eds.), Vocabulary and the four skills: Current issues future concerns
(pp. 91-113). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429285400-11
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux: Vocabulary
knowledge and the independent components hypothesis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 45(5), 453-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685
Tunmer, W. E., & Nicholson, T. (2011). The development and teaching of word
recognition skill. In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 405-431). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203840412.ch18
Twist, L., Schagen, I., & Hodgson, C. (2007). Readers and reading: The national report
for England 2006 (PIRLS: Progress in International Reading Literacy Study). Na-
tional Foundation for Educational Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504613
Wang, Y., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2017). Explaining listening comprehension among
L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency,
vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System, 65, 139-
150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.013
Wright, D. B., London, K., & Field, A. P. (2011). Using bootstrap estimation and
the plug-in principle for clinical psychology data. Journal of Experimental
Psychopathology, 2(2), 252-270. https://doi.org/10.5127/jep.013611
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehension: An ex-
perimental investigation. Cambridge University Press.

376