Content uploaded by Mohan Singh Saud
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohan Singh Saud on Mar 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
1
Measuring the Academic Vocabulary Size of University
Students in Nepal
1
Mohan Singh Saud
2
, Kailali Multiple Campus, Dhangadhi, Far Western University, Nepal
Abstract
Students’ knowledge of academic vocabulary is a crucial aspect of learning English as a second or foreign language at
the university level. Using academic vocabulary lists could be a valuable resource in teaching and learning vocabulary.
This study measured the academic vocabulary size of Nepalese university students using Schmitt’s (2010) Academic
Vocabulary Level Test Version 2 as a data collection tool. The participants were 62 adult EFL students. The data were
collected online via Google Forms. The results showed that the average academic vocabulary size of the students was
435 (76.3%) words out of 570 word-families in the academic vocabulary word list. The results also showed that the
students had heterogeneous knowledge with varying degree of academic vocabulary achievement (M = 22.02, SD= 8.6
and Coefficient of Variation = 39.1%). The results of the study suggest that English education students at the university
level in Nepal need explicit instruction, concentration, and practice to gain mastery over academic vocabulary with
less variation of knowledge in their academic vocabulary achievement.
Resumen
El conocimiento del vocabulario académico por parte de los estudiantes es un aspecto crucial del aprendizaje del
inglés como segunda lengua o lengua extranjera a nivel universitario. El uso de listas de vocabulario académico podría
ser un recurso valioso para enseñar y aprender vocabulario. Este estudio midió el tamaño del vocabulario académico
de los estudiantes universitarios nepaleses utilizando la Prueba de Nivel de Vocabulario Académico de Schmitt (2010)
Versión 2 como herramienta de recopilación de datos. Los participantes fueron 62 estudiantes adultos de EFL. Los
datos se recopilaron en línea a través de Google Forms. Los resultados mostraron que el tamaño promedio del
vocabulario académico de los estudiantes fue de 435 (76,3%) palabras de 570 familias de palabras en la lista de
palabras del vocabulario académico. Los resultados también mostraron que los estudiantes tenían conocimientos
heterogéneos con diferente grado de aprovechamiento del vocabulario académico (M = 22,02, SD= 8,6 y Coeficiente
de Variación = 39,1%). Los resultados del estudio sugieren que los estudiantes de educación en inglés a nivel
universitario en Nepal necesitan instrucción, concentración y práctica explícitas para dominar el vocabulario académico
con menor variación de conocimiento.
Introduction
Many researchers have realized the importance of vocabulary for successful foreign language learning (AL
Qahtani, 2015; Gu, 2003; Lessard-Clouston, 2013; Marion, 2008; Nation, 2005; Read, 2004; Susanto,
2016; Susanto, 2017). Learning words in a language involves mastering form, pronunciation, meaning,
and use (Nation, 2001). For better performance, the grasp of vocabulary is considered an important part of
every aspect of language knowledge (Daller et al., 2007), especially in teaching and learning English as a
second or foreign language as “the literature reveals a strong relationship between EFL learners’
vocabulary knowledge and language skills” (Al-Masrai & Milton, 2012, p.14). Since vocabulary is the
“building block of language” (Schmitt et al., 2001, p.55), acquisition of a wide range of vocabulary is
essential for students to perform better in listening, speaking, reading, and writing (Nation, 1993; Nation,
2001; Shinichi et al., 2014). This also includes other areas of communication and language use such as
pragmatics (Wilson & Bishop, 2021), English for specific and academic purposes (Nagy & Townsend, 2012),
mathematical learning (Riccomini et al., 2015) and semiotics (Hişmanoğlu, 2005; Valtolina et al., 2012),
among others. Citing Anderson and Freebody’s (1981) instrumentalist view, Nation (1993) argues, “Good
vocabulary knowledge enables good comprehension” (p. 115), and this view still holds true since other
researchers have also emphasized this issue (James et al., 2020; Mart, 2012; Shen, 2008; Stæhr, 2009). It
can be said that the larger the vocabulary size, the better the performance.
A rich vocabulary is essential for the proficient use of language in both spoken and written forms.
Extensive vocabulary knowledge of the students “is a good indicator of overall language proficiency” (Li &
MacGregor, 2010, p.239). However, in recent years, teaching and learning vocabulary has received
relatively little attention in the English as a foreign language (EFL) context (Alqarni, 2019). In private
schools where English medium instruction (EMI) is common, all the subjects except the national language,
are taught in English. Due to EMI, vocabulary is taught in formal contexts and most words are learned
through classroom instruction (Siyanova-Chanturia & Webb, 2016). Nonetheless, the importance of
1 This is a refereed article. Received: 1 July, 2021. Accepted: 14 February, 2022. Published: 19 January, 2023.
2 mssaud35@gmail.com, mohansaud@fwu.edu.np, 0000-0001-6114-1841
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
2
teaching and learning vocabulary cannot be underestimated. Harmer (1991) claims that "If language
structure makes up the skeleton of the language, then it is vocabulary that provides the vital organs and
the flesh” (p. 153). This view reflects the importance of vocabulary in teaching and learning language.
Effective and successful communication by means of a language depends on the mastery of vocabulary
power.
Measuring the learners’ academic vocabulary size can be an indicator of their academic language
proficiency, as a large academic vocabulary size makes it easier to perform successfully in English (Nation,
2006; Schmitt & Schmitt, 2014). Measuring the university level learners’ vocabulary knowledge is crucial
to identify their level of vocabulary knowledge (Al-Masraii & Milton, 2012; Milton & Hopkins, 2006).
Information about the learners’ vocabulary knowledge can be an indicator for the teacher in their overall
language performance in different language-related activities and tasks. If a teacher knows the size of the
learners’ vocabulary, they can implement certain strategies to improve their vocabulary level. Taking this
point into consideration, this study aimed at measuring the vocabulary knowledge, in particular the
academic vocabulary size, of Nepalese postgraduate university students in the department of English
education.
In Nepal as an EFL context, students study English as a specialization subject with the aim of becoming
qualified English teachers. Therefore, it is essential to discover the progress of the university students in
learning by measuring their academic vocabulary achievement. Acquiring academic vocabulary at the
university level can help the students to skillfully communicate with other members of the academic
community (Markanastasakis, 2019). Based on this premise, this study measured the academic vocabulary
size of English education master’s degree students in their third semester at a university in Nepal. The
results of this study can have significant implications for improving English language education of the
Nepalese university students by enhancing their academic vocabulary knowledge through teaching and
learning activities focusing on teaching vocabulary for general and specific and academic purposes. In
Nepal, since vocabulary teaching receives little attention, this study can hopefully help prioritize
vocabulary teaching and learning in general and academic vocabulary teaching and learning in particular
at the graduate level. Understanding the size of academic vocabulary repertoire among master’s level
students can facilitate teachers and learners meeting the aims of their academic courses and related
activities.
Based on the analysis of the previous research, this study measured the existing academic vocabulary size
of university English Major students studying at the master’s level third semester in an education stream
in Nepal.
Literature Review
Learning vocabulary in the ESL/EFL classes
Gaining vocabulary knowledge is an important aspect of learning a foreign language (Schmitt & Carter,
2000; Schmitt, 2008). The argument put forward by Wilkins (1972): “Without grammar very little can be
conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (p.111) shows the power of vocabulary in
language learning, especially in ESL/EFL learning contexts. Reflecting on the importance of learning
vocabulary, Nation (1990) argues that vocabulary power makes the skills of listening, speaking, reading
and writing easier to perform. The development of the learners’ vocabulary knowledge eventually leads to
better listening, speaking, reading and writing abilities of the learners (Chang, 2007; Hinkel, 2004; Khan
et al., 2018; Nation, 2001; Nouri & Zerhouni, 2016).
It is important to teach vocabulary in ESL/EFL classrooms. As Zimmerman (2018) observed:
Students typically pause when giving a response, and they use that moment to search their memories for the
word or phrase needed to complete their ideas. In view of this, it is surprising that pronunciation and grammar
have often been given more attention than vocabulary in EFL teacher training. While grammar and to a lesser
extent-pronunciation-are important, communication breakdowns typically occur because of a lexical problem.
This further supports the argument made by Wilkins (1972) above and that of other research studies (e.g.,
Alqahtani, 2015; Susanto, 2017). Often very little attention is paid to teaching vocabulary to EFL students;
as a result, students’ abilities to perform all language skills are also affected.
Research on vocabulary teaching, learning, and testing has increased in the last three decades. Some
studies have shown that testing ESL/EFL learners’ vocabulary size can help estimate success in speaking,
reading comprehension performance, writing, and academic achievement (Kameli & Baki, 2013; Khan et
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
3
al., 2018). Khan et al. (2018) found that Saudi EFL students’ inability to speak English could be based on a
lack of vocabulary. Their study used a questionnaire and interview for collecting data from the students
and teachers, focusing on teachers’ perceptions of their students’ performance. Kameli and Baki (2013) also
found a positive correlation between vocabulary and reading comprehension among their EFL language
learners. However, these two studies and other similar ones (Li & MacGregor, 2010; Migdadi et al. 2019;
Naqeeb, 2021; Sungprakul, 2016) did not focus on academic vocabulary knowledge. Hence, the current
study has been designed to measure the university level EFL learners’ academic vocabulary achievement.
Vocabulary size and an academic vocabulary level test
Vocabulary size can be defined as “the receptive meaning recognition of the number of words that foreign
language learners know at a particular level of language proficiency” (Nouri & Zerhouni, 2016, p.19). The
knowledge of vocabulary can be receptive or productive (Daller et al., 2007; Nation, 2001). Research
studies show that the receptive vocabulary size exceeds the productive vocabulary size by approximately
50% (Waring, 1997; Webb, 2008).
General vocabulary knowledge refers to a set of lexical items, including words, phrases and idioms, and
academic vocabulary refers to words which are reasonably frequent in academic contexts but relatively
uncommon in other texts (Coxhead & Nation, 2001). The Vocabulary Size Test measures the number of
words second language (L2) users know (Uchihara & Clenton, 2020). Vocabulary size refers to the number
of words known (Schmitt, 2014). But what vocabulary size does a learner need to be able to perform
certain language related tasks? Research shows that learners need to have a vocabulary close to 8,000
word families to perform spoken and written language tasks (Nation, 2006; Nation & Beglar, 2007). This
vocabulary size is said to be needed to perform receptive tasks such as reading novels and newspapers,
watching movies, and listening to spoken English. But it says nothing about acquiring academic vocabulary
size.
Seeing the importance of vocabulary in English language learning, studies have focused on vocabulary
lists needed to be achieved by the learners from general to academic words. The first general vocabulary
list was produced by West (1953). The oldest and the most influential general vocabulary wordlist is West’s
General Service List (GSL), which includes the 2,000 most common lexical items of written English with
two levels: West 0-1000 and West 1000-2000. In an attempt to revise the GSL, Browne et al. (2013)
created a New General Service List (NGSL) containing 2800 high frequency core general English words.
They have also created three additional special purpose vocabulary lists: the New Academic Word List
(NAWL) with 960 academic words, the TOEIC Service List (TSL) with 1200 TOEIC words and the Business
Service List (BSL) containing 1700 business word families. Browne et al. (2013) argue that these word lists
are said to have 99% coverage with only 1% left out. Brezina and Gablasova (2015) produced a New
General Service List (new-GSL) consisting of 2,122 core vocabulary items and 2,494 lemmas. The new-GSL
includes three levels: new-GSL 0-1000, new-GSL 1001-2000 and new-GSL 2001-2500, out of which the first
two overlap with West’s levels. Nation’s (1983, 1990) Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) instrument includes five
levels of words: 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, above 5,000 (the university word level) and 10,000 words. Nation’s
(2001) revised version of VLT includes six levels of word frequencies in English: 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000,
5000 and 6000. Schmitt et al.’s (2001) version of VLT includes five levels of words: 2000, 3000, 5000,
10,000 and academic. With the baseline of the general vocabulary list, Coxhead (2000) created the
Academic Word List (AWL) comprising 570 words that may occur in academic contexts. Thus, there have
been various vocabulary lists developed by experts in the field. Out of those, VLT developed by Nation
(2001) has been widely used to measure the size of learners’ vocabulary (Ibrahim et al., 2013; Li &
MacGregor, 2010; Naqeeb, 2021). Although there is a rich literature regarding measuring the vocabulary
size, very few studies have been conducted to measure the academic vocabulary size of the EFL learners
using 570 academic word families only at the university level. Hence, this study will be useful in this
context.
The VLT has become a standardized vocabulary test to assess vocabulary knowledge of the learners of
English. “It is a tool to measure the written receptive vocabulary knowledge, that is mainly the word
knowledge required for reading” (Kremmel & Schmitt, 2018, p.1). It is the most commonly used tool for
measuring the size of the EFL learners’ vocabulary and has been used in multiple EFL contexts such as
reading performance (Kameli & Baki, 2013; Şen & Kuleli, 2015), and vocabulary acquisition (Alqarni, 2019;
Ibrahim et al., 2013; Li &Macgregor, 2010). The most common version of the VLT consists of five parts
corresponding to five levels of word frequencies in English: 2000, 3000, 5000, 10,000 and academic.
Among them, the academic word level includes words selected from Coxhead’s (2000) AWL of 570-word
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
4
families, originally formed from 3.5 million running words of written academic text, excluding the 2000
words from the GSL (Li & MacGregor, 2010). The Academic Vocabulary Level Test 2 by Schmitt et al. (2001)
contains ten items, and each item has six words with three definitions. The students are required to match
each definition with the appropriate word. It contains 30 correct answers, each worth one point (see Table
1).
Vocabulary testing is a crucial aspect in teaching EFL to assess the vocabulary knowledge of the learners.
Language abilities of EFL learners heavily depend on their vocabulary knowledge (Shen, 2008). There have
been various studies regarding the testing of vocabulary knowledge of learners (Al-Masrai & Milton, 2012;
Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010; McLean et al., 2014; Sungprakul, 2016) and the results have shown
varying ranges of their vocabulary knowledge. The reason why the Academic VLT is implemented in this
study is that it can be more appropriate than the VST for measuring the university students’ knowledge of
academic vocabulary. Another reason is that this test is the latest tool for measuring the students’
academic vocabulary size at the university level.
Previous studies
There have been many studies on the vocabulary knowledge of students at the tertiary level. For instance,
Li and MacGregor (2010) investigated the receptive vocabulary size of university level Chinese learners of
English and found students achieving high scores for high-frequency words but scoring poorly for low-
frequency words. Laufer and Ravenhorst-Kalovski (2010) explored the relationship between lexical text
coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and their reading comprehension. Their study revealed that small
increases of learners’ vocabulary knowledge enhanced their reading comprehension. Al-Masrai and Milton
(2012) investigated the vocabulary knowledge of Saudi university EFL learners at the beginning and at the
end of their university studies and found that their vocabulary size was about 2000-3000 words on entry
to university and around 5000 words upon graduation. Shinichi et al. (2014) assessed the vocabulary size
of Japanese university students of science and engineering in an ESP program and found that over 70% of
the students tested were at the 8,000 word level or above. McLean et al. (2014) tested 3,449 Japanese
university students’ vocabulary size using Nation and Beglar’s VST, and the results showed an average
score of 3,715.20 word families. They found that there was a lack of consistent knowledge of the most
frequent words of English. Sungprakul (2016) investigated the vocabulary size of first to third year English
Major students at a Thai university with the aim to “establish the number of English vocabulary in the first
10000 most occurring words list that Thai EFL students at the university level know receptively” (p. 1). The
results showed that students have a vocabulary knowledge of around 5800-5900 words in the first year,
6300-6600 words in the second year, 6500-7100 words in the third year, and 7300-7400 words in the
fourth. Thus, the rate of vocabulary knowledge of these EFL learners increased gradually at the four
different levels. Abmanan et al. (2017) studied the receptive and productive vocabulary level of diploma
students in Malaysia and the findings suggested that the majority had the receptive vocabulary knowledge
of between 2,000-3,000 words and around 2,000 words for productive vocabulary.
Alqarni (2019) measured the receptive vocabulary knowledge of the Saudi university students towards the
end of their final semester using Nation’s (2008) VLT. He assessed their receptive knowledge of word
meaning using all levels including the academic word list as one of the levels. Moreover, he measured the
vocabulary size of male and female students separately. His study showed that Saudi English major
undergraduates’ average vocabulary size was 355 in the academic vocabulary list out of 570 words.
However, his study was not solely done to estimate the academic vocabulary size of the students. Rather it
was just one of the levels of assessing their vocabulary achievement at the university level. Unlike
Alqarni’s study, this study measured knowledge of only 570 academic word families using Schmitt et al.’s
(2001) Academic Vocabulary Level Test Version 2 as a tool. In this regard, this study is different from
Alqarni’s study.
Thus, a lot of research has been conducted measuring the vocabulary knowledge of university level
ESL/EFL students. However, little research has been done to measure the size of students’ academic
vocabulary and no studies have been done assessing the vocabulary knowledge of university level EFL
learners to date in Nepal. Therefore, the present study may fill this gap in the field of vocabulary knowledge
measurement. Although VLT is widely used to assess the students’ knowledge of vocabulary from school
level to university level (Altalhab, 2019; Migdadi et al. 2019; Naqeeb, 2021), no study has been found in
Nepal at either level. In this context, this study measured the academic vocabulary size of Nepalese
university students studying at the master’s level in English education in a university.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
5
Methods and Procedures
This study used a quantitative method with an objective of measuring the academic vocabulary size of the
university English Major students studying the third semester at the department of English Education at a
university. The Academic Vocabulary Levels Test (AVLT) was used as a measuring tool. This quantitative
study used a descriptive analysis, which “includes describing the results through means, standard
deviations, and range of scores” (Creswell, 2009, p.228).
Participants
The participants of this study were 62 students in the third semester of an English Major studying at a
university in Nepal. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 27 years old. Forty-one were males and
21 females from both rural and urban areas. Their participation was voluntary. Informed consent was
acquired by informing the participants orally and those who agreed took part in the test. The AVLT was
presented in a Google Docs form and sent to the participants through emails and Messenger.
Instrumentation
Types of instruments most used in measuring the learners’ knowledge of receptive vocabulary size are
Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) and Vocabulary Size Test (VST) (Enayat & Amirian, 2020; Janebi Enayat et
al., 2018).
The VLT used in this study involved matching the words with their definitions, measuring the knowledge
level at 2000, 3000, 5000, 10,000 and academic words in English. This study used the Academic
Vocabulary Level Test (AVLT) Version 2 developed by Schmitt et al. (2001) and reproduced in Schmitt
(2010) as an instrument to measure the knowledge of the students of 570 academic words that may
appear in academic contexts. The AVST “measures the written receptive academic vocabulary knowledge
of non-native speakers of English” (Masrai & Milton, 2018, p. 47).
The test formats commonly used in studies of vocabulary size measurement include checklists (or yes/no
tests), multiple choice items of various kinds, and matching of words with their definitions (Read, 1988).
Table 1 below shows a typical sample test item from the Academic Vocabulary Test Version 1, where the
participants write the number of the word to match its meaning (Schmitt, 2000). The options in a column
on the left are words instead of definitions (Schmitt, 2010).
1. benefit
_____ work
_____ part of 100
_____ general idea used to guide one’s actions
2. labour
3. percent
4. principle
5. source
6. survey
Table 1: A sample item from the Academic VLT (Schmitt, 2000)
This test item was designed in a different way in Google Docs so that the students could choose the
correct answer just by clicking. Here is how it was formulated.
Choose the right word that goes with its meaning.
benefit
labour
percent
principle
source
survey
Work
Part of 100
General idea used to guide one’s actions
Table 2: A sample item from the Academic VLT (modified design)
Data analysis and interpretation procedure
The data were analysed using statistical measures of percentage, mean and standard deviation. Then a
Coefficient of Variation (CV) was used to determine the dispersion of marks around the mean obtained by
the students. The use of a CV is a novel method of interpreting the variation of academic vocabulary
knowledge of the students. CV, also known as relative standard deviation, is “defined as the sample
standard deviation divided by the sample mean” (Lovie, 2005, p.318) and is expressed in percentage. It is
used here to compare the variability of academic vocabulary achievement of the learners. If the value of
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
6
CV is zero, then it is interpreted as uniform, having no variation. On the contrary, the greater the value of
CV, the greater the variation, which is compared from the point of zero.
Results
The results of this study showed different student performance in different word levels with a varying level
of academic vocabulary knowledge. Table 3 shows that the average academic vocabulary size of the
students was 435 (76.3%) words out of 570 academic word families.
Word level (570)
Number of known words
Percentage (%)
AVL
435
76.3
Table 3: Number of known words and percentage
Figure 1 shows the summary of average, median and range of the AVLT of the students. As the Figure
shows, out of 570 word families the average mark obtained by 62 students was 22.02, the median was 26
and the lowest mark was two whereas the highest mark was 30 out of 30 total marks. There was a total of
ten sets, each having three questions worth 1-point each.
Figure 1 Summary of average, median and range of the students’ AVLT
Table 4 shows the mean score, standard deviation and CV of the marks obtained by the students.
Word Level
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Coefficient of Variation
(CV)
AVL
22.02
8.6
39.1
Table 4: Results of the AVLT that show the mean score, standard deviation, and CV
Discussion
The objective of this study was to estimate the academic vocabulary size of the English major students
studying at master’s level third semester in English education in a university in Nepal. Based on the
performance in the AVLT Version 2 tool, the result found that the overall academic vocabulary
achievement of the students was 435 (76.3%) words out of 570 words to be achieved. Academic vocabulary
size had not previously been measured in a similar context including ESL/EFL students at a graduate level.
However, although it was done in a different context, this result is higher than Alqarni’s (2019) study in
which the average academic vocabulary of the undergraduate English major students was 355 words. The
academic level of the students varied between this study and Alqarni’s study. Alqarni’s study did not
measure the variation of academic vocabulary knowledge of the participants. As such, this study presents
a new area of research that signifies its novelty and originality.
This study also determined the variation of the students’ academic vocabulary achievement and found that
there was a wider variation ranging from 2 marks to 30 marks (see Figure 1) out of total 30 marks. It is
clearer from the standard deviation result that is 8.6 when the mean was 22.02. The CV is 39.1%, which
suggests that the variation is very high. It can be interpreted from this result that the students had
heterogeneous knowledge with varying degree of academic vocabulary achievement. From the pedagogical
and better performance point of view, this variation in academic vocabulary achievement is an issue to be
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
7
considered for further teaching and learning strategies. The cause of the variation in the students’
academic vocabulary knowledge at the master’s level is an issue worthy of further investigation.
One reason for this heterogeneous academic vocabulary knowledge of the students at different academic
levels could be that the vocabulary achievement of the students at the bachelor’s level could also be lower
and at the school level could be even lower. Another reason could be that all the undergraduates may not
have been serious in increasing their vocabulary knowledge. Still another reason could be that the EFL
teachers may not be deliberately focusing on teaching academic vocabulary to the students.
This is the situation regarding English proficiency of the students and how it is related to vocabulary
achievement. If the vocabulary knowledge of the learners is low, their listening, speaking, reading and
writing proficiency can also be low (Nation, 2001). Students could face difficulties in performing better due
to their low vocabulary knowledge. They need to be aware of the importance of learning vocabulary to
master their English language skills. As Altalhab (2019) said, “Vocabulary is the foundation of an
individual’s capacity for language” (p. 55). Knowledge of academic vocabulary is beneficial for the ESL/EFL
students as it shows a strong enabling function in academic communication (Coxhead, 2016; Evans &
Morrison, 2011; Malmström et al. 2018). Without adequate academic vocabulary knowledge, EFL students
cannot perform successfully regarding any language activity at the university level.
As discussed in the literature review section above, there has been rich body of knowledge about
measuring the general vocabulary size of the university level students (Al-Masrai & Milton, 2012; Abmanan
et al., 2017; Li & MacGregor, 2010; McLean et al., 2014; Shinichi et al., 2014; Sungprakul, 2016).
However, no research was found measuring the academic vocabulary knowledge of EFL students. Alqarni’s
(2019) study mentioned above measured Saudi university English major undergraduate students’ receptive
vocabulary knowledge using Nation’s (2008) VLT at all levels: 2000-word level, 3000-word level, 5000-
word level, 10,000-word level and the Academic Word List (AWL). Unlike it, this study measured the
Nepalese university graduate English major students’ academic vocabulary knowledge using Schmitt et al.’s
(2001) VLT of AWL only (other levels being 2000, 3000, 5000, 10,000). Therefore, this study is quite
different from all the other studies reviewed above.
Conclusion
Vocabulary size has been one of the most widely researched areas of English language proficiency in
general and vocabulary achievement. However, the AVLT is a less widely used tool to measure the EFL
students’ academic vocabulary knowledge required for the efficient and better performance in English.
Considering this situation, this study measured the receptive academic vocabulary size of the master’s
level students of third semester with English education major at a university in Nepal. In the context of
Nepal, this area of research is new since no study has been conducted so far at any level to measure the
vocabulary size, and more specifically academic vocabulary size. Due to this reason, no literature is
available regarding the vocabulary achievement of the students at the university level. Hence, its results
appear to be beneficial due to their novelty.
As the overall achievement of academic vocabulary size was just 435 (out of 570) words (76.3%) for the
students nearing the end of their master’s program, it is necessary to support and guide the students at
the master’s level to increase the academic vocabulary power. Since these students did not reach the
mastery level of academic vocabulary, the performance on the receptive academic vocabulary could be
considered unsatisfactory. In Nepal the master’s degree level in English Education is the highest level
available and this study demonstrates that the size of students’ vocabulary is not acceptable. Also the
students’ academic vocabulary achievement size was not uniform (Mean = 22.02, Standard Deviation = 8.6
and CV = 39.1%). The causes contributing to such variations can be an issue for further investigation.
Other limitations are that this study did not include the students studying at the first, second and fourth
semesters of the graduate program, those from other majors and undergraduates were not taken as
potential participants.
This study suggests that EFL students at the university level needed more explicit instruction and practice
to reach the mastery level (approximately 100%) of academic vocabulary. To develop the command of
academic vocabulary in the EFL learners at the university level, it is necessary to incorporate these words
in the English syllabus to teach them explicitly. Both university teachers and EFL students should adopt
appropriate strategies to master academic vocabulary for better academic performance.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
8
As mentioned above, assessing the students’ vocabulary knowledge is a new area for research in Nepal at
both the school and the university levels. Further research should be conducted to measure the general
vocabulary size of the bachelor’s level students with English major or non-English major. Moreover, school
level students’ vocabulary knowledge could also by assessed by using the VLT as a tool.
References
AbManan, N. A., Azizan, N., & Nasir, N. F. W. M. (2017). Receptive and productive vocabulary level of diploma students from a public
university in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 7(1S), 53 59.
https://www.textroad.com/pdf/JAEBS/J.%20Appl.%20Environ.%20Biol.%20Sci.,%207(1S)53-59,%202017.pdf
Al Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2012). The vocabulary knowledge of university students in Saudi Arabia. TESOL Arabia Perspectives, 19(3),
13 19.
Alqahtani, M. (2015). The importance of vocabulary in language learning and how to be taught. International Journal of Teaching and
Education, 3(3), 21 34. https://do .org/10.52950/TE.2015.3.3.002
Alqarni, I. R. (2019). Receptive vocabulary size of male and female Saudi English major graduates. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 9(1), 111 119. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n1p111
Altalhab, S. (2019). The vocabulary knowledge of Saudi EFL tertiary students. English Language Teaching, 12(5), 55 65.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n5p55
Brezina, V., & Gablasova, D. (2015). Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the new general service list. Applied
Linguistics, 36(1), 1 22. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt018
Browne, C., Culligan, B., & Phillips, J. (2013). New General Service List Project: The most important words for second language
learners of English. Accessed on 9 September 2020 from http://www.newgeneralservicelist.org
Chang, A. C. S. (2007). The impact of vocabulary preparation on L2 listening comprehension, confidence and strategy use. System,
35(4), 534 550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.06.003
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213 238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951
Coxhead, A. (2016). Acquiring academic and discipline specific vocabulary. In K. Hyland, & P. Shaw (Eds.), Routledge handbook of
English for academic purposes (pp. 177 190). Routledge.
Coxhead, A., & Nation, P. (2001). The specialised vocabulary of English for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.),
Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 252 267). Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed) Sage.
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers Daller, J. (Eds.). (2007). Editor’s introduction. In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.),
Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (pp. 132). Cambridge University Press.
Enayat, M. J., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2020). The relationship between vocabulary size and depth for Iranian EFL learners at different
language proficiency levels. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 97-114.
https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120891
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2011). Meeting the challenges of English medium higher education: The first year experience in Hong
Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 30(3), 198 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.01.001
Gu, P. Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL EJ, 7(2), 1 25. https://tesl-
ej.org/ej26/a4.html
Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of language teaching. Longman.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hişmanoğlu, M. (2005). İmbilimsel öğeler ve sözcük öğretimindeki zorluklar [Semiotic elements and difficulties in teaching vocabulary
items. Dil Dergisi, (128), 51 68. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder 0000000034
Ibrahim, E. H. E., Othman, K., Sarudin, I., & Muhamad, A. J. (2013). Measuring the vocabulary size of Muslim pre university
students. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(21), 44 49. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.sltl.2136
James, E., Gaskell, M. G., & Henderson, L. M. (2020). Sleep dependent consolidation in children with comprehension and vocabulary
weaknesses: It’ll be alright on the night?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(10), 1104 1115.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13253
Janebi Enayat, M., Amirian, S. M. R., Zareian, G., & Ghaniabadi, S. (2018). Reliable measure of written receptive vocabulary size:
Using the L2 depth of vocabulary knowledge as a yardstick. Sage Open, 8(1),1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017752221
Kameli, S., & Baki, R. B. (2013). The impact of vocabulary knowledge level on EFL reading comprehension. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 2(1), 85 89. https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.2n.1p.85
Khan, R. M. I., Radzuan, N. R. M., Shahbaz, M., Ibrahim, A. H., & Mustafa, G. (2018). The role of vocabulary knowledge in speaking
development of Saudi EFL learners. Arab World English Journal, 9(1), 406 418. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.28
Kremmel, B., & Schmitt, N. (2018). Vocabulary levels test. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0499
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://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/66648/1/22 1 10125 66648 laufer.pdf
Lessard Clouston, M. (2013). Teaching Vocabulary. TESOL International.
Li, L., & MacGregor, L. J. (2010). Investigating the receptive vocabulary size of university level Chinese learners of English: how
suitable is the Vocabulary Levels Test?. Language and Education, 24(3), 239 249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500781003642478
Lovie, P. (2005). Coefficient of variation. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (pp. 317
318). John Wiley.
Malmström, H., Pecorari, D., & Shaw, P. (2018). Words for what? Contrasting university students' receptive and productive academic
vocabulary needs. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 28 39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.11.002
Marion, T. (2008). The effect of gestures on second language memorization by young children Gesture, 8(2), 219 235.
https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.8.2.06tel
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
9
Markanastasakis, C. (2019). Vocabulary Kingdom: Gamified EAP vocabulary acquisition using blended learning. In A. Plutino, K.
Borthwick, & E. Corradini (Eds.), New educational landscapes: Innovative perspectives in language learning and technology (pp.
19-25). Research publishing.net.
Mart, C. T. (2012). Developing speaking skills through reading. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(6).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n6p91
Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2018). Measuring the contribution of academic and general vocabulary knowledge to learners' academic
achievement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31, 44 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.006
McLean, S., Hogg, N., & Kramer, B. (2014). Estimations of Japanese university learners’ English vocabulary sizes using the vocabulary
size test. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction, 3(2), 47 55. http://dx.doi.org/10.7820/vli.v03.2.mclean.et.al
Milton, J., & Hopkins, N. (2006). Comparing phonological and orthographic vocabulary size: Do vocabulary tests underestimate the
knowledge of some learners?. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 127 147. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.127
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research
Quarterly, 47(1), 91 108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011
Naqeeb, A. M. A. (2021). Vocabulary size of University of Aden English language students. REiLA: Journal of Research and Innovation
in Language, 3(1), 71 78. https://doi.org/10.31849/reila.v3i1.4980
Nation, I. S. P. (1983). Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 12 25.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens, (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 115 134).
John Benjamins.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook and research in second language teaching and
learning, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nation, I. S. 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., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9 13. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12552197
Nouri, N., & Zerhouni, B. (2016). The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among Moroccan EFL
learners. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR JHSS), 21(10), 19 26. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2110051926
Read, J. (1988). Measuring the vocabulary knowledge of second language learners. RELC Journal, 19(2), 12 25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828801900202
Read, J. (2004). Research in teaching vocabulary. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 146 161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000078
Riccomini, P. J., Smith, G. W., Hughes, E. M., & Fries, K. M. (2015). The language of mathematics: The importance of teaching and
learning mathematical vocabulary. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(3), 235 252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030995
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329 363.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913 951.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for second language learners. TESOL Journal, 9(1), 4 9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.2000.tb00220.x
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language
Teaching, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000018
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels
Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55 88. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800103
Şen, Y., & Kuleli, M. (2015). The effect of vocabulary size and vocabulary depth on reading in EFL context. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 199, 555 562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.546
Shen, Z. (2008). The roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in EFL reading performance. Asian Social Science, 4(12),
135 137. https://doi.org/10.5539/ASS.V4N12P135
Shinichi, H., Yan, Y., & Jie, S. (2014, August). The assessment of the vocabulary size of Japanese university students of science and
engineering in an ESP program. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems (pp. 110
113). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICAMechS.2014.6911633
Siyanova Chanturia, A., & Webb, S. (2016). Teaching vocabulary in the EFL context. In W. A. Renandya & H. P. Widodo, English
Language teaching today: Linking theory and practice (pp. 227 239). Springer.
Stæhr, L. S. (2009). Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 31(4), 577 607. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039
Sungprakul, S. (2016). Measuring vocabulary size of Thai university students. International Journal of Social Science and Humanities
Research, 4(4), 608 624.
https://www.researchpublish.com/upload/book/Measuring%20Vocabulary%20Size%20of%20Thai%20University%20Students-
4073.pdf
Susanto. A. (2016). How English learner succeeded in difficult circumstances. Jurnal Pendidian UNSIKA, 4(2), pp. 135 148.
https://journal.unsika.ac.id/index.php/judika/article/view/383/424
Susanto, A. (2017). The teaching of vocabulary: A perspective. Jurnal Kata: Penelitian Tentang Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra, 1(2), 182 191.
Uchihara, T., & Clenton, J. (2020). Investigating the role of vocabulary size in second language speaking ability. Language Teaching
Research, 24(4), 540-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818799371
Valtolina, S., Barricelli, B. R., & Dittrich, Y. (2012). Participatory knowledge management design: A semiotic approach. Journal of Visual
Languages & Computing, 23(2), 103 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.11.007
Waring, R. (1997). A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners.
Immaculata, 1, 53 68.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
10
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(1), 79 95.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080042
West, M. P. (Ed.). (1953). A general service list of English words: with semantic frequencies and a supplementary word list for the
writing of popular science and technology. Longman.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. Arnold.
Wilson, A. C., & Bishop, D. V. (2021). A novel online assessment of pragmatic and core language skills: An attempt to tease apart
language domains in children. Journal of Child Language, 1 22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000690
Zimmermann, S. (2018). Teaching vocabulary in the EFL classroom. EFL Magazine. https://eflmagazine.com/teaching-vocabulary-in-the-
efl-classroom
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
11
Appendix
Academic Vocabulary Version 2 (Schmitt, 2010, pp. 291-291)
1.
1 area
2 contract _____ written agreement
3 definition _____ way of doing something
4 evidence _____ reason for believing something is or is not true
5 method
6 role
2.
1 debate
2 exposure _____ plan
3 integration _____ choice
4 option _____ joining something into a whole
5 scheme
6 stability
3.
1 access
2 gender _____ male or female
3 implementation _____ study of the mind
4 license _____ entrance or way in
5 orientation
6 psychology
4.
1 accumulation
2 edition _____ collecting things over time
3 guarantee _____ promise to repair a broken product
4 media _____ feeling a strong reason or need to do something
5 motivation
6 phenomenon
5.
1 adult
2 exploitation _____ end
3 infrastructure _____ machine used to move people or goods
4 schedule _____ list of things to do at certain times
5 termination
6 vehicle
6.
1 alter
2 coincide _____ change
3 deny _____ say something is not true
4 devote _____ describe clearly and exactly
5 release
6 specify
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
MEXTESOL Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2023
12
7.
1 correspond
2 diminish _____ keep
3 emerge _____ match or be in agreement with
4 highlight _____ give special attention to something
5 invoke
6 retain
8.
1 bond
2 channel _____ make smaller
3 estimate _____ guess the number or size of something
4 identify _____ recognizing and naming a person or thing
5 mediate
6 minimize
9.
1 explicit
2 final _____ last
3 negative _____ stiff
4 professional _____ meaning `no' or `not'
5 rigid
6 sole
10.
1 abstract
2 adjacent _____ next to
3 controversial _____ added to
4 global _____ concerning the whole world
5 neutral
6 supplementary
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons
Attibution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.
