This study investigated Korean college students’ performance as measured by two different vocabulary assessment tools (the Productive Vocabulary Levels Test (PVLT) and the Productive Vocabulary Use Task (PVUT)) and the relationship these assessments have with students’ writing proficiency. A total of 72 students participated in the study. The students were asked to take the PVLT and the PVUT and write an essay. They were also asked to write a reflection paper to assist in examining what kinds of processes they go through in vocabulary production for both tests. The results of the study indicated that the students’ ability to produce vocabulary and the number of lexical errors displayed in the results of the two different assessment tools were highly contingent on the test format. The students produced more target words in the PVLT since they were helped by clues of a few given initial letters of the target items. On the other hand, the students produced more alternatives than target words when allowed to choose words freely in the PVUT. As for the relationship between the students’ performance on the assessment tests and their writing proficiency, the results of the study showed that the students with a higher proficiency produced a higher number of correct target items and left fewer words unanswered in both tests. This study explores the possibility of using an alternative assessment tool and suggests that careful interpretation of the results of the different tests should be associated with assessment purposes.

The present study aims to investigate the direct and indirect contributions of Korean EFL college students’ L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge to their L2 writing performances by using a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis with a goal to explore the pathways of vocabulary knowledge to writing. Data from 178 students were collected through tests of receptive and productive vocabulary breadth and depth, a writing test and a reading test. In testing a hypothesized model on the roles of receptive and productive vocabulary in writing, the results of the SEM analysis reveal the direct role of productive vocabulary in writing. The indirect role of receptive vocabulary on writing was observed through the mediating role of productive vocabulary or reading ability due to the direct contribution of receptive vocabulary to both productive vocabulary and reading and that of productive vocabulary and reading to writing. Findings from the study shed light on the relations of L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge with L2 writing abilities, suggesting potential benefits of both receptive and productive vocabulary learning for L2 writing.

This article reports on a study that compared EFL freshman university students’receptive and productive recall vocabulary knowledge and their ability to use that knowledge, as it remains unclear in the literature to what extent knowledge of vocabulary, especially productive knowledge, is indicative of learners’ ability to use vocabulary to communicate. The study first measured the vocabulary size of 169students from 24 majors. Next, deeper meaning word knowledge and vocabulary userelated knowledge were assessed by administering depth tests to 51 of the students who completed the size tests. The study found that the participants were able to use only 60.3% of the words that were known receptively and productively on the size tests, and that receptive deeper meaning vocabulary knowledge was 43.0% greater than productive knowledge. Finally, the study results support the concept of a vocabulary knowledge continuum, but highlight the importance of including both receptive and productive knowledge, as they were found to develop in a dissimilar manner.

Limited research on the PYLT (productive Vocabulary Levels Test) stimu lated the investigation into the relationship between the PYLT and Korean col lege students' productive vocabulary use in writing. For the purpose of the study, twenty five students (n=25) were asked to take the PVLT, perform translation tasks, and write an essay. They were also asked to write a reflection paper to examine their perceptions of the PVLT. The LFP (Lexical Frequency Profile) was employed to analyze the students' compositions to examine the relationships between their vocabulalY profiles and the PVLT. The results of the study indicated that there was no significant correlation between the PYLT and the LFP; the relationships between the PVLT and other variables were largely influenced by word frequency levels. These findings imply that the PVLT at the 2000 word frequency level represents the students' vocabulary knowledge in their compositions, and their writing proficiency. As for the perceptions of the PYLT, most of the students responded that the PVLT assessed their vocabulalY knowledge. Interestingly, they attributed both success and failure in providing correct answers to the test format of the PVL T. This study suggests that interpretation of the results of the PYLT should be associated with word frequency levels.