1

Vocabulary Profile of Introduction to Language Education Textbook

Argo Dhea Galuh Kirana Ardyny

Satya Wacana Christian University

Abstract

Vocabulary is a very important element in language learning as it conveys the

meaning of certain words. Problems might occur if foreign language learners are not

familiar with the words given. The objective of this study was to identify the

vocabulary profile of the material in the Introduction to Language Education (2013)

course. Based on the purpose, a descriptive method was used and all pages in the

course book were used as the samples of the study. The analysis used an electronic

tool, named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 developed by Cobb (1999). The study

revealed three results; (1) 80,81% of the course book was understandable for

university level while the rest of 19,19% was need much effort to comprehend; (2)

unit 1 of the course book could be relatively easy to comprehend because it had the

highest proportion of 1000 word list (K1) and the lowest proportion of Academic

Word List (AWL), while unit 5 could be hard to comprehend because of its lowest

proportion of K1 and its highest proportion of AWL; (3) unit 7 did not show the

contrastive result of K1 and AWL however it still concluded as unit which was hard

to comprehend.

Keyword: Vocabulary, Vocabulary Profile, Academic Word List, Compleat Lexical

Tutor

Introduction

Vocabulary is evidently a very important element within a language since the

majority of meaning is lexically carried. Vocabularies together with grammar are the

building blocks of language. According to Chapelle & Jamieson (2008), the building

blocks are vocabulary words and phrases and the glue is grammar which holds them

2

together. If foreign language learners only have grammar knowledge but do not have

any sufficient vocabulary knowledge, they will get nothing. A hindrance might occur

when foreign language learners do a reading activity and come across unfamiliar

words. It is often possible to guess their meaning if the other words are recognizable.

The problem is if there are lots of unknown words frequently appear in the text. Thus

foreign language learners cannot expect to succeed on assignments because they do

not understand the directions. According to Nation (2001) learning occurs if at least

95% of the running words are recognizable. Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) also

suggested that it is required to reach 95% of text coverage to be familiar with other

words. Therefore, foreign language learners should be encouraged to improve their

vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.

There are many strategies of learning vocabulary used by foreign language

learners to improve their vocabulary knowledge. Several vocabulary learning

strategies aim to comprehend the meaning of certain word, sentence or paragraph.

One strategy is by examining vocabulary profile. Knowing vocabulary profile of a

particular text helps foreign language learners to decide the most suitable material

based on their own familiar words list. Vocabulary profile is also significant to help

learners choose the vocabulary learning. Morris and Cobb (2004) stated, “Vocabulary

profiles proved to be useful in carrying out a finer assessment of the language skills

of high proficiency of nonnative speakers than oral interview can offer.” Examining

vocabulary profile of certain texts can be done by using vocabulary tool developed by

3

Cobb (ND) named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4 and can be accessed at

http://lectutor.ca.

Previous studies explored the potential for using vocabulary profiles as

predictors of academic and pedagogic success and grammatical and lexical

knowledge (Cobb, T. & Morris, L., 2004; Morris, L., 2001). The studies were

gathering TESL and TEFL trainee as the participants and using trainees’ text,

establishments, and argumentative essay as the data. This study proved that there was

significance correlation between academic performance in the training program and

the first 1000 word list (K1), Academic Word List (AWL), and AWL + Off-List (OL)

(Morris, L. 2001). Moreover, Cobb and Morris (2004) also proposed that vocabulary

profile analysis was considered as part of an admission test for TESL trainees.

Furthermore, there was also study in examining vocabulary profile, but it had focused

on spoken language assessment as a measure of vocabulary sophistication which

carried out spontaneous speech context as the data (Yoon, Bhat, and Zechner, 2012).

This study resulted that vocabulary profile demonstrated strong correlation with

human proficiency scores. However there is no other study examining vocabulary

profile of course book using the Compleat Lextutor, v.4. Therefore, it is necessary to

investigate the use of vocabulary list in Introduction to Language Education. To

achieve this objective, the current research aimed to identify the vocabulary profile of

the material, Introduction to Language and Education (2013) textbook in the course

whether the vocabulary belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list (K2),

Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or others. Based on the above research

4

objective, the research question was, what is the vocabulary profile of the course

book in Introduction to Language Education? This study could be beneficial for

teachers because by knowing the vocabulary profile of course book, teachers can pay

attention to the words contained in the textbook and decide what words may create

difficulties for students. The teacher would also be able to select suitable reading

material.

Literature Review

Vocabulary is known as a very important element within a language since the

majority of its meaning is carried lexically. Vocabulary according to Nation (2001) is

divided into four major types. They are high-frequency words, academic vocabulary,

and technical vocabulary and low-frequency words. This type distinguishing is made

in order to decide which of these types contains the words that foreign language

learners need (Nation, 2001). The high frequency words are words which cover about

80% in a particular text. This type frequently occurs in all kinds of texts. Schmitt and

Schmitt (2012) argued that, “High-frequency English vocabulary should include the

most frequent 3,000 word families,” (pg. 1). On his previous study, Schmitt (2000)

also stated that the 2000 words level is the basic initial goal of many second language

learners thus it offer poor opportunity for deepening word knowledge (Matsuoka and

Hirsh, 2010). Cobb (ND) also stated that, “The first 2000 words have been identified

and made somewhat easy to learn,” (pg. 5). On the other hand, the academic

vocabulary occurs frequently in most kinds of academic texts and only covers 10% of

5

the running words in an academic text (Coxhead, 2000). According to Cohen,

Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrara, and Fine, academic vocabulary causes a great

deal of difficulty for learners, (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 213). In her study,

Coxhead (2000) also stated that by focusing on academic vocabulary, learners get the

chance to make this significant vocabulary a part of working knowledge of the

language and thus make learners’ academic study more controllable. Corson argued

that, “Good knowledge of academic vocabulary is essentially for success at higher

levels of education” (as cited in Coxhead, 2000, p. 230). Besides, the technical

vocabulary only appears sometimes frequently in specialized texts and covers only

3% of the running words in a specialized texts. Different with the other type, the low-

frequency words are words which rarely appear in a text or only cover 4% of the

words in any texts (Nation, 2001). In his study, Cobb (ND) also stated that, “these

words are difficult to learn because they are relatively infrequent and are not

encountered over and over again.” Dissimilar with Nation (1990), Schmitt and

Schmitt (2012) proposed the other type of vocabulary which is mid-frequency

vocabulary. This type is labeled the vocabulary between high-frequency (3,000) and

low-frequency (9,000+).

While knowing the types of vocabulary, knowing vocabulary size or the

vocabulary knowledge owned by particular person is something that cannot be

neglected in learning vocabulary. According to Waring and Nation (1997), non-native

English language learners who already studied English as foreign language for almost

several years suggested to know much less than 5,000 word families. Laufer (2010)

6

in her study stated that, “Small increments of vocabulary knowledge contribute to

reading comprehension” (pg. 15). Matsuoka and Hirsh (2010) in their study also

claimed that strong link between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension

is presence. Thus non-native English language learners should develop their

vocabulary knowledge through sufficient vocabulary learning.

One of vocabulary learning strategies whose aim to comprehend the meaning

of word, sentence, or paragraph is examining vocabulary profile of certain text.

Vocabulary profile or Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) contains the frequency of the

word list that occurs in a certain text. According to Nation (2001), word list is as

source of useful information about particular words and as a collection of the most

important vocabulary for learners of English. The word list is given in a percentage so

the user of the list can easily decide which meaning and use is the most important.

Nation (1990) distinguishes word list into four different types. They are the first

thousand most common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List

(Coxhead, 2000), and off-list words (OL). Morris and Cobb (2004) stated that,

“Vocabulary profile provides breakdowns that include percentages from the type of

word list”. According to Meara (2005), LFP was first introduced by Nation as a tool

of assessment if a particular text is suitable for use with learners at particular level or

proficiency. Bardel and Lindqvist (2011) also suggested that one way to measure

lexical richness from a frequency-based is to use the Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP)

proposed by Laufer and Nation (1995). This instrument measures the proportion of

7

low-frequency versus high-frequency words in a learner’s production by means of the

computer program Vocabprofile (www.lextutor.ca/vp) (Bardel & Lindqvist, 2011).

The Study

This study examined vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language

Education (2013) course book used by English Teacher Education Program students.

This study used all pages in the course book as the sample of the research to indentify

the vocabulary profile of the textbook. The selection was based on the following

reason: (1) this course is one of requirement courses for English Teacher Education

Program students, (2) this book is in university level, and (3) this book is a base of

English education course. A descriptive method was used to identify the vocabulary

profile of material whether they belongs to 1000 word list (K1), 1001-2000 word list

(K2), the Academic Word List (Coxhead, 2000), or other.

The analysis used an electronic tool named The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4.

This instrument is an online vocabulary profiler created by Tom Cobb in 1999 which

can be accessed at http://www.lextutor.ca/. This tool can calculate the type ratio

(TTR) and the percentage of words of the text falling into the first thousand most

common (K1), the second thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list

words (OL), and function words (F). The step of the analyzing was to open the

vocabulary profiler website on http://www.lextutor.ca/. Then click on VP Classic v.4

to go to vocabulary profiler tools. After that, copy the text that would be analyzed and

paste into the rectangle given. Then click submit button under the rectangle. The

8

vocabulary profile of the certain text would appear. After that save the result provided

by the program. This program can also be saved in Microsoft Word by clicking

Edit/print-friendly table for further reading and analysis of the vocabulary profile.

The data were automatically calculated by The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4

tool. The data were grouped into the first thousand most common (K1), the second

thousand (K2), the Academic Word List (AWL), off-list words (OL), and function

words (F). The analysis also showed the breakdown of the word family list.

Findings and Discussion

The discussion of this chapter presents the answer of the research question,

“What is the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education course book?”

This study shows identification of vocabulary profile of the Introduction to Language

Education (2013) course book. 17487 words of the course book were calculated and

analyzed using The Compleat Lexical Tutor, v.4. The vocabulary profile was

presented in a form of percentage. The finding was divided into two major parts;

vocabulary profile in general and comparison of each vocabulary category across

unit. The percentage of each vocabulary profile was achieved from calculating the

vocabulary items whether they belonged to 1000 word list (K1), 2000 word list (K2),

Academic Word List (AWL), or other. Spelling mistake were corrected so that the

proportion of low frequency words would not be twisted.

9

Vocabulary Profile in general

The following section shows the identification of vocabulary profile of

Introduction to Language Education course book in general. The comparison across

category indicates that the majority 76,51% of vocabulary fall under most frequent

1000 words of English (K1) and were represented by the word like language,

number, learning, and teaching. Then 4,30% of vocabulary fall under the second

most frequent thousand words of English (1001 to 2000 / K2). The words included on

K2 were rival, telephone, composite, and essentially. The 10,47% vocabulary fall

under the academic words of English (Academic Word List or AWL). Words such as

attribute, source, communication, and acquisition were the examples. The rest 8,72%

under the word list which were not found on the other lists and were represented by

the word like sociolinguistics, gestures, vocal, conventionalized.

From the comparison, 80,81% of the course book that were contained with

76,51% of K1 and 4,30% of K2, could be assumed understandable for university

learners. While the rest 19,19% of the course book were infrequently appeared in the

course book, therefore still needs much effort to comprehend.

10

Below is the comparison of each category across unit. The category gives the

breakdown of each category across unit into K1, K2, AWL, and Off-List category.

K1 Category (1-1000 words)

Figure 2 provides comparison of K1 category across units in the course book.

From the finding, unit 1 had the highest proportion of K1 words (81,02%). The next

highest proportion was unit 7 with 78,91% and the third highest proportion was unit 2

(78,74%). Unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had approximately similar proportion of

K1. They were unit 3 with 74,34%; unit 4 with 74,27%; unit 5 with 73,92%; and unit

6 with 75,07%.

Figure 1. Vocabulary Profile of Introduction to Language Education Course Book

76.51%

4.30%10.47% 8.72%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

K1 K2 AWL Off-List

Series 1

11

The proportion of K1 seems to depend on the topic discussed in each unit. If

the topic discussed general thing, the proportion of K1 and the comprehensibility of

the topic could be high because the proportions of K1 words was high. Unit 1 had the

highest proportion of K1 because the topic was about introduction to language,

acquisition, learning, and teaching. Thus it used words which belonged to K1 to

explain the concepts in introduction. Due to the high proportion, unit 1 could be easy

to comprehend compared to the other units. Different with unit 1, the proportion of

K1 in unit 7 was less 2,11 point than unit 1 but still remained the second highest

proportion among all units. In unit 7, the topic discussed was about the affect of

language education, thus the proportion of K1 was not as high as the proportion on

unit 1. The third highest proportion of K1 was unit 2 with a topic still about

Figure 2. Comparison K1 across units

81.02%

78.74%

74.34% 74.27% 73.92%75.07%

78.91%

70.00%

72.00%

74.00%

76.00%

78.00%

80.00%

82.00%

K1 (2)

12

introduction but it more focused on language education, It did not use as many words

that belonged to K1 category in unit 1. While unit 3, unit 4, unit 5, and unit 6 had

approximately similar proportion of K1 because the units had more serious on details

about language education, thus, the proportion of K1 words used in each unit were

lower than that in unit 1, 2 or 7.

K2 Category (1001-2000 words)

Figure 3 provides the comparison of K2 used in every unit from the course

book. From the findings, unit 4 had the highest proportion of K2 category (5,86%).

The next highest proportion was unit 6 with 5,16% and the third highest proportion

was unit 7 (4,19%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3, and unit 5 had approximately similar

proportion of K2. They were unit 1 with 4,01%; unit 2 with 3,94%; unit 3 with

3,80%; and unit 5 with 3,61%.

Figure 3. Comparison K2 for each unit

4.01% 3.94% 3.80%

5.86%

3.61%

5.16%4.19%

0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%

K2 (2)

13

From K2 perspective, it could be assumed that the higher the proportion of K2

in certain unit, the harder the unit is to comprehend. Thus from the finding, the

highest proportion of K2 was unit 4 with the topic about the explanation on how first

language is acquired. In explaining this topic, unit 4 used more K2 words. Similar

with unit 4, unit 6 which had the second highest proportion of K2, indicating that this

unit was also hard to comprehend. Since the topic discussed in unit 6 was about affect

in language learning, unit 6 needed more complex words that included in K2 word

category. The third highest proportion of K2 was unit 7. In this unit the K2 words

were used more to explain about using a second language. Thus this unit also

remained as unit which could be hard to comprehend.

Academic Word List

Figure 4 provides the comparison between Academic Word List (AWL) used

in every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest

proportion of AWL category (11,92%). The next highest proportion was unit 6 with

11,36% and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,84%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 3,

and unit 4 had approximately similar proportion of AWL. They are unit 1 with

9,31%; unit 2 with 10,73%; unit 3 with 8,48%; and unit 4 with 9,67%.

14

AWL words category represents the most difficult words to comprehend.

Thus, it could be concluded that high proportion of AWL may cause comprehension

of the unit difficult. From the finding, unit 5 had the highest proportion of AWL.

Therefore, unit 5 considered as unit which was hard to comprehend. This happened

because its topic was about learning a second language which needed more academic

words such as acquisitions, maturation, constraints, and adulthood. The second

highest proportion of AWL was unit 6 which discussed affect in language learning.

Because the topic had several terms in explaining the affect, the proportion of AWL

in this unit was high. The third highest proportion of AWL was unit 7. This unit

discussed about using a second language, thus academic words used to explain the

topic.

Figure 4. Comparison AWL for each unit

9.31%10.73%

8.48%9.67%

11.92% 11.36% 10.84%

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%

AWL

15

Off-List Category

Figure 5 provides the comparison between Off-List words category used in

every unit from the course book. From the finding, unit 3 had the highest proportion

of Off-List category (14,88%). The next highest proportion was unit 5 with 12,58%

and the third highest proportion was unit 7 (10,22%). Unit 1, unit 2, unit 4, and unit 7

had approximately similar proportion of Off-List category. They are unit 1 with

5,68%; unit 2 with 6,60%; unit 4 with 10,47%; and unit 7 with 7,18%.

Off-List category was not included in K1, K2 or AWL category. Off-List

category usually contains proper names, other language terms, and misspell words.

Unit 3 that had the highest number of Off-List category explained the history of

language education in Indonesia, thus, it contained several Indonesian terms in

language education and name of scholars. Unit 5 remained as the second highest

proportion of Off-list category because it contained several scholar names such as

Figure 5. Comparison Off-List Category of Each Unit

5.68% 6.60%

14.88%

10.47%12.58%

10.22%

7.18%

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%

Off-List

16

Krashen, Gass, Swain, Van Lier, and Varonis discussed the theory about learning a

second language. In explaining about using a second language, unit 7 also used

several Indonesian terms in comparing about English education in English speaking

countries and that in Indonesia.

Conclusion

This study aims to identify the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language

and Education (2013) course book. The findings have presented identification of

vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education (2013) course book. From

the study, it revealed three major results. First, it could be concluded that 80,81% of

the course book could be understandable for university learners. While the rest

19,19% of it still might need much effort to comprehend. Second, unit 1 could be

concluded as relatively easy to comprehend because it had the highest proportion of

K1 words (81,02%) and the lowest proportion of AWL (9,31%). The large proportion

of high frequency words in the unit may relate to the relatively easy comprehension

level of the unit and topic discussed in the unit. On the other hand, unit 5 could be

hard to comprehend because it had the lowest proportion of K1 (73,92%) and the

highest proportion of AWL (11,92%). The large proportion of AWL vocabulary may

negatively affect comprehension of the unit. Third, unit 7 had the second highest

proportion of K1 and third highest proportion of AWL. Conversely, it did not show

the contrastive result as unit 1 and unit 5 did. This phenomenon could be happened

based on the length of the text in unit 7, which was 3034 words and the topic

17

discussed. Nevertheless, unit 7 could be assumed as hard to comprehend because it

had the third highest proportion of AWL.

However, this study still has limitation. The limitation is that this study only

used one text book which was at university level to be analyzed. Having more than

one book to be analyzed will be more beneficial for the reliability of the study.

By knowing the vocabulary profile of Introduction to Language Education

(2013) course book, teachers should be more aware with the words contained in the

course book so that they can decide the choice of words in creating materials for the

students. Furthermore teachers can also explain more about the difficult words. More

research related to vocabulary profile of course book in another scope can also be

beneficial for teachers to help them select reading materials (spoken or written) that

are suitable with the learners.

18

Acknowledgement

This study was done with a lot of support. Therefore, I would like to thank the

Lord for His blessing and guidance in finishing this study. I would like to express my

sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Gusti Astika, M. A. for his immeasurable

supervision and help during the completion of my thesis, and also my examiner,

Rindang Widiningrum, M. Hum for the fundamental suggestion and guidance for this

thesis.

I also would like to express my big gratitude to my beloved mom (Sri Sulastri

Benedicta) and dad (Subardi) for their understanding and immense support so I can

finish this thesis. Big grateful is also given to Faustinus Adven Kristanto, for giving

me endless support, restless companion, and keeping me believe that I can do and

finish this thesis. My big thank is also given to my friends; Adina, Dewi, Aditya,

Lintang, Nindi, Titania, and Zale for the happiness and tears we shared together. Then

I also want to say thank you for Tenners family as my second family. Thanks for the

happiness, laughter, and togetherness that make my 4 years in ED SWCU extremely

pleasurable and unforgettable. Last, I also would like to give my appreciation to all

lecturers in ED SWCU for guiding, teaching, and educating me throughout my 4

years study.

19

References

Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2011). Developing a Lexical Profiler for Spoken French

L2 and Italian L2. Eurosla , 75-93.

Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with Call: Practical

approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York: Pearson

Education.

Cobb, T. (ND). The original idea behind this website: Why & how to use frequency

lists to learn words. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from Compleat Lexical Tutor:

http://www.lextutor.ca/research/.

Cobb, T., & Morris, L. (2004) Analysis of TESL and TEFL Trainees' grammatical

and lexical knowledge.

Coxhead, A. (2000). A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly , 34 (2), pp.

213-238.

Introduction to Language Education. (2013). A Course book, Satya Wacana

Christian University. Salatiga

Laufer, B. (2010). Lexical Threshold Revisited: Lexical Text Coverage, Learners'

VOcabulary Size, and Reading Comprehension. Reading in a Foreign

Language , 22 (1), 15-30.

Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2

Written Production. Applied Linguistic , 16 (3), 307-322.

20

Matsuoka, W., & Hirsh, D. (2010). Vocabulary Learning through Reading: Does an

ELT Course Book Provide Good Opportunity? Reading in a Foreign

Language , 22 (1), 56-70.

Meara, P. (2005). Lexical Frequency Profiles: A Monte Carlo Analysis. Applied

Linguistics , 26 (1), 32-47.

Morris, L. (2001, November). The Use of Vocabulary Profiles in Predicting the

Academic and Pedagogic Performance of TESL Trainees. International Language in

Education Conference .

Morris, L., & Cobb, T. (2004). Vocabulary Profile as Predictorsof the Academic

Performance of Teaching English as a Second Language Trainees. System 32 ,

75-87.

Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Nation, I. S. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston, Massachusetts:

Heinle and heinle.

Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary Size, Text Coverage, and Word List. In

N. Schmitt, & M. McCarthy, Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and

Pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

21

Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2012). A Reassessment of Frequency and Vocabulary

Size in L2 Vocabulary Teaching. Cambridge Journal , 1-20.

Yoon, S.-Y., Bhat, S., & Zechner, K. (2012). Vocabulary Profile as a Measure of

Vocabulary Sophistication. The 7th Workshop on the Innovative Use of NLP

for Building Educational Applications (pp. 180-189). Canada: Association for

Computational Linguistic.

22