Next Article in Journal
Metalinguistic Discourse in an Emerging Sign Language
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring Lexical Bundles in the Move Structure of English Medical Research Abstracts: A Focus on Vocabulary Levels
Previous Article in Journal
Compactness of Native Vowel Categories in Monolingual, Bilingual, and Multilingual Speakers: Is Category Compactness Affected by the Number of Languages Spoken?
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Lexical Bundle Length on L2 Oral Proficiency
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Languages
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/languages9070239
languages-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction

by
Zhiqing Li
1,
Janis Zhiyou Li
1,
Xiaofang Zhang
1 and
Barry Lee Reynolds
1,2,*
1
Faculty of Education, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China
2
Centre for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, University of Macau, Macau SAR, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Languages 2024, 9(7), 239; https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239
Submission received: 29 April 2024 / Revised: 13 June 2024 / Accepted: 14 June 2024 / Published: 2 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vocabulary Studies in L1 and L2 Development: The Interface between Theory and Practice)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Prior to enrolling in an English as a medium of instruction (EMI) institution, students must show an English proficiency level through meeting a benchmark on a standard English proficiency test, which is typically aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Along with overall English proficiency, aural/written vocabulary level mastery could also predict students’ success at EMI institutions, as students need adequate English vocabulary knowledge to comprehend lectures and course readings. However, aural/written vocabulary level mastery has yet to be clearly benchmarked to CEFR levels. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the correlations between students’ aural/written vocabulary level mastery and their CEFR levels. Forty undergraduate students in a Macau EMI university were recruited to take one English proficiency test and two vocabulary level tests (i.e., Listening Vocabulary Levels Test (LVLT) and the Updated Vocabulary Levels Test (UVLT)). Correlation analyses were conducted to explore the relationship between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of listening and reading vocabulary levels. A positive correlation was found between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of receptive aural vocabulary levels (ρ = 0.409, p = 0.009). Furthermore, a statistically significant positive correlation was found between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of receptive written vocabulary levels (ρ = 0.559, p < 0.001). Although positive correlations were observed, no clear pattern was identified regarding the relationship between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of aural/written vocabulary levels. Regression analyses were further conducted to determine the extent to which the combination of receptive aural and written vocabulary knowledge predicts the CEFR levels. The results indicated that the regression model that included only UVLT scores better predicted the CEFR levels. Given the positive correlations observed between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of vocabulary levels, this study’s findings suggest the inclusion of aural/written vocabulary levels as additional indicators for ensuring student academic success in EMI institutions. Implications for EMI universities on student admissions, classroom teaching, and provision of additional English courses were provided.

1. Introduction

The internationalization of education has led to an increase in the implementation of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) (Reynolds and Yu 2018; Schoepp 2018). As a multilingual and multicultural region, Macau has embraced EMI within its higher education system (Reynolds et al. 2023). Specifically, Macau’s higher education institutions offer programs in English to enhance their competitiveness as a global education hub (Botha 2013). Moreover, to ensure that students possess adequate language competencies to meet the academic demands, EMI universities have established English proficiency requirements aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as prerequisites for university admissions (Wu 2023). Second language (L2) English-speaking applicants generally need to attain a specific score on standardized international language tests (e.g., IELTS and TOEFL). These tests serve to demonstrate students’ proficiency in comprehending and engaging with academic lectures effectively. For example, the University of Macau employs IELTS band 6.0 and TOEFL 79 as the benchmarks for admission to EMI undergraduate programs (University of Macau 2024), which is equivalent to the B2 level on the CEFR scale.
However, a discrepancy has been observed between students’ CEFR-defined scores and their actual ability to comprehend EMI lectures and instructional materials (Reynolds et al. 2023). Students have reported linguistic barriers in adapting to the EMI environment (Aizawa et al. 2023; Reynolds et al. 2022), with particular emphasis on the need for reading improvement (Aizawa et al. 2023; Taltz 2011) and extensive vocabulary instruction (Yu et al. 2020). Merely meeting the English proficiency requirements for admissions does not guarantee students’ ability to comprehend and actively engage in academic lectures (Reynolds et al. 2023). A previous study conducted in Macau has shown that achieving a 98% lexical coverage in English language teaching lectures requires the acquisition of proper nouns, marginal words, and knowledge of the most frequent 4000 word families (Reynolds et al. 2022). This finding underscored the importance of considering students’ vocabulary level mastery when admitting them to various academic programs (Reynolds et al. 2023).
With the increasing implementation of EMI in higher education, it is essential for researchers and educators to consider whether the existing language proficiency tests for university admission are sufficient to examine students’ ability to comprehend and engage in EMI lectures. While lexical knowledge is considered fundamental in students’ EMI learning outcomes (Uchihara and Harada 2018), a link between students’ vocabulary knowledge and their CEFR-defined scores needs to be established to improve the admission process and to ensure that students can excel in an EMI context. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the relationship between EMI students’ CEFR levels and their receptive vocabulary level mastery.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Vocabulary Mastery in EMI Programs

Compared to general English proficiency, vocabulary knowledge is often overlooked when assessing students’ readiness for learning in an EMI setting (Reynolds et al. 2023). However, vocabulary knowledge plays a crucial role in determining students’ abilities in the four language skills: reading (Uchihara and Harada 2018), writing (Yang et al. 2019), listening (Reynolds et al. 2022, 2023), and speaking (Enayat and Derakhshan 2021). Specifically, vocabulary knowledge is identified as the main challenge students face in an EMI setting (Macaro 2022), as they struggle to understand content materials filled with unfamiliar words and face difficulties in incidental vocabulary acquisition (Hu et al. 2021; Nguyen 2021). These challenges encountered by students in comprehending EMI lectures highlighted the necessity of assessing their receptive aural/written vocabulary knowledge.
Numerous studies have addressed a positive relationship between L2 learners’ lexical coverage and their L2 reading comprehension. For instance, the mastery of the most frequent 1000 word families can reach 88% lexical coverage of English proficiency test passages (Stoeckel et al. 2021; Webb et al. 2017). The demand for lexical coverage in comprehending academic lectures is even higher. For example, Dang and Webb (2014) found that achieving 96% coverage of EMI academic lectures requires knowledge of the most frequent 4000 word families, including proper nouns and marginal words. Furthermore, achieving a 98% coverage necessitates knowledge of the most frequent 8000 word families, along with proper nouns and marginal words. These studies highlighted the need to measure L2 learners’ vocabulary mastery levels when examining their readiness for learning in an EMI context. Since vocabulary level mastery offers information on the frequency levels of words that have been mastered by students, knowing their vocabulary level mastery allows for the comparison between students’ aural/written vocabulary level mastery and the frequency levels of words required to comprehend EMI lectures and instructional materials from different disciplines. With this information at hand, key stakeholders can more confidently predict students’ readiness for learning in specific EMI programs. The Updated Vocabulary Levels Test (UVLT) (Webb et al. 2017) provides insights into the levels of mastery of the most frequent 5000 word families (Webb et al. 2017) and acts as a standard for selecting appropriate vocabulary when designing instructional materials (e.g., Reynolds et al. 2022). Therefore, this study employed the UVLT as a measure of L1 Chinese EFL learners’ written receptive vocabulary knowledge, suggesting that a minimum lexical coverage of 90% is required for satisfactory listening comprehension and a higher percentage is beneficial for more comprehensive understanding. However, the explanatory power of vocabulary knowledge in the success of L2 listening comprehension varies from 13% (Wang and Treffers-Daller 2017) to 59% (Cai 2020) among previous studies examining the correlations between L2 vocabulary and listening (Wang 2023). This can be explained by the different measurements of L2 learners’ vocabulary knowledge, for example, the format (i.e., a written test versus an aural test) and the focus (i.e., receptive versus productive knowledge) of the vocabulary test. Previous studies focused on orthographic vocabulary size and found a moderate to strong correlation between orthographic vocabulary size and L2 listening comprehension (Bonk 2000; Stæhr 2008; Wang and Treffers-Daller 2017). However, written vocabulary size tests do not directly tap into L2 learners’ ability to recognize words in real-time audio input (Matthews and Cheng 2015). Stæhr (2009) emphasized that a vocabulary test involving hearing the target words should be ideally employed when examining the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening comprehension. Cheng and Matthews’s (2018) study explored the relationship between three measures (i.e., receptive/orthographic, productive/orthographic, and productive/phonological) of vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening comprehension of Chinese tertiary EFL learners. They reported a strong correlation between aural productive vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening comprehension (r = 0.71, p < 0.001) (Cheng and Matthews 2018). Moreover, Cai (2020) investigated the relationship between L2 learners’ receptive aural vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening comprehension, finding L2 learners’ receptive aural vocabulary knowledge contributed to the prediction of 59% of the variance in their L2 listening comprehension. Furthermore, McLean et al. (2015) and Wallace (2020) used the LVLT (McLean et al. 2015) to measure Japanese EFL learners’ aural receptive vocabulary knowledge and found a significant correlation between their aural vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening comprehension. The validity and generalizability of the LVLT make it an ideal instrument for assessing aural vocabulary knowledge among L2 EFL learners. Du et al. (2022) further confirmed the reliability and validity of the LVLT among Chinese tertiary EFL learners. Therefore, this study used the LVLT as a measure of L1 Chinese EFL learners’ aural receptive vocabulary knowledge.

2.2. Mapping Vocabulary Levels to the CEFR

Developed by the Council of Europe, the CEFR provides a description of a foreign language learner’s proficiency, utilizing seven descriptors ranging from pre-A1 to C2, in ascending order (Council of Europe 2018). The CEFR is widely recognized as a valuable language evaluation tool used for assessing language proficiency across various languages and contexts (Graves 2008; Hulstijn et al. 2010). The standardized approach of the CEFR enables its users to apply the measurement of individuals’ English proficiency, including the four language skills and other aspects, such as vocabulary, grammar, and communicative competence, in a consistent manner (North and Piccardo 2019). Although the CEFR provides general guidelines and a set of descriptors with its focus on reading, writing, listening, and speaking, it cannot refer to any specific language or context of use (Piccardo 2020). Therefore, this makes the utility of supplement testing with appropriate vocabulary tests (i.e., UVLT, LVLT) particularly compelling. Specifically, this variability underscores the importance of our study: supplementing traditional proficiency tests with specific vocabulary assessments can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of a student’s readiness for academic success in an EMI context.
According to the British Council (n.d.), EMI universities have language proficiency requirements that range from B2 to C1, which may vary depending on the educational programs, levels of study, and regions. Due to the varying formats and scales of language tests, it can be challenging to accurately map students’ assessment scores to their actual language proficiency (ETS 2010). Therefore, the importance of aligning language proficiency assessments with the CEFR is emphasized. Although the CEFR provides information about the vocabulary range and vocabulary control that L2 learners are expected to have attained at each level of the CEFR hierarchy, the criteria are too general to provide detailed information about the specific vocabulary size associated with each CEFR level (Milton 2010).
Despite the predictive power of students’ vocabulary knowledge on their language proficiency, the relationship between CEFR levels and vocabulary requirements has remained ambiguous (Benigno and de Jong 2019). The connections between students’ English vocabulary size and the estimated CEFR levels (e.g., Meara and Milton 2003; Milton 2009; Nation, p.c.) are summarized in Table 1. These findings generally showed that a larger vocabulary size is necessary for higher English proficiency, with a vocabulary size of 3000 to 4000 words required for intermediate levels (B1, B2). However, the vocabulary requirements for elementary levels (A1, A2) and advanced levels (C1, C2) vary considerably.
Although there have been previous attempts to correlate vocabulary knowledge to the CEFR levels, many of these studies (e.g., Meara and Milton 2003; Milton 2009) have primarily focused on assessing learners’ receptive written vocabulary size, overlooking the nuances of their comprehension abilities in different contexts (Milton and Alexiou 2020). Additionally, while a vocabulary size metric is powerful and strongly connected to learners’ performance in the four skills (Milton and Alexiou 2020; Stæhr 2008), Siregar and Henni (2023) argued that a vocabulary size test merely provides a general assessment of learners’ overall vocabulary knowledge, whereas a vocabulary level test offers more detailed insights into a learner’s mastery of vocabulary knowledge. Thus, establishing a link between the CEFR levels and vocabulary level mastery can provide educators and institutions with a clearer understanding of the vocabulary thresholds necessary for learners to progress from one CEFR level to another. Moreover, this linkage caters to the specific language demands of diverse academic and professional contexts, which can be used to inform the language proficiency assessments employed for EMI university admissions. Therefore, this study utilized two vocabulary level tests (i.e., LVLT and UVLT) to examine the relationship between students’ aural/written vocabulary level mastery and their CEFR levels.

2.3. Problem Statement and Research Questions

The foci of many previous studies on the relationship between students’ CEFR levels and their vocabulary knowledge were limited to vocabulary size, which failed to comprehensively compare students’ vocabulary knowledge to the lexical difficulty levels of academic programs. Therefore, a link needs to be established between the CEFR levels and vocabulary level mastery. In addition, most of the previous studies have primarily focused on measuring learners’ receptive written vocabulary size (e.g., Meara and Milton 2003; Milton 2009; Milton and Alexiou 2020). Considering that listening comprehension also plays a vital role in understanding lectures for students enrolled in EMI programs, and recognizing a word in its written form does not guarantee recognition of the same word when presented in spoken form (Field 2008; Goh 2000), an equal attention should be given to the measure of receptive aural vocabulary level mastery. Therefore, the current study focused on the relationship between both written and aural receptive vocabulary level mastery and CEFR levels.
Addressing these gaps, the main purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between students’ CEFR levels and their mastery of listening/reading vocabulary levels. The following four research questions guided this study:
(1)
RQ1: To what extent is the English proficiency of EMI students (i.e., CEFR levels) associated with their mastery of receptive aural vocabulary levels?
(2)
RQ2: What correlations exist between EMI students’ proficiency (i.e., CEFR levels) and their mastery of receptive aural vocabulary levels?
(3)
RQ3: To what extent is the English proficiency of EMI students (i.e., CEFR levels) associated with their mastery of receptive written vocabulary levels?
(4)
RQ4: What correlations exist between EMI students’ proficiency (i.e., CEFR levels) and their mastery of receptive written vocabulary levels?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

Forty undergraduate students (13 males and 27 females) who speak Chinese as L1 (Cantonese or Mandarin) and were enrolled in a public university in Macau were recruited as participants in this study. Convenience sampling and snowball sampling (Cohen et al. 2011) were applied to recruit undergraduate students from different faculties (i.e., Arts and Humanities, Business Administration, Education, Law, Science and Technology, and Social Sciences), which resulted in students at Year 1 and Year 4 of undergraduate studies. The Year 1 undergraduate students had one semester of EMI learning experience, while the Year 4 students had been engaged in the EMI learning environment for seven consecutive semesters. Each participant was given the description of the study and an informed consent form. Demographic information about the participants was collected using an online questionnaire (see Appendix A), which included age (M = 19.975, SD = 1.717) and cumulative grade point average (CGPA) on a 4.0 scale (M = 3.125, SD = 0.502). The research methodology was reviewed and approved by the University of Macau Research Committee–Panel on Research Ethics.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Listening Vocabulary Levels Test

The LVLT (Kramer n.d.; McLean et al. 2015) measures participants’ English aural vocabulary knowledge from five 1000-word frequency levels and the Academic Word List (AWL). The unidimensionality of the LVLT was confirmed by McLean et al. (2015). The test comprises six sections with 150 items in total. The LVLT is a multiple-choice format test. The first five sections correspond to the five frequency levels of the most frequent 5000 word families (e.g., section one measures the most frequent 1000 word families, section two measures the most frequent 2000 word families), and each of these five sections contains 24 items. The AWL is included in the sixth section of the LVLT, containing 30 items that assess academic word knowledge. The original version of the LVLT was designed for Japanese L1 speakers, in which the answer options were presented in Japanese. In this study, Chinese L1 speakers were invited to sit the test, so an L1 Chinese answer sheet was adopted for the present study. The Chinese version answer sheet was then further adapted so that the simplified Chinese version could be given to Mandarin speakers/readers and the traditional Chinese version could be given to Cantonese speakers. In the LVLT, participants heard a word followed by a straightforward carrier sentence that provided them with the grammatical context to access the meaning of the target word. Then, they had around five seconds to circle the answer that corresponds most closely to the meaning of the target word among four answer options. To determine participants’ mastery level of aural vocabulary, a 21/24 cut-off score was used for the first 5000 frequency levels, and a 26/30 cut-off score was used for mastery of the AWL in accordance with Schmitt et al.’s (2001) suggested 26/30 criterion per level. According to Schmitt et al. (2001), learners were presumed to have mastered the higher frequency levels if they had mastered the lower frequency levels, and this guideline was also followed in this study. A participant’s aural vocabulary mastery level was determined by the highest level at which a participant reached mastery.

3.2.2. Updated Vocabulary Levels Test

The UVLT is a revised and validated version of the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) (Nation 1983; Schmitt et al. 2001) that is used most widely to measure L2 learners’ receptive vocabulary knowledge (Webb and Sasao 2013). The UVLT’s unidimensionality has previously been confirmed (Webb et al. 2017). This updated test includes the measurement of the most frequent 5000 word families, dividing them into five frequency levels (Webb et al. 2017). For each frequency level, there are 10 clusters of three words, with 30 words for assessment in total. In each cluster, the participants are required to match the description to the corresponding word out of a list of 6 choices. The UVLT was scored following the guideline of Webb et al. (2017). Obtaining 29 items correct out of 30 for the 1000, 2000, and 3000 most frequent words was considered mastery, whereas attaining at least 24 out of 30 for the most frequent 4000 and 5000 levels was considered mastery of those levels. This study considered the highest level that a participant reached as his/her mastered vocabulary level (Ha 2022).

3.2.3. The Core Skills Test (CKT)

The Core Skills Test, one of the tests in the EnglishScore suite, is an internationally recognized assessment developed by the British Council and is delivered to participants through the British Council English Score application (British Council 2022). Overall, each of the test takers will get a total score up to 599 that represents their general English proficiency, as well as four individual scores for their proficiency in listening, reading, grammar, and vocabulary. While sitting the test, participants engaged in various question formats, including fill-in-the-blanks, multiple choice, and reordering paragraphs, all centered around everyday life topics. The scores of the CKT are in alignment with the CEFR framework, describing a learner’s proficiency level on a range from beginner to advanced (i.e., A1 to C2). After test completion, a result page allows test takers to compare their obtained scores to other standardized language tests (See Table 2). The CKT provides accurate and trusted evaluations of English language skills for both young adult and adult learners from different language backgrounds (British Council 2022). In this study, the result of the CKT was used as a measurement of CEFR levels.

3.3. Procedures

The procedures are schematized in Figure 1. The data collection was conducted in two sessions. In the first session, participants were asked to take the UVLT and the LVLT. These two tests were administered in paper-and-pen format in a university library discussion room. After session 1, participants would take a 10 min break and proceed to session 2. In the second session, participants downloaded the British Council EnglishScore application and registered a test-taker account using their personal email address. Then, they took the CKT on their own devices. After they completed the test, they took another 5 min break and were invited to fill in an online questionnaire about their demographic information (i.e., age, gender, year of study) and academic performance (i.e., CGPA).

3.4. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and regression analysis were conducted using SPSS 27.0. Descriptive statistics were computed to illustrate participants’ mastery of English listening/reading vocabulary levels and CEFR levels. Moreover, correlation analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between listening/reading vocabulary scores and CKT scores. Regression analysis was conducted to determine the extent to which the combination of receptive aural and written vocabulary knowledge predicts the CEFR level. Before conducting any inferential statistics, data analysis assumptions were tested. The data for CGPA, the CKT scores, the UVLT scores, the LVLT scores, and the AWL scores were not normally distributed, as shown by the results of Shapiro–Wilk tests: CGPA (p = 0.018), the CKT scores (p = 0.008), the UVLT scores (p < 0.001), the LVLT scores (p = 0.004), and the AWL scores (p = 0.005). Therefore, two-tailed non-parametric Spearman’s rho correlations were conducted to investigate the relationship among CGPA, CKT scores, and receptive aural/written vocabulary scores (Larson-Hall 2010). Additionally, the coefficient alpha of the LVLT scores and the UVLT scores were calculated to ensure the reliability of the data. The Cronbach’s alpha obtained was 0.669 for the UVLT scores and 0.696 for the LVLT scores, which indicated a fairly high level of internal consistency for vocabulary scores with this specific sample (Larson-Hall 2010). Before conducting the regression analysis, the assumptions for multiple regression were tested. However, the multicollinearity of the two variables (i.e., LVLT scores and UVLT scores) was not met (r = 0.904), indicating a high correlation between them. Additionally, the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each variable suggested that multicollinearity could be problematic (VIF = 5.449), as “values greater than 5 may harm the model” (Heiberger and Holland 2004, p. 243). To mitigate the multicollinearity issues, the dimensionality reduction technique of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to combine the correlated variables into a single composite variable. This composite variable was then used in the regression analysis for this study.

4. Results

4.1. RQ1: To What Extent Is the English Proficiency of EMI Students (i.e., CEFR Levels) Associated with Their Mastery of Receptive Aural Vocabulary Levels?

The descriptive statistics of the mastery levels of the LVLT and language proficiency levels obtained from the EnglishScore test are presented in Table 3. The majority of participants clustered in CEFR B1 and B2 levels, within which participants exhibited varying levels of aural vocabulary mastery. Notably, the B2 level had the highest frequency of participants across all aural vocabulary mastery levels, with twelve participants having obtained an aural vocabulary mastery level of 2 k, six participants at the 3 k level, and two participants each at the 5 k and 1 k levels. Furthermore, participants at the CEFR C1 level displayed a diverse range of aural vocabulary mastery levels. One participant each was at the 2 k and 3 k levels, while two participants were at the 5 k level. Conversely, participants at the A1 and A2 CEFR levels had lower overall vocabulary mastery levels. However, exceptional cases were found at the A2 proficiency level, where two participants had an aural vocabulary mastery level of 3 k.
Therefore, participants classified in lower CEFR proficiency levels (i.e., A1 and A2) generally had lower aural vocabulary mastery levels (i.e., below 2 k level), while intermediate and advanced participants (i.e., B1 and above) had an overall higher aural vocabulary mastery level (i.e., above 2 k level). However, the varying aural vocabulary mastery levels within each CEFR proficiency level indicated the heterogeneity of participants’ word knowledge. Therefore, a clear relationship between EMI students’ CEFR levels and their aural receptive vocabulary levels was not identified in this study.

4.2. RQ2: What Correlations Exist between EMI Students’ Language Proficiency (i.e., CEFR Levels) and Their Mastery of Receptive Aural Vocabulary Levels?

Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics, including measures such as means, ranges, standard deviations, and skewness for the five levels, the AWL, and the total scores of the LVLT. At the 1 k and 2 k frequency levels, the mean scores of the LVLT were greater than those at the other frequency levels and at the AWL. However, the mean score of the LVLT at the 5 k frequency level was slightly higher than that at the 4 k frequency level, which was similar to the results found in Wang’s (2023) study. This was possibly because learners had encountered and learned the vocabulary at the 5 k frequency level in their past experiences (Wang 2023).
To answer RQ2, correlation analyses were conducted among the participants’ CKT scores, LVLT scores, AWL scores, and CGPA. Table 5 shows several statistically significant correlations between these variables. First, there was a positive correlation between participants’ CKT scores and their LVLT scores (ρ = 0.624, p < 0.001). This indicates that participants with higher language proficiency tended to have a greater mastery of receptive aural vocabulary. Additionally, a strong positive correlation was also found between participants’ CKT scores and their AWL scores (ρ = 0.654, p < 0.001), indicating that higher CKT scores were associated with higher AWL scores. Moreover, participants’ mastery of receptive aural vocabulary was positively correlated to their mastery of the AWL (ρ = 0.806, p < 0.001). The result indicated that participants who achieved higher LVLT scores also performed well in the AWL section. Regarding the participants’ academic performance, there was a positive correlation between EMI students’ mastery of receptive aural vocabulary and their CGPA (ρ = 0.458, p = 0.003), suggesting that students with higher LVLT scores tended to achieve higher CGPA. Additionally, a statistically significant correlation was found between participants’ AWL scores and their CGPA (ρ = 0.331, p = 0.037). However, the correlation between participants’ CKT scores and their CGPA was relatively weak and not statistically significant (ρ = 0.289, p = 0.070), suggesting that there was no strong association between language proficiency and academic performance, as measured by CGPA.
Therefore, the correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between EMI students’ language proficiency and their mastery of receptive aural vocabulary. The statistically significant correlation suggested that as language proficiency increases, students are more likely to have a greater mastery of receptive aural vocabulary.

4.3. RQ3: To What Extent Is the English Proficiency of EMI Students (i.e., CEFR Levels) Associated with Their Mastery of Receptive Written Vocabulary Levels?

Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of CEFR and receptive written vocabulary mastery levels, revealing that there was no clear relationship between the participants’ CEFR levels and their receptive written vocabulary mastery levels. This means that higher English proficiency does not necessarily equal broader vocabulary knowledge. For instance, only one C1-level participant mastered the most frequent 5000 word families, while six B2-level participants achieved this 5k level of mastery. Most participants were upper intermediate (n = 22), and few were beginners (n = 2). The number of advanced EFL learners equals that of the elementary level (n = 4).
There was variance in the UVLT scores of the participants (M = 75.4%, SD = 15.9%). Participants at each CEFR level demonstrated a diverse range of written vocabulary mastery levels, in which the widest range was found at the CEFR B2 level. Most participants (n = 16) were shown to have only mastered the most frequent 2000 word families, followed by the most frequent 1000 word families (n = 8), the most frequent 5000 word families (n = 7), and the most frequent 4000 word families (n = 3). The least number of participants (n = 1) were shown to master the most frequent 3000 word families. Five participants did not show mastery of any vocabulary levels.

4.4. RQ4: What Correlations Exist between EMI Students’ Language Proficiency (i.e., CEFR Levels) and Their Mastery of Receptive Written Vocabulary Levels?

Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics, including measures such as means, ranges, standard deviations, and skewness, for the five levels and the total scores of the UVLT. Among all the frequency levels, the mean scores of the UVLT at the 1 k and 2 k frequency levels were greater than those at the other frequency levels. Additionally, the mean score of each frequency level displayed a descending trend from 1 k to 5 k frequency levels.
To answer RQ4, correlation analyses were conducted among the participants’ CKT scores, UVLT scores, and their CGPA. A statistically significant positive correlation was found between participants’ CKT scores and UVLT scores (ρ = 0.682, p < 0.001). The statistically significant positive correlations suggested that higher English proficiency was associated with better receptive written vocabulary knowledge. Regarding the participants’ academic performance, there was a positive correlation between EMI students’ mastery of receptive written vocabulary and their CGPA (ρ = 0.401, p = 0.010), suggesting that students with higher UVLT scores tended to achieve higher CGPA.

4.5. Regression Analyses

Table 7 displays three regression models that significantly predict changes in the CEFR levels. After running the standardized multiple regression analyses, it was found that both LVLT scores and UVLT scores made significant contributions to participants’ CEFR levels. Model 1, which included only LVLT scores, explains 58.3% of the variance in the CEFR levels. Model 2, which included only UVLT scores, explains 66.1% of the variance in the CEFR levels, slightly higher than the variance explained by Model 1 and Model 3. Model 3 used a composite variable of LVLT and UVLT scores, explaining 65.4% of the variance in CEFR levels. Therefore, Model 3 does not offer a significant advantage over Model 2.

5. Discussion

The findings suggest that while there was a general trend of higher aural/written vocabulary mastery levels among participants with higher CEFR levels, considerable variability within each CEFR level was observed. For example, there were participants at the CEFR B2 level with an aural vocabulary mastery level of 5 k and a written vocabulary master level of 2 k, whereas CEFR C1 participants only mastered the most frequent 2 k aural and written vocabulary. Previous studies showed that language in EFL textbooks was the major input for students’ vocabulary learning in many EFL contexts (Alsaif and Milton 2012; Jordan and Gray 2019). Therefore, EFL learners’ exposure to and engagement with English language materials might contribute to the observed differences in aural/written vocabulary mastery levels. Given the fact that L2 university students need to attain certain vocabulary knowledge to achieve 95% to 98% coverage of academic lectures (Dang 2022; Dang and Webb 2014; Reynolds et al. 2022, 2023), this finding highlighted the deficiency of the language requirement set for EMI university admission, which only examined applicants’ English language proficiency indicated by CEFR levels and neglected their vocabulary mastery levels. Therefore, a connection between L2 learners’ CEFR levels and their mastery of receptive aural/written vocabulary levels should ideally be established for EMI universities’ reference in setting the language requirements for student admissions.
Although this study failed to map participants’ receptive aural/written vocabulary mastery levels to their CEFR levels, results did indicate that greater receptive vocabulary knowledge was associated with higher CEFR levels, which is consistent with existing literature that highlights the positive correlation between vocabulary knowledge and language proficiency (Lin and Morrison 2010; Qian and Lin 2019; Rafique et al. 2023). While the findings of this study did not show a causative relationship between receptive vocabulary knowledge and CEFR levels, they suggested an intertwined and mutually reinforcing relationship between CEFR levels and vocabulary development (Zareva et al. 2005). This means that higher levels of vocabulary knowledge facilitates comprehension of the language, whereas higher CEFR levels provides a foundation for understanding and using newly learned vocabulary.
Furthermore, the positive correlation between receptive aural vocabulary knowledge and CGPA suggested that a solid aural vocabulary foundation is associated with better academic performance. Although this does not indicate a causation relationship between these two variables, the correlation may be explained by the EMI context in the university where lectures are delivered in English. Existing literature demonstrates a positive correlation between receptive aural vocabulary level mastery and L2 listening comprehension (Du et al. 2022; Matthews and Cheng 2015; McLean et al. 2015; Wallace 2020), which showed that a robust aural vocabulary foundation aids students’ comprehension of EMI lectures, suggesting a strong predictive power of high frequency and academic words in L2 listening comprehension proficiency (Du et al. 2022). Therefore, establishing a link between L2 English learners’ receptive aural vocabulary level mastery and their CEFR levels is crucial for ensuring the academic success of EMI university students.
Academic vocabulary knowledge played a crucial role in “the lengthy and difficult process of mastering the scale of lexicon needed to handle academic discourse” (p. 55) and was positively related to tertiary education achievement (Masrai and Milton 2018). The correlation between participants’ AWL scores and CGPA was statistically significant in this study, which aligns with the findings of Masrai and Milton’s (2018) study. While the study of Masrai and Milton (2018) showed the significance of receptive written academic vocabulary knowledge in L2 learners’ academic success, the results of this study suggest the important role of receptive aural academic vocabulary knowledge in tertiary education achievement.
The regression analyses of this study showed that the UVLT might be a better predictor of students’ CEFR levels compared to the LVLT. Students’ CEFR levels were measured by the CKT, which was mainly comprised of written tasks. While there were listening tasks included in the CKT, they only accounted for one-third of the test. Therefore, the UVLT had a slightly stronger predictive power of CEFR levels than the LVLT.
Additionally, the correlation between the CKT scores and CGPA was not statistically significant. This finding was contradictory to that of most previous studies, where the linguistic knowledge of EMI university students was an important indicator of their successful performance in EMI studies in tertiary education settings (e.g., Chapple 2015; Hu et al. 2014). However, a study that investigated students’ English proficiency and their EMI academic success in Turkey showed a similar result, finding a statistically non-significant correlation, which is explained by the limited impact of general English proficiency on students’ EMI academic success compared to academic English proficiency (Curle et al. 2020). The CKT questions that participants in this study answered were mainly on daily topics, such as “going to the supermarket” and “conversations you may have in the office” (British Council n.d., p. 9), testing their general instead of academic English proficiency level. Therefore, the relationship between students’ English proficiency and their EMI academic success was not statistically significant in this study, while it was statistically significant in studies that employed the measures of academic/content-related English proficiency, such as the final scores of English for Specific Purposes courses (e.g., Rose et al. 2020; Xie and Curle 2022).
Previous studies on EMI university students’ English proficiency and their academic performance in the EMI setting recruited Year 2 participants from business programs in monolingual contexts such as Japan, China, and Turkey (e.g., Curle et al. 2020; Rose et al. 2020; Xie and Curle 2022). Participants of this study included Year 1 and Year 4 students from different faculties of a public EMI university in the multilingual context of Macao, providing a more comprehensive overview of L2 students’ CEFR levels and their receptive vocabulary mastery levels.

6. Implications and Conclusions

In conclusion, this study did not find a clear pattern between L2 learners’ receptive vocabulary mastery levels and their CEFR levels. However, statistically significant positive correlations were found between receptive aural/written vocabulary test scores and the CKT scores, indicating that higher receptive vocabulary test scores were associated with higher CKT scores. The results of this study provided implications for EMI universities on student admissions, classroom teaching, and the provision of additional English courses.
Firstly, EMI universities are encouraged to include an independent vocabulary level test in addition to an English proficiency test to evaluate their L2 English-speaking applicants. On one hand, the heterogeneity between L2 learners’ receptive vocabulary mastery levels and their CEFR levels suggested that L2 learners who had met the minimum language requirement of an EMI university might encounter linguistic barriers in comprehending lectures. Multiple studies have also suggested that the mastery of the most frequent 2000 word families is insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of the EMI lectures and learning materials (e.g., Reynolds et al. 2023; Dang and Webb 2014). On the other hand, the statistically significant positive correlation found between L2 learners’ receptive aural vocabulary levels and their CGPA necessitates the inclusion of assessing L2 applicants’ aural vocabulary level mastery as part of the admission process of EMI universities.
Secondly, the EMI lecturers are encouraged to make good use of EMI students’ vocabulary profiles in selecting appropriate teaching materials and delivering lectures in a way that matches students’ vocabulary levels to increase their comprehension of the content knowledge (Reynolds et al. 2023). The descriptive statistics of this study showed that higher English proficiency does not guarantee higher mastery of receptive vocabulary mastery levels. Moreover, different disciplines possess different demands of vocabulary knowledge on students (Reynolds et al. 2023). While giving lectures in lexically demanding fields, it is necessary for the EMI lecturers to notice and address the discrepancy between students’ vocabulary levels and the demands of the discipline, which can be done by offering vocabulary lists for especially demanding lectures to students (Reynolds et al. 2023).
Lastly, the results of this study suggest refining the post-entry screening procedures to identify linguistically unprepared students and thus provide them with effective additional language courses. After being admitted to the EMI university, the L2 students are normally provided with various additional general and academic English courses to improve their readiness for studying in an EMI setting (Aizawa et al. 2023). Some of these courses are mandatory, while some of them are free electives, which depends on the students’ proficiency levels shown in the university entrance exam or other internationally standardized English proficiency tests. For example, in a public university in Macau, students who are lower than the CEFR B1 level are required to take all the general and academic English courses; students who are in between the CEFR B1 and B2 levels only need to take academic English courses; students with CEFR B2 level or higher CEFR levels are waived from taking any of the English courses (University of Macau 2023). However, the unclear pattern between students’ CEFR levels and their receptive aural/written vocabulary levels challenges the university’s proficiency standard of waiving additional English courses for admitted students. Exempting CEFR B2 level students mastering 2000 word families or fewer of the most frequent 2000 word families could be problematic since these students are likely to encounter difficulties comprehending EMI lectures and instructional materials. Therefore, it is suggested to utilize students’ vocabulary profiles in addition to their CEFR levels when conducting the screening process.

7. Limitations and Future Research

A key limitation of this study was the relatively small sample size, which may have contributed to the lack of a clear association between aural/written vocabulary mastery levels and CEFR proficiency levels. To obtain a more comprehensive understanding, future research should involve a larger group of EFL learners with diverse ages and proficiency levels. This would enable a deeper exploration of the specific factors that contribute to the observed heterogeneity in aural/written vocabulary mastery within CEFR proficiency levels, such as individual learner characteristics, instructional approaches, and exposure to authentic English language materials in EMI settings.
Additionally, the findings of this study may not be generalized to the entire EMI university student population or EFL learners of other age groups, as the participants were drawn only from university Year 1 and Year 4 students due to convenience sampling. However, this study has drawn researchers’ attention to the discrepancy between students’ receptive vocabulary mastery levels and the CEFR levels. These findings highlight the significance of further research in this area to support more effective language learning and academic success in EMI contexts. Although this study investigated the relationship between students’ general English proficiency and their receptive aural/written vocabulary levels, future studies may consider using an academic English proficiency test to examine the correlations between these variables. In addition to receptive aural/written vocabulary levels, future research may explore variables of productive aural/written vocabulary levels to strengthen the findings of this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.L.R.; methodology, B.L.R.; software, Z.L. and J.Z.L.; validation, X.Z.; formal analysis, Z.L. and J.Z.L.; investigation, Z.L. and J.Z.L.; resources, B.L.R.; data curation, Z.L. and J.Z.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L. and J.Z.L.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. and B.L.R.; supervision, B.L.R.; project administration, B.L.R.; funding acquisition, Z.L. and J.Z.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Macau, grant number HONR4001/2023-2/052/001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the University of Macau Research Committee–Panel on Research Ethics, number SSHRE24-APP007-FED.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Paul Nation of Victoria University of Wellington for his valuable guidance and support during the preparation of this manuscript. Through personal communication, Nation generously provided us with his summary of vocabulary knowledge mapped to different CEFR levels. He also kindly clarified aspects of his notes when we had questions, helping to enhance our understanding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Online Questionnaire

背景資料 Background Information 您在澳門大學就讀大學一年級/四年級嗎？Are you a first-year/fourth-year student at the University of Macau?
O
是，我是大一學生 Yes, I am a Year 1 student
O
是，我是大四學生Yes, I am a Year 4 student
O
否 No
您的年齡是？ How old are you?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您的性別是？What is your gender?
O
男 Male
O
女 Female
O
不便告知 Prefer not to say
詳細資料 Detailed Information
您的學號是？What is your student ID?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您就讀的學院是？What is your faculty?
O
人文學院 FAH
O
工商管理學院 FBA
O
教育學院 FED
O
健康科學學院 FHS
O
法學院 FLL
O
社會科學學院 FSS
O
科技學院 FST
您就讀的專業是？What is your major?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在此學期取得的累計GPA成績是？What is your cumulative GPA until this semester of your study?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您就讀的中學的主要授課語言是？What language is used as the medium of instruction in your secondary school?
O
中文（粵語/普通話）Chinese (Cantonese/Mandarin)
O
葡語 Portuguese
O
英語 English
O
其他（請列明）Others (Please specify)
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在入學時提交的英語成績屬於以下哪個類別？What kind of language tests did you use for applying the university?
O
四校聯考 JAE Examination
O
高考 Gaokao
O
雅思 IELTS
O
托福 TOEFL
O
托福 iBT TOEFL iBT
O
多益 TOEIC
O
國際中學教育普通證書 IGCSE
O
其他（請列明）Others (Please specify the name of the examination and English score)
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在四校聯考中取得的英語成績為？What is your JAE Examination English score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在高考中取得的英語成績為？What is your Gaokao English score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在雅思考試中取得的英語成績為？What is your IELTS score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在托福考試中取得的英語成績為？What is your TOEFL score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在托福iBT考試中取得的英語成績為？What is your TOEFL iBT score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在多益中取得的英語成績為？What is your TOEIC score?
Languages 09 00239 i001
您在國際中學教育普通證書考試中取得的英語成績為？What is your IGCSE English score?
Languages 09 00239 i001

References

  1. Aizawa, Ikuya, Heath Rose, Gene Thompson, and Samantha Curle. 2023. Beyond the threshold: Exploring English language proficiency, linguistic challenges, and academic language skills of Japanese students in an English medium instruction programme. Language Teaching Research 27: 837–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alsaif, Abdullah, and James Milton. 2012. Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small vocabulary uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. The Language Learning Journal 40: 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Benigno, Veronica, and John de Jong. 2019. Linking vocabulary to the CEFR and the Global Scale of English: A psychometric model. In Developments in Language Education: A Memorial Volume in Honour of Sauli Takala. Edited by Ari Huhta, Gudrun Erickson and Neus Figueras. Jyväskylä: University Printing House, pp. 8–29. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bonk, William J. 2000. Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening 14: 14–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Botha, Werner. 2013. English-medium instruction at a university in Macau: Policy and realities. World Englishes 32: 461–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. British Council. 2022. Linking EnglishScore to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). Available online: https://www.englishscore.com/resources/blog/how-does-englishscore-align-to-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  7. British Council. n.d. EnglishScore Core Skills Test Guide. Available online: https://es-mktg-assets.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/guide/englishscore-coreskills-guide-mobile.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  8. Cai, Hongwen. 2020. Relating lexical and syntactic knowledge to academic English listening: The importance of construct representation. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chapple, Julian. 2015. Teaching in English is not necessarily the teaching of English. International Education Studies 8: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cheng, Junyu, and Joshua Matthews. 2018. The relationship between three measures of L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 listening and reading. Language Testing 35: 3–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2011. Research Methods in Education, 7th ed. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  12. Council of Europe. 2018. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment–Companion Volume with New Descriptors, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg. Available online: www.coe.int/lang-cefr (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  13. Curle, Samantha Dogan Yuksel, Adem Soruc, and Mehmet Altay. 2020. Predictors of English medium instruction academic success: English proficiency versus first language medium. System 95: 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dang, Thi Nogc Yen. 2022. Vocabulary in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 58: 101123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dang, Thi Ngoc Yen, and Stuart Webb. 2014. The lexical profile of academic spoken English. English for Specific Purposes 33: 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Du, Guohui, Zuwati Hasim, and Fong Peng Chew. 2022. Contribution of English aural vocabulary size levels to L2 listening comprehension. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60: 937–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Enayat, Mostafa Janebi, and Ali Derakhshan. 2021. Vocabulary size and depth as predictors of second language speaking ability. System 99: 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  18. ETS. 2010. Linking TOEFL iBT Scores to IELTS Scores: A Research Report. Available online: https://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Linking+TOEFL+iBT+Scores+to+IELTS+Scores%3A+A+Research+Report&btnG=#d=gs_cit&t=1719713357688&u=%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dinfo%3AB77AC-ner7kJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F%26output%3Dcite%26scirp%3D0%26hl%3Den (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  19. Field, John. 2008. Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Goh, Christine C. M. 2000. A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problems. System 28: 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Graves, Kathleen. 2008. The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective. Language Teaching 41: 147–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ha, Hung Tan. 2022. Issues in matching learners to their reading levels using receptive vocabulary knowledge–A closer look at the vocabulary levels tests and scoring methods. Heliyon 8: 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Heiberger, Richard M., and Burt Holland. 2004. Statistical Analysis and Data Display: An Intermediate Course with Examples in S-PLUS, R, and SAS. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hu, Guangwei, Linna Li, and Jun Lei. 2014. English-medium instruction at a Chinese university: Rhetoric and reality. Language Policy 13: 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hu, Jingjing, Xuesong (Andy) Gao, and Xuyan Qiu. 2021. Lexical coverage and readability of science textbooks for English-medium instruction secondary schools in Hong Kong. Sage Open 11: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hulstijn, Jan H., J. Charles Alderson, and Rob Schoonen. 2010. Developmental stages in second-language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research. Edited by Inge Bartning, Maisr Martin and Ineke Vedder. Amsterdam: Eurosla, pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jordan, Geoff, and Humphrey Gray. 2019. We need to talk about coursebooks. ELT Journal 73: 438–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kramer, Brandon. n.d. Vocabulary Tests. Resources. Available online: https://www.brandonkramer.net/resources (accessed on 27 April 2024).
  29. Larson-Hall, Jenifer. 2010. A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS and R. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lin, Linda H. F., and Bruce Morrison. 2010. The impact of the medium of instruction in Hong Kong secondary schools on tertiary students’ vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 255–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Macaro, E. 2022. English Medium Instruction: What do we know so far and what do we still need to find out? Language Teaching 55: 533–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Masrai, Ahmed, and James Milton. 2018. Measuring the contribution of academic and general vocabulary knowledge to learners’ academic achievement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31: 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Matthews, Joshua, and Junyu Cheng. 2015. Recognition of high frequency words from speech as a predictor of L2 listening comprehension. System 52: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McLean, Stuart, Brandon Kramer, and David Beglar. 2015. The creation and validation of a listening vocabulary levels test. Language Teaching Research 19: 741–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meara, Paul M., and James Milton. 2003. The Swansea Levels Test. Newbury: Express. [Google Scholar]
  36. Milton, James. 2009. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar]
  37. Milton, James. 2010. The development of vocabulary breadth across the CEFR levels. Communicative Proficiency and Linguistic Development: Intersections between SLA and Language Testing Research 1: 211–32. [Google Scholar]
  38. Milton, James, and Thomai Alexiou. 2020. Vocabulary size assessment: Assessing the vocabulary needs of learners in relation to their CEFR goals. In Vocabulary in Curriculum Planning. Edited by Marina Dodigovic and Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 9–27. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nation, Ian Stephen Paul. 1983. Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines 5: 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  40. Nguyen, Chi-Duc. 2021. Lexical features of reading passages in English-langauge textbooks for Vietnamese high-school students: Do hey foster both content and vocabulary gain? RELC Journal 52: 509–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. North, Brian, and Enrica Piccardo. 2019. Developing new CEFR descriptor scales and expanding the existing ones: Constructs, approaches and methodologies. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 30: 142–60. [Google Scholar]
  42. Piccardo, Enrica. 2020. The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in language education: Past, present, and future. TIRF: Language Education in Review Series 15: 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  43. Qian, David D., and Linda H. F. Lin. 2019. The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and language proficiency. In The Routledge Handbook of Vocabulary Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 66–80. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rafique, Samia, Ali Waqas, and Choudhry Shahid. 2023. The Correlation between Vocabulary Knowledge and English Language Proficiency at Undergraduate Level. Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 11: 1132–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Reynolds, Barry Lee, and Melissa H. Yu. 2018. Addressing the language needs of administrative staff in Taiwan’s internationalised higher education: Call for an English as a lingua franca curriculum to increase communicative competence and willingness to communicate. Language and Education 32: 147–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Reynolds, Barry Lee, Xiaowen (Serina) Xie, and Quy Huynh Phu Pham. 2022. Incidental vocabulary acquisition from listening to English teacher education lectures: A case study from Macau higher education. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  47. Reynolds, Barry Lee, Xiaowen (Serina) Xie, and Quy Huynh Phu Pham. 2023. The potentials for incidental vocabulary acquisition from listening to computer science academic lectures: A higher education corpus-based case study from Macau. Frontiers in Psychology 14: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rose, Heath, Samantha Curle, Ikuya Aizawa, and Gene Thompson. 2020. What drives success in English medium taught courses? The interplay between language proficiency, academic skills, and motivation. Studies in Higher Education 45: 2149–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schmitt, Norbert, Diane Schimitt, and Caroline Clapham. 2001. Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing 18: 55–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schoepp, Kevin. 2018. Predictive validity of the IELTS in an English as a medium of instruction environment. Higher Education Quarterly 72: 271–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Siregar, Fenty L., and Henni Henni. 2023. An investigation of EFL students’ vocabulary size and level at an Indonesian private tertiary institution. Eralingua: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Asing dan Sastra 7: 305–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stæhr, Lars Stenius. 2008. Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal 36: 139–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stæhr, Lars Stenius. 2009. Vocabulary knowledge and advance listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31: 577–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stoeckel, Tim, Stuart McLean, and Paul Nation. 2021. Limitations of size and levels tests of written receptive vocabulary knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43: 181–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Taltz, Dietmar. 2011. English-medium masters’ programmes at an Australian university of applied sciences: Attitudes, experiences and challenges. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 10: 252–70. [Google Scholar]
  56. Uchihara, Takumi, and Tetsuo Harada. 2018. Roles of vocabulary knowledge for success in English-Medium Instruction: Self-perceptions and academic outcomes of Japanese undergraduates. TESOL Quarterly 52: 564–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. University of Macau. 2023. Course Requirements and Test out Information for “Language and Skills” Courses–English Language Courses. University of Macau. Available online: https://reg.um.edu.mo/download/ug-curriculum/TestOut-ENG-2023–2024.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  58. University of Macau. 2024. Application Requirement. University of Macau. Available online: https://reg.um.edu.mo/admissions/nonlocal/others-regions/app-adm-rules/ (accessed on 30 April 2024).
  59. Wallace, Matthew P. 2020. Individual differences in second language listening: Examining the role of knowledge, metacognitive awareness, memory, and attention. Language Learning 72: 5–44. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Yun. 2023. Explaining L2 learners’ listening comprehension: The role of aural vocabulary knowledge. Sintagma 35: 103–18. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, Yun, and Jeanine Treffers-Daller. 2017. Explaining listening comprehension among L2 learners of English: The contribution of general language proficiency, vocabulary knowledge and metacognitive awareness. System 65: 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Webb, Stuart A., and Yosuke Sasao. 2013. New directions in vocabulary testing. Language Testing 44: 263–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Webb, Stuart, Yosuke Sasao, and Oliver Balance. 2017. The updated Vocabulary Levels Test: Developing and validating two new forms of the VLT. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168: 33–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, Chiu-Hui. 2023. EMI as a problem, a right or a resource: Exploring misalignments in stakeholders’ views at one university in Taiwan. Language Teaching Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Xie, Wanying, and Samantha Curle. 2022. Success in English medium instruction in China: Significant indicators and implications. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25: 585–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yang, Yingli, Ya Sun, Pengyun Chang, and Yumo Li. 2019. Exploring the relationship between language aptitude, vocabulary size, and EFL graduate students’ L2 writing performance. TESOL Quarterly 53: 845–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yu, Shulin, Yan Wang, Lianjiang Jiang, and Bo Wang. 2020. Coping with EMI (English as a medium of instruction): Mainland China students’ strategies at a university in Macau. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 58: 462–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zareva, Alla, Paula Schwanenflugel, and Yordanka Nikolova. 2005. Relationship between lexical competence and language proficiency: Variable sensitivity. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 567–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Languages 09 00239 g001
Figure 1. Research procedures.
Figure 1. Research procedures.
Languages 09 00239 g001
Table 1. Connections between students’ English vocabulary size and the CEFR levels.
Table 1. Connections between students’ English vocabulary size and the CEFR levels.
X-Lex Score
(Meara and Milton 2003)		X-Lex Score
(Adapted from Milton 2009)		Suggested Vocabulary Size
(Nation, p.c.) 1
A1: Beginner2000 lemmas<1500 lemmas120 word families and phrases
A2: Elementary2750–3240 lemmas1500–2500 lemmasThe most frequent 1000 word families
B1: Intermediate3250–3740 lemmas2500–3250 lemmas2000–3000 word families
B2: Intermediate3750–4240 lemmas3250–3750 lemmas4000 word families
C1: Advanced4500–4740 lemmas3750–4500 lemmas5000–6000 word families
C2: Native speaker-like>4750 lemmas4500–5000 lemmas7000–9000 word families
Note: 1 The suggested vocabulary size is based on personal communication between the fourth author and Nation through email on 8 April 2024.
Table 2. The relationship between EnglishScore test scores, CEFR levels and other international standardized language tests.
Table 2. The relationship between EnglishScore test scores, CEFR levels and other international standardized language tests.
CEFREnglishScoreTOEICTOEFL ITPIELTS
Pre A10–990–119--
A1100–199120–224--
A2200–299225–549337–459-
B1300–399550–784460–5424.0–5.0
B2400–499785–944543–6265.5–6.5
C1500–599945–990627–6777.0–8.0
Note: “-“ indicates there is no equivalent score within the particular CEFR level.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the CEFR and receptive aural vocabulary mastery levels.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics of the CEFR and receptive aural vocabulary mastery levels.
LVLT (n = 39) AWL (n = 40)
CEFR 1 k frequency
level		2 k frequency
level		3 k frequency level4 k frequency level5 k frequency levelTotal MasteredNot
mastered		Total
A1100001022
A2202004044
B1152008088
B221260222101222
C1011024404
Total618110439142640
Note. C1 = advanced, B2 = upper intermediate, B1 = intermediate, A2 = elementary, A1 = beginner. One participant did not master any of the five frequency levels.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the LVLT and the UVLT test scores.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the LVLT and the UVLT test scores.
Mean (%)Maximum (%)Minimum (%)Range (%)Standard Deviations (%)Skewness
LVLT1 k frequency level98.710083173.2−3.529
2 k frequency level90.9100465410.6−2.550
3 k frequency level78.0100386215.1−1.021
4 k frequency level67.2100297115.6−0.556
5 k frequency level69.9100386213.5−0.145
Total score80.89951489.8−1.234
The AWL76.6100336715.9−0.981
UVLT1 k frequency level97.210057437.7−4.202
2 k frequency level89.9100277317.4−2.355
3 k frequency level70.0100109020.5−0.898
4 k frequency level63.210039720.7−0.754
5 k frequency level56.610039723.1−0.467
Total score75.4100257515.9−1.483
Table 5. Correlations among CEFR scores, LVLT scores, LVLT scores, and CGPA.
Table 5. Correlations among CEFR scores, LVLT scores, LVLT scores, and CGPA.
CKT ScoresLVLT ScoresAWL ScoresUVLT ScoresCGPA
CKT scores 0.624 **0.654 **0.682 **0.289
LVLT scores0.624 ** 0.806 **0.847 **0.458 **
AWL scores0.654 **0.806 ** 0.740 **0.331 *
UVLT scores0.682 **0.847 **0.740 ** 0.401 *
CGPA0.2890.458 **0.331 *0.401 *
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of CEFR and receptive written vocabulary mastery levels.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics of CEFR and receptive written vocabulary mastery levels.
UVLT (n = 35)
CEFR 1 k frequency
level		2 k frequency
level		3 k frequency level4 k frequency level5 k frequency levelTotal
A1000000
A2010001
B1350008
B25713622
C1030014
Total81613735
Note. C1 = advanced, B2 = upper intermediate, B1 = intermediate, A2 = elementary, A1 = beginner. Five participants did not master any of the five frequency levels.
Table 7. Standardized multiple regression models of LVLT scores and UVLT scores.
Table 7. Standardized multiple regression models of LVLT scores and UVLT scores.
Unstandardized Coefficients BStandardized ErrorStandardized Coefficient βAdjusted R2
Model 1 0.583 ***
Constant−0.3150.133
LVLT scores1.2230.1640.771
Model 2 0.661 ***
Constant0.0680.070
UVLT scores0.8020.0910.818
Model 3 0.654 ***
Constant0.6730.014
Composite variable of LVLT scores and UVLT scores0.1270.0150.814
Note. *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.; Li, J.Z.; Zhang, X.; Reynolds, B.L. Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction. Languages 2024, 9, 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239

AMA Style

Li Z, Li JZ, Zhang X, Reynolds BL. Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction. Languages. 2024; 9(7):239. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhiqing, Janis Zhiyou Li, Xiaofang Zhang, and Barry Lee Reynolds. 2024. "Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction" Languages 9, no. 7: 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239

APA Style

Li, Z., Li, J. Z., Zhang, X., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Mastery of Listening and Reading Vocabulary Levels in Relation to CEFR: Insights into Student Admissions and English as a Medium of Instruction. Languages, 9(7), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9070239

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop