Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.50-73
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 15 Oct 2024 Revised 17 Dec 2024 Accepted 16 Jan 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202501.50

Vocabulary, Grammar, and English Use Experience in Adult Online EFL Learners’ Comprehension: An SEM Approach

Min-Young Song
Associate Professor, Department of Practical Foreign Languages The Cyber University of Korea 106 Bukchon-ro, Jongno-gu Seoul, Korea, Tel: 02-6361-1863 mysong88@cuk.edu


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study, using structural equation modeling and multiple regression analyses, investigated the contribution of vocabulary and grammar to adult online EFL learners’ listening and reading comprehension. It also examined how their English use experience impacts proficiency in these four areas. Additionally, it explored which subcomponents of vocabulary, grammar, and English use experience significantly influence specific language skills. The main findings are as follows: first, grammar contributed more to L2 comprehension than vocabulary for these generally low-level English learners. Second, their English use experience was quite limited, showing a significant but minimal impact only on vocabulary and grammar. Third, among the four vocabulary levels (Basic and Levels 1~3), Level 2 vocabulary was the strongest predictor for both listening and reading, while different grammar subcomponents were identified as significant for each. Lastly, among the various aspects of English use experience, time spent viewing audiovisual materials and interacting with native speakers were included in the final regression models across language skills. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed to offer valuable insights into adult online EFL learners, an emerging English learner population.

Keywords:

adult online EFL learners, linguistic knowledge, vocabulary, grammar, listening and reading comprehension, English use experience

References

  • Aka, N. 2019. Reading performance of Japanese high school learners following a one-year extensive reading program. Reading in a Foreign Language 31(1), 1-18.
  • Alderson, J. C. 1984. Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem. In J. C. Alderson and A. H. Urquhart, eds., Reading in a Foreign Language, 1-24. Longman.
  • Allison, P. D. 1999. Multiple Regression: A Primer. Pine Forge Press.
  • Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238-246. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238]
  • Bentler, P. M. 2004. EQS 6 Structural Equations Programs Manual. Multivariate Software.
  • Bentler, P. M. and C. P. Chou. 1987. Practical issues in SEM. Sociological Methods and Research 16, 78-117. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004]
  • Bentler, P. M. and E. Wu. 2002. EQS for Windows: User’s Guide. Multivariate Software.
  • Borràs, J. and À. Llanes. 2021. Re-examining the impact of study abroad on L2 development: A critical overview. The Language Learning Journal 49(5), 527-540. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.1642941]
  • Brown, R., R. Waring and S. Donkaewbua. 2008. Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language 20(2), 136-163.
  • Browne, M. W. and R. Cudeck. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research 21(2), 230-258. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005]
  • Buck, G. 2001. Assessing Listening. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511732959]
  • Cain, K. and J. Oakhill. 2014. Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects of comprehension? L’Année Psychologique 114, 647–662. [https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy.144.0647]
  • Çekiç, A. 2024. Incidental L2 vocabulary learning from audiovisual input: The effects of different types of glosses. Computer Assisted Language Learning 37(4), 896-923. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2062004]
  • Chang, A. C. and W. A. Renandya. 2017. Current practice of extensive reading in Asia: Teachers’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal 17(1), 40-58.
  • Chen, H. and H. Mei. 2024. How vocabulary knowledge and grammar knowledge influence L2 reading comprehension: a finer-grained perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education 39, 3767-3789. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-024-00793-x]
  • Choi, Y. and D. Zhang. 2021. The relative role of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge in L2 reading comprehension: A systematic review of literature. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 59(1), 1-30. [https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2017-0033]
  • Elley, W. B. and F. Mangubhai. 1983. The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly 19(1), 53-67. [https://doi.org/10.2307/747337]
  • Field, J. 2010. Listening in the language classroom. ELT Journal 64(3), 331-333. [https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq026]
  • Guo, Y. and A. D. Roehrig. 2011. Roles of general versus second language (L2) knowledge in L2 reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 23(1), 42-64.
  • Harding, L., J. C. Alderson and T. Brunfaut. 2015. Diagnostic assessment of reading and listening in a second or foreign language: Elaborating on diagnostic principles. Language Testing 32(3), 317-336. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214564505]
  • Hartnett, M. 2016. The importance of motivation in online learning. In M. Hartnett, Motivation in Online Education, 5-32. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0700-2_2]
  • Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers(2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  • Huh, Y. J. 2014. The relative predicting power of vocabulary depth and grammar in Korean EFL learners’ reading comprehension. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 30(3), 3-25. [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2014.09.30.3.3]
  • Hulstijn, J. H. 2019. An individual‐differences framework for comparing nonnative with native speakers: Perspectives from BLC theory. Language Learning 69 (S1), 157-183. [https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12317]
  • In’nami, Y., R. Koizumi, E. H. Jeon and Y. Arai. 2022. L2 listening and its correlates. In E. H. Jeon and Y. In’nami, eds, Understanding L2 Proficiency, 29-86. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.13.08inn]
  • Jeon, E. 2012. Oral reading fluency in second language reading. Reading in a Foreign Language 24 (2), 186-208.
  • Jeon, E. H. and J. Yamashita. 2022. L2 reading comprehension and its correlates. In E. H. Jeon and Y. In’nami, eds, Understanding L2 Proficiency, 235-283. John Benjamins Publishing Company. [https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.13.08inn]
  • Kim, J. and Y. Cho. 2013. Relative roles of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 13(3), 497-520. [https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.13.3.201309.497]
  • Kim, J. and Y. Cho. 2015. Proficiency effects on relative roles of vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading. English Teaching 70(1), 75-96. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.1.201503.75]
  • Kim, M., Y. Nam and S. A. Crossley. 2022. Roles of working memory, syllogistic inferencing ability, and linguistic knowledge on second language listening comprehension for passages of different lengths. Language Testing 39(4), 593-617. [https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211060076]
  • Kishton, J. M. and K. F. Widaman. 1994. Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example. Educational and Psychological Measurement 54(3), 757-765. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054003022]
  • Kline, R. B. 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling(1st ed.). The Guilford Press.
  • Lee, J. W. 2016. The role of vocabulary and grammar in different L2 reading comprehension measures. English Teaching 71(3), 79-97. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.71.3.201609.79]
  • Li, L. 2014. Language proficiency, reading development, and learning context. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study 24(1), 73-92. [https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v24i1.337]
  • Lindgren, E. and C. Muñoz. 2013. The influence of exposure, parents, and linguistic distance on young European learners’ foreign language comprehension. International Journal of Multilingualism 10(1), 105-129. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2012.679275]
  • Little, T. D., W. A. Cunningham, G. Shahar and K. F. Widaman. 2002. To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling 9(2), 151-173. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1]
  • Long, D. L. and J. L. Chong. 2001. Comprehension skill and global coherence: A paradoxical picture of poor comprehenders’ abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology 27(6), 1424–1429. [https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.6.1424]
  • Luo, Y., H. Song, L. Wan and X. Zhang. 2021. The effect of vocabulary depth and breadth on English listening comprehension can depend on how comprehension is measured. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 657573. [https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.657573]
  • Matthews, J. 2018. Vocabulary for listening: Emerging evidence for high and mid-frequency vocabulary knowledge. System 72, 23-36. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.10.005]
  • Mecartty, F. H. 2000. Lexical and grammatical knowledge in reading and listening comprehension by foreign language learners of Spanish. Applied Language Learning 11(2), 323-348.
  • Ministry of Education. 2015. The 2015 Revised National English Curriculum. MOE Report 2015-74, Supplement 14. Ministry of Education.
  • Muñoz, C., G. Pujadas and A. Pattemore. 2023. Audio-visual input for learning L2 vocabulary and grammatical constructions. Second Language Research 39(1), 13-37. [https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583211015797]
  • Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759]
  • Nation, I. S. P. and S. Webb. 2011. Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Heinle Cengage Learning.
  • Nergis, A. 2013. Exploring the factors that affect reading comprehension of EAP learners. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(1), 1-9. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.09.001]
  • Oh, E. and C. M. Lee. 2014. The role of linguistic knowledge and listening strategies in bottom-up and top-down processing of L2 listening. English Teaching 69(2), 149-173. [https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.69.2.201406.149]
  • Pattemore, A. and C. Muñoz. 2020. Learning L2 constructions from captioned audio-visual exposure: The effect of learner-related factors. System 93, 102303. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102303]
  • Pavia, N., S. Webb and F. Faez. 2019. Incidental vocabulary learning through listening to songs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(4), 745-768. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000020]
  • Pigada, M. and N. Schmitt. 2006. Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case study. Reading in a Foreign Language 18(1), 1-28.
  • Purpura, J. E. 2004. Assessing Grammar. Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733086]
  • Raeisi‐Vanani, A. and S. Baleghizadeh. 2022. The contributory role of grammar vs. vocabulary in L2 reading: An SEM approach. Foreign Language Annals 55(2), 559-585. [https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12606]
  • Reves, T. and A. Levine. 1988. The FL receptive skills: Same or different? System 16(3), 327-336. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(88)90075-9]
  • Satori, M. 2022. Effects of field independence, metacognitive knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge on second language listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening 36(3), 254-267. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2022.2056037]
  • Shin, Y. and Y. Kim. 2012. Assessing the relative roles of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge in reading comprehension. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 28(2), 169-198. [https://doi.org/10.17154/kjal.2012.06.28.2.169]
  • Shiotsu, T. and C. J. Weir. 2007. The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary breadth in the prediction of reading comprehension test performance. Language Testing 24(1), 99-128. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532207071513]
  • Song, M. Y. 2008. Do divisible subskills exist in second language (L2) comprehension? A structural equation modeling approach. Language Testing 25(4), 435-464. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208094272]
  • Song, M. Y., S. Cho and J. Kim. 2017. Developing and applying diagnostic English tests for e-Learners. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction 21(5), 551-563. [https://doi.org/10.24231/rici.2017.21.5.551]
  • Stæhr, L. S. 2008. Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal 36(2), 139-152. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975]
  • Stæhr, L. S. 2009. Vocabulary knowledge and advanced listening comprehension in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(4), 577-607. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990039]
  • Tseng, W. T., Y. T. Liu, Y. T. Hsu and H. C. Chu. 2024. Revisiting the effectiveness of study abroad language programs: A multi-level meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 28(1), 156-200. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820988423]
  • Ullman, J. B. 2006. Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment 87(1), 35-50. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_03]
  • Vafaee, P. and Y. Suzuki. 2020. The relative significance of syntactic knowledge and vocabulary knowledge in second language listening ability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(2), 383-410. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000676]
  • Vandergrift, L. 2011. Second language listening: Presage, process, product, and pedagogy. In E. Hinkel, ed, Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, 455-471. Routledge.
  • Vandergrift, L. and C. Goh. 2012. Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. Routledge.
  • van Zeeland, H. and N. Schmitt. 2013. Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics 34(4), 457-479. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams074]
  • Vidal, K. 2003. Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics 24(1), 56-89. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.56]
  • Wang, Y. and J. 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. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.12.013]
  • Waring, R. and M. Takaki. 2003. At what rate do learners learn and retain new vocabulary from reading a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language 15(2), 130-162.
  • Webb, S. 2007. The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics 28(1), 46-65. [https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml048]
  • Xu, Y. 2019. Changes in interlanguage complexity during study abroad: A meta-analysis. System 80, 199-211. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.11.008]
  • Yamashita, J. 2008. Extensive reading and development of different aspects of L2 proficiency. System 36(4), 661-672. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.04.003]
  • Zhang, D. 2012. Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal 96(4), 558-575. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01398.x]
  • Zhang, S. and X. Zhang. 2022. The relationship between vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading/listening comprehension: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 26(4), 696-725. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820913998]