A Reflection Paper  on
“How much input do you need to learn the most frequent 9,000 words?”
Summary
The purpose of this study is to resolve the McQuillan and Krashen versus
Cobb debate. While McQuillan and Krashen consider that learners would
be able to read a wide range of texts with relative ease and speed, Cobb
argues that given the difficulty of the material and the time available,
learners could not get through enough reading to meet the words at each
level, let alone have enough repetitions to learn them.
Thus, this study looks at how much input is needed to gain enough
repetition of the 1st 9,000 words of English for learning to occur by
answering the 3 research questions:
1. How much input do learners need in order to meet the most frequent
9,000 word families of English enough times to have a chance of
learning them?
An essential condition for learning is repetition, and so learners not
only need to gradually meet the most frequent 9,000 word families,
but they have to meet them often enough to have a chance of learning
them. In this study, the moderately safe goal of 12 repetitions is taken
as the minimum. Twelve repetitions, according to the word family lists
created from the BNC and the COCA and the analysis by the Range
program, are enough to allow the opportunity for several dictionary
look-ups, several unassisted retrievals, and an opportunity to meet
each word in a wide variety of contexts.
2. Can learners cope with the amount of input?
In order to read without unknown vocabulary becoming too much of a
burden, no more than 2% of the running words should be beyond the
learners’ knowledge (Hu & Nation, 2000; Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe,
2011). The process to increase a learner’s vocabulary at the rate of
around 1000 word families per year (Biemiller & Boote, 2006;
Goulden, Nation, & Read, 1990) can break the difficulty in unfamiliar
vocabulary.
Besides, reading texts at the right level was much suggested. That is
because in most novels a very large number of different words occur
beyond the learners’ current vocabulary knowledge. Unsimplified text
clearly provides poor conditions for reading and vocabulary learning
for learners whose vocabulary size are less than 9,000 word families.
Here is the freely available software, Mid-frequency Readers, to solve
the problem.
3. What kinds of input provide the greatest chance of meeting most of
the most frequent 9,000 word families?
Extensive reading is much encouraged by some researchers here.
There are many other kinds of input than novels. What is noticeable is
that journals corpus that results in the richness of vocabulary. A mixed
written and spoken corpus provides better opportunities to meet most
of the 1st 9,000 word families of English.
Reflection
The pedagogical implications are as follow:
First, a fixed image created by people is that the vocabulary is the only
key to a successful comprehension of reading. This study challenged this
view of point. Some researchers consider that explicit and enough reading
can strengthen readers’ vocabulary. The goal can be achieved if only the
context is chosen carefully and appropriate to provide for reading.
“Would the vocabulary be simplified or adjusted well to the readers’
comprehensive ability?” The choice of the reading material is the key to
open the door of the successful learning.
Second, the strengthening of reading and the increasing of vocabulary are
like to build a tall building. The process of progress should be taken step
by step. Even a brick of a building does matter. As the proverb goes,
“Rome wasn’t built in a day.” In this study, the analysis of word families
at different levels persuades so much that anyone can achieve the goal
easily by spending very few time everyday reading some available
newspapers, magazines, or watching movies. Besides it seems so easy
and convenient for everyone to achieve the goal in reading and learning.
From those selected materials, such as an interesting article from a
magazine or a detective novel would draw a great attraction for some
readers.
Furthermore, the very goal is to set a regular habit of reading. To read
daily is encouraged. It doesn’t require much time and energy. This is
based on the belief: “Wild reading will increase your vocabulary.” And
hope for the carrying out of the reading goal. The good habit of reading
plays a key role in a successful learning.
However, computer-based text analysis programs like Range cannot deal
with polysemy, homography, and homonymy, meaning that some families
like bank as in “the bank of a river and bank as in the bank that takes your
money” are not distinguished. The problems with the crude calculations
were also concerned. These limitations remind me of the value of solely
through reading input by Cobb. To me, a mixture of input is preferable.
Conclusion
This study held a very positive view of the acquisition of vocabulary.
I agree that learning through input is feasible for learners of English as a
foreign language if texts at the appropriate level are available. Besides, a
well-balanced vocabulary learning program contains both
message-focused opportunities for learning as well as an appropriate
amount of deliberate vocabulary learning.
There are very rapid advances in the kind of support that computer
technology can give to learning from reading, such as Tom Cobb’s Read
with resources. Not only learners but also teachers are expected to
explore the software as possible as they can. That is to say we have an
efficient and convenient learning way besides those traditional ways.