Using a Listening Vocabulary Levels Test to Explore the Effect of Vocabulary Knowledge on GEPT Listening Comprehension Performance

Abstract

The Ministry of Education in Taiwan encourages universities to adopt English ability as an exit requirement for graduates. Nearly 65% of universities use the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) or other compatible standardized tests as an exit test for university graduates. However, it remains unclear what level of vocabulary knowledge a second language (L2) learner needs in order to achieve a passing score for listening on the exit test. The L2 vocabulary assessment literature also clearly shows a need for a test that measures aural English vocabulary knowledge. To address the gaps, this study explored the effect of vocabulary knowledge on performance on the GEPT listening subtest by using a validated Listening Vocabulary Levels Test to provide a more accurate estimate of the receptive vocabulary of L2 learners. The findings showed (1) a strong positive correlation between vocabulary knowledge and overall listening skills, with comprehension of short talks (Part III) most closely related to vocabulary knowledge and most challenging to participants; (2) no absolute vocabulary threshold above which L2 learners passed the GEPT listening subtest, although a substantial increase in passing rate was observed at the 3,000-word vocabulary level; and (3) a minimum vocabulary level of 3,000-word families is required for 98% lexical coverage in the overall GEPT listening subtest, and a higher level of vocabulary knowledge is needed for L2 learners to comprehend conversations and short talks, compared with comprehension and answering of questions. The study findings provide insight into the role of aural receptive vocabulary knowledge in listening comprehension, and the implications for language teachers, materials writers, and test developers are also discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.