With the purpose of describing levels of English language proficiency expected at each stage in our school＇s Diploma and BA programs, we attempted to compare the level of courses with national standards as embodied in the national TEM4 and TEM8, and with international standards as embodied in international examinations such as Cambridge ESOL, and other descriptions such as the Common European Framework via one quantifiable parameter： vocabulary range. This is justified as vocabulary range offers an approximate but useful guide to the level of a course or a testing system. We hypothesize that the language competence at different levels of our program matches various standard proficiency examinations. Paul Nation＇s Range software was used both in its standard form using his three BASEWRD files and in an adapted form adding the authors＇ own BASEWRD files extrapolated from various levels of our textbook series. This enabled us to compare the vocabulary range of our courses with that of both national and international examinations where word lists are available or recoverable. Research results supported the hypotheses suggested.
This study investigated the relationships among different dimensions of vocabulary knowledge （passive, controlled active and free active vocabulary knowledge） and how they affect EFL learners＇ writing quality. Participants were a whole class of web-based English learners （N = 31） of tertiary level in the Chinese mainland. The results show that free active （above 2000） vocabulary knowledge has a much stronger correlation with controlled active than passive vocabulary knowledge, and writing quality has a stronger correlation with free active vocabulary knowledge than with the other two dimensions of vocabulary knowledge.
