vocabulary learning strategies of korean university...

149

English Teaching, Vol. 62, No. 1, Spring 2007

Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Korean University Students: Strategy Use, Vocabulary Size, and Gender∗

Shinwoong Lee (Hanyang University)

Lee, Shinwoong. (2007). Vocabulary learning strategies of Korean university students: Strategy use, vocabulary size, and gender. English Teaching, 62(1), 149-169.

The purpose of the study was tri-fold: a) to identify the perceived use of English vocabulary learning strategies of Korean university students; b) to examine if there is any gender difference in the use of strategy; and c) to investigate if there is any relationship between vocabulary size and strategy use. Four hundred and sixty six students in two Korean universities participated in the study and their vocabulary learning strategies and size were measured by the Vocabulary Learning Strategy Survey adapted from Schmitt’s (1997) and the Vocabulary Levels Tests (Schmitt, 2000) respectively. The results showed that the students preferred cognitively less demanding strategies to the ones that required cognitively deeper processing. The most frequently used strategies were “use bilingual dictionary,” “say a word aloud when studying,” and “study the sound of a word,” and among the least frequently used strategies were “practice word using flash card,” “study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning,” and “study or practice meaning in a group.” It was also found that the students with high vocabulary size used strategies more frequently than those with low vocabulary size in general and the difference was noticeable particularly in memory strategy use. However, no gender effect was found on the pattern and frequency of strategy use.

I. INTRODUCTION For successful communication in a second/foreign language, vocabulary knowledge is more

essential than any other language skills (McCarthy, 1990) and most learners are well aware of the fact that vocabulary learning plays a crucial role in second/foreign language learning (Horwitz, 1988). However, the ways of vocabulary learning seem different according to the contexts in which learners are situated. For example, native speakers of English usually “pick up” most of words in a natural context, whereas EFL learners normally have to rely on

∗ This work was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2006-G)

Lee, Shinwoong

150

classroom instructions, and accordingly vocabulary learning is largely dependent on classroom instructions. That being the case of EFL learners, the problem arises around the fact that it would be almost impossible for a language teacher to teach every new word during class hour. What teachers can do here is to let their students know that a learner is a no longer passive and inactive recipient of language instruction, but an active, self-determining individual who processes information on his or her own way. In the context of vocabulary learning, it means that teachers should “introduce the different possible ways to learn and retain the new words, help learners to choose the ones that suit their needs/styles and encourage them to use these outside the class when they are studying on their own”(Sahbazian, 2004, p. 4). In other words, “students should be exposed to various techniques and ultimately need to learn vocabulary on their own, independent from their teachers” (p. 4).

In this vein, this study attempted to investigate students’ perceived use of vocabulary learning strategy and how gender and vocabulary size are associated with their strategy use in terms of pattern and frequency. The research questions are as followed:

1) What are the most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies of Korean

university students? 2) Is there any gender difference in the pattern and frequency of strategy use? 3) Is there any relationship between vocabulary size and strategy use?

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Research on Vocabulary Learning Strategies Particularly relevant to the current study, the issues of taxonomy of VLS, popular and

unpopular VLSs, and the influence of gender, language proficiency, and vocabulary size will be discussed in this section.

1) Taxonomy of VLS

The first attempt to develop a comprehensive inventory of VLS was made by Stoffer

(1995). She developed a survey of VLS that included 53 items and administered it to 707 university students in the U.S. She came up with nine categories using factor analysis: a) strategies involving authentic language use; b) strategies used for self-motivation; c) strategies used to organize words; d) strategies used to create mental linkages; e) memory strategies; f) strategies involving creative actives; g) strategies involving physical action; h) strategies used to overcome anxiety; and i) auditory strategies.

Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Korean University Students

151

Along the same line, Schmitt (1997) designed another survey of VLS. In the survey, he distinguished the strategies that are used when new words are encountered and thus the meaning of the words should be discovered from the ones that are used when consolidating the meaning of the words. The former (discovery) strategies include determination and social strategies and the primary focus of these strategies is to discover the meaning of the new words. Whereas, the latter (consolidation) strategies include social, memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies and the purpose of these strategies is to consolidate, modify, or enrich the meaning of the words that are already known or partially known.

Meanwhile, Kudo (1999) argued that even if the definitions of the categories in the Schmitt’s survey are defined and explained well, but it is not clear whether the strategies in the survey are represented appropriately and effectively by those categories because factor analysis was not conducted in Schmitt’s study. Thus, in developing a survey of VLS based on Schmitt’s work, he attempted to validate categories of the survey using factor analysis. The result of the first study indicated that four categories (memory, cognitive, social, and metacognitive) were reasonably valid and reliable. On the other hand, that of the second study showed that only two factors were emerged out of 44 items: Memory and cognitive strategies loaded in one factor and social and metacognitive strategies loaded in another factor. However, he concluded that his classification is congruent with Oxford’s (1990) schemes as a whole in a sense that two types of categories found in the second study fit well in the classification of “direct” and “indirect” strategies defined by Oxford.

Gu and Johnson (1996) also developed eight categories of VLS: beliefs about vocabulary learning, metacognitive regulation, guessing strategies, dictionary strategies, note-taking strategies, memory strategies (rehearsal), memory strategies (encoding), and activation strategies. Meanwhile, Nation (2001) developed three general classes of strategies: planning, sources, and processes and divided each category into 4, 4 and 3 subcategories respectively as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1

A Taxonomy of Kinds of VLS General class of strategies Types of strategies

Planning: choosing what to focus on and when to focus on it

Choosing words Choosing the aspects of word knowledge

Choosing strategies Planning repetition Sources: finding information about words Analyzing the word

Using context Consulting a reference source in L1 or L2 Using parallels in L1 and L2 Process: establishing knowledge Noticing Retrieving Generating

(Nation, 2001, p. 218)

Lee, Shinwoong

152

2) Popular and Unpopular VLSs In a study of 600 Japanese junior and senior high school students, university students,

and company employees, Schmitt (1997) investigated learners’ actual use of VLSs and perceived helpfulness of VLSs and it was found that the most popular strategies were “consulting bilingual dictionary,” “verbal repetition,” “written repetition,” “studying the spelling,” and “guessing from context.” In contrast, strategies such as using “physical action,” “L1 cognates,” “keyword method,” and “semantic maps” were among the least popular strategies. Very similar results were found concerning the perceived helpfulness of the strategies. They tended to use the strategies that are perceived to be helpful more often than the ones believed not to be useful. Another important finding of Schmitt’s study was that the use of strategy varies according to the age of learners. He stated:

It may well be that some learning strategies are more beneficial at certain ages than others, and that learners naturally mature into using different strategies. If this is true, then we must take our learners’ cognitive maturity and language proficiency into account when recommending strategies (pp. 225-226).

Kudo (1999) investigated the use of VLS of 504 Japanese senior high school students

and found that cognitively demanding strategies such as keyword method and semantic mapping were not commonly used. Rather, cognitively shallower strategies such as verbal and written repetition were popular among the students.

In a study of first year university students learning English as a foreign language in Saudi Arabia, Al-Nujaidi (2000) investigated the students’ use of VLS and compared the results of the study with those of the Schmitt (1997) and Kobayashi (2000) that examined the strategy use of Japanese ESL and EFL students. He reported that even if there existed some differences in the use of strategies among these groups, it was generally true that the students preferred to use cognitively less demanding strategies such as verbal or written repetition.

Using a think-aloud protocol, Lawson and Hogben (1996) observed VLSs of 15 Australian university students learning Italian. They found that repetition of new words and their meanings through reading the dictionary-like entries was the most commonly used procedure when learning a new word and they rarely employed the elaborative acquisition procedures that required deep cognitive processing.

Sahbazian (2004) examined 934 EFL Turkish university students and reported that the strategies such as “using bilingual dictionary” and “making a list of a new words and memorizing” were among the six most commonly used VLSs. On the other hand, the strategies such as “asking someone the meaning of new word” and “use semantic


153

mapping” were among the least frequently used strategies. In a study of 600 Korean EFL learners, Jun-Eon Park (2001) examined the use of VLSs

in four different age groups: elementary school, middle school, high school, and university students. He found that three most commonly used VLSs for meaning discovery were “use bilingual dictionary,” “guess meaning from the context,” and “ask classmates or friends for the meaning.” Meanwhile, they utilized such strategies as “study the sound of a word,” “say new word aloud when studying,” and “study the spelling a word” most frequently for meaning consolidation.

In the same vein, Seong-Won Lee and Mi-Ok Min (2006) investigated the use of VLS of Korean EFL high school students and reported similar results. When determining the meaning of new words, they relied mostly on such strategies as “using bilingual dictionaries,” “guessing from textual context,” and “analyzing affixes and roots,” whereas they often used such strategies as “saying it aloud,” “studying its spelling,” and “paraphrasing its meaning” for meaning consolidation.

In sum, as Kudo (1999) stated, some cognitively less demanding strategies such as written and verbal repetition and use of bilingual dictionaries seem much more popular among L2 learners and they are culture-free.

3) VLS and Gender

Even if there has been an array of research on gender differences in the use of language

learning strategy (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Kaylani, 1996; Oxford, 1993; Oxford, Ehrman, & Nyikos, 1988; Oxford, Park-Ok, Ito, & Sumrall, 1993; Politzer, 1983), not many studies investigated the gender effect on the use of VLSs.

Stoffer (1995) reported that even if gender did not make significant effect on strategy use, it was generally true that female students used more strategies than male students. In fact, it was found that female students used “making mental linkage,” “memory,” and “organizing words” strategies more frequently than male students.

Al-Nujaidi (2000) found that female and male students showed significant differences in their perceived use of contextualization and definition/wordlist strategies. The results showed that male students used definition strategies more often than female students, whereas female students used contextualization strategies more frequently than male students.

In a descriptive study on gender differences in the use of L2 VLSs, Catalan (2003) administered a questionnaire to 581 Spanish-speaking learners of English and Basque. She reported that male and female students showed a similar pattern of strategy use. For meaning discovery, they used “using bilingual dictionary,” “guessing from context,” and “asking their teachers or classmates” and for consolidation of the meaning of words, they

Lee, Shinwoong

154

used “taking notes,” “verbal and written repetition,” and “using English-language media.” However, it was also found that there was a significant difference in the average number of strategies used by males and females students. Female students were found to use more strategies than male students in general.

Meanwhile, Jun-Eon Park (2001) found that male and female students showed an almost same pattern both in the use of discovering strategies and meaning consolidation strategies and concluded that there was no gender effect on the use of VLS.

4) VLS and Language Proficiency

As in the case of research on the effect of gender on VLS use, not many researchers

investigated the effect of language proficiency on the use of vocabulary learning strategies. Gu and Johnson (1996) researched the relationship between the use of VLS and vocabulary size and general English proficiency. They found that “contextual guessing,” “skillful use of dictionaries,” “note-taking,” “paying attention to word formation,” “contextual encoding,” and “activation of newly learned words” were positively correlated with the score of a vocabulary size test and the College English Test. Furthermore, a multiple regression analysis revealed that two metacognitive strategies (self-initiation and selective attention) were positive predictors of the test scores. On the other hand, “visual repetition of new words” was emerged as the negative predictor of both vocabulary size and general proficiency.

Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) investigated the relationship between the vocabulary strategy use and language proficiency. They found that students who received high scores on the two tests (vocabulary test and cloze test) use more strategies than the ones who received low scores on the tests. The results also showed that high proficiency learners use more elaborate strategies than low proficiency learners.

To sum up the literature, it was generally true that L2 learners preferred cognitively less demanding strategies when learning vocabulary, and that female learners tended to use the strategies more often than male learners even if there have been some conflicting results. In addition, L2 learners with high proficiency tended to use a more and wider range of VLSs. However, it seems that VLS has not been researched much in Korean EFL context. As far as I know, only two studies (Lee & Min, 2006; Park, 2001) directly addressed the issues of VLS of Korean EFL learners. Moreover, only one study (Lee & Min, 2006) utilized inferential statistics when drawing a conclusion. Therefore, the current study that made use of some inferential statistical procedures may contribute to having a clearer picture of vocabulary learning of Korean EFL learners.


155

III. RESEARCH METHOD

1. Participants and Settings Four hundred sixty six EFL Korean university students participated in this study. They

came from two universities located in Seoul and were taking English courses when the research was conducted. The age of the participants ranged from 18 through 32 but about 92 percent of the students were in their late teens or early twenties. Male students took up 44.2% (206) whereas female students occupied 55.8% (260) of the participants. About sixty six percent of them were English majors and the rest were comprised of some other majors such as engineering and business. Freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior took up 35.8%, 15.2%, 26.8%, and 22.1% respectively.

2. Data Collection Instruments

1) VLS Survey

A VLS survey was developed on the basis of Schmitt’s (1997) work. Some of the items

in the survey were added, or modified, or deleted according to the result of the pilot survey1. For example, the strategies such as “peg method,” “loci method,” “group words together within a storyline,” “configuration,” “use cognate in study,” “use semantic feature grids,” “analyze pictures and gestures,” and “use spaced word practice” were excluded because the students were not aware of or familiar with these strategies. On the other hand, such strategies as “use a vocabulary learning textbook,” “use a new word in sentences,” and “use a new word in English conversation” were included in the survey even if they were not listed in the Schmitt’s survey because some of the students reported the frequent use of these strategies in their vocabulary learning.

Meanwhile, some of the items were elaborated on to help students understand the item better. For example, most of the students were not well aware of “keyword method” even if it has been one of the most researched vocabulary learning techniques (Levin, 1993; Levin, Levin, Glassman, & Nordwall, 1992; Sokmen, 1997). Thus, it was explicated in plain language in the survey so that the students can understand what “keyword method” means clearly.

1 Schmitt’s (1997) survey was administered to 87 students as the pilot and the purpose of pilot survey

was to develop the questionnaire that fitted Korean context. In the survey, an open-ended question: “Do you use any other vocabulary learning techniques/strategies that are not listed above? If yes, what are they?” was included and the purpose was to give students an opportunity to think of any other strategies that they used but not listed in the survey.

Lee, Shinwoong

156

In addition, the distinction between discovery and consolidation strategy was not made as in the Schmitt’s survey because a number of the students stated that it was somewhat confusing to differentiate these two categories. Rather, the strategies were divided into four categories following Oxford’s (1990) classification scheme (cognitive, memory, metacognitive, and social strategies). The survey consisted of 36 items in total (See Appendix A) and each category subsumed 11, 17, 4, and 4 items respectively. The respondents were asked to choose 1 through 5 for each item in the survey. Each number represented as following.

1→ I never or almost never do this 2→ I do this only occasionally (about 20% of the time) 3→ I sometimes do this (about 50% of the time) 4→ I usually do this (about 80% of the time) 5→ I always or almost always do this In order to measure internal consistency of the survey, Cronbach α was calculated using

SPSS 13.0 statistics software package. Cronbachαof the survey as a whole was .86 and it was .72, .83, .71, and .68 respectively for the different categories of the survey: cognitive, memory, metacognitive, and social strategy. The reliability of the survey was not very high, but it was acceptable.

2) Vocabulary Levels Test

The vocabulary test used in this study was a revised version of Nation’s (1990)

Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) developed by Schmitt (2000). The original purpose of the test was diagnostic but many researchers have used it to explore vocabulary acquisition issues (Read & Chapelle, 2001). Nation (2001) evaluated the test as “major improvement to the original test” (p. 416). The test is comprised of 2,000, 3,000, 5,000, and 10,000 word frequency and academic vocabulary section. However, 10,000 word frequency level was not used in this study on the ground that EFL learners normally do not reach this level (Nation & Waring, 1997). The purpose of the test in this study was to measure students’ receptive vocabulary size and to see if there is any relationship between students’ vocabulary size and strategy use.

3. Procedures

Both the VLS survey and the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT, hereafter) were administered

together to 466 university students in the regular class time at the beginning of spring


157

semester, 2005. The teachers explained how to answer the questions and the students were given 30 and 15 minutes to answer in each instrument. They were allowed to ask questions about the test and the survey whenever necessary.

4. Data Analysis

In order to describe students’ general tendency of using VLSs, descriptive statistics such

as mean and standard deviation was used. In addition, independent samples t-tests were conducted to see if there was any significant difference in the frequency of strategy use between male and female students. Then, a multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of vocabulary size on four dependent variables (the mean score of cognitive, memory, metacognitive, and social strategy) and analyses of variance on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Then, a post hoc procedure was employed to see where the differences existed.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Use of VLS in General Table 2 displays the mean and standard deviation of the strategy use of each item in the

survey. The items were also grouped by the degree of frequency following Oxford’s suggestion2. According to the table, most frequently used strategies by participants were “use bilingual dictionary,” “say a word aloud when studying,” “study the sound of a word,” “study the spelling of a word,” and “connect word to the words that I already know.” Other than these strategies, verbal and written repetition was among the frequently used strategies. The results seemed to parallel those of Schmitt (1997) and Jun-Eon Park (2001) in which frequent use of such strategies as “say a word aloud,” “study the spelling,” and “written and verbal repetitions” by the participants was found when consolidating the meaning of a new word.

Even if it is premature to generalize this tendency of Korean university students, it seems true that the use of cognitively less demanding strategies such as verbal and written repetition are much more common among Korean university students than the cognitively demanding strategies such as keyword method. The reason may be because, as Schmitt (1997) noted, learning and instructional style introduced in the school system may encourage students to

2 Oxford (1990) suggested the range of high, medium, and low usage of language learning strategy.

High usage ranges from 3.5 to 5.0, medium usage from 2.5 to 3.4, and low usage from 1.0 to 2.4.

Lee, Shinwoong

158

memorize new words through repetition and to focus on word form (e.g., study spelling, say new word aloud, study sound of word) as in the case of Japanese students.

TABLE 2

Use of VLS in General Items Mean SD

High Usage (M=3.5 or above) 3. Use bilingual dictionary 4.1 1.1 20. Say a word aloud when studying 4.0 1.1 19. Study the sound of a word 3.9 1.0 18. Study the spelling of a word 3.8 1.1 13. Connect word to the words that I already know 3.7 1.0 25. Practice word through verbal repetition 3.7 1.1 26. Write word repeatedly 3.5 1.3 Medium Usage (M=between 2.5 and 3.4) 14. Connect word to its synonyms and antonyms 3.1 1.0 29. Study word by taking notes in class 3.1 1.2 36. Continue to study word over time 3.1 1.2 5. Use word lists 3.0 1.3 11. Image word’s meaning 3.0 1.2 12. Connect word’s meaning to a personal experience 3.0 1.2 16. Use new word in sentences 3.0 1.1 30. Utilize vocabulary section in a textbook 3.0 1.2 1. Analyze and study parts of speech 2.9 1.2 4. Use monolingual dictionary 2.9 1.3 23. Learn the words of an idiom together 2.9 1.0 27. Keep a vocabulary notebook 2.9 1.2 32. Use a vocabulary learning textbook 2.9 1.3 15. Group words together to study them 2.8 1.1 17. Use new word in English conversation 2.8 1.1 7. Ask classmates or friends for the meaning 2.6 1.1 33. Use English-language media 2.6 1.4 35. Skip or pass unknown word 2.5 1.1 Low Usage (M=2.4 or below) 2. Analyze and study affixes and roots 2.4 1.0 21. Use Keyword Method 2.4 1.3 34. Self-test word knowledge 2.4 1.1 22. Paraphrase a word’s meaning 2.3 1.1 31. Listen to tape (or CD or MP3) of word lists 2.2 1.2 6. Ask teacher for the meaning 2.0 1.1 9. Interact with native speakers 1.8 1.2 8. Study or practice meaning in a group 1.7 1.0 10. Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning 1.7 0.9 28. Practice word using flash card 1.6 0.9

Mean 2.8 On the other hand, among the least frequently used strategies were “practice word using

flash card,” “study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning,” “study or practice meaning in a group” and “interact with native speakers.” This result can be attributed to


159

some contextual factors. For example, most of the participants are situated in EFL context where access to native speakers is limited and thus normally they do not have adequate opportunities to learn new words through interaction with them (Jun-Eon Park, 2001). In addition, low frequent use of flash cards and pictures may be related to the fact that these methods are not quite popular in language learning classrooms in Korea and besides making the cards and pictures for every new word seemed to be a very burdensome task for the students unless those are already made and available. Concerning the item “study or practice meaning in a group,” its low frequent use may be associated with the students’ beliefs that vocabulary learning in particular is a kind of individual process rather than collaborative and group process.

Not surprisingly, the use of bilingual dictionary (4.1) was much more frequent than the use of monolingual dictionary (2.9). As Nation (2001) pointed out, the reason can be attributed to the fact that bilingual dictionaries “provide meanings in a very accessible way” (p. 290) and also be related to the difficulty of using monolingual dictionaries in a sense that “although most monolingual dictionaries use a controlled vocabulary in their definitions, a learner has to know this vocabulary and has to be able to cope with the grammatical difficulties of the explanation (p. 290).” In fact, L2 learners’ preference for bilingual dictionaries was reported in a number of studies of VLS (Kudo, 1999; Lee & Min, 2006; Park, 2001; Sahbazian, 2004; Schmitt, 1997).

TABLE 3

Descriptive Statistics of Each Category of the Strategies Mean SD

Memory strategy 2.95 .59 Cognitive strategy 2.98 .56

Metacognitive strategy 2.64 .72 Social strategy 2.04 .73

Table 3 shows the mean and the standard deviation of each category of the strategies and,

as shown in the table, the participants used cognitive and memory strategies more frequently than metacognitve and social strategies and they used social strategies least frequently. This result may stem from learners’ beliefs about vocabulary learning that vocabulary learning is primarily involved in cognitive practice and memorization.

2. Use of VLS and Gender

As shown in the Table 4, there was not much difference in the frequency of strategy use

between male and female students. The means of the strategy use of the two groups were equal (2.8) and they showed almost the same pattern of strategy use.

Lee, Shinwoong

160

TABLE 4 Use of VLS and Gender

Mean SD Items M F M F

1. Analyze and study parts of speech 2.9 3.0 1.2 1.2 2. Analyze and study affixes and roots 2.4 2.4 1.0 1.0 3. Use bilingual dictionary 4.0 4.1 1.1 1.0 4. Use monolingual dictionary 2.8 3.0 1.3 1.3 5. Use word lists 3.0 3.0 1.3 1.3 6. Ask teacher for the meaning 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.1 7. Ask classmates or friends for the meaning 2.7 2.6 1.2 1.1 8. Study or practice meaning in a group 1.7 1.7 1.1 1.0 9. Interact with native speakers 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.1 10. Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning* 1.8 1.6 1.0 0.8 11. Image word’s meaning 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 12. Connect word’s meaning to a personal experience 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 13. Connect word to the words that I already know 3.7 3.7 1.0 1.0 14. Connect word to its synonyms and antonyms 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.1 15. Group words together to study them* 3.0 2.7 1.0 1.1 16. Use new word in sentences 3.0 2.9 1.1 1.1 17. Use new word in English conversation 2.9 2.8 1.1 1.1 18. Study the spelling of a word 3.8 3.8 1.1 1.1 19. Study the sound of a word 3.9 4.0 1.1 1.0 20. Say a word aloud when studying 4.0 4.1 1.1 1.0 21. Use Keyword Method 2.5 2.5 1.3 1.2 22. Paraphrase a word’s meaning 2.3 2.3 1.1 1.1 23. Learn the words of an idiom together 3.0 2.9 1.0 1.0 24. Practice word through physical activity 2.3 2.3 1.1 1.2 25. Practice word through verbal repetition 3.6 3.7 1.2 1.1 26. Write word repeatedly 3.5 3.5 1.3 1.3 27. Keep a vocabulary notebook 3.0 2.9 1.2 1.2 28. Practice word using flash card 1.5 1.6 1.0 0.9 29. Study word by taking notes in class 3.1 3.0 1.2 1.2 30. Utilize vocabulary section in a textbook 3.0 3.1 1.2 1.2 31. Listen to tape (or CD or MP3) of word lists 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.2 32. Use a vocabulary learning textbook 2.8 3.0 1.3 1.3 33. Use English-language media 2.6 2.6 1.4 1.4 34. Self-test word knowledge 2.3 2.4 1.1 1.1 35. Skip or pass unknown word 2.5 2.5 1.1 1.1 36. Continue to study word over time 3.2 3.1 1.1 1.0

Mean 2.8 2.8 * indicates the item that shows a significant difference between the two groups at .05 level in the

independent samples t-test. Among the most frequently used strategies of male participants were “use bilingual

dictionary,” “say a word aloud when studying,” “study the sound of a word,” “study the spelling of a word,” and “connect word to the words that I already know.” Interestingly, these five most frequently used strategies by male students were exactly the same as those of female students and the frequency order was also exactly the same. In fact, they shared 9


161

strategies in common out of 10 most frequently used strategies. With regards to least frequently used strategies, the two groups also showed a very

similar pattern. Five least frequently used strategies for the both groups were “practice word using flash card,” “study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning,” “study or practice meaning in a group,” “interact with native speakers,” and “ask teacher for the meaning,” and the frequency order was also same in the two groups. Thus, it can be tentatively concluded that there is no difference between male and female students in terms of the pattern of strategy use and its frequency in general.

To confirm the results using statistical procedures, an independent samples t-test was conducted for each item in the survey and the significant level was set at .05. There were only two items that showed a significant difference between the two groups: “group words together to study them (p=.006)” and “study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning (p=.016).” Thus, it can be concluded that male students tend to use picture and grouping strategy more often when learning vocabulary than female students. However, overall, there seems no significant gender effect on the pattern and frequency of strategy use.

3. Use of VLS and Vocabulary Size

The participants were divided into three groups according to the results of the VLT3. As shown

in Table 5, descriptive statistics of strategy use reveals that the students in the high vocabulary size group tend to use the strategies more often than the other two groups in general except the case of social strategy. The difference of the means was most conspicuous in the use of memory strategy when comparing the high vocabulary size group and the low vocabulary size group. The frequency of social strategy seems equal among the three groups and showed lowest frequency compared to that of the other three categories (memory, cognitive, and metacogntive strategy).

TABLE 5

Descriptive Statistics of Strategy Use according to Vocabulary Size Group Mean SD

Memory strategy Low 2.79 .59 Mid 2.96 .55 High 3.10 .59 Total 2.95 .59

Cognitive strategy Low 2.88 .57 Mid 3.00 .55 High 3.06 .55 Total 2.98 .56

3 Only the test scores of 5,000 word frequency was used when grouping the participants because

most of the participants showed the mastery or near-mastery level at 2,000 and 3,000 word frequency and academic vocabulary tests.

Lee, Shinwoong

162

Metacognitive strategy Low 2.58 .72 Mid 2.57 .66 High 2.77 .75 Total 2.64 .72

Social strategy Low 2.02 .74 Mid 2.07 .70 High 2.01 .74 Total 2.03 .73

A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to see the effect of vocabulary size

on four dependent variables (the mean score of cognitive, memory, metacognitive, and social strategy) among the three groups (low, mid, and high vocabulary size) and the significant differences were found on the four dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ=.94, F(4, 460) = 3.9, p<.01. Analyses of variance on each dependent variable were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. The p values for the ANOVAs on the MANOVA output did not take into account the fact that multiple ANOVAs have been conducted. Thus, to control type I error, Bonferroni method was used and each ANOVA was tested at the .0125 significance level. The results indicate that there is a significant difference among the groups only in the memory strategy (See Table 6, 7, 8, and 9). However, even if p value does not reach the significance level, there seems to exist some differences among the groups in the frequency of cognitive (p= .016) and metacognitive strategy (p=.023) as well. Then, a follow-up post hoc procedure (Bonferroni) was conducted to evaluate pairwise differences in the use of memory strategies among the three groups and the significant difference was found only between high and low vocabulary size groups and there was no significant difference between high and mid and low and mid groups (see Table 10).

TABLE 6

Results of ANOVA (Memory Strategy) Source Type III Sum of Square df MS F P Group 7.4 2 3.7 11.0 .000 Error 155.8. 463 .3

TABLE 7

Results of ANOVA (Cognitive Strategy) Source Type III Sum of Square df MS F P Group 2.6 2 1.3 4.2 .016 Error 143.7 463 .3

TABLE 8

Results of ANOVA (Metacognitive Strategy) Source Type III Sum of Square df MS F P Group 3.8 2 1.9 3.8 .023 Error 234.1 463 .51


163

TABLE 9 Results of ANOVA (Social Strategy)

Source Type III Sum of Square df MS F P Group .3 2 .2 .3 .73 Error 248.5 463 .5

TABLE 10

Multiple Comparisons for Memory Strategy Dependent Variable (I) Group (J) Group Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.

Low Mid .17 .066 .028 High -.31* .066 .000

Mid Low .17 .066 .028 High -.14 .065 .110

High Low .31* .066 .000

Memory Strategy

Mid .14 .065 .110 * indicates the statistical significance at .0125 level

In sum, it was found that there was a significant effect of vocabulary size on the

frequency of memory strategy and further analysis revealed that the students in the high vocabulary size group use memory strategies significantly more often than the students in the low vocabulary size group. However, there seem to exist some potential differences in the other two categories (cognitive and metacogntive strategy) too even if the differences were not statistically significant. Thus, it can be also cautiously assumed that the students in the high vocabulary size group tended to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies more frequently than the students in the low vocabulary size group.

Meanwhile, there seems no gender difference in terms of the pattern and frequency of strategy use in general even if there was significant difference in the two items of the survey: “group words together to study them” and “study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning.” The findings of the study partially echo the results of Jun-Eon Park’s (2001) and Schmitt’s (1997) study in which no gender effect was found in terms of the pattern of strategy use, but also conflict with those of other studies (Catalan, 2003; Stoffer, 1995) in which female learners were found to use vocabulary learning strategies more frequently than male students.

4. Limitation of the Study

As stated earlier, the participants came from only two universities located in Seoul and a

large proportion of them were English majors, which may introduce some bias to the results. The results should not represent the whole population of the university students in Korea.

Lee, Shinwoong

164

Additional problem arises around the fact that the categories used in the study were not validated by factor analysis. In fact, Kudo (1999) attempted to validate these categories using factor analysis and found that the categories are relatively valid, but there should have been additional procedures to validate the categories used in the study.

It should also be noted that the VLT only provide a profile of learners’ vocabulary and it does not necessarily measure the overall vocabulary size of the learners. Thus, the groups that are divided on the basis of the VLT scores may not represent the groups as intended.

V. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS The results of the study showed that Korean university students tended to use

cognitively less demanding VLSs more frequently than cognitively demanding strategies that required deeper mental processing. In addition, there was no gender effect on the pattern and frequency of students’ strategy use in general, but there was a significant effect of vocabulary size on the frequency of the strategy use. This implies that the use of VLT is more related to vocabulary size than gender.

Given the importance of VLS in the successful second/foreign language learning, there are a few implications of the study. Most of all, even if the students reported they made use of a wide variety of VLSs, considering the proportion of medium (47%) and low usage (25%) strategies, it can be assumed that some of the students either were not aware of certain strategies at all or simply did not use them. In fact, a number of the students wrote in the survey that they did not know if there existed such many ways to learn vocabulary let alone use them. As aforementioned, English learners should be familiar with diverse techniques and ways to learn vocabulary and ultimately need to be able to learn it on their own inside and outside the classroom. However, it was not the case of the students in this study. They did not seem to realize the importance of knowing and utilizing various strategies when learning vocabulary.

For the purpose of having students be familiar with diverse VLSs, a VLS training should be part of second/foreign language curricula and should be taught systematically. The first step would be to utilize existing VLS inventories. The purpose can be bi-fold: First, by filling out the survey, students can be more conscious about using strategies when learning vocabulary and be encouraged to use them accordingly; Second, it can be used for a diagnostic purpose, that is, teachers can obtain such information as what kinds of strategies are used or not by their students or which ones are more frequently or less frequently used. Then, they can effectively reflect the result of the survey in the VLS training. For instance, they might focus on the strategies that were found to be effective in the literature but that were not frequently used by the students.


165

To make the VLS training more effective, it is crucial for teachers to explain why the students need the VLS training, how it is related to their language learning, and what they can benefit from doing it. This will motivate students to participate more actively in the training and will lead to better outcomes. The ultimate goal of VLS training should be sought in the direction where students can establish autonomy in their vocabulary learning so that they can appropriately transfer a given strategy to a new situation autonomously. In doing so, they should find ways to tailor their strategy use to their individual needs and requirements and develop combinations of strategies that work for them (Oxford, 1990).

It is also essential for teachers to recognize that some strategies may be more suited to some learners than to others and to give students adequate opportunities to explore and experience varied strategies to find ones that suit them. In fact, many factors were found to explain individual differences in strategy choices (Oxford, 1993; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oxford et al., 1988; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Males and females, for instance, might have different preferences in terms of strategy use even if the difference was not found in this study. Also, people at different levels of proficiency are likely to use different kinds of strategies with different frequency. The more teachers know about such factors, the more readily the teacher can design such lessons that students with many different characteristics can receive what they need (Oxford & Ehrman, 1995).

Since the communicative approach and extensive reading in foreign language learning became more popular among language professionals, intentional vocabulary learning employing various techniques has been relatively neglected in the foreign language classrooms and its role in language learning has been somewhat downplayed. However, it should be noted that declarative and procedural knowledge of those skills can lead to learner autonomy that is highly valued in second/foreign language teaching and learning. The value of knowing and utilizing those skills seems priceless particularly when learners are situated in EFL context where learners are largely dependent on classroom instructions and thus language input is limited both quantitatively and qualitatively.

REFERENCES

Al-Nujaidi, A. H. (2000). Vocabulary learning strategies of Saudi first-year university

students. Unpublished masters thesis, Colorado State University, Colorado. Catalan, R. M. J. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 54-77. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1989). Effects of sex difference, career choice, and

psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 73(1), 1-13.

Green, J., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and

Lee, Shinwoong

166

gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297. Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.

Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign

language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294. Kaylani, C. (1996). The Influence of gender and motivation on EFL learning strategy use in

Jordan. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspective (pp. 157-166). Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center: University of Hawaii Press.

Kobayashi, C. (2000). Vocabulary learning strategies of Japanese students of English in the United States. Unpublished masters’ thesis, Colorado State University, Colorado.

Kojig-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176-192.

Kudo, Y. (1999). L2 vocabulary learning strategies. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii.

Lawson, M., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135.

Lee, S.-W., & Min, M.-O. (2006). A study on Korean high school students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies. English Teaching, 61(2), 115-137.

Levin, J. R. (1993). Mnemonic strategies and classroom learning; A twenty-year report card. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 235-244.

Levin, J. R., Levin, M. E., Glassman, L. D., & Nordwall, M. B. (1992). Mnemonic vocabulary instruction: additional effectiveness evidence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 156-174.

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Massachusetts: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N.

Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publisher.

Oxford, R. (1993). Instructional implication of gender differences in L2 learning styles and strategies. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 65-94.

Oxford, R., & Ehrman, M. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.

Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Nyikos, M. (1988). Reflection on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Languages Annals, 21, 321-329.


167

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300.

Oxford, R., Park-Ok, Y., Ito, S., & Sumrall, M. (1993). Japanese by satellite: Effects of motivation, language learning strategies, gender, course level, and previous language learning experience on Japanese language achievement. Foreign Language Annals, 26(3), 369-371.

Park, J.-E. (2001). Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategies. English Teaching, 56(4), 3-30.

Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65.

Read, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment. Language Testing, 18(1), 1-32.

Sahbazian, S. (2004). Perceived vocabulary learning strategies of Turkish university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary Learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sokmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stoffer, I. (1995). University foreign language students’ choice of vocabulary learning strategies as related to individual difference variables. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Alabama.

APPENDIX A Vocabulary Learning Strategy Inventory

The purpose of this survey is to collect information about various techniques you use when you learn vocabulary in English. Each statement is followed by five numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and each number means the following. After reading each statement, circle the number (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) which applies to you.

1→ I never or almost never do this 2→ I do this only occasionally (about 20% of the time) 3→ I sometimes do this (about 50% of the time)

Lee, Shinwoong

168

4→ I usually do this (about 80% of the time) 5→ I always or almost always do this

MEM 1. Analyze and study parts of speech 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 2. Analyze and study affixes and roots 1 2 3 4 5 COG 3. Use bilingual dictionary 1 2 3 4 5 COG 4. Use monolingual dictionary 1 2 3 4 5 COG 5. Use word lists 1 2 3 4 5 SOC 6. Ask teacher for the meaning 1 2 3 4 5 SOC 7. Ask classmates or friends for the meaning 1 2 3 4 5 SOC 8. Study or practice meaning in a group 1 2 3 4 5 SOC 9. Interact with native speakers 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 10. Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 11. Image word’s meaning 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 12. Connect word’s meaning to a personal experience 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 13. Connect word to the words that I already know 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 14. Connect word to its synonyms and antonyms 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 15. Group words together to study them 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 16. Use new word in sentences 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 17. Use new word in English conversation 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 18. Study the spelling of a word 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 19. Study the sound of a word 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 20. Say a word aloud when studying 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 21. Use Keyword Method 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 22. Paraphrase a word’s meaning 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 23. Learn the words of an idiom together 1 2 3 4 5 MEM 24. Practice word through physical activity 1 2 3 4 5 COG 25. Practice word through verbal repetition 1 2 3 4 5 COG 26. Write word repeatedly 1 2 3 4 5 COG 27. Keep a vocabulary notebook 1 2 3 4 5 COG 28. Practice word using flash card 1 2 3 4 5 COC 29. Study word by taking notes in class 1 2 3 4 5 COG 30. Utilize vocabulary section in a textbook 1 2 3 4 5 COG 31. Listen to tape (or CD or MP3) of word lists 1 2 3 4 5 COG 32. Use a vocabulary learning textbook 1 2 3 4 5 MET 33. Use English-language media 1 2 3 4 5 MET 34. Self-test word knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 MET 35. Skip or pass unknown word 1 2 3 4 5 MET 36. Continue to study word over time 1 2 3 4 5


169

Applicable levels: tertiary education, adult education Key words: vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary size Shinwoong Lee Div. of English Language and Literature Hanyang University 17, Haengdang-dong, sungdong-ku Seoul 133-791, Korea Fax: (02) 2220-0741 Email: [email protected] Received in November, 2006 Reviewed in December, 2006 Revised version received in February, 2007

vocabulary learning strategies of korean university...

Documents