1.4 Definitions of Terms
1.4.3 Gender
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
1.4.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies
It is never an easy task to define VLS (Nation, 2001); however, strategies in vocabulary learning involve the discovery of words’ meanings and consolidation of a word (Schmitt, 1997). Based on the features of VLS, Schmitt regards that VLS are applied by learners consciously to help the discovery of the meanings on their own or through interaction with others, enhance the retention of words through auditory and visual practice, and activate the production of target vocabulary. In the present study, VLS refers to those in Schmitt’s taxonomy, including five main categories: determination strategies, social strategies, memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies.
1.4.3 Gender
Sex, a biological term, divides people into male and female, while gender, a social term, distinguishes men from women with social attributes. The term, gender, is chosen in the present study because the term, sex, seems to narrow the differences between males and females by ignoring the influences of socialization. According to Nyikos (1990), males and females are required to learn “socially sanctioned gender-appropriate behaviors” (p. 273) and the socialized distinction between two genders is reinforced particularly in the daily
language use. Therefore, the differences between male and female junior high students would be better illustrated with a gender perspective, instead of a biological one.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
In the field of second language acquisition (SLA), researchers, teachers and learners have been working on how to help advance the outcome of language learning. Provided with different supporting values in the leading teaching methods, it is also observable that the focus of the classroom activities has also drifted from teacher-oriented to student-oriented (Schmitt, 2010a). Consequently, how learners acquire a language has attracted more attention lately, especially those involving specific actions that learners would take to improve four basic skills and lexical knowledge of the target language.
The present study aims to survey different uses of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) from two perspectives: vocabulary proficiency and gender preferences. Before reviewing VLS in detail, Section 2.1 offers a concise review of language learning strategies (LLS) first because VLS could be regarded as a stem from LLS with the application of LLS into
vocabulary learning (Oxford, 1990). Then, the following section displays a thorough review of VLS, which are the main focus of the study. Section 2.3 reviews related studies on the effect of influential factors, vocabulary proficiency and gender differences, on strategy use.
The last section reviews former studies on VLS use in Taiwan.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2.1 Language Learning Strategies
Learning strategies have drawn much attention from SLA investigators for decades and research has also shown that good language learners use more and individualized strategies.
Rubin (1975) first indicated that, to excel in language learning, a good learner applies
personalized learning techniques and participates more actively and creatively in the learning process, instead of relying only on a high degree of proficiency and motivation. In other words, learners may better their language ability through the adoption of special skills on language learning, i.e., language learning strategies (LLS).
2.1.1 Definitions and Features of Language Learning Strategies
LLS have been focused by researchers for decades since studies began to emphasize on the way to improve learners’ language proficiency of all aspects. LLS have been viewed as
“complex cognitive skills” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 215) or “specific actions” (Oxford, 1990, p. 8) that learners take consciously and semi-consciously to achieve “the explicit goal of improving their knowledge and understanding of a target language” (Cohen & Dornyei, 2002, p. 178). They influence learners mentally and behaviorally in encoding the learning process intentionally (Wenstein & Mayer, 1986). That is, LLS are applied purposefully by a learner to refine language skills and broaden required knowledge for the language. Research results have shown that good language learners use specialized and personalized strategies with a higher frequency. With the help of LLS, learners might overcome obstacles they meet in language learning in an easier way. What makes LLS helpful in language learning could
‧
be attributed to that LLS are techniques in rich of particular features. Table 2.1 below shows
features of LLS concluded by Oxford (1990).
Table 2.1 Features of Language Learning Strategies
Language Learning Strategies 1. Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.
2. Allow learners to become more self-directed.
3. Expand the role of teachers.
4. Are problem-oriented.
5. Are specific actions taken by the learner.
6. Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive.
7. Support learning both directly and indirectly.
8. Are not always observable.
9. Are often conscious.
10. Can be taught.
11. Are flexible.
12. Are influenced by a variety of factors.
__________________________________________________________________________
Source: Oxford (1990), p. 9
It is clear to see from the features of LLS above that language learners adopt LLS to solve problems consciously and systematically for a certain purpose of improving the overall ability of the target language. As a result, the application of LLS may play an important and positive part in the task of language learning.
2.1.2 Classification of Language Learning Strategies
With the regard to the beneficial aspects that LLS seem to have, a closer look at the classification of LLS is necessary. Firstly, Rubin (1981) divided LLS into two classes based on the ways LLS directly or indirectly affect language learning. These two classes are direct strategies and indirect strategies, the ideas of which were borrowed by Oxford (1990) when
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
she intended to divide LLS into various categories.
In another study, Bialystok (1978) not only recognized the importance of LLS on SLA but also proposed a classification of LLS, which she thought cognitive in nature and which she viewed as a mental process of language learning. Her classification of two categories, which were divided based on the requirements learners need on acquiring necessary knowledge, include formal strategies (linguistic form) and functional strategies (language use). The former category is comprised of formal practicing and monitoring, which involve learning the L2 consciously or automatizing the acquired explicit knowledge intentionally.
The latter category contains functional practicing and inferencing, which are meant to increase exposure to the target language through communication.
Next, O’Malley et al. (1985) proposed a classification with a theoretical anchorage on the cognitive theory of information-processing model by Brown and Palinscar (1982). After interviews and observations at high school classrooms of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners, they indentified two main strategies categories of LLS: metacognitive
strategies and cognitive strategies, which concern different aspects of language learning. The former are related to all kinds of self-directed learning processes, such as planning,
monitoring, and evaluating, whereas the latter are mainly about the manipulation of certain learning tasks by using materials. Later, based on the classification scheme, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) further presented another strategy category, social-affective strategies, which involves social interactions with others or affective control over learning tasks. The
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
classification cut a path for the following development on the classification of LLS by Oxford (1990).
Based on the concept of the directness of LLS by Rubin (1981), Oxford also classified LLS into direct and indirect classes; the former consists of memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies, the latter includes metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social strategies. Among the six main strategy categories, Oxford further developed a complete taxonomy, Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), which contains a large number of individual language learning strategies, offering an illustration of possible skills taken in language learning. As “perhaps the most comprehensive
classification of language learning strategies to date” (Ellis, 1994, p. 539), she has offered a good model for coming researchers who intend to explore the use of LLS by learners all over the world. As follows, here presents her classification of LLS and the definitions of each strategy categories (Oxford, 1990).
1. “Direct strategies require mental process of the language” (p. 37).
(1) Memory strategies, such as grouping or using imagery, have a highly specific function: helping students store and retrieve new information.
(2) Cognitive strategies, such as summarizing or reasoning deductively, enable learners to understand and produce new language by many different means.
(3) Compensation strategies, like guessing or using synonyms, allow learners to use the language despite their often large gaps in knowledge.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2. “Indirect strategies are applicable to all four language skills” (p. 135).
(1) Metacognitive strategies allow learners to control their own cognition─that is, to coordinate the learning process by using functions such as centering, arranging, planning and evaluating.
(2) Affective strategies help to regulate emotions, motivations, and attitudes.
(3) Social strategies are called indirect because they support and manage language learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language.
According to her, LLS are considered both applicable to and effective in all four language skills, especially to vocabulary learning. Therefore, LLS not only positively enhance language learning in general, but also could be successfully adopted into all subareas of language learning, one of which is the primary focus of the study, vocabulary learning.
2.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Since decades ago, research has been carried out into investigation on LLS, pinpointing at the issue with various foci. For instance, researchers have emphasized on generating the definitions of LLS (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Wenstein & Mayer, 1986), on proposing the classifications of LLS (Bialystok, 1978; O’Malley et al., 1985; O’Malley &
Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981), or on examining the relationship between language proficiency and LLS use (Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley et al., 1985; Oxford &
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Nyikos, 1989). With a wider range of investigations on LLS from various perspectives, a growing body of literature seems interested in the application of LLS into vocabulary learning.
2.2.1 Vocabulary Learning
Among all aspects of language learning, vocabulary learning has attracted much attention from learners, teachers and researchers. As McCarthy (1990) states:
“No matter how well the student learns grammar, no matter how successfully the
sounds of L2 are mastered, without words to express a wider range of meanings,
communication in an L2 just cannot happen in any meaningful way” (p. viii).
Therefore, in order to communicate with others successfully, vocabulary is fundamental in transmitting meaningful information required. Gass and Selinker (1994) even regard lexicon “the most component for learners” (p. 270); that is, vocabulary could be so significant that learners could not underestimate the value of it.
Due to the importance of vocabulary in learning a language, much attention has been paid to the way a learner know a new word. Before that, it deserves more discussion on the factors that affect vocabulary acquisition. According to Hedge (2000), some factors that might affect vocabulary acquisition are to do with input, the properties of which include frequency, pronunciation and contextualization of a word. A word of higher frequency appears more often in the texts and increases learners’ exposure to it, therefore, causing less difficulty in acquiring the word, and vice versa. As for pronunciation, it gains a lot of
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
practice at the beginning level in order to correctly recognize the stress of the word, thus enhancing the comprehension of a listening passage. Another feature is contextualization, which involves putting an unknown word in a contextual text. This serves a way to help learners retain the unknown word through the information provided from the whole text.
Hedge further suggests activities concerning contextualization could be strategies for vocabulary learning, which might reduce the difficulty of the word and enhance the acquisition of the word.
Besides the factors mentioned by Hedge, Laufer (1997) also presents possible affecting factors which might cause difficulties of learning a new word, such as pronounceability, length and morphological complexity. The first factor, pronounceability, means to which extent a second language learner could pronounce a word correctly. This also affects whether the learner could perceive, say and remember the word accurately. Another two factors, length and morphological complexity, are closely related. It is commonly believed that a longer word might be more difficult than a short word. However, a long word which could be divided into several parts based on the morphemes in it would not be as hard as a short word with irregular forms. In other word, length could cause difficulty but what really matters in the complexity of morphemes in the word.
Being important in language learning but difficult in acquisition itself, vocabulary is suggested to be learned from meaning-focused input (i.e., listening and reading) and output (i.e., speaking and writing) by Nation and Meara (2002). They further recommend deliberate
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
vocabulary learning due to its higher effectiveness compared with indirect learning.
According to them, learning vocabulary directly involves more exposure to the target language through four skills and requires training of strategy use in broadening vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, a more systematic application of learning strategies into vocabulary learning seems inevitable.
2.2.2 Definitions of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Research into vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) have been considered to stem from LLS because most LLS in Oxford’s (1990) classification, especially those of memory
strategies, are related to learning vocabulary (Pavičić, 2009). As stated by Ellis (1994) that it is likely to define VLS accurately, Jiménez Catalán (2003) tried to offer a complete
definition for VLS after reviewing Brown and Payne’s (1994) five processes of learning vocabulary:
“knowledge about the mechanisms (process, strategies) used to learn vocabulary
as well as specific actions or mental operations taken by learners to (a) find out the
meaning of unknown words, (b) retain them in long-term memory, (c) recall them at will,
and (d) use them in oral or written mode” (p. 56).
In other words, when learners encounter unknown words in their learning, they tend to recall the information existed in their mind, or they might utilize some strategies to get for the meanings out. Thus, it is very important for learners to know what strategies they can use in vocabulary learning and to use them successfully, consequently improving overall
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
vocabulary bank in a more effective and systematic way.
2.2.3 Classification of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Since 1980, a number of studies have been carried on VLS. Many researchers have also devoted their efforts offering an appropriate classification of VLS. Among the early
researchers on VLS, most of them tried to indentify certain beneficial individual strategies, such as memorization strategies (Cohen & Aphek, 1981), rote repetition strategies (O’Malley et al., 1985), or note-taking strategies (Ahmed, 1989), or strategies concerning guessing from the context (Huckin, Haynes & Coady, 1993). Nevertheless, Skehan (1989) states that there exist needs for a comprehensive taxonomy of VLS, which, according to Schmitt (1997), should include deeper cognitive processing of information and shallow strategies of rote learning. Therefore, in the late nineties, more researchers started to offer a more
comprehensive classification of VLS (Stoffer, 1995; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997).
Stoffer (1995) offered a complete classification, Vocabulary Learning Strategy Inventory (VOLSI), which identifies nine major strategies as follows:
1. Strategies involving authentic language use 2. Strategies used for self-motivation
3. Strategies used to organize words
4. Strategies used to create mental linkages 5. Memory strategies
6. Strategies involving creative activities
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7. Strategies involving physical action 8. Strategies used to overcome anxiety 9. Auditory strategies
As can be seen, Stoffer’s classification has included most related and essential strategy categories that directly involve vocabulary learning, such as memory strategies or grouping strategies.
In another study on Chinese students, Gu & Johnson (1996) mainly aimed to find out the frequency of VLS use with the examination on students’ beliefs about vocabulary
learning and the comparison between language learning outcomes and the use of VLS. After reviewing prior qualitative and quantitative studies (Ahmed, 1989; Gu, 1994; Oxford, 1990) and deleting redundant items found in their earlier two pilot studies, Gu and Johnson (1996) proposed the Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ, Version 3). Their classification includes seven major categories:
1. Metacognitive regulation 2. Guessing strategies 3. Dictionary strategies 4. Note-taking strategies
5. Memory strategies: rehearsal 6. Memory strategies: encoding 7. Activation strategies.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Slightly different from Stoffer’s, Gu and Johnson presented a more detailed
classification which includes dictionary use for unknown words and note-taking strategies for review.
Then, Schmitt (1997) conducted a further research into vocabulary in order to offer a valid classification of VLS. He collected lots of information from three main sources: earlier literature or references on vocabulary, self-reports of strategy use by Japanese students and teachers’ review on the list of VLS according to their teaching experiences. Based on Cook
& Mayer’s (1986) and Nation’s (1990) Discovery/ Consolidation distinction and Oxford’s (1990) classification on LLS, Schmitt (1997) grouped a wider taxonomy which divides vocabulary strategies into two major categories and six sub-categories:
1. Strategies for the discovery of a new word’s meaning
(1) Determination strategies (DET) are used by an individual when facing with
discovering a new word’s meaning without resource to another person’s expertise.
(2) Social strategies (SOC) use interaction with other people to find out a new word’s meaning.
2. Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered
(1) Social strategies (SOC) use interaction with other people to improve vocabulary learning.
(2) Memory strategies (MEM) relate new material to existing knowledge.
(3) Cognitive strategies (COG) exhibit the common function of manipulation or
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
transformation of the target language by the learner.
(4) Meta-cognitive strategies (MET) involve a conscious overview of the learning process and making decisions about planning, monitoring, or evaluating the best way to study.
Schmitt’s taxonomy also offered a list of individual VLS in more detail, concluding 58 strategy items in six sub-categories (see Appendix A). The present study has chosen
Schmitt’s taxonomy as the main tool to elicit the participants’ frequency of strategy use due to several reasons. First, Schmitt’s extensive list of VLS primarily stems from Oxford’s (1990) classification of LLS, which has been considered as a comprehensive one (Ellis, 1994). Besides, Schmitt himself conducted a research by using his taxonomy on Japanese learners of all ages, including junior high school students like those in the current study. Also, Schmitt’s taxonomy has been adopted as the main tool for the inquiry of VLS use by learners from different countries, such as Kudo’s (1999) Japanese learners and Chen’s (1998)
Taiwanese participants. Last, according to Cheng (2006), most research into VLS in Taiwan was carried out based on Schmitt’s taxonomy; as a result, comparison could be better discussed across studies which adopt the same strategy classification scheme.
2.2.4 Factors Influencing Strategy Choice
No matter which classification is chosen as the research tool, there exists another key issue on the research into VLS. As Rubin (1975) states, some important factors might affect the selection of strategies, such as students’ age and cultural differences. With the regard to
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the factor, age, Schmitt (1997) found in his Japanese studies that the emphasis on spelling or form decreases when the learners mature. This indicates that the preference of strategy use seems to be under the influence of age, which reflects the maturity of one person. In addition, to call papers on whether strategy use is culturally different, Oxford (1996) edited a pile of studies in her book, one of which is Kaylani’s (1996). Her investigation compared the use of LLS by Spanish students and Jordanese students and found similarities on memory strategy use but differences on social strategy use. In another study by Jiménez Catalán (2003), the results also revealed that not only Spanish learners but Japanese learners were in favor of certain strategies, such as dictionary use. Therefore, Jiménez Catalán concludes that some strategies might be universal for people from very different cultures.
Besides age and cultural factors, Oxford (1990) further adds other variables that influence strategy use: motivation, learning styles, and sex. Among the three factors,
Besides age and cultural factors, Oxford (1990) further adds other variables that influence strategy use: motivation, learning styles, and sex. Among the three factors,