4. Results
4.5 Students’ Reflection on Strategy Use
4.5.4 Needs for Teachers’ Assistance
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the spelling of a word, imaging word form and watching English movies, while those by female students were written repetition, guessing from textual context and electronic dictionary. Though not much similarity was shared by both genders on strategies found by the students themselves, the total percentage of the top five strategies by male students (36.99%) and female students (35.58%) also showed that there was still a large percentage of
each gender having different opinions.
Table 4.30 Strategies Found by Male and Female Students
Male Female
Rank
Description % Description %
1 Listen to English songs (MET) 12.79 Listen to English songs (MET) 11.06 2 Verbal repetition (COG) 8.68 Written repetition (COG) 8.17 3 Study the spelling of a word
(MEM) 5.48 Verbal repetition (COG) 7.21
4 Image word form (MEM) 5.02 Guess from textual context (DET) 4.81 5 Watch English movies (MET) 5.02 Electronic dictionary (DET) 4.33
4.5.4 Needs for Teachers’ Assistance
To answer the last question, students expressed various needs for teacher’s assistance.
Both male and female students reached agreements in three ways. First, they hoped that teachers could offer more relating vocabulary, synonyms or antonyms. Besides, both male and female students also expected that teachers could employ English songs into classrooms for learning vocabulary, which would stimulate their learning interest and enrich their learning experiences. It could be clearly seen from the answers below:
“Teach English songs which include newly taught words. Through the help of
music, it could enhance the retention of the word” (C2S26).
“Teach more English songs, and learn more English words” (C5S20).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
What is more, they regarded pronunciation practice and teachers’ explanation, either in English or in Chinese, as helpful teaching activities. This could be seen from their answers:
“Teach the pronunciation of the word again and again” (C6S35).
“Offer complete explanations of the word.”(C6S22).
However, male students differed from their female peers from the following three aspects. First, male students would like teachers to play English movies where vocabulary was used in real contexts, but only one female student thought this way. One of the male students replied,
“Watch English films. Because I want to know how foreigners speak English in
authentic context” (C3S27).
Also, some female students preferred sentence making while few male students did.
This could be seen from one reply by a female student.
“Have more activities of making sentences” (C6S8).
Thirdly, in other answers, male students favored dynamic activities, such as vocabulary games or explanation with body language, visual aids like flash cards, or magazines. On the other hand, female students liked academic practice, such as analyzing part of speech or taking vocabulary tests. The following answers lend support to the results.
“Play vocabulary games” (C4S23).
“Give more vocabulary quizzes” (C1S7).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the findings of the current study. The chapter is comprised of five sections, which answer the five research questions. Section 5.1 discusses the differences of vocabulary strategy use among the three vocabulary levels. The following section
discusses the frequencies of vocabulary learning strategy (VLS) use by male and female junior high school students. The next section discusses gender differences on strategy use.
Section 5.4 discusses gender differences on strategy use in each vocabulary level according to data by conducting t-Test. Section 5.5 discusses students’ difficulties of learning vocabulary, the most effective and least effective strategies with possible reasons, and their needs for teachers’ help.
5.1 Vocabulary Level Differences of Vocabulary Strategy Use
This section aims to answer Research Question 1: Do junior high students of High-Scoring, Intermediate-Scoring and Low-Scoring vocabulary proficiency levels use vocabulary learning strategies differently? If they do, what would the differences of
vocabulary learning strategy uses be? This section contains (1) the use of overall strategies and the five strategy categories, and (2) the use of individual strategies, and (3) a comparison of the findings of the current study and Cheng’s (2006) study.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.1.1 Vocabulary Level and the Use of Overall Strategy and the Five Strategy Categories In Section 4.1.1, the one-way ANOVA results have shown significance on the overall strategy use that the High-Scoring level (H-S) has a more frequent use of overall strategy use than the other two levels (i.e., H>I, H>L). The finding corroborates with those of previous studies (Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Cheng, 2006; Kung, 2004; Lin, 2006; Nasajji, 2006; Tung, 2007; Wang, 2004) that learners of larger word size tend to use overall strategies more often. As Green and Oxford (1995) suggested in their study on language learning strategies (LLS), the lowest proficiency level tend to apply strategies less often than the other proficiency levels.
In addition to overall strategy use, significances were found in four strategy categories, including determination strategies, social strategies, memory strategies and metacognitive strategies. Wang’s (2004) findings also lend support to the results in the present study that learners of higher vocabulary scoring levels use the main strategy categories more often than those lower ones, except cognitive strategies. After the post-hoc test, the results show that H-S used determination strategies, social strategies and memory strategies significantly more frequently than the Low-Scoring level (L-S), who also used determination strategies and metacognitive strategies less frequently than the Intermediate-Scoring level (I-S). Notably, most differences on strategy use occurred between L-S and H-S. The possible reason for the result here might be the so called “bipolar distribution phenomenon” in Taipei city, which stands for the great difference between good learners and poor learners in terms of general
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
English proficiency. As Chang (2006) stated, Taiwanese learners vary in a great deal on their English proficiency, even if they live in the same administrative district. The obvious
differences on proficiency levels might play the main role on the variations of strategy use.
5.1.2 Vocabulary Level and Individual Strategy Use
In addition to the use of overall strategy use and the five strategy categories, vocabulary level differences on individual strategies are discussed in the sequence of the four strategy categories with significances: determination strategies, social strategies, memory strategies and metacognitive strategies. Cognitive strategies, which show no significant vocabulary level differences in overall, are discussed last.
5.1.2.1 Determination Strategies
The one-way ANOVA results have shown that significances appeared in five determination strategies which concern mostly analyzing lexical features, such as part of speech and affixes and roots, conventional dictionary use, like English-English dictionary and English-Chinese dictionary, and meaningful contextual guessing. Of the five strategies, L-S employed all the strategies less frequently than H-S, who only had a more frequent use on the former three strategies than I-S. A further discussion on the results is as follows.
First, in analyzing part of speech and affixes and roots, H-S used the strategy significantly more often than the other two groups (i.e., H>I, H>L). The possible reason might be that the former’s lexical knowledge is rich enough for them to do further analyses which directly and effectively assist in determining the meanings of unknown words.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Besides, compared with the other two groups, L-S significantly guessed from the textual context less frequently (i.e., H>L, I>L). The finding is in agreement with Rubin’s (1975) suggestion that higher proficient learners tend to make more sophisticated guessing from contextual clues at hands when meeting unknown words. Being highly aware of the importance of learning words in context, good learners are able to learn new words more effectively by adopting the strategy (Ahmed, 1989).
To find the meanings of new words, dictionary use is popular with language learners (Schmitt, 1997; Jiménez Catalán, 2006). The findings in the current research have
discovered vocabulary level differences on the use of conventional dictionary, which is supported by Ahmed’s (1989) finding that good learners use bilingual (English-Chinese) dictionary and monolingual (English-English) dictionary more in an effective way. H-S significantly used English-Chinese dictionary more frequently than L-S (i.e., H>L), but they used English-English dictionary more often than the other two levels (i.e., H>I, H>L). Two possible reasons might be able to explain the differences among the three levels. First, H-S had a greater motivation in knowing a new word; as a result, they looked up the new word for its L1 translation, especially more actively than those underachievers. Second, I-S and L-S used English-English dictionary less often because their word bank might not be large enough for them to understand the English explanation of the word entry. Kirkness (2004) reviewed three advanced learners’ dictionaries and suggested that learners need to have a vocabulary size as many as 2000 words at least in order to use a monolingual dictionary
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
effectively and successfully, lending support to the explication of the result.
5.1.2.2 Social Strategies
According to the results, significances took place in five social strategies, three of which concern active inquiries for teachers’ help, one of which involves the discovery of meanings through group work, and the other of which is the interaction with native speakers.
The following paragraphs will discuss the results from three aspects.
Firstly, when it comes to the strategies of asking for teachers’ assistance, the
significances lied between H-S and L-S by showing that the former had a higher frequency use than the latter (i.e., H>L). Griffiths (2008) suggested that “the strategies reportedly used highly frequently by higher level students relate in some way to the use of resources,
including human resources” (p. 91). In the case, good learners in the study used their teachers as a resource for paraphrase or synonyms of the new word and for a sentence involving the new word.
Moreover, L-S tended to work with others to discover the meaning of new words less frequently than H-S (i.e. H>L). In other words, unsuccessful students might not cooperate with others as often as their more successful peers in learning or practicing vocabulary. After reviewing earlier research findings, Oxford (1990) concluded that “cooperative strategies might not be second nature to all language learners” (p. 146). Therefore, she went on suggesting that learners who accept special instruction or encouragement on cooperative strategies may tend to improve their language learning through peer work.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In addition, H-S had a more frequent use of interacting with English native speakers than the other two levels (i.e., H>I, H>L). The finding corroborates with Griffiths’ (2008) discovery that learners of higher levels tend to talk to native speakers more frequently. The possible reason might be that the more advanced learners have the access to the environment where native speaks show up. Chang (2006) noticed a phenomenon that some advanced students, particularly those in a metropolis like Taipei City, have received extra English instruction by native speakers since childhood, therefore, having more opportunities to interact with native speakers.
5.1.2.3 Memory Strategies
As the ANOVA results have shown, significances occurred in twelve strategies, one of which, associating the word with its coordinates, was not significantly different between the three groups after the post-hoc test. The following discussion could be divided into six parts.
First of all, the higher vocabulary levels students belong to, the more frequently they report to use the two strategies of connecting the word to its synonyms and antonyms and using new word in sentences (i.e., H>I>L). The result implies that good learners build links between a new word and its synonyms or antonyms to help increase the retention of the word.
Also, students of lower levels seemed to pay less attention to the value of a word’s usage in a sentence. Cook (2008) expressed that learning to know how to use a word in a sentence is not only important but also crucial in enhancing the overall knowledge of a word.
Besides, four strategies were applied significantly more often by H-S than by the other
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
two scoring levels (i.e., H>I, H>L). Two of the four strategies concern grouping new words together, either to study them or to make up a story with them. The finding indicates that good learners aim to memorize new words encountered with the help of grouping strategies.
This could be considered as what Nation (2001) suggested as deliberate vocabulary learning that participants are focused and goal-directed to acquire certain words in groups. However, though H-S grouped words within a storyline more often, the result that reports the low use of the three groups might be because the strategy is time-consuming and difficult to make up an impressive story with the available new words.
Thirdly, the other two strategies, remembering affixes and roots and paraphrasing the word’s meaning, shared the same pattern above (H>I, H>L). They both concern the help of meaning in enhancing the retention of the target words. Cook (2008) suggested learners deduce the word forms to understand the meaning; that is, affixes and roots play the key roles in the acquisition of word’s meaning, directly helping learners memorize the word.
What is more, through personalized paraphrase of the word’s meaning, students could easily remember what the word means and store it in the long-term memory.
Furthermore, as for the other memory strategies, L-S used two strategies less often than the other two higher levels: using scales for gradable adjectives and remembering part of speech (i.e., H>L, I>L). The finding implies that L-S were not aware of the importance of grammatical knowledge of a word as much as the two more successful groups. Without enough grammatical knowledge of English words, poor learners might fail to distinguish the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
part of speech of a word, not to mention the three scales in an adjective.
In addition, the remaining three memory strategies showed significances between only L-S and H-S. L-S used the two strategies, studying the sound of the word and learning the words of an idiom together, less frequently than H-S (i.e., H>L). With a consistent result, Cheng (2006) suggested the lowest level students “pay much more attention to the sound of the word” (p.124) because knowing the pronunciation of a word helps remember correct spelling in long-term memory. Also, after reviewing former research, Schmitt (1997) suggested that learning new words in “multi-word chunks” (p. 215), such as idioms or phrases, is a good way to broaden one’s vocabulary size. Therefore, it might be necessary for those unsuccessful learners to employ the strategies as mnemonic devices for the retention of a word.
Last but not least, it is interesting to see that L-S used imaging word form more often than I-S (i.e., L>I). Even though having a slightly higher frequency use of the strategy, both groups seldom used the strategy and no students from L-S considered the strategy effective.
As a result, it is likely to conclude that imaging word form as a VLS might benefit vocabulary learners but not those in the present study.
5.1.2.4 Metacognitive Strategies
The results have displayed that significances were found in nine metacognitive
strategies, most of which concern the use of English-language media. After the post-hoc test, these strategies were applied significantly more often by H-S than the other two levels
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(i.e., H>I, H>L). The finding is also in agreement with those of Cheng’s (2006) and Wang’s (2004) studies. Griffiths’ (2008) statement again supports the finding that good learners do resort to various resources more frequently. In other words, good learners increase their word bank through the use of English-language media, especially English movies,
magazines, songs and broadcasts in a greater deal. “Learner’s initiative and independence, along with the amount of extracurricular time spent on language (and vocabulary) learning,”
as Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) stated, “are seen as two crucial factors related to higher levels of achievement” (p. 190). Therefore, it seems of great importance for the poor learners to employ various resources at hands with an active attitude to enlarge their vocabulary size in their free time.
In addition, as far as continuous and repetitive review on new words is concerned, H-S significantly used the strategy more often than L-S (i.e., H>L). According to Naiman et al.
(1978), one of the strategies that good language learners apply is to pay attention to their vocabulary learning constantly (cited in Cook, 2008, p. 95), which could explain the finding here. Consequently, those of lower levels should review new words more often to improve their vocabulary bank.
5.1.2.5 Cognitive Strategies
Though the results have shown no significance in cognitive strategies, the use of the strategy, listening to the CD of word lists, seemed to vary among the three levels. However, after the post-hoc test, none of three groups did use the strategy differently from each other.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The result is in accord with Wang’s (2004) finding that good learners do not use the category significantly more often than poor learners. The result might be supported by the claim in a study (O’Malley et al., 1985) that Asian learners depend much on strategies for rote
memorization which play a major part in cognitive strategies. As a result, little significance could be found between vocabulary levels in the use of this category.
5.1.3 Comparison between the Present Study and Cheng’s (2006) Study
As reviewed in Chapter Two, VLS have been studied by some researchers in Taiwan, focusing on participants of different ages or the relationship between the use of VLS and English proficiency or vocabulary proficiency. Cheng’s (2006) study and the present study both examined how vocabulary proficiency affected the choice of VLS use by junior high school students. The similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed as follows.
Generally speaking, vocabulary level significances took place when it comes to overall strategy use. As for the use of the strategy categories, both studies found that significances occurred in three categories: determination strategies, memory strategies and metacognitive strategies. L-S used overall strategy and the three strategy categories less frequently than H-S (i.e., H>L). However, the results in the present study have shown that significances existed in social strategies, whereas Cheng’s (2006) study found no differences in the category.
The differences between the findings here and Cheng’s might be well explained from
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
two aspects. The first possible factor is different learning backgrounds. A former study (Chang et al., 2005) examined the scores on the Basic Competence English Test (BCET), an achievement test which is designed to evaluate Taiwanese junior high school students’
English ability, and concluded that students from urban areas scored significantly higher than those from rural areas. The present study examined participants in a city context, Taipei, while Cheng’s participants were from a rural county, Maoli. In other words, participants in the present study may have different vocabulary ability than those of Cheng’s, probably resulting with differences on English proficiency, which, according to Green and Oxford (1995), might cause differences on the use of strategies.
Besides, contextual factor is another key variable that might potentially affect the choice of strategy (Larson-Freeman, 2001), which illustrates the difference on social strategy use between the present study and Cheng’s. With students from a different geographical region from those in Cheng’s, Wang (2004) investigated VLS use by senior high students, who were also from Taipei City, and found corroborative results as those in the present study.
Provided with the results of the three studies, the inference might be pointed out that the use of social strategies tended to show greater variations between students of different
vocabulary levels in a city context.
5.2 Use of Strategies by Male and Female Students
This section discusses the frequencies of strategy use by male and female students, aiming to answer Research Question 2: What are the vocabulary learning strategy uses of
‧
國立 政 治 大
立 政 治 大