不同主修和性別差異對字彙策略使用之影響

全文

(1)國立屏東商業技術學院應用英語系(所) 碩士論文不同主修和性別差異對字彙策略使用之影響 Effects of Major and Gender Differences on Vocabulary Strategy Use. 指導教授：陳美貞研究生：黃馨儀. 中. 華. 民. 國. 九十九. 年. 七. 月.

(2) Effects of Major and Gender Differences on Vocabulary Strategy Use. Advisor：： Dr. Mei-Chen Chen By：： Sin-Yi Huang. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Program of Applied English In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts National Pingtung Institute of Commerce. Pingtung, Taiwan, R.O.C. July, 2010.

(3) 摘要. 使用學習策略能幫助語言學習並提升學習的自主性。過去數十年裡，語言學習策略已成為研究的關注焦點。相較於語言學習策略的研究，專門探究字彙學習策略的文獻相對較少。儘管如此，這類研究中也很少深入探討大學主修及男女性別對字彙策略運用之影響，而研究結果亦差異頗巨。再者，過去相關研究中大多只採用問卷調查方式來檢測學生對字彙策略的運用；然而，此法只限於得知學生的想法而無法全面得知其使用策略的實際情況。因此，本研究另加入質性的個別訪談及放聲思考法來深入了解大學生如何來學習單字。本文旨在探討台灣大學生的字彙學習策略使用情況，並進一步分析不同的專業主修(包括: 英文系、商業系及工程系所)及性別是否影響大學生對字彙策略的選用。本研究主要採用三種方法來收集資料 : (1) 問卷調查法；(2) 放聲思考法；及(3) 個別訪談。標準化的字彙學習策略問卷，以 607 位科技大學學生作為施測之對象，並於問卷調查後對 43 位學生個別進行英文字彙的放聲思考研究及個別訪談，以增加問卷研究之信度。本研究有幾項重要發現 : (1) 整體而言，大學生使用字彙策略的頻率並不高； (2) 「決定策略」(Determination strategies) 為最常使用的字彙學習類別；然而，「後設認知策略」(Meta-cognitive strategies) 及「社會策略」(Social strategies) 為最少使用的字彙學習類別； (3) 「反覆背誦或反覆抄寫英文生字」及「分析英文生字的拼法和念法」為大學生最常使用的字彙學習策略；可見「死背」及具有「音韻和構詞知識及覺識」對大學生字彙學習上有極重要的影響； (4) 英文主修和非英文主修者(亦即商業系及工程系所) 在整體字彙學習策略及五大策略類別使用上，均達顯著差異；尤其是英文主修者使用較多的字彙學習策略； (5) 「放聲思考」活動中發現英文系學生最常使用「拆音節及注意每一音節發音」 (studying syllables and the sounds within)來學習字彙；而商業系及工程系學生則最常使用「死背」(rote rehearsal) 來學習字彙； (6) 男學生和女學生在字彙學習策略的整體及五大類別使用上，均達顯著差異；女學生比男學生使用更多的字彙 i.

(4) 學習策略；本研究更進一步發現，女學生在學習字彙時較會把單字念出來，並能進一步分析音及單字結構以及利用語言學習工具例如字典或媒體來記單字； (7) 「放聲思考」活動中發現女學生使用「反覆背誦或反覆抄寫英文生字」較男學生多；並進一步發現男女生均使用「反覆背誦英文生字」多過於「反覆抄寫英文生字」； (8) 受訪者皆認為字彙學習是自我探究的過程，毋須透過互動學習來記生字。最後，本文作者根據此研究結果提出在英語教學方面及未來相關研究之建議，以供參考。. 關鍵字 : 字彙學習策略，主修差異，性別差異. ii.

(5) Abstract. Learning strategies facilitate the language learning process, and their ultimate goal is to achieve learner autonomy.. Although tons of studies have probed general. language learning strategies over the past decades, specific tasks on vocabulary learning have not received an equivalent amount of attention from the strategy research.. Even so, not much research on vocabulary strategy use has explored major. and gender differences in EFL settings and the results have, unfortunately, been mixed. Furthermore, previous strategy research has been widely criticized of being over-dependent on survey questionnaire for assessing learners’ strategy preference. To compensate for this self-perceived, quantitative tendency of survey, the present study added qualitatively-oriented think-aloud approach and individual interviews to triangulate the data obtained from the questionnaire and to find out how new words are actually studied and retained by adult EFL learners.. This study aimed to. examine the effects of major (i.e., English, Business, and Engineering) and gender under the multiple data-collection measures in the context of vocabulary strategy use. Six hundred and seven college students (M = 271, F = 336) were surveyed with a standardized questionnaire of vocabulary strategies developed by Schmitt (1997). Afterwards, 43 of them voluntarily took part in the think-aloud and interview sessions.. iii.

(6) Important findings were as follows: (a) EFL college students used vocabulary strategies in a moderate degree, (b) Determination strategies were reported as the most used type, and Meta-cognitive and Social strategies as the least used types, (c) the two most frequently used vocabulary strategies were written/verbal repetition and studying the sound/spelling of a word; rote rehearsal and phonological and morphological knowledge and awareness played a critical role in adult learners’ VLS, (d) significant differences were found between English and non-English majors in their overall and each type of vocabulary strategy use; the English majors surpassed their Business and Engineering counterparts not only in the number but also in the quality of VLS use, (e) in the think-aloud procedure, the English majors were found frequently using the strategy of “studying syllables and the sounds within,” whereas the Business and the Engineering majors highly depended on rote rehearsal to remember English words, (f) significant gender differences were detected on overall and each type of VLS; particularly, female learners were found to be more verbal, analytical, and tool-relying in studying English vocabulary than their male counterparts, (g) in the think-aloud procedure, the female learners were found to have a higher use of verbal/written repetition than the males; both sexes used more verbal repetition than written repetition of a word, and (h) the interviewees all perceived vocabulary acquisition as a self-probing process and thus needed no social. iv.

(7) interactions to gain the word knowledge.. Based on these findings, pedagogical and. research implications were provided to conclude this study.. Keywords: vocabulary learning strategies, major differences, gender differences. v.

(8) Acknowledgments. Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my dearest advisor, Dr. Mei-Chen Chen (陳美貞博士), for her professional insights on this thesis.. It is her. inspiration, encouragement, and patience that have guided me to complete this ideal thesis.. For me, she is an academic model who truly motivates me to be critical and. persistent during the process of this academic writing.. I feel fortunate under her. instruction and deeply proud of being one of her students! Another great appreciation is attributed to Dr. Shih-Chung Lin (林世忠博士) and Dr. Lihung Chang (張理宏博士). study.. Their careful reviewing and valuable suggestions help polish this. My gratitude also goes to the participants (both of the instructors and the. students) in the data-collection procedure. possible.. Their kind assistance has made this study. I also want to show my thanks to my friends and classmates who always. encourage me to move forward.. Finally, my heartfelt acknowledgement is given to. my dear family for their support, both financially and spiritually.. Without their care. and consideration all along, my academic pursuit would be hard to accomplish.. vi.

(9) Table of Contents. Abstract (Chinese)............................................................................................................ i Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. vii Tables.................................................................................................................................. x Chapter 1............................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................ 8 Significance of the Study......................................................................................... 9 Research Questions.................................................................................................. 10 Definitions of Terms................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 2............................................................................................................................ 13 Literature Review......................................................................................................... 13 General Language Learning Strategies................................................................... 13 Taxonomies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies.................................................... 16 An Overview on Vocabulary Learning Strategy Research................................... 20 Effects of Field Specialization and/or Gender on Vocabulary Strategies............ 21. vii.

(10) Summary.................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 3............................................................................................................................ 27 Methodology................................................................................................................. 27 Subjects...................................................................................................................... 27 Instruments................................................................................................................ 29 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire.................................................... 29 Think-Aloud Protocol.......................................................................................... 32 Interview Form..................................................................................................... 33 Data Collection Procedures..................................................................................... 34 Data Analyses............................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 4............................................................................................................................ 38 Results........................................................................................................................... 38 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire........................................................ 38 Think-Aloud Protocol.............................................................................................. 48 Individual Interviews............................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5............................................................................................................................ 56 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 56 Discussion on Major Findings..................................................................................... 56 Pedagogical Implications............................................................................................. 63. viii.

(11) Suggestions for Future Research................................................................................. 66 References.......................................................................................................................... 68 Appendix A: Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire (English Version)........... 78 Appendix B: Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire (Chinese Version).......... 80. ix.

(12) Tables Table 1 Demographic Data of Surveyed Subjects (by Major and Gender) .............. 28 Table 2 Distributions of Participants for the Think-aloud and Interview Session.... 28 Table 3 Sample Items for Five Types of Vocabulary Strategies.................................. 31 Table 4 Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................. 36 Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Type of Vocabulary Strategy Use......................... 39 Table 6 Repeated-Measures ANOVA on Five Types of Vocabulary Learning Strategies........................................................................ 40 Table 7 Scheffé Post-hoc Tests on Five Types of Vocabulary Learning Strategies... 40 Table 8 Most Frequently Used Vocabulary................................................................... 41 Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Type of VLS Use by Major.................................... 42 Table 10 Multiple ANOVA on Type of VLS Use by Major........................................ 43 Table 11 Scheffé Post-hoc Tests on Type of VLS Use by Major................................ 44 Table 12 Top Major Differences in Individual VLS Items.......................................... 45 Table 13 Independent T-tests on Type of VLS Use by Gender................................... 47 Table 14 Top Gender Differences in Individual VLS Items........................................ 48 Table 15 Verbal Descriptions of Vocabulary Learning Process by Major/Gender.... 51. x.

(13) CHAPTER 1 Introduction Proper approaches to study new words foster favorable lexical acquisition. Without consistent strategy instructions, foreign language learners might not acquire words systematically (Cohen, 1990). early stage of language acquisition.. Vocabulary learning plays a critical role at the Vocabulary acquisition is also an ongoing and. life-long learning process (Chamot, 2005).. Effective vocabulary learning can be. well-accomplished with facilitative instructions of vocabulary strategies (Mercer, 2005; Nation, 2001; Oxford & Scarcella, 1994; Schmitt, 2000).. Empirical research. has confirmed that strategies significantly promote vocabulary learning (Brown & Perry, 1991; Chu, 2008; Green & Oxford, 1995; Lawson & Hogben, 1998; Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003; Yek, 2006).. Moreover, use of strategies creates a context of learning. autonomy (Cohen, 1998; Oxford, 1990).. Independent learning is a key to academic. success in that learners take more control of their own learning, so that efficiency in learning and better academic achievement can simultaneously take place.. It is,. therefore, very important to identify how and what vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) learners actually employ in the process of foreign language acquisition.. The. present study attempted to do so to aid the development of the curriculum concerning vocabulary instruction in a regular EFL reading course. 1.

(14) The role of lexical knowledge in language learning has changed from peripheral to central.. Vocabulary learning is no longer viewed as a neglected and discrete. component, but regarded as a fundamental and indispensable status in native or foreign language acquisition.. Up to date, many researchers have addressed the. importance of lexical knowledge in language learning (Barcroft, 2004; Chiang, 2005; Chu, 2008; Ghazal, 2007; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Lin, 2003; Nation, 2001; Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003; Schmitt, 2000; Wei, 2007; Zimmerman, 2000).. Schmitt (2000). asserted that vocabulary provides a foundation for learning and communication. Zimmerman (2000) further indicated that “Vocabulary is central to language and of critical importance to language learners” (p. 5).. With insufficient vocabulary. knowledge, other language skills can hardly be developed. Vocabulary knowledge affects the acquisition of the four language skills. Vocabulary achievement has been found as a remarkable predictor of language learning proficiency, particularly of reading comprehension (Boote, 2006; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Khaldieh, 2001; Li, 2004; Lin, 2003; Min & Hsu, 2008; Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003).. In addition to its effect on the reading domain, Goulden, Nation,. and Read (1990) specifically revealed that vocabulary knowledge was a key to determining the accuracy, descriptiveness, and quality of writing.. Smith (2003) and. Zimmerman (2004) also claimed that vocabulary richness was crucial to the. 2.

(15) development of writing. comprehension.. Moreover, vocabulary depth links to successful listening. Listening comprehension could be impeded due to a lack of word. knowledge (Goh, 1999; Miao, 1996; Rubin, 1994).. What’s more, Schmitt (2000). stated that lexical knowledge was exclusively important for learners to converse in an L2.. Generally, vocabulary competence benefits language learners from a wider. scope of perspectives.. The reading domain is of a great concern in the current. vocabulary strategy study. Vocabulary strategies are associated with strategic acts for learning new words. Oxford (1990) defined learning strategies as “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p. 8).. Schmitt (1997) viewed learning as “the. process by which information is obtained, stored, retrieved, and used” (p. 29), and vocabulary strategies were those that affected this broadly-defined learning process. Namely, on a specific vocabulary learning task, strategy involves an intention or action to figure out the meaning of an unknown word, to retain it in the long-term memory, and to retrieve and utilize the acquired information in an oral or written form. Based on this information-processing notion characterized in behaviorism, Schmitt (1997) developed a vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy with 58 strategies associated with two major theoretical constructs.. 3. First of all, according to Cook and.

(16) Mayer (1983) and Nation (1990), these strategy items could be sorted into two main distinct groups: discovery strategies and consolidation strategies.. The distinction. between these two is that the former help learners to obtain initial information when they encounter a new word for the first time (e.g., using dictionary to find out the meaning of a new word, or guessing from a textual context), and the latter involve the techniques employed by the learners in a further attempt to remember the new word (e.g., studying the spelling of a word, or using the imagery Keyword Method).. The. other theoretical construct for categorizing the vocabulary strategies was closely linked to the strategy taxonomy proposed by Oxford (1990), with which four vocabulary strategy types (i.e., social, memory, cognitive, and meta-cognitive) were identified.. Finally, to make the inventory more elaborately, Schmitt (1997) added a. new category: determination strategies (e.g., analyzing part of speech, or analyzing affixes and roots) in which learners used them to figure out the meaning of a new word without resorting to other people’s assistances. Generally, five main types of VLS are developed in Schmitt (1997). Specifically, determination strategies (DET) are the kind of strategies learners utilize to sort out the meaning of an unfamiliar word without consulting others.. Social. strategies (SOC) involve interactions with other people to improve vocabulary learning.. Approaches which relate new word information to learners’ existing. 4.

(17) lexical knowledge are viewed as memory strategies (MEM).. Cognitive strategies. (COG) entail learners’ mental processing ability to manipulate or transform the target information.. Finally, meta-cognitive strategies (MET) refer to learners’ conscious. awareness of planning for, evaluating, and monitoring of their whole vocabulary learning process.. This taxonomy is projected in a concrete questionnaire form with a. comprehensive list of vocabulary learning strategies geared to the five types.. These. strategies were derived from various sources such as with references to vocabulary textbooks, students’ reports on the way they approached vocabulary learning, teachers’ observations on students’ vocabulary learning, etc (Schmitt, 1997).. This. VLS inventory has been extensively used in several VLS studies (e.g., Catalán, 2003; Chen & Yeh, 2004; Liao, 2004; Runtmets, 2005; Sung, 2006; Wang, 2004; Wu, 2005). In this study, it was selected as the chief instrument for data collection due to its comprehensive, clearly-defined categories with manageable questionnaire items to be applied in the context of EFL. Problem Statement Over the past two decades, although studies on general language learning strategies have been well-explored (e.g., Erhman & Oxford, 1989; Griffiths, 2003; O’Malley, Russo, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, & Kupper, 1985; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford, Nyikos, & Ehrman, 1988; Riazi, 2007), specific research on learners’. 5.

(18) vocabulary study patterns has, relatively, not received that much attention in the foreign language learning literature.. In addition, much research on vocabulary. learning strategies has centered on differentiating strategic behaviors between more and less proficient learners such as, to name just a few, Fan (2003) and Gu (1994). Significant proficiency effects on vocabulary strategy use have consistently been found.. The superiority of such strategy use in its number and quality has always. been well-disclosed in good language learners. To date, little strategy research has specifically examined gender differences on learners’ choices of vocabulary strategy (e.g., Catalán, 2003; Lee, 2007; Liao, 2004; Gu, 2002; Wei, 2007).. Note that gender has been claimed as an influential factor on. learning strategy use (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. Particularly, female students have. consistently been found as greater strategy users than their male counterparts in the past language learning strategy literature (e.g., Chang, Liu, & Lee, 2007; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Goh & Foong, 1997; Liu, 2004; Nyikos, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Polizter, 1983).. However, in the domain of foreign. vocabulary learning and acquisition, mixed gender effect on the use of vocabulary strategies has been generated.. It calls for more of such research to discern sex. differences on English vocabulary learning.. 6.

(19) Moreover, Chang, et al (2007) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) have indicated a significant major effect on language learning strategies use, suggesting that learners majored in “humanities and social science” used more strategies than those in “science and engineering” or “business and management.” However, studies on the relationship of major differences to VLS use have produced inconsistent results.. Gu. (2002) uncovered major did not have any significant effect on VLS use with 648 Chinese sophomores of differing academic fields (i.e., Arts vs. Science), whereas Liao (2004) and Wei (2007) showed English majors significantly outperformed non-English majors in the overall VLS use.. These VLS studies simply classified. learners into two contrast groups (i.e., English vs. non-English or Arts vs. Science). A more elaborate major classification like the one used in Chang, et al. (2007) with three major groups (i.e., English, Business, and Engineering) would definitely bring more profound results to this issue. In addition, a frequently used instrument among vocabulary strategy studies to assess learners’ patterns of vocabulary learning is via a survey questionnaire due to its feasibility to a large-scale sample size (e.g., Catalán, 2003; Fan; 2003; Gu, 1994; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Liao, 2004; We, 2005). self-perceived sense. actual strategy use.. Such approach is somehow limited in a. The ways vocabulary learners report using can not justify their Therefore, think-aloud procedures on a list of words and. 7.

(20) post-questionnaire interviews on individual learners were integrated into the current survey study to validate and triangulate the data. When the limitations of the previous literature are considered, the current study attempted to probe the effects of major and gender on vocabulary strategy use by means of multiple data collection approaches.. In particular, differences in. vocabulary learning behaviors with English, Business, and Engineering college students would be probed underlying the strategy framework. Purposes of the Study The present study aimed to examine major and gender differences in vocabulary strategy use among college EFL learners of technological orientation.. There were. five specific purposes: (a) to explore the general use of VLS; (b) to examine major effect (i.e., English, Business, and Engineering majors) on the strategy use; (c) to determine gender effect (male vs. female) on the strategy use; (d) to detect VLS use through a think-aloud approach; (e) to uncover learners’ attitudes toward English vocabulary learning via individual interviews. Based on the research purposes, three quantitatively-oriented predictions were made.. First, since EFL learners were found moderate language strategy users in the. previous literature (e.g., Chang, 2005; Chang, et al, 2007; Gooh & Foong, 1997; Ruutmets, 2005; Su, 2005; Wei, 2007), it was thus predicted that the college. 8.

(21) participants would not highly use VLS in learning English.. Moreover, strategy uses. were reported varying with learners’ specializations (e.g., Chang, et al, 2007; Huang, 2008; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007).. English majors, generally assumed as more proficient. language learners, were expected to be greater strategy users than their Business and Engineering counterparts.. When the gender effect was concerned, females were. hypothesized to use more vocabulary strategies than their male counterparts as female superiority in strategy use was consistently reported in the previous learning strategy literature (e.g., Chang, et al, 2007; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Goh & Foong, 1997; Liu, 2004; Nyikos, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Polizter, 1983). Significance of the Study The present study would contribute to the strategy literature and instruction in three aspects.. Previous research has probed learners’ strategy choice mainly with the. approach of a survey questionnaire.. This study additionally integrated the measures. of the think-aloud approach and individual interviews into the VLS research to triangulate the data so as to strengthen the credence of any potential findings. Although many studies (e.g., Chang, et al, 2007; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Goh & Foong, 1997; Liu, 2004; Nyikos, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Polizter, 1983) have indicated that gender is a decisive factor in affecting the strategy choice of learners, few studies have discussed this variable in a specific context of vocabulary learning.. 9.

(22) In addition, numerous VLS studies were grounded on the comparison of strategic behaviors between more and less proficient learners (e.g. Fan, 2003; Gu, 1994; Li, 2004; Liu, 2004; Liu, 2006; Wang, 2004; Wei, 2007). Conversely, very few studies have documented VLS use among EFL technological college students of differing majors (i.e., Gu, 2002; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007).. This study was thus set to determine. the effects of major and gender in the framework of English vocabulary learning.. It. was hoped that the findings would acquaint EFL teachers with the approaches students commonly used in learning or retaining vocabulary, so strategic vocabulary instruction in response to student needs could be provided to strengthen their learning outcomes. Research Questions 1.. What frequency and type of strategies are used among technological college students in their learning English vocabulary?. 2.. Does field specialization significantly affect vocabulary strategy use?. To be. more specific, are there any significant differences among English, Business, and Engineering majors in their strategy use? 3.. Does gender significantly affect learners’ vocabulary strategy choice?. Precisely,. are there any significant differences between male and female learners in their vocabulary strategy preference?. 10.

(23) 4.. What vocabulary learning strategies are detected from the think-aloud approach?. 5.. What are the college students’ attitudes toward English vocabulary learning from the individual interviews? Definitions of Terms. Language Learning Strategy Oxford (1990) defined learning strategies as specific techniques used by learners to acquire a foreign language.. There were six types of strategies in the Strategy. Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): memory, cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive, affective, and social. Vocabulary Learning Strategy Catalán (2003) defined vocabulary learning strategies as an intention or action to figure out meanings of unknown words, to retain words in the long-term memory, to recall words, and to utilize words in an oral or written form. Types of VLS Use Based on Schmitt (1997), this study examined fives types of VLS use. Strategies learners employ to sort out the meanings of the words without resorting to others’ help are called determination ones.. Social strategies require learning. vocabulary by interacting with peers, asking for clarifications, or involving cooperative learning activities.. In memory strategies, learners acquire a language by. 11.

(24) relating new words to their existing lexical knowledge.. Strategies related to mental. process that learners operate to obtain, store, retrieve, or manipulate word information more effectively are defined as cognitive strategies.. Finally, meta-cognitive. strategies are higher executive skills in which learners step outside their learning but are still able to reflect on their own learning to monitor, regulate, and be aware of the whole vocabulary learning process. Major Differences The study explored the effects of academic specializations on VLS use. Technological college students who specialized in English, Business, and Engineering were examined for their vocabulary study patterns. Gender Differences This study probed the gender effect of male and female learners in their VLS use. Think-aloud Approach This method involves verbal descriptions of learners with respect to how a given list of new words is studied and retained.. 12.

(25) CHAPTER 2 Literature Review This chapter consists of five parts that are relevant literature in the domain of vocabulary learning strategy. strategies.. The first part introduces general language learning. Next, taxonomies on vocabulary learning strategies are discussed.. The. third part presents an overview on the research of vocabulary learning strategies. Then, VLS studies with the effects of field specialization and gender are explored. Finally, a summary of the literature review is given to conclude this chapter. General Language Learning Strategies The domain of language learning strategies has received great attention since the mid-1970s.. According to Oxford and Crookall (1989), strategies are specific. learning skills, techniques, steps, or behaviors taken by learners in an attempt to facilitate the process of learning.. Empirical studies have also confirmed that use of. strategies has beneficial effect on the second/foreign language learning (e.g., Ehrman & Oxford, 1998; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. More importantly, appropriate strategy. use helps learners to foster learning autonomy (Chamot, 2005). Various frameworks of learning strategies have been proposed by researchers (e.g., O’Malley et al., 1985; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1981). Rubin (1975) first identified some essential strategies pertinent to all “good L2. 13.

(26) learners” based on her observation.. According to the researcher, it was the. applications of strategies that made learning more effective and that differentiated more and less proficient learners.. It was thus crucial to teach less excellent L2. learners how to employ strategies.. Rubin (1981) later raised two distinct kinds of. learning strategies: those which contributed directly to learning and those which influenced indirectly to learning.. The strategies involving the acts of. clarification/verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing/inductive inference, deductive reasoning on-task, and practice were classified as the former strategy type, and those consisting of creating opportunities for practice and production tricks were sorted into the latter type.. Afterwards, O’Malley et al. (1985) categorized 26. strategies into three types (i.e., cognitive, meta-cognitive, and social-affective strategies), which were elaborated and reconfirmed in a later work by O’Malley and Chamot (1990).. Meanwhile, Oxford (1990) compiled a comprehensive system. called Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), an instrument drawn on prior study results and theoretical frameworks to explore language learners’ habitual learning patterns.. This inventory encompassed six categories and was divided into. two main types: direct and indirect.. Memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. were classified as direct strategies, and meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies. 14.

(27) were geared to indirect strategies.. Kudo (1999) claimed the SILL as the most. elaborate framework to assess foreign language strategy use. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) addressed several crucial variables pertinent to learners’ use of strategies.. They were language proficiency, field of specialization,. gender, attitude, motivation, learning style, and cultural background.. Among them,. the variable of gender/sex differences has received great concern in the domain of language learning.. It has been reported that females resort to language learning. strategies significantly greater than males (e.g., Chang, Liu, & Lee, 2007; Erhman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Politzer, 1983).. Particularly, they have been found more social-strategy-orientated. learners than their male counterparts in language learning.. This phenomenon could. be well-explained by women’s extensive desire to pursue good grades and social approval (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. As for the effect of field of specialization on. strategy applications, previous literature has shown that learners in humanities/social science tend to apply more strategies than other-major counterparts (e.g., Chang, Liu, & Lee, 2007; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. To date, fewer studies have been carried out. to discern strategy use in the specific area of vocabulary learning; thus, the effects of gender and field of specialization on the selections of vocabulary strategies have, unfortunately, remained undetermined.. The present study was set to examine this. 15.

(28) issue in the context of EFL.. It was hoped that the results would shed light on the. existing literature of vocabulary learning with technological learners of differing major (i.e., English, Business, and Engineering) and gender. Taxonomies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies Vocabulary learning strategies are associated with general language learning strategies (Chiang, 2005).. One feasible and prevalent way to effectively measure. learners’ strategy behaviors is by the means of surveying (Kudo, 1999).. The. development of a comprehensive set of vocabulary learning strategies is, therefore, very necessary in order to gain insights into how words are acquired by learners.. In. response to this need, several taxonomies of vocabulary learning strategies have been proposed in the literature (e.g., Fan, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997). The classifications of vocabulary strategies varied due to the various results of empirical research and the researchers’ research intentions.. Some of the renowned. taxonomies are addressed as follows. Schmitt (1997) initiated a foreign language learning inventory with 58 strategy items categorized into 5 types: Determination, Social, Memory, Cognitive, and Meta-cognitive.. These types are further classified into two main domains:. Discovery and Consolidation.. The distinction between these two is that the former is. used for the initial discovery of the meaning of a word, and the latter for memorizing. 16.

(29) the word once the meaning is known.. According to the criterion, Determination. strategies and part of Social strategies are linked to the Discovery group, and Cognitive, Meta-cognitive strategies and part of Social strategies belong to the Consolidation group.. This inventory was designed to detect vocabulary learning. strategy use of 600 Japanese learners of a wide range of age groups (i.e., junior high, senior high, university students, and older learners).. What vocabulary strategies. were used and how useful these strategies were perceived by the learners were the research focus.. Consequently, using bilingual dictionary, guessing meaning from the. context, and asking classmates for the unknown meaning of a word were discerned as the top use of discovery strategies.. Verbal repetition, written repetition, and studying. the spelling of a word were identified as the most frequently used consolidation strategies. vocabulary.. These strategies were generally perceived as helpful in studying The present study mainly concerned about the taxonomy developed in. Schmitt (1997), partly because it was based on theoretical schemes (i.e., Cook & Mayer, 1983; Nation, 1990; Oxford, 1990), and partly because the involved inventory had the most elaborate and reliable classifications to assess learners’ vocabulary learning strategies to date (Catalán, 2003; Kudo, 1999; Runtmets, 2005). Moreover, Gu and Johnson (1996) developed another extensive strategy taxonomy with two contrastive types: cognitive and meta-cognitive regulation.. 17. The.

(30) study attempted to probe the relationship between Chinese students’ vocabulary learning strategies and their academic achievement in learning English as a foreign language at Beijing Normal University.. A total of 850 non-English-major. sophomores from 27 intact classes took part in this study.. The instruments involved. a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire, vocabulary size tests, and an English proficiency measure.. Namely, the questionnaire of 91 strategy items with a. seven-point scale served to elicit students’ perceptions of vocabulary learning and their uses of cognitive and meta-cognitive regulation strategies.. The documentation. of a composite score about students’ previous academic performance served as an indicator of their English proficiency.. The results showed that the vocabulary. strategy of rote learning, a conventional learning style highly associated with Asian learners, was perceived as undesirable among most of the Chinese learners.. As for. the reported use of meta-cognitive strategies, strategies about self-initiation were ranked higher than those about selective attention.. On the other hand, in cognitive. strategies, skillful use of dictionary and guessing were ranked as the most frequently used strategies.. In exploring the relationship between strategy use and academic. achievement, the researchers discerned that meta-cognitive strategies and some of cognitive strategies like contextual guessing, note-taking, and attending to word formation were positively correlated with vocabulary size and general English. 18.

(31) proficiency.. In contrast, rehearsal strategies particularly visual repetitions of new. words were detected as the strongest negative predictors for the two measures.. That. meant the more frequently the rehearsal strategies were used, the worse the vocabulary size and English proficiency would be. Later on, Fan (2003) proposed another VLS taxonomy with 50 strategy items geared to nine categories.. They were management, sources, dictionary, guessing,. four memory-related strategies (analysis, grouping, repetition, and association), and known words which dealt with reviewing, practicing, or learning new usage of known words.. The results of surveying on 1067 Cantonese-speaking English learners. showed that reviewing, consolidating the knowledge of known words, and dictionary strategies were frequently-used effective strategies.. In contrast, the keyword. technique was considered as the least used and perceived as the least useful strategy. In addition, a statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA resulted in significant differences among the mean scores for the nine categories in the frequency of VLS use.. Specifically, the mean scores of the guessing and known words categories were. found significantly higher than the other categories. used strategies.. They were the most frequently. However, the least frequently used strategy types were management,. grouping, and association.. Unexpectedly, management was ranked higher in the. perceived usefulness than in the frequency of reported strategy use.. 19. This type was.

(32) believed to be helpful in learning vocabulary but was not commonly used among college students.. Generally, the results similar to what had been found in Gu and. Johnson (1996) revealed that learners were not in favor of rote memorization and imagery in vocabulary learning. An Overview on Vocabulary Learning Strategy Research As stated earlier, use of strategies links to autonomous learning.. Although. studies on vocabulary learning strategies have been much fewer than those on general language strategies, attention on this specific learning task has been increasingly aroused (Kudo, 1999).. These vocabulary strategy studies have been conducted in. different nationality contexts, such as in China (Gu, 1994; Gu, 2002; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Wei, 2007), in Japan (Schmitt, 1997), in Taiwan (Chiang, 2005; Li, 2004; Liao, 2004; Wang, 2004; Wu, 2005), in Hong Kong (Fan, 2003), in Korea (Lee, 2007), and in Spain (Catalán, 2003).. Some VLS research of this sort further discerned that. learners’ specific behaviors for vocabulary learning varied with some essential variables, including sex (Catalán, 2003; Gu, 2002; Lee, 2007; Liao, 2004; Ruutmets, 2005), field specialization (Gu, 2002; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007), and proficiency (Gu, 1994; Gu, 2002; Gu & Jounson, 1996; Lee, 2007; Li, 2004; Wang; 2004; Wei, 2007). It was the gender and major factors that were of great concern in the present study since they had received scarce attention from the existing literature in the domain of. 20.

(33) VLS.. In addition to the limited documentation of such related aspects, emergences. of inconsistent results on these factors demanded further reconfirmation. Effects of Major and Gender on Vocabulary Strategies Many researchers have asserted that learners’ strategy behaviors are greatly affected by some factors: major, gender, and proficiency (e.g., Bialystok, 1981; Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. Oxford and Nyikos (1989). conducted a large-scale survey study with 1200 university students and uncovered field specialization as a potent factor in affecting the learners’ preference of language learning strategies.. Such finding was reconfirmed by Chang et al. (2007), revealing. that majors in Humanities and Social Science significantly outperformed those in Science and Engineering or those in Business and Management in the frequency of strategy use.. Unfortunately, on a more specific research on vocabulary learning task,. few empirical studies have probed such variable (i.e., Gu, 2002; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007).. What’s worse, those studies have produced contradictory results.. In Gu. (2002), the effects of academic major and gender on adult Chinese EFL learners’ English vocabulary learning were examined by means of a survey.. The subjects. were 645 college sophomores at Beijing Normal University (M = 337, F = 308). They were drawn from Arts (i.e., Chinese, Economics, Education, History, Philosophy, and Psychology) or Sciences (i.e., Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, and. 21.

(34) Physics).. A vocabulary strategy questionnaire adapted from Gu and Johnson (1996). was administered to these non-English majors.. Statistical analyses were then. conducted to compare the strategy use for the major effect (i.e., Arts v.s Sciences) and the gender effect (i.e., males vs. females).. The results indicated that field. specialization was not a decisive factor in affecting the learners’ behaviors of vocabulary learning.. That is, no significant difference on the use of vocabulary. strategy between Arts and Sciences major groups was detected, though Arts students were found superior to Sciences students in their overall English proficiency.. On the. other hand, a significant strategy difference was discerned for the gender effect in that female students reported significantly more use of vocabulary strategy than their male counterparts.. The study, therefore, concluded that major played a less crucial role. than gender in determining college learners’ choice of vocabulary learning strategy. Contradictory to what was uncovered in the aforementioned Gu’s study, Liao (2004) and Wei (2007) revealed that major differences indeed affected learners’ selection of VLS to a great extent.. Liao (2004) attempted to compare vocabulary. learning strategies used by English-major and non-English-major university freshmen in Taiwan.. Gender differences were also examined. The data were collected from. the 625 participants via a questionnaire of vocabulary strategies developed by Schmitt (1997).. The results demonstrated significant major and gender effects.. 22. English.

(35) majors used the strategies more frequently than their non-English-major counterparts. Strategy superiority was also found in female students.. The study concluded that. EFL teachers should assist their students in becoming autonomous strategy users.. In. particular, instructions to promote students’ awareness of meta-cognitive vocabulary strategies were important to narrow down the gap between English (more effective) and non-English (less effective) learners’ vocabulary learning behaviors.. Wei (2007). surveyed on Chinese sophomores of their vocabulary learning in relation to strategy use, gender, major, self-rated English proficiency as well as attitude.. The. participants were 30 English majors and 30 non-English majors from automation.. A. questionnaire developed by Gu and Johnson (1996) and Fan (2003) was administered to assess the learners’ use of VLS.. One of the results exhibited that English majors. employed VLS more extensively than their non-English counterparts.. As for the sex. effect on the use of VLS, the result of no significant difference in male and female learners’ VLS use was somehow incongruent with what had been detected in Liao (2004) and Gu (2002). In sum, the reviewed VLS studies with regard to field of specializations resulted in mixed results (i.e., Gu, 2002; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007).. Namely, Gu (2002). indicated no major differences in learners’ choices of VLS, while Liao (2004) and Wei (2007) found learners’ use of VLS significantly associated with field of. 23.

(36) specializations.. With the scant empirical studies being available in the literature, a. firm conclusion on the major effect was unable to reach. research affirmation on this aspect.. It called for further. As for concern of gender effect on VLS, Catalán. (2003) and Runtmets (2005) asserted that empirical research on the relationship of specific vocabulary learning task, strategy use, and learners’ sex was limited (i.e., Catalán, 2003; Gu, 2002; Lee, 2007; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007).. With a closer. examination into these scarce studies, inconsistent results have also manifested on the sex effect. Catalán (2003) probed whether sex differences would affect EFL learners’ uses of vocabulary learning strategy.. Five hundred and eighty one (M = 279, F = 302). Spanish-speaking students aged from 11 to 56 were asked to complete a vocabulary strategy questionnaire adapted from Schmitt (1997). The results indicated that males and females differed significantly in their self-reported use of strategies.. That is,. among the 14 determination strategies, females reported greater use in 9 strategies, and males, only in 5.. A similar result was also detected in the 46 consolidating. strategies with the respective rations 31: 15.. Female learners significantly employed. a greater range of vocabulary strategies than their male counterparts. gender was well-disclosed from this perspective.. 24. The effect of. Such finding corresponded to the.

(37) aforementioned VLS studies of Gu (2002) and Liao (2004) with significant female superiority in strategy use. In contrast, Lee (2007) reported no gender differences among Korean university students in their vocabulary learning patterns.. Again, Schmitt (1997) was served as. the chief instrument to assess frequency and pattern of VLS choice.. As a result, the. male and female students were found identical in their use of VLS.. Gender was. concluded as not a decisive factor in affecting the patterns of VLS.. This finding. echoed with what was produced in Wei (2007) mentioned earlier. To conclude, the reviewed VLS research associated with sex differences in EFL learners came up with contradictory results.. That is, significant gender effects on. use of VLS were exhibited in Catalán (2003), Gu (2002), and Liao (2004), but not in Lee (2007) and Wei (2007).. The limited literature still remained uncertain on the. distinctions between males and females in their strategy behaviors.. Therefore, in. addition to the effect of field specialization, the effect of gender became the other great concern in the present study. Summary To date, very few studies on vocabulary learning strategy have discussed the potent factors of major and gender (e.g., Catalán, 2003; Gu, 2002; Lee, 2007; Liao, 2004; Wei, 2007), and unfortunately, the results of them have been mixed.. 25. However,.

(38) these variables are worth probing because strategy behaviors are affected by them to a certain degree (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).. Advanced research is very necessary to. clarify the inconsistent findings for the major and gender effects produced in the VLS literature.. This study, therefore, aimed to probe these effects to add credence to the. limited research in the domain of English vocabulary learning.. 26.

(39) CHAPTER 3 Methodology The study aimed to explore vocabulary learning strategies used by Taiwanese college learners of differing academic specialization and sex.. That is, the effects of. major and gender were examined in the context of frequency and type of VLS use. Basically, the design itself involved a vocabulary learning questionnaire, a think-aloud method, and individual interviews to triangulate the results.. In this chapter, the. subjects, instruments, procedures of data collection, and data analyses are illustrated in the following. Subjects The 607 subjects (M = 271, F = 336), mostly sophomores and juniors, were recruited from 7 technological colleges in southern Taiwan (i.e., Tainan, Kaohsiung, and Pingtung).. They were sorted into three groups based on their fields of. specialization: 179 English majors, 243 Business majors (i.e., Departments of Finance, Commerce Management, Business Administration, Marketing, and Leisure Management), and 185 Engineering majors (i.e., Departments of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Chemical and Material Engineering).. The business and engineering majors were. defined from a broad perspective of academic fields.. 27. After the survey, 43.

(40) participants (M = 18, F = 25) from the three major groups volunteered for advanced think-aloud procedures on how they studied English words, and the following in-depth interviews for their vocabulary learning experiences.. Tables 1 and 2. display the demographic data of the surveyed subjects and the involved interviewees. Table 1 Demographic Data of Surveyed Subjects (by Major and Gender) Gender. Male. Female. Total. English. 33. 146. 179. Business. 78. 165. 243. Engineering. 160. 25. 185. Total. 271. 336. 607. Major. Table 2 Distributions of Participants for the Think-aloud and Interview Sessions Gender. Male. Female. Total. English. 7. 9. 16. Business. 5. 10. 15. Engineering. 6. 6. 12. 18. 25. 43. Major. Total. 28.

(41) Instruments Three instruments (i.e., a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire, a think-aloud protocol, and an interview form) were employed to assess VLS use among the interested students.. Each of them is described as follows:. Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire The questionnaire was adapted from the one developed in Schmitt (1997) for probing Japanese learners’ vocabulary learning patterns.. Several strategy items were. eliminated from the original inventory due to different cultural orientations in studying English words.. A Chinese version was developed for the adapted survey to. avoid potential comprehension problems derived from the participants’ limited knowledge in English.. Both of the English and Chinese versions were reviewed by. three college professors specializing in English teaching to generate the content validity of the questionnaires (See Appendixes A & B).. The Chinese version was. then field tested and yielded a high test reliability (i.e., Cronbach alpha = .93) with 184 college students.. After the pretest, the questionnaire was officially administered. to the targeted learners of 607 and resulted in an overall reliability as .94 for internal test consistency, and for each specific type: determination as .77, social as .83, memory as .93, cognitive as .82, and meta-cognitive as .71.. The reliability. coefficient of each type was relatively lower than the overall coefficient because of. 29.

(42) the limited number of test items.. Generally, these statistics suggested the concerned. questionnaire was quite reliable. Specifically, the questionnaire consisted of two main parts: learners’ demographic data and strategy items about vocabulary learning.. The first part was. designed to elicit the participants’ background information in relation to major and gender.. The second part included 51 test items featured by five different types of. strategies: determination (questions 1 to 8), social (questions 9 to15), memory (questions 16 to 37), cognitive (questions 38 to 46), and meta-cognitive (questions 47 to 51).. A five-point frequency scale ranging from “Always” (5 points), “Often” (4. points), “Sometimes” (3 points), “Seldom” (2 points), to “Never” (1 point) was used to measure the frequency of the occurrence of each of these strategic behaviors.. In. addition, some space was set aside at the end of the questionnaire to draw additional views on the adults’ vocabulary learning.. A written request was also made on the. participants to double check what they had done to ensure every item was well taken care of.. Sample items for each of the five types of vocabulary learning strategies are. provided in Table 3.. 30.

(43) Table 3 Sample Items for Five Types of Vocabulary Strategies. Strategy Type. Sample Items. Determination. Guess from textual context Analyze part of speech Analyze affixes and roots. Social. Ask teacher for an L1 translation Ask classmates for meaning Discover new meaning through group work activity. Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning Memory. Connect the word to a personal experience Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms. Verbal repetition Cognitive. Written repetition Keep a vocabulary notebook. Skip or pass new word Meta-cognitive. Testing oneself with word tests Continue to study word over time. 31.

(44) Think-Aloud Protocol A list of 10 new words and corresponding phonetic symbols were involved in the think-aloud procedure.. They were all content words, and most of them had distinct. lexical structures such as compound (e.g., earthquake), affixes (e.g., enlarge and abnormal), or explicit word forms (e.g., reasonably and globalization).. Words like. dilemma and optimal that were not distinct in the form were also selected to vary the word list.. The aim was to elicit the individual learners’ verbalizations of their VLS. use on these words.. The vocabulary used in the think-aloud protocol is presented in. the following.. Please describe verbally how you study each of the following words: 1. earthquake /tPZuhrTh/ 地震 3. globalization /tvpceQupAatlTXQn / 全球化 5. enlarge /antpFqgY/ 擴大. 2. passenger/td@kzgYR/ 乘客 4. reasonably /tq`lzQepa/合理地 6. recycle /q`tkAahx/ 回收. 7. abnormal /@etnOqmx@etnOqmx/ 不正常的 8. preview /tdq`ujsb/ 預習 9. dilemma /gQtpUmQ/ 進退兩難 10. optimal /tFdfQmQp/ 最理想的. 32.

(45) Interview Form Like the think-aloud procedure, the following individual interviews were held in Chinese to avoid the language limitations on the participants.. The interviews were. half-structured, targeting 6 questions related to the learners’ vocabulary learning experience as follows: 1. Do you like to study English?. Do you believe there is a relationship between. English proficiency and vocabulary knowledge?. Why or why not?. (你喜歡學英文嗎? 你覺得英文程度好壞與單字量有關嗎? 為什麼?) 2. Is learning vocabulary important for studying English?. Here is a guideline. of five types of vocabulary learning strategies (i.e., determination, social, memory, cognitive, and meta-cognitive) with some sample strategy items for each type.. Which two types of them do you use most/least often?. Why do. you choose these strategies? (你覺得學英文單字重要嗎? 你平常用什麼方法來記單字呢? 這邊有五種學單字不同的方法(包括: 決定策略，社會策略，記憶策略，認知策略，後設認知策略)，請選出你最常用的兩種方法及最少用的兩種方法。為什麼這些是你最常用及最少用的方法?) 3. What are the most effective ways to study English vocabulary? (你覺得學單字最有效的方法是什麼呢?) 4. When you encounter unfamiliar words or sentences in a passage, will you ask help from your teachers or classmates?. Why or Why not?. (在閱讀英文文章時，若遇到不懂的單字或句子，你會去問老師或同學嗎? 為什麼?) 5. What are the most difficult things for you in studying English vocabulary? 33.

(46) (你覺得學英文單字最困難的地方是什麼?) 6. Do you want to learn more vocabulary strategies? (整體而言，你希望多學一些背單字的方法嗎?). Data Collection Procedures The data collection involved three main stages: a questionnaire survey, followed by a think-aloud procedure, and in-depth interviews.. A pretest on the VLS. questionnaire was conducted with 184 college learners before it was officially distributed to 16 intact classes at 7 technological universities in Southern Taiwan. Permissions of conducting the research were gained from the teachers of these classes in advance.. On each arranged surveying day, the researcher visited each class with. an assistant.. To facilitate the surveying procedure, an orientation to the study was. given in the first place.. The students were informed about the purpose of the study. and the accurate way to fill out the questionnaire. Moreover, they were reassured that their responses would not affect their course grades, and that all the collected data would be analyzed corporately.. Any individual responses would be kept confidential.. The students were also encouraged to complete the questionnaire honestly and intuitively.. Afterwards, while they were working on the questionnaire, sufficient. assistance was provided.. The researcher and her assistant walked around to take. questions from the students.. When all the questionnaires were collected, each was. 34.

(47) quickly checked through to ensure every item was completed appropriately, and no items were left undone. the study.. Eventually, a small gift was given away for the assistance in. The entire surveying in each class took 25 minutes to complete.. Immediately after the survey, 43 participants (about 2-4 from each class) volunteered for the advanced think-aloud and interviewing activities.. In the. think-aloud stage, they were asked to describe explicitly how they remembered a set of 10 words.. They were also reminded that there was no good or bad way to acquire. these words.. In the final interview stage, six questions centering on learner. vocabulary learning experiences were asked.. On top of this, a guided written. description of the five types of VLS with sample strategy items was shown to facilitate the interviewing process.. Approximately, 35 minutes were spent on the. think-aloud and interviewing procedures (15 and 20 minutes, respectively) for each volunteering participant.. All of the verbal descriptions in these procedures were. tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim for further data analyses. collection procedures are illustrated in Table 4.. 35. The entire data.

(48) Table 4 Data Collection Procedures Step. Data Collection Stage I:. Minutes. Questionnaire. 1 2. Conduct a survey pretest on 184 college students Select 16 intact classes from 7 technological colleges. 3. Gain research permission from the authorities. 4. Conduct the VLS survey in each class Provide an orientation to the study Administer the VLS questionnaires Collect the questionnaires and check for. 5 mins 10 mins 10 mins. any missing responses right away. 5. Stage II: Think-aloud Method Provide an orientation to the procedure. 6. Conduct the think-aloud method on 10 English words. 7 8. Stage III: Interview Show the 5 types of VLS Conduct the individual interviews. 5 mins 10 mins. 5 mins 15 mins. Data Analyses The data were analyzed both quantitatively for the survey and qualitatively for the think-aloud and interview procedures.. Statistical analyses were conducted for. the data collected from the questionnaire with SPSS package.. To probe the general. use of vocabulary, the descriptive statistics of means, standard deviations and. 36.

(49) frequencies were reported along with a repeated-measure ANOVA in comparing the frequencies of the 5 types of strategy use.. Moreover, one-way ANOVA procedures. were performed to probe the major effects (i.e., English, Business, and Engineering) on the overall and individual types of VLS use.. Additional independent-samples. t-tests were executed to determine the gender effects (male vs. female) on such strategy use.. The significant level for all of the statistical tests was set at .05.. Finally, the qualitative data obtained from the think-aloud method and individual interviews were transcribed, segmented, coded and analyzed, and descriptive statistics (i.e., frequencies and percentages) were reported to compare with or supplement the results obtained from the questionnaire survey.. 37.

(50) CHAPTER 4 Results The results of this study are presented in the sequence of the research questions in this chapter.. General VLS use in terms of frequency and type associated with the. questionnaire is addressed first.. The effects of academic major and gender on. overall strategy and specific type of strategy are displayed next.. Results derived. from the think-aloud approach and individual interviews are lastly reported to verify the quantitative survey findings. Results of Vocabulary Strategy Questionnaire Research Question 1: What frequency and type of strategies are used among technological college students in their studying English vocabulary? The frequencies of the five specific types of vocabulary strategy use ranged from 2.66 to 3.18 with an average of 2.88 for overall strategy use (See Table 5). Determination strategies (M= 3.18) was found to be used most often, and Meta-cognitive (M= 2.76) and Social strategies (M= 2.66), least often.. A statistical. analysis with a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA resulted in a significant difference in the frequencies of the five types of VLS use (F = 154.87, p = .00 < .05) (See Table 6).. The advanced Scheffé Post-hoc Tests produced all significant. differences in the comparison of the frequencies of every two strategy categories, as. 38.

(51) indicated in Table 7.. The five types of strategy were used in a significantly different. frequency among EFL college learners.. In a closer examination into the 51 VLS. items, strategies of (1) using written/verbal repetition, (2) studying the sound/spelling of a word, (3) guessing from the textual context, (4) analyzing any available pictures or gestures, and (5) using bilingual dictionary were used most often.. These. individual strategies were associated with the types of Cognitive, Memory, and Determination, as shown in Table 8. Table 5 Descriptive Statistics for Type of Vocabulary Strategy Use Vocabulary Strategy Type. Mean. SD. N.. Rank. Determination Social Memory. 3.18 2.66 2.88. .67 .71 .66. 607 607 607. 1 5 3. Cognitive. 2.93. .67. 607. 2. Meta-cognitive. 2.76. .71. 607. 4. Overall. 2.88. .59. 607. 39.

(52) Table 6 Repeated-Measures ANOVA on Five Types of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Source. SS. df. MS. F. Between Groups. 94.83. 4. 23.71. 154.87*. Within Groups 1415.36 Treatment Effect 1044.29 Residual 371.07. 3030. Total. 3034. 1510.19. 606. 1.72. 2424. .15. Sig. .00. Note. * p < .05, two-tailed.. Table 7 Scheffé Post-hoc Tests on Five Types of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Type Comparison Determination. Mean Difference. Social. .52*. .00. Memory. .30*. .00. Cognitive. .25* .41*. .00 .00. Memory. -.22*. .00. Cognitive. -.27*. .00. Meta-cognitive. -.10*. .00. Cognitive. -.04*. .01. Meta-cognitive. .11*. .00. Meta-cognitive. .16*. .00. Meta-cognitive Social. Memory. Cognitive. p. Note. * p < .05, two-tailed.. 40.

(53) Table 8 Most Frequently Used VLS Items Individual VLS Item. Mean. SD.. 1 2 3. Written repetition (Cognitive) Verbal repetition (Cognitive) Study the sound of a word (Memory). 3.86 3.77 3.70. .99 1.01 1.03. 4 5. Study the spelling of a word (Memory) Guess from textual context (Determination). 3.62 3.59. 1.00 1.00. 6 7. Analyze any available pictures or gestures (Determination) Bilingual dictionary (Determination). 3.50 3.48. .93 1.20. Rank. Research Questions 2: Does field specialization significantly affect vocabulary strategy use?. To be more specific, are there any significant differences among. English, Business, and Engineering majors in their strategy use? As for major differences on VLS use, English majors were detected as better strategy users in each type of strategy and overall strategy than their Business and Engineering counterparts (See Table 9). strategy use of each type.. The Engineering majors had the lowest. The one-way ANOVA procedures indicated that there. were significant mean differences among the three major groups in their overall (F = 37.24, p = .00 < .05) and each type of VLS use (See Table 10).. The determination. and meta-cognitive strategies particularly demonstrated the greatest major differences on the VLS use.. The advanced Scheffé post-hoc tests were then conducted to locate. 41.

(54) particular major differences (See Table 11).. It was found that English majors. significantly surpassed each of their Business and Engineering counterparts in terms of overall and each type of strategies.. The Business students also exceeded the. Engineering students on the overall strategies and the Determination and Cognitive categories.. When the 51 strategy items were examined, English majors particularly. employed more strategies of (1) using English-language media, (2) taking notes, (3) analyzing part of speech, (4) reading aloud, and (5) using English-English dictionary than their non-English-major counterparts, as indicated in Table 12.. Generally,. significant major differences were detected in overall, each-type and individual strategies. Table 9 Descriptive Statistics for Type of VLS Use by Major English (N. = 179) Business (N. = 243) Engineering (N. = 185) M. SD. M. SD. M. SD. Determination. 3.49. .48. 3.13. .61. 2.93. .76. Social. 2.92. .65. 2.58. .65. 2.48. .77. Memory. 3.11. .55. 2.84. .60. 2.69. .77. Cognitive. 3.17. .54. 2.93. .60. 2.67. .78. Meta-cognitive. 3.09. .57. 2.68. .61. 2.52. .82. Overall. 3.15. .43. 2.83. .51. 2.66. .70. 42.

(55) Table 10 Multiple ANOVA on Type of VLS Use by Major. Type. Source. SS. df. MS. F. Sig.. 2 14.43 36.43* .00 Between groups 28.85 Determination Within groups 239.16 604 .39 Total 268.02 606. Social. Between 19.15 2 9.57 20.03* .00 groups Within groups 288.62 604 .48. Scheffé Post-hoc Tests. E1 > B > E2. E1 > B = E2. Total 307.77 606 Between groups 16.25 Memory. 2. Within groups 249.03 604 Total 265.29 606 Between groups 22.11. Cognitive. 2. Within groups 280.91 604 Total 273.02 606 Between groups 31.72. Meta-cognitive. Overall. 2. Within groups 269.55 604 Total 301.27 606. 8.13 19.71* .00 .41. 11.06 26.61* .00 .42. E1 > B > E2. 15.86 35.54* .00 .45. 2 11.46 37.24* .00 Between groups 22.93 Within groups 185.93 604 .31 Total 208.86 606. Note. 1. * p < .05, two-tailed. 2. E1 = English; B = Business; E2 = Engineering.. 43. E1 > B = E2. E1 > B = E2. E1 > B > E2.

(56) Table 11 Scheffé Post-hoc Test on Type of VLS Use by Major VLS Type. Major Comparison. MD. SE. Sig.. Business vs. Engineering. .36* .55* .19*. .06 .07 .06. .00 .00 .01. English vs. Business. .33*. .07. .00. English vs. Engineering. .44*. .07. .00. Business vs. Engineering. .10. .07. .32. English vs. Business. .26*. .06. .00. English vs. Engineering. .42*. .07. .00. Business vs. Engineering. .15. .06. .05. English vs. Business. .24*. .06. .00. English vs. Engineering. .49*. .07. .00. Business vs. Engineering. .26*. .06. .00. English vs. Business English vs. Engineering. .41* .57*. .07 .07. .00 .00. Business vs. Engineering. .16. .07. .06. English vs. Business. .32*. .05. .00. English vs. Engineering Business vs. Engineering. .49* .17*. .06 .05. .00 .01. English vs. Business Determination English vs. Engineering. Social. Memory. Cognitive. Meta-cognitive. Overall. Note. * p < .05, two-tailed.. 44.

(57) Table 12 Top Major Differences in Individual VLS Items Mean Rank Individual VLS Item. ANOVA. English Business Engineering. F. Sig.. Scheffé Post-hoc Tests. Use 1. English-language. 3.91. 3.10. 2.80. 50.64* .00 E1 > B > E2. 3.73. 3.09. 2.81. 37.71* .00 E1 > B > E2. 3.59. 2.84. 2.79. 34.57* .00 E1 > B = E2. 3.60. 3.05. 2.71. 30.67* .00 E1 > B > E2. 2.82. 2.19. 2.09. 25.52* .00 E1 > B = E2. media (songs, movies, newscasts) 2. 3. Take notes in class. Analyze part of speech Say new word. 4. aloud when studying. 5. Use Monolingual dictionary. Note. 1. * p < .05, two-tailed. 2. E1 = English; B = Business; E2 = Engineering.. 45.

(58) Research Question 3: Does gender significantly affect learners’ vocabulary strategy choice?. Precisely, are there any significant differences between male and. female learners in their vocabulary strategy preference? Table 13 presents the descriptive statistics of and t-tests on strategy use by male and female college participants.. The mean of overall strategy use by male learners. was 2.77 (SD = .66), and by female learners, 2.97 (SD = .51).. The statistical. analysis associated with an independent-samples t-test produced a significant difference on the two means (t (605) = -4.02, p = .00 <. 05).. The females. significantly used more strategies than their male counterparts not only in overall strategy use but also in all specific types with determination (t (605) = -4.98, p = .00 <. 05.), social (t (605) = -1.98, p = .04 < .05), memory (t (605) = -2.65, p = .01 < .05), cognitive (t (605) = -4.64, p = 00 < .05), and meta-cognitive (t (605) = -3.26, p = .00 < .05).. In addition to their superiority in all types of strategy use, the female learners. were particularly found to have much greater use in the individual strategies of (1) using bilingual dictionary, (2) reading aloud, (3) studying the sound of a word, and (4) keeping a vocabulary notebook than their male counterparts (See Table 14).. In sum,. college students’ strategic behaviors were significantly affected by sex in such a way that the females surpassed the males in the use of overall strategy, each type of vocabulary strategy, and individual strategy items.. 46. Note that the present study found.

(59) significant major and gender main effects on these learners’ VLS use.. No significant. interaction effect between major and gender was particularly found (F = 2.43, p = .09 > .05).. Major and gender did not interact to affect the strategy use.. Table 13 Independent T-tests on Type of VLS Use by Gender Males Mean SD. Females Mean SD. Determination. 3.03. .72. 3.30. Social. 2.59. .76. Memory. 2.80. Cognitive. T-tests t. Sig.. .59. -4.98*. .00. 2.70. .67. -1.98*. .04. .72. 2.94. .61. -2.65*. .01. 2.79. .73. 3.04. .60. -4.64*. .00. Meta-cognitive. 2.66. .78. 2.85. .63. -3.26*. .00. Overall. 2.77. .66. 2.97. .51. -4.02*. .00. Note. * signifies significant gender effect on the type of VLS use (p < .05).. 47.

(60) Table 14 Top Gender Differences in Individual VLS Items Rank. Mean. VLS Item. M. F. T-Tests t. Sig.. 1 2. Bilingual dictionary (Determination) Say new word aloud when studying (Memory). 3.14 3.77 2.85 3.32. -6.54* -5.12*. .00 .00. 3. Use English-language media (songs, movies,. 2.98 3.47. -5.11*. .00. 4. newscasts) (Meta-cognitive) Study the sound of a word (Memory). 3.47 3.89. -5.01*. .00. 5 6. Keep a vocabulary notebook (Cognitive) Written repetition (Cognitive). 2.69 3.16 3.65 4.04. -4.96* -4.78*. .00 .00. 7 8. Study the spelling of a word (Memory) Verbal repetition (Cognitive). 3.42 3.78 3.57 3.93. -4.38* -4.25*. .00 .00. 9 10. Guess from textual context (Determination) Take notes in class (Cognitive). 3.40 3.74 3.00 3.35. -4.16* -3.98*. .00 .00. Note. * p < .05, two-tailed. Results of Think-aloud Protocol The data collected from the think-aloud protocol on 43 participants (M = 18; F = 25) for studying a list of 10 words were analyzed to locate these learners’ concrete ways to approach English vocabulary.. The results would be used to cross-examine. the quantitative data obtained from the survey questionnaire. Research Question 4: What vocabulary learning strategies are detected from the think-aloud approach? Generally, 379 strategy tokens were identified from the 43 participants (i.e., 16 English majors, 15 Business majors, and 12 Engineering majors) in studying the given 48.