CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS
This chapter presents the statistical results of the data analysis computed by SPSS version 11.0. According to the research questions, it is composed of four sections, which report answers to each research question respectively. Section one shows the results of the use of English vocabulary learning strategies among the participants. Section two presents the results of the preferred perceptual learning styles among the participants. Section three demonstrates the relationship between vocabulary learning strategy use and perceptual learning style preference. Section four deals with the results regarding the relationships of vocabulary learning strategies and perceptual learning style preferences to learners’ background variables, namely English achievement and gender.
Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use
In this section, descriptive statistics of the VLSQ were presented to answer the first research question: How are the English vocabulary learning strategies used among junior high school students? Table 2 reveals that the participants were moderate users of the vocabulary learning strategies since the mean of the overall strategy use is 2.58, which is below the mid-point (i.e., 3) on a five-point Liker scale.
Regarding strategy categories, the participants favored metacognitive strategies the
most ( M = 2.77), followed by cognitive strategies (M = 2.72), determination strategies
( M = 2.71), discovery social strategies (M = 2.70), consolidation social strategies (M =
2.51), and memory strategies ( M = 2.09). The results indicate that the participants
employed metacognitive strategies the most frequently; but memory strategies, the
least frequently.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the VLS Categories
Category N M SD Rank Order
Metacognitive 195 2.77 .97 1
Cognitive 195 2.72 .74 2
Determination 195 2.71 .78 3
Social (Discovery) 195 2.70 .85 4
Social (Consolidation) 195 2.51 .96 5
Memory 195 2.09 .59 6
Overall strategy use 195 2.58 .46
Notes. 1. N means the number of the valid responses.
2. The maximum mean of each VLS category is five, and the minimum mean is one.
Concerning the use of each strategy, Table 3 reveals the top 10 most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies out of the total 58 items according to the mean scores of each strategy. “Verbal repetition,” with a mean of 4.35, ranked the highest.
“Written repetition” ranked second ( M = 3.89); “testing oneself with word tests”
ranked three ( M = 3.71); “word lists (discovery)” ranked four (M = 3.62); “ask classmates for meaning” ranked five ( M = 3.61); “analyze any available pictures or gestures” ranked six ( M = 3.56); “study the sound of a word” ranked seven (M = 3.42);
“use the vocabulary section in your textbook” ranked eight ( M = 3.38); “guess from
textual context” ranked nine ( M = 3.24); and “word lists (consolidation)” ranked ten
( M = 3.07). The ten strategies belong to various categories: four of them belong to
cognitive category; three of them belong to determination category; and the remaining
three belong to Metacognitive, Discovery Social, and Memory categories respectively.
Table 3
Top 10 Most Frequently Used VLS Rank
Order
Item No.
Category Strategy Description M SD
1 45 Cognitive Verbal repetition 4.35 0.87 2 46 Cognitive Written repetition 3.89 1.12 3 56 Metacognitive Testing oneself with word tests 3.71 1.35 4 8 Determination Word lists (Discovery) 3.62 1.32 5 13 Social (D) Ask classmates for meaning 3.61 1.11 6 3 Determination Analyze any available pictures or
gestures
3.56 1.10
7 32 Memory Study the sound of a word 3.42 1.35 8 51 Cognitive Use the vocabulary section in your
textbook
3.38 1.41
9 4 Determination Guess from textual context 3.24 1.17 10 47 Cognitive Word lists (Consolidation) 3.07 1.29
Notes. 1. The maximum mean of each strategy is five, and the minimum mean is one.
2. Social (D) refers to social strategies for discovery of new word’s meaning.
On the other hand, the bottom 10 least frequently-used vocabulary learning strategies out of the total 58 items were calculated as well by comparing the mean score of each strategy
6. As Table 4 shows, “use semantic feature grids” is the least frequently used vocabulary learning strategy with a mean of 1.18, followed by “Peg Method” ( M = 1.24), “use physical action when learning a word” (M = 1.35), “use semantic maps” ( M = 1.36), “monolingual dictionary” (M = 1.43), “Loci Method” (M
= 1.44), “group words together within a storyline” ( M = 1.5), “configuration” (M = 1.51), “put English labels on physical objects” ( M = 1.53), and “interact with native-speakers” ( M = 1.72). Among the ten strategies, eight of them belong to memory category; one belongs to determination category; and one belongs to consolidation social category.
6
The mean score and standard deviation for each vocabulary learning strategy can be found in
Appendix H.
Table 4
Bottom 10 Least Frequently Used VLS Rank
Order
Item no.
Category Strategy M SD
1 44 Memory Use semantic feature grids 1.18 0.50
2 25 Memory Peg Method 1.24 0.51
3 43 Memory Use physical action when learning a word
1.35 0.56
4 23 Memory Use semantic maps 1.36 0.61
5 6 Determi-
nation
Monolingual dictionary 1.43 0.9
6 26 Memory Loci Method 1.44 0.72
7 30 Memory Group words together within a storyline
1.50 0.83
8 37 Memory Configuration 1.51 0.97
9 53 Memory Put English labels on physical objects
1.53 0.86
10 17 Social (C) Interact with native-speakers 1.72 1.02
Notes. 1. The maximum mean of each strategy is five, and the minimum mean is one.
2. Social (C) refers to social strategies for consolidation of words.
Perceptual Learning Style Preference
This section concerns the second research question: What are the preferred learning styles among junior high school students? Descriptive statistics of the PLSPQ were computed to obtain the mean score of each learning style, and the numbers and percentages of students belonging to each major learning style.
According to Reid (1984), the mean score ranging from 3.8 to 5.0 belongs to major
learning style; 2.5 to 3.7, minor learning style; and 0 to 2.4, negligible. As shown in
Table 5, the mean scores for the six learning styles ranged from 3.26 to 2.43, which
means that the participants in this study as a group did not show any major
preferences for any learning style. However, among the six learning styles, group
learning was the most preferred style with a mean score of 3.26, followed by auditory learning ( M = 3.00), visual learning (M = 2.82), individual learning (M = 2.57), kinesthetic learning ( M = 2.54), and tactile learning (M = 2.43). The results show that group learning was the most favored modality for the participants, yet they preferred tactile learning mode the least. If we take the perceptual/sociological classification into account, the results demonstrate that auditory learning was the most preferred perceptual learning style whereas tactile the least favored perceptual learning style. In terms of sociological learning styles, the participants liked group learning better than individual learning.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of the PLSPQ
Style N M SD Rank Order
(P + S)
Rank Order (P vs. S)
Visual 195 2.82 0.94 3 2
Auditory 195 3.00 0.89 2 1
Tactile 195 2.43 0.94 6 4
Kinesthetic 195 2.54 1.03 5 3
Group 195 3.26 0.99 1 1
Individual 195 2.57 0.93 4 2
Notes. 1. N means the number of the valid responses.
2. The maximum mean of each style is five, and the minimum mean is one.
3. Rank Order (P + S) refers to the rank order of the whole set of the style categories.
4. Rank Order (P vs. S) refers to the order ranked by the classification of perceptual learning style vs. sociological learning style.
To further investigate the participants’ preferred learning style, the numbers and
percentages of students by each major learning style were computed. As presented
in Table 6, 44% of the total 195 participants ( n = 85) had no major preferences, while
36% of them ( n = 70) belonged to multiple learning style. Students of multiple style
preference and no major preference composed 80% of the sample. There were only 18 group learners (9%), followed by 10 auditory learners (5%), 5 individual learners (3%), 4 tactile learners (2%), 2 visual learners (1%) and 1 kinesthetic learner (1%).
Based on the results, most of the participants belong to either no major style preference group or multiple style group.
Table 6
The Numbers and Percentages of Students by Major Learning Style
Style n Percentage Rank Order
Visual 2 1% 7
Auditory 10 5% 4
Tactile 4 2% 6
Kinesthetic 1 1% 8
Group 18 9% 3
Individual 5 3% 5
Multiple 70 36% 2
No major preference 85 44% 1
Total 195 100%
Notes. 1. n means the number of the valid responses.
2. Students with more than one major learning style belong to multiple learning style group.
3. Students without any major learning style belong to no major preference style group.
The Relationships Between Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Perceptual Learning Style Preferences
In this section, Pearson product-moment correlation was computed to answer the third research question: How do the English vocabulary learning strategies and the perceptual learning style preferences correlate?
Table 7 shows that all of the students’ perceptual learning styles were
significantly correlated to overall vocabulary learning strategy use. The results
suggest that a participant’s learning style preference is related to his/her overall use of
vocabulary learning strategies in the process of English learning. It is worth noting that visual and auditory learning styles had a more than moderate significant correlation with all of the six strategy categories, with the magnitude ranging from .45 to .60
7. In addition, three pairs of strategy and style categories had a more than moderate significant correlation: Kinesthetic Style and Consolidation Social Strategy ( r = .41, p < .01); Group Style and Consolidation Social Strategy (r = .43, p < .01);
and Individual Style and Determination Strategy ( r = .46, p < .01).
Table 7
Pearson Correlation for PLSP and VLS Categories Determi-
nation
Social (D) Social (C) Memory Cognitive Meta- cognitive
Total
Visual .57** .53** .59** .58** .60** .56** .67**
Auditory .55** .48** .47** .47** .52** .45** .58**
Tactile .13 .05 .17* .17* .05 .13 .15*
Kinesthetic .29** .26** .41** .31** .27** .23** .34**
Group .21** .29** .43** .20** .22** .25** .28**
Individual .46** .31** .19** .38** .34** .36** .42**
Notes. 1. Social (D) refers to the social strategies for discovery of new words’ meaning.
2. Social (C) refers to the social strategies for consolidation of new words.
3. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) 4. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
The Relationships of Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Perceptual Learning Style Preferences to Background Variables
This section presents the analyses and results related to the fourth research question: How do junior high school students’ vocabulary learning strategy use and their perceptual learning style preferences relate to their background variables, namely English achievement and gender? ANOVA was performed to determine if English
7
According to Heiman (2000), the correlation coefficient from +/- .40 to +/- .60 can be interpreted as
medium to substantial relationship.
achievement level and gender had any effects on vocabulary strategy use or learning style preference.
Regarding achievement differences, Table 8 and Table 9 present the relationships of vocabulary learning strategy use and learning style preferences to participants’
English achievement level respectively. In the present study, the final course grade was used as a measurement of achievement level. Those who scored at least one standard deviation above the group mean of final course grade ( M = 69, SD = 18.62 ) were defined as high achievers ( n = 48), that is, those with a grade above 87. On the other hand, those who scored one standard deviation below the group mean were grouped as low achievers ( n = 40), that is, those with a final course grade below 49.
As Table 8 shows, all of the six vocabulary categories show significant differences between high and low achievers. Across the six strategy categories, high achievers made use of a significantly greater number of vocabulary learning strategies than low achievers. In other words, achievement level is proved to have a significant effect on the participants’ use of vocabulary learning strategies in the present study.
Besides, because high achievers obtained a higher mean than low achievers in all six
vocabulary strategy categories, high achievers tended to employ a wider range of
vocabulary learning strategies more frequently than low achievers did. Regarding
the frequency of strategy use, high achievers adopted determination strategies the
most frequently ( M = 3.46), while low achievers employed discovery social strategies
the most frequently ( M = 2.40). Memory strategies ranked the last for both high and
low achievers ( M = 2.49 and M = 1.80 respectively). Another noteworthy finding is
that high achievers reported to use five of the six strategy categories more than
moderately ( M > 3 on the five-point-scale), with the only exception of memory
strategies. In contrast, low achievers infrequently used vocabulary strategies, with
all of the means of strategy categories equal to or below 2.40
8.
Table 8
The Relationship Between VLS and Achievement Level Strategy Category Achievement
Level
n M SD Rank Order
F p
Determination High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
3.46 2.06
.64 .40
1 4
145.38 .000
Social (Discovery) High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
3.34 2.40
.61 .86
3 1
35.66 .000
Social
(Consolidation)
High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
3.03 2.17
.96 .82
5 3
20.01 .000
Memory High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
2.49 1.80
.58 .48
6 6
35.93 .000
Cognitive High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
3.28 2.30
.63 .46
4 2
67.82 .000
Metacognitive High Achiever Low Achiever
48 40
3.43 2.04
.71 .72
2 5
81.87 .000
As for the relationship between learning style and achievement level, Table 9 reveals that high and low achievers had significant differences in four learning styles:
visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and individual. To be more specific, high achievers showed a significantly higher preference for visual, auditory, kinesthetic and individual learning styles than low achievers did. Besides, high achievers obtained a higher mean score in all learning styles. The findings indicate that high achievers are more open to different learning modes than low achievers are. As far as individual learning style is concerned, high achievers preferred auditory learning the most ( M = 3.53) while low achievers preferred group learning the most (M = 3.16).
Tactile and kinesthetic learning styles were favored the least by high achievers and
8
