This research was carried out to explore the vocabulary learning strategy use and perceptual learning style preferences among Taiwanese junior high school students.

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION

This study investigates vocabulary learning strategy use and perceptual learning style preference among Taiwanese junior high school EFL students. This chapter summarizes major findings of the study and then gives some pedagogical implications for teaching English in junior high schools in Taiwan. Besides, the limitations of the study are presented. At the end, some suggestions are proposed for future studies.

It is hoped that this study can point to some ways of improving English teaching and learning in Taiwan.

Summary of the Study

This research was carried out to explore the vocabulary learning strategy use and perceptual learning style preferences among Taiwanese junior high school students.

A total of 207 junior high school students in northern Taiwan participated in the present study. The data was collected by administering a set of questionnaires that consisted of modified Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (Reid, 1984) and Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies (Schmitt, 1997). Major findings in accordance with the four research questions are as follows.

To begin with, Taiwanese junior high school students reported moderate use of

vocabulary learning strategies. Comparatively speaking, among the six strategy

categories, metacognitve strategies were used most frequently, while memory

strategies the least often. Regarding individual strategy, “verbal repetition,” “written

repetition,” “testing oneself with word tests,” “using word lists for discovery,” “asking

classmates for meaning,” “analyze any available pictures or gestures,” “studying the

sound of a word,” “using the vocabulary section in your textbook,” “guessing from

textual context,” and “using word lists for consolidation” were the top ten most

frequently used strategies for learning lexical items.

Second, most of the Taiwanese junior high school students in this study did not show major preferences for one particular learning style. Comparatively speaking, group learning style was preferred most by this sample of students, while tactile learning style, the least. Regarding the percentages of students by each perceptual learning style, no major preference group ranked first (44%) and multiple style group ranked second (36%).

Third, all of the students’ perceptual learning styles were significantly correlated to their overall vocabulary learning strategy use. In particular, visual and auditory learning styles had a more than moderate correlation with all of the six strategy categories.

Fourth, students’ achievement level had a significant effect on learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies. High achievers used all the six vocabulary learning strategy categories significantly more often than low achievers. Besides, achievement level had a significant effect on visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and individual learning style preferences, but not on tactile or group learning style preferences. High achievers preferred the former four styles significantly more than low achievers. Regarding gender, it had no significant effect on any vocabulary learning strategy categories. And it only had a significant effect on tactile learning style.

Pedagogical Implications

On the basis of the findings of this present study, some pedagogical implications can be generated.

First, the findings that all of the students’ six perceptual learning styles and their

overall vocabulary learning strategy use were significantly correlated, and that

English achievement was related to learning styles and use of vocabulary strategies have implications for language teaching. As Oxford (2004) stated

Teachers can change the face of EFL instruction, making it much more effective and efficient in helping students develop English skills. This can occur if teachers become more aware of students’ learning styles and strategies and if they offer classroom instruction that is style-relevant and strategy-enriching (p. i).

To improve students’ vocabulary learning efficiency, teachers could adopt Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction (SSBI). Cohen (2001) stated that SSBI enables teachers not only to teach the language but also to assist learners in: (1) developing their awareness of their own learning styles, (2) determining their current language strategy repertoire, and (3) enhancing their current strategy repertoire and complementing it with additional strategies that may be of benefit. The ultimate goal for SSBI is to help students become more effective, efficient, responsible, and autonomous foreign language learners. To achieve this goal, teachers need to assess their own and their students’ perceptual learning style preferences and vocabulary learning strategy use.

There are a variety of instruments ready for them to use, such as O’Brien’s (1990)

Learning Channel Preference Checklist, Oxford’s (1993) Style Analysis Survey, and

Schmitt’s (1997) Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies. The results of

assessment may help teachers reflect whether they favor and then neglect certain

learning styles in their instruction and whether some vocabulary learning strategies

are worth teaching but not yet introduced in their classes. For students, the results

can help raise their awareness about their own learning style preferences and use of

vocabulary learning strategies. If they find any problems or limitations in their

learning style and strategy use, they can try to flex their learning styles and broaden

their strategy use.

While teaching vocabulary based on SSBI, teachers should, on the one hand, employ instructional approaches that can cater to the needs of students with different learning styles. They can either vary vocabulary learning activities designed for a particular learning style or design activities that involve different learning styles. On the other hand, teachers should help students extend their learning style preferences so that they can learn effectively even when their teacher’s teaching style does not match their most preferred learning style. It is also important for teachers to help students try strategies that are unfamiliar to them or do not match their learning styles by integrating strategy training into classroom instruction. For example, by teaching the vocabulary learning strategy “configuration,” one of the infrequently used strategies in this study, teachers may not only cater to the needs of students with visual learning style preference but also help expand the strategy repertoire and flex the learning style of students with other style preferences. According to Oxford (2004), students usually use learning strategies that fit their basic learning styles if they are not encouraged or forced to use a certain set of strategies. However, through strategy instruction, teachers can help students “stretch” their learning styles by trying out strategies outside of their primary style preferences (Oxford, 2004). Strategy instruction can not only broaden students’ vocabulary learning strategy use but also make them become more flexible learners. Students with greater learning-style flexibility may also become higher achievers (Kirby, 1979).

Second, this study found that junior high school students did not use vocabulary

learning strategies frequently, but high achievers significantly employed more

vocabulary learning strategies than low achievers in all vocabulary learning strategy

categories. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to encourage students to

experiment with various strategies so as to broaden their repertoire of vocabulary

learning strategies. According to Nyikos and Oxford (1993), EFL students are not always aware of the power of using strategies for effective learning, so teachers should help students develop an awareness of vocabulary learning strategies and enable them to use a wide range of appropriate strategies. The first thing teachers should do is to help students reflect on their practices for vocabulary study. This can be accomplished by means of having students complete a survey or keep vocabulary learning diaries. Next, teachers should explicitly teach vocabulary learning strategies. In addition to introducing what the strategy is, teachers need to explain why and when to employ it. An alternative way to teach vocabulary strategies is to systematically embed vocabulary learning strategies in teaching tasks and materials or incorporate vocabulary learning strategy training into their curricula. Most important of all, for students to employ the introduced strategies appropriately, teachers should create opportunities for students to practice using different vocabulary learning strategies.

This study also revealed that the students seldom used complicated strategies which require “deep processing” such as semantic maps, keyword method, loci method, and association. In view of this, teachers should promote a deep level of processing in vocabulary learning. Crail and Lockhart (1972) suggested that the more one spends cognitive energy in manipulating and thinking about a word, the more likely he or she will retain and retrieve it. Ultimately, teachers should encourage students to develop their own effective strategies for vocabulary learning.

Appropriate use of strategies will enable learners to take responsibility for their own learning and thus increase learner autonomy.

Third, the results on perceptual learning style preferences showed that few

students expressed major preference for one particular style. Although about one

third of the sample showed preferences for multiple styles, 44% of the participants

expressed no major learning style. Teachers should, on the one hand, help students make the most of their style preferences and, on the other hand, expand their style preferences. Teachers can use a wide variety of instructional techniques which cater to different style preferences of students. This is also a good way to help students go beyond their comfort zone and engage in style-stretching so as to use learning approaches they have resisted. Kinsella (1995) also stressed that educators should extend the student-centered classroom to a student-empowered classroom, in which students could identify their learning style strengths and weaknesses and discover ways to flex those styles to meet the demands of various learning situations. As students are provided with opportunities to diversify and strengthen alternative learning modes, their learning may be facilitated.

Fourth, in view of the importance of SSBI in empowering students to become more effective language learners, teachers should obtain or refine their knowledge of and ability to conduct SSBI. They have to learn to create their own materials and explore ways to weave these style-stretching and strategy training materials into their regular, everyday teaching. Some published books can empower teachers to conduct SSBI, such as Cohen’s (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language, Oxford’s (1996) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives, and Reid’s (1998) Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Attending workshops or conferences in the field of language learning may also help.

Finally, textbook writers should incorporate the concepts of learning style and

vocabulary learning strategy into the design of vocabulary learning activities. To

achieve this, textbook writers can conduct a survey larger in scale than this study on

Taiwanese junior high school students’ vocabulary learning strategies and perceptual

learning style preferences. After identifying the strategies neglected by students, yet

proved useful for learning vocabulary, they should incorporate more suitable vocabulary learning strategy activities in the textbook. Furthermore, textbook writers should design various vocabulary learning activities which cater to different sensory modalities and sociological preferences. Textbooks that incorporate learning styles and strategy use may maximize students’ achievement on learning vocabulary.

Limitations of the Study There are several limitations of the present study.

In the first place, self-report questionnaires were the only data collection instruments, which have some drawbacks. For example, self-report does not necessarily reflect reality. Ratings may only reflect the respondents’ impressions of their strategy use and may not exactly coincide with their actual use of strategy.

Besides, the 5-point Likert-scale questions do not leave room for participants’ free responses. This data collection procedure may miss some important information and is unable to provide full insights into vocabulary learning strategy use, perceptual learning style preferences, and the relationships between them. In addition, the vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire may not include all the strategies used by the participants. The unsatisfactory reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) in the consolidation social strategy category (alpha = .59 at the pilot study and alpha = .67 at the formal study) and individual learning style subscale (alpha = .83 at the pilot study and alpha = .65 at the formal study) may limit the statistical power.

Besides, this study is limited to only six classes of students, totally 207 participants. For that reason, it will be difficult to generalize the results to other populations with different educational backgrounds or proficiency levels in Taiwan.

In addition, Kinsella (1995) pointed out that “modality strengths evolve and

generally become more integrated with age” (p. 173). Besides, Schmitt’s (1997)

when they got more mature or proficient in English. Owing to the cross-sectional design of this study, the change of the students’ learning styles and use of vocabulary strategies cannot be determined.

Furthermore, English achievement level was determined by participants’ final course grade, which included students’ performance on monthly exams, assignments, and quizzes as well as teacher’s evaluation of students’ classroom participation and performance. Such scores were not as objective as that obtained from other standardized tests.

Suggestions for Future Study

Though this present study has shed some light on the vocabulary learning strategies used by junior high school students in Taiwan and their relationship with perceptual learning style preferences, more studies are needed to gain more insight into the use of vocabulary learning strategies. Several suggestions for future studies are recommended as follows.

First, while comprehensive questionnaires like the VLSQ and PLSPQ facilitate data collection, other qualitative instruments such as interviews, diaries, and think-aloud protocols should be added in order to produce a convergent assessment of learner strategies and learning styles. Quantitative and qualitative data may shed more light on students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies and preference for learning styles.

Second, to make the findings more representative and convincing, future researches should recruit more participants. One way is to increase the number of students by recruiting junior high school students from different parts of Taiwan.

Another way is to expand the range of grade level and include students of three grade

levels in the junior high school.

Third, future researchers are recommended to conduct a longitudinal study on learners’ vocabulary learning strategies and perceptual learning style preferences. In this way, how learners’ learning styles evolve with age or proficiency can be investigated and the long-term effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies can be determined as well.

Fourth, this study adopted participants’ final course grades as an assessment for English achievement. Other instruments like standardized English proficiency tests with higher reliability and validity can be employed in future study.

Fifth, though the present researcher endeavored to translate the two sets of questionnaires, VLSQ and PLSPQ, into Chinese and made them meet the cognitive maturity of junior high school students, the reliability of the consolidation social strategy category and individual learning style subscale were not very satisfactory.

Future researchers are suggested to modify and re-evaluate the reliability and validity of these questionnaires.

Sixth, according to the results of VLSQ, some strategies are rarely used by Taiwanese junior high school students, such as the bottom 10 least frequently used strategies. Future studies are suggested to delete from the questionnaire these rarely used items if their participants may not patient enough to fill out a long questionnaire or there is a time constraint.

Finally, in this study, it is obvious that perceptual learning style preferences were

significantly correlated with vocabulary learning strategies. However, learning style

is only one of the seventeen factors believed to influence one’s learning strategy use

by Oxford’s (1989). Other factors may also have effects on the way students deal

with vocabulary learning. In particular, motivation and personality characteristics are

two commonly discussed factors in related literature. Future studies are suggested to

take these factors into consideration. By doing so, more insights into junior high

school students’ English vocabulary learning will be obtained.