Strategy activation in learning English words.

Abstract

This study investigated: 1) the strategies used by EFL university students as they attempted to master new English words and 2) if strategy activation would affect students' vocabulary learning. Two groups of university students were asked to monitor and report on a weekly basis the strategies they used to learn new words. Students in Group Two had the chance to discuss and elaborate on the strategies in the class while students in Group One did not. Both groups were then tested on a multiple choice vocabulary test and two delayed vocabulary tasks of recall and recognition. Group Two students showed a systematically better performance on the vocabulary test and tasks.

Introduction

As teachers of second or foreign languages, we have noticed that students have difficulty with learning words in their second language. It is, however, the case that students use strategies and techniques of their own to learn the words in a better way. One of the reasons for the ever increasing interest in studying language learning strategies has been the fact that learners are valued and prized in the educational programs as active participants who bring their own personal behaviors to the scene and shape the way in which they learn. Through studying learners' strategies we get familiar with their strategic knowledge being defined by Lefrancois (1991) as a sort of knowledge about how to do things, solve problems, learn and memorize, understand and perhaps, more importantly to monitor, evaluate, and direct the mentioned activities as they occur. Thus, conducting research on learning strategies seems promising with both theoretical and practical implications.

Background to the study

Since the late 1970s, a considerable amount of research has been carried out concerning vocabulary learning strategies utilized by language learners (for a detailed review of empirical studies on vocabulary learning strategies in second/foreign languages refer to Gu, 2003). In these studies, emphasis has been mainly on three types of strategies, namely, keyword (Pressly, Levin and Delaney, 1982), context (Nist and Olejnik, 1995; Hulstijn et al., 1996), and semantic processing (Beck, Mckeown and Omanson, 1987). The keyword method, which has received a good deal of experimental study, involves using interactive imagery to link the sound of a word in one's native language (the keyword) to the sound of a foreign word that has to be learnt (Levin, 1981; Pressly, Levin and Delaney, 1982; Pressly et al., 1980). Several studies have reported the positive effect of keyword method on students' vocabulary learning (Atkinson and Rough, 1975; Beaton et al., 1995).

Advocates of context believe that vocabulary is best learned when it is met in some sort of context (Honeyfield, 1977 cited in Nunan, 1991; Sternberg, 1987 cited in Nist and Olejnik, 1995). Besides the target words, incidental learning of vocabulary from the context has also been reported as a side effect (see, e.g., Nagy, Anderson and Herman, 1987; Nagy et al, 1985; both cited in Nist and Olejnik, 1995; Clark and Nation 1980 cited in Na and Nation, 1985 and Hulstijn, et al., 1996). There are, however, other researchers (Jenkis et al., 1989; McKeown, 1989, 1990, 1993; Miller and Gildea, 1987; and Coll and Nagy, 1989, 1990 all cited in Nist and Olejnik, 1995) who question the utility of context. They especially question the utility of context in teaching low frequency vocabulary items. Hulstijn (1992) stated that language learners usually make wrong guesses about the meanings of the words from the context. Camme, Kameenni, and Coyle (1984 cited in Nist and Olejnik, 1995, p. 75) also stated that "even in studies in which subjects have been taught general rules for determining meaning from context the results have often been non significant."

Brown and Prey (1991) conducted research on keyword, semantic and keyword semantic as three learning strategies and concluded that the combined keyword semantic strategy can increase vocabulary retention above the other strategies. Other studies related to strategy utilization in vocabulary learning or teaching include Ridley and Singleton (1995) who did a case study to investigate the use of lexical innovations in a language learner at university level. Lessard-Clouston (1994) studied the methods and strategies students used in their process of vocabulary learning. Ellis and Beaton (1993) studied the role of psycholinguistic factors that affect vocabulary learning. They studied the role of these factors under three conditions: repetition, keyword and own strategy. Also, use of dictionary and the role it plays in vocabulary learning has been investigated by many researchers (see, e.g., Laufer, 1986; Laufer and Hill, 2000; Luppescu and Day, 1993; Nist and Olejulk, 1995; Huang, 1985; Summers, 1988; Knight, 1994). Using collocations as a strategy was also studied by researchers such as Brown (1974), Bahns and Eldaw (1993) and Bahns (1993). Research on how ESL and EFL learners acquire vocabulary is significant because ESL/EFL learners must develop large vocabularies in order to be proficient in English. As such, the present study hopes to take a step in this regard and attends to one of the specific domains in EFL contexts.

Objectives of the study

This study intended to investigate the strategies EFL learners in a specific domain, namely, an Iranian university context, utilized in the process of their vocabulary learning and the effect of their strategy use on their vocabulary learning and retention. In particular, the study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What strategies do these EFL students use in the process of their vocabulary?

2. Does students' gender affect their strategy use and vocabulary learning?

3. Does strategy activation affect students' vocabulary learning and retention?

Methods

Participants Participants in this study were forty freshman students (male and female) of English with an age range of 18-22 in two intact classes, named as Group One and Group Two, in an Iranian university. There were twenty students (majority male and some female) in each class. Students in both groups were of the same proficiency level as they were selected for the program on the basis of the same English tests. The two groups met twice a week with one of the researchers in their reading course as their usual class hour. Group Two (G2) was asked to approach the task of vocabulary learning in a more systematic and conscious way discussing and elaborating on their strategies in the class, while Group One (G1) only provided the researchers with their self-reports on vocabulary learning. Students in Group Two had the chance of being exposed to other students' techniques and strategies and to discuss the (in)effectiveness of the strategies. In Fact, a form of strategy activation was taking place in this group.

Data collection procedures Students were briefed in an introductory session on the importance of vocabulary in the process of language learning as well as different techniques and methods they may use to improve their vocabulary learning. Then, over a period often weeks, all participants were asked to keep a weekly written record of what they did in order to learn English words. They were also asked to describe specific mnemonic procedures they used for retaining the words. These self-report notes were collected weekly and served as the basis for class discussions and elaboration in Group Two. A profile was made for each student. The profile included the details about activities in which each individual participant was engaged, the time s/he spent on his/her vocabulary learning, the kind of lexical items learned, the source or sources of new vocabulary items and the kind of dictionaries used.

Test and Tasks From a pool of 100 words reported by students on their extensive reading material, 20 words were randomly selected for a 20-item multiple choice test of vocabulary. The test was administered to the students in the two groups. To check the validity of the test, the vocabulary section of a past TOEFL test (Baily et al., 1993, pp. 396-400) was used as a criterion. Both tests were administered concurrently to another class of freshmen of the same level and correlation of 0.93 was achieved between the two vocabulary tests showing high criterion validity for our test. Besides the multiple choice vocabulary test, students were tested on a recall and recognition task after two weeks. For the recall task the same 20 words were presented to the students simply in a list and they were asked to write a definition or meaning (either in L2 or L1) or provide a synonym for each. For the recognition task the same 20 words with some 30 options were presented to the students as a matching task and they were asked to match each word with a proper equivalent. To prevent any probable effect of the two tasks on each other, a counterbalance method was used in that half of the students were given the recall task first while the other half was given the recognition task. The order was then reversed.

Findings

The sources and activities reported by students in their process of vocabulary learning were extensive (listening to radio, audio tapes, watching video tapes, reading stories and so on). However, reading the everyday course materials together with the short stories was reported by these students as the main source of vocabulary learning. Dictionary use was reported as another source of vocabulary learning. They consulted their dictionaries for the meaning of unknown words, wrote down the meanings, and then memorized them on the spot or made word lists to be memorized later.

As regards the type and frequency of strategies they used, it was found that both G1 and G2 used the same strategies though with different frequency and percentage. The three top strategies reported by both groups were "memorization", "dictionary use" and "using context". However, the percentage of the usage of these three strategies were 36 and 42.25 (memorization); 16 and 23.25 (dictionary use); and 10.25 and 12.25 (using context) for G1 and G2 respectively indicating that in all the three strategies, G2 had higher percentages of strategy use. The least frequent strategies reported by both groups were "keyword" and "word analysis."

Students' performance on the MC vocabulary test

Table 1 indicates the mean and standard deviation of students' performance on the 20-item MC vocabulary test. See http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/stun2004.htm As Table 1 shows, the mean for G2 students is higher than that obtained for the students in G1. A t- test indicated that the difference between the two means was statistically significant at the level of 0.05 with a t-value of 2.75. Students' better performance on the vocabulary test in G2 can be attributed to their more frequently using of the strategies as reported above.

This finding was further supported by running a two-way ANOVA including students' gender and group in the analysis to see if students' gender might have affected their performance on the MC vocabulary test. Result of the two-way ANOVA is presented in Table 2. We did not compare male and female performances separately since the number of students in each sex group was not high and equal. See issue website http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum2004.htm Table 2 shows no significant difference between male and female students as relates to their performance on the vocabulary test; while strategy activation (group) proved a significant difference in favor of G2 as was also reported above.

Students' performance on the recall and recognition tasks

To investigate if students retained the learned words, they were tested on a recall and recognition task as a delayed test two weeks later. Students' scores for the two tasks are presented in Table 3. See http://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/sum2004.htm Comparison of the students' performance on the recall task through t-test indicated that the difference between the two groups was statistically significant at the level of 0.001 with a t-value of 3.64. Also, the difference between students' mean on the recognition task was statistically significant at the level of 0.003 with a t-value of 3.14. Results of the delayed tasks indicate that students in Group Two were more successful in retaining the newly learned words and adding them to their long term memory. This is an important outcome and may confirm the effectiveness of strategy activation and use.

Concluding remarks

This study set out to answer three research questions, namely, what type of vocabulary learning strategies are used by this specific domain of EFL learners; whether students' gender could affect their vocabulary learning, and if strategy activation and use could affect their learning and retention of the new words. It was found that among a variety of vocabulary learning strategies reported by these students, three were used most frequently. These three strategies were "memorization", "using dictionary", and "using context." In line with Gu (2003), we can argue that the choice, use, and effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies depend on the task, the learner, and the learning context. Through a two way ANOVA it was indicated that between students' gender and strategy activation and use, it was the latter which resulted in a better performance on a MC vocabulary test. Moreover, two delayed tasks (recall and recognition) had results in favor of the second group (G2) which had more practice on and higher percentages of using vocabulary learning strategies.

Based on the findings of the study, we can safely conclude that students' use of vocabulary learning strategies could be considered as a major factor along with previously reported other individual differences in learning a second or foreign language. As such, we should pay attention to the strategies utilized by the learners and encourage them to monitor and pick those ones which prove to be more effective for them.

Part of the students' problems and their weaknesses do not seem to be due to their inability of learning or lack of study, but rather because of their inadequate way of studying. They are sometimes unaware of better alternatives for their inefficient habits. They sometimes try hard, but their hard laboring and efforts go astray because they are repeating the wrong way. As practitioners we may help students try different strategies and techniques, and rather than teaching them a few vocabulary items which are always very limited in number, we may help them activate learning strategies and use them in more effective ways. Such training can best be accomplished by incorporating strategy training into normal classroom activities as was the case in the present study.

References

Atkinson, R. C., & Raugh, M. R. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 126-133.

Bahns, J. (1993). Lexical collocation: A contrastive view. ELT Journal, 47(1), 56-63.

Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Could we teach EFL students collocation? System, 21(1), 101-114.

Bailey, X. R., Seelharaman, S., Gavin, A. C., Shukla, N., Penfield, J., Subramanian, R., & Teller, H. L. (1993). The best test preparation for the TOEFL Piscataway, NJ: Research and Education Association.

Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M., & Ellis, N. (1995). Retention of foreign language vocabulary learned using the key-word method: A ten-year follow-up. Second Language Research, 11(2), 112-120.

Beck, I. L., Mckown, M. G., & Omanson, R. C. (1987). The effects and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In M. G. Mckown and M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, D. F. (1974). Advanced vocabulary teaching: The problem of collocation. RELC Journal, 5(2), 1-11.

Brown, S. T., & Perry, F. L. (1991). A comparison of three learning strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 655-670.

Ellis, C. N., & Beaton, A. (1993). Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(4), 559-617.

Gu, P.Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-25.

Huang, F. G. (1985). The productive use of EFL dictionaries. RELC Journal, 16(2), 23-35.

Hulstijn, H. J. (1992). Retention of inferred and given meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Amaud and H. Bejoint (Eds.), Vocabulary and applied linguistics (113-125). London: Macmillan.

Hulstijn, H. J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effect of comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal, 78, 287-299.

Laufer, B. (1986). Possible changes in attitude toward vocabulary acquisition research. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 14, 69-75.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Technology, 3, 58-76

Lefrancois, G.R. (1991). Psychology for teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lessard-Clouston, M. (1994). Challenging students approaches to ESL vocabulary development. TESL Canada Journal, 12(1), 69-81.

Levin, J. R. (1981). The mnemonic 80's: Keywords in the classroom. Educational Psychologist, 16, 65-82.

Luppescu, F., & Day, R. (1993). Reading dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 263-287.

Na, L., & Nation, P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC Journal, 16(1), 15-28.

Nist, S.L., & Olejnik, S. (1995). The role of context and dictionary definitions on varying levels of words knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(2), 172-193.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. UK: Prentice Hall.

Pressly, M., Levin, J.R., & Delaney, H.D. (1982). The mnemonic keyword method. Review of Educatinal Research, 52, 61-91.

Pressley, M., Levin, J.R., Hall, J.W., Millers, G.E., & Berry, J.K. (1980). The keyword method and foreign word acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 163-173.

Ridley, J., & Singleton, D. L. (1995). Strategic L2 lexical innovation: Case study of a university level learner of German. Second Language Research, 11(2), 137-148.

Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (111-125). London: Longman.

Abdoimehdi Riazi, Shiraz University 

Abdolreza Alvari, Shiraz University

Riazi, Ph.D., is associate professor of curriculum and second language education, and Alvari holds an MA in TEFL and teaches English courses.