Abstract
Vocabulary learning strategies are the strategies learners
utilize to acquire new words, and vocabulary size refers to the number of word
families one knows. The current study was designed to examine the probable
relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategies and
their vocabulary size. To this end, at first 80 advanced language learners were
asked to answer a questionnaire identifying their vocabulary learning
strategies. It consisted of 25 items on different vocabulary learning
strategies including, social, cognitive, metacognitive, and memory strategies.
The same learners were then presented with vocabulary size test which revealed
their vocabulary size scores. Correlation and regression analysis on the
obtained data revealed that there is a positive correlation between learners’
vocabulary learning strategies and their vocabulary size. Moreover, regression
analysis revealed that vocabulary learning strategies are a good predictor of
vocabulary size since 42 percent of learners’ vocabulary learning strategies
could potentially predict learners’ vocabulary size. Moreover, identifying the
most common vocabulary learning strategies adopted by Iranian EFL learners
provides both learners and teachers with a better view on vocabulary
acquisition.
Keywords: vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary size,
vocabulary acquisition
Introduction
All language skills depend on vocabulary knowledge in one
way or another; little may be conveyed without knowledge of grammar, but almost
nothing can be conveyed without vocabulary knowledge (Wilkins, 1972). However,
it is not easy to gain knowledge of sufficient number of words. Nation (2006),
for example, asserts that if the learner wishes to read newspapers or novels,
s/he must know 8000 to 9000 word families. Moreover, knowing a word is not just
being familiar with a word’s form and definition (Granowsky, 2002). There are
several other aspects of the vocabulary including word form, word structure,
syntactic pattern, meaning, and relationship with other words that need to be
learnt (Laufer, 1997).
On the other hand, if foreign language learners are equipped
with the strategies such as vocabulary learning strategies, they can be much
more successful language learners because vocabulary learning strategies make
learners autonomous and enable them to take the responsibility for their
own
learning (Oxford, 1990). Obviously, learning and using these strategies will
lead to improved vocabulary knowledge (Benson, 2001). Furthermore, as endorsed
by Laufer (1995), one of the major determinants of the vocabulary used in
language production is the vocabulary size of the speaker/writer, particularly
if the speaker/writer is a second language learner with a relatively small
vocabulary compared with the native speakers of the second language.
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship
between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EL
learners. In this line, the following two research hypotheses were devised:
H01: There is not any significant relationship between
vocabulary size and vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners.
H02: Vocabulary size cannot predict vocabulary learning
strategies of Iranian EFL learners.
Method
Participants: Totally, 80 advanced Iranian EFL learners out
of a total number of two hundred female EFL learners from Pardisan language
Institute of Tabriz, were randomly selected. The age range was between 16 and
35.
Instruments: The first instrument in this survey based
correlational study was a 25-item (5-item Likert scale) questionnaire based on
Schmitt’s (1997) Taxonomy. Learners’ scores indicate their prominent vocabulary
learning strategies including “discovery, consolidation, determination, memory,
strategies”. They also included “social, cognitive and metacognitive”
strategies..
Moreover, Laufer and Nation’s vocabulary size test at 5000
frequency level (previously validated in several ways) was utilized as an instrument
to estimate the vocabulary size of non-English speaking learners (Read, 2000).
In this test, the initial letters are given as a clue and the participants are
required to complete the sentences with the appropriate words in 30 minutes.
The scores that learners obtain in the test reveal their vocabulary size.
Procedure: On the very first session of October educational
term in 2016, the participants were asked to complete vocabulary learning
strategies questionnaire, and at the end of the term, they were asked to take
Laufer and Nation’s vocabulary size test. The time gap was due to
administrative issues at the institute. The obtained scores were analyzed using
SPSS to yield descriptive and inferential statistics. In addition, to test the
first and second null hypotheses, correlation and regression analyses were
conducted, respectively.
Data Analysis and Results
Reliability Analysis of the Instruments: To ensure the
reliability of the questionnaire, it was piloted among 20 advanced Iranian EFL
learners. Cronbach’s alpha value of all
strategy categories of the questionnaire falls above the acceptable range of
.6.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies: In order to identify the
vocabulary learning strategies of the participants, they were asked to complete
the 25-item taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies by Schmitt (1999).
The descriptive analysis,
after administering the questionnaire, are presented in Table 1.
The mean for Determination Strategies, Social Strategies,
Memory Strategies, Cognitive Strategies and Metacognitive Strategies, the
reliability coefficient is respectively 7.53, 17.52, 8.65, 15.86 and 14.18.
Vocabulary Size: Nation’s (2012) Vocabulary Size Test (a
word frequency count test of 500 word families) was administered. This section
of the vocabulary size test contained 18 items. Participants were scored based
on their answers to these items. Table 2 reports the results of the analysis.
Table 2 shows that none of the participants were able to
answer all of the questions correctly.
Testing the first Main Null Hypotheses:
The first Null hy: There is a significant relationship
between Determination Strategies and vocabulary size in Iranian EFL learners.
As Table 3 shows, the Pearson coefficient is .22 indicating
a positive correlation between determination strategies and vocabulary size.
the Pearson correlation coefficient in Table 3 at p=.046<.05 indicates a
significant relationship.
Sub-Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship
between Social Strategies and vocabulary size in Iranian EFL learners.
As Table 4 shows, the Pearson coefficient is .28. indicating
a positive correlation between social strategies and vocabulary size. The
information in Table 4 shows that at p=.010<.05, there is a significant
relationship.
Sub-Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship
between Memory Strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners.
Table 5 shows that the Pearson coefficient is .56,
indicating a positive correlation between memory strategies and vocabulary
size. Table 5 shows that at p=.001<.05, there is a significant relationship.
Sub-Hypothesis 4: There is a significant relationship
between Cognitive Strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners.
Table 6 shows that, the Pearson coefficient is .55
indicating a positive correlation between cognitive strategies and vocabulary
size. Table 6 shows that at p=.001<.05, there is a significant relationship.
Sub-Hypothesis 5: There is a significant relationship
between Metacognitive Strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners.
Table 7 shows that the Pearson coefficient is .49,
indicating a positive correlation between metacognitive strategies and vocabulary
size. Table 7 shows that at p=.001<.05, there is a significant relationship
between the two variables. Generally, the analyses of the sub hypotheses
revealed that a positive correlation was observed between different learning
strategies and vocabulary size indicating an overall positive relationship.
Testing the Second Main Null Hypothesis:
The second research question inquired whether vocabulary
learning strategy could be predictor of a learners’ vocabulary size. In order
to answer that question linear regression analysis was performed in the data.
The resulting numbers are presented in Table 8 and Table 9.
In Table 9, F = 12.70 and P<.001 indicate a significant
regression between VLS and VS. This means that Metacognitive Strategies, Social
Strategies, Determination Strategies, Cognitive Strategies, Memory Strategies
can meaningfully predict vocabulary size. Also, based on Table 8, R Square =
.42 shows that vocabulary size explains 42% of the variability of vocabulary
learning strategies. Regression coefficient results are presented in Table 10.
As seen in Table 10, in vocabulary size regression based on
different learning strategies, Beta and t, and three predicting variables (i.e.
metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and memory strategies)
significantly predict vocabulary size, with the highest coefficient (β=.31) for
cognitive strategies. After that (β=.25) for memory strategies and (β=.21) for
metacognitive strategies.
Conclusion
The findings of the present study indicated that among the
five vocabulary learning strategies based on Schmitt’s taxonomy, cognitive,
metacognitive, and social strategies were reported as the most frequently-used
strategies, followed by determination strategies and memory strategies.
Moreover, confirming the first main null hypothesis (and its five sub
hypotheses) indicated a positive relationship between learners’ use of
determination, social, memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies and their
vocabulary size. The results revealed that the learners who had a tendency to
employ cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies possessed a higher
vocabulary knowledge. It was observed that there was a significant correlation
between the learners’ vocabulary size and their vocabulary learning strategies.
This finding aligns with the findings of a study done by Kafipour (2006) who
highlighted that learning in an EFL environment was a significant reason why
social strategies were not employed as much as the other strategies, that is,
in an EFL environment there is no need to negotiate the meaning of the word in
communication situations. He further explained that what seems to be essential
is the active engagement of participants in different learning contexts, such
as classroom activities. The current study and its findings are not in-line
with the above mentioned studies. The current study assessed EFL learners
taking courses in language institutions where methods are more up to date and
stray from traditional memorization strategies and lean towards cognitive and
metacognitive learning strategies. Since the current study was conducted in an
institutional environment and not in an academic environment, learners
exhibited different social behaviors. Based the observations of the researcher
and also analyses of the questionnaire, in an institutional language learning
environment, due to the communicative nature of the language pedagogy, leaners
tended ask for help from the people around them, including the teacher and the
other learners. Group activities are very common. Teachers’ assistance is
always present. These conditions instinctively promote social strategies among
learners. According to Amirian and
Heshmatifar (2013), a different reason for leaners’ abandonment of social
strategies could be the teacher-oriented educational system in Iran. Teachers
are in front of the classroom and provide all knowledge students need. Teachers
provide the information through lecturing and the students should just listen
and take note. Such teaching procedure did not have any place for group work or
discussion in classroom. Moreover, regarding the relationship between
vocabulary size and vocabulary learning strategies, similar to regression, data
analysis showed a positive and meaningful correlation. This indicates that as
learners tend to use cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies their
vocabulary size would grow larger than the time they used any other vocabulary
learning strategy. This finding seems to comply with Ansarin, Zohrabi, and
Zeynali (2013) who came to the same conclusion.
References
Amirian, S. M. R., &Heshmatifar, Z. (2013). A survey on
vocabulary learning strategies: A case of Iranian EFL university students.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 636-641.
Ansarin, A. A., Zohrabi, M., &Zeynali, S. (2012).
Language learning strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(9), 1841.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching: Autonomy in
language learning. London: Longman.
Cohen, A. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner
strategies: Surveying the experts. In A. Cohen, & E. Macro (Eds.), Language
learning strategies: 30 years of research and practice (pp. 29-45). Oxford:
Oxford University press.
Granowsky, A. (2002). Vocabulary Works: Research Paper.
Abstract retrieved February 15, 2016,
fromhttp://www.pearsonlearning.com/communities/assets/research_center/Researc
hPaper_ Vocab Works.pdf
Kafipour, R. (2006). The application of language strategies
by Turkish-, Kurdish-, and Persian-speaking EFL students (Unpublished master’s
thesis). Islamic Azand University: Iran.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language
reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know, and words you can’t
guess. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, 12, 30-34.
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and
use: Lexical richness in L2 written production.
Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
307-322.
Nation, I.S.P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for
reading and listening? The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63(1), 59-82.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies. What Every
Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle: Heinle Publishers.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy (pp.199-228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, D.A. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching.
London: Edward Arnold. Yoshii, Makoto (2006). “L1 and L2 Glosses: Their Effects
on Incidental Vocabulary Learning”, Language Learning & Technology, 10(3),
85-101.