271288

()

A Survey Study of Taiwan EFL Freshmens

Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Yi-Fen Liao*

Abstract
In this study, university freshmen in one university located in central Taiwan were
surveyed on their use of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) adopting a revised
version (Alpha= .91) of Schmitts (1997) vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire.
Totally, 625 freshmen were surveyed. Four research questions are: (1) What are the
most frequently used VLS by freshmen? (2) What are the least frequently used VLS
by freshmen? (3) What are the differences between males and females in their use of
VLS? (4) Are there any differences in their use of VLS between English-majors and
non-English majors? The results have shown that metacognitive and social
strategies are two least used strategy categories used by the subjects. Female
freshmen used more vocabulary learning strategies than male ones. Also,
English-majored students use VLS more frequently than non-English majoring ones.
Pedagogical implications for English teachers, textbook designers, and learners are
provided.

Keywords: vocabulary learning strategy.

* Yi-Fen Liao: National Changhua University of Education, Graduate

Institute of English

272

93 2 1 93 5 31

Schmitts (1997)
Alpha .91
(1) (2)
(3) (4)

273

INTRODUCTION
With facilitative vocabulary learning strategies (VLS), learners can broaden their
vocabulary in an efficient way (, 2001). There is a need to explore current
vocabulary learning situations in Taiwan not only because vocabulary is an important
component in English learning (, 2002) or acquisition of vocabulary is a more
important role as we enter the 21st century (Soekmen, 1997, p.237), but because there
is a need to know current situations of students use of vocabulary learning strategies
in Taiwan. With a better understanding of the current situations of students use of
vocabulary learning strategies, we can then find ways to help students to become
more autonomous learners with, for example, vocabulary language learning strategy
training.
Current studies tend to focus on individual or small numbers of strategies (Fan,
2003); there are very few studies looking at the group as a whole (Schmitt, 1997,
p.199). Thus, in this study, the researcher intends to investigate university freshmen
students vocabulary learning strategies in Taiwan and to see if there exist differences
in English-majoring and non-English-majoring university freshmens use of
vocabulary learning strategies.
Though some large-scale studies investigating vocabulary learning strategies
have focused on Asian students (Fan, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997);
culture influences students selection of vocabulary learning strategies. In this study,
another group of Asian students, university EFL learners in Taiwan, were surveyed on
their use of vocabulary learning strategies adopting Schmitts (1997) vocabulary
learning strategy questionnaire.

LITERATURE REVIEW
The importance of investigating various learning strategies starts in the 1970s
when second-language researchers examine the good language learners who are in
command of a rich and sufficiently personalized repertoire of such strategies (Cohen,
2001, p6). With more clearly taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies introduced

274

(Gu & Johnson, 1994, 1996, 2003; Schmitt, 1997), more studies related to vocabulary
learning strategies have been done.

Related Studies of VLS

Vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) are studied qualitatively and quantitatively
by researchers. Gender (Cataln, 2003), proficiency levels (Fan, 2003; Gu, 1994,
2003), and outcomes in learning English (Gu & Johnson, 1996) are indicated to be
correlated with the use of vocabulary learning strategies.
In China, there are studies investigating non-English-majoring students
vocabulary learning strategy use (, 2001; , 2003; , 2002;
, 2002; , 2001) as well as those investigating English-majoring students
vocabulary learning strategy use (, 2001). These studies are all survey
studies. Though some researchers claim that the aim of their studies is to investigate
university students vocabulary learning strategies, their sampling seem not to be
representative enough since their subjects are either limited in one grade (, 2001;
, 2003; , 2002; , 2001) or in one or two department(s) (, 2001;
, 2001). Besides, the subjects involved in these studies are not many.
The only exception is Fans (2003) study conducted in Hong Kong. It does not
distinguish students majors; it aims to investigate the frequency of use, perceived
usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary learning strategies of
1067 learners. The sampling of this study is representative and the questionnaire
designed has consulted with previous studies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997).
Though studies in China tend to distinguish English-majoring students from
non-majoring students, the actual distinctions between these two groups of students in
their vocabulary learning strategies are not pinpointed. There seems to be a
necessity to view university students as a whole first and then to distinguish if there
really exist differences in their use of vocabulary learning strategies.
Recently, two studies (, 2002; Wu, 2002) focus on vocabulary learning
strategies as a whole are published in Taiwan. Chen (2002) adopts Schmitts survey
to investigate 90 first-year TVES English-majoring students vocabulary learning and

275

remedial learning strategies. The results show that the vocabulary learning strategies
used by the subjects are limited since most of them are low-level speakers of English
and just graduate with business majors from vocational high schools (, 2002,
p.85). Chen tentatively concluded by the researcher that Chinese students mainly
have difficulties in learning vocabulary at all aspects (, 2002, p.88). Wu
(2002) surveyed 476 first-year nursing department students in Junior College Division
at Fooyin University. The results show that students vocabulary learning
approaches werent predictive of their language proficiency (Wu, 2002). Wu
indicated that the generalization of the results to other population with different
educational background or levels may be limited.

MOTIVATIONS OF THE STUDY

Previous studies have indicated that there exist differences in skilled and
less-skilled language learners use of vocabulary learning strategies. However, how
English-majoring and non-English-majoring students differ in their selection of
vocabulary learning strategies is not much investigated nowadays. Though it can be
predicted that there are differences, it needs to be further investigated. Besides,
current studies tend to focus on individual or small numbers of strategies (Fan, 2003);
there are very few studies looking at the group as a whole (Schmitt, 1997, p.199).
The aim of this study, thus, is to investigate university freshmen students
vocabulary learning strategies via questionnaire and to compare English-majoring and
non-English-majoring university freshmens vocabulary learning strategies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS OF THE STUDY

1. What are the most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies by freshmen?
2. What are the least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies by freshmen?
3. What are the differences between males and females in their use of vocabulary
learning strategies?
4. Are there any differences in their use of vocabulary learning strategies between
English-majors and non-English majors? If yes, what are they?

276

METHOD
Subjects
The researcher distributed the questionnaires to 15 of 26 freshmen classes in one
university located in central Taiwan. There are totally six colleges in this university.
At least 2 classes of each college are surveyed. Six hundred and forty-eight
questionnaires are collected; among them 625 are valid copies (Males: 315, Females:
314; English-majors: 54; non-English-majors: 571).
Freshmen are the target population of this study because, unlike students of other
grades, they are all required to take the course Freshmen English. Their learning
experiences seem to be more equal.

Instrument
At first, two questionnaires are considered to use in this study. One is designed
by Schmitt in 1997; the other is Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire designed by Gu
and Johnson (1996).
However, the Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ Version 3) which aims
to elicit students beliefs about vocabulary learning and their self-reported vocabulary
strategies has 108 items included (Gu & Johnson, 1996, pp.673-679); it will cost the
subjects too much time and energy to answer too many items in a questionnaire
seem not to be appropriate (, 2003). Moreover, it is indicated (, 2003)
that memory strategies enjoy too much percentage in this questionnaire while
activation strategies are very much neglected (, 2003). The 7-point scale
seems to be trivial as well.
As a result, Schmitts taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies is adopted in
this study. The questionnaire is translated and revised into Chinese (See Appendix).
There are totally 50 items involved. Five-Likert scale is used (1= scarcely used; 5=
always used). The internal consistency of the translated version of the questionnaire
is tested (Alpha= .91).
Five groups of vocabulary learning strategies involved: social (involving

277

interaction with others), memory (relating new material to existing knowledge),

cognitive (manipulation of the language by the learner), metacognitive (involving
decision-making about the learning process), and determination (deducing the
meaning of a new word by ones self). Strategies used to discover meaning and
those to consolidate understanding are also distinguished.

RESULTS
Answers to Research Questions
Research questions 1&2: What are the most/least frequently used vocabulary
learning strategies by freshmen?
Among the five strategy categories, students use determination strategies most
frequently (Mean= 3.20). Table 1 lists ten most frequently used strategies. No
metacognitive strategies are found in the most frequently used strategy list. The
least frequently used strategies are shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Ten of the Most Frequently Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Rank
1

Description

I look for the words meaning in an

electronic dictionary
I write the word several times

I study the sound of the word carefully

I look for the words meaning in a bilingual

(English-Chinese) dictionary
I use verbal repetition of the word

5
6
7
8

I try to guess the words meaning from the

text/context in which the word appears
I study the spelling of the word carefully

I revise the vocabulary section in my

textbook
9 I learn the words of an idiom together as if
they were just one word
10 I ask classmates for the meaning of the word

Category

Mean

S.D.

Determination

4.21

.98

Cognitive

3.98

1.00

Memory

3.91

.98

Determination

3.84

1.07

Cognitive

3.84

1.00

Determination

3.78

.93

Memory

3.74

1.01

Cognitive

3.71

.95

Memory

3.50

1.06

Social

3.39

.97

278

Table 2
Ten of the Most Least Used Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Rank

Description

Category

Mean

S.D.

I underline the initial letter of the word

Memory

1.60

.75

I image the word form

Memory

1.76

.86

I put English labels on physical objects

Cognitive

1.81

.83

I try to use the new word in interactions with

native speakers
I use semantic maps (word trees)

Social

1.82

.96

Memory

1.99

.96

Determination

2.01

.99

Social

2.08

.95

Cognitive

2.18

.91

5
6

I look for the words meaning in a

monolingual (English-English) dictionary
I ask the teacher for a sentence including the
new word
I listen to tapes of word lists

I group words together within a storyline

Memory

2.32

1.00

10

I skip or pass the new word (I ignore it)

Metacognitive

2.35

.93

Research Question 3: What are the differences between males and females in
their use of vocabulary learning strategies?
Independent-samples T-test has shown that there are significant differences (t
<.001) between female and male subjects in their use of strategy categories (See
Table 3). Actually, significant differences between female and male subjects are
found in their use of 47 individual strategies out of the 50 strategy statements.

Table 3
Gender Differences: Independent-Samples T-test on the Means of Strategy Categories
Strategy Category
Determination
Social
Memory
Cognitive
Metacognitive

Mean
Male (n= 315)

Female (n= 314)

3.10
2.48
2.77
2.88
2.65

3.30
2.70
2.98
3.19
2.77

t
-5.46***
-5.04*
-4.94*
-6.85**
-2.86**

279

Research question 4: Are there any differences in their use of vocabulary

learning strategies between English-majors and non-English majors? If yes, what
are they?
English-majoring students are higher in the means of every vocabulary learning
strategies except in item 8 (I learn the word through English-Chinese word lists), 10 (I
ask the teacher for an L1 translation), 41 (I use flash cards with the representation of
the word to consolidate meaning), and 49 (I skip or pass the new word [I ignore it]).
Actually, significant differences are found in all five strategy categories (See
Table 4). When it comes to individual strategy use, seventeen out of the fifty items
show significant differences (See Table 5).

Table 4
English-majoring and Non-English-Majoring: Independent-Samples T-test on the
Means of Strategy Categories
Mean
Strategy Category

English

Non-English

(n= 54)

(n= 571)

Determination

3.52

3.17

5.23***

Social

2.77

2.57

2.39*

Memory

3.04

2.86

2.38*

Cognitive

3.25

3.01

2.94**

Metacognitive

2.88

2.69

2.41**

280

Table 5
English-majoring and Non-English-Majoring: Individual Strategy Items that Show
Significant Differences
Item

Description

num.
1

I analyze the part of speech

I analyze the word affixes and

roots

I try to guess the words meaning

from the text/context

Strategy Category

Mean
English Non-English

Determination

3.77

3.21

4.31***

Determination

3.47

2.93

3.98**

Determination

4.25

3.75

4.70***

Determination

2.72

2.37

2.41*

Social

3.44

3.13

2.19**

Social

2.79

2.40

3.26***

Social

2.29

1.76

4.43***

Memory

4.40

3.95

3.34**

Memory

3.87

3.29

3.56***

Memory

3.77

3.23

3.70***

I deduce the meaning of the word

from flashcards and posters
shown by the teacher

14 I discover the new meaning

through group work
15 I study and practice meaning in
pairs/groups
16 I try to use the new word in
interactions with native speakers
29 I study the sound of the word
carefully
30 I say the new word aloud when
studying
34 I try to relate the word to its part
of speech (noun, verb, adjective,
etc.)

(table continues).

281

Table 5 (continued).
English-majoring and Non-English-Majoring: Individual Strategy Items that Show
Significant Differences
Item
num.

Description

Strategy Category

36 I learn the words of an idiom

together as if they were just one
word
38 I use verbal repetition of the
word
43 I revise the vocabulary section
in my textbook
44 I listen to tapes of word lists
45 I put English labels on physical
objects
46 I keep a vocabulary notebook
47 I use English-language media
(songs, movies, newscasts, etc.)

Mean

English Non-English

Memory

3.83

3.49

2.37*

Cognitive

4.33

3.86

4.69**

Cognitive

4.05

3.74

2.87*

Cognitive

2.74

2.15

4.51***

Cognitive

2.07

1.78

2.46*

Cognitive

2.85

2.54

2.05*

Metacognitive

3.38

2.78

4.31***

Note:
*p<.05
** p<.01
***p<.001

DISCUSSIONS
In this study, metacognitive and social strategies are two least used strategy
categories used by the subjects. Both the means of metacognitive and social
strategies of English-majoring and non-English majoring students are lower than 3.
This phenomenon may be due to that English vocabulary learning tends to be viewed
as an individual learning process; thus, when encountering unfamiliar words, students
tend not to seek others help. The findings that metacognitive strategies are least
used by subjects echoes the results of previous survey studies (, 2003;
, 2002; , 2002). Since metacognitive strategies are indicated to be
positive predictors of general proficiency (Gu & Johnson, 1996, p.668), the reason

282

why metacognitive strategies are less used by freshmen may be that their general
English proficiency is limited.
Previous studies have indicated that cognitive strategies are the most frequently
used strategies (, 2003). The use of the category of determination strategies is
the first among the five categories. This difference may result from the differences
of questionnaire adopted.
As for gender differences, we also found that the females' total strategy usage
percentages are higher than [that of] the males' (Cataln, 2003). However, males
do not show greater use of image vocabulary learning strategies in the current study,
which is not like what Catalns (2003) findings. The differences between males
and females in their use of vocabulary learning strategies may suggest that there are
different perceptions of vocabulary learning behaviors or different patterns of
vocabulary strategy usage for males and females (Cataln, 2003).
The findings that English-majors use vocabulary learning strategies more
frequently may suggest that English-majors are more successful learners who tend
to employ[ed] a wide range of vocabulary learning strategies (Gu, 2003, p.73;
, 2002; , 2002), guess more often the word meaning from the
context (, 2001), and use more often metacognitive strategies (, 2003).
When it comes to individual strategy use, Gu and Johnsons (1996) study found
that subjects use dictionary strategies, oral repetition and vocabulary lists frequently.
In this study, we also found that students used both electronic dictionary and
English-Chinese dictionary frequently. However, when it comes to English-English
dictionary, the mean is very low (Mean= 2.01). This may be due to the fact that
students use electronic dictionaries very frequently in Taiwan. When facing
unfamiliar English terms, students tend to find Chinese equivalents. The low mean
of Item 31 I image the word form (Mean= 1.76; SD= .86) in the current study
echoes Gu and Johnsons (1996) findings that students do not use this strategy often.
It may be that the subjects of this study are not visual learning style students.

283

Pedagogical Implications
The current study helps researchers and teachers in Taiwan understand more of
college freshmens vocabulary learning strategy use. Below the researcher provides
three pedagogical implications.
Firstly, the suggestion is for English teachers. English teachers should play an
important role to help the learners to explore effective vocabulary learning strategies
and methods (, 2003; , 2001) so as to develop autonomous learners in
vocabulary learning (, 2001). In this study, we have found that some strategies
are scarcely used by students, such as semantic mapping. Actually, there seems not
many students are familiar with this strategy. It is such a pity since semantic
mapping has been indicated to be an efficient strategy to teach target words by
helping students expand an already existing conceptual network than by pairing
words with a dictionary definition or reading words in a meaningful context (Morin
& Goebel, 2001).
Students metacognitive strategies need to be trained, especially when some
studies have shown that the use of metacognitive strategies is very much helpful to
vocabulary learning (, 2003). Gu and Johnsons (1996) study also testified
metacognitive strategies are positive predictors of general proficiency (Gu &
Johnson, 1996, p.668).
Secondly, the suggestion is for textbook designers. Nowadays, researchers
have attempted to use a variety of techniques to broaden learners vocabulary strategy
use, for example, vocabulary notebooks acted as a tool to empower the learners to
become more independent in their learning (Fowle, 2002). After identifying
students current vocabulary learning strategies, the text designers should be aware
that students lack certain vocabulary learning strategies. More suitable vocabulary
learning strategy instruction can be designed by providing training of effective
vocabulary learning strategies.
Thirdly, the suggestion is for learners. Vocabulary learning is just a
preliminary step in language learning; the ultimate aim of vocabulary learning is to

284

apply the vocabulary efficiently in authentic contexts (, 2002; , 2003).

The findings of this study have found that students do not often practice their newly
learned vocabulary in authentic contexts. The category of social strategies is the
least used one in five categories of vocabulary learning strategies. Actually, after
students learned to apply vocabulary learning strategies efficiently to broaden their
vocabulary, they should try to expand the breath and depth of their vocabulary.
Reading intensively and extensively can help them to achieve this goal.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study investigates vocabulary learning strategies as a whole. Gender and
majors are two variables investigated in this study. Future research can investigate
other variables. As Gu (2003) indicated, learners cultural background, traditional
schooling, the prevailing methods for teaching and learning English, the demands of
the vocabulary-learning task, and individual learning style all can effect students use
of vocabulary learning strategies. Since previous studies in Taiwan investigating the
effect of vocabulary learning strategy instruction mainly focus on junior or senior
high school students (, 2001; , 2002; , 2001), the effects of
vocabulary learning strategy instruction on college students achievement
performance can also be investigated.

285

Appendix

A: ()
B: ?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
C:
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

()

(semantic maps/word trees)

(good, better, best)
()

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

286

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

()

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

287

REFERENCES
(2003)
(2001)()
18(2)46-48
(2001) [Effects of Vocabulary
Learning Strategy Instruction on Senior High Students with Different English
Achievement]
(2003)

2003 (1)15-17
(2002) [A Study of the
Effects of Vocabulary Learning Strategy Instruction on Junior High School
Students in Taiwan]
(2003)
16(1)103-106
(2001) [A study on teacher vocabulary
explanation in vocabulary high school EFL classrooms]

(2003)
19(1)156-160
Wu, L. F. (2002)Vocabulary learning strategies among junior college students

(2002)

2002 ( 1 )107-113
(2002)
3(3)44-47
(2002)
()24(4)53-57
(2001)22(6)
46-50
(2002) 17

288

(2001)21(2)44-47
(2002)2002 (2)
88-91
(2003)The study of students and their teachers beliefs about
English learning65-76
(2003) ()
2(3)100-101
Cataln, R. M. J. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 54-57.
Cohen, A. D. (2001). Preparing teachers for styles- and strategies-based
instruction. Paper presented at the international conference on language teacher
education (2nd, Minneapolis, MN, May 17-19, 2001). ED: 455 685.
Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of
second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The
Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222-241.
Fowle, C. (2002). Vocabulary notebooks: Implementation and outcomes. ELT
Journal, 56(4), 380-388.
Gu, Y. (1994). Vocabulary learning strategies of good and poor Chinese EFL
learners. ED: 370 411.
Gu, Y. & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language
learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.
Gu, Y. (2003). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary-learning art of two
successful Chinese EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.199-227).
Cambridge: Cambridge.
Soekmen, A. J. (1997).
vocabulary.

Current trends in teaching second language

In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:

Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.237-257).

Cambridge.

Cambridge: