Vocabulary

Feature Article

Vocabulary Learning Strategiesof Japanese Life Science

Students

ANDREA LITTLEWaseda University

KAORU KOBAYASHITokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences

This study investigates vocabulary learning strategy (VLS)preferences of lower and higher proficiency Japanese universityscience students studying English as a foreign language. Thestudy was conducted over a 9-week period as the participantsreceived supplemental explicit VLS instruction on six strategies.The 38 participants (14 males and 24 females) were all first- andsecond-year students majoring in life sciences. The explicitvocabulary instruction focused on three cognitive, or shallower,strategies (vocalization, writing rehearsal, and word cards) andthree memory strategies involving deeper processing (imagerystrategies, association, and mnemonics). The aim of the studywas to see which VLSs the learners were familiar with; theirperceptions of VLSs for learning general academic vocabularyand for learning science words; and finally, after instruction,which strategy the learners preferred. Statistical analyses andqualitative data (student comments on each of the six strategies)were used to answer the questions. The results shed some lighton the VLS preferences of life science students for studying bothtypes of words. It also confirms the value of explicit VLSinstruction for both lower and higher proficiency students andincreased the researchers understanding of the students vocab-ulary learning behavior.doi: 10.1002/tesj.141

Oxford (1990) defines learning strategies as steps takenby students to enhance their own learning (p. 1). Among otherthings, effective use of strategies helps students become

TESOL Journal 6.1, March 2015 81 2014 TESOL International Association

self-directed, active learners and raises their confidence andproficiency. More proficient, more motivated learners use awider range of strategies more frequently than less proficient,less motivated learners (Oxford, 1990). In addition, intensivestrategy-based instruction has been found to enhance learnersdevelopment of self-regulation skills, one aspect of learnerautonomy (Nguyen & Gu, 2013). Not only do vocabulary learningstrategies (VLSs), a subset of learning strategies, help learnersacquire new vocabulary, but research has shown that frequent,effective vocabulary strategy use is associated with higherachievement levels across all language skills (Kojic-Sabo &Lightbown, 1999; Takeuchi, 2003). It is therefore not surprisingthat more proficient learners use more VLSs than less proficientlearners (Schmitt, 1997). Given the complex nature of vocabularyacquisition and the benefit of learning strategies, it seemsworthwhile to provide explicit instruction on vocabulary learningstrategies and also to explore which VLSs specific groups ofstudents find the most salient for their purposes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Classifying Vocabulary Learning StrategiesVarious taxonomies of learning strategies have been developedalong with instruments, or scales, for measuring them. Oxford(1990) broadly classifies general language learning strategies intodirect strategies and indirect strategies. The first category includesmemory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensationstrategies. Indirect strategies are social strategies, affectivestrategies, and metacognitive strategies. Her strategy system wasthen used to develop the 121-item Strategy Inventory of LanguageLearning to assess how foreign language learners learn languages(Oxford, 1990). Oxfords taxonomy, though generally appropriate,was inadequate for classifying vocabulary-specific strategies inseveral respects: It had no category for discovering a new wordsmeaning, some strategies fit in multiple groups, and it was unclearwhich group other strategies belonged in (Schmitt, 1997). Incompiling his VLS taxonomy, Schmitt (1997) sought to rectify theseproblems.

82 TESOL Journal

Using various sources, including a survey of Japaneseintermediate-level EFL learners, Schmitt (1997) identified andclassified 58 vocabulary learning strategies which he organizedinto six groups in two major classes: strategies for discovering a newwords meaning (determination strategies and social strategies) andstrategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered (socialstrategies, memory strategies, cognitive strategies, andmetacognitive strategies). Determination strategies are those usedfor discovering a new words meaning without relying on otherpeople (Schmitt, 2000). Analyzing the part of speech and wordparts, guessing from context, and using a dictionary exemplifythese strategies (Schmitt, 2000). Social strategies involve askingteachers or classmates for the meaning or translation (Schmitt,1997). For consolidating, or remembering, a word after it isintroduced, learners can also rely on social strategies. Studyingand practicing the meaning in a group or interacting with nativespeakers are examples of these (Schmitt, 1997, 2000). Memorystrategies, or mnemonics, involve connecting the word withprevious knowledge, for example, through association, imagery, orgrouping (Schmitt, 2000). These strategies involve deeper, moreelaborative processing facilitating long-term retention (Schmitt,2000). Cognitive strategies are similar to memory strategies butinvolve shallower processing (Schmitt, 1997). These strategiesinclude verbal and written repetition, labeling, word lists, takingnotes in class, and keeping a vocabulary notebook (Schmitt, 1997).Last, metacognitive strategies involve conscious decision makingabout the learning process (Schmitt, 2000)for example, decidingwhich words to study and which to skip, determining whichstrategies to use for studying and reviewing words, using input,and testing oneself.

Recently, Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009a) developed andvalidated a VLS scale for Japanese university-level learners ofEnglish as a foreign language (EFL). The scale measures sixsubscales of strategic vocabulary learning behaviors: self-management, input-seeking, imagery, writing rehearsal, oralrehearsal, and association. To identify which VLSs to include, theresearchers analyzed qualitative data from 122 Japaneseuniversity EFL students to see which VLSs learners actually used

Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Japanese Life Science Students 83

on an inventory gleaned from a literature review. The inventorywas then narrowed to 47 items. Social and affective strategieswere excluded, because the informants rarely used them. Inaddition, strategies that did not ensure learning leading toacquisition (e.g., guessing from context, note-taking, dictionaryuse) were also excluded. After piloting the instrument, rarelyused and overused strategies were eliminated. The finalquestionnaire had 25 items.

Studies Investigating VLS and Japanese LearnersResearchers note that, in teaching, VLS variables such as culture,age, gender, motivation, self-efficacy, learning purposes,proficiency level, and context of learning should be considered asthey affect learners strategy use (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009b;Schmitt, 2000). Regarding Japanese learners specifically, VLSresearch has explored strategy use in relation to several of thesevariables.

Horino and Ichikawa (1997), in a study using high school EFLlearners, found content-attached motives (i.e., enjoyment,cultivation, and practicality) correlated with VLSs involvingorganization, imaging, and repetition. Students with higher scoresfor content-attached motives had higher strategy orientation.Schmitt (1997) used his own taxonomy to create a surveyinstrument which he used with 600 Japanese learners across fourage groups (junior highadult) to examine which strategies theyused and how effective they felt them to be. He discovered the useand perception of individual strategies helpfulness changes aslearners mature: Secondary school learners prefer strategiesfocusing on word form (i.e., written repetition), whereas adultsincreasingly prefer strategies involving deeper processing (i.e.,imaging, association, analysis). Schmitt also found a gap betweenactual VLS use and their perceived usefulness. In a studyinvolving Japanese high school students in EFL and ESL learningenvironments, Nakamura (2002) investigated VLS and gender,proficiency level, and learning context. Although all threevariables affected VLS use, females used strategies more often thanmales, and the learning environment exerted the strongestinfluence on the types of VLSs used.

84 TESOL Journal

Other studies have focused on Japanese university students.Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2008) used their strategic vocabularylearning scale to investigate the correlation between VLS,motivation, study time, and proficiency, as measured by TOEICscores. The subjects were 300 EFL university students, both malesand females. The researchers found metacognitive strategies (i.e.,self-management and input-seeking) correlated most strongly withTOEIC scores, and intrinsic motivation contributed to VLS use.Learners with higher TOEIC scores consciously applied VLSs. In alater study involving 204 female EFL university students studyinghumanities, Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009b) examined theeffectiveness of explicit instruction for VLS. They discovered thatexplicit instruction improved vocabulary test scores, possibly ledto increased intrinsic motivation, and expanded the learnersrepertoire and use of strategies, especially for less frequenttomoderate strategy users. This finding demonstrates that lesseffective learners benefit the most from strategy training and helpsmake the case that explicit VLS instruction is worthwhile. Finally,a recent study by Mizumoto (2012) examined the effects of self-efficacy on VLS. Self-efficacy is belief in ones capabilities toorganize and execute the courses of action required to manageprospective situations (Bandura, 1995, p. 2, cited in Mizumoto,2012, p. 425). Mizumoto discovered that learners with high self-efficacy actively used VLSs, particularly deeper strategies, andlearners with medium self-efficacy tended to actively useshallower strategies. On the other hand, learners with low self-efficacy used VLSs passively.

Limitations of Previous StudiesThe studies described above examined VLS in relation to motives,or learning purposes, strategy use, and perceptions ofeffectiveness, age, proficiency level, learning context, motivation,study time, and self-efficacy. Only one provided explicit VLSinstruction, and that study involved only female participants. Afurther limitation of the previous studies was that none looked atstrategies that science students use.

Thus, the overall aim of this study is to investigate the VLSpreferences of Japanese life science majors for learning academic


vocabulary and to see which strategies they believe would behelpful in studying vocabulary for science. In addition, becausemany of the science students we teach dislike English and arelower proficiency EFL students lacking sufficient vocabulary toread scientific articles in English, we felt an intervention studyproviding explicit VLS instruction to science students would beworthwhile. Because the students may not use VLSs regularly orbe aware of the range of strategies available for use, providingexplicit instruction on six cognitive and memory strategies wouldenable them to compare shallower and deeper strategies, therebyhelping them determine which strategies could be of value forlearning science words. By asking them to write comments oneach strategy, we could gain a deeper understanding of theirpreferences.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1 Which VLSs are life science major students already familiar with?2 How did the students perceive the usefulness of each VLS for learning

general academic words and for learning science vocabulary? Would thestudents use the strategy again?

3 After experiencing all six VLSs, which strategy do the students prefer? Isthere any difference in the preference in accordance with the studentsEnglish proficiency?

METHOD

ParticipantsThe participants were first- and second-year students in theauthors classes. On the first day of class, the participants receiveda research proposal and consent form explaining the studysobjective and methodology. The consent form clearly statedparticipants had the right to refuse to take part and to withdrawfrom the study at any time without consequences; they were alsoassured that their identity and that of the university would beanonymous. All participants signed the consent form of their ownfree will. Initially, 99 students were involved in the study, but onlydata collected from 38 students (14 males and 24 females), thosewho responded to every question on all six VLSs, were used.

86 TESOL Journal

Vocabulary Learning StrategiesFor explicit strategy instruction and practice, six cognitive andmemory strategies were chosen. Following Mizumoto andTakeuchi (2009a), social and affective strategies were excludedbecause Japanese EFL students rarely use them. Strategies that didnot encourage learning leading to acquisition were also excluded.However, common strategies that Schmitt (1997) indicatedyounger, less proficient students frequently used were included tounderstand if learners felt these familiar strategies could beeffective for studying science words. The cognitive strategieschosen, involving shallower processing, were vocalization, writingrehearsal, and word cards, all strategies students may already befamiliar with. The memory strategies chosen, involving deeperprocessing, were imagery strategies, association, and mnemonics,and were thought to be unfamiliar to most students. Thesestrategies correspond to the VLS categories on the pre- andposttreatment VLS survey.

Target WordsThe target words (see Appendix A) were 68 science words on theAcademic Word List (Coxhead, 2000) that were necessary forstudents to know for reading scientific texts (Herr, 2007). Althoughthese words belong to the academic language of science, they arenot specific to science (Herr, 2007). These target words werepresented in weekly word lists with sample sentences that usedthe scientific sense for each word. The scientific senses were testedin the weekly vocabulary tests.

Data Collection and ProcedureThe study was conducted during the first 9 weeks of the autumnsemester as a supplementary vocabulary learning activity in anEnglish course that focused on lecture note-taking. The studyschedule and tasks are given in Appendix B. During these9 weeks, 2 weeks had no classes. In Week 1, the studentsreceived a handout that explained the first strategy and a listof target words with sample sentences. The students wereasked to apply the target strategy and learn the first set of thetarget vocabulary. The students were also asked to answer


a strategy-specific survey to rate their familiarity with thestrategy, its usefulness, and its possible future use for bothacademic words and science words. The survey had seven items,including two open-ended questions. Except for the open-endedquestions, student responses were measured by a 5-point Likertscale (1 = never or almost never true of me, 2 = not true of me,3 = undecided, 4 = true of me, 5 = always or almost always trueof me). The items are as follows:

1 I was already using this strategy before this practice.2 I think the strategy is useful.3 I think this strategy is useful for science words.4 I would like to try using this strategy again.5 I would like to try using this strategy with science words.6 Regarding your answer to Statement 4 above, please explain why or

why not.7 Regarding your answer to Statement 5 above, please explain why or

why not.

The survey was given online using SurveyMonkey, acommercial online survey tool. In Week 2, the students took a quizon the first set of the target vocabulary to see the strategyseffectiveness and received a handout on the second strategy alongwith the accompanying word list and sample sentences. Thisprocedure was repeated until the students took the quiz on thesixth set of target vocabulary.

The six strategy training handouts introduced and explainedthe target strategies. Each handout had three sections: Generaltips for learning vocabulary, which introduced the weeksmetacognitive strategy; Explanation of the strategy, whichexplained the target strategy; and Putting the strategy into practice,which gave the step-by-step procedure for the strategy (seeAppendix C). To provide students with a choice, each handoutusually offered two tasks involving the target strategy andstudents were required to choose one to practice. They were alsorequired to submit evidence of practicing the strategy thefollowing week.

In the beginning and immediately after training in the sixVLSs, a VLS and motivation questionnaire (Appendix D) was

88 TESOL Journal

administered. The questionnaire was given as an onlinehomework assignment. It combined Mizumoto and Takeuchis(2009b) VLS questionnaire and nine items developed to measureextrinsic and intrinsic motivation by Noels, Pelletier, Clement, andVallerand (2000). This questionnaire used the same Likert scaleused in the strategy-specific surveys.

Data AnalysisTo answer Research Question 1, the mean scores and standarddeviations of the students ratings on how true Item 1 was tothem were calculated and compared. Regarding the secondresearch question, first, the mean scores and standard deviationsof student responses to Items 2 to 5 were calculated. To furtheranalyze whether the students perceptions about the strategywere consistent with both types of vocabulary, and whether thestudents had the same perceptions on the usefulness and possiblefuture use of the strategy, the correlation coefficients of studentresponses to Items 2 and 3, Items 4 and 5, Items 2 and 4, andItems 3 and 5 were calculated. For the present study, because thedata set violated parametric assumptions and had many tiedranks, a nonparametric correlationKendalls tau, swascalculated (see Field, 2009). Statistical analyses were conductedusing SPSS. The qualitative data from student responses to Items6 and 7 were used as references to discuss the qualitative results.For the third research question, first, the survey items weregrouped into higher ranking categories of learning behaviors andtypes of motivation following Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009b):self-management, input-seeking, imagery, writing rehearsal, oralrehearsal, association, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsicmotivation. The mean scores of student responses to the pre- andposttreatment survey items were calculated and comparedaccording to the difference between the means. To see thestudents tendency on the perception of the strategies usefulnessin relation to their English proficiency, the students were dividedinto two groups according to their TOEIC scores. The border wasset at the average score, which was 463.68. Table 1 shows thestudents TOEIC scores.


RESULTS

Students Familiarity With the StrategiesThe first research question asked which strategies the studentswere already familiar with. Table 2 shows the mean scores andstandard deviation of the students ratings on each item of strategyspecific surveys on each VLS. The mean scores for Item 1 suggestthat the students were already familiar with vocalization, writingrehearsal, and word cards, with writing rehearsal rated thehighest. However, imagery strategies, association, and mnemonicswere less familiar, with mnemonics rated the lowest.

TABLE 1. List of Students and Their TOEIC Scores

Lower Proficiency Group Higher Proficiency Group

Student TOEIC Score Student TOEIC Score

1 L1 310 22 H1 4652 L2 315 23 H2 4653 L3 325 24 H3 4904 L4 330 25 H4 5055 L5 330 26 H5 5206 L6 355 27 H6 5207 L7 355 28 H7 5208 L8 360 29 H8 5309 L9 365 30 H9 53510 L10 370 31 H10 55511 L11 395 32 H11 59512 L12 395 33 H12 59513 L13 400 34 H13 60014 L14 400 35 H14 65015 L15 405 36 H15 66016 L16 410 37 H16 70017 L17 415 38 H17 73518 L18 42019 L19 42520 L20 44021 L21 460

Note. The number of the students in each group was different. There were 21 students in the lowerproficiency group, whereas there were only 17 students in the higher proficiency group.

90 TESOL Journal

Students Perceptions About the StrategyTo answer the second research question, the means and standarddeviations of student ratings on Items 2 to 5 in the strategy specificsurvey and the correlation coefficients among these items werestudied (Table 2). Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients ofItems 2 to 5. The findings from the results of each strategy aresummarized below.

Vocalization. The means of Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 were allabove 3 (Item 2, M = 3.55; Item 3, M = 3.45; Item 4, M = 3.74;Item 5, M = 3.61). These statistics demonstrate that the studentsregarded this strategy as useful for both academic words and

TABLE 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Strategy-Specific Surveyson Each Vocabulary Learning Strategy

Questionnaire Item S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

1. Used strategy before M 3.18 2.58 3.89 2.21 2.18 3.68(SD) (1.27) (1.37) (1.20) (1.56) (1.27) (1.23)

2. Strategy is useful M 3.55 3.32 3.95 2.82 2.55 3.87(SD) (0.95) (0.93) (1.04) (1.31) (0.95) (1.12)

3. Strategy is useful forscience words

M 3.45 3.34 3.55 2.82 2.71 3.79(SD) (0.98) (1.05) (0.95) (1.29) (1.01) (1.17)

4. Will use strategy M 3.74 3.16 4.03 2.53 2.45 3.63(SD) (0.92) (1.15) (1.10) (1.29) (1.16) (1.17)

5. Will use strategyfor science words

M 3.61 3.53 3.61 2.84 2.50 3.50(SD) (1.05) (0.98) (1.10) (1.29) (1.03) (1.13)

Note. S1 = vocalization, S2 = imagery strategies, S3 = writing rehearsal, S4 = association, S5 =mnemonics, S6 = word cards.

TABLE 3. Kendalls tau, s, Among the Items in Strategy-Specific Surveys

Questionnaire Item S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Items 2 and 3 (usefulness: academicwords and science words)

.49 .37 .49 .79 .38 .79

Items 4 and 5 (future use: academicwords and science words)

.65 .59 .49 .55 .74 .77

Items 2 and 4 (academic words: usefulnessand future use)

.49 .76 .76 .52 .71 .67

Items 3 and 5 (science words: usefulnessand future use)

.55 .48 .84 .58 .69 .64

Note. S1 = vocalization, S2 = imagery strategies, S3 = writing rehearsal, S4 = association, S5 =mnemonics, S6 = word cards. All the coefficients are p < .01.


science words, and they thought they would use the strategyagain to learn both typesof words.

As mentioned earlier, many students were already familiarwith this strategy as the following comments show.

I think that repeat word pairs aloud more and more time isgood way to pick up the words. And, until now I used the way.(Student L16)

I had done the method since junior high school student. So, I fit-ted the method. (Student H3)

Although the ratings generally were not low, studentscomments show some students did not like the strategy because ittook too much time.

Because I think it is important to understand vocabulary (mean-ing) on sentence, this strategy is nice study strategy. But it tookmuch time. (Student H6)

For me oral rehearsal is not good for me to rememberthe words and it is take a lot of time to read and toremember them with oral. When I see unknown words, Idont know how to say. So I open my dictionary and findit. (Student H15)

Some students wrote that they liked the strategy because byvocalizing the sentence containing the target word, they couldlearn its usage.

I thought it was important to understand meaning of vocab-ulary on sentence. Not only meaning but also using way ofvocabulary. So, this strategy was nice because I could studywords on sentence. About reading each sentence with aloud,I can input meaning and using way, but it was limited timeto study and space to study. (Student H6)

Why I read the sentence is because I can know how to usewords and I can know nuance of the words. And I dont likememorizing. And I like reading aloud. (Student H8)

Reading sample sentences was first time. When I found otherunknown word in the sample sentence, I could learn it besidestarget word. I learned grammar too. I want to try this strategyagain. (Student H12)

92 TESOL Journal

Regarding the strategys usefulness for learning sciencevocabulary, many students indicated they would try it andexplained why it might be useful.

Science vocabulary cant memorized easily. When I study sci-ence, Ill be necessary a lot of special words of science vocabu-lary. So I would like to try this strategy with science vocabulary.(Student L2)

Yes, I can input common words with this strategy, so I caninput science vocabulary too. (Student H10)

Imagery strategies. The means of the four items were largerthan 3 (Item 2, M = 3.32; Item 3, M = 3.34; Item 4, M = 3.16; Item 5,M = 3.53). A weak correlation between Items 2 and 3 (s = .37)indicates that, although students perceptions about the strategysusefulness were generally positive, students had different opinionson its usefulness for academic words and for science words. Onthe other hand, a relatively large correlation between Items 2 and 4(s = .76) demonstrates that students thought this strategy wasuseful and would use it again when they learned academic words.

Nonetheless, some students comments indicated they did notlike this strategy because creating a visual image was difficult andtime-consuming.

Creating visual images is very difficult for me. (Student L1)

This strategy is difficult. And, it took a lot of time. Nouns andverbs are almost OK, but adjectives and adverbs are not good. Iwant to use this method for drawing easy things. (Student H5)

I think it takes very long time to learn only one word, so it isnot effective to learn new words. (Student H15)

However, some students rated this strategy highly becausethey thought learning words in true sentences was effective.

Writing a true sentences are good for me. I think the best way islearning from sentences. (Student H3)

If I think true sentences by myself, I never forget. This strat-egy is good for studying and remembering new words.(Student H7)


Regarding the value of the strategy for learning science words,the comments focused on the difficulty of science words and thevalue of writing true sentences.

It is difficult for me to remember science vocabularys spelling,so imaging is good way, I think. (Student L5)

I think that the science words is difficult to understand. Itis more easy to remember science words with true sen-tences. If I know true sentences, it will really help me.(Student H12)

Writing rehearsal. The means of the four items all exceeded 3.5andmarked the highest among the six VLSs except for Item 3 (Item 2,M = 3.95; Item 3,M = 3.55; Item 4,M = 4.03; Item 5,M = 3.61).The correlations were relatively large between Items 2 and 4 andbetween Items 3 and 5 (Items 2 and 4, s = .76, Items 3 and 5,s = .84). The statistics show that students had positive perceptionsabout the strategy, thought the strategy was useful, andwould useit again for both academic words and science words.

From the comments, it was clear many students were veryfamiliar with the strategy and were already using it.

I think this strategy is good way for me. I already using thisstrategy before this practice. (Student L16)

Writing spelling is familiar to me. It is effective all vocabularies.(Student L20)

However, some students felt this strategy was insufficient.

I think it is important to use this strategy but also to pronounceand hear. I think to use five senses is good for remembering.(Student L7)

Both lower and higher proficiency students wrote that thestrategy was especially effective with science words because thewords are often long.

A lot of science words have long spells. So this strategy will beeffective to learn. (Student L14)

I try it again to use it to learn scientific words because manyscientific words have complex spell. (Student H15)

94 TESOL Journal

Association. The means of all four items were less than 3(Item 2, M = 2.82; Item 3, M = 2.82; Item 4, M = 2.53; Item 5,M = 2.84) and a relatively large correlation was observed betweenItems 2 and 3 (s = .79). The students did not perceive the strategyas useful and did not think they would use it again for either typeof vocabulary. These students comments show the main reasonsfor the low rating.

I thought that this method is difficult. (Student L13)

It takes much time although this strategy is effective. (StudentL20)

This method did not suit me. Because I do not like to draw pictures.Moreover, it takemuch time towrite. I am busy. (Student L21)

I dont like this method because it is not efficient. It is difficultfor me to create mind maps. And, I want to learn a lot ofwords in a relatively short time. (Student H17)

On the other hand, some students thought this strategy waseffective for science words because, by creating word maps orsemantic networks, they could learn other words with the targetword.

Because we can learn other science vocabulary for making thesenetwork maps. (Student L8)

I hate associating words very much. But I think I would like totry strategy with science vocabulary. Because science vocabu-lary is difficult. So it is efficient to associate science vocabulary.(Student H2)

Word map is a little efficient. Science words is difficult for meto learn them by heart so if I used this way, I would studymany science words at the same time. (Student H15)

Mnemonics. The means of all four items were the lowestamong the six VLSs (Item 2, M = 2.55; Item 3, M = 2.71; Item 4,M = 2.45; Item 5, M = 2.50). Correlations were significant betweenItems 4 and 5 (s = .74), Items 2 and 4 (s = .71), and Items 3 and5 (s = .69). The correlation between Items 2 and 3 (s = .38) isrelatively low, indicating student responses were negativelyinclined. These statistics show that the students consistently


had negative perceptions about the usefulness and the future useof the strategy, regardless of the word type.

The student comments clearly indicate that some studentsfound this strategy too difficult to use.

This weeks memory strategy is if I find good link, very usefuland the word is memorized well. But it is difficult for me. So, Ithink I dont use this strategy. (Student L11)

I would not like to using this strategy again. Because I dontcome up with some words form and meaning link. (Student H3)

Despite the negative sentiment the statistics reveal, somethought this strategy was useful for science words.

I thought this strategy is good for studying the science vocabu-laries. They have very difficult and complex meanings so it ishard to memorize them. If I write the descriptions of each of newwords or the words tour, it is more easier than I write the vocab-ularies only. They give me strong impressions. (Student L13)

Because I can relatively easily imagine for science vocabulary. Ithink that this strategy suits for science vocabulary. (StudentL15)

Science vocabulary is difficult to image. But remember with Jap-anese keyword makes easy to recall. So I think this strategy isgood for to study science vocabulary. (Student H12)

Word cards. The students comments show they had beenusing this strategy since they started learning English. Similar towriting rehearsal, the means for all the four items exceeded 3.5(M = 3.87 for Item 2, M = 3.79 for Item 3, M = 3.63 for Item 4,M = 3.50 for Item 5). Together with the significant correlationsamong items (Items 2 and 3, s = .79; Items 4 and 5, s = .77;Items 2 and 4, s = .67; Items 3 and 5, s = .64), the statistics showthe students rated this strategy highly regarding its usefulness forboth academic words and science words and they would use thestrategy again for both word types.

Many comments pointed out the convenience of using theportable word cards.

I made word cards. So, I can bring it outside easily. Forexample, in train, at school, at home, in car, wherever I can

96 TESOL Journal

remember words. It is very useful for me to remember words.(Student L11)

It is portable and handy, so I can learn vocabulary everywhereand every time. (Student L20)

I always use this strategy when I dont have word lists. BecauseI can carry it anywhere and I can use it in the train. And I canrepeat to use it. (Student H5)

Although easy and enjoyable, some students noted its limitation.

I enjoyed making word cards and studying vocab. . . . I can learnmeaning by heart. But this strategy I cant understand meaningin sentences. (Student H6)

This method is useful for me when I should memorize manywords. However, I want to learn words in sentence. (Student H8)

Some science words are often difficult. So, especially in a sciencevocabulary I wish there were example sentence. (Student H17)

Some students noted that another drawback of the strategy isthat making word cards is time-consuming.

This strategy is not suitable for me. Because word cards take atime to make it. (Student L12)

This method is difficult for me to create some word cards. Thatis because it took me much time to make cards. . . . So I think thatword lists are better than word cards. (Student H17)

A third drawback for some students was that the strategy wasboring.

Although it is portable and handy, I get bored soon. (Student L13)

But I often get tired of this way, so I cant continue this way.(Student L20)

However, given the difficulty of science words, some lowerproficiency students especially felt this strategy was effective whenlearning science words.

I think that this strategy is useful too with science vocabulary.Word cards are so portable that I can memorize difficult wordswith them. (Student L2)


I was already using this strategy with science vocabulary too.What we remember science vocabulary is difficult. But we canremember by repeating this strategy. (Student L10)

I thought this strategy is good for studying the science vocabu-laries. They have very difficult and complex meanings so it ishard to memorize them. If I make the word cards, it is moreeasier than I write the vocabularies only. They give me strongimpressions. (Student L12)

Students Vocabulary Learning Behaviors Before and After theTreatmentThe students vocabulary learning behaviors before and after thetreatment are summarized in Table 4. Clearly the gain in learnerbehaviors (self-management and input-seeking) was larger amonghigher proficiency students, as was the gain in use of the strategies(imagery, oral rehearsal, and association). On the other hand,imagery and writing rehearsal decreased among lower proficiencystudents. Extrinsic motivation increased slightly for both groups,whereas intrinsic motivation decreased slightly.

DISCUSSIONBoth the statistical analyses and open-ended responses indicatethat the students were very familiar with the VLSs of vocalization,writing rehearsal, and word cards. This confirmed the authorsassumption these three would be known to many students.Indeed, the first two strategies are among the six strategies Schmitt(1997) found Japanese learners used the most for consolidating awords meaning. The open-ended responses indicate that thesemethods were taught in secondary school. The other strategiesinvolving imagery, association, and mnemonics were less familiar,again as predicted. Thus, one outcome of this study is that itexposed learners to new strategies.

Regarding the students perceptions of the individualstrategies for learning general academic vocabulary and sciencewords, both statistical analyses and open-ended responsesindicate definite preferences. First, for shallower strategies, moststudents indicated they would use vocalization again to learnboth types of words although they were well aware of its

98 TESOL Journal

TABLE4.

Means,StandardDeviations,an

dGainsin

theTwoGroups

Lower

Level(N

=21)

Higher

Level(N

=17)

Pretreatm

ent

Survey

Mean(SD)

Posttreatm

ent

Survey

Mean(SD)

Gain

Pretreatm

ent

Survey

Mean(SD)

Posttreatm

ent

Survey

Mean(SD)

Gain

Self-man

agem

ent

2.62

(0.35)

2.87

(0.41)

0.25

3.02

(0.6)

3.31

(0.49)

0.29

Input-seeking

2.97

(0.28)

3.11

(0.18)

0.14

2.88

(0.42)

3.11

(0.31)

0.23

Imagery

3.21

(0.21)

2.96

(0.24)

0.25

2.87

(0.54)

2.94

(0.28)

0.07

Writingrehearsal

4.25

(0.12)

3.94

(0.12)

0.31

3.61

(0.39)

3.59

(0.24)

0.02

Oralrehearsal

2.97

(0.47)

3.1(0.42)

0.13

3(0.18)

3.23

(0.36)

0.23

Association

2.97

(0.27)

2.97

(0.3)

03.04

(0.18)

3.1(0.12)

0.06

Extrinsic

motivation

3.75

(0.35)

3.76

(0.3)

0.01

3.82

(0.24)

3.88

(0.12)

0.06

Intrinsic

motivation

3.26

(0.27)

3.23

(0.35)

0.03

3.36

(0.45)

3.34

(0.45)

0.02

Note.Gainisthemeandifference

(posttestminuspretest).


disadvantages (time-consuming and noisy); lower proficiencylearners especially felt it was efficient for learning sciencevocabulary as opposed to more cognitively demanding strategiesinvolving imagery, association, and mnemonics. Writing rehearsalwas viewed even more positively. Students indicated they wouldcontinue to use it for learning both types of vocabulary. Bothproficiency groups believed the strategy was useful for learningthe spelling of long or complicated words. More negativestudents, too, indicated they would still use the strategy but incombination with other strategies. The last shallower strategy,using word cards, was viewed the most positively of allstrategies, and most students indicated they would continue touse it for both types of words. The cards portability and beingable to use them everywhere were pluses. Negative commentshighlighted the time it takes to make the cards and the lack ofsentences. As a whole, the findings indicate many life sciencemajors would continue to use these shallower strategies to studyscience vocabulary.

Turning to less familiar strategies involving deeper processing,although the learners might have seen their value, they weregenerally less enthusiastic about their usefulness. Imagerystrategies were perceived as useful for neither learning academicwords nor science words. Regarding science words specifically,many students felt imagery strategies were too difficult andinefficient. The strategy as well as science lexis were too difficult.However, a few higher proficiency students comments show theirwillingness to try imagery, particularly writing true sentences,with science words. Association strategies, too, were perceived ascomplex, time-consuming, or requiring drawing skills.Undoubtedly, this impacted students willingness to use thestrategies in the future with either type of vocabulary. As withimagery strategies, open-ended comments indicate some studentsin both proficiency groups saw the value of building associationnetworks for learning science words, and accordingly expressedan interest in using association to learn science words. Finally,mnemonics were perceived as the least useful of the six strategiestaught; students were clearly unwilling to use them for learningany vocabulary in the future. This was somewhat surprising as

100 TESOL Journal

mnemonics are popular with high school students forremembering historical periods and atomic symbols. Onedisadvantage may be that learners must learn two unrelateddefinitions: one for the strategy and one for the words actualdefinition. Despite being cumbersome, a few responses show thatsome students found using keywords or word tours helpful inrecalling meaning. In short, although life science majors appearedto understand how these three deeper strategies could be helpfulin learning science words, their perceived utility was limited byboth the strategies complexity and the difficulty of sciencevocabulary.

Finally, the study examined how explicit instruction affectedthe students vocabulary behaviors. The results confirm Mizumotoand Takeuchis findings (2009b) that VLS instruction appears tohave increased the use of some strategies (namely, self-management and input seeking), but not others. However, unlikein Mizumoto and Takeuchis study, in the current study moreproficient learners, not lower learners, posted greater gains for allstrategy subsets. Interestingly, some strategy use actuallydecreased or changed very little. For example, writing rehearsaldecreased for both groups, especially the lower proficiency group.This was unexpected because the statistical analyses and open-ended comments immediately after using the strategy indicate thelearners intention to continue using it. We surmise that tryingnew strategies may have shown the learners more effectivestrategies that they were now using. Not surprisingly, given thenegative attitudes in the open-ended comments, there was nochange at all among lower proficiency learners for association anda significant decrease for imagery, indicating a total rejection ofthese strategies by those who were unfamiliar with them beforeinstruction. The decrease in imagery following the treatment ismore confirmation of lower proficiency students negativeperceptions of it. Interestingly, and again unexpectedly, bothproficiency groups posted gains in oral rehearsal. Finally, therewas very little change in either extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Itcould be that the period of instruction was too short or possiblythat VLS instruction, for these science students, did not affect theirmotivation to learn English.


CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONSThis study investigated the VLS preferences of lower and higherproficiency Japanese EFL students majoring in life sciences. Thestudents received supplemental explicit VLS instruction on sixstrategies, three of which were shallower (vocalization, writtenrehearsal, and word cards) and three of which involved deeperprocessing (imagery, association, and mnemonics). The resultsfirst and foremost give us some understanding of the VLS useand preferences of life science majors and reveal which strategiesthey perceived as useful for learning science words and why.Second, the study confirms the value of explicit VLS instruction.It can expose lower and higher proficiency learners to newstrategies. Because this study included males as well as females,it adds to earlier research on explicit VLS instruction whichinvolved females only (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009b). VLSinstruction can give all learners more ways of approachingvocabulary, thereby lightening the learning burden for wordsthey view as difficult, such as science vocabulary. Third, thisstudy reveals that many learners are resistant to changing VLSs.Many preferred familiar strategies to new ones. Unless they seecompelling reasons for changing their strategy use, they will not.Instead, instructors might suggest ways of enhancing thesestrategies, for example, encouraging students to add sentences toword cards. Fourth, open-ended comments clearly indicate thatlearners are practical. Although they may see the value ofstrategies involving deeper processing, they seek to use their timeas efficiently as possible. Thus, when teachers introduce newVLS, time-intensive strategies, such as deeper ones, may berejected as being inefficient even if they are perceived as useful.Finally, in recommending specific VLS to students, instructorsshould keep the students proficiency level firmly in mind. Lowerproficiency learners may not have the grammatical and lexicalcapacity necessary for more cognitively demanding tasksinvolving deeper processing. The open-ended responses revealthat lower proficiency students felt their English language skillswere inadequate to write true sentences in English and manybelieved they lacked sufficient knowledge of synonyms and

102 TESOL Journal

related words to successfully create association networks orvocabulary word maps. Given the grammatical and lexicalchallenges of such tasks, it appears that lower proficiencylearners preferences for shallower strategies actually match theirabilities.

Although the findings of this study add to ourunderstanding of learner variables affecting VLS use, mostspecifically the VLS preferences of life science majors, the studyhas two limitations. First, the sample size was too small togeneralize the findings to other life science majors. Second, thestudy involved only first- and second-year life science majorstudents who had been exposed to limited English sciencevocabulary. If the study had been conducted with third- orfourth-year students, who were actively reading research articlesin English and taking classes using English science vocabulary,the results may have indicated preferences for differentstrategies. Under those circumstances, a longitudinal study or astudy including third and fourth year students might have beenmore revealing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to thank Takanori Sato for his invaluable assistanceon the statistical analyses used in this article.

THE AUTHORSAndrea Little has been teaching English for academic purposesand English for specific purposes in Japan to university studentsand adults for over 20 years. Her current research interests includevocabulary acquisition, ESP, computer-assisted language learning,and task-based language teaching.

Kaoru Kobayashi teaches English at Japanese universities,including Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences. Herresearch interests are in vocabulary acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. She has published in Malaysian Journalof ELT Research and The JALT (Japan Association for LanguageTeaching) CALL Journal.


REFERENCESBandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527692Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly,

34, 213238. doi:10.2307/3587951Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London,

England: Sage.Herr, N. (2007). The sourcebook for teaching science. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.Horino, M., & Ichikawa, S. (1997). Koukousei no eigo gakushu

okeru no gakushu doki to gakushu houryaku [Learningmotives and strategies in high school students Englishlearning]. Japanese Journal of Educational Philosophy, 45, 140147.

Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students approaches tovocabulary learning and their relationship to success. ModernLanguage Journal, 83, 176192. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00014

Mizumoto, A. (2012). Exploring the effects of self-efficacy onvocabulary learning strategies. Studies in Self-Access LearningJournal, 3, 423437.

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2008). Exploring the driving forcesbehind TOEIC scores: Focusing on vocabulary learningstrategies, motivation, and study time. JACET Journal, 46, 1732.

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009a). A closer look at therelationship between vocabulary learning strategies and the TOEICscores (TOEIC Research Report No. 4). Retrieved from: http://kuir.jm.kansai-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10112/2773/1/KU-1100IIBC-20090300-01.pdf

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009b). Examining the effectivenessof explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies withJapanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research,13, 425449. doi:10.1177/1362168809341511

Nakamura, T. (2002). Vocabulary learning strategies: The case ofJapanese learners of English. Kyoto, Japan: Koyo Shobo.

Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: Alearner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy.Language Teaching Research, 17(9), 930. doi:10.1177/1362168812457528

104 TESOL Journal

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000).Why are you learning a second language? Motivationalorientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning,51, 5785. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00111

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teachershould know. New York, NY: Newbury House.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt &M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition andpedagogy (pp. 199227). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good foreign languagelearners? A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign languagecontext. System, 31, 313432. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00049-6

APPENDIX A

Target Word List

List 1 List 2 List 3Vocalization Imagery strategies Writing rehearsalfeatures procedure relevantprocess journal aspectsinterpretation resources potentialmaintenance region circumstancesderived principle initialalternative structure assessmentevaluation factors significantspecific equation conceptstrategies authority availablebenefit final dominantassumecorresponding

perceived requireddistribution

List 4 List 5 List 6Association Mnemonics Word cardssection role functionelements period deductioncriteria area source


research primary previouscomments instance acquisitiondemonstration positive analysistheory components estimatevariables method approachpercent range consistentdataresponse

select achievetransfersimilar

APPENDIX B

Study Schedule and Tasks

WeekStrategytype

Type ofprocessing Choice of tasks

Generallearning tips

1 Vocalization Shallower Repeat L2L1 wordpairsseveral times

Read samplesentences from theword list aloudseveral times

Preview unknownwords

Analyze part ofspeech/word parts

Guess fromcontext

Decide whether toskip new word

2 Imagerystrategies

Deeper Write truesentences

Create visualimages

Expand your way oflearning vocabulary

3 Writingrehearsal

Shallower Write eachword56 times

Conscious input ofEnglish vocabulary

Set targets invocabulary learning

4 Association Deeper Associationnetwork

Vocabularyword map

Designate time forvocabulary learning

APPENDIX A. (Continued)

106 TESOL Journal

WeekStrategytype

Type ofprocessing Choice of tasks

Generallearning tips

5 Mnemonics Deeper Word tour Keywordmethod

Attempt to use newwords while learningvocabulary

6 Word cards Shallower Make L2L1word cards

Set a realistic weeklylearning goal

Test yourself regu-larly

APPENDIX C

Sample HandoutStrategy 4: Association

Part 1: This Weeks General Tip to Make Your VocabularyLearning More EfficientDesignate time for vocabulary learning: Learning vocabulary is anendless task that takes a lot of time and effort. But you can make itmore efficient by scheduling a short time every day for learningand reviewing vocabulary. You dont need to schedule a longperiod of time. In fact, it seems that scheduling 5 minutes two orthree times a day is much more productive than 30 minutes once aday. For example, you could spend 5 minutes each morning onthe train memorizing new words and spend 5 minutes on the trainin the evening reviewing words. Spending a short time each daywill make vocabulary learning easier and more effective.

Part 2: This Weeks Memory Strategy to Try With the Word ListExplanation of the StrategyResearch shows that often people remember words better bymaking associations, or connections, in their minds. One way to dothis is to make an association network centered on the new wordconnect the word to other words that you associate with it anddraw a diagram. Figure 1 is an example. The network can be large

APPENDIX B. (Continued)


or small, but the important thing is that it is unique because youhave thought of the words and made the connections yourself.

Putting the Strategy into PracticeChoose one method from below and try it out.Method 1association network

1 Find the meaning of each word on the word list.2 Make one network for each target word.3 Write the word in the center, and then add other words that you associate

with the center word.4 Test yourself on the train tomorrow by recalling the word and its associations.

Method 2vocabulary word map

1 Make one map for each word.2 Write the target word in the center. Then follow these steps:

Use your knowledge to guess the meaning of the word. Then look up the English definition of the word. Next, write the Japanese translation of the word. Draw a simple picture that shows the meaning of the word. Finally, in the box labeled Association put any clue that will help you

remember the word.

3 Review the maps you made on the train tomorrow morning!

After studying the words with this strategy

1 Complete the short survey for this strategy on Codex.2 Hand in the association network or word map you made for each word.

Figure 1. Association network for mammalFrom http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Semantic_Net.svg

108 TESOL Journal

3 In your log book, write your opinion of the strategy.Source: Word map: http://www.sagepub.com/upmdata/18274_Tate_EtBGra-phOrg_MSSc_Pages_18_20.pdf

APPENDIX D

VLS Questionnaire for Japanese EFL Learners (Originally inJapanese)Self-management

1 I regularly review the vocabulary I learned to check if I remember it.2 I keep a vocabulary book or word list to check the vocabulary any time I

wish.3 I try to make it a rule to memorize a certain number of words in a specific

time period (e.g., I will memorize 10 words a day).4 I try to learn extra vocabulary in addition to what I am taught in class.5 I try to take time for vocabulary learning.6 I consciously set aside time to study vocabulary in order to prepare for tests

(e.g., TOEIC, TOEFL, Eiken: English Proficiency Test).7 I use my own methods for remembering, checking, or reviewing

vocabulary.

Figure 2. Vocabulary word map


Input-seeking

8 I try to expose myself to English vocabulary by reading or listening a lot.9 I try to manage the learning environment so as to expose myself to English

vocabulary.10 I try to make use of the media (TV, radio, Internet, mobile phone, or mov-

ies) to learn vocabulary.11 I study vocabulary with the intention of using it.

Imagery

12 When I try to remember vocabulary, I make a mental picture of what can beassociated with a words meaning.

13 When I try to remember vocabulary, I link my personal experiences to it.14 When I try to remember vocabulary, I create an image of the spellings or

orthographic forms.15 When I try to remember vocabulary, I use the keyword method (keyword

mnemonic technique).16 When I try to remember vocabulary, I imagine whether the meaning of the

word is negative or positive.

Writing rehearsal

17 When I try to remember vocabulary, I write it repeatedly.18 When I try to remember vocabulary, I write it on a note or a card.19 When I try to remember vocabulary, I remember not only the meaning but

also the spelling of the word by writing it.

Oral rehearsal

20 When I try to remember vocabulary, I say it aloud repeatedly.21 When I try to remember vocabulary, I vocalize it to remember not only the

meaning but also the pronunciation of the word.22 When I try to remember vocabulary, I say the sample sentence aloud.

Association

23 When I try to remember vocabulary, I associate it with the synonyms (e.g.,begin and start) or antonyms (e.g., positive and negative) I already know.

24 When I try to remember vocabulary, I also memorize the synonyms orantonyms of the word.

25 When I try to remember vocabulary, I memorize words similar to it (inmeaning, sound, or shape) or the related words in a group.

110 TESOL Journal

I study English. . .Extrinsic motivation

26 Because I require school credits to graduate.27 In order to get a prestigious job in the future.28 In order to receive a better salary later on.

Intrinsic motivation

29 For the pleasure I experience when I surpass myself in my English studies.30 For the enjoyment I experience when I can grasp the meaning of words if I

keep studying.31 For the satisfaction I feel when I am in the process of accomplishing difficult

exercises in English.32 For the high I feel when hearing English spoken.33 For the high feeling that I experience while speaking English.34 For the pleasure I get from hearing English spoken by native speakers of

English.


Vocabulary

Documents

Transcript of Vocabulary