University of Iowa
Iowa Research Online
Theses and Dissertations
Summer 2015
Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about
vocabulary learning: a study of beginning university
students of Russian in the United States
Olga Kulikova
University of Iowa
Copyright 2015 Olga Kulikova
This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1868
Recommended Citation
Kulikova, Olga. "Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about vocabulary learning: a study of beginning university students of
Russian in the United States." PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2015.
http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1868.
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd
Part of the First and Second Language Acquisition Commons
VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES AND BELIEFS ABOUT
VOCABULARY LEARNING: A STUDY OF BEGINNING UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS OF RUSSIAN
IN THE UNITED STATES
By
Olga Kulikova
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the
Doctor of Philosophy degree
in Second Language Acquisition in
the Graduate College of
The University of Iowa
August 2015
Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Judith Liskin-Gasparro
Graduate College
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Ph.D. THESIS
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of
Olga Kulikova
has been approved by the Examining Committee for
the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree in Second Language Acquisition at the August
2015 graduation.
Thesis Committee:
Judith Liskin-Gasparro, Thesis Supervisor
Carol Severino
Margaret Mills
Sue Otto
James Maxey
Emilie Destruel-Johnson
To my family
ii
Without grammar very little can be conveyed.
Without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed.
Wilkins, 1972, p. 111
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writing of this dissertation would not have been possible without the many
people who contributed to this research project, and I want to express my deepest
gratitude to all of them. I am very much indebted to my dissertation advisor, Professor
Judith Liskin-Gasparro, whose patience, insightful comments, and constant guidance
always came at the right moment. I was always impressed by her generous support for me
throughout the thesis-writing process and my graduate study in general.
I would like to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Professors Carol
Severino, Margaret Mills, Sue Otto, James Maxey, and Emilie Destruel-Johnson for their
timely cooperation and insightful feedback that guided my work on the dissertation. I am
grateful to Carol Severino for introducing me to the Writing Center, where not only did I
tutor but I also received a lot of experience with the writing process and learned many
strategies that helped me to endure the hardships of dissertation writing. I am also very
grateful to Margaret Mills for her constant support, guidance, and daily encouragement in
my teaching Russian, piloting the project for the study, and writing the dissertation.
Special thanks go to Sue Otto for opening CALL possibilities for me, James Maxey for
his help with statistics, and Emilie Destruel-Johnson for agreeing to join my committee at
the last minute.
I have also been fortunate to have many friends and fellow researchers, whose
advice and support have helped me through difficult times. I thank Professors Nicole
Monnier, Maria Shardakova, Olga Mesropova, Donna Oliver, Oleksandra Wallo, and
Jaceee Cho for their support with recruiting participants. I am grateful to my friend and
colleague Olesia Lyskovtseva for her help in organizing the pilot project and recruiting
iv
participants for interviews. I also thank instructors of Russian and students at several
institutions who have been involved in the study. They have given me access to
invaluable learners’ views, which I could never have imagined or learned from books.
Finally, I want to thank my husband, Vladimir, and my daughter, Maria, for their
help, patience, and love.
v
ABSTRACT
This dissertation study was motivated by an interest in the process of acquisition
of Russian vocabulary by a previously unstudied group of learners, American university
students. The study identified the vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about
vocabulary learning of 97 university students beginning to study Russian. It also
examined relationships between reported beliefs and strategies and their stability over the
period of one semester of studying Russian. The data were collected with a self-report
online questionnaire administered at the beginning and at the end of the Fall 2014
semester, as well as with interviews with the participants.
Descriptive analysis of students’ beliefs indicated that the participants highly
valued the role of vocabulary in studying a foreign language, understood the complexity
of the process of vocabulary acquisition, and believed that words and phrases should be
carefully studied and then practiced in context. The participants reported high motivation
and high expectations of their success as learners of Russian.
Descriptive analysis of vocabulary learning strategies demonstrated that besides
active use of a dictionary, guessing, and note-taking strategies, virtually all participants
reported frequent use of rehearsal strategies, especially repetition. These findings
contradict the view that, in contrast to Asian learners of English, who are believed to
value memorization and repetition, Western learners tend to downplay the role of
repetition in the process of vocabulary learning. Analysis of the responses to open-ended
questions and interview prompts confirmed that the participants frequently used
repetition and rehearsal strategies and considered them most effective for establishing
form–meaning connections for new words. The respondents also reported frequent use of
vi
contextual encoding, activation, and affective strategies. Comparison of the results of the
two questionnaires revealed several vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies that
underwent changes as a result of one semester of studying Russian. At the end of the
semester students reported even more agreement with value of repetition, practice, good
memory, and cultural knowledge for learning vocabulary. In contrast, they expressed
significantly less agreement that it is easier to learn new words when they are presented
in context. Besides, participants reported that while learning vocabulary they less
frequently tried to recall sentences in which new words were used. Interviewed students
explained this shift by noting the difficulty of Russian vocabulary and cognitive overload
while trying to acquire new words in context. These findings once again argue against the
claim that contextual acquisition of foreign language vocabulary is always effective in
instructed foreign language learning.
Using correlational and cluster analyses, the study identified multiple
relationships between groups of vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies, as well as
between individual beliefs and strategies. Motivational beliefs were correlated with most
groups of vocabulary learning strategies, and memory strategies were correlated with
most groups of beliefs.
vii
PUBLIC ABSTRACT
The study identified the vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about
vocabulary learning reported by 97 American university students beginning to study
Russian. It also found multiple relationships between reported beliefs and strategies and
revealed the stability of most beliefs and strategies over the period of one semester of
studying Russian.
Analysis of students’ beliefs indicated that the participants highly valued the role
of vocabulary in studying a foreign language, understood the complexity of the process of
vocabulary acquisition, and believed that words and phrases should be carefully studied
and then practiced in context. The participants reported high motivation and high
expectations of their success as learners of Russian. Analysis of vocabulary learning
strategies demonstrated that besides active use of a dictionary, guessing, and note-taking
strategies, virtually all participants reported frequent use of rehearsal strategies,
especially repetition. At the end of the semester, participants expressed even more
agreement with value of repetition, practice, good memory, and cultural knowledge for
learning vocabulary. In contrast, they expressed significantly less agreement that it is
easier to learn new words when they are presented in context. Interviewed students
explained this shift by noting the difficulty of Russian vocabulary and cognitive overload
while trying to acquire new words in context. These findings argue against the claim that
contextual acquisition of foreign language vocabulary is always effective in instructed
foreign language learning.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... xvii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background Statement .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 How Much Vocabulary does a L2 (Second Language) Learner Need?.................... 3 1.3 What is Involved in Knowing a Word. ..................................................................... 5 1.4 Language Learning Strategies ................................................................................... 7 1.5 Vocabulary Learning Strategies ................................................................................ 8 1.6 Language Learning Beliefs ....................................................................................... 9 1.7 Vocabulary Learning Beliefs .................................................................................. 11 1.8 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................... 12 1.9 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 13 1.10 Summary ............................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 15 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Language Learning Strategies ................................................................................. 15 2.2.1 Language Learning Strategies in L2 Teaching and Acquisition Theories ....... 15 2.2.2 Defining Language Learning Strategies ........................................................... 20 2.2.3 Classifications of Language Learning Strategies ............................................. 23 2.2.3.1 Classification of Vocabulary Learning Strategies ..................................... 27 2.2.3.2 Self-Regulation Models of Language Learning and Vocabulary
Learning Strategies ............................................................................................. 30 2.2.4 Studies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies ..................................................... 34 2.2.4.1 Memory-Based Vocabulary Learning Strategies ...................................... 37 2.2.4.1.1 Learning from Word Lists and Flashcards ......................................... 37 2.2.4.1.2 Mnemonics ......................................................................................... 39 2.2.4.2 Vocabulary Inferencing Strategies ............................................................ 41 2.2.4.2.1 Word Part Analysis ............................................................................ 41 2.2.4.2.2 Using Context for Lexical Inferencing............................................... 42 2.2.4.2.3 Incidental Vocabulary Learning from Reading .................................. 45 2.2.4.2.4 Consulting a Reference Source .......................................................... 48 2.3 Language Learning Beliefs ..................................................................................... 52 2.3.1 Defining Language Learning Beliefs ............................................................... 53 2.3.2 Approaches to Investigation of Language Learning Beliefs ............................ 55 2.3.2.1 The Normative Approach .......................................................................... 55
2.3.2.2 The Metacognitive Approach .................................................................... 63 2.3.2.3 The Contextual Approach ......................................................................... 66 2.3.3 Learners’ Beliefs about Specific Aspects of Language Learning .................... 75 ix
2.3.3.1 L2 Grammar and Writing .......................................................................... 75 2.3.3.2 Listening .................................................................................................... 77 2.3.3.3 Reading...................................................................................................... 79 2.3.3.4 Vocabulary ................................................................................................ 80 2.3.3.4.1 Rote Learning of Vocabulary ............................................................. 83 2.4 Summary and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................... 86 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 86 3.2 Purpose of the study ................................................................................................ 87 3.3 Research Design ...................................................................................................... 87 3.4 Population and Sample of Participants ................................................................... 88 3.5 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 93 3.6 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................... 100 3.7 Data analysis ......................................................................................................... 102 3.8 Pilot Study ............................................................................................................. 103 3.9 Summary ............................................................................................................... 104 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ................................................................................................ 105 4.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 105 4.2 Research Question 1: Students’ Vocabulary Learning Beliefs Reported in
the Time 1 Questionnaire......................................................................................... 106 4.2.1 Beliefs about the Nature of L2 (Second Language) Acquisition ................... 109 4.2.2 Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning................................................................ 110 4.2.3 Beliefs about Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Expectations for Success as
Learners of Russian ............................................................................................. 112 4.2.4 Students’ Strongest Beliefs ............................................................................ 116 4.2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................ 120 4.3 Research Question 2: Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies Reported in
the Time 1 Questionnaire......................................................................................... 122 4.3.1 Memory Strategies: Rehearsal ....................................................................... 123 4.3.2 Memory Strategies: Encoding ........................................................................ 126 4.3.3 Memory Strategies: Summary ........................................................................ 128 4.3.4 Cognitive and Affective Strategies ................................................................ 129 4.3.5 Categories of Strategies: Summary ................................................................ 132 4.3.6 The Most Frequently Used and the Least Frequently Used Individual
Strategies ............................................................................................................. 133 4.3.7 Summary ........................................................................................................ 136 4.4 Research Question 3: Relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary
learning and the learning strategies they report using ............................................. 137 4.4.1 The Pearson r Correlation Coefficient Test Results....................................... 137 4.4.2 Cluster Analysis ............................................................................................. 144 4.5 Research Question 4: Changes in students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning
and vocabulary learning strategies........................................................................... 153 x
4.5.1 Changes in Students’ Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning and Vocabulary
Learning Strategies: Comparison of the Time 1 and Time 2 Questionnaires ..... 154 4.5.1.1 Changes in Students’ Beliefs: Comparison of the Time 1 and Time 2
Questionnaires. ................................................................................................. 154 4.5.2.2 Changes in Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies: Comparison of
the Time 1 and Time 2 Questionnaires. ........................................................... 158 4.5.2 Changes in Methods of Studying Vocabulary: Students’ Self-descriptions .. 163 4.5.3 Summary ........................................................................................................ 169 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 172 5.1 Summary of the Study ........................................................................................... 172 5.2 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 174 5.2.1 Findings for Research Question 1 .................................................................. 174 5.2.1.1 Beliefs about the Nature of L2 Acquisition ............................................ 174 5.2.1.2 Vocabulary Learning Beliefs .................................................................. 177 5.2.1.3 Expectations of Success as Learners of Russian and Motivational
Beliefs............................................................................................................... 180 5.2.2 Findings for Research Question 2 .................................................................. 182 5.2.2.1 Dictionary, Guessing, and Note-taking Strategies .................................. 182 5.2.2.2 Memorization Strategies ......................................................................... 183 5.2.2.2.1 Repetition ......................................................................................... 185 5.2.2.2.2 Contextual Encoding Strategies ....................................................... 188 5.2.2.2.3 Less Frequently Used Memory Strategies ....................................... 189 5.2.2.3 Affective Strategies ................................................................................. 189 5.2.2.4 Activation Strategies ............................................................................... 191 5.2.3 Findings for Research Question 3 .................................................................. 193 5.2.3.1 Correlational Analysis ............................................................................. 193 5.2.3.2 Cluster Analysis ...................................................................................... 198 5.2.4 Findings for Research Question 4 .................................................................. 200 5.2.4.1 Changes in Vocabulary Learning Beliefs................................................ 200 5.2.4.2 Changes in Vocabulary Learning Strategies ........................................... 204 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................... 208 5.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................ 210 5.5 Pedagogical Implications ...................................................................................... 212 5.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 215 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 218 APPENDIX A Questionnaire Items (85) ....................................................................... 235 APPENDIX B Interview Protocol.................................................................................. 243 APPENDIX C Likert–scale responses for beliefs about vocabulary learning ............... 245
xi
APPENDIX D Likert–scale responses for vocabulary learning strategies .................... 247
APPENDIX E Post-hoc comparisons between pairs of Cluster means ......................... 250 APPENDIX F Students’ responses to open-ended questions ........................................ 266 xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1. Vocabulary needed to get 98% coverage of various kinds of texts. .................. 4
Table 1.2. What is involved in knowing a word. ................................................................ 6
Table 2.1. Direct language learning strategies. ................................................................. 25
Table 2.2. Indirect learning strategies. .............................................................................. 25
Table 2.3. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Gu & Johnson (1996). ..................... 27
Table 2.4. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Schmitt (1997). ................................ 28
Table 2.5. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Ma (2009). ....................................... 29
Table 2.6. Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning scale. ................................ 32
Table 2.7. Different terms and definitions for beliefs about SLA..................................... 53
Table 3.1. The age of participants. .................................................................................... 89
Table 3.2. Foreign languages studied by participants and the number of students who
have studied them. ........................................................................................... 90
Table 3.3. The number of foreign languages studied by participants. .............................. 90
Table 3.4. Are you taking this Russian course to fulfill a degree requirement? ............... 91
Table 3.5. Principal reasons for choosing Russian over other languages. ........................ 92
Table 3.6. Responses to the question What made you interested in learning Russian? .... 92
Table 3.7. The items from Gu (2005) not included into the current questionnaire. .......... 95
Table 3.8. Using technology for learning vocabulary. ...................................................... 96
Table 3.9. Beliefs added to the current questionnaire from BALLI. ................................ 97
Table 3.10. Data collection procedures. .......................................................................... 102
Table 4.1. Students’ vocabulary learning beliefs: Results of the Time 1
questionnaire. ................................................................................................ 107
Table 4.2. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Mean scores of the subgroups
of beliefs. ....................................................................................................... 112
Table 4.3. Expectations about difficulty of studying Russian......................................... 114
xiii
Table 4.4. Expectations about the time needed to reach fluency in Russian. ................. 115
Table 4.5. Categories of beliefs: means and rank in the strength of responses. .............. 117
Table 4.6. Items of strongest agreement for beliefs (mean ≥ 4.50)................................. 119
Table 4.7. Items of disagreement and least agreement for beliefs (mean ≤ 4.00)........... 120
Table 4.8. Memory vocabulary learning strategies: Results of the Time 1
questionnaire. ................................................................................................ 124
Table 4.9. Subgroups of memory strategies: rank in the frequency of use. .................... 128
Table 4.10. Cognitive and affective vocabulary learning strategies: Results of
the Time 1 survey. ....................................................................................... 129
Table 4.11. The rank of strategy categories in descending order. ................................... 132
Table 4.12. The most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies (mean ≥4.50). .... 134
Table 4.13. The least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies (mean ≤ 3.50). .... 135
Table 4.14. Relationships between beliefs and strategies: Pearson r correlation
coefficients. .................................................................................................. 138
Table 4.15. Correlations of B20 with learning strategies. ............................................... 140
Table 4.16. Correlations of B21 with learning strategies. ............................................... 141
Table 4.17. Learning beliefs: description of clusters. ..................................................... 146
Table 4.18. Learning strategies: description of clusters. ................................................. 148
Table 4.19. Self-reported knowledge of foreign languages and time spent
to reach it. .................................................................................................... 150
Table 4.20. Vocabulary learning beliefs: Items with significantly different student
responses between Time 1 and Time 2. ....................................................... 155
Table 4.21. Ten strongest beliefs at Time 1 and Time 2. ................................................ 157
Table 4.22. Vocabulary learning strategies: Items with significantly different student
responses between Time 1 and Time 2. ....................................................... 159
Table 4.23. The most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies at Time 1
and Time 2. .................................................................................................. 161
Table 4.24. Changes in vocabulary learning strategies reported in the open-ended
question. ....................................................................................................... 164
xiv
Table 5.1. Memorization beliefs included in Gu (2005) and the current study. ............. 178 Table 5.2. Language learning experience and use of repetition strategies by the
participants who slightly disagreed with B7, Repetition is one of the best
ways to learn words....................................................................................... 187 Table 5.3. Relationship of motivational learning beliefs and vocabulary learning
strategies. ....................................................................................................... 196 Table C1. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Likert–scale responses............................ 245 Table D1. Vocabulary learning strategies: Likert–scale responses................................. 247 Table E1. Learning beliefs: Descriptive table. ................................................................ 250
Table E2. Learning beliefs: ANOVA table. .................................................................... 251
Table E3. Learning beliefs: Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD). ................................ 252
Table E4. Learning strategies: Descriptive table. ........................................................... 255
Table E5. Learning strategies: ANOVA table. ............................................................... 258
Table E6. Learning strategies: Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD). ............................ 260
Table F1. Students’ responses to the question Imagine that you have to learn several
new words for tomorrow’s class. Describe the methods you would use for
this task. .......................................................................................................... 266 Table F2. Students’ responses to the question You have been studying Russian for
almost a semester. Have you changed any of your methods of learning
vocabulary? .................................................................................................... 271 Table F3. Students’ responses to the question What would you like your instructor
to do in class to make vocabulary instruction more effective? ....................... 276 xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Cluster profiles of learning beliefs................................................................... 144 Figure 2. Cluster profiles of learning strategies. ............................................................. 147 xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. BALLI
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory
2. EFL
English as a Foreign Language
3. ESL
English as a Second Language
4. FL
Foreign Language
5. L1
Native Language
6. L2
Second Language
7. M
Mean
8. SD
Standard Deviation
9. SILL
Strategy Inventory of Language Learning
10. SLA
Second Language Acquisition
11. SPSS
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
xvii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Statement
If you are asked the question, “From what does a language begin?” the answer is likely to
be, “Words.” People use hundreds, if not thousands, of words every day without thinking
about their importance for the process of communication. However, even native speakers
of a language still sometimes feel frustrated when they cannot think of a word they need.
The Russian poet Mandelstam wrote, “I can’t remember a word I wanted to utter, ... and
the bodiless thought will now return to the palace of shadows.”
Words are often called the building blocks to success on the way to language
proficiency. Taken together, these building blocks constitute people’s vocabularies. The
American Heritage Dictionary defines vocabulary as “the sum of words used by,
understood by, or at the command of a particular person or group.” More than a century
ago, vocabulary tests became popular in schools. Vocabulary size was found to be a
reliable indicator of mental age, and vocabulary development was considered “one of the
best single measures of intelligence” (Langer, 1967, p. 157). Not many people would
object to the statement that a rich vocabulary puts students in an advantageous position in
school: They will better understand what a textbook or a teacher is saying, and they will
learn more. Of course, people with similar vocabulary sizes may differ in their
understanding and knowledge, but the size of a person’s vocabulary is still often found to
be a good predictor of general competence (Duncan et al., 2007; Kaplan & Saccuzzo,
2013).
1
At the beginning of the 20th century, linguistics and psycholinguistics relied on
vocabulary measures in many experiments: studies of human learning, reading and
writing ability, attention, memory, and emotions. However, in the middle of the last
century, linguists’ interest in exploring of vocabulary declined. Chomsky’s conception of
generative grammar redirected linguistic research away from vocabulary toward
grammar, and “excessive interest in words was followed by excessive neglect” (Miller,
1996, p. 16). Until the 1980s, teaching and learning vocabulary was not considered as
important as mastering grammar, pronunciation, reading, or writing (Richards, 1976). In
1980, Meara called vocabulary acquisition a neglected aspect of language learning and
stated that vocabulary acquisition research at that time had been atheoretical and
unsystematic.
In recent years, however, there has been a revival of interest in words. Many
SLA researchers argue nowadays that learning vocabulary is perhaps the most
challenging aspect of becoming proficient in a second or a foreign language because of
the sheer enormity of the task (Meara, 1995; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2010). Language is
often compared with a building: the structure of the building is grammar, and words are
the bricks in the structure. Both are necessary and important, but the number of bricks
exceeds the number of the structural elements, which is why “no linguist today would
seriously contest the fact that, quantitatively, vocabulary dominates in the language field
and that vocabulary acquisition is the main obstacle to language acquisition” (Ma, 2009,
p. 21). Lack of vocabulary often prevents students from becoming proficient L2 (second
language) readers and writers and from communicating in L2 effectively, which is why it
is the most frequently reported problem for second language learners, and students in
2
academic programs often express a desire for more vocabulary instruction (Folse, 2004).
The process of L2 vocabulary acquisition begins from the very first meeting with a
second language and lasts long after all the other aspects of the language have been
learned, and understanding of this process is still limited. As Schmitt (1998) argued, “the
mechanics of vocabulary acquisition is one of the most intriguing puzzles in second
language acquisition” (p. 281).
1.2 How Much Vocabulary does a L2 (Second Language) Learner Need?
About 80 years ago Ogden (1937) argued that 850 words could allow students to
express millions of ideas. Although this number of words might be enough for expressing
some ideas in a very simplified way, it is hardly enough for comprehension of a native
speaker’s response. Recent research states that a learner must know many more words for
comprehension of written or spoken discourse. Laufer (1989) suggested that for reading
comprehension, a learner must know around 95% of the lexical items in a text to
successfully guess the rest of the words. Bonk (2000) found that the same 95% of the
words enables the majority of participants to achieve good comprehension of listening
passages. However, Hu and Nation (2000) insisted that knowledge of 98–99% of the
words is necessary, especially for written discourse. To count how many words a learner
needs to know to understand 95% or 98% of discourse, we need to know how many
words make up 100% – the number of words that native speakers know. Nation (2006)
argues that most well conducted studies estimate the vocabulary size of an educated
English native speaker as 17,000–20,000 word families, but L2 learners do not
necessarily need to know so much vocabulary. For different genres, 98% coverage
consists of 6,000-9,000 word families (Table 1.1). The numbers in this table present not
3
separate words but word families. A word family is a group of words that includes a base
word, its inflected forms, and derived forms of the word (Nation & Waring, 1997), for
example, nation, nations, national, nationally, nationalism, international,
internationalism, internationalization, and so on.
Table 1.1. Vocabulary needed to get 98% coverage of various kinds of
texts (Nation, 2013, p. 5).
Texts
Novels
Newspapers
Spoken English
Children’s movies
98% coverage
9,000 word families
8,000 word families
7,000 word families
6,000 word families
Word families can be of different sizes, but the most frequent stems can take a
greater range of affixes, and as a result have bigger families. Nation (2006) shows that in
English the most frequent 1,000 word families consist of about six members, and then the
size of less frequent word families decreases to about three members per family at the
9,000-frequency level. Schmitt (2010) calculated that a vocabulary of 6,000 word
families requires knowing about 28,000 individual words and emphasized that whereas
some members of a word family can be transparently related and easy to guess, L2
learners may have trouble with less-transparent members. Acquisition of such a large
number of words is “one of the greatest hurdles facing learners in acquiring English”
(Schmitt, 2010, p. 332).
To choose what vocabulary to teach in a foreign language course, we need to
know what are the most common words. Frequency is one of the most important
characteristics affecting acquisition and use of vocabulary. In vocabulary teaching and
research, lexis is often divided into 1,000 frequency band levels. A relatively small
4
number of the most frequent words cover the vast majority of language, and such words
are most likely to be met in discourse. The most frequent 1,000 word families make up
about 70-75% of a written text, and 2,000 word families allow understanding of about
80% (Nation, 2001). As a result, both native speakers and L2 learners acquire more
frequent vocabulary before less frequent words.
In Russian, the number of words in a word family is higher than in English
because it is a highly inflexional language and the number of affixes is very high.
Patrick’s (1989) list of the most important suffixes includes more than 80 items, and the
list of the most often used prefixes consists of 23 items. In Russian, there are also
agglutinative compounds containing several word roots. As a result, the number of word
family members is rarely fewer than 5 and often exceeds 15 (Patrick, 1989). For native
speakers of Russian it makes the process of acquisition of new words easier because they
can understand the meaning of affixes and identify the common roots. For American
learners of Russian, especially at the beginning level of study, this task is much more
difficult not only because of the number of affixes, but also because multiple vowel and
consonant variations, insertions, and deletions that make the process of root recognition
problematic. Thus, knowing one word family member does not imply being able to guess
other related members. Even acquisition of only the most frequent members of the most
frequent word families presents a considerable difficulty for learners of Russian.
1.3 What is Involved in Knowing a Word.
A well-known psycholinguist George A. Miller (1995) argued that for each word
it is necessary to know “its own sound, its own spelling, its own meaning, its own role, its
own use, its own history” (p. 5). There are a number of qualities that may be included in
5
the definition of knowing a word. Nation’s (2001) comprehensive description of the
qualities is presented in Table 1.2. The number of components of the information about a
word form and meaning given in the table proves that it is a very challenging task to
acquire complete knowledge of a word; the process of acquisition of all the word features
may be very long and require multiple exposures to words.
Table 1.2. What is involved in knowing a word (Nation, 2001, p. 27).
Form
Spoken
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
P
R
What does the word sound like?
How is the word pronounced?
Written
What does the word look like?
How is the word written or spelled?
Word parts
What parts are recognizable in this word?
What word parts are needed to express this meaning
Meaning Form and
What meaning does this word form signal?
meaning
What word form can be used to express this meaning?
Concepts and
What is included in the concept?
referents
What items can the concept refer to?
Associations
What other words does this make us think of?
What other words could we use instead of this one?
Use
Grammatical
In what patterns does this word occur?
functions
In what patterns must we use this word?
What words or types of words occur with this one?
Collocations
What words or types of words must we use with this one?
Constraints on
Where, when, and how often would we expect to meet this
use
word?
P
Where, when, and how often can we use this word?
Note: R = receptive knowledge, P = productive knowledge
The initial stage is to connect the word form with one meaning and fix the
connection in the mind. The nature of the process of vocabulary acquisition is
incremental, and other aspects of word knowledge (other meanings, usage, collocations
and associations) will be acquired later over many language experiences (Schmitt, 2005).
Even if we consider only the first step of the process of vocabulary acquisition,
that is, knowing the meaning and the form of a word and connecting the two together, the
6
number of words necessary for adequate comprehension of text-based reading or speech
is very high. It is hardly possible just to pick up an adequate number of words from
reading or communication tasks without specific focus on vocabulary acquisition. It has
been argued that teaching of 3,000 or so high frequency words should be an immediate
high priority for language instructors (Nation & Waring, 1997); following this first stage,
students need to master vocabulary learning strategies, which help them to continue
increasing their vocabulary size. Many researchers (Judd, 1978; Nation, 2001; Schmitt,
2008) argue for a proactive approach, vocabulary expansion, which requires contributions
from four stakeholders: researchers, textbook writers, teachers, and students. Strong and
active contributions from all members of this learning partnership is necessary, but if
students do not become active learners, they are unlikely to acquire a reasonable
vocabulary size, no matter how good their textbooks or the level of instruction can be.
1.4 Language Learning Strategies
Approximately at the same time as L2 vocabulary development began to attract
attention of SLA researchers, around the 1980s, second and foreign language education
research interests shifted from the methods of teaching to the processes of learning.
Long’s (1985, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis signaled a new interest in learners as active
processors of input. It has become clear that the responsibility for success in learning
rests not only with teachers, but also with individual learners. Learners’ characteristics
and individual differences that influence the overall trajectory of the acquisition process
have attracted the attention of many SLA researchers (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). The interest
in learners’ abilities to take advantage of learning opportunities has stimulated research
into strategies used by learners and the relation of strategy use to learning outcomes.
7
The concept of learning strategies is widely used in SLA, but there is no single
generally accepted definition of it (Takač, 2008). Different researchers define strategies
differently, according to their research interests and foci. Oxford (1990) states that
learning strategies are all behaviors and actions that learners use to make language
learning more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable. Ellis (1995) defines a strategy as a
mental or behavioral activity related to some specific stage in the process of language
acquisition and use. Cohen (1998) stresses that strategies are processes, which are
consciously selected by learners to enhance the learning or use of the L2. Purpura (1999)
believes that all conscious and unconscious activities used in language learning, use, or
testing can be called learning strategies. Some scholars (Chamot, 1987; Stern, 1986)
make a distinction between strategies as more general approaches to learning, and
techniques or tactics as specific actions performed at a specific time. Research on
language learning strategies has revealed differences between more and less effective
learners’ use of strategies. More successful learners have been found to employ strategies
more consciously, more appropriately, and more frequently than do less successful
learners (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989).
1.5 Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Considerable research was done in vocabulary acquisition and learning strategies
before the result of their intersection—vocabulary learning strategies—attracted attention
of SLA researchers (Schmitt, 1997). The fact that the vocabulary needs of learners often
outstrip learners’ ability to acquire a large number of new words has stimulated research
into how vocabulary-learning strategies can assist learners (Nyikos & Fan, 2007).
Studies of the vocabulary-learning strategies used by L2 learners have demonstrated
8
that learners differ in the range of strategies they use and in the effectiveness with which
they apply those strategies (Gu & Johnson 1996; Lawson & Hogben 1996; Schmitt
1997). There are many studies researching the effectiveness of particular vocabulary
learning strategies, such as memory-based strategies, inferencing strategies, incidental
vocabulary learning from reading, or consulting reference sources. Many studies show
that the conscious and coordinated use of such learning strategies is associated with
language achievement and proficiency (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). However, most
research has focused on specific vocabulary learning strategies used by learners of
English as a second or a foreign language. There is a lack of research on learner-selected
strategies, especially in languages other than English. Very little is known about the selfselected vocabulary learning strategies that learners of Russian language in American
universities actually use in and out of the classroom.
1.6 Language Learning Beliefs
When learners make choices of strategies, the reasons for their choices often remain
hidden to their instructors. One of the reasons for students’ strategy choice may be that
learners believe some particular behaviors to be more effective than others. Wenden and
Rubin (1987) affirmed that students’ beliefs about learning influenced the variety of
strategies used and their ability to use them effectively. A complex mixture of language
learners’ experiences, expectations, metacognitive knowledge, and beliefs act as “strong
filters of reality” (Arnold, 1999, p. 256), and is reflected in what learners do to manage
their learning. Riley (1996) claimed that what learners believe “will influence their
learning much, much more than what [instructors] believe, because it is their beliefs that
hold sway over their motivations, attitudes and learning procedures” (p. 152).
9
Similar to the concept of learning strategies, there are several definitions for the
concept of beliefs about language learning:
•
“Opinions which are based on experience and the opinions of respected others,
which influence the way they [students] act” (Wenden, 1986, p. 5),
•
“Beliefs about how language operates, and, consequently, how it is learned”
(Abraham & Vann, 1987, p. 95),
•
“ Ideas that students have about language and language learning” (Miller &
Ginsberg, 1995, p. 294),
•
“Learners’ intuitive implicit (or explicit) knowledge ...about how to learn
languages.” (Barcelos, 1995, p. 40)
The abundance of different terms and definitions reflects the fact that the field of
Second Language Acquisition has only recently taken interest in beliefs about SLA, and
no conventional terms have been developed yet. More researchers acknowledge the
importance of students’ beliefs about SLA and are interested in studying them, and the
definitions they give reflect their research interests. Some definitions emphasize the
cognitive nature of beliefs (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Holec, 1987; Wenden, 1986), or
their social and cultural nature (Barcelos, 1995; Gardner, 1988).
The significance of learners’ beliefs can be related to many processes and outcomes
of SLA, including students’ use of language learning strategies, learners’ anxiety,
autonomous learning, and mismatches between teachers’ and students’ expectations in
the classroom (Kajala & Barcelos, 2003). A mismatch between learners’ and instructors’
beliefs can lead to “some degree of friction or dysfunction” (Riley, 1996, p. 153),
misunderstanding and miscommunication (Barcelos, 2003), questioning the credibility of
10
the teacher (Barcelos, 2003; Schulz, 1996), feelings of frustration and unhappiness
(Barcelos, 2003; Ellis, 1996), or even cause passive resistance or non-learning by
students (Ellis, 1996). Language learning beliefs influence the ways students approach
their learning, choose and employ learning strategies, and, as a result, correlate with their
learning success (Oxford & Lee, 2008; Riley, 1996).
1.7 Vocabulary Learning Beliefs
Most of SLA research on beliefs investigates learners’ beliefs about language
learning in general, but there are several studies that examine beliefs about such specific
aspects of language learning as grammar instruction and error correction in oral and
written contexts (Ferris, 1995, 1997; Leki, 1991; Loewen et al, 2009; Schulz, 1996, 2001;
Truscott, 1996), listening (Goh, 1977, 1999, 2000; Graham, 2006; Lotfi, 2012) and
reading (Ayatollahi et al., 2012; Devine, 1988; Kamhi-Stein, 2003; Richard & Lockhart,
1994). Although the importance of vocabulary or vocabulary problems has been
mentioned among other beliefs about language learning in many studies, there has been
less research that explores learners’ beliefs about acquisition of vocabulary in particular.
A few studies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Moir & Nation, 2002; Li, 2011) found correlations
between vocabulary learning beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies, and learning
outcomes. Heidari et al. (2012) discovered a relationship between learners’ self-efficacy
beliefs and their use of vocabulary learning strategies. One more direction of research in
this area is beliefs about rote learning of vocabulary (Li, 2004; Rashidi & Omid, 2011).
The results of these studies show that in some Asian cultures students believe that rote
learning can be effective for memorizing vocabulary, but that what they understand as
rote learning involves more complex practices and strategies than has been supposed by
11
western researchers.
Although recent years have seen an increase in investigation of general beliefs
about language acquisition, beliefs about acquisition of vocabulary and their influence on
learning strategies have been under-researched. To date, no studies have investigated
vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies of American learners of Russian. Students who
enroll in Russian language may hold different beliefs and choose different learning
strategies compared to students taking more commonly taught languages. Russian is a
non-Roman alphabet language with Cyrillic script, which makes it more difficult for
American learners to master than such commonly taught languages as Spanish, French, or
German. Besides, Russian vocabulary has few cognates with English, so students of
Russian may need to invest more effort and develop different tactics of vocabulary
acquisition in comparison with learners of commonly taught languages. In recent years,
enrollment in less commonly taught languages in general and in Russian in particular, has
increased. Thus, research of this under-studied learner group is important for better
understanding of processes of acquisition of Russian.
1.8 Purpose of the Study
Research on leaners’ beliefs has revealed that students have their own ideas about
language learning, and a number of their beliefs can be counter to what researchers or
teachers consider to be productive instructional practices. The understanding of students'
beliefs by teachers is a necessary condition of successful L2 teaching and learning
because students filter their learning experience through their own expectations and
learning theories (Horwitz, 2008). The first purpose of the study is to investigate the
beliefs about vocabulary learning of students beginning to study Russian.
12
Research on learners’ beliefs has also suggested that they influence students’
learning strategies, but little is known about relationships between these constructs. The
second purpose of the study is to examine students’ vocabulary learning strategies and to
look for any relationship among their learning beliefs and strategies.
The majority of studies examine learners’ beliefs and strategies as a static
phenomenon. There have been only a few studies that investigate the development of
learning beliefs and strategies over a period of time (Barcelos, 2000; Worth, 2008). More
research is needed to study the evolution of learning beliefs and strategies to better
understand the conditions that lead to their changes. Thus, one more purpose of this study
is to explore the changes in students’ vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies during the
first semester of learning Russian.
In summary, the purpose of this study is to explore processes of vocabulary
acquisition of beginning learners of Russian in American universities, and, in particular,
students’ vocabulary learning beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies, the relationship
between their beliefs and strategies, and their development over a period of one semester.
1.9 Research Questions
1. What beliefs about vocabulary learning do beginning learners of Russian at
American universities report holding?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do beginning U.S. university learners of
Russian report using?
4. Is there a relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and
the learning strategies they use in their first semester of Russian study?
3. Do students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning
13
strategies undergo changes during the first semester of learning Russian?
1.10 Summary
This introductory chapter has presented the background of the problem, the
purpose of the study, and research questions. The remaining chapters are ordered as
follows: Chapter 2 reviews prior research on language learning and vocabulary learning
strategies, and beliefs about language learning and vocabulary learning. Chapter 3
describes the research design, the participants, instrumentation, data collection
procedures, and data analysis methods.
14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review of the research on vocabulary learning strategies and
vocabulary learning beliefs. First, the place of learning strategies in L2 (second language)
teaching and acquisition theories is described, and definitions of learning strategies are
presented. Then several taxonomies of learning strategies and vocabulary learning
strategies are examined. After that, the studies on the most deeply researched vocabulary
learning strategies are reviewed.
The second part of the chapter reviews the research on beliefs about vocabulary
learning. First, beliefs about language learning and vocabulary learning are defined, and
then the studies researching language learning beliefs are presented according to the
research approaches used for data collection and analysis. After that some studies on
specific aspects of L2 learning are reviewed. The chapter concludes with a summary.
2.2 Language Learning Strategies
Language learning strategies—specific actions or techniques L2 learners employ
to manage and direct their efforts—are among the main factors that determine how well
students learn a second language.
2.2.1 Language Learning Strategies in L2 Teaching and Acquisition Theories
The understanding of the phenomenon of language learning strategies has been
evolving in the process of development of language teaching and language acquisition
theories. Over the years, language learning strategies have been attracting the interest of
language scholars and educators because of their potential to enhance learning. During
15
the last two centuries, the history of language education was the history of different
methods and approaches that replaced one another coming in and out of fashion. The
most popular and widely used approaches were the grammar–translation method, the
audio–lingual method, and the communicative approach. These language teaching
approaches differ greatly, but none of them specifically encourage students to use many
language learning strategies to promote their learning. In the grammar–translation and
audio–lingual methods, mostly memorization strategies are considered useful; in the
audio–lingual method learners are discouraged from using strategic learning because of
the danger of making errors; in communicative approaches learners are encouraged to
take more responsibility for their learning, but still more attention is paid to how teachers
teach, than to how learners learn (Griffiths, 2003). One of the four components of
communicative competence is strategic competence (Canale & Swain, 1980), however
this relates more to learners’ ability to use strategies to compensate for imperfect
knowledge and not to acquire more information. However, the emergence of the studentcentered classroom within the communicative approach to teaching has contributed to
greater research interest in language learning strategies (Oxford, 1996).
Generative linguistic theory, proposed by Chomsky (1965), views language
acquisition as unique and separate from other knowledge systems, and it investigates how
the internal language system develops in the mind of the individual. The L1 (native
language) is not created consciously, but appears through the operation of Universal
Grammar in the mind. Many generative linguists believe that L2 acquisition happens to a
large extent in the same way as L1, and there is hardly any room for language learning
strategies in this theory. A similar view on language learning strategies is proposed by
16
Krashen (1976, 1982, 1987), who states that the L2 cannot be consciously learned, but
can be acquired unconsciously through comprehensible input and natural communication,
similar to the processes involved in L1 acquisition. Thus, conscious language learning
strategies cannot play a significant role in the process of language development.
The interest in learning strategies came into the field of second language
acquisition (SLA) from cognitive psychology. Cognitive theory sees learning as an
active, constructivist process, in which students encode incoming information, relate it to
their previous experience, and store a personally constructed input (Atkinson & Shiffrin,
1968). Learning responsibility is shifted from the teacher to the learner, and students
attribute their success or failure to their own efforts. In this view of learning, students are
involved in directing their own learning. Learning strategies help learners to control and
improve the process of learning.
Interlanguage theory (Selinker, 1972) is the first SLA theory that describes the
language acquisition process not only from a linguistic perspective, but also from a
cognitive one. The theory distinguishes between learning strategies and communicative
strategies. Interlanguage (a language system created by a language learner in the process
of L2 acquisition) is seen as the product of several cognitive processes: the processing of
L2 input, native language transfer, learning mechanisms, and learning strategies,
communication strategies, and overgeneralization of linguistic material. This theory pays
attention to learners’ conscious attempts to control their learning, and learning strategies
are seen as one of the underlying components of interlanguage formation. Besides, as
Tacač (2008) argues, such cognitive processes as language transfer and
overgeneralization of linguistic material can also be called learning strategies. Griffiths
17
(2003) argues that interlanguage theory, along with cognitive theory, have encouraged
subsequent research on discovering learning strategies.
Cognitive theory of learning argues that people acquire proficiency in an L2 in the
same way that they acquire other complex cognitive skills and considers learning
strategies very important. Cognitive theory does not make a distinction between linguistic
knowledge and its use, suggesting that language is stored and retrieved from memory in
the same way as other kinds of information, and thus is guided by the same principles as
other types of learning, although often more complex ones (Ellis, 1995). Cognitivists are
interested in the ways individual learners approach learning and, therefore, they pay
much attention to learners’ individual differences, such as learning aptitude, motivation,
cognitive style, and learning strategies. Bialystok’s (1978) Analysis–Control Model of
SLA defines strategies as methods learners choose to increase their proficiency in the L2.
Bialystok (1978) distinguishes between two groups of strategies: (1) formal learning
strategies that involve conscious learning and practicing of accurate linguistic forms; and
(2) functional strategies used during communication in the L2.
Another cognitive model of SLA, Anderson’s (1983) Adaptive Control of Thought
Model, states that learning begins from declarative knowledge that becomes procedural
through practice by a three-stage process: cognitive, associative, and procedural.
Learning strategies are seen as cognitive skills that are used consciously at the beginning
of learning, and then become proceduralized and are used automatically. McLaughlin’s
(1987) Information Processing Model argues that the automatization of language skills
and the development of interlanguage involve the use of learning, production, and
communication strategies. This classification of strategies is also accepted by Ellis (1995)
18
in his model of L2 acquisition. In this model, the choice of learning strategies is based on
individual learner differences, as well as on situational and social factors.
It can be seen that researchers who adopt cognitive approaches recognize the
significant role of learning strategies in the process of L2 acquisition. Many scholars
(Anderson, 1983; Ellis, 1995; McLaughlin, 1987; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Skehan,
2000) agree that L2 acquisition is similar to learning of other complex cognitive skills,
but different from L1 acquisition. Among other factors, the use of learning strategies
makes L2 acquisition different from L1 acquisition. Learning strategies affect the L2
acquisition process and can be partially responsible for successful language acquisition.
Scholars of sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978) insist that
learners’ strategies are not only cognitive skills, but are also the result of the mediation of
particular learning communities. The development of learning strategies is closely
connected with the socialization process understood as participation in specific social,
historical and cultural contexts. Strategies are developed as a byproduct of the process of
socialization (Donato & McCormick, 1994). Social life is seen as central to the problem
of a learner’s strategy development and use. The language classroom, like any other
culture, is also the place where students learn to participate in the values, beliefs and
behaviors of this community of practice. Mediating context (language environment and
language discourses), mediating agents (teachers, friends, or partners), and mediating
objects (assessment) can all influence learners’ strategy choices (Gao, 2006).
All of these L2 teaching and acquisition theories and approaches have had their
influence on the development of the idea of language learning strategies, and most of
them agree that at least part of language learning outcomes can be explained by the use of
19
various learning strategies. Language learning strategy theory has the potential to be an
important component of a variety of SLA theories and approaches.
2.2.2 Defining Language Learning Strategies
As Oxford (1990) points out, the term strategy comes from ancient Greece, where
it had a military meaning: the optimal management of troops in a planned campaign. The
modern meaning of the word includes planning and implementing actions taken to
achieve a goal, as well as monitoring and evaluating the movement to a desired result
(Gu, 2005). In educational psychology this concept has been referred to as “techniques,
tactics, potentially conscious plans, consciously employed operations, learning skills,
basic skills, functional skills, cognitive abilities, language processing strategies, problem
solving procedures (Wenden, 1987), thinking skills, thinking frames, reasoning skills,
learning-to-learn skills (Oxford, 1990). Takač (2008) claims that in current research, the
concept of learning strategies has been generally accepted, and researchers have
abandoned the dichotomy between strategies and tactics or techniques. However, in her
recent book, Oxford (2011) includes both terms in her model of strategic language
learning. Thus, there is still no agreement about using these terms.
What makes a learning behavior a strategy? After decades of research on
language learning strategies, this question is still controversial.
If someone memorizes vocabulary by simply looking at a bilingual vocabulary
list, most people would say that this is an example of learning. But if a person
applies some color marking code to highlight the words in the list which he or she
still does not know, suddenly we can start talking about strategic learning. But
what is the difference? The color code? (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 57).
20
The main questions underlying the differing views at the concept of learning
strategies are these: Are they actions, thoughts, or functions? Are they conscious or
unconscious? Can they become automatized? Do they refer to general or specific
behaviors? Can they be taught? What motivates their use? How do they affect learning?
Different researchers answer the questions differently. Cohen (1998) defines
language learning strategies as “processes which are consciously selected by learners, and
which may result in action taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or a foreign
language, through the storage, retention, recall, and application of information about this
language” (p. 5). In this definition, Cohen (1998) differentiates conscious and
unconscious behaviors, stressing that only consciously chosen processes can be called
strategic. Nation (2001) defines learning strategies by four important features, the first of
which is a conscious choice: (1) they are chosen by the learner, (2) they are complex and
consist of several steps, (3) they require knowledge and benefit from training, and (4)
they increase the efficiency of learning.
However, Wenden (1987) states that strategies may not always be conscious. She
describes six criteria that characterize learning strategies:
(1)
Strategies refer to specific actions or techniques, not a learner’s general
approach;
(2)
some of them are observable and others are not observable;
(3)
strategies are problem-oriented;
(4)
they may contribute to learning directly or indirectly;
(5)
strategies may be consciously deployed or become automatized and
remain below consciousness; and
21
(6)
strategies are amenable to change. They can be learned, modified, or
rejected (pp. 7–8).
Ridley (1997) and Purpura (1999) also agree that strategies can be either
conscious or unconscious behaviors. O’Malley and Chamot (1996) believe that learning
strategies are special ways of information processing that make comprehension,
acquisition, organizing, and storing of new information more successful.
Some scholars argue that thoughts, beliefs, and emotions should be included into
the concept of learning strategies, “Learning strategies include any thoughts, behaviors,
beliefs, and emotions that facilitate the acquisition, understanding or later transfer of new
knowledge and skills (Weinstein et al., 2000, p. 727). Weinstein and Mayer (1986) stress
that learning strategies are intentional on the part of the learner, have learning facilitation
as a goal, influence the ways of selecting, organizing and integrating new knowledge, and
can affect the learner’s motivational or affective state. Oxford (1990) also emphasizes the
affective domain in her definition: “Learning strategies are specific actions taken by the
learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more
effective, and more transferable to new situations” (p. 8).
Dörnyei (2005) supports Riding and Rayner’s (1998) way of distinguishing
between strategic and non-strategic learning behaviors: If a learner selects and pursues
learning procedures that are expected to increase his/her learning effectiveness, and if the
behavior is appropriate for the learner’s particular purpose, then it can be called strategic.
Thus, a specific learning behavior may be strategic for one learner and non-strategic for
another. Dörnyei (2005) admits, however, that this conception goes against the standard
view in the field as it disqualifies many learning strategy inventories.
22
There are also some differences not only in the choice of behaviors that are
considered strategies, but also in the way language learning strategies are grouped. Some
researchers (Ellis, 1995; McLaughlin, 1987; Tarone, 1981) distinguish between learning
strategies, perception strategies, production strategies, and communication strategies.
Ellis (1995) and Tarone (1981) believe that strategies should be divided into language
strategies and skill strategies. Ellis (1995) and Cohen (1998) distinguish between
language learning strategies and language use strategies. However, McDonough (1995)
argues that language use and language learning can take place simultaneously, so
language learning strategies and language use strategies may overlap, and it is hard to
recognize the difference. Oxford (2011) also rejects the dichotomy between language
learning and language use strategies because any strategies and tactics promoting the use
of L2 also foster L2 learning: The information that is used is better transferred into longterm memory, and language use strategies allow learners to stay in communication longer
and, therefore, have more opportunities to practice and learn (pp. 91–92).
A more detailed description of the ways vocabulary learning strategies are
grouped is presented in the section about different approaches to strategy classification.
2.2.3 Classifications of Language Learning Strategies
Research into language learning strategies began at the end of 1970s, and so far
there have been several attempts to create learning strategy taxonomies. In this section I
describe several classifications that have been offered for language learning strategies in
general and for vocabulary learning strategies in particular.
In the early years of strategy research, scholars tried to find a relationship between
strategy use and language proficiency to identify the most effective strategies, the ones
23
that were used by successful L2 learners. The number of studied strategies was not long:
Naiman et al. (1975, as cited in Oxford, 1990) proposed six strategies, Rubin (1975)
seven, and Stern (1975) ten. Later the lists of strategies became longer and several
attempts to classify them were made. Tarone (1981) differentiated between languagelearning strategies that helped develop linguistic and sociolinguistic L2 competence, and
communication strategies that helped learners overcome communication problems. Rubin
(1987) divided learning strategies into learning, communication, and social strategies.
Learning strategies consisted of cognitive and metacognitive strategies and directly
influenced learning, whereas social and communication strategies, which provided
learners with exposure to the target language, influenced learning indirectly.
Oxford (1990) tried to organize a wide variety of learning strategies. She divided
all strategies into direct and indirect according to their impact on language learning. Each
of these two strategy classes was divided into three groups, and each group consisted of
several strategy sets containing up to 8 individual strategies each. Direct strategies
included memory, cognitive, and compensation strategies. Indirect strategies included
metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. The whole system contained 62 individual
strategies as shown in Table 2.1 and 2.2.
Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy was the first one that organized language learning
strategies into a hierarchy. However, Ellis (1994) criticized Oxford’s classification for
not distinguishing between language learning and language use strategies.
24
Table 2.1. Direct language learning strategies as listed in Oxford (1990).
Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Compensation strategies
Creating mental linkages:
1. Grouping
2. Associating/elaborating
3. Placing new words into
a context
Practicing:
1. Repeating
2. Formally practicing with sounds
and writing systems
3. Recognizing and using formulas
and patterns
4. Recombining
5. Practicing naturalistically
Guessing intelligently:
1. Using linguistic cues
2. Using other cues
Applying images and
sounds:
1. Using imagery
2. Semantic mapping
3. Using keywords
4. Representing sounds in
memory
Reviewing words:
1. Structured reviewing
Employing actions:
1. Using physical
response or sensation
2. Using mechanical
techniques
Receiving and sending messages:
1. Getting the idea quickly
2. Using recourses for receiving
and sending messages
Analyzing and reasoning:
1. Reasoning deductively
2. Analyzing expressions
3. Analyzing contrastively (across
languages)
4. Translating
5. Transferring
Overcoming limitations in
speaking and writing:
1. Switching to the mother
tongue
2. Getting help
3. Using mime or gesture
4. Avoiding communication
partially or totally
5. Selecting the topic
6. Adjusting or
approximating the
message
7. Coining words
8. Using a circumlocution or
synonym
Creating structure for input and
output:
1. Taking notes
2. Summarizing
3. Highlighting
Table 2.2. Indirect learning strategies as listed in Oxford (1990).
Metacognitive strategies
Centering your learning:
1. Overviewing and linking
with already known material
2. Paying attention
3. Delaying speech
production to focus on
listening
Affective strategies
Lowering your anxiety:
1. Using relaxation, deep
breathing, or meditation
2. Using music
3. Using laughter
25
Social strategies
Asking questions:
1. Asking for clarification or
verification
2. Asking for correction
Table 2.2. Continued
Metacognitive strategies
Arranging and planning your
learning:
1. Finding out about language
learning
2. Organizing
3. Setting goals and
objectives
4. Identifying the purpose of a
language task
5. Planning for a language
task
6. Seeking practice
opportunities
Affective strategies
Encouraging yourself:
1. Making positive statements
2. Taking risks wisely
3. Rewarding yourself
Taking your emotional
temperature:
1. Listening to your body
2. Using a checklist
3. Writing a language learning
diary
4. Discussing your feelings with
someone else
Social strategies
Cooperating with others:
1. Cooperating with peers
2. Cooperating with
proficient users of the new
language
Emphasizing with others:
1. Developing cultural
understanding
2. Becoming aware of
others’ thoughts and feelings
Evaluating your learning:
1. Self-monitoring
2. Self-evaluating
Another strategy classification was proposed by O’Malley and Chamot (1990).
This classification was highly compatible with Oxford’s (1990) system, although it
distinguished only three major types—cognitive, metacognitive, and socio-affective
strategies—and did not state the relative importance of each of the strategies. Cohen
(1998) claimed that this taxonomy focused mostly on cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and only touched the surface of social, especially affective, strategies.
The classification of learning strategies based on the Oxford (1990) and O’Malley
and Chamot (1990) taxonomies has been the most widely accepted up to the present
moment. It includes four main components: cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective
(or socio-affective) strategies (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, Oxford, 1990).
Cognitive strategies concern processing language in the mind: receiving, storing,
retrieving, and using information. Metacognitive strategies are based on knowledge about
language learning and involve planning, arranging, and evaluation of learning in general
26
or in specific learning tasks. Social strategies influence learning indirectly and include
cooperation with other learners, teachers, or L2 native speakers. Affective strategies help
learners cope with stress by lowering anxiety and promoting relaxation.
2.2.3.1 Classification of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Research on vocabulary learning strategies as a subgroup of general language
learning strategies is a relatively new field. Porte (1988) and Ahmed (1989) were the first
scholars who investigated how L2 learners applied vocabulary-learning strategies.
Ahmed (1989) divided all strategies into two sets: macro-strategies, which included
memorization, practice, note-taking, and using different information sources; and microstrategies, which included specific behaviors within one of the macro-strategies.
Gu and Johnson (1996) provided one of the most comprehensive lists of
vocabulary strategies in their Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ), which
consisted of 108 items. The questionnaire was based on the previous strategy research
(Oxford, 1990) and included three sections: vocabulary learning beliefs, metacognitive
strategies, and cognitive strategies (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Gu & Johnson (1996).
Vocabulary
learning beliefs
1. Vocabulary should be memorized (8 items);
2. Vocabulary should be picked up naturally (4 items)
3. Vocabulary should be studied and used (5 items)
Metacognitive
strategies
1. Selective attention (7 items)
2. Self-initiation (5 items)
Cognitive strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Guessing strategies (12 items)
Dictionary strategies (17 items)
Note-taking strategies (9 items)
Memory strategies: rehearsal (12 items)
Memory strategies: encoding (24 items)
Activation strategies (5 items)
27
Another classification of vocabulary learning strategies was suggested by Schmitt
(1997) who divided them into two groups: strategies for the discovery of a new word’s
meaning and strategies for consolidating a word once it has been discovered. Then the
items were organized into the four categories used in Oxford’s (1990) system: social,
memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. However, in Oxford’s classification
there was no category of strategies used when learners discovered a new word’s meaning
without other people’s help. Schmitt (1997) introduced this category as determination
strategies. He admitted though that almost all of the discovery strategies could also be
used as consolidation strategies, so the most obvious ones were listed in both sections of
the taxonomy. Table 2.4 shows Schmitt’s (1997) classification of vocabulary learning
strategies.
Table 2.4. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Schmitt (1997).
Strategies for the discovery
of a new word’s meaning
Determination strategies (9 items)
Social strategies (5 items)
Strategies for consolidating a
word once it has been
encountered
Social strategies (3 items)
Memory strategies (27 items)
Cognitive strategies (9 items)
Metacognitive strategies (5 items)
An alternative process-oriented approach to classifying vocabulary-learning
strategies was proposed by Ma (2009). She summarized word acquisition stages as
follows:
1. A new word is encountered through different contexts
2. The meaning of the word is found out
3. Various aspects of the meaning and form of the word are studied
4. The information about the word is recorded or organized
28
5. The word is memorized with the help of some strategies
6. The word is reviewed to ensure retention
7. When the word is met again, it is retrieved
8. The word is used to consolidate its acquisition. (p. 164)
At each stage of acquisition, students can use strategies from one or more
categories, which are displayed in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5. Vocabulary learning strategies listed by Ma (2009).
Stages of vocabulary acquisition
Category of strategies
1. How do you discover new vocabulary?
Cognitive strategies (3 items)
Social strategies (1 item)
Metacognitive strategies (3 items)
Metacognitive strategies (2 items)
Cognitive strategies (4 items)
Social strategies (1 item)
Cognitive strategies (9 items)
2. What do you do on encountering new
vocabulary?
3. When learning a new vocabulary item, what
aspects do you study?
4. How do you organize the information about
the new vocabulary?
5. How do you memorize vocabulary?
6. How do you review vocabulary?
7. How do you retrieve vocabulary?
8. How do you make use of new vocabulary?
Metacognitive strategies (2 item)
Cognitive strategies (3 items)
Cognitive strategies (7 items)
Memory strategies (11 items)
Metacognitive strategies (2 items)
Social strategies (1 item)
Cognitive strategies (2 items)
Metacognitive strategies (3 items)
Social strategies (1 item)
Ma (2009) suggested that the process of word acquisition is cyclic, and the words
that go through all of the stages are acquired more effectively. In this classification there
are 55 individual strategies distributed across four categories: memory, metacognitive,
cognitive and social.
Schmitt (2010) states that one of the problems in L2 strategy research is that most
studies look at vocabulary learning strategies as discrete phenomena and explore the
29
quantity of strategy use, whereas he believes that quality of applying strategies by
students should become the focus of strategy research.
2.2.3.2 Self-Regulation Models of Language Learning and Vocabulary
Learning Strategies
Several recent studies (Tseng et al., 2006; Oxford, 2011) address the problem of
quality of application of learning strategies and demonstrate “a conceptual shift towards a
notion of self-regulation drawn from the field of educational psychology” (Oxford, 2011,
p. 93). Self-regulation in learning includes setting goals for learning, using effective
learning strategies, monitoring performance, and managing time effectively. Using the
concept of self-regulation in language learning strategy research shifts the focus from
learners’ observable use of strategies to the underlying self-regulating ability learners
draw on to improve their learning and become self-initiating, reflective, responsible
social agents (Gu, 2010).
One of the most recent strategy classifications (Oxford, 2011) presents the
Strategic Self-Regulation (S2R) Model of language learning, in which learners actively
use strategies to manage their learning. Unlike the previous models, this model introduces
the concept of metastrategies that help learners control and manage the use of strategies.
There are three types of metastrategies and strategies (a total of 19): cognitive, affective,
and sociocultural–interactive. The use of metastrategies is guided by metaknowledge.
Five types of metaknowledge (person, group or culture, task, whole-process, and strategy
knowledge) contribute to conditional knowledge (when, why, and where to use a
strategy). The model also includes tactics as specific manifestations of strategies by
particular learners in given settings for certain purposes (p. 31).
30
Oxford (2011) states that the S2R Model is the first to integrate psychological,
social-cognitive, and sociocultural traditions of learning theory.
The model overtly recognizes that L2 learning is not just a cognitive/
metacognitive process but is also influenced by a complex web of beliefs,
emotional associations, attitudes, motivations, sociocultural relationships,
personal interactions, and power dynamics. (p. 40)
The small number of strategies and metastrategies (19) makes the model
parsimonious, but the inclusion of tactics makes it flexible and adaptable. In addition, it
contains some techniques for assessing L2 learning strategies that had not been discussed
in previous research, such as neurological brain observations. However, this model is
very new to the field, and it has not been tested much.
In the area of vocabulary learning, Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) argued
that current research on learning strategies suffered from “definitional fuzziness” (p. 79),
and the most popular questionnaires for assessing strategy use (Vocabulary Learning
Questionnaire, Gu and Johnson, 1996; Vocabulary Learning Strategies, Schmitt, 1997) do
not measure the quality of such use, given that using many strategies may not mean that
the learner is a successful strategy user. Tseng et al. (2006) proposed a new approach to
assessing strategic learning, based on the concept of self-regulation. They suggested that
focus on particular strategies and techniques (outcomes of strategic learning) should be
replaced with the focus on the learners’ inherent self-regulatory capacity that drives their
determinations to find and apply actual strategies. A self-report instrument was developed
for measuring self-regulatory capability in vocabulary learning. The new measuring
instrument consisted of 20 items divided into five sections, as shown in Table 2.6.
31
Table 2.6. Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning scale (Tseng et al., 2006).
I. Commitment
control
II.
Metacognitive
control
III. Satiation
control
IV. Emotion
control
V. Environment
control
1. When learning vocabulary, I have special techniques to achieve my
learning goals.
2. I believe I can achieve my goals more quickly than expected.
3. I persist until I reach the goals that I make for myself.
4. I believe I can overcome all the difficulties related to achieving my
vocabulary learning goals.
1. I have special techniques to keep my concentration focused.
2. I think my methods of controlling my concentration are effective.
3. I have my special techniques to prevent procrastination.
4. I think my methods of controlling procrastination are effective.
1. Once the novelty of learning vocabulary is gone, I easily become
impatient with it.
2. During the process of learning vocabulary, I feel satisfied with the ways
I eliminate boredom.
3. I am confident that I can overcome any sense of boredom.
4. When feeling bored with learning vocabulary, I know how to regulate
my mood in order to invigorate the learning process.
1. When I feel stressed about vocabulary learning, I know how to reduce
this stress.
2. I feel satisfied with the methods I use to reduce the stress of vocabulary
learning.
3. When I feel stressed about vocabulary learning, I simply want to give
up.
4. When I feel stressed about my vocabulary learning, I cope with this
problem immediately.
1. When I am studying vocabulary and the learning environment becomes
unsuitable, I try to sort out the problem.
2. I know how to arrange the environment to make learning vocabulary
more efficient.
3. When learning vocabulary, I am aware that the learning environment
matters.
4. When I study vocabulary, I look for a good learning environment.
After testing the instrument, Tseng et al. (2006) concluded that the construct of
self-regulation could be transferred to the field of SLA, and “serve as a diagnostic
measure to identify and understand learners’ strengths and weaknesses in terms of the
five dimensions of self-regulation” (p. 96), especially if used together with qualitative
tests. An approximate replication of this study (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2012)
investigated the validity of the instrument in a Japanese ESL context, and found it to be a
32
reliable measure of self-regulation capacity.
Gao (2006), however, noted that the proposal of self-regulation needed to take
into account other constructs with very similar meaning, such as metacognitive
knowledge. Besides, the scale could hardly measure learners’ self-regulation in specific
task settings. She pointed to some other qualitative and multi-method solutions for
strategy research problems: using task-based strategy surveys (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002),
task-based self-report protocols (Macaro, 2006), and the sociocultural turn in strategy
research (Donato & McCormick, 1994). Rose (2012) acknowledged that since the
publication of Tseng et al. (2006), the concept of self-regulation has been actively used
by some learning strategy researchers, thus showing the impact of the concept on the shift
of research towards self-regulation. However he argued that the model was still in its
infancy.
The models of self-regulated strategic learning reviewed here (Oxford, 2011;
Tseng et al., 2006) are recent and, as such, they have not received much response. The
attempts to shift the focus of attention from describing the use of separate strategies to
investigating the processes underlying their use may be beneficial, but this approach is
still very new, and more research applying these models to various language learning
tasks is needed.
In summary, there is still lack of consensus about classification of learning
strategies. Various patterns and configurations of strategies have been classified:
Oxford’s (1990) and O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classifications are based on
psycholinguistic categories of direct and indirect strategies; Gu and Johnson (1996)
organize 91 vocabulary learning strategies into cognitive and metacognitive categories;
33
Schmitt (1997) distinguishes strategies for the discovery of a new word’s meaning and
strategies for consolidating knowledge of a word once it has been encountered; Ma
(2009) organizes 55 vocabulary learning strategies around 8 stages of vocabulary
acquisition; Oxford (2011) suggests using the concepts of metastrategies, strategies, and
tactics and classifying them into cognitive, affective, and sociocultural–interactive
groups. The lack of uniformity makes it difficult to compare the research findings across
studies. Nyikos and Fan (2007) argue that the more clearly and unambiguously
researchers can define vocabulary learning strategies, the more valid and reliable future
research will be.
2.2.4 Studies on Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Research on general learning strategies showed that many of them are used for
vocabulary learning. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) note that research on the effect of
training L2 learners to use learning strategies is often restricted to application of
vocabulary tasks (p. 7). Learners are found to use more learning strategies for vocabulary
acquisition than for other language activities (Takač, 2008). Most SLA research has
concentrated on individual strategies, but a few studies have looked at vocabulary
learning strategies as a whole. In this section several such studies are reviewed.
In one of the first large-scale studies, Ahmed (1989) investigated how good and
poor learners (300 EFL learners in Sudan) applied vocabulary-learning strategies. For the
data collection Ahemd used a think-aloud procedure, observations, questionnaires, and
interviews. The results showed that both good and poor learners used the same macrostrategies (note-taking, memorization, practice, dictionaries or other information sources),
34
but good learners applied more micro-strategies within each macro-strategy; for example,
they often used words in context or tested themselves while practicing.
Gu and Johnson (1996) designed a questionnaire based on previous strategy
research (Oxford, 1990). The questionnaire provided one of the most comprehensive lists
of vocabulary strategies: 108 items. It included three sections: vocabulary learning
beliefs, metacognitive strategies, and cognitive strategies. Gu and Johnson (1996)
administered the questionnaire to 850 Beijing University sophomores who had about six
years of English learning experience. The researchers were interested in the ways learners
combined different strategies, and if the choice of strategy combinations correlated with
students’ vocabulary size and general language proficiency. Each statement was rated on
a 7-point scale from Extremely Untrue of Me (1) to Extremely True of Me (7). Learners
were classified by their strategy profiles and learning outcomes into five groups.
The findings revealed that the group of students with the highest English test scores
(0.9%) believed that vocabulary should be picked up through natural exposure (reading,
guessing, contextual encoding) and careful study, but not memorization. They actively
looked for opportunities to use English outside the classroom. The second best group of
participants (9.9%) also believed in natural acquisition, careful study, and use of new
words, but in addition they had positive feelings about the memorization of words. They
used almost every strategy and spent a lot of time and effort on learning English. Gu and
Johnson (1996) believed that they might have succeeded due to their efforts, but not to
particular strategy use. Most of students in the study (87%) reported average use of
various strategies, and the group with lowest English test scores (1.9%) strongly believed
in the effectiveness of only a very restricted set of strategies: memorization and visual
35
repetition.
Vocabulary size correlated positively with general English proficiency. Positive
correlations were also found between both variables (vocabulary size and language
proficiency) and such strategies as contextual guessing, seeking personally significant
vocabulary, using vocabulary that was not studied in class, active use of dictionaries for
learning purposes (not for comprehension only), meaning-oriented note-taking, paying
attention to word formation, and creating semantic associations and networks. Strategies
aimed at vocabulary retention correlated more with vocabulary size than with language
proficiency. Oral repetition and English proficiency correlated positively, but visual
repetition of new words correlated negatively with both vocabulary size and English
proficiency. Memorization of vocabulary was found to be useful only when it was used in
cluster with many other strategies.
Schmitt’s (1997) 58-item questionnaire was administered to 600 Japanese EFL
learners of different ages: junior-high school, high school, university students, and adult
learners. Following Nation (1990), Schmitt distinguished between strategies used for
discovery of new words and strategies for consolidating the knowledge. Discovery
strategies included determination strategies used for independent looking up of the
word’s meaning and social strategies used for asking teachers or classmates for a
meaning. Consolidation strategies included social, cognitive, metacognitive, and memory
strategies. The participants were asked to indicate what strategies they used most often,
and what strategies they found most helpful.
The results showed that most frequently used strategies included using a bilingual
dictionary, verbal and written repetition, studying the spelling, guessing from context,
36
and saying the word aloud. The strategies reported as most helpful coincided with the
most used ones: bilingual dictionary use, saying the new word aloud, oral repetition, and
written repetition. The results also showed changes in strategy use as learners matured:
The youngest learners favored repetition, focus on form, L1–L2 word lists and cards.
More mature learners reported more strategies that involved deeper processing: imaging,
associations, and analysis.
Many more SLA studies have investigated individual vocabulary-learning
strategies, but only a few strategies have been researched in depth. The most extensively
studied vocabulary learning strategies are memory-based and inferencing strategies
(Schmitt, 1997).
2.2.4.1 Memory-Based Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Memory-based strategies include using word lists, flashcards, oral and written
verbal rehearsal, and mnemonics. Learners use memory strategies to enhance recall in the
future.
2.2.4.1.1 Learning from Word Lists and Flashcards
Before communicative language teaching became popular, many textbooks
contained lists of words that students were supposed to memorize and then use when
needed. Flashcards were a popular method learners used to memorize words. These
methods have been criticized as being ineffective because the words are removed from
their communicative context that might help the learner remember words better and
understand how they are used in the language (Oxford & Crookall, 1990).
However, research does not always support Oxford and Crookall’s (1990)
position. Several studies (Carter, 1987; Laufer and Shmueli, 1997; Mondria and Mondria-
37
De Vries, 1994; Prince, 1996) state that while advanced learners may benefit from
learning vocabulary in context, beginners learn words more easily if they are presented in
lists of translation pairs. In a study of 128 L1 Hebrew EFL learners, Laufer and Shmueli
(1997) came to this conclusion after comparing of the four models of 20 target word
presentation:
(1) words presented in isolation (with L1 translation),
(2) words in minimal context (each word in one meaningful sentence),
(3) words in a text passage with glosses in the margin, and
(4) words in an elaborated (adapted) text passage.
In each mode, half of the words were translated into L1 and the other half were
defined in English. A short-term and a long-term multiple-choice tests using only English
synonyms or definitions measured the retention of words. The results showed that word
glosses with L1 translation were remembered better than those defined in L2, and
retention scores were higher when less information was given; that is, after studying word
lists and words in minimal context. Thus, contrary to supporters of presenting new
vocabulary in authentic contexts, Laufer and Shmueli suggested that focus oriented
methods of presenting new vocabulary, such as bilingual lists, may affect word retention
better than context oriented methods.
Prince (1996) compared the results of learning vocabulary in two conditions: with
L1 translation and in L2 context. The participants (48 university EFL students in France)
were divided into two groups according to their language proficiency. Half of them were
asked to study 44 English words in a list with French translation, whereas the other half
had to guess the meaning of the same words presented in English sentences and then
38
study them. The test also included two modes: L1–L2 translation and fill-in-the-blanks
sentences. The main conclusion was that when L2 vocabulary is presented with
translation, it is learned more effectively, especially by less proficient students, although
such learning does not guarantee the ability to use the words in L2 context.
Mondria and Mondria-De Vries (1994) argue that memorizing words with the
help of flashcards can be more effective than learning from lists if a system of repetitions
with retrievals at longer intervals is used. The advantage of this method is that, unlike
word lists, a flashcard system is flexible and allows learners to combine cards according
to their needs.
The depth of processing hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972, cited in Nation,
2001) indicates that if words are not processed with full attention, they do not stay in the
memory for a long time. Ellis (1995) argues that connecting a word meaning and its form
is an explicit process that benefits from such complex strategies as analysis, elaboration,
and connection to previous knowledge. Nation (2001) notes that the theory of depth of
processing is supported by experiments with mnemonic strategies.
2.2.4.1.2 Mnemonics
Mnemonic strategies are based on cognitive processes that are considered to
facilitate faster learning, retrieval, and retention of material. They can be classified into
verbal, visual, or mixed techniques. They include creating mental associations, applying
images and sounds, using rhymes, verbal elaboration, reviewing in time intervals, selftesting, and using physical response (Thompson, 1987).
One of the most well known mnemonic strategies is an ancient keyword technique
in which learners connect the form and meaning of new words through acoustic and
39
imagery links. The keyword method consists of two steps: At first a learner connects the
sound of a new L2 word with a key word—an L1 or (less often) well-known L2 word
that sounds similar (acoustic link). Then the learner forms a mental image of the keyword
that interacts graphically with the English translation (imagery link). For example
(Raugh, Schupbach, & Atkinson, 1977), the Russian word “building” sounds like zdawnyeh with the accent on the first syllable. The possible keyword might be “dawn.” Then
the image of the keyword is connected with the image of the English translation: dawn +
building. “Imagine dawn, with the early morning sun reflected in the windows of a
building; or picture dawn in the desert with a single incongruous building (such as a
skyscraper) standing in the cool morning air” (p. 33).
This strategy has been researched with native and foreign languages (Atkinson &
Raugh, 1975; McGivern & Levin, 1983) and has been found to be more effective than
methods such as rote learning, use of pictures, synonyms, or context for word learning.
However, it is still not widely used in classrooms, in part because it is not easy to find
associations to many new words, especially abstract concepts. The study that reports the
acquisition of “large vocabulary” (Raugh, Schupbach, & Atkinson, 1977) uses
experimental conditions and computer-based practice. Besides, most of the words
presented as effective examples are, in fact, low-frequency words. Hulstijn (2000) asserts
that the keyword technique and other mnemonics can be added to classroom vocabulary
instruction when “a word’s form and meaning do not happen to associate easily” (p. 215),
thus making the task of memorizing the word difficult.
40
2.2.4.2 Vocabulary Inferencing Strategies
When L2 learners encounter new words, they have to be able to get information
about them. This information can come from word form, from the context in which the
word is found, or from a reference source.
2.2.4.2.1 Word Part Analysis
In many languages, content words can change their form and meaning by adding
prefixes and suffixes. Gaining control of prefixes, suffixes and other word-building
devices may be a source of vocabulary growth: New words may be learned by relating
them to known ones, and guessing unfamiliar words in readings can be checked using
knowledge of word parts (Nation, 2001).
Studies of English derivational affixes (Bauer & Nation, 1993; White, Power, &
White, 1989 as cited in Nation, 2001) confirm that a large proportion of English words
make use of affixes, and about 60% of words can be understood from knowing the
meaning of the base words. Several studies (Mochizuki & Aizawa, 2000; Schmitt &
Meara, 1997) found a significant correlation between receptive knowledge of derivational
affixes and vocabulary size in L2 students. Thus, learning how to use word parts deserves
time and attention, and using this strategy can be very productive. The combination of
word part analysis and using context for guessing an unfamiliar word meaning can
enhance the success of guessing up to 80% (White et al., 1989), but sometimes learners
may twist the interpretation of the context if they rely on word part analysis too heavily
(Laufer, 2009). Nation (2001) suggests explicitly teaching L2 learners to use word part
analysis to infer the unknown word meaning only after conducting a careful analysis of
the immediate and wider context.
41
2.2.4.2.2 Using Context for Lexical Inferencing
Vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension are closely connected:
Readers with profound vocabulary knowledge comprehend texts better and, at the same
time, reading is one of the sources of vocabulary growth. To become a successful reader,
a learner needs to deal with unknown words encountered in reading. Inferring words from
context helps readers understand and often acquire new words from reading.
Martin (1984) notes that native speakers of any language acquire most of their
vocabulary from context through listening and reading because they have “the luxury of
multiple exposures to words over time in a variety of meaningful contexts” (p. 130, as
cited in Folse, 2004, p. 73). Native speakers learning their first language receive a lot of
language input from everyday conversations and media. However, this luxury is denied to
L2 learners, especially FL (foreign language) learners. If a second language is learned in
a country where it is not spoken, learners often deal with the L2 only several hours per
week, and they have to learn much information within a short time. That is why lexical
inferencing, which is sometimes problematic for native speakers (Haarstrup, 2008), is
even more difficult for L2 learners. Research on the benefits of lexical inference for L2
vocabulary acquisition has not provided strong evidence (Nassaji, 2003). Inferencing may
be a productive strategy if it is successful, but it can rarely be successful if the percentage
of known words in the text does not allows the learner to understand and use all of the
contextual clues. Nation (2006) concludes that adequate comprehension is possible if no
fewer than 98–99% of the words in the text are known, so vocabulary knowledge is the
key factor. No strategic skill can overcome the lack of vocabulary knowledge for text
comprehension (Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011).
42
In spite of its difficulty, lexical inferencing is still one of L2 learners’ favorite
strategies when they encounter unknown words in reading (Fraser, 1999a; Fraser, 1999b;
Schmitt, 1997). Arden-Close (1993) investigated the guessing from context strategies of
students at different proficiency levels (good, average, and poor readers). The analysis
showed that the stronger the students, the more strategies they used: knowledge of words,
syntax, grammar, and even punctuation. Only the most proficient students used wide
context to infer the meaning of words. Weaker students used only the sentence context,
and almost no grammatical or syntactical strategies. The author argues that weaker
students not only use inferencing strategies inappropriately, but they also lack knowledge
of strategies. Weaker students pay more attention to the appearance of unknown words
and try to infer the meaning on the base of the parts of the words without considering the
context. Arden-Close confirms Nation’s (1983) idea that using parts of words alone for
inferring the meaning is not a reliable strategy, and he argues that it is necessary to
develop students’ awareness of the strategies they use and teach them to use new
strategies.
Nassaji (2003) studied the relationship between the range of strategies used by L2
learners and their success in lexical inferencing. The participants read the text, which
contained up to 4% unknown words. This figure was in line with previous research
(Laufer, 1988; Liu & Nation, 1985) that suggested that readers needed to know at least
95% of the words in a text to comprehend it successfully. The study showed that
participants were able to infer only 25.6% of the target words correctly, although they
reported using multiple strategies: repeating, verifying, analyzing, monitoring, selfinquiry, and analogy. The students also used multiple knowledge sources: grammatical,
43
morphological, discourse, and L1 knowledge. However, success in inferencing seemed to
be related more to the quality of the inferencing than to the number of strategies used.
Successful inferencing was the result of monitoring, considering, and judging the
information presented in the wider context. Unfortunately, most students used local and
word-based strategies, often confusing unknown words with known words that looked
similar. Nassaji warned against pushing students to rely on context too much, and he
emphasized the need for explicit teaching of effective inferencing strategies.
Haarstrup (2008) investigated the effectiveness of Danish EFL learners’ lexical
inferencing in both L1 and L2 in grades 7, 10, and 13. She found that in both languages
success of inferencing increased with increased maturity level and language proficiency:
Seventh graders could infer only 29% (L1) and 17% (L2) of the words successfully; tenth
graders guessed 50% and 37% of words correctly, and in grade 13 learners managed to
infer 59% and 48% of unknown words. Inferencing success was also based on the type of
processing. Younger and less proficient learners mostly used bottom-ruled processing
(focusing on the formal features of words and ignoring contextual cues), while top-ruled
processing with activation of linguistic cues (using immediate context and paying
attention to linguistic cues) was more effectively used by more proficient learners. Topruled processing with integration of linguistic cues (using both immediate and wider
context and at least two linguistic cues) was found in the most proficient learners and
produced the best results.
Studies on the use of strategies for guessing new words from context show that
some learners are more successful in guessing, and at least part of their success can be
explained by the number of guessing strategies used, and even more by the quality of
44
their use. Another important issue is if the use of such strategies enhances the process of
vocabulary acquisition.
2.2.4.2.3 Incidental Vocabulary Learning from Reading
The research on lexical retention from reading investigates how much vocabulary
can be learned from context. Researchers are interested in several questions: (1) how the
context of reading influences the vocabulary retention rate; and (2) how the frequency of
occurrence of new words in the text influences vocabulary acquisition.
Although L2 learners are not found to be very successful in inferencing new word
meanings from reading (Arden-Close, 1993; Haarstrup, 2008; Laufer, 1988; Liu &
Nation, 1985; Nassaji, 2003; Schmitt, Jiang, & Grabe, 2011), reading may deepen and
strengthen the knowledge of partially known words (Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Waring &
Takaki, 2003). Nation (2001) argues that learning from context is a cumulative process,
and even small increases in knowledge should be taken into account.
Waring and Takaki (2003) investigated how reading ESL graded readers
influenced learners’ vocabulary retention for recognition and recall knowledge. They
stated that few new words could be learned from reading. The participants could
recognize only 42% of the target words and translate only 19%, and many of the learned
words were lost after three months. No words that were repeated in the text fewer than
five times were correctly translated, and some words were not translated even after 15–18
occurrences. Waring and Takaki assumed that a graded reader could help to strengthen
already existing knowledge: lexical access speed, the noticing of collocations, the
recognition of new word forms yet to be learned, a confirmation of previously guessed
words meanings, ability to guess from context, and recognition of new word associations
45
(p. 153). However, the study did not investigate if and how such kinds of knowledge
were enhanced.
In a longitudinal case study of an adult intermediate learner of French, Pigada and
Schmitt (2006) examined the learning of spelling, meaning, and grammatical features of
133 target words during a month-long extensive reading project. They found that
knowledge of 65% of the target words was enhanced at least in one of these knowledge
types. Meaning recognition was learned best (36%–84%), spelling recognition was
learned to a lesser degree (28%–76%); then followed word class recall (12%–63%) and
meaning recall (7%–55%). The quality of gained knowledge depended on the frequency
of occurrence of the target words in the text. If a word appeared in the reading more than
ten times, its learning rate was higher. However, there were some words that were not
remembered even after 20 exposures. The authors agree with Laufer (2005) that
intentional learning tasks typically produce higher results, and the amount of incidental
learning may not match the amount of learning from an explicit teaching approach.
That’s why the best methodology may be to combine incidental and intentional learning;
for example, add post-reading vocabulary tasks (Schmitt, 2008).
Webb (2008) argues that for investigation of the problem it is necessary to
consider both factors: (1) the number of target word occurrence in the reading; and (2)
the quality of cues for guessing provided in the reading context. He believes that gains in
vocabulary knowledge have varied from study to study because it is difficult to assess
how many times a word has to be encountered for successful acquisition without
considering the quality of the context clues. In some sentences the meaning of the target
word may be transparent, but in others it may be obscure. Thus, differences between the
46
types of contexts may be responsible for conflicting results. In his study of lexical
retention (Webb, 2008), 50 Japanese university EFL students do a reading
comprehension task that consists of short sentences rated as more or less informative for
inferring new words. Each sentence contains a single target word. In a more informative
context it is easy to infer the meaning of the target word as it is provided by several
context cues, whereas in a less informative context there are fewer cues and it is more
difficult to guess the meaning of a target word. The results show that knowledge of form
is influenced more by the frequency of occurrence, but knowledge of meaning is
influenced by the quality of the context clues. However, frequently repeated words (more
than 10 encounters) have a good chance to be acquired even if they are embedded in a
less informative context.
Some researchers (Hulstijn et al., 1996; Schmitt & Meara, 1997) argued that an
especially informative context with many cues could sometimes prevent the acquisition
of words. If learners read for comprehension, and the context allowed them to understand
what was going on in the text without determining the meaning of unfamiliar words, they
did not retain those words. Mondria and Wit-De Boer (1991) investigated the influence of
sentence context on vocabulary inferencing and acquisition. The learners who were given
unknown words in sentences with clear cues (“pregnant context”) could guess the
meaning of the words significantly better than the learners who did not have many
contextual clues. However, the situation was opposite when the two groups were tested
for retention of the word meanings. Good contextual clues did not encourage learners to
remember the form–meaning connections. Lawson and Hogben (1996) expected the use
of contextual clues would serve as a means toward vocabulary acquisition, but this
47
strategy was used rarely and, even when used, was not found effective. They admitted
that when the context helped students to generate the meaning, they might not pay much
attention to the word and, therefore, have less chance to acquire it. Thus, they agreed with
Nation and Coady (1988) and with Mondria and Wit-de Boer (1991) that the position of
context use for vocabulary acquisition needs to be reconsidered.
Research on extensive reading as a strategy for learning new vocabulary shows that
efficiency of this method depends on many variables: The amount of reading, the level of
participants’ vocabulary knowledge, the number of context cues for inferring word
meanings, and the number of occurrences of new words in the reading. Studies that use
tests sensitive to small amount of gained knowledge (Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Webb,
2008) prove that such learning occurs. Nation (2001) believes that the small gains can
become large if learners read a lot and if some deliberate attention is paid to vocabulary.
Such attention can be provided by instructors in the form of vocabulary-focusing
activities, or learners can follow guessing from the context by consulting reference
sources to check their hypotheses.
2.2.4.2.4 Consulting a Reference Source
Monolingual and bilingual dictionaries are the most universal sources of lexical
information for L2 learners. Studies on the use of reference sources (Fraser, 1999a,
1999b; Hulstijn et al., 1996; Knight, 1994; Luppescu and Day, 1993; Peters et al., 2009;
Watanabe, 1997) investigate how the use of paper-based and online dictionaries affects
vocabulary learning and retention, how well learners use dictionaries, what kind of
reference (vocabulary use, marginal glosses, text-embedded glosses) influence lexical
retention better, and what kind of dictionary (bilingual or monolingual) is more effective
48
for learning new word meanings. Researchers are also interested in the effectiveness of
such strategies as reference source use, guessing from context, elaborate processing of
information, reinforcing the form–meaning connection, or combinations of these
strategies.
Luppescu and Day (1993) studied the influence of the use of a bilingual
dictionary on vocabulary learning in a reading task. The group that used the dictionary
showed almost 50% more vocabulary gains than the control group, although the rate of
reading in the experimental group was considerably slower (on average 50%) than that of
the control group. Knight (1994) investigated the effect of dictionary use in L2 learners
with high and low L1 verbal abilities. The difference in the results of the dictionary and
non-dictionary groups was significant: 20% and 6% on the immediate posttest and 13.5%
and 8.5% on the delayed test, respectively. The use of a dictionary especially helped low
L1 ability learners, but it also negatively affected the dictionary group reading rate
(students in this group spent 42% more time reading).
Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) explored ways to improve incidental
vocabulary acquisition from reading with the help of different reference sources. They
found that when learners are provided with marginal glosses or use dictionaries to look
up the meaning of unknown words, reappearance of the word in the text strengthened the
form–meaning connection and might lead to eventual acquisition of such words.
However, reading for global meaning without paying specific attention to unfamiliar
words might not enlarge L2 learners’ vocabularies to a great extent. Thus, learners should
be trained and encouraged to use such strategies as paying attention to unfamiliar words,
inferring from context, using dictionaries, and employing elaboration activities.
49
Watanabe (1997) compared vocabulary retention after reading a text with three
forms of connecting meaning to vocabulary: (1) a brief restatement of unknown word
meaning embedded in the text; (2) glossing in the margin; or (3) multiple-choice glosses
in the margin. It was hypothesized that multiple-choice marginal glosses would provide
better retention because of deeper processing of the words. The study examined 231
university EFL learners in Japan. Using glosses appeared to be almost twice as effective
for vocabulary retention as in-text explanation or having no explanation or glosses.
Watanabe claimed that if the explanation of the word meaning in the text was sufficient
for passage comprehension, learners might choose not to return to the unknown word.
Under the gloss condition, students had to notice the unknown word, then look at its
gloss, and then return to the text and see if the meaning fit in the context, thus paying
more attention to the word form and meaning. Contrary to expectations, multiple-choice
glosses did not affected students’ performance.
Fraser (1999a) studied how L2 learners used three lexical processing strategies:
inferencing from context, consulting dictionaries, and ignoring unknown words. She
found that consulting a dictionary could potentially be a productive strategy for learning
new words: It increased the recall of the new vocabulary by 30%, and by 50% when the
consulting was combined with inferencing. However, the author pointed out that
consulting a dictionary is a skill and stressed the necessity to encourage students to
develop strategies for effective dictionary use: ignore some unnecessary words, infer the
meaning of important words, verify the inferred meaning by consulting, and do some
elaboration to enhance the learning of a word. Fraser (1999b) supported the previous
findings that the combination of two strategies—lexical inferencing and subsequent
50
consulting a dictionary—was more effective than using either one of these strategies
alone.
Peters, Hulstijn, Sercu, and Lutjeharms (2009) claim that L2 vocabulary
acquisition through reading depends on three factors: discovering the meaning of an
unfamiliar word, elaborate processing of this information, and reinforcing the form–
meaning connection. Their study explored three techniques that could potentially
influence students’ look-up behavior (using an online dictionary) and word retention. The
techniques were the announcement of a postreading vocabulary test, text comprehension
questions, and a postreading vocabulary task, in which learners had to provide an L1
translation or an L2 synonym for each target word. The results showed that a test
announcement affected learners’ motivation to use an online dictionary, and it had an
effect on word recognition, but not on word retention. Text comprehension questions, and
especially the combination of the questions and a postreading vocabulary task
significantly promoted vocabulary learning. Thus, looking up words in an online
dictionary promoted only the first stage of a word acquisition that might not lead to word
retention. Elaborate processing (comprehension questions) and repetition (vocabulary
task) promoted reinforcement of the form–meaning task and retention of new words.
There are different kinds of dictionaries, and the choice of the most suitable
dictionary for various tasks is an important strategic decision. Instructors usually
recommend monolingual dictionaries to their students, but learners seem to favor
bilingual ones more (Folse, 2004). The problem of effectiveness of different types of
dictionaries—monolingual, bilingual, and bilingualized (where the L2 entry is followed
by an L2 definition, L1 translation, and an L2 example sentence)—was investigated by
51
Laufer and Hadar (1997). A total of 123 EFL learners with L1 Hebrew were divided into
two groups: 76 intermediate high school students and 46 advanced university students.
Each participant studied a list of 15 target words with their dictionary entries: 5 words
with the monolingual entry, 5 words with the bilingual, and 5 words with the
bilingualized entry. Comprehension and production of these words were tested, and
significantly better results were achieved with bilingualized entries, irrespective of
participants’ proficiency level. Thus, a good bilingualized dictionary seems to be suitable
for any type of learner because it contains both simple bilingual and detailed monolingual
information learners may benefit from at different levels of L2 language proficiency.
Research on the use of reference sources for vocabulary acquisition shows that
dictionary use during reading is beneficial for word learning and retention, especially
when dictionaries are used in combination with other vocabulary learning strategies:
inferring from context, deep processing of the information, and reinforcing the form–
meaning connection. A comparatively new phenomenon, a bilingualized dictionary,
seems to be a good choice for learners of different proficiency levels (Laufer & Hadar,
1997).
2.3 Language Learning Beliefs
Research on language learning beliefs does not have a long history in the field of
SLA, although it is not new in the fields of psychology and anthropology. Interest in
students’ beliefs about L2 acquisition emerged from research on learner strategies
(Kalaja, 1995). Ellis (1995) includes beliefs in a group of learner variables that could
explain differences in the process and outcome of L2 acquisition. Many other scholars
highlight the importance of students’ beliefs for their learning. For example, Riley (1996)
52
claims that “if there is a misfit between what learners believe and the beliefs embedded in
the instructional structure in which they are enrolled, there is bound to be some degree of
friction or dysfunction” (pp. 152–153). Learners’ beliefs can be related to many processes
and outcomes of L2 acquisition, including students’ anxiety, motivation, the level of
students’ autonomy, and mismatches between teachers’ and students’ expectations in the
classroom (Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003). A key element is students’ philosophies, which
dictate their choice of particular learning strategies, influence the variety of strategies
used, and the students’ ability to use them effectively (Ellis, 1994; Wenden & Rubin,
1987).
2.3.1 Defining Language Learning Beliefs
There are many terms and definitions for beliefs about language learning. These
terms reflect different researchers’ interests and point to the importance of the concept in
SLA (Kalaja & Barcelos, 2003, p. 1). Barcelos (2003) reviewed the SLA research about
language learning beliefs and offered an informative table of terms, which I reproduce in
Table 2.7 below.
Table 2.7. Different terms and definitions for beliefs about SLA (Barcelos, 2003, pp. 9–
10)
Terms
Definitions
Folklinguistic theories of learning
(Miller & Ginsberg, 1995)
“ Ideas that students have about language and language
learning.” (p. 294)
Learner representation (Holec, 1987)
“Learners’ entering assumptions about their roles and
functions of teachers and teaching materials.” (p. 152)
Representations (Riley, 1994)
“Popular ideas about the nature of language and
languages, language structure and language use, the
relationship between thought and language, identity and
language, language and intelligence, language and
learning, and so on.” (1994, p. 8)
53
Table 2.7. Continued.
Terms
Learners’ philosophy of language
learning (Abraham & Vann, 1987)
Definitions
“Beliefs about how language operates, and, consequently,
how it is learned.” (p. 95)
Metacognitive knowledge (Wenden,
1986a)
“The stable, statable although sometimes incorrect
knowledge that learners have acquired about language,
learning, and the language learning process; also referred
to as knowledge or concepts about language learning or
learner beliefs; there are three kinds: person, task, and
strategic knowledge.” (p. 163)
Cultural beliefs (Gardner, 1988)
“Expectations in the minds of teachers, parents and
students concerning the entire second language acquisition
task.” (p. 110)
Learning culture (Riley, 1997)
“A set of representations, beliefs and values related to
learning that directly influence [students’] learning
behavior.” (p. 122)
Cultures of learning languages
(Barcelos, 1995)
“Learners’ intuitive implicit (or explicit) knowledge made
up of beliefs, myths, cultural assumptions and ideas about
how to learn languages. This knowledge, according to
learners’ age and social economic level, is based upon
their previous educational experience, previous (and
present) readings about language learning and contact
with other people like family, friends, relatives, teachers,
and so forth.” (p. 40)
Culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin,
1996)
“The cultural aspects of teaching and learning; what
people believe about ‘normal’ and ‘good’ learning
activities and processes, where such beliefs have a cultural
origin.” (p. 230)
Conceptions of learning and beliefs
(Benson & Lor, 1999)
“Conceptions of learning are concerned with what the
learner thinks the objects and processes of learning are;
beliefs [...] are concerned with what the learner holds to be
true about these objects and processes given a certain
conception of what they are ... Conceptions of learning
characterize learners’ thinking at a higher level of
abstraction than beliefs.” (p. 464)
The abundance of different terms and definitions represented in this table reflects
the fact that interest in beliefs about L2 acquisition is fairly recent, and no conventional
terms have been developed yet. Increasingly, researchers acknowledge the importance of
54
students’ beliefs about L2 acquisition and are interested in studying them, and the
definitions they give reflect their different research interests. Some definitions emphasize
the cognitive nature of beliefs (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Holec, 1987; Wenden, 1986),
whereas others underline the social and cultural nature of beliefs (Barcelos, 1995;
Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Gardner, 1988).
2.3.2 Approaches to Investigation of Language Learning Beliefs
Current studies on beliefs about SLA employ several different research
approaches. Kalaja (1995) groups studies about beliefs into mainstream and alternative
(discursive) approaches. Barcelos (2003) distinguishes three different approaches to
investigating learners’ beliefs about L2 acquisition: normative, metacognitive, and
contextual. Ellis (2008) identifies a forth approach – metaphor analysis (Ellis, 2002;
Kramsch, 2003; Wan et al., 2011). This approach identifies students’ beliefs indirectly by
analyzing the metaphors used by students to describe their learning. It is important to
examine the implications and practical advantages and disadvantages of each approach.
2.3.2.1 The Normative Approach
The studies within the normative approach (Cotteral, 1995; Horwitz, 1987, 1988;
Kern, 1995; Kim-Yoon, 2000; Kuntz, 1996; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Rifkin, 2000; Sakui
& Gaies, 1999; Su, 1995; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992) see beliefs as indicators of
students’ future behaviors as autonomous learners. Most studies adopt a quantitative and
etic perspective, collect information on beliefs through the use of Likert-scale
questionnaires, and analyze it through descriptive statistics. The most widely used
questionnaire is the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) developed by
Horwitz (1985). Studies within this approach either use the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987, 1988;
55
Su, 1995; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992) or modify it (Mantle-Bromley, 1995; Rifkin,
2000). Some researchers have developed their own questionnaires (Cotteral, 1995; Kuntz,
1996; Sakui & Gaies, 1999).
In her pioneering work, Horwitz (1987) attempted to define common beliefs about
L2 acquisition among beginning university foreign language students. To design BALLI,
Horwitz analyzed several free-recall protocols of foreign language and ESL teachers,
teacher educators, and students from a variety of cultures, who were asked about their
own and other people’s beliefs about language learning. She chose 34 items and
categorized them into the following five themes: (1) foreign language aptitude; (2) the
difficulty of language learning; (3) the nature of language learning; (4) learning and
communication strategies; and (5) motivation and expectations. Horwitz (1987) stressed
that she did not attempt to classify student opinions as correct or incorrect (no matter how
“naïve or uninformed” they might seem), but tried “to describe specific beliefs and to
discuss the potential impact of these beliefs on learner expectation and strategies” (p.
285). The BALLI was administered to 241 students of German, French, or Spanish, and
the overall pattern of responses showed a general similarity of beliefs among students of
these languages. Horwitz (1987) argued that knowledge of learner beliefs about L2
acquisition could help instructors promote more effective learning strategies in their
students, which in turn could raise students’ “expectation of, commitment to, success in,
and satisfaction with their language classes” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 283).
The responses to BALLI received by Kern (1995) from 288 students were very
similar to Horwitz’s (1988, 1989) results, and Kern (1995) suggested that students’
beliefs about language learning “may be quite well entrenched” (p. 75). Besides, his
56
results showed “remarkable stability in students beliefs from the beginning to the end of
the semester” (p. 78). However, examination of responses on an individual level showed
that 52% of all students’ responses shifted slightly over the course of the semester, but
this fact could not be revealed by global statistics because many of the individual shifts
cancelled one another out in the averaging process. Kern (1995) concludes that
qualitative measures and elicitation techniques, such as interviews and classroom
observation are necessary to facilitate the identification of learners’ and teachers’ beliefs.
Previous studies surveyed beginning learners of French, German, and Spanish at
only one institution. Addressing this limitation, Rifkin (2000) presented an investigation
of beliefs of more than 1,000 learners of 10 different languages in three different
institutions and compared their beliefs: beginners versus other levels of study, commonly
versus less commonly taught languages, and public research institutions versus small
private colleges. A slightly modified version of the BALLI was used. The results of the
comparisons showed that beginning learners’ beliefs and beliefs of learners at other levels
of study were significantly different. The beliefs of learners of commonly and less
commonly taught languages were also different, although it was hypothesized that the
difficulty of the language rather than the language group may be more important in this
respect. The beliefs of learners in public research institutions and small private colleges
were also found to be different. As in the case with the language group, it is possible that
individual institution or location of the institution, rather than the nature of the institution,
is an important factor in shaping learners’ beliefs. The author pointed out that a
discussion of learners’ beliefs about SLA could be as complex and varied as the learners,
the variety of languages they study, and the institutions in which they study.
57
Using BALLI for assessing language learning beliefs of 107 students of Russian
in a Malaysian university (Nikitina & Furioka, 2006) extracted only four themes:
motivation, aptitude, strategy, and ease of learning. The theme of “nature of learning”
was missing. The authors supposed that this result could be due to an insufficient number
of participants, and Horwitz’s instrument can still be considered an appropriate tool for
researching students’ beliefs in different socio-linguistic settings (p. 217). Yang (1999)
surveyed 505 Taiwanese university students of EFL and also identified only four factors:
self-efficacy and expectations about learning English, perceived value and nature of
learning spoken English, beliefs about foreign language aptitude, and beliefs about
formal structural studies. The labels of identified factors were different from those of
Horwitz’s BALLI, and the items were grouped differently. Thus, groups of learners with
different cultural backgrounds may reveal unique belief structures.
Another recent study that used the BALLI questionnaire is that of Fujiwara
(2011). Fujiwara (2011) administered BALLI to a previously unexplored cultural group
of learners, 542 university-level students of EFL in Thailand. This study also aimed at
verifying the grouping of 34 BALLI items into 5 themes (Horwitz, 1987) through
statistical analysis. A five-factor structure was identified through a factor analysis:
learning and communication strategies; important aspects of language learning;
expectations and difficulty of learning English; nature and aptitude of language learning;
and difficulty and ability of language learning.
Fujiwara (2011) commented that the item grouping was different from that
proposed by Horwitz. Seventeen items were found to form the core distinct and
independent dimensions of language learning beliefs, and on these items Thai students
58
(Fujiwara, 2011) were very similar to Taiwanese students (Yang, 1999) and Malaysian
(Nikitina & Furuoka, 2006) participants. At least for Asian students, these items may
represent “a world culture of language learning and teaching which encourages learners
of many cultural backgrounds to perceive language learning very similarly,” as pointed
out by Horwitz (1999, p. 575).
Japanese university EFL students’ beliefs about language learning were studied
by Sakui and Gaies (1999). The authors also investigated whether Japanese learners
(n=1300) were consistent from one time to another in reporting their beliefs about L2
acquisition. The original 45-item questionnaire written in Japanese was designed for this
study, and three versions of the survey: the Original, Scrambled (with a different order of
the items), and Alternate (to test the sensitivity of responses to the wording of items)
were administered. Some students responded to the Original version first, and to the
Scrambled version four weeks later. Other students responded to the Original and
Alternate versions four weeks apart. The authors also used interview data to interpret the
questionnaire data more accurately and to investigate “the reasons, sources, behavioral
outcomes, and other dimensions of [students’] beliefs (p. 486).” The study data suggested
that Japanese university students possessed consistent beliefs and awareness about L2
acquisition. This finding contrasted with the conclusion of Luppescu & Day’s (1990)
study, which found no coherent beliefs about language learning in Japanese university
students.
Some normative studies not only discuss students’ language learning beliefs in
general, but also study the relationship between beliefs about L2 acquisition and language
learning behaviors. The behaviors may indicate general approaches to learning or
59
language learning strategies. Yang (1999) combined the English Learning Questionnaire
(Yang, 1992), the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987), and the SILL (Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning, Oxford, 1990) to study the relationship between the beliefs about
SLA and language learning strategy use of 505 university students in Taiwan. She found
that learners’ beliefs affected their use of strategies. Students’ self-efficacy beliefs, their
perceptions of the value of learning, and their expectations about learning were strongly
related to the use of all types of learning strategies. Yang suggested that the relationship
between beliefs and behaviors is a circular one: Beliefs guide behavior, but strategies in
turn can also cause beliefs.
The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning, their
language learning strategy use, and their language proficiency was investigated in
Abedini, Rahimi, and Zare-ee’s (2011) study. They collected data from 203 Iranian
undergraduate students of English through questionnaires: BALLI (Horwitz, 1987), the
SILL (Oxford, 1990), and a proficiency test. To elicit additional information about
language learning beliefs and strategy use, the researchers added several open-ended
questions to the questionnaires. The results showed a strong correlation of learners’
beliefs about language learning with their use of all types of language learning strategies
except metacognitive strategies. Abedini et al. (2011) hypothesize that in Iranian school
students rarely take responsibility for planning and setting goals for their learning. As a
result, they may underestimate the importance of metacognitive strategies. The findings
also revealed positive and significant correlation between language learning beliefs and
language proficiency. The correlation supported the view that beliefs can be a strong
mediating factor in students’ language learning experience.
60
Cotteral (1999) investigated learners’ perspectives on topics, which SLA literature
suggests are important in successful language learning. The 90-item questionnaire
investigated learner beliefs about 6 variables:
1. the role of the teacher;
2. the role of feedback;
3. the learner’s sense of self-efficacy;
4. important strategies;
5. dimensions of strategy-related behavior; and
6. the nature of language learning. (Cotteral, 1999, p. 499)
The questionnaire was administered to 131 ESL students from 19 different
countries enrolled in academic English language courses at a U.S. university. The results
showed that most learners reported their ability to adopt such key learning strategies as
analyzing needs, setting goals, planning their learning, and identifying their strengths and
weaknesses, but they had difficulties monitoring and evaluating their learning. Cotteral
(1999) argued that, because the ability to self-correct, evaluate, and assess their own
progress are extremely important skills for autonomous learners, students need training in
ways of monitoring and evaluating their learning.
In summary, studies within the normative approach provide a general picture of
the learners’ beliefs about SLA. Some researchers suggest classification frameworks for
different types of beliefs; for example, Benson & Lor (1999) divided beliefs into three
groups: (1) beliefs about language learning; (2) beliefs about self; and (3) beliefs about
the learning situation. Yang (1999) proposed a theoretical construct composed of two
dimensions: metacognitive beliefs and motivational beliefs. Metacognitive beliefs
61
included learner beliefs about their own language proficiency, aptitude, personality, and
learning style; beliefs about the task of language learning, and knowledge about learning
strategies. Motivational beliefs included learners’ beliefs about their ability to learn an
L2, the difficulty of class assignments, expectation of results, goals for L2 learning, and
emotional reactions to second language learning.
All normative studies use questionnaires as their main data collection instrument.
Some normative studies, however, employ supplementary data collection techniques in
addition to questionnaires. For example, Sakui and Gaies (1999) insist on the necessity of
data triangulation in research on beliefs about language learning. They argue that
questionnaires alone may not be a reliable source of data about beliefs. Complementary
interviews used in the study showed that some questionnaire responses can be
misinterpreted because beliefs are situationally conditioned, and different responses may
be influenced by different contexts in which students are learning their L2 or by different
kinds of language tasks. No matter how carefully a questionnaire is developed and
revised, different students may understand it in different ways. In addition, in
questionnaire responses participants can only state the beliefs included by the researcher,
whereas interviews allow them to reveal their own beliefs that may not be included as
possible responses in a questionnaire and “to describe the reasons, sources, behavioral
outcomes, and other dimensions of their beliefs” (p. 486). Cotteral (1999) included two
tasks after the questionnaire in which students could express their own perspectives:
writing a letter to a friend providing advice on language learning, and ranking
descriptions of learner types in reference to themselves. However, the article reported
62
only on the questionnaire data, and we cannot see how these tasks influenced the data
analysis.
Most normative studies (Abedini et al., 2011; Cotteral, 1999; Horwitz, 1987;
Yang, 1999) assume that there is a relationship between students’ beliefs and their
language learning behaviors: their general approach to learning and their use of language
learning strategies. The assumption is that some beliefs may lead to selection and use of
successful strategies and others to unsuccessful ones. However, the studies within this
approach have not observed students’ actions. Barcelos (2003) argues that the
relationship between beliefs and actions may be influenced by such factors as learning
context, students’ motivation, level of proficiency, or previous learning experiences. The
normative approach does not focus on these factors because it measures beliefs out of
context
2.3.2.2 The Metacognitive Approach
There are not many studies conducted within the metacognitive approach; a
search of the literature turned up only Goh, 1997; Victori & Lockhart, 1995; and
Wenden, 1986, 1987. This approach represents the position that language learning beliefs
are a “subset of metacognitive knowledge” (Wenden, 1999, p. 436). Beliefs are
subjective, may be acquired unconsciously or consciously, influence learners’ approach
to learning and their expectations of the outcomes, and may change over time. Mature
learners may reflect on their beliefs and revise prior assumptions or develop new ones
(Wenden, 1999). Researchers that use a metacognitive approach to language learning
beliefs collect their data through semi-structured interviews and self-reports, and then
analyze them through content analysis. In comparison to questionnaires, interviews give
63
more information about learners’ metacognitive knowledge because interviews allow
students to evaluate the learning process in their own words and express their own ideas.
Wenden (1987) tried to determine if learners have any explicit prescriptive beliefs
and if these beliefs influence what students report they do to learn an L2. Interviews with
25 adult ESL learners who were enrolled in English classes in the United States showed
that they held some prescriptive beliefs. Wenden (1987) divided their beliefs into three
groups: (1) the importance of using the language in a natural way, such as by practicing
it, trying to think in English, and living and studying in an environment where English is
spoken; (2) the importance of learning about the language, such as by studying grammar
and vocabulary, taking formal language courses, learning from mistakes, and being
mentally active; and (3) the importance of utilizing such personal factors as aptitude, selfconcept, and emotions. Wenden (1987) found that some of the beliefs in her study were
different from those in the BALLI, and she concluded that “a more comprehensive and
representative set of beliefs” needed to be developed (p. 113).
Goh (1997) investigated learners’ beliefs and metacognitive awareness about
listening. EFL learners in Singapore were asked to keep a listening diary in which they
reflected on the way they did listening tasks inside and outside of class, reported what
they did to understand better, and what ideas about learning to listen they had. Goh
analyzed 40 of the diaries and classified the students’ beliefs and observations under
person knowledge (25 subcategories), task knowledge (17 subcategories), and strategic
knowledge (21 strategies). Goh (1997) concluded that the students demonstrated a high
degree of metacognitive awareness and specific beliefs about the factors that could
enhance or impair their listening comprehension. They were able to observe their
64
cognitive processes and articulate their beliefs about learning to listen in English. Goh
believed the diaries served not only as research tools, but also as teaching tools that
provided the stimulus for students to reflect on their learning, raise their metacognitive
awareness, and eventually become more autonomous learners (pp. 367–368).
Victori and Lockhart (1995) argue that enhancing students’ metacognition is
especially important for students in self-directed courses because it prepares them for
their own learning autonomy. In self-directed programs, learner training should start with
considering students’ metacognitive knowledge and beliefs because they may be naïve,
erroneous, or potentially impeding their learning. Such beliefs need to be modified or
reconstructed and it would help students choose optimal strategies and activities for their
learning.
Victori and Lockhart (1995) showed how students in a self-directed program
benefited from counseling sessions, which aimed at enhancing metacognition. The
counseling resulted in more autonomy, increased motivation, improved self-esteem and,
as a result, an increased rate of progress in learning. The researchers asserted that as
metacognition, autonomy, and learning interact with each other, students’ metacognitive
beliefs and expectations about language learning play an important part in the process of
achieving learners’ autonomy. Victori and Lockhart (1995) argued for enhancing
learners’ awareness of their beliefs, because counterproductive beliefs and unconstructive
thoughts may lead to indifference toward learning, anxiety, and negative attitude to
autonomy. Insightful beliefs about SLA, however, help students to choose effective
learning strategies and compensate for possible weaknesses, thus facilitating the process
of developing a more active and autonomous attitude to learning, which in turn appears to
65
accelerate the rate of progress (p. 232). Thus, if metacognition is enhanced, it may
influence self-knowledge, use of more efficient strategies, interact with learners’ feelings
and motivation, and increase the contact with the language, thus accelerating the whole
process of language learning.
In summary, the studies within the metacognitive approach present valuable
information about students’ metacognitive beliefs related to self-oriented learning. In
contrast to studies within the normative approach, they collect data through the use of
interviews and self-reports. These methods give students opportunities to reflect on their
experiences and present their emic perspectives. Beliefs are seen as related to learners’
autonomy. An ideal learner is an autonomous learner, and implementation of autonomy
may be prevented if learners’ beliefs are naïve, erroneous, or counterproductive. Such
beliefs should be restructured or modified. Similar to the normative approach, the
metacognitive approach does not analyze students’ actions and studies beliefs out of the
learning context. Beliefs are seen as cognitive entities and the social or situational aspects
of beliefs are left out (Kalaja, 1995).
The relationship between beliefs and strategies are seen as one of cause and effect
(Barcelos, 2003). Productive beliefs that encourage self-directed learning are
hypothesized to lead to successful learning strategies, and lack of such beliefs may result
in unsuccessful strategies or non-autonomous behavior.
2.3.2.3 The Contextual Approach
Contextual approach studies do not aim at generalizing about beliefs, but focus on
the dynamic and social aspect of beliefs and research them as embedded in contexts. The
contextual approach views beliefs as experienced-based and emergent from specific
66
social contexts, and belief systems not as linear or structured, but as complex and
multilayered (Hosenfeld, 2003; Kalaja, 2003; Mercer, 2011; Yang & Kim, 2011).
Contextual studies are diverse in the theoretical frameworks they use, for
example, phenomenographical (White, 1999), neo-Vygotskian sociocultural (Alanen,
2003; Yang & Kim, 2011), Bakhtinian (Dufva, 2003), Deweyan (Barcelos, 2000),
narrative research (Aragao, 2011, Barcelos, 2006), and ecological approaches (Peng,
2011). These studies also vary in methods of data collection that include ethnographic
classroom observations, stimulated recall, informal discussions (Allen, 1996; Barcelos,
2000), diaries and narratives (Hosenfeld, 2003), discourse analysis (Kalaja, 2003),
naturalistic interviews, and ranking exercises (White, 1999). In this section, I review
several contextual studies. They employ different data collection methods and different
theories for analysis of the data to better research learners’ beliefs about L2 acquisition.
What unites them is centralizing the context-specific, dynamic, and sometimes
contradictory nature of beliefs, portraying students as social beings, and using students’
interpretations of their experiences, as well as inferring beliefs from their intentions and
actions (Barcelos, 2003; Richardson, 1996).
Investigating the relationship between learners’ beliefs and actions in the selfdirected learning context was the aim of Navarro and Thornton’s (2011) study. Students
of English at a Japanese university were enrolled in a course that combined classwork
with two three-week periods of individualized out-of-classroom learning. During these
periods students designed their own learning plans, set their learning goals, and
determined and implemented activities to achieve these goals. Wenden (1998) proposed
that to be able to manage their learning successfully, students need to be able to plan,
67
monitor, and evaluate their learning. Navarro and Thornton (2011) added that
implementing the learners’ plans was equally important for self-regulated study, so they
included it in their PIME model (planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating).
The data were collected through a closed-item questionnaire, an open-ended
questionnaire, a metaphor activity, reflective journals, advising sessions, self-reports, and
language learning histories.
Navarro and Thornton stated that in a self-directed learning context, students’
behavior could be the most reliable indicator of their beliefs. The triangulation of
students’ statements with their documentation of learning behaviors allowed the
researchers to show the complex interplay between beliefs and actions; that is, how
successful experiences could reinforce and refine emergent beliefs, and how earlier
beliefs were not easy to alter and continue to affect the processing of new information
(supporting the opinion that at least some beliefs are stable). Some students’ beliefs were
appropriated from their advisers and were then reinforced by the success of their learning
actions. The peculiarity of this study was that the researchers were the advisers for the
course. On one hand it allowed them to see their students’ behaviors and their influence
on beliefs better. On the other hand, during their interactions researchers challenged some
students’ beliefs not only verbally, but also through evaluations of their work. Thus, the
advisers’ beliefs might have been appropriated by students because of the existing
relations of power and future assessment in the course.
The dynamic of learners’ beliefs in the self-directed learning context was also
investigated by White (1999). The research approach used for this longitudinal study is
phenomenography (Marton, 1981); that is, describing the view of phenomena (a language
68
course) through the eyes of the learners and analyzing their experiences and thoughts
about their learning. The design of the study was supposed to prevent the researcher from
co-constructing the experiences of the students. After each of five phases of the study, a
preliminary analysis of the received data was carried out to develop procedures for the
next phase, which revealed more details. White (1999) used multiple methods of data
collection: interviews, open-ended questionnaires, responses to statements of
expectations, ranking exercises, and scenarios.
The results revealed that the novice learners had particular beliefs and
expectations about self-instruction, and as they gained experience, they revised and
modified their beliefs. Three central belief constructs emerged at the beginning of the
study: conceptions of self-instructed learning, expectations of success, and control. As the
study progressed, the beliefs and expectations of most learners changed in these areas and
students saw their roles in the self-instructed context differently: They developed a more
effective relationship with the language materials, learned to tolerate ambiguity, and
shifted from external to internal control. In the process of adjustment, beliefs helped
learners to adapt to circumstances.
A neo-Vygotskian sociocultural theory of mind was used for research by Alanen
(2003) and Yang & Kim (2011). Alanen (2003) studied how Finnish 7-to-9-year-old
children created language learning beliefs during 18 months of longitudinal research.
Examining the dialogues between the interviewer and the learners showed how the signs
of other-regulation (the prominent role of other people in the children’s’ environment)
were replaced with appropriation of the utterances of significant others and, finally, with
self-regulation. Alanen (2003) argues that significant others play a role of human
69
mediators for child learners and help them to construct new mediators—beliefs—which
may in the future play a role in children’s language learning behaviors.
Yang and Kim (2011) used sociocultural theory to explore L2 learning beliefs in a
study abroad context. The data (language learning autobiographies, interviews, journal
entries, and stimulated recall tasks) were collected from two Korean learners of English
before, during, and after studying abroad in the United States and in the Philippines for
several months (9 months and 5 months, respectively). Before going abroad, the learners
shared a similar belief about benefits of the chosen programs for developing their L2
proficiency. However, during the program, their beliefs were reoriented, leading to
qualitatively different L2 learning. One student’s beliefs change led to active
participation in various communities and development of L2 productive skills; the other
student’s beliefs modification led to losing motivation for interaction with native
speakers and focusing on exam preparation. Yang and Kim (2011) suggest that L2
learners’ beliefs are continually changing in accordance with their goals and experiences.
The changes and appropriation of the beliefs can mediate learners’ behaviors, and the
coordination of beliefs and learning environment is critical in maintaining motivated L2
learning.
In addition to a sociocultural approach, Dufva (2003) used the dialogic approach first
formulated by Bakhtin (1981) in her analysis of Finnish language learners’ beliefs. In
contrast to mainstream cognitive psychology and Chomskian linguistics that emphasize
the autonomy and independence of the human mind, she sees beliefs as cognitive
phenomena that should be analyzed as subjective experiences because they always reflect
a certain point of view and depend on the social and cultural context.
70
Dufva (2003) objects to using yes/no questionnaires in belief research because the
data may not indicate “what the subjects believe, but, rather, how they relate to the
formulations presented to them by the researcher” (p. 146). She collected her data from
different forms of individuals’ narratives: interviews, group discussions, and written
narratives, and these different data sources allowed the participants to show their own
voices. She examined not only what the participants said, but also how they expressed it.
She insisted that the researcher’s voice is always inevitably present in the process of data
collection and interpretation, and this fact should be taken into account.
Dufva (2003) demonstrated that beliefs are situated, dynamic, and multi-voiced.
They always reflect a certain point of view resulting from interactions of the individual
with the social and cultural contexts, they may change during a person’s life or even
within new discursive situations, and beliefs can incorporate several different and even
contradictory perspectives resulting from personal experiences, views from society, the
media, or instruction at school.
An ecological approach to investigate the changes in one first-year Chinese
college student’s beliefs about English learning was used by Peng (2011). Learning
journals, class observations, and semi-structured interviews collected during the first
seven months of the student’s college study were analyzed. The findings indicate that
beliefs are emergent and context-responsive. Many factors were found to influence the
participant’s beliefs: course goals, teaching methods, classroom activities, and support
from teachers and peers.
The participant, who experienced communicative approach activities for the first
time in his college English class, expressed his enjoyment and acceptance of the
71
activities. His next class, Medical English, however, did not include any interaction
among students, but was mainly teacher-fronted. The participant asserted that the class
gave him “a clearer learning target” (medical terminology), whereas the previous
semester he did not have this feeling, “I had no idea what I had learned” (p. 320). The
change in the student’s belief emerged from the new classroom environment. In the
middle of the course, when he felt overloaded with difficult medical terminology and
information, he expressed the desire for some communicative class activities, although
their value would be not to foster his English competence, but only to sustain his interest
in learning English. The author concludes that at first the participant was able to adjust to
contemporary educational ideology to prefer communicative activities, but his beliefs
were undermined by the subsequent classroom experience, and he no longer perceived
these activities as beneficial to his learning.
The author seems to be sure that only beliefs about the value of communicative
language learning can be called “positive” or “informed,” and suggests that it is necessary
to promote these beliefs among EFL college students. Communicative language learning
is the contemporary educational ideology of L2 teaching in the United States, but it may
not be as prevalent in English language teaching outside the country, especially in such a
different context as teaching English medical terminology in China. Thus, there may be
contexts in which the communicative approach is not the prevailing method of teaching,
not because the instructors do not value the method, but because it does not coincide with
the goal of the course.
Barcelos (2003) used an ethnographic approach to investigate the relationship
between American ESL teachers’ beliefs and those of their Brazilian students. Based on
72
Dewey’s (1938) concepts of experience, beliefs, and identity, the results of the study
suggest that students’ and teachers’ beliefs about L2 acquisition are in complex
relationship. In class, both teachers and students consciously or unconsciously interpret
each other’s beliefs, and it influences how they teach or study. If there is a mismatch
between teachers’ and students’ beliefs, both sides may struggle to have their
perspectives recognized, and they may engage in actions to validate their own beliefs.
In Barcelos’s (2003) study, one teacher–student pair has conflicting beliefs about
grammar teaching, and they both adapted and adjusted to the conflict of their beliefs. The
teacher’s interpretation of her students’ beliefs shaped her classroom practice: She
compromised some of her beliefs to attend to some students’ beliefs, but also tried to
counteract other students’ beliefs. The student felt very frustrated at the beginning of the
course, questioned the credibility of the teacher, and demonstrated passive resistance.
Later, the conflict led her to adopt a more active and autonomous role. The researcher
showed that both the teacher’s and the student’s beliefs were shaped and reshaped by
their past and present experiences, interactions, and their construction of their identities.
Potential conflicts between teachers’ and students’ beliefs can cause
miscommunication, misunderstanding, and frustration among students. Thus, identifying
the mismatch can prevent potential conflicts if teachers are more explicit about their
purposes and rationale behind all classroom activities. Teachers and learners have to be
aware of their beliefs and expectations of the other. Gathering their students’ feedback
about classroom processes, reflecting on their own beliefs about SLA, and comparing
them with those of their students, may help teachers to identify the sources of potential
miscommunication or conflict. Barcelos (2003) suggested that it may be necessary “to
73
bargain” with students in the in the beginning of the process of adjusting different
expectations (p. 194).
The dynamism and complexity of self-concept of a learner of two foreign
languages (English and Spanish) was the focus of a three-year longitudinal case study by
Mercer (2011). Self-concept is defined as “ a self-description judgment that includes an
evaluation of competence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the judgment in
question” in a specific domain (Pajares & Schunk, 2005, cited in Mercer, 2011, p. 336).
This term is closely connected to the terms self-efficacy belief or self-beliefs, which are
used for more specific tasks.
The data (journal entries and interviews) were analyzed using grounded theory.
The results revealed complexity of the learner’s self-concept, which consisted of multiple
layers of interrelated self-beliefs. The learner’s different self-beliefs about studying two
languages appeared to be both dynamic and stable, and they varied in the degree of
stability and of change they underwent. Mercer warns against simplistic models of
linearity, cause-and-effect and change/stability dichotomies in belief research. She argues
that such characteristics of beliefs as complexity, interrelatedness, embeddedness in
context, and non-linearity mirror features of dynamic systems. Thus, a complexity
theory-based approach (de Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2006) may help to
understand the nature of beliefs and encourage a more holistic perspective.
In summary, researchers who prefer the contextual approach criticize normative
and metacognitive studies for leaving out the social aspect of beliefs and regarding
beliefs as mental traits, fixed a-priori constructs, or static, internal representation of
experience that is resistant to change. However, Barcelos (2003) argues that the
74
distinction between the approaches in practice may not be this straightforward, as the
choice of methodology and approach (or combination of approaches) often depends on
the types of research questions. She suggests that the three approaches can be visualized
on a continuum of two poles: one with predetermined categories for analysis, and the
other one allowing meaning to emerge from the data (p. 27). As Hosenfeld (2003) states,
“beliefs can vary along many dimensions including stable/unstable, emerging/fading
away; used/unused; new/old; idiosyncratic/universal; evolving/unchanging;
recurrent/infrequent” (p. 39). Thus, all approaches add some new information to the
description of beliefs about L2 acquisition that may be encountered in the language
classroom or in a naturalistic environment.
2.3.3 Learners’ Beliefs about Specific Aspects of Language Learning
Compared to attention given to L2 learners’ general language beliefs, there has
been less research on the beliefs about specific aspects of language learning: reading,
writing, listening, studying grammar and error correction, and vocabulary. The existing
studies stress that detailed knowledge about students’ beliefs can contribute to better
understanding of specific aspects of L2 acquisition process and help instructors to
organize the teaching process more effectively.
2.3.3.1 L2 Grammar and Writing
Beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction is one of the highly
debatable subjects in SLA research (Loewen et al, 2009; Incecay & Dollar, 2011; Schulz,
1996, 2001). Schulz (1996) compared beliefs about grammar instruction and error
correction of 824 American university L2 students with beliefs of 92 L2 teachers. In
comparison with their teachers, students hold more favorable attitudes toward formal
75
grammar study (80% vs. 64%) and oral error correction (90% vs. 34%). In 2001 Schulz
replicated the study in postsecondary institutions in Colombia with 607 students and 122
instructors and found no significant differences between American and Colombian
participants in their attitude to grammar instruction and error correction, although
Colombian students and teachers had slightly stronger beliefs in the positive role of
grammar study and corrective feedback in second language learning. Loewen et al.
(2009) surveyed 754 university students of different L2 and found that all learners valued
grammar instruction, but students of foreign languages were more convinced about the
need for grammar instruction than ESL students. Error correction was viewed separately
from grammar instruction and was perceived less positively. In a more recent study,
Incecay & Dollar (2011) administered the questionnaire used by Loewen (2009) to EFL
university students in Turkey and received similar results. Turkish EFL students believed
grammar instruction was important although sometimes boring, and most of them wanted
their errors to be immediately corrected by instructor.
Error correction research in L2 writing has focused mostly on teachers’ beliefs
and strategies of correcting students’ errors and presented some opposite points of views
(Ferris, 1997; Truscott, 1996). The studies that surveyed students’ opinions (Ferris, 1995;
Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991) showed that L2 students
expected to receive corrective feedback from their writing teachers and believed that it
helped them improve writing accuracy. Perpignan (2003) stated that EFL post-graduate
Israeli students’ preferences concerning feedback varied between explicit and implicit
written error correction.
Lee (2004) investigated secondary L2 writing teachers’ and students’ beliefs
76
regarding error feedback in Hong Kong. Results showed that participants preferred
comprehensive error feedback and students expected teachers to correct their errors.
Deng (2009) replicated Lee’s (2004) study in Taiwan and found that 70% of students
preferred direct error feedback to indirect, and 94% believed that they were making
progress in writing as a result of teachers’ error feedback.
2.3.3.2 Listening
Goh (1977, 1999, 2000) states that a strong reason to study learners’ beliefs about
listening is the evidence that beliefs can influence learners’ choice of strategies and ways
to approach learning tasks. Encouraging students to reflect on their cognitive processes
helps them find out what leads to their success or failure in listening and make better
decisions about the choice of listening strategies.
For investigating language learners’ beliefs about listening, Goh (1999, 2000)
studied 40 listening diaries of Chinese students of English and found several factors that
influenced listening: the text, the speaker, the listener, and the environment. The mostly
frequently mentioned problems were the vocabulary used in the test, background
knowledge of the topic, speech rate, type of input, and the speaker’s accent.
Graham (2006) investigated beliefs held by 595 high-school students of French
about listening, in particular about the reasons of their success or lack of it. She found
that many learners saw themselves as less successful in listening than in other language
areas, and that they attributed their difficulties to their low ability in the skill and the
difficulty of the listening tasks. These views indicated a sense of passivity and
helplessness in students because of the impossibility of influencing either task difficulty
or their inborn abilities. Graham (2006) stressed that gaining information about the
77
beliefs about L2 listening held by learners might be an important first step for teachers
who wish to help their students address the problems they experience (p. 179).
Enforcement of the belief that improvement is possible through strategy use or skill
application might protect and encourage students’ sense of self-efficacy and motivation.
Graham offered a combined approach to teaching listening: addressing maladaptive
beliefs and instruction in strategy use and skill application.
Al-Handhali (2009) surveyed 30 Omani high-school English language learners on
their beliefs about L2 listening and strategies used for better comprehension. The
majority of students had mixed or negative feelings about listening, and it appeared to
cause anxiety. The author concluded that instructors should be aware of students’
perceptions in order to encourage the beliefs that help learners to cope with listening
tasks. To identify students’ listening comprehension problems, Hasan (2000) investigated
how EFL university students in Syria perceived their difficulties in listening. The study
showed that learners’ use of ineffective listening strategies affected their listening
comprehension. Hasan (2000) argues that the identification of listening comprehension
problems can help instructors find the reasons of comprehension breakdowns and design
remedial tasks to improve listening skills and strategies.
Some new instruments for investigating learners’ beliefs about listening were
designed recently. Lotfi (2012) discusses the development and validation of a
questionnaire for assessing learners’ beliefs about L2 listening comprehension problems.
A pool of the questionnaire items was generated from 30 essays about challenges of
learning English listening; the survey was piloted with 40 learners, and 580 EFL
university students responded to the final version of the questionnaire. The results
78
showed that the questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of students’ listening
problems and the findings of the study were consisted with the results of the previous
studies (Hasan, 2000; Goh, 1999, 2000; Graham, 2006).
2.3.3.3 Reading
Many beliefs about L2 reading can influence learners’ process of reading
comprehension. Among them is reading for meaning or for linguistic knowledge, using
bottom-up or top-down decoding processes, using different reading strategies, the role of
grammatical knowledge and vocabulary, or the importance of a reading text organization.
Richards and Lockhart (1994) presented their analysis of an example of a reading lesson,
in which the mismatch in the teacher’s and students’ beliefs about the goal of a reading
task led to the use of inappropriate reading strategies. The teacher expected students to
develop their extensive reading skills, whereas students believed the tasks were designed
to improve their knowledge of vocabulary and idioms, and so they focused on the
development of intensive reading skills. Devine (1988) argued that three different sets of
beliefs about reading (a sound-centered, a word-centered, and a meaning-centered
process) were reflected in the participants’ reading behaviors, and an unhappy choice of
the belief set resulted in reading comprehension breakdown. Kamhi-Stein (2003) also
found that learners’ beliefs about reading influenced their L2 reading strategies. The
participants’ views of reading as a logocentric process resulted in using strategies
designed to find the meaning of unknown words rather then the meaning of the text.
Another recent study (Ayatollahi et al., 2012) investigated whether and how L2 learner
beliefs influenced their academic reading ability. Many participants’ choices of strategies
appeared to be influenced by language learners’ personal beliefs and myths. Ayatollahi et
79
al. (2012) argue that it makes the task of teaching strategies more complicated as the
focus should be shifted from implementation level to the deeper and more abstract level
of beliefs.
2.3.3.4 Vocabulary
Language learners’ vocabulary learning beliefs is an under-researched area. In the
field of vocabulary acquisition there are many more studies that investigate teachers’
beliefs about teaching vocabulary than studies exploring learners’ beliefs. Only a few
studies investigate learners’ general beliefs about vocabulary learning (Gu & Johnson,
1996; Moir & Nation, 2002; Li, 2011). They analyze correlation between learners’
vocabulary learning beliefs, vocabulary learning strategies, and learning outcomes. Some
researchers (Heidari et al., 2012) examine learners’ self-efficacy language learning
beliefs and their relationship to the use of vocabulary learning strategies. One more
direction of research in this area is beliefs about rote learning of vocabulary (Li, 2004;
Rashidi & Omid, 2011).
The first large-scale study that investigated not only vocabulary learning
strategies, but also beliefs was Gu and Johnson (1996). The authors designed a
vocabulary learning questionnaire to elicit students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning
and their vocabulary learning strategies. The section about beliefs included 17 statements
representing 3 main ideas: (1) vocabulary should be memorized; (2) vocabulary should be
acquired in context; and (3) vocabulary should be studied and used. Participants were
asked to rate each statement on a 7-point scale from Absolutely Disagree (1) to
Absolutely Agree (7). The questionnaire was administered to 850 second-year nonEnglish majors at Beijing Normal University. The results showed that the most popular
80
belief was that vocabulary should be studied and put to use, although many students also
agreed that words could be acquired in context. Contrary to common beliefs about Asian
learners, memorizing was the least popular idea. Gu and Johnson (1996) found that the
learners’ beliefs correlated with their learning outcomes. The most proficient group of
students strongly believed that vocabulary should be picked up through careful study and
natural exposure, but not memorization. The least professional group of students strongly
believed in memorization. However, the quantitative method of research could not
directly connect the learners’ less effective vocabulary learning results with the role of
memorization.
One more study about vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs (Moir and
Nation, 2002) examined 10 adult ESL learners’ beliefs and strategies in a vocabularylearning course, and tested the participants’ retention of words studied during the
program. The information about learners’ beliefs and strategies was collected through
interviews, a part of which was specifically about vocabulary learning beliefs. However,
in the analysis of the data the authors focused on vocabulary learning strategies saying
nothing about the beliefs data.
Li (2011) examined vocabulary learning belief and vocabulary learning strategy
profiles of 102 EFL students in a Chinese vocational college and the relationship of those
factors with learning outcomes. The study adopted mixed-methods approach: The data
were collected from self-reported questionnaires, interviews with 20% of the students,
interviews with their English teachers, a vocabulary size test, which measured vocabulary
knowledge of isolated words, and a general English proficiency test, which measured the
skills of using vocabulary in context. The results indicated that vocabulary acquisition is
81
a combination of the knowledge aspect and the skill aspect. Students in this study
strongly believed in the importance of vocabulary learning for tests, felt confident in their
ability to learn vocabulary, and expressed moderate interest in learning vocabulary. They
also believed in the necessity of intentional study of vocabulary and putting it to use.
These beliefs significantly correlated with vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary
proficiency, but not with general English proficiency, which is more related to the skill
dimension of vocabulary.
Self-efficacy beliefs (confidence in ability to reach a high level of vocabulary
knowledge) significantly correlated with vocabulary proficiency and most vocabulary
learning strategies, whereas beliefs in memorization and learning for tests correlated with
only two out of 17 learning strategies. Li (2011) pointed out that motivational beliefs may
play an important role in vocabulary learning.
One more study (Heidari et al., 2012) explored the relationship between EFL
learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and their use of vocabulary learning strategies.
Questionnaires about self-efficacy beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies were
administered to 50 Iranian university students. The results were in line with Li (2011):
Highly self-efficacious students used significantly more vocabulary strategies. The
researchers argue that nurturing students’ sense of self-efficacy may improve the
effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategy instruction and contribute to successful
vocabulary learning.
In a recent study, Simon & Taverniers (2011) compared 117 advanced EFL
university students’ beliefs about learning English grammar, pronunciation, and
vocabulary to see if explicit grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary teaching is desirable
82
at the university level. The study was based on a questionnaire and adopted a quantitative
research approach. The participants believed vocabulary to be different from grammar or
pronunciation in that vocabulary was considered significantly more important for
efficient communication than grammar or pronunciation, and vocabulary errors could
more likely lead to communication breakdown than grammar or pronunciation errors.
Students also believed in the value of explicit teaching of all three components and doing
in-class exercises.
2.3.3.4.1 Rote Learning of Vocabulary
Rote memorization is one of vocabulary learning strategies, which is often
considered to characterize Asian learners’ approach to studying L2. However, studies
about rote learning of vocabulary raise a question about an appropriate definition of this
strategy in different cultures.
Chinese learners’ beliefs about the role of rote learning in vocabulary learning
strategies is investigated in Li (2004). One hundred undergraduate English majors at a
Chinese university were surveyed and interviewed by the researcher. The study confirms
a widely held opinion that Chinese EFL learners highly value and use memorization in
English vocabulary learning, and it is consistent with traditional Chinese culture. In
Western view, rote learning is a simple and passive process, “the mere act of
memorization without proper understanding” as the Oxford English Dictionary states.
However, what Chinese students understand as rote learning involves far more complex
processes than has been supposed. In Chinese educational practice, learners rely on
memorization as part of learning process, which also involves “understanding, practice,
and reviewing of lexical items” (p. 272). It is a complex and active process, so Li (2004)
83
suggests a new term, “Active Confucian-based Memorization Strategies” (p. iii), to
distinguish these strategies from passive rote learning.
A similar study by Rashidi and Omid (2011) investigated Iranian EFL learners’
beliefs on the role of rote memorization in learning vocabulary and its effect on learners’
vocabulary proficiency. A questionnaire about vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies,
a vocabulary test, and a proficiency test were administered to 103 undergraduate English
majors in one of Tehran universities. The study reported that Iranian EFL learners
believed that rote learning was an effective, but not the best way of learning vocabulary.
Reviewing was believed the most effective vocabulary learning strategy. Also, creating
mental images and applying images and sounds were popular. However, still most
students supported the belief that rote learning works better for memorizing vocabulary
than other strategies, especially under time pressure before exams. It is interesting that
the open question, “Do you have any other strategies for either learning or memorizing
vocabulary? (Please, specify)” was left blank by the most of students. No significant
correlation between beliefs and proficiency or strategy use and proficiency was found in
this study.
Most studies reveal that learners’ beliefs about language acquisition influence
their choice of language learning strategies. There might be a possibility of a bidirectional
relationship between beliefs and strategy use when beliefs may influence learners’ choice
of strategies and the learners’ choice of strategies may influence their beliefs (Yang,
1999). However, the relationship of beliefs and strategies to the learning outcomes is
more complicated and requires additional research.
84
2.4 Summary and Conclusion
This review focused on two constructs, vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs
about vocabulary learning. Vocabulary learning strategies are viewed either as tools that
L2 learners use to enhance their learning of vocabulary or as steps that learners take to
solve learning problems. Students who regularly use multiple vocabulary-learning
strategies appropriately are considered to be more autonomous and self-regulated, and it
may help them to reach higher levels of vocabulary knowledge. The choice of learning
strategies is associated with many variables, one of which is learner’ beliefs about
language learning. Some beliefs held by L2 learners are supposed to be more important
than others (Alanen, 2003), and a number of studies have showed that beliefs about
language learning may constrain or facilitate learners’ use of language learning strategies,
and, at the same time, the choice of strategies may become the source of emerging
language learning beliefs. As both vocabulary learning strategies and specific beliefs
about learning vocabulary are associated with better performance on learning tasks (Gu
and Johnson, 1996; Li, 2011), further research is needed in order to reveal whether and
how these two constructs relate to each other. A better understanding of the interrelation
between language learning beliefs and strategies may help to reach a better understanding
of vocabulary learning processes for specific groups of learners.
No research has yet been done to study beliefs and strategy use of American
students of Russian. There is a need to consider how this group of learners acquires
Russian vocabulary and what they believe about this process. In the next chapter the
methodology of this research project is presented.
85
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
Vocabulary plays a crucial role in the acquisition of all language skills, and language
learners consistently point to a lack of vocabulary as the primary factor that prevents
them from effective communication (Nyikos & Fan, 2007). L2 (second language)
learners’ lexical errors have been found to outnumber grammatical errors by three or four
to one (Meara, 1984), and several studies across languages indicated that lexical errors
impaired comprehensibility more seriously than grammatical or pronunciation errors
(Chastain, 1980, 1981; Galloway, 1980; Johansson, 1978; Khalil, 1985, as cited in Rifkin
& Roberts, 1995). To become proficient in a foreign language, students need to learn
thousands of word meanings, connotations, derived forms, collocations, spellings,
pronunciations, and grammatical uses (Nation, 2001). Schmitt (2008) urges textbook
authors, L2 course designers, and instructors to take proactive charge of students’
vocabulary development, but to assist learners effectively, it is important to understand
what they think about the process of vocabulary acquisition and what they do to learn
vocabulary. The present study intends to shed some light on the vocabulary learning
beliefs and strategies of beginning learners of Russian in an American university.
This chapter contains (1) a restatement of the purpose of the study and the
research questions; (2) a description of the research design; (3) information on the
population and sample of participants; (4) the instrumentation; (5) the data collection
procedures; (6) the data analysis; (7) the pilot study; and (8) the chapter summary.
86
3.2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of the study is to investigate the beliefs about learning foreign
language vocabulary and the use of vocabulary learning strategies by students beginning
to study Russian at American universities, the relationship between learner beliefs and
strategies, and the stability of learner beliefs and strategies over time. The study was
designed to address the following four research questions:
Research Questions
1. What beliefs about foreign language vocabulary learning do beginning learners
of Russian at American universities report holding?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do beginning U.S. university learners of
Russian report using?
3. Is there a relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and
the learning strategies they use in their first semester of Russian study?
4. Do students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning
strategies undergo changes during the first semester of learning Russian?
3.3 Research Design
The study uses predominantly quantitative methods of research. Descriptive
research methodology has been selected for the study because it can provide systematic,
factual, and accurate characteristics of the phenomena of interest (Isaac & Michael,
1981), which includes foreign language vocabulary learning beliefs that beginning
American students of Russian possess and the vocabulary learning strategies they use.
To provide accuracy of information (validity of the data) and consistency of
findings (reliability of research) it is necessary to employ triangulation, which entails
87
gathering data from a variety of sources. When data are collected in different learning
situations, at different times, and with different methods, it enhances the trustworthiness
of the findings. In the present study quantitative data were collected with the help of
online self-report questionnaires twice over the period of one semester, and these data
were triangulated with qualitative data, which consisted of open-ended questions in the
surveys and interviews with students.
3.4 Population and Sample of Participants
The target population of the study was American university students who were
beginning to study Russian as a foreign language. The participants for this study were
enrolled in the first-semester Russian language courses at several American universities.
English was the native language of all the participants, and none of them had previously
studied Russian at a university or had learned Russian by another means prior to the time
of the study. For the Time 1 questionnaire administered at the beginning of the 2014 fall
semester, after filtering out unfinished surveys, surveys taken by heritage learners of
Russian and students whose native language was not English, 97 surveys were left for
analysis.
The background part of the survey contained questions about students’ age, native
language, foreign language learning experience other than Russian, and reasons for
choosing Russian over other languages.
The information about the age of participants is presented in Table 3.1. Out of 97
participants, the majority (82.5%) were 18-20 years of age, 13.4% were between 20-25
years, 3.1% fell in the interval between 25-30 years, and 1% were between 30-35 years of
88
age. There were no participants younger than 18 or older than 35 years old. The mean age
of participants was 19.9 years old.
Table 3.1. The age of participants.
Age
18-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
Total
N
80
13
3
1
97
%
82.5%
13.4%
3.1%
1%
100%
All participants reported English as their native language. To avoid including
heritage learners who may report English as their native language but still understand
Russian because some relatives communicate with them in Russian, the question, Do
members of your family, household, or community speak Russian? was included. Ninetysix percent of the respondents gave a negative answer, and 4% answered that they did
have such people in their families but did not understand them.
Only 1 student of 97 had not studied any foreign language before taking Russian.
Two more participants did not answer the question. If we suppose that they had not
studied any foreign languages either, then 3 students of 97 did not have any experience
studying a foreign language prior to undertaking their study of Russian. So, before and
simultaneously with studying Russian, at least 97% of students had studied other foreign
languages. The respondents reported studying or having studied 16 foreign languages.
The languages studied by participants and the number of students who studied each
language are presented in Table 3.2.
89
Table 3.2. Foreign languages studied by participants and the number of students who
have studied them.
Language
Spanish
French
German
Latin
*Chinese
Italian
N of
students
62
33
25
15
8
6
Language
N of
students
5
3
2
2
2
2
*Arabic
*Hebrew
Croatian
Indonesian
*Japanese
Portuguese
Language
*Armenian
*Korean
Swedish
Turkish
None
No answer
N of
students
1
1
1
1
1
2
Note: * languages with a non-Roman script
Many students had studied more than one foreign language. The number of
students according to the number of languages studied is presented in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. The number of foreign languages studied by participants.
# of foreign languages studied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
None
No answer
Total
N of students
48
25
10
4
5
1
1
1
2
97
% of students
49.6
25.8
10.4
4.1
5.2
1
1
1
1.9
100
We can see that half of the participants had experience studying at least one
foreign language, a little more than a quarter had studied 2 foreign languages, 10 students
had studied 3 languages, 4 students had studied 4 languages, and 5 students had studied 5
languages. There were also 2 students who had studied 6 and 7 foreign languages,
respectively. In this study, students filled in the first survey at the very beginning of their
Russian course, when they did not have enough experience to evaluate their beliefs about
90
learning Russian vocabulary and strategies used in this process. Since almost all of the
participants have prior experience with learning foreign languages, those experiences
were a source of their initial self-reported beliefs and strategy use.
Although the answers to Item 2 showed that almost all of the students had studied
at least one foreign language before undertaking the study of Russian, their reasons for
studying those languages are not known. The next questions address the purpose of
Russian language study.
The responses to Item 3, Are you taking this Russian course to fulfill a degree
requirement?, fell almost equally into two groups: (1) 50 students taking Russian to
fulfill their degree requirements and (2) 47 students taking Russian for other reasons
(Table 3.4).
Table 3.4. Are you taking this Russian
course to fulfill a degree requirement?
Answer
N
%
Yes
50
51.5
No
47
48.5
Total
97
100
The responses to the question about principal reason for choosing Russian over
other languages (Table 3.5) showed students’ multiple reasons, but the main reason was
a career opportunity. The number of students who chose Russian because they hoped to
use it in their future career was 39, 7 students wanted to use it for vacation or travel
purposes, 5 students needed it for their major, 3 students chose it because it fit into their
schedule, 1 student took it for heritage reasons, 1 student was advised to take it, and one
student heard that it was easier than other languages.
91
Table 3.5. Principal reasons for choosing Russian over other languages.
Reasons
Responses (%)
1. I was advised to take Russian
1
2. It fit into my schedule
3
3. I want to learn the language of my parents/grandparents
1
4. I heard that it was easier than other languages
1
5. I think it will be useful for my future career
39
6. I want to use it for vacation/travel purposes
7
7. I want to study abroad in Russia
15
8. I need it for my major
5
9. Other
25
Total
100
The responses to the open question What made you interested in learning
Russian? explained the reasons of choosing Russian in a more detailed way. Table 3.6
presents some examples of the participants’ responses.
Table 3.6. Responses to the question What made you interested in learning Russian?
Reasons
Future
career
Literature,
culture, and
politics
Challenge &
novelty of the
language
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Examples
I want to be a hockey announcer and learning Russian would help me
communicate better with the players that are coming over from Russia
Russian is a valuable language to know in the space industry.
I am looking to get a government job in the future. I believe learning
Russian will put me ahead of the curve when it comes to getting that job.
Interest in Russian literature and politics.
Many chess grandmasters are Russian and I'd like to read them in their
original, and this all seems timely with Russia and Ukraine being in the
news more and more, reinforcing my interest.
Russian literature, culture, & the beauty and difficulty of the language.
I wanted to try something new that I had very little knowledge of. I wanted
to challenge myself.
I've learned a lot of Romance languages, but I'd like to learn something
different, expand my horizons.
I wanted to take an "unusual" language, something that not all of my friends
are taking.
92
Table 3.6. Continued
Family and
friends’
influence
•
•
•
Studying
abroad plans
Emotional
appeal
Fate
•
•
•
•
•
•
I was adopted from Kazakhstan at age 2 and I am ethnically Russian. I
wanted to learn about my history through the language.
My little sister is half Russian and it's all she speaks. There will always be a
barrier between us if I don't learn Russian for her.
An American friend of mine speaks Russian and he got me interested in
Russian movies, music, and culture. I went to Russia with him and am
interested in going back.
I'm interested in studying abroad in St. Petersburg, Russia for a semester so
that I would have overseas experience for a future job in the government.
Increased interest in visiting Russia, so I wanted to learn the basics of the
language.
The language is beautiful to me and there is just something inside of me that
has driven me to learn Russian, I cannot explain the desire.
I was attracted to the way it sounded and the appearance of its writing
system.
I love the professors in the department.
I needed to take another language as a degree requirement so I went to the
language tab when registering classes, closed my eyes, and I let fate decide.
It decided on Russian.
3.5 Instrumentation
Observation cannot capture mental processes, so learning beliefs are
unobservable, and learning strategies are, for the most part, unobservable as well. So the
only way to find out what beliefs students hold and what strategies they use is to ask
them (Chamot, 2004). For this reason, the instruments used for data collection in the
present study are self-reports: a questionnaire on beliefs and strategies related to
vocabulary learning and interviews with students.
The first instrument to be used in the study is a self-report questionnaire. A survey
is a predominant instrument in most L2 beliefs and strategies studies (Ahmed, 1989;
Cotteral, 1995; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Kern, 1995; Kim-Yoon, 2000;
Kuntz, 1996; Ma, 2009; Mantle-Bromley, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
1990; Rifkin, 2000; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Schmitt, 1997; Su, 1995; Takač, 2008; Tseng
et al., 2006; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992). The questionnaire was administered twice
93
during the period of one semester. First, at the beginning of the semester the Time 1
questionnaire identified students’ initial vocabulary learning beliefs and the strategies
they used to learn vocabulary in the other languages they had studied. The Time 2
questionnaire was administered at the end of the semester to discover learners’ actual
vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies in learning Russian vocabulary during their
first semester of studying Russian. The Time 1 questionnaire consisted of questions about
the beliefs that students had and strategies they used in their previous vocabulary
learning. In the Time 2 questionnaire they were asked the same questions about Russian
vocabulary learning.
The questionnaire used in this study is a modified version of the survey used by
Gu and Johnson (1996) and Gu (2005) that contained 108 items (17 beliefs and 91
strategies). This study (both publications describe the same experiment, but the more
recent source, Gu (2005) is a more detailed book) was designed for Chinese students who
had studied English for several years prior to taking the survey. In the present study the
questionnaire was administered during the first semester of studying Russian, so some
items of Gu’s (2005) study were not appropriate for students who had just begun studying
a foreign language. For example, extended dictionary strategies, strategies employing
guessing from wider context, and most metacognitive strategies from Gu (2005) can
hardly be effectively used by American students during the first several months of
studying such a different and difficult foreign language as Russian, so they were omitted.
Table 3.7 presents the items that were not included into the survey.
94
Table 3.7. The items from Gu (2005) not included into the current questionnaire.
1. I know when a new word or phrase is essential for adequate comprehension of a passage.
2. I know which words are important for me to learn.
3. When I meet a new word or phrase, I have a clear sense of whether I need to remember it or
not.
4. I know what cues I should use in guessing the meaning of a particular word.
5. Besides textbooks, I look for other readings that fall under my interest.
6. I use various means to make clear language points that I am not quite clear of.
7. I wouldn’t care much about language points that my teacher does not explain in class.
8. I use alternative cues and try again if I fail to guess the meaning of a word.
9. I make use of the logical development in the context when guessing the meaning of a word.
10. I make use of my common sense and knowledge of the world when guessing of the meaning
of a word. I make use of my knowledge of the topic when guessing the meaning of a word.
11. I check my guessed meaning against the wider context to see if it fits.
12. I look for other words or expressions in the passage that support my guess about the
meaning of a new word.
13. I look for any definitions or paragraphs in the passage that supports my guess about the
meaning of a new word.
14. I look for any examples provided in the context when guessing the meaning of a new word.
15. I look for phrases or set expressions that go with the word I look up.
16. I consult a dictionary to find out about the subtle differences in the meanings of new words.
17. I pay attention to the examples of use when I look up a word in a dictionary.
18. I make a note when I want to help myself distinguish between the meanings of two or more
words.
19. When looking up a word in the dictionary, I read sample sentences illustrating various
meanings of the word.
20. When I get interested in another new word in the definitions of the word I look up, I look up
this word as well.
21. If the new word is inflected, I remove the inflections to recover the form to look up.
22. If the new word I try to look up seems to have a prefix or suffix, I will try the entry for the
stem.
23. If the unknown appears to be an irregularly inflected form or a spelling variant, I will scan
nearby entries.
24. If there are multiple chances of homographic entries, I use various information to reduce
them by elimination.
25. I try to integrate dictionary definitions into the context where the unknown was met and
arrive at a contextual meaning by adjusting for complementation and collocation, part of
speech, and breadth of meaning.
26. I write down the synonyms or explanations of the word I look up.
27. I note down grammatical information about a word when I look it up.
28. I remember a group of new words that share a similar part in spelling.
29. I associate a group of new words that share a similar part in spelling with a known word that
looks or sounds similar to the shared part.
30. I deliberately read books in my areas so that I can find out and remember the special
terminology I know in English.
31. I try to read as much as possible so that I can make use of the words I tried to remember.
95
Gu’s (2005) questionnaire did not contain affective strategies. However, the
affective dimension is considered fundamental to L2 learning (Horwitz, 2007). Oxford
(2011) notes that such affective strategies as self-encouragement and control of negative
emotions are especially important to L2 learners at lower levels. For this reason, two
items about emotional adjustment were included in the strategy part of the survey: If I
feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I give up (reversed meaning), and If I
feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I take a break or I remind myself that
vocabulary is important, and then I go on.
In addition, following students’ responses in the pilot study, three items on learning
vocabulary with the use of technology were added to the strategy part (Table 3.8).
Table 3.8. Using technology for learning vocabulary.
1. I like to use online dictionaries to look up new words.
2. I use mobile devices to study new words.
3. I use online applications to study new words.
In contrast to the strategy section, the section about vocabulary learning beliefs in
Gu’s (2005) study was short, as the main focus of the study was on leaning strategies. In
my study one of the research questions was about learners’ beliefs, so to balance the
sections, several items from Horwitz’s (1988) questionnaire on the beliefs about language
learning of beginning university foreign language students were added to the
questionnaire (Table 3.8).
96
Table 3.9. Beliefs added to the current questionnaire from BALLI (Horwitz, 1988).
1. Russian is:
a) a very difficult language
b) a difficult language
c) a language of medium difficulty
d) an easy language
e) a very easy language
2. If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it take them to speak
the language very well.
a) less than a year
b) 1-2 years
c) 3-5 years
d) 5-10 years
e) you can’t learn a language in 1 hour a day
3.It is easier for someone who already knows a foreign language to learn another one.
4. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
5. I believe that I will lean to speak Russian very well.
6. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well.
7. Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign language.
8. It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign language.
9. I would like to learn Russian so that I can get to know Russian and Russians better.
As a result, the questionnaire used in this study consists of three parts. Part 1
contains nine questions about participants’ demographic information and previous
language-learning experience. Part 2 consists of 26 items on students’ beliefs about (1)
the nature of L2 (second language) acquisition; (2) the nature of vocabulary acquisition;
and (3) motivation, self-efficacy, and expectations of success as L2 learners. Part 3
covers vocabulary learning strategies (44 items) and consists of three categories:
memory, cognitive, and affective strategies. The category of memory strategies (26
items) is divided into two subcategories: rehearsal (repetition) strategies and encoding
97
strategies (relating new information to previously learned information). The category of
cognitive strategies (16 items) includes guessing, dictionary, note-taking, activation, and
using technology. The Time 1 questionnaire ends with an open-ended question: (1)
Imagine that you need to learn several new words for tomorrow’s class. How are you
going to do this task? The Time 2 questionnaire has three additional open-ended
questions:
(1) You have been studying Russian for a semester. Have you changed any of your
methods of studying vocabulary?
(2) What do you need/plan/would like to do to make studying Russian vocabulary
more effective?
(3) What would you like your instructor to do in class to make vocabulary
instruction more effective?
The questionnaire is presented in Appendix A in the form that shows all the
categories of beliefs and strategies. This form is used to display the items in a structured
way. The actual questionnaire for students did not contain the headings that named the
categories, and the order of items was changed. The items were shuffled so that beliefs
and strategies of the same type were not presented together. The web-based survey was
hosted by Qualtrics, an online UI survey server.
For students’ responses, Gu (2005) used a 7-point Likert scale, but I chose not to
include midpoints and to use a 6-point scale. An even number of ratings in the scale more
effectively captures direction, as participants have to commit to either a positive or
negative end of the scale. For studying learning beliefs the response items were:
1. I strongly agree.
98
2. I moderately agree.
3. I somewhat agree.
4. I somewhat disagree.
5. I moderately disagree.
6. I strongly disagree.
For investigating learning strategies, the response possibilities were:
1. I always do that.
2. I often do that.
3. I sometimes do that.
4. I seldom do that.
5. I very rarely do that.
6. I never do that.
The information from the questionnaire was triangulated with qualitative
information received from individual interviews with UI beginning students of Russian at
the University of Iowa. Individual semi-structured interviews let the researcher gain firsthand insight into students’ emic perspectives, avoid suggesting any specific beliefs or
strategies to them, and achieve a fuller understanding of the whole picture of strategic
learning (Barcelos, 2003; Tseng, 2006). Interviews provided contexts where participants
could ask for clarification, elaborate on ideas, or explain their experiences in their own
words. The interviews were conducted during the last month of the semester with the
participants who agreed to share their impressions and experiences about studying
Russian vocabulary. The researcher asked a participant a set of semi-structured questions
about their vocabulary learning beliefs and also about their strategy use. The core
99
interview questions can be found in Appendix A. Probing and clarification questions,
such as “Can you be more specific?,” “Could you give me an example of what you
said?,” or “Do you mean ... ?” were used to help the student elaborate and clarify their
answers. Each interview took about 20–30 minutes. The interviews were audio-recorded,
transcribed, and analyzed by the researcher.
3.6 Data Collection Procedures
For this study, self-reported questionnaires in conjunction with interviewing were
employed as the data-collection techniques.
All students enrolled in the First Year Russian I at the University of Iowa were
invited to participate in the study. The researcher visited first-year Russian sections in
week 1 of the semester, explained the purpose of the study to the students and asked for
their consent to participate in the questionnaires and interviews. Fifteen participants
agreed to take part in individual interviews, which were held in November, when students
had received some experience of learning the Russian language and, in particular,
Russian vocabulary. The interviews were audio-recorded to allow for transcription and
analysis. Also, Russian program directors at other American universities were contacted
with the request to recruit their beginning students of Russian as participants in the online
questionnaire. As a result, in addition to the beginning students of Russian at the
University of Iowa, students from five other Russian programs agreed to participate. The
questionnaire link was distributed to program directors, who sent it to their first-year
instructors and students. The Time 1 questionnaire took place in August-September 2014.
After filtering out unfinished questionnaires, surveys taken by heritage learners of
100
Russian and students whose native language was not English, 97 questionnaires were left
for analysis.
For the Time 2 questionnaire the recruiting procedure was very similar, but the
researcher also had the opportunity to contact some of participants directly. In the Time 1
questionnaire students were asked to provide their names and university email addresses
to enable a comparison of the results of the two questionnaires for each individual. The
contact information provided by many students allowed the researcher to directly contact
the participants who had taken the Time 1 questionnaire to remind them about taking or
finishing the Time 2 questionnaire.
A question about taking the Time 1 questionnaire was included in the Time 2
questionnaire. Only the responses of the students who had completed both questionnaires
were included in the analysis. Unfortunately, as some of participants preferred not to give
their names, it was impossible to identify all of the students. The number of the Time 2
questionnaire responses chosen for analysis was 100; it exceeds the number of the Time 1
questionnaire responses by 3. It is possible that 3 students had not finished their Time 1
questionnaire, but still reported that they had completed it. Unfortunately it was not
possible to identify them as not all students gave their names. Since additional students
made up only about 3% of the population, their responses could not have changed the
results significantly.
The last step in the data collection process was the Time 2 questionnaire, which
was administered during the last month of the semester to get information about the
change in students’ self-reported vocabulary-learning beliefs and strategies.
A flowchart of the data collection procedures is displayed in table 3.10.
101
Table 3.10. Data collection procedures.
Informed consent (August 2014)
Time 1 Questionnaire (August-September 2014)
Interviews with students (November 2014)
Time 2 Questionnaire (November 2014)
3.7 Data analysis
The quantitative data consisted of the responses to the two identical
questionnaires, which were administered at the beginning and at the end of the fall
semester 2014.
The Time 1 questionnaire was analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics,
including means, standard deviations, and frequencies. This information addressed
research questions 1 and 2:
1. What beliefs about foreign language vocabulary learning do beginning learners
of Russian at American universities report holding?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do beginning U.S. university learners of
Russian report using?
To address research question 3, Pearson r correlations were computed to
determine the correlation between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and their
use of vocabulary learning strategies in Time 1. Also a Cluster analysis was conducted in
102
SPSS Statistics 22 to identify groups of learners who share similar learning beliefs and to
verify if they employ similar learning strategies. Differences between clusters were
analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA):
3. Is there a relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and
the learning strategies they report using?
For research question 4, comparison of the mean scores received for the Time 1
and Time 2 questionnaires were made using independent samples t-tests.
4. Do students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning
strategies undergo changes during the first semester of learning Russian?
The qualitative data received from the surveys’ open questions and interviews
were analyzed following the principles of Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2007) and were
used as a complementary qualitative component of the study.
3.8 Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted between August and December 2013 to refine the
research instruments and to determine administration procedures, including the
anticipated length of time for different procedures. The participants of the study were
students enrolled in the first semester Russian language course. Twenty students agreed
to fill out the questionnaires and keep learning journals, and 15 students participated in
interviews.
After the study, as a result of students’ feedback, slight changes were made to the
texts of some interview questions. Also, students criticized some survey items, saying
that they were too extreme to take them seriously; for example, “Once the Russian
equivalents of all English words have been remembered, Russian is learned”;
103
“Remembering the meaning of a word is an end in itself”; or “Russian words have fixed
meanings.” These items were deleted from the surveys. The item “The most important
part of learning a foreign language is learning vocabulary words” was modified to
Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign language.
3.9 Summary
This chapter presented the methodology of the research study that investigated
vocabulary-learning beliefs and strategies of American university students who began to
study the Russian language. The chapter presented an introduction, a restatement of the
problem, research questions, and description of participants. It also provided a description
of research instruments, data collection procedures, a plan of data analysis, and
information about a pilot study.
104
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 Research Questions
This study investigates self-reported beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary
learning strategies used by American students who begin to study Russian at American
universities. Chapter IV presents the findings from the Time 1 (beginning of first
semester of Russian study) and Time 2 (end of first semester of Russian study)
questionnaires that address four research questions:
1. What beliefs about foreign language vocabulary learning do beginning learners
of Russian at American universities report holding?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do beginning U.S. university learners of
Russian report using?
3. Is there a relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and
the learning strategies they report using?
4. Do students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning
strategies undergo changes during the first semester of learning Russian?
The chapter first focuses on research question 1 and describes the Time 1 survey
responses about vocabulary learning beliefs (section 4.2), followed by a focus on research
question 2 and a description of vocabulary learning strategies reported in the Time 1
survey (section 4.3). Section 4.4 focuses on research question 3 and presents the results
of analysis of the relationship between reported beliefs and strategies. These are followed
by cluster analyses that help to understand if there are groups of participants who possess
similar beliefs and use similar strategies. Finally, section 4.5 focuses on research question
105
4 and compares the results of the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires and examines the
beliefs and strategies that received significantly different responses.
4.2 Research Question 1: Students’ Vocabulary Learning Beliefs Reported in the
Time 1 Questionnaire
The Time 1 questionnaire, administered in week 2 of the fall 2014 semester,
identified students’ initial vocabulary learning beliefs and the strategies they used to learn
vocabulary in the languages they had studied prior to taking Russian. Students from six
American universities who were taking their first semester of Russian participated in the
web-based questionnaire hosted by Qualtrics, an online UI survey server. After filtering
out unfinished questionnaires, questionnaires taken by heritage learners of Russian and
students whose native language was not English, 97 surveys were chosen for analysis.
The second section of the questionnaire addressed the first research question and
asked the participants what beliefs about foreign language vocabulary learning they
possessed. The sections contained 26 questions about learning beliefs that were classified
into several groups:
1) Beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition (6 items)
2) Beliefs about vocabulary learning (9 items)
a) Words should be memorized (2 items)
b) Words should be acquired in context (4 items)
c) Words should be studied and put to use (3 items)
3) Motivational beliefs (6 items)
4) Self-efficacy beliefs (3 items)
5) Expectations (2 items)
106
Table 4.1 presents the results of the Time 1 questionnaire.
Table 4.1. Students’ vocabulary learning beliefs: Results of the Time 1 questionnaire.
Beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
B1. It is easier for someone who already knows
15.6
84.4
4.48
1.1
96
0
100
5.21
0.6
97
21.3
78.7
4.59
1.2
94
35
65
3.69
0.9
97
1
99
4.58
0.5
95
26.7
73.3
3.88
0.7
97
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
5.1
94.9
5.10
0.9
97
29.9
70.1
3.87
0.9
97
Vocabulary learning beliefs: Context
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
B9. It is easier to learn new words when they are
2
98
5.00
0.7
97
35
65
3.81
1.1
97
33
67
3.92
1.1
97
14
86
4.39
0.9
93
a foreign language to learn another one.
B2. Learning vocabulary is extremely important
for learning a foreign language.
B3. Learning a foreign language is mostly a
matter of translating from English.*
B4. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in
order to learn the language well.
B5. It is important to repeat and practice a lot
when you are learning a foreign language.
B6. A good memory is very important for
learning a foreign language well.
Vocabulary learning beliefs: Memorization
B7. Repetition is one of the best ways to learn
words.
B8. You can acquire a large vocabulary by
memorizing lots of individual words.
presented in context.
B10. You can acquire a large foreign language
vocabulary simply by reading a lot.
B11. Guessing the meaning of words in context
is one of the best ways to learn vocabulary.
B12. When you come across a word several
times in different contexts, you eventually figure
out what it means.
107
Table 4.1. Continued
Vocabulary learning beliefs: Studying + use
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
3
97
5.20
0.8
96
6.2
93.8
4.92
0.9
97
2
98
5.35
0.7
96
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
2.1
97.9
5.04
0.9
97
B17. Learning vocabulary is interesting.
11.3
88.7
4.70
1
97
B18. I like to learn more words than my foreign
18.5
81.5
4.25
1
97
16.5
83.5
4.43
1.1
97
B20. I like learning vocabulary.
10.3
89.7
4.68
1.1
97
B21.I feel bored or frustrated while learning
48.5
51.5
3.58
1.1
97
Self-efficacy beliefs
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
B22. I have my own ways to motivate myself in
11.3
88.7
4.63
1
97
B23. I am good at learning languages.
25.7
74.3
4.07
1.1
97
B24. I have my own ways to remember the
9.3
90.7
4.48
0.8
97
Disagree
Agree
M
SD
N
3
97
4.65
0.9
97
10.3
89.7
4.73
1.1
97
B13. Vocabulary learning includes learning
phrases as well as words.
B14. To know a word, you have to know its
form, its meaning, and how it is used.
B15. To really learn words, you have to do two
things: study them and then practice using them.
Motivational beliefs
B16. I would like to learn Russian so that I can
get to know Russia and Russians better.
language teacher assigns us to learn.
B19. I’m motivated to learn vocabulary because
it is important for passing tests.
vocabulary.*
vocabulary learning.
words I learn.
Expectations of success as L2 learners
B25. I believe that I will ultimately learn to
speak Russian very well.
B26. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign
language.
Note: The percentages have been rounded. B = belief item. * Refers to items that scored reversely.
Disagree = strongly disagree + disagree + slightly disagree; Agree = slightly agree + agree +
strongly agree.
108
Based on a Likert-type scale, there were six possible responses to each item: 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree,
and 6 = strongly agree. The table shows percentage values for general disagreement
(disagree = strongly disagree + disagree + somewhat disagree) and general agreement
(agree = somewhat agree + agree + strongly agree), mean scores, standard deviations, and
the number of responses for each item (N=97). The information about the percentages for
each Likert-scale response can be found in Appendix C.
4.2.1 Beliefs about the Nature of L2 (Second Language) Acquisition
The first group of beliefs in Table 4.1 (B1–B6) contains items about the nature of
L2 acquisition. The idea about importance of vocabulary for studying a foreign language
received a very high support: Students unanimously (100%) agreed that vocabulary is
extremely important for learning a foreign language (B2). They also agreed (99%) that it
is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign language (B5),
although this belief was not as intense (no one expressed strong agreement with the item).
Students believed that it is easier for someone who already knows a foreign language to
learn another one (B1), with 84.4% of participants agreeing with the statement. Also,
more students agreed (73.3%) than disagreed (26.7%) with B6, A good memory is very
important for learning a foreign language well, but neither agreement nor disagreement
was strong (no participants chose “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree” in their
responses). The last in terms of strength of agreement was B4, It is necessary to know the
foreign culture in order to learn the language well, with 65% of general agreement and
35% of general disagreement. As for the previous item, neither agreement nor
disagreement was strong.
109
Belief 3, Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from
English, is a negatively keyed item, so agreement with this belief represents a low level
of the attribute being measured. B3 was scored reversely, so that “strongly agree”
corresponded with a positive belief. A score of 1 became 6, 2 became 5, and 3 became 4.
In Table 4.1, Item 3 was marked with an asterisk to show that it was scored reversely.
Responses to this item averaged below a score of 3.5, disagree: 78.7% of students
generally disagreed with this statement, and disagreement of 26.6% was strong. This item
has the lowest mean among the six beliefs, 2.41.
To sum up, on the subject of the nature of L2 acquisition, students reported
agreement with all beliefs but B3: Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of
translating from English. Only 21.3% of participants agreed with this statement. The next
group of beliefs deals with learning foreign language vocabulary.
4.2.2 Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning
Beliefs about vocabulary learning include three groups:
! Words should be memorized (B7–B8);
! Words should be acquired in context (B9–B12);
! Words should be studied and put to use (B13–B15).
Concerning memorization beliefs (B7–B8), most participants (94.9%) valued
repetition as one of the best ways to learn words (B7). In percentage terms, 38.2% of
participants strongly agreed and 40.2% agreed with this item. The responses to B8, You
can acquire a large vocabulary by memorizing lots of individual words, did not reflect
such strong agreement: 70.1% expressed agreement and 29.9% expressed disagreement
with only 1% of these representing strong agreement or strong disagreement.
110
Most participants also agreed that vocabulary could be effectively acquired in
context (B9-B12). The great majority of the participants (98%) agreed with B9, It is
easier to learn new words when they are presented in context. More students agreed
(86%) than disagreed (14%) with B4, When you come across a word several times in
different contexts, you will know what it means. However, guessing the meaning of words
in context (B11) was one of the best ways to learn vocabulary for only 67% of
participants, and only 65% believed that they could acquire a large foreign language
vocabulary simply by reading a lot (B10).
The last group of memorization beliefs (B13–B15) states that both studying
vocabulary items and using them are important. It appears that almost all participants
(98%) believed that intentional studying of words should be combined with using those
words (B15, To really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then
practice using them). This item also generated a high strong agreement, with 42.8% of
the participants choosing “strongly agree” as their response. The support of B13,
Vocabulary learning includes learning phrases as well as words, was also very strong
with 97% registering general agreement, and 35.5% strong agreement. Similarly, a lot of
students (93.8%) agreed with B14, To know a word, you have to know its form, its
meaning, and how it is used.
Regarding beliefs about vocabulary learning (B7–B15), students agreed with all
of the belief statements. Most participants favored repetition of words (B7), learning
words in context (B9), learning phrases as well as words (B13), and combination of
studying and using words (B15). The least popular were the ideas about reading or
111
guessing words in context as the main sources of vocabulary (B10 and B11), but still two
thirds of participants supported them.
To sum up student responses about vocabulary learning beliefs, Table 4.2 presents
mean scores of the subgroups of beliefs. Students reported strongest agreement with the
necessity to combine studying and using words; memorization was the second popular
belief for how to approach vocabulary learning. Acquisition of word meanings from
context generated the least agreement.
Table 4.2. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Mean scores of the subgroups of beliefs.
Beliefs about vocabulary learning
Mean score
SD
1. Words should be studied and put to use (B13–B15)
5.16
0.52
2. Words should be memorized (B7–B8)
4.49
0.73
3. Words should be acquired in context (B9–B12)
4.28
0.66
The remaining beliefs deal with learners’ emotions, attitudes, motivation, abilities
to perform language learning activities, and expected outcomes of learning Russian.
These are beliefs about motivation, self-efficacy beliefs, and expectations.
4.2.3 Beliefs about Motivation, Self-efficacy, and Expectations for Success as
Learners of Russian
Gardner and Lambert (1972) suggested that integratively motivated learners (i.e.,
those who want to learn the language because they are interested in people and culture of
the country where the language is spoken) are likely to be successful in language learning
(Ellis, 1997; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993). Reactions to motivational beliefs (B16–B21)
showed that most participants demonstrated a high level of motivation. The responses to
B16, I would like to learn Russian so that I can get to know Russia and Russians better,
112
demonstrated a high level of integrative motivation of the respondents: 97% of them
agreed with it. Most participants (88–89%) shared positive opinions about studying
vocabulary: They agreed with B17, Learning vocabulary is interesting, and B20, I like
learning vocabulary. A lot of participants expressed strong agreement with those
beliefs—24.8% and 25.7%, respectively. Among motivational beliefs, there was one item
that was reversed in meaning from the overall direction of the scale: B21, I feel bored or
frustrated while learning vocabulary. To allow comparison of the items, the scale was
recoded. Response 1 became 6, response 2 became 5, and response 3 became 4. In Table
4.1 this item is marked with an asterisk. Responses to B21, I feel bored or frustrated
while learning vocabulary, showed participants’ mixed feelings about this process:
Almost half of the participants (48.5%) acknowledged that they experienced boredom or
frustration while learning vocabulary, although for only 11.4% did it happen often or
always.
Passing tests motivated 83.6% of students to learn vocabulary (B19), and 81.5%
of the participants agreed they liked to learn more words than their instructors assign
them to learn (B18). To sum up, all motivational beliefs except I feel bored or frustrated
while learning vocabulary (B21) received strong agreement by most participants in this
study.
Self-efficacy is defined by Bandura (1977) as a belief in a person’s ability to
perform an action or a set of behaviors. In this study, participants reported a high level of
self-efficacy (B22–B24): 88.7% of students agreed that they could effectively motivate
themselves in vocabulary learning (B22), 90.8% agreed that they have their own ways to
113
remember the words they learn (B24), and 74.3% believed they were good at language
learning (B23).
Most participants reported high expectations for their future learning (B25-B26).
B25, Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language, was supported by 89.9% of the
participants, with 21.7% strongly agreeing with the statement. Students were even more
optimistic about their own abilities to learn Russian: only 3% did not agree that they
would ultimately learn to speak Russian very well (B24). In spite of the fact that Russian
is considered difficult, 97% of participants still expected that they would learn it well.
In this study, there were two more questions about the expectations of difficulty
of the Russian language (Item 11) and the time needed to reach fluency in Russian (Item
12). These questions were presented in the demographic information section of the
questionnaire, as the choice of answers was different from the rest of the qualitative
items.
Table 4.3. Expectations about difficulty of studying Russian.
11. I expect Russian to be
Responses (%)
1. a very difficult language
11
2. a difficult language
63
3. a language of medium difficulty
24
4. an easy language
2
5. a very easy language
0
Total
100
Mean
2.17
Mode
2; a difficult language
SD
0.6
114
The responses to Question 11 are presented in Table 4.3. Most participants
considered Russian a difficult language: 11% thought it was a very difficult language,
63% a difficult language, and 24% a language of medium difficulty. Only 2 people
expected it to be an easy language to learn, and none of the participants expected that
Russian would be a very easy language.
Students’ expectations about the time needed to reach fluency in Russian are
presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4. Expectations about the time needed to reach fluency in Russian.
12. If someone spent an hour a day studying Russian, how long would it take the person
to become fluent?
Time intervals
Responses (%)
1. Less than a year
0
2. 1–2 years
18
3. 3–5 years
51
4. 5–10 years
9
5. You cannot learn a language by studying it for one hour a day.
23
Total
100
Mean
3.40
Mode
3; 3-5 years
SD
1
Most students (51%) expected to become fluent in 3–5 years, 18% of participants
believed they could become fluent in 1–2 years, 9% chose 5–10 years as a reasonable
time period, and 23% of students did not believe they (or anyone) could learn a language
by studying it for one hour a day. The most frequent answer was 3–5 years. Concerning
the participants’ responses about B16–B26, and their expectations of difficulty and time
115
needed to become proficient in Russian, most students reported having strong motivation
to study Russian, and although most of them believed that Russian was going to be a
difficult language, they also believed that they had all of the necessary abilities to
overcome the difficulties and learn to speak Russian very well.
The information from Table 4.1 was used to assess the strength of students’
responses about particular learning beliefs.
4.2.4 Students’ Strongest Beliefs
First, the strength of students’ responses according to different categories of
beliefs was analyzed. Most participants agreed that words should be studied and put to
use, and this group of beliefs received the highest mean score of 5.16. Students were also
very optimistic about their ability to learn Russian well. As a result, the category of
expectations became the second in the rank of belief categories. Participants reported
having strong beliefs about memorization of vocabulary (third place in the rank), and
high motivation (fourth place). Then follow the beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition
and self-efficacy beliefs. Acquisition of vocabulary from context finishes the list. Table
4.5 (below) summarizes descriptive statistics on the belief categories.
The mean score of all categories is higher than the point of agreement, 3.5, so we
can state that most participants of the study possessed strong and positive beliefs about
learning a foreign language and, particularly, about learning vocabulary.
To see what individual beliefs were most popular among the study participants,
the strength of students’ individual beliefs was also assessed. Students agreed with most
beliefs in the survey, but the responses to one item averaged below a score of 3.5,
disagree. It was Item 3, Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating
116
from English, with 78.7% of participants, who disagreed with it. No participants strongly
agreed, only 3 students agreed and 17 more somewhat agreed with this statement. Three
students did not respond to this statement.
Table 4.5. Categories of beliefs: means and rank in the strength of responses.
Categories of beliefs
Mean score
SD
5.16
.52
2. Expectations
4.69
.78
3. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Words should be
4.49
.73
4. Motivational beliefs
4.45
.63
5. Beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition
4.40
.43
6. Self-efficacy beliefs
4.39
.72
7. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Words should be acquired
4.28
.66
4.50
.38
1. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Words should be studied
and put to use
memorized
in context
The mean for beliefs
To report the strongest students’ beliefs, the items with mean scores higher than
4.50 were included in the list. The highest mean score rating of 5.35 belonged to B15, To
really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then practice using them. It
is followed by B2, Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign
language, with a mean of 5.21. Belief 2 was also the champion in terms of the percentage
of students who agreed with it, 100%. Belief 13, Vocabulary learning includes learning
phrases as well as words, was third with a mean of 5.20. Belief 7, Repetition is one of the
best ways to learn words, took fourth place with a mean of 5.10. The next belief in the
rank was B16, I would like to learn Russian so that I can get to know Russia and
117
Russians better, with a mean of 5.04. Item 9, It is easier to learn new words when they
are presented in context, with a mean of 5.00 was sixth most popular belief. The top six
items were also the strongest in terms of the percentage of students who agreed with
them: 94.9–100%.
The beliefs with which many participants strongly agreed were also at the top of
the list (#1, 3, 4, and 5). The leader was the item with the highest mean, B15, You have to
study words and then put them to use if you want to really learn them, with 42.8% of
strong agreement. The second was B7, Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words,
with 38.2% of strong agreement. Belief 16, I would like to learn Russian so that I can get
to know Russia and Russians better, followed it with 36% of strong agreement. Belief 13,
One should pay attention to set phrases and collocations that go with a word, received
only 0.5% less, 35.5% of strong agreement. The 14 strongest beliefs are presented in
Table 4.6.
Among the most strongly held beliefs, there were several more items that received
very high general agreement percentages: #14, It is important to repeat and practice a lot
when you are learning a foreign language (B5), with 99% of general agreement; #11, I
believe that I will ultimately learn to speak Russian very well (B25), with 97% of general
agreement, and #7, To know a word, you have to know its form, its meaning, and how it is
used (B14), with 93.8% of general agreement. Although there were not many students
who strongly agreed with these beliefs, very few students disagreed with the statements
(Appendix C).
118
Table 4.6. Items of strongest agreement for beliefs (mean ≥ 4.50).
Belief statements
1
Mean
To really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then
Agree
5.35
98
5.21
100
5.20
97
practice using them. (B15)
2
Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign
language. (B2)
3
Vocabulary learning includes learning phrases as well as words.
(B13)
4
Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words. (B7)
5.10
94.9
5
I would like to learn Russian so that I can get to know Russia and
5.04
97.9
5.00
98
4.92
93.8
Russians better. (B16)
6
It is easier to learn new words when they are presented in context.
(B9)
7
To know a word, you have to know its form, its meaning, and how it
is used. (B14)
8
Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language. (B26)
4.73
89.7
9
Learning vocabulary is interesting. (B17)
4.70
88.7
10 I like learning vocabulary. (B20)
4.68
89.7
11 I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak Russian very well. (B25)
4.65
97
12 I have my own ways to motivate myself in vocabulary learning. (B22)
4.63
88.7
13 Learning a foreign language is a matter of translating from English.*
4.59
78.7
4.58
99
(B3)
14 It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a
foreign language. (B5)
Note: * Refers to items that scored reversely.
Agree = I somewhat agree (4) + I agree (5) + I strongly agree (6)
The participants in the study disagreed with only two beliefs: B21, I feel bored or
frustrated while learning vocabulary, and B3, Learning a foreign language is mostly a
matter of translating from English. There were also 5 beliefs with the mean scores lower
than 4.00; these scores were the lowest, but still higher than the point of disagreement,
119
3.5, so we can say that overall, the participants reported only moderate agreement with
them. These items are presented in Table 4.7. The information about the percentages for
each Likert-scale response to these beliefs can be found in Appendix C.
Table 4.7. Items of disagreement and least agreement for beliefs (mean ≤ 4.00).
Belief statements
Mean
Agree (%)
B21. I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary.
2.21
48.5
B3. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating
2.41
21.3
3.69
65
3.81
65
3.87
70.1
3.88
73.3
3.92
67
from English.
B4. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to learn the
language well.
B10. You can acquire a large foreign language vocabulary simply by
reading a lot.
B8. You can acquire a large vocabulary by memorizing lots of
individual words.
B6. A good memory is very important for learning a foreign
language well.
B11. Guessing the meaning of words in context is one of the best
ways to learn vocabulary.
Note: Agree = I somewhat agree (4) + I agree (5) + I strongly agree (6)
4.2.5 Summary
The Time 1 questionnaire examined the beliefs about L2 vocabulary learning that
the participants held at the beginning of the semester. These beliefs were most likely
based on students’ experiences studying other languages prior to taking Russian. Based
on the responses, we can see that participants in the study supported most of the beliefs
listed in the questionnaire. Analysis of belief categories shows that participants strongly
supported beliefs from the group Words should be studied and put to use (B13–B15). All
120
three items of this group of beliefs were ranked high in the list of strongest beliefs, and
B15, To really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then practice
using them, received the highest strong agreement of 42.3% of participants, and the
highest mean score of 5.35. Another belief from this group, B13, Vocabulary learning
includes learning phrases as well as words, became the third in the rank of students’
strongest beliefs with a mean of 5.20. Item 14, To know a word, you have to know its
form, its meaning, and how it is used, was ranked seventh with a mean of 4.92. As a
result, this group of beliefs was ranked first among all belief categories with a mean of
5.16.
The great majority of participants held very high expectations about learning
foreign languages and particularly Russian (B22–B24). Almost 90% of the participants
believed that everybody can learn to speak a foreign language, and even more students,
97%, believed they would ultimately learn to speak Russian very well. As a group,
expectations about learning Russian became second most popular with a mean of 4.69.
The ideas about repetition and memorization of new words (B7–B8) also had a lot of
supporters and this group of beliefs received third place with a mean of 4.49. Belief 7,
Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words, became fourth in the rank of strongest
beliefs with a mean of 5.10.
The group of motivational beliefs (B16–B21) was ranked fourth with a mean of
4.45, and its three items (B16, B17, B20) were among the ten most strongly held beliefs.
The group of beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition followed motivational beliefs
with a mean of 4.40. The only belief in the questionnaire that received a negative
response belonged to this group. It was B3, Learning a foreign language is a matter of
121
translating from English, with a mean of 2.41. Almost three times more participants
disagreed (78.7%) than agreed (21.3%) with it. In contrast, one of the items about the
nature of L2 acquisition received 100% of general agreement, and second highest mean
of 5.21. It was B2, Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign
language. The group of self-efficacy beliefs was sixth with a mean of 4.39, and the group
Words should be acquired in context received the last, seventh place with a mean of 4.28.
The least popular beliefs included five items with the mean scores lower than
4.00; The participants reported moderate agreement that vocabulary could be effectively
acquired simply by reading a lot (B8), by memorizing of individual words (B6), or by
guessing the meaning of words in context (B11). Also the items with the least agreement
were: B21, I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, and B4, It is necessary to
know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well.
Finally, more of the participants disagreed than agreed with two beliefs: B21, I
feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary and B3, Learning a foreign language
is mostly a matter of translating from English.
4.3 Research Question 2: Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies Reported in the
Time 1 Questionnaire
The second research question of the study focused on the learning strategies that
first semester learners of Russian reported using. This study investigated three groups of
vocabulary learning strategies: memory, cognitive, and affective strategies. Based on a
Likert-type scale, there were six possible responses to each item: 1 = I never do that, 2 = I
do that very rarely, 3 = I seldom do that, 4 = I sometimes do that, 5 = I often do that, and
6 = I always do that.
122
Table 4.8 below presents the results of the Time 1 questionnaire concerning
students’ memory vocabulary learning strategies. This is the first and the largest category
of vocabulary learning strategies described (26 items). The category of memory strategies
is divided into two groups: rehearsal strategies and encoding strategies.
The table shows the percentages of the participants who chose the answers never
+ very rarely + seldom (1+2+3) and the number of participants who reported using the
strategy sometimes + often + always (4+5+6), mean scores, standard deviations, and the
number of responses for each item (N=97). The information about the percentages for
each Likert-scale response can be found in Appendix D.
4.3.1 Memory Strategies: Rehearsal
Rehearsal strategies included (1) using word lists (S1–S5) and (2) repetition
strategies (S6–S9). Of the five strategies dealing with word lists, students reported the
highest level of use with S3, I go through my vocabulary list several times until I am sure
I know all of the words on the list. It was used at least sometimes by 83.2% of the
participants. More than 60% of the participants reported that they often or always
learned words this way. Reviewing previously memorized words (S5) was the second
most popular strategy, used at least sometimes by 86.6% of participants, although only
6.2% of students reported doing it always. Using flashcards (S1) was rated fourth among
these methods of learning vocabulary, but it had the highest number of students who
always did so, 19.8%.
123
Table 4.8. Memory vocabulary learning strategies: Results of the Time 1 questionnaire.
Rehearsal: Using word lists
1+2+3
4+5+6
28.1
S2. I keep lists of new vocabulary words.
S3. I go through my vocabulary list several times
S1. I make vocabulary flashcards for new words
M
SD
N
71.9
4.11
1.5
96
28.9
71.1
4.13
1.2
97
16.8
83.2
4.54
1.2
95
47.9
52.1
3.47
1.5
96
13.4
86.6
4.32
0.8
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
so that I can memorize them.
until I am sure I know all of the words on the list.
S4. I make flashcards and take them with me
wherever I go.
S5. I make regular review of new words I have
memorized.
Rehearsal: Repetition
S6. Repeating a new word aloud helps me to
4.1
95.9
4.98
0.8
97
7.2
92.8
4.80
1
97
11.4
88.6
4.39
1.1
97
23.7
76.3
4.28
1.2
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
64.5
35.5
2.72
1.4
93
32.3
67.7
3.86
1.2
96
46.9
53.1
3.45
1.6
96
S13. I associate words that sound similar.
13.4
86.6
4.29
1
97
S14. I associate words that look similar.
21.6
78.4
4.04
1.2
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
68.1
31.9
2.73
1.5
97
remember it.
S7. When I am studying new words, I repeat
them silently.
S8. When I try to remember a word, I write it
repeatedly.
S9. I write both the new words and their
translations repeatedly in order to remember
them.
Encoding: Associations
S10. To remember a new word, I put it into an
English sentence.
S11. I link a new word to an English word that
sounds similar.
S12. I link a new word to another foreign
language word I know.
Encoding: Imagery
S15. I act out a word to remember it better.
124
Table 4.8. Continued
Encoding: Imagery
S16. I create a mental image of the new word to
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
20.6
79.4
4.13
1.3
97
64.9
35
2.80
1.3
97
help me remember it.
S17. I associate one or more letters in a word
with the word meaning (e.g., look has two “eyes”
in the middle).
Encoding: Visual encoding
1+2+3
S18. I visualize the new word to help me
4+5+6
M
SD
N
16.7
83.3
4.28
1.2
96
29.2
70.8
3.88
1
96
remember it.
S19. I learn the spelling of a word by breaking it
into several parts.
Encoding: Semantic encoding
1+2+3
S20. I try to remember words in meaningful
4+5+6
M
SD
N
18.6
81.4
4.15
1
97
24.6
75.4
4.06
1.2
97
groups.
S21. I group words into categories (e.g., animals,
utensils, vegetables) to remember them.
Encoding: Contextual encoding
1+2+3
S22. When I want to remember the meaning of a
4+5+6
M
SD
N
9.4
90.6
4.58
0.9
95
12.4
87.6
4.34
0.7
97
9.3
90.7
4.62
0.9
97
word, I try to recall a sentence in which the word
was used.
S23. I remember new words along with the
context in which they occur.
S24. I learn words better when I put them in
context (sentences).
Encoding: Analysis of word structure
1+2+3
S25. When I learn new words, I analyze them in
4+5+6
M
SD
N
42.2
57.8
3.61
1.3
97
52.6
47.7
3.28
1.3
97
terms of their prefixes, stems, and suffixes.
S26. I study word-formation rules in order to
remember more words
Note: S = strategy. The percentages have been rounded.
1+2+3 = I never do so + I do so very rarely + I seldom do so;
4+5+6 = I sometimes do so + I often do so + I always do so.
125
The least popular strategy was S4, I make flashcards and take them with me
wherever I go, but still almost 40% of students reported doing that often or always. As for
repetition strategies (S6–S8), oral repetition (S6–S7) proved to be very popular strategies
for learning vocabulary. Repeating a new word aloud (S6) was often or always used by
75% of students, and silent repetition (S7) was used by 70% of students. No participants
reported never practicing the two strategies. Written repetition with or without translation
(S8 and S9), were used a little less often, but still the percentage of people who did them
was high (88.6% and 76.3%, respectively). In sum, the respondents reported active use of
all rehearsal strategies, especially oral repetition, flashcards, and word lists.
4.3.2 Memory Strategies: Encoding
Compared to rehearsal strategies, encoding strategies presuppose more elaborate
processing of word information. In this study, they included using associations, imagery,
visual encoding, semantic encoding, contextual encoding, and using word structure for
learning vocabulary. In comparison to rehearsal strategies, the frequency of reported use
of encoding strategies was more diverse.
Among associations (S10–S14), associating words that sound similar (S13) was
the most popular strategy: 86.6% of participants reported using it sometimes, often or
always. Fewer students (78.4) reported associating words that look similar (S14). More
students reported linking new foreign language words to English words (S11, 67.7%)
than linking them to words from another foreign language (S12, 53.1%). The least
popular association strategy was S10, To remember a new word, I put it into an English
sentence. Only 35.5% of respondents did that sometimes or often.
126
Imagery encoding strategies (S15–S17) activate memory by creating meaningful
images of new information. Among imagery strategies, the most popular belief was S16,
I create a mental image of the new word to help me remember it. Nearly 80% of students
reported using it. Acting out a word (S15) and associating one or more letters in a word
with its meaning (S17) were not very popular strategies: Only about 30 % of participants
reported doing that sometimes or often.
Among encoding strategies, contextual encoding (S22–S24) was reported most
often. More than 90% of students reported that they at least sometimes learn words better
when they put them in context (S24) and try to recall sentences in which the words were
used (S22). Also, most participants (87.6%) reported that they remember new words
along with the context in which they occur (S23). One of the visual encoding strategies,
S18, I visualize the new word to help me remember it, proved to be almost as popular as
using context: 83.3% of students reported using it at least sometimes. Another visual
strategy, S19, I learn the spelling of a word by breaking it into several parts, was
supported by 70.8% of students.
Semantic encoding strategies: Learning words in meaningful groups (S20), and
Grouping words into categories, (S21) were used at least sometimes by 81.4% and 75.4%
of participants respectively. The last subgroup of encoding strategies, analysis of word
structure, was used less frequently than other groups. Analyzing new words in terms of
prefixes, stems, and suffixes (S25) was at least sometimes used by 57.8% of participants,
and 47.7% of students reported using S26, Studying word-formation rules in order to
remember more words.
127
4.3.3 Memory Strategies: Summary
The results of the responses about memory strategies are presented in Table 4.9. It
shows the mean of each memory strategy subgroup and its rank in frequency of strategy
use. The highest mean belongs to the repetition subgroup (4.61), followed by contextual
encoding (4.51) and using word lists (4.11). The lowest mean belongs to the imagery
subgroup (3.22).
Table 4.9. Subgroups of memory strategies: rank in the frequency of use.
Memory strategies
Mean score
SD
Rank
Repetition
4.61
0.68
1
Using word lists
4.11
0.85
3
Total for rehearsal strategies
4.34
0.65
Contextual encoding
4.51
0.69
2
Semantic encoding
4.10
0.91
4
Visual encoding
4.08
0.88
5
Associations
3.68
0.83
6
Word structure
3.45
1.10
7
Imagery
3.22
0.95
8
Total for encoding strategies
3.81
0.59
Total for all memory strategies
3.99
0.46
Rehearsal
Encoding
If we compare the rehearsal and encoding groups, we see that the participants
reported using rehearsal strategies more often (mean = 4.34) than encoding strategies
(mean = 3.81). However, contextual encoding was the second most popular subgroup of
memory strategies (mean = 4.51). The rest of vocabulary learning strategies presented in
the survey included cognitive, and affective strategies.
128
4.3.4 Cognitive and Affective Strategies
Responses about cognitive and affective strategies are showed in Table 4.10. The
information about the percentages for each Likert-scale response can be found in
Appendix D. The group of cognitive strategies included dictionary, note-taking, guessing,
activation, and technology strategies. The great majority of the participants reported
using dictionary strategies (S27–S29) intensively. About 97% of the participants reported
using them at least sometimes, and 40%-50% students reported using them all the time.
Table 4.10. Cognitive and affective vocabulary learning strategies: Results of the Time 1
survey.
Dictionary
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
2.1
97.9
5.22
0.7
97
3.1
96.9
5.30
0.9
97
3
97
5.15
0.9
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
10.3
89.7
4.61
1
97
14.4
85.6
4.53
1.1
97
15.5
84.5
4.54
1.4
97
Guessing
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
33. When reading, I have a sense of which word
10.3
89.7
4.51
0.9
97
8.2
91.8
4.58
0.8
97
27. When I see an unfamiliar word again and
again, I look it up.
28. When not knowing a word prevents me from
understanding a whole sentence, I look it up.
29. When I want to confirm my guess about a
word, I look it up.
Note-taking
30. I make a note of words that seem important
to me.
31. I make a note when I think the word is
relevant to my personal interests.
32. I make a note when I see a useful expression
or phrase.
I can guess and which word I cannot.
34. I make use of context to guess the meaning
of a word I do not know.
129
Table 4.10. Continued
35. When I guess the meaning of a word, I try to
21.7
78.3
4.16
1.1
97
35.1
64.9
3.89
1.4
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
30.9
69.1
3.86
1.2
97
10.3
89.7
4.49
0.8
97
25.7
74.3
3.96
1.4
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
17.5
82.5
4.39
1.2
97
41. I use online applications to study new words.
41.6
58.4
3.48
1.4
96
42. I use mobile devices to study new words.
40.2
59.8
3.33
1.4
97
1+2+3
4+5+6
M
SD
N
20.6
79.4
4.39
1.1
97
16.5
83.5
4.34
1.1
97
understand what part of speech it is.
36. When I guess the meaning of a word, I
analyze its parts (prefix, root, and suffix).
Activation
37. I make up my own sentences using the
words I just learned.
38. I try to use newly learned words as much as
possible when I write or speak.
39. I try to use newly learned words in
imaginary situations in my mind.
Technology
40. I like to use online dictionaries to look up
new words.
Affective strategies
43. If I feel bored or frustrated while learning
vocabulary, I give up. *
44. If I feel bored or frustrated while learning
vocabulary, I take a break or I remind myself
that vocabulary is important, and then I go on.
Note: S = strategy. The percentages have been rounded.
1+2+3 = I never do so + I do so very rarely + I seldom do so;
4+5+6 = I sometimes do so + I often do so + I always do so.
* Refers to items that scored reversely.
Regarding note-taking strategies (S30–S32), students reported using them a little
less often than dictionary strategies, but still from 84.5% to 89.7% of the participants
responded that at least sometimes they made notes of important words (S30), words
130
relevant to their personal interest (S31), and useful expressions or phrases (S32).
Concerning guessing strategies (S33–S36), most students (91.8%) reported that at least
sometimes they used context to guess the meaning of words (S34). Also, almost 90% of
participants stated they had a sense of which word they can guess and which word they
cannot (S33). Trying to understand what part of speech the word was at least sometimes
helped to guess the meaning of unknown words to 78.3% of students (S35). More than
half of participants (64.9%) used analysis of word parts (prefix, root, and suffix) for
guessing the meaning of new words (S36).
Learners who employ activation strategies (S37–S39) practice new words in
different contexts. Among activation strategies, S38, I try to use newly learned words as
much as possible when I write or speak, was a favorite. Nearly 90% of students reported
using it at least sometimes, and 13.4% reported doing it always. Making up sentences
with new words (S37) and using newly learned words in imaginary situations (S39) were
used at least sometimes by 69.1% and 74.3% of the respondents, respectively.
Regarding the area of using technology for learning foreign languages (S40–S42),
a large number of participants (82.5%) reported using online dictionaries (S40) at least
sometimes, and only 5.2% reported never using them. About 60% of students reported
using online applications (S41) and mobile devices (S42) to study new words, although
the number of students who never used these tools (13.4% and 20.6%, respectively) was
much higher than the number of students who always used them (4.2% and 1%).
Affective strategies (S43–S44) may alleviate anxiety by self-encouragement and
reminding oneself of goals, progress made, and resources available (Oxford, 1990). In the
current study, one of the affective strategies, S43, If I feel bored or frustrated while
131
learning vocabulary, I give up, had reversed value. To allow a comparison of all mean
scores, the responses were recoded: Score 1 became 6, 2 became 5, and 3 became 4. The
responses showed that not many students allowed themselves to give up when they felt
bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary. Only 20.6% of participants reported they
often or sometimes gave up, and no students reported doing so always. In such situations,
at least sometimes, 83.5% of participants took a break or reminded themselves that
vocabulary is important, and then they went on (S44). About 15% of participants
reported never giving up, and about 30% gave up very rarely.
4.3.5 Categories of Strategies: Summary
To summarize, the frequencies of use of the strategy categories are ranked in
Table 4.11.
Table 4.11. The rank of strategy categories in descending order.
Categories of strategies
Mean score
SD
1. Dictionary
5.22
.68
2. Memory (Repetition)
4.61
.68
3. Note-taking
4.56
.86
4. Memory (Contextual encoding)
4.51
.69
5. Affective
4.37
.86
6. Guessing
4.29
.76
7. Memory (Using word lists)
4.11
.85
=8. Memory (Semantic encoding)
4.10
.91
=8. Activation
4.10
.93
9. Memory (Visual encoding)
4.08
.88
10. Technology
3.73
1.00
11. Memory (Associations)
3.67
.83
12. Memory (Word structure)
3.45
1.10
13. Memory (Imagery)
3.22
.95
Total mean for strategy usage
4.30
.45
132
Analyzing the data in table 4.11, we can see that dictionary strategies rank first
with the highest mean score of 5.22, which means that most participants reported using
dictionary strategies more often than any other group of strategies. Repetition is the
second most frequently used group of strategies, followed by note-taking and contextual
encoding, and these three groups of strategies have very similar mean scores. Affective
and guessing strategies go next. The following four groups of strategies (using word lists,
semantic encoding, activation, and visual encoding) have minimal differences in their
mean scores: 4.11–4.08. The next group of strategies with minimal differences in means
(3.73–3.45) include using technology, associations, and analyzing word structure. Using
imagery is reported least frequently of all strategy groups. The reported frequency of use
of individual strategies shows their appeal for the respondents of the study. The next
section describes the most frequently and the least frequently used vocabulary learning
strategies.
4.3.6 The Most Frequently Used and the Least Frequently Used Individual
Strategies
On the basis of the information presented in the previous section, the frequency of
use of individual strategies was assessed. Only the items with means higher than 4.50
were included in the list of the most frequently used strategies. The rank of individual
strategies to a great extent reflects the rank of the group to which the strategy belongs; in
other words, the self-reported strategies clustered by strategy group. The result of the
assessment is presented in Table 4.12.
133
Based on the assessment, all three dictionary strategies are at the head of the list
with the highest mean scores of 5.30 (S28), 5.22 (S27), and 5.15 (S29). Two repetition
memory strategies follow them with the mean scores of 4.98 (S6) and 4.80 (S7). Two
more memory strategies from the group of contextual encoding (S24 and S22), three
note-taking strategies (S30–S32), two guessing strategies (S33 and S34), and a memory
strategy from the group of using word lists (S3) were also used frequently by the
participants of the study.
Table 4.12. The most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies (mean ≥4.50).
Strategy
1. When not knowing a word prevents me from
understanding a whole sentence or even a whole
paragraph, I look it up (S28).
2. When I see an unfamiliar word again and again, I look
it up (S27).
3. When I want to confirm my guess about a word, I look
it up (S29).
4. Repeating a new word aloud helps me to remember it
(S6).
5. When I am studying new words, I repeat them silently
in my mind (S7).
6. I learn words better when I put them in context (e.g.,
phrases, sentences (S24).
7. I make a note of words that seem important to me
(S30).
=8. When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I
try to recall a sentence in which the word was used (S22).
Mean
score
5.30
Frequency
(4+5+6)
96.9
Group of
strategies
Dictionary
5.22
97.9
Dictionary
5.15
97
Dictionary
4.98
95.9
4.80
92.8
4.62
90.7
4.61
89.7
4.58
90.6
Memory:
Repetition
Memory:
Repetition
Memory:
Contextual
encoding
Notetaking
Memory:
Contextual
encoding
Guessing
=8. I make use of context to guess the meaning of a word
4.58
91.8
I do not know (S34).
Note=9. I make a note when I see a useful expression or
4.54
84.5
taking
phrase (S32).
Memory:
=9. I go through my vocabulary list several times until I
4.54
83.2
Word lists
am sure I know all of the words on the list (S3).
Note10. I make a note when I think the word is relevant to my
4.53
85.6
taking
personal interests (S31).
Guessing
11. When reading in a foreign language, I have a sense of
4.51
89.7
which word I can guess and which word I cannot (S33).
Note: Frequency of usage (4+5+6) = I sometimes do that + I often do that + I always do that
134
The items with the mean scores lower than 3.50 were included in the list of the
least frequently used strategies (Table 4.13). In the rank of frequency of use, they occupy
places from 30 to 37.
Table 4.13. The least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies (mean ≤ 3.50).
Mean
score
3.48
3.47
Frequency
(4+5+6)
58.4
52.1
3.45
53.1
3.33
3.28
59.8
47.7
2.80
35
2.73
31.9
37. To remember a new word, I put it into an English
2.72
sentence (S10).
Note: Frequency of usage (4+5+6) = sometimes + often + always
35.5
Strategy
30. I use online applications to study new words (S41).
31. I make vocabulary cards and take them with me
wherever I go (S4).
32. I link a new word to another foreign language word
I know to remember it (S12).
33. I use mobile devices to study new words (S42).
34. I study word-formation rules in order to remember
more words (S26).
35. I associate one or more letters in a word with the
word meaning to help me remember it (e.g., look has
two “eyes” in the middle) (S17).
36. I act out a word to remember it better (S15).
Group of
strategies
Technology
Memory:
Word lists
Memory:
Associations
Technology
Memory:
Word
structure
Memory:
Imagery
Memory:
Imagery
Memory:
Associations
A technology group strategy, S42, using mobile devices for vocabulary learning,
opens the list with a mean of 3.33. Only one student reported using this strategy always,
and 20.6% of participants never use mobile devices for learning vocabulary, although
almost 60% of participants admitted they sometimes or often use them. The next strategy
in the list, S26, studying word-formation rules, was at least sometimes used by a little less
than half of students (47.7%). Only about 30% of students reported using two memory
strategies from imagery group: associating letters with a word meaning (S17), and acting
out a word (S15). One more memory strategy from the group of associations, S15,
putting new words into English sentences, closes the list with a mean of 2.72.
135
4.3.7 Summary
In the area of learning strategies, students demonstrated less agreement than in the
area of learning beliefs. Comparisons of mean scores of all strategy groups shows the
most frequent use of dictionary strategies: this category received the highest mean score
of 5.22, and three strategies from this group are at the top of the list of most frequently
used strategies.
Among memory strategies, students reported Repetition strategies most
frequently. As a group, repetition strategies were ranked second with a mean of 4.61, and
two repetition strategies follow three dictionary strategies in the list of most frequently
used learning strategies. Note-taking group of strategies is the third in the group rank
(mean 4.56), and three strategies made their way to the list of ten most frequently used
strategies.
Contextual encoding group was the fourth in the ranking, with a mean of 4.51 and
two items in the list of ten most frequently used strategies. Affective strategies as a group
was ranked fifth with a mean of 4.37 but, surprisingly, there were none of them among
ten most frequently used strategies; they were ranked only 13 and 14. Guessing as a
group goes sixth with a mean of 4.29 and two items among ten most frequent strategies.
Using word lists as a group follows Guessing with a mean of 4.11 and one item among
the ten most popular strategies.
The overall mean for strategy usage is 4.30, and the mean of the most frequently
used strategy is 5.30. It is a little lower than the overall mean for beliefs agreement (4.5),
and the mean of the most popular belief (5.35). However, it is still possible to say that
participants in this study reported frequent use of most learning strategies.
136
The descriptive analysis showed participants’ general preferences of vocabulary
learning beliefs and their choice of strategies. The next research question examines the
degree of association between certain pairs of variables: between groups of beliefs,
between groups of strategies, between groups of beliefs and strategies, and between
individual beliefs and individual strategies.
4.4 Research Question 3: Relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary
learning and the learning strategies they report using
Many SLA studies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Horwitz, 1987, 1988; 1999; Li,
2010; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995;
Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Wen & Johnson, 1997; Wenden, 1987; Zare-ee & Salami, 2014)
have reported that learners’ beliefs about language learning are likely to provide the logic
for their choice of learning strategies. Research Question 3 of the study focuses on the
relationships between students’ beliefs and the learning strategies they report using. To
answer this question, two methods of quantitative analysis of the data were employed:
The Pearson r correlation coefficient test and the cluster analysis.
4.4.1 The Pearson r Correlation Coefficient Test Results
The Pearson r correlation coefficient test was performed on the data set of this
study. Dörnyei (2001) claims that in L2 motivation research based on questionnaires “ the
usual strength of the meaningful relationships detected is between 0.30 and 0.50” (p.
224). The results of Pearson r correlation coefficients of all the groups of beliefs and
strategies are presented in Table 4.14.
137
Table 4.14. Relationships between beliefs and strategies: Pearson r correlation
coefficients.
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
B1
–
B2
.41**
–
B3
.42**
.39**
–
B4
.43**
.42**
.49**
–
B5
.16
.25*
.36**
.13
–
S1
.46**
.40**
.39**
.34**
.13
–
S2
.11
.25*
.35**
.25*
.18
.21*
–
S3
.25*
.18
.40**
.16
–.03
.41**
.18
–
S4
.30**
.30**
.26**
.19
–.08
.40**
.25*
.11
–
S5
.33**
.12
.37**
.18
.09
.54**
.01
.42**
.41**
–
S6
.07
–.03
.08
–.19
.02
.25*
–.03
.27**
.15
.36**
–
S7
.28**
.30**
.42**
.25*
.26*
.36**
.24*
.17
.01
.15
–.01
S7
–
Note: N=97; *p < .05, ** p < .01; abbreviations of row and column headers represents
variables:
B1. Beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition.
S1. Memory strategies
B2. Beliefs about vocabulary learning
S2. Dictionary strategies
B3. Motivational beliefs
S3. Note-taking strategies
B4. Expectations
S4. Guessing strategies
B5. Self-efficacy
S5. Activation strategies
S6. Technology strategies
S7. Affective strategies
In this study, many of the five groups of beliefs and seven groups of strategies as
well as individual beliefs and strategies significantly correlated with one another with
correlation coefficients ranging from .21 to .67, which indicated weak to moderate
correlations. Following Dörnyei (2001), only moderate correlations with r ≥ .30 will be
discussed. The inspection of the relationships among belief groups showed that all of
them were significantly correlated with each other. The only exception was the self-
138
efficacy belief group, which was correlated only with the group of motivational beliefs (r
= .36). The highest correlational coefficient among all belief groups (r = .49) was found
between motivational beliefs and expectations about studying Russian.
Among groups of strategies, the memory group was correlated with most other
groups of strategies: Note-taking (r =.41), guessing(r =.40), activation (r =.54), and
affective (r =.36) strategies, and the strongest degree of correlation was found between
the memory and activation strategies groups (r =.54). Activation strategies were also
correlated with the groups of note-taking (r =.42), guessing (r =.41), and technology
strategies (r =.36).
Interrelations between the groups of learning beliefs and learning strategies were
positive, which means that no group of beliefs might constrain the use of strategies, and
some groups of beliefs might encourage the use of some strategies. Beliefs about the
nature of L2 acquisition were correlated with the groups of memory (r =.46), guessing (r
=.30), and activation strategies (r =.33). Beliefs about vocabulary learning correlated with
memory (r =.40), guessing (r =.30), and affective (r =.30) strategies. Motivational beliefs
were positively correlated with the groups of memory (r =.39), dictionary (r =.35), notetaking (r =.40), activation (r =.37), and affective strategies (r =.42). Expectations were
correlated only with memory strategies (r =.34).
All groups of beliefs except self-efficacy positively correlated with memory
strategies. On the other hand, the technology group did not show significant correlation
with any group of beliefs, which may be due to high variation in scores for this variable
(M=3.73, SD=1.1).
139
Correlations between reported individual beliefs and strategies were extremely
numerous in this study. Some beliefs were correlated with many strategies, whereas other
beliefs correlated with very few, but there were no beliefs that were not significantly
correlated with at least several strategies. It is hardly possible to examine all correlations
between individual beliefs and strategies. The following presents two examples of
interrelations between individual beliefs and strategies: when beliefs correlate with only a
few or a lot of strategies, and when beliefs correlate with the similar number of strategies
but these strategies belong to very different groups.
For the first example, we can look at motivational beliefs. The findings of
research on L2 motivation (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oxford
& Nyikos, 1989) suggest that motivation may be the best predictor of learning strategy
use. Table 4.15 displays the correlations of B20, I like learning vocabulary, with
particular learning strategies.
Table 4.15. Correlations of B20 with learning strategies.
B20, I like learning vocabulary
1. S3, I go through my vocabulary list several times until I am sure I know all of the words on
the list, r=.36**
2. S5, I make regular reviews of new words I have memorized, r = .40**
3. S7, When I am studying new words, I repeat them silently in my mind, r =.38**
4. S16, I create a mental image of the new word to help me remember it, r =.34**
5. S18, I visualize the new word to help me remember it, r =.35**
6. S22, When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I try to recall a sentence in which
the word was used, r =.33**
7. S27, When I see an unfamiliar word again and again, I look it up, r =.31**
8. S32, I make a note when I see a useful expression or phrase, r =.37**
9. S33, When reading, I have a sense of which word I can guess and which word I cannot, r
=.32**
10. S38, I try to use newly learned words as much as possible when I write or speak, r =.35**
11. S44, If I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I take a break or I remind
myself that vocabulary is important, and then I go on, r =.44**
** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01
140
In the current study, students who agreed with motivational belief B20 of the
survey, I like learning vocabulary also agreed with beliefs I am good at learning
languages (B23, r =.30), and I have my own ways to remember the words I learn (B24, r
=.46). The belief I like learning vocabulary (B20) was also significantly correlated with
11 learning strategies. Similarly, B18, I like to learn more words than my foreign
language teacher assigns us to learn, was correlated with 9 strategies, and Belief 17,
Learning vocabulary is interesting, was correlated with 6 learning strategies. In contrast,
the belief I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary (B21), positively
correlated with only three strategies. Table 4.16 presents the result of Pearson correlation
coefficients of B21 with learning strategies.
Table 4.16. Correlations of B21 with learning strategies.
B21, I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary
1. S3, I go through my vocabulary list several times until I am sure I know all of the words on
the list, r=.42**
2. S29, When I want to confirm my guess about a word, I look it up, r =.30**
3. S43, If I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I give up, r =.51**
** Correlation is significant at p < 0.01
To sum up, the motivational beliefs that express positive attitudes towards
vocabulary learning were correlated with many more vocabulary learning strategies than
the belief about negative feelings of boredom or frustration.
For another example, we can look at the beliefs about incidental or contextual
acquisition of vocabulary and beliefs about intentional learning of vocabulary. For
example, B11, Guessing the meaning of words in context is one of the best ways to learn
words and B7, Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words, were negatively
141
correlated (r = –.195). A similar negative correlation was found between B9, It is easier
to learn new words when they are presented in context, and B8, You can acquire a large
vocabulary by memorizing lots of individual words (r = –.219). It is reasonable to predict
that these two kinds of beliefs will correlate with two different sets of vocabulary
learning strategies.
The results of the Pearson correlation test showed that B11, Guessing the meaning
of words in context is one of the best ways to learn words, was positively correlated with
similar vocabulary learning beliefs: You can acquire a large L2 vocabulary simply by
reading a lot (B10, r = .54) and When you come across a word several times in different
contexts, you eventually figure out what it means (B12, r = .35). As for strategies, B11
was correlated with S33, When reading, I have a sense of which words I can guess and
which words I cannot (r = .33) and S34, I make use of context to guess the meaning of a
word I do not know (r = .36).
Another belief about contextual acquisition of vocabulary, B9, It is easier to learn
new words when they are presented in context, was also correlated with several strategies
dealing with learning and using new words in context: S22, When I want to remember the
meaning of a word, I try to recall a sentence in which the word was used (r =.32), S24, I
learn words better when I put them in context (e.g., phrases, sentences) (r =.49), and S33,
When reading, I have a sense of which word I can guess and which word I cannot (r
=.39).
We can see that beliefs about acquisition of vocabulary from context were
significantly correlated with vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies aimed at
contextual acquisition of new words. In contrast, beliefs about intentional learning of
142
vocabulary with the help of rehearsal were correlated with vocabulary learning beliefs
and strategies related to deliberate learning of new vocabulary. The belief Repetition is
one of the best ways to learn words (B7) was correlated with the following beliefs:
Vocabulary learning includes learning phrases as well as words (B13, r = .36), I am
motivated to learn vocabulary because it is important for passing tests (B19, r = .31), and
I am good at learning languages (B23, r = .36). As for learning strategies, B7 was
correlated with learning words from vocabulary lists (S3, r = .30), repeating new words
aloud (S6, r = .40), and with affective strategy If I feel bored or frustrated while learning
vocabulary, I take a break or I remind myself that vocabulary is important, and then I go
on (S44, r = .30). Thus, we can conclude that the beliefs about incidental and intentional
vocabulary acquisition were logically correlated with corresponding strategies.
In summary, many correlations between groups of learning beliefs and strategies,
as well as between individual beliefs and strategies were found in the current study. None
of them was very strong, but as Dörnyei (2001) recommended, we can consider
correlations with r ≥ .30 meaningful and worthy of some reflections. As a result, we can
say that the current study supports the idea about relationship between vocabulary
learning beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies.
Correlational analysis examines overall tendencies in the study population.
However, there are different learner types that possess a number of beliefs and employ
complex combinations of various strategies or strategy chains as Oxford (1999) argues.
Another research technique, cluster analysis, can help us provide additional evidence of
the existence of relationship between learning beliefs and learning strategies, as it enables
143
us to identify groups of learners who share similar learning beliefs and to verify if they
employ similar learning strategies.
4.4.2 Cluster Analysis
The cluster analyses of the data were performed to uncover combinations of
learning beliefs and learning strategies and to determine if there are groups of participants
that are similar to each other in their overall response profiles. The Ward method with the
squared Euclidean distance technique was applied in SPSS to group students with similar
belief profiles. Examination of the dendrogram, which is a tree-like graphic display of the
distances between the clusters, showed that participants could be classified into four
distinct belief profile groups. One-way ANOVAs confirmed the judgment revealing
statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among all four clusters for all groups of
beliefs. Figure 1 shows the results of the cluster analysis. Post-hoc comparisons between
pairs of Cluster means are shown in Appendix E.
Figure 1. Cluster profiles of learning beliefs.
6.00 5.00 Cluster 1 (10) 4.00 Cluster 2 (39) Cluster 3 (34) 3.00 Cluster 4 (14) 2.00 144
To determine how these clusters differ, a closer look at the variables that
distinguish them from each other is necessary. The students belonging to Cluster 1 (10
people) can be referred to as strong supporters of all beliefs. They strongly believe in
memorization of new vocabulary and in the belief that to learn vocabulary well, words
should be first studied and then put to use, but they also support vocabulary acquisition
from context. Among all clusters, they have highest scores on motivation and selfefficacy beliefs, and their expectations for their future learning are even higher.
The second cluster (39 participants) supported contextual acquisition more
strongly than memorization, so they can be called supporters of contextual acquisition.
All of their scores except the belief that words should be studied and put to use are lower
than the scores of participants from Cluster 1.
Cluster 3 (34 students) believed in memorization almost as strongly as those in
Cluster 1, but their support of acquisition from context was much lower (mean difference
is 0.96). We can call them supporters of memorization. Their belief in studying and using
words was the highest among all clusters. Although, in comparison to Cluster 2, their
motivation and, especially, self-efficacy scores were lower, their expectations for their
future success in learning Russian were higher.
Cluster 4 (14 learners) reported moderate agreement with most beliefs (moderate
supporters of learning beliefs). They preferred memorization to contextual acquisition,
not as strongly supported studying and using words as other clusters of participants, and
demonstrated lower motivation, expectations, and self-efficacy.
Table 4.17 presents the descriptive statistics for each cluster and the results of the
post hoc tests (Tukey’s multiple comparison technique).
145
Table 4.17. Learning beliefs: description of clusters.
Groups of
Cluster 1
Cluster 2
Cluster 3
Cluster 4
Significant in
Beliefs
(N=10)
(N=39)
(N=34)
(N=14)
post hoc test,
L2 Acquisition
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
4.98
0.36
4.42
0.33
4.33
0.41
4.06
0.25
p <.01
Clusters 1–2,
1–3, 1-4, 2–4*
Memorization
5.10
0.61
4.13
0.39
4.90
0.44
4.04
0.97
Clusters 1–2,
1–4, 2–3, 3–4
Context
4.93
0.54
4.56
0.33
3.97
0.46
3.75
0.84
Clusters 1–3,
1–4, 2–3, 2–4
Studying + Use
5.27
0.35
5.15
0.83
5.34
0.37
4.64
0.67
Clusters 1–4*,
2–4, 3–4
Motivation
5.25
0.37
4.53
0.45
4.40
0.65
3.77
0.56
Clusters 1–2,
1–3, 1–4, 2–4,
3–4
Self-efficacy
5.40
0.74
4.63
0.44
4.22
0.42
3.45
0.76
Clusters 1–2,
1–3, 1–4, 2–3,
2–4, 3–4
Expectations
5.55
0.40
4.40
0.44
5.06
0.64
4.00
0.50
Clusters 1–2,
1–4, 2–3, 3–4
Note: * p < .05
The post hoc test confirmed significant differences between learning beliefs of all
the clusters of participants.
It is a widely held proposition that learners’ beliefs about language learning can
influence their learning behaviors and use of strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987;
Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Wenden, 1986, 1987; Yang, 1999). The same clusters of
participants were analyzed to investigate whether students’ descriptions of their language
146
learning strategy use was consistent with their beliefs about language learning. The
results of this analysis are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Cluster profiles of learning strategies. 6.00 5.00 4.00 Cluster 1 (10) Cluster 2 (39) 3.00 Cluster 3 (34) Cluster 4 (14) 2.00 The participants from all four clusters reported active use of learning strategies
(M=4.30, SD=0.43), and the patterns of use were very similar. All participants favored
oral repetition and dictionary strategies the most, and imagery, analysis of word structure,
and use of technology the least. Differences among the cluster profiles in using learning
strategies were smaller than differences among the clusters in reported learning beliefs.
However, it is possible to see some logic and consistency between participants’ beliefs
and their strategy preferences.
Students who supported all learning beliefs more strongly than other participants
(Cluster 1) also reported more active use of learning strategies. The other three clusters
147
differed in only a few groups of strategies, but participants from Cluster 2, who strongly
supported beliefs about the contextual acquisition of vocabulary, reported more active use
of contextual encoding strategies. The participants who believed in effectiveness of
memorization (Cluster 3) reported higher use of oral repetition. As for Cluster 4, which
included moderate supporters of learning beliefs, they slightly differed from Clusters 2
and 3 in only two groups of strategies: They reported using semantic encoding and notetaking strategies less often. Table 4.18 presents descriptive statistics of strategy clusters
and results of the post hoc tests.
Table 4.18. Learning strategies: description of clusters. Groups of
Strategies
Cluster 1
(N=10)
Cluster 2
(N=39)
Cluster 3
(N=34)
Cluster 4
(N=14)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Word Lists
Oral Repetition
Written
Repetition
Associations
4.58
5.35
5.10
0.67
0.59
0.92
4.11
4.74
4.38
1.33
0.58
0.81
4.06
4.97
4.22
0.80
0.59
1.21
3.91
4.79
3.93
0.98
0.97
0.65
4.16
0.74
3.86
0.50
3.47
0.94
3.40
0.77
Imagery
3.57
0.88
3.60
1.16
2.82
0.85
2.90
0.80
Visual Encoding
Semantic
Encoding
4.55
4.60
0.86
0.82
4.22
4.27
0.55
0.66
3.85
4.10
0.82
0.82
3.82
3.32
1.10
1.07
Contextual
Encoding
Word Structure
4.80
0.49
4.69
0.53
4.30
0.92
4.27
0.41
4.25
0.96
3.49
1.36
3.28
0.99
3.14
1.05
Dictionary
Note-taking
Guessing
Activation
5.47
4.80
4.80
4.70
0.65
0.59
0.51
0.85
5.19
4.77
4.40
4.27
0.59
0.74
0.86
0.73
5.33
4.36
4.03
3.79
0.60
1.05
0.83
0.96
4.88
4.26
4.20
3.95
0.87
0.94
0.86
0.95
Technology
Affective
4.03
4.95
1.08
0.61
3.50
4.33
1.05
0.83
3.83
4.41
0.91
0.97
3.93
3.93
0.90
1.02
* p <.01
148
Significant in
post hoc test
(p<.05)
–
–
Clusters 1–2,
1–3, 1–4*
Clusters 1–3,
2–3, 1–4
Clusters 1–3,
2–3*, 2–4
–
Clusters 1–4*,
2–4*,
3–4*
Clusters 1–3,
2–3, 2–4
Clusters 1–2,
1–3, 1–4
–
–
Clusters 1–3*
Clusters 1–3*,
1–4
–
Clusters 1–2,
1–4*
The post hoc test shows that not all groups of students differ significantly in their
use of vocabulary learning strategies. Cluster 1 (active supporters of learning beliefs)
differed from the other clusters in 9 of the 15 strategy categories: They reported more
frequent use of written repetition, associations, semantic and contextual encoding,
analysis of word structure, guessing, activation strategies, and affective strategies.
Cluster 2 (supporters of contextual acquisition) used 3 groups of strategies more
often than did the students in Cluster 3: associations, imagery, and contextual encoding;
they also used semantic encoding more often than did the students in Cluster 4. Cluster 3
(supporters of memorization) used semantic encoding significantly more often than the
students in Cluster 4, but written repetition, associations, imagery, contextual encoding,
word structure analysis, guessing, and activation strategies significantly less often than
Cluster 1, and associations, imagery, and contextual encoding less often than Cluster 2.
Cluster 4 (moderate supporters of learning beliefs) in comparison to Cluster 1 used 6
groups of strategies significantly less often: written repetition, associations, semantic
encoding, analysis of word structure, activation, and affective strategies. Besides, they
differed from Cluster 2 in the frequency of their use of imagery, semantic encoding, and
contextual encoding. No differences were found in the frequency of use of the following
groups of strategies: word lists, oral repetition, visual encoding, dictionary, note-taking,
or use of technology.
In sum, the findings of cluster analysis suggests the relationship between learning
beliefs and learning strategies: strong supporters of all beliefs (Cluster 1) used most
learning strategies more frequently, supporters of contextual acquisition of vocabulary
(Cluster 2) reported more frequent use of contextual encoding strategies, supporters of
149
memorization (Cluster 3) reported higher use of oral repetition, and the participants who
agreed with learning beliefs only moderately (Cluster 4) reported less frequent use of
many vocabulary learning strategies.
Demographic data can provide more details about the students in the clusters.
Cluster 1 is the smallest (n=10), but its members had more experience of learning foreign
languages than other students. When asked to evaluate their knowledge of foreign
languages, 5 students from Cluster 1 reported excellent knowledge of 7 foreign languages
(2 respondents listed 2 languages each). Two more students reported very good
knowledge of a foreign language. In contrast, only 2 students from Cluster 2 (n=39), one
student from Cluster 3 (n=34), and no students from Cluster 4 (n=14) stated that they had
excellent knowledge of a foreign language. As for reporting very good knowledge of
another language, there were 5 students from Cluster 2, 9 students from Cluster 3, and
one student from Cluster 4. The information about how many years students spent to
reach these levels of knowledge is displayed in Table 4.19.
Table 4.19. Self-reported knowledge of foreign languages and time spent to reach it.
Knowledge of
other foreign
languages &
years of
studying
Excellent
Very good
Cluster 1 n=10
(active supporters
of all learning
beliefs)
Cluster 2 n=39
(contextual
acquisition
supporters)
Cluster 3 n=34
(supporters of
memorization)
Cluster 4 n=14
(moderate
supporters of
beliefs)
5 students/7 lang.
(7 to 20 years)
2 students/2 lang.
(4 to 7 years)
2 students/2 lang.
(8 and 15 years)
5 students/5 lang.
(5 to 11 years)
1 student/1lang.
(12 years)
9 students/9 lang.
(2 to 4 years)
0 students
1 student
(3 years)
From Table 4.19 we can see that for excellent knowledge, students studied foreign
languages from 7 to 20 years, and the number of years reported by participants of
150
Clusters 1, 2, and 3 are comparable. However, to reach very good knowledge, members
of Cluster 1 and 2 spent from 4 to 11 years, but students from Clusters 3 and 4 spent only
2 to 4 years. Of course, the length of study cannot be the only predictor of quality of
knowledge, but this contrast may indicate that the participants from different clusters are
not using the same criteria for their self-assessment of foreign language knowledge.
Students’ responses to an open-ended question, Imagine that you have to learn
several new words for tomorrow's class. Describe the methods you will use for this task,
revealed striking similarity in the reported approaches. Nearly all of the responses
contained description of memorization rehearsal strategies: flashcards, word lists, oral
repetition, and written repetition. There seemed to be no differences in these strategies
among the clusters. It looked as if all participants believed that they should begin learning
new words with rehearsal strategies, no matter how many foreign languages they had
studied before enrolling in their first-year Russian course. For example, a Cluster 4
member, who had studied Spanish for two years and evaluated his/her knowledge as
poor, stated:
•
Make notecards of the words and practice using those.
A student from Cluster 3, who had studied French for 3 years and reported fair
knowledge of it, responded,
•
I find that flashcards work well for helping me memorize new vocabulary. I also like
to repeatedly write out the new words to cement the spelling and structure into my
memory. Repetition is my preferred study method.
A student from Cluster 1, for whom Russian is the sixth foreign language, and
who reported excellent knowledge of Italian and Spanish after studying them for 10 and 8
151
years, respectively, good knowledge of French after 4 years, fair knowledge of German
after 5 years “off and on,” and poor knowledge of Arabic after 1 year of study,
responded,
•
If the words are relatively easy (cognates, familiar root words, etc.) I likely would
just look over them a few times as I have a photographic memory and little difficulty
memorizing. If they are unfamiliar, I would write each word 10 times while
pronouncing it in my head and imagining the idea (not the English equivalent) of the
word to associate it with the concept instead of translation. I would quiz myself, and
repeat for the ones that I mess up on or am not 100% comfortable with.
We can suppose that the student who had studied 5 foreign languages and began
to study another one considered himself or herself a successful language learner. The fact
that he or she still actively used rehearsal strategies may not mean that this person was
not aware of other strategies, but rather that the learning outcome of using these strategies
was sufficient, especially if the learner was pressed for time. The next response by a
student with some knowledge of Portuguese, French, Chinese, Korean, Latin, and Arabic,
emphasized the contrast between desirable and real actions:
•
Ideally, I would try to make the words into a song, or try listening to an audiotape (if
there is one) repeatedly. Realistically, I would constantly repeat the words as I run to
class.
The only one response that did not mention memorization (student from Cluster 3,
fair knowledge of Spanish and Latin, and poor knowledge of Turkish) responded:
•
Use the words. Imagine how one would use them. Turn them around in your head
and play with them. IF you can KNOW the word as easily as you can know the word
in English, you'll have no trouble. But that's a big if. I can hardly manage it on the
best of days, and yet I still haven't found a better method.
The quantitative cluster analysis established that the students in Clusters 2 and 3
differed in their attitude toward contextual acquisition of vocabulary. The analysis of the
open-ended question of the survey supported this finding. In contrast to Cluster 3
152
members, who mostly described rehearsal strategies, Cluster 2 members, along with
rehearsal methods or after describing them, often mentioned the importance of
understanding and practicing words in context:
•
I would list them out next to their English equivalents, copy them down several times,
use them in sentences, and finally, make flashcards.
•
Repeat them over and over, individually and in sentences where they make sense.
Next I would use the textbook to learn context and grammar in order to take a step
closer to fluency.
In summary, the cluster analyses demonstrated that the participants of the current
study belonged to four distinct belief profile groups, and although most participants from
all clusters reported comparably active use of dictionary, note-taking, and memorization
rehearsal strategies, their learning beliefs could be related to their use of many other
vocabulary learning strategies, such as contextual and semantic encoding, associations,
activation or affective strategies.
The last research question of the study deals with possible changes in students’
beliefs and strategies over time.
4.5 Research Question 4: Changes in students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning
and vocabulary learning strategies.
Research questions 1–3 examined the results of Time 1 questionnaire, which
asked American university students who started the first semester of studying Russian
about vocabulary learning beliefs they possessed and vocabulary learning strategies they
used in their previous L2 vocabulary learning. Before enrolling in a beginning Russian
course, all except two of the participants of the study had learned one or several other
foreign languages, mostly Spanish, French, or German. Studying Russian, with its
153
Cyrillic script and very few cognates, may have influenced students’ vocabulary learning
beliefs and required different vocabulary learning strategies. Research question 4
investigates the stability and possible changes in vocabulary learning beliefs and
strategies over the period of one semester of studying Russian.
4.5.1 Changes in Students’ Beliefs about Vocabulary Learning and
Vocabulary Learning Strategies: Comparison of the Time 1 and Time 2
Questionnaires
At Time 2, the same population of students answered the same questions based on
their experience of studying Russian for one semester. To observe the differences in the
participants’ responses given at Time 1 (August–September 2014) and Time 2
(November–December 2014), two questionnaires were compared, and the comparisons
were subjected to further analysis. Since the same population of students participated in
the both surveys, it would be more beneficial to use paired t-tests for examining the
changes in the participants’ vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies. However, due to
the fact that it was impossible to identify all students since many of them preferred not to
give their names, it was not possible to use paired t-tests. An independent samples t-test
was carried out on the responses to investigate the changes in students’ vocabulary
learning beliefs and strategies over the four-month period. The t-test revealed significant
differences in the responses about five beliefs and seven strategies.
4.5.1.1 Changes in Students’ Beliefs: Comparison of the Time 1 and Time 2
Questionnaires.
Table 4.20 presents learning beliefs that received significantly different survey
responses at Time 1 and Time 2.
154
Table 4.20. Vocabulary learning beliefs: Items with significantly different student
responses between Time 1 and Time 2.
Beliefs
9. It is easier to learn new words
Mean
SD
Time 1
Agree
Mean
4+5+6
Time 2
SD
Agree
Mean
4+5+6
Diff.
5.01
0.7
98
4.31
1.06
76
–0.7
4.59
0.5
99
5.17
0.7
99
0.58
when they are presented in
context.
5. It is important to repeat and
practice a lot when you are
6=0
6=33
learning a foreign language.
4. It is necessary to know the
3.69
0.9
foreign culture in order to learn
65
4.21
1.0
6=0
79
0.52
6=10
the language well.
6. A good memory is very
3.88
0.7
important for learning a foreign
73.3
4.38
0.98
86
0.5
6=9
6=0
language well.
18. I like to learn more words
4.25
1.0
than my foreign language teacher
81.5
6=10
3.98
0.92
72
0.27*
6=5
assigns us to learn.
Note: p < .05; * p < .10; 6 = I strongly agree
The beliefs were weighted on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to
6 “strongly agree”. Mean scores, standard deviations, and the percentages of the
participants who generally agreed with the items at Time 1 and Time 2 are provided in
the table. Besides, if the number of the participants who strongly agreed with a belief at
Time 1 and Time 2 (chose point 6 in their responses) changed considerably, the
percentages of the participants who strongly agreed with the belief were provided. No
such information was provided if there were no substantial changes in such responses.
The item with the greatest mean difference in Table 4.22 is B9, It is easier to
learn new words when they are presented in context, with a mean score 5.01 at Time 1
and 4.31 at Time 2. There was a significant change in the number of students agreeing
155
with this statement. At the beginning of the semester, 98% of students agreed that it is
easier to learn new words when they are presented in context, but at the end of the term
only 76% believed this to be true. At Time 2 the participant responses became more
dispersed: The standard deviation for B9 increased from 0.7 to 1.06.
Belief 5, It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a
foreign language, showed the second strongest mean difference (0.58) and the greatest
difference in discrete Likert scale responses between Time 1 and Time 2. Although the
number of students who generally agreed with this item did not change (99%), the
number of students who expressed strong agreement with the belief increased from 0 to
33.
The percentage of students who expressed agreement with B4, It is necessary to
know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well, grew from 65% to 79%.
Agreement with B6, A good memory is very important for learning a foreign language
well, also went 12.7% up. For both beliefs, the number of students who expressed strong
agreement at the beginning of the term was 0, but at the end it increased to 10 for B4 and
9 for B6.
Ten more students at Time 2 disagreed that they liked to learn more words than
their foreign language teacher assigned them to learn (B18). Half the number of
participants (5 instead of 10) expressed strong agreement with this statement at the end of
the term.
Comparison of the ten strongest beliefs reported by the participants at Time 1 and
Time 2 (Table 4.21) demonstrates stability in students’ beliefs from the beginning to the
end of the semester: Eight beliefs from the Time 1 list are still in the Time 2 list.
156
Table 4.21. Ten strongest beliefs at Time 1 and Time 2.
Time 1 beliefs
1. To really learn words, you have
to do two things: study them and
then practice using them (B15).
2. Learning vocabulary is
extremely important for learning a
foreign language (B2).
3. Vocabulary learning includes
learning phrases as well as words.
(B13)
4. Repetition is one of the best
ways to learn words (B7).
5. I would like to learn Russian so
that I can get to know Russia and
Russians better (B16).
6. It is easier to learn new words
when they are presented in
context (B9).
7. To know a word, you have to
know its form, its meaning, and
how it is used (B14).
8. Everyone can learn to speak a
foreign language (B26).
9. Learning vocabulary is
interesting (B17).
10. I like learning vocabulary
(B20).
M
5.35
5.21
5.20
5.10
5.04
5.00
4.92
4.73
4.70
Time 2 beliefs
1. Learning vocabulary is extremely
important for learning a foreign
language (B2).
2. To really learn words, you have to do
two things: study them and then
practice using them (B15).
3. Vocabulary learning includes
learning phrases as well as words (B13).
M
5.30
5.24
5.18
4. It is important to repeat and
practice a lot when you are learning a
foreign language (B5).
5. To know a word, you have to know
its form, its meaning, and how it is used
(B14).
6. Repetition is one of the best ways to
learn words (B7).
5.17
7. I would like to learn Russian so that I
can get to know Russia and Russians
better (B16).
8. Learning vocabulary is interesting
(B17).
9. I like learning vocabulary (B20).
4.92
5.11
5.08
4.80
4.76
4.68
10. It is easier for someone who
4.63
already knows a foreign language to
learn another one (B1).
Note: in bold in the Time 1 column are the beliefs that disappeared from the list of 10 strongest
beliefs;
In bold in the Time 2 column are the beliefs that appeared on the list.
Only two beliefs received less agreement at Time 2: B9, It is easier to learn new
words when they are presented in context, which was the sixth mostly strongly held
belief at Time 1, and became the fifteenth mostly strongly held belief at Time 2. B26,
157
Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language, moved from place 8 to place 12 in the
Time 2 list of strongest beliefs. Two beliefs became more popular by the end of the
semester: B5, It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign
language, moved from place 14 to place 4, and B1, It is easier for someone who already
knows a foreign language to learn another one, moved from place 15 to place 10.
In sum, comparison of the results of the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires did not
reveal many changes in students’ learning beliefs: Of 26 beliefs, only 3 belief statements
received significantly more agreement, and 2 statements received significantly less
agreement. The comparison of strongest beliefs also demonstrated that 8 of the 10 most
popular beliefs were still well liked after four months of studying Russian.
4.5.2.2 Changes in Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies: Comparison
of the Time 1 and Time 2 Questionnaires.
The second part of Research Question 4 examines changes in the self-reported use
of vocabulary learning strategies. The strategies were weighted on a 6-point Likert scale
from “I never do that” to I always do that”. Comparison of Time 1 and Time 2 mean
scores of responses about learning strategies revealed that 2 of the least frequently used
strategies demonstrated the greatest mean growth between Time 1 and Time 2: S10, To
remember a new word, I put it into an English sentence, and S17, I associate one or more
letters in a word with the word meaning to help me remember it (e.g., look has two
“eyes” in the middle). Three moderately used strategies also became significantly more
popular by the end of the term: S21, I group words into categories (e.g., animals,
utensils, vegetables) to remember them; S14, I associate words that look similar; and
S11, I link a new word to an English word that sounds similar. Only 6 students at Time 1
158
always used grouping words into categories (S21), whereas at Time 2, 14 participants
reported always using the strategy. Table 4.22 presents learning strategies that received
significantly different student responses at Time 1 and Time 2.
Table 4.22. Vocabulary learning strategies: Items with significantly different student
responses between Time 1 and Time 2.
Strategies
10. To remember a new word, I
put it into an English sentence.
17. I associate one or more
letters in a word with the word
meaning to help me remember it
(e.g., look has two “eyes” in the
middle).
14. I associate words that look
similar.
22. When I want to remember
the meaning of a word, I try to
recall a sentence in which the
word was used.
21. I group words into categories
(e.g., animals, utensils,
vegetables) to remember them.
11. I link a new word to an
English word that sounds similar.
3. I go through my vocabulary
list several times until I am sure I
know all of the words on the list.
Mean
Time 1
2.72
SD
4+5+6
SD
4+5+6
35.5
Mean
Time 2
3.24
1.26
47
Mean
Diff.
0.52
1.4
2.80
1.3
35
3.26
1.44
45
0.46
4.04
1.2
78.4
4.37
1.11
85
0.33
4.58
0.9
90.6
4.24
1.07
88
–0.34
4.06
1.2
75.4
6=6
4.40
1.24
82
6=14
0.34*
3.86
1.2
67.7
4.18
1.2
76
0.32*
4.54
1.2
83.2
4.82
0.88
93
0.28*
Note: p < .05; * p<.10; 6 = I always do that.
Mean scores, standard deviations, and the percentages of the participants who
reported using the strategies sometimes + often + always (4+5+6) at Time 1 and Time 2
are provided in the table. If the number of the participants who reported always using a
strategy at Time 1 and Time 2 (chose point 6 in their responses) changed considerably,
159
the percentage of these participants was provided. No such information was provided if
there were no substantial changes in particular responses.
One frequently used strategy at Time 1, S3, I go through my vocabulary list
several times until I am sure I know all of the words on the list, became even more
commonly used at Time 2. However, the participants reported using another well-liked
strategy, S22, When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I try to recall a sentence
in which the word was used, significantly less often.
The most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies at Time 1 and Time 2 are
displayed in Table 4.23. Similar to the findings with beliefs, a comparison of the most
frequently used vocabulary learning strategies reported by the participants at Time 1 and
Time 2 demonstrates stability in the use of strategies from the beginning to the end of the
semester: The most popular strategies from the Time 1 list were still frequently used at
Time 2.
The changes in the frequency of use of the most popular strategies were as
follows: By the end of the term two strategies were used more rarely: #8, When I want to
remember the meaning of a word, I try to recall a sentence in which the word was used
(S22) and #9, I make a note when I see a useful expression or phrase (S32). Also, two
strategies gained more popularity: #9, I associate words that sound similar (S13), and
#11, I group words into categories (e.g., animals, utensils, vegetables) to remember them
(S21).
160
Table 4.23. The most frequently used vocabulary learning strategies at Time 1 and Time
2.
Time 1 Strategies
1. When not knowing a word prevents
me from understanding a whole
sentence or even a whole paragraph, I
look it up (S28).
2. When I see an unfamiliar word again
and again, I look it up (S27).
M
5.30
Time 2 Strategies
1. When I want to confirm my guess
about a word, I look it up (S29).
M
5.14
5.22
5.12
3. When I want to confirm my guess
about a word, I look it up (S29).
4. Repeating a new word aloud helps me
to remember it (S6).
5. When I am studying new words, I
repeat them silently in my mind (S7).
5.15
6. I learn words better when I put them
in context (e.g., phrases, sentences
(S24).
7. I make a note of words that seem
important to me (S30).
4.62
2. When not knowing a word prevents
me from understanding a whole
sentence or even a whole paragraph, I
look it up (S28).
3. When I see an unfamiliar word
again and again, I look it up (S27).
4. Repeating a new word aloud helps
me to remember it (S6).
5. I go through my vocabulary list
several times until I am sure I know
all of the words on the list (S3).
6. I make a note of words that seem
important to me (S30).
4.68
=8. When I want to remember the
meaning of a word, I try to recall a
sentence in which it was used (S22).
=8. I make use of context to guess the
meaning of a word I do not know (S34).
=9. I make a note when I see a useful
expression or phrase (S32).
4.58
7. I make a note when I think the
word is relevant to my personal
interests (S31).
8. When I am studying new words, I
repeat them silently in my mind (S7).
4.98
4.80
4.61
4.59
5.08
4.90
4.82
4.72
4.62
=9. I associate words that sound
4.53
similar (S13).
4.54 =9. I learn words better when I put
4.53
them in context (e.g., phrases,
sentences (S24).
=9. I go through my vocabulary list
4.54 10. I make use of context to guess the 4.47
several times until I am sure I know all
meaning of a word I do not know
of the words on the list (S3).
(S34).
10. I make a note when I think the word 4.53 11. I group words into categories
4.40
is relevant to my personal interests
(e.g., animals, utensils, vegetables)
(S31).
to remember them (21).
Note: in bold in the Time 1 column are the strategies that disappeared from the list of 10 most
frequently used strategies;
In bold in the Time 2 column are the strategies that appeared on the list.
161
In sum, similar to the findings for vocabulary learning beliefs, most vocabulary
learning strategies also demonstrated stability from the beginning to the end of the
semester.
To summarize the changes in vocabulary learning beliefs during the semester, of
26 belief items, responses changed significantly for only five beliefs. Two beliefs
received significantly less agreement at Time 2: B9, It is easier to learn new words when
they are presented in context, and B18, I like to learn more words than my foreign
language teacher assigns us to learn. The number of students who strongly agreed with
B9 at Time 1 decreased by almost half (from 23 to 12) at Time 2, and the number of
students who disagreed with the item grew from 2 to 17. The number of the participants,
who strongly believed in B18, also decreased by half.
On the contrary, three beliefs gained significantly more support: Item 4, It is
necessary to know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well, Item 5, It is
important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign language, and
Item 6, A good memory is very important for learning a foreign language well. For all
three beliefs, the number of participants who strongly agreed with the statements grew
considerably: From 0 to 10 for Item 4; from 0 to 33 for Item 5; and from 0 to 9 for Item
6.
As for responses about vocabulary learning strategies, seven strategies of 41 were
used significantly more or less frequently. One of seven strategies was reported to be
used significantly less often: S22, When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I try
to recall a sentence in which the word was used. The rest of significant changes were
positive, which means that students used the following strategies more frequently by the
162
end of the term: S3, I go through my vocabulary list several times until I am sure I know
all of the words on the list, S10, To remember a new word, I put it into an English
sentence, S11, I link a new word to an English word that sounds similar, S14, I associate
words that look similar, S17, I associate one or more letters in a word with the word
meaning to help me remember it (e.g., look has two “eyes” in the middle), and S21, I
group words into categories (e.g., animals, utensils, vegetables) to remember them.
Comparisons of most popular beliefs and strategies revealed that around 80% of
the items preferred by the participants at the beginning of the semester were still favored
at the end of the term.
4.5.2 Changes in Methods of Studying Vocabulary: Students’ Selfdescriptions
Quantitative findings can be validated and complemented by qualitative data
received from open-ended survey questions. Triangulation of data sources gives more
comprehensive data, more insight into a topic, and more information about the
participants’ emic perspectives on the researched phenomena.
It was noted above (section 4.4.2), that the answers to the open-ended question in
the Time 1 survey Imagine that you have to learn several new words for tomorrow's
class. Describe the methods you will use for this task showed striking similarity in the
reported strategies. Virtually all of the responses contained description of memorization
rehearsal strategies: flashcards, word lists, oral repetition, and written repetition. These
responses did not contradict the quantitative data from the Time 1 questionnaire where
both learning beliefs about effectiveness of repetition and rehearsal memory strategies
were reported very frequently.
163
Comparison of the quantitative data from the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires
revealed stability in reported vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies: about 80% of the
participants did not significantly change their responses. The Time 2 survey contained an
open-ended question asking students about possible changes in their vocabulary learning
practices during the semester, You have been studying Russian for a semester. Have you
changed any of your methods of studying vocabulary? (Table 4.24).
Table 4.24. Changes in vocabulary learning strategies reported in the open-ended
question.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section A. No changes reported (N=29)
I have not. I find repetition with flash cards or apps like Quizlet is very useful.
No, I still study flash cards and it is very effective.
I started the beginning of the year by using flash cards and reading the chapters in the book
and it was successful for me, so I will continue to do that.
I still put the Russian vocab words on notecards with the English translation on the other
side. This has proven to be the best way to study for vocab quizzes.
Section B. Changes in time and efforts reported (N=47)
Yes I have reviewed and studied for much longer
Yes, I look over the vocabulary on a more frequent and consistent basis now.
I have started doing the new vocab the day we are given it instead of last minute
Yes I study every night to memorize vocabulary
Yes, doing things a few days before
I try to learn it as early as possible
Yes, I make more flashcards.
I read the vocab lists more
Yes, I write my vocabulary words even more than I used to
I try to say the words out loud more while doing home work
Section C. Changes in strategies reported (N=16)
Yes. At the beginning of the semester, I really didn't study vocab that much. Now, I make
flashcards and quiz myself daily.
I have started quizzing myself. It gives me a better idea of how well I know what we are
learning.
I now study with people and listening to the words being spoken definitely helps with
comprehension.
Now I listen to new words and I find that listening to them is very helpful.
164
Table 4.24. Continued
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section C. Changes in strategies reported (N=16)
I have begun to listen to the words, so I am able to recognize them not only on paper, but
in spoken language as well.
Yes, I use the companion site to listen to the proper way of pronouncing words.
I focus now on memorizing not just the sound, but also the spelling of the words. The
spelling has been the hardest part of learning vocabulary.
I went from online flashcards to hand-written flashcards. They help me to read cursive and
remember spelling better.
I stopped relying so much on flashcard software and instead switched to simple repetitive
writing and reading exercises. I felt that the flashcard software was time consuming.
I write the words down like 20x just to see if muscle memory would work better.
I tried learning my vocabulary by writing the word in all the other languages I knew. I
thought this would help instead of just flashcards because then I could connect with it
more.
Rather than rote repetition I've moved on to trying to write sentences that use new words
in their proper context.
In the past I didn't study words at all besides just looking over the list. Now I go over the
words again and again, and I attempt to write them down.
I went from just reading the vocab lists to making vocab cards.
I used to just look at the book. Now I rely heavily on flash cards.
Memrise.com is something that has been working wonders. I have since learned how to
type in Russian and for some reason I remember certain words better by typing.
Yes, I use Quizlet now. It works.
Ninety-two participants responded to this question, and in contrast to quantitative
data where 80% of responses did not change, only 29 participants replied that they did
not change anything in their approach to vocabulary learning. All of the participants who
commented on their methods of learning Russian vocabulary listed rehearsal strategies
and stated that they were very useful, very effective, successful, or best to learn
vocabulary, so they did not need to change anything in their approaches (Table 4.25,
section A). Sixty-three participants reported changes in the ways they study Russian
vocabulary. However, a detailed analysis of the participants’ responses showed that in
many cases the changes they reported did not involve changes in learning strategies. They
165
still used the same strategies they did at the beginning of the term, but invested more time
and effort into mastering new vocabulary. The participants stated that they had to study
Russian vocabulary more frequently, begin learning as early as possible, study much
longer, and in general, do more work with vocabulary: More flashcards, more reading,
writing, or saying new words (Table 4.25, section B).
Only 16 people reported they changed their vocabulary learning strategies or
added different strategies to the ones they had used to employ (Table 4.25, section C).
These participants started:
•
quizzing themselves to understand how well the words are learned,
•
listening to the words to help with pronunciation and comprehension of spoken
language,
•
writing new words with focus on spelling,
•
writing new words in context/sentences,
•
writing new words in all learned languages,
•
making flashcards,
•
repetitive reading,
•
using online vocabulary learning software.
Some of these strategies were listed in the quantitative part of the questionnaire,
but some were not, so without open-ended question it would be impossible to learn about
them. Besides, these responses stated that the participants had to invest more effort in
learning Russian vocabulary and spend more time practicing new skills than they may
have expected at the beginning of the term. Possible reasons of these changes will be
discussed in chapter 5. In sum, similar to quantitative data, responses to the open-ended
166
question showed that a little less than 20% of the participants changed their vocabulary
learning strategies between Time 1 and Time 2.
Examination of responses to the open-ended question provided additional
qualitative data about the belief that received significantly different responses in the Time
1 and Time 2 questionnaires. B5, It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you
are learning a foreign language, received significantly more agreement. The number of
students who generally agreed with B5 (99%) was the same at Time 1 and Time 2, but
the number of students who expressed strong agreement with the belief increased
immensely – from 0 to 33. Responses to the Time 2 survey open-ended question Have
you changed any of your methods of studying vocabulary? revealed that the participants
highly valued repetition and practice in the process of learning Russian vocabulary and
considered them the most effective strategies at least for the initial stage of Russian
vocabulary acquisition.
Of the 29 participants who reported they did not change their methods, all of them
mentioned using either flashcards or oral and written repetition and they underlined high
effectiveness of the practice for learning Russian vocabulary (Table 4.25, section A). Of
the 47 participants who reported that they had to invest more time and effort into
mastering new words, 35 mentioned using rehearsal strategies. Of those 16 participants
who reported changing their learning strategies, 12 mentioned repetition strategies. It
seemed that by the end of the first semester of studying Russian, the participants added
some evidence that rehearsal strategies were highly effective and necessary for learning
Russian vocabulary. For example, some students tried to avoid making flashcards as it
167
took too much time, but they had to admit that other methods did not prove to be as
effective and they needed to start using flashcards again:
•
•
I had started using flashcards, but they were too time-consuming and I stopped. This
was not really a change for the better. I need to start studying vocabulary and
spelling by writing them out because I am currently only learning words through use
in class and homework and it’s not enough.
I have stopped making flashcards because I don't have enough time. Now I feel I need
to start making flashcards again to go over them until I know all of the words.
To summarize the participants’ qualitative responses about the importance of
repetition and practice for learning Russian vocabulary (B5), all students who used
rehearsal strategies since the beginning of the semester reported effectiveness of these
methods. Many of the participants whose vocabulary learning strategies had not involved
much repetition and practice in their previous L2 study, felt that to receive better results
in learning Russian vocabulary they needed to engage in rehearsal strategies more often,
invest more time in their study, and space their learning over a longer period of time.
In conclusion, analysis of the participants’ responses to the open-ended questions
in the Time 2 questionnaire provided additional information regarding changes in their
responses about vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies between the Time 1 and Time
2 questionnaires. Students explained that studying Russian differed from their previous
language learning experience and they had to invest more time and effort in learning
Russian vocabulary: to space learning out over a longer period of time, have more
vocabulary learning sessions, and employ more vocabulary learning strategies. Repetition
and rehearsal strategies were recognized very effective and nearly all participants
reported using them.
168
4.5.3 Summary
The current study was undertaken to investigate vocabulary learning beliefs and
strategies as reported by American university students who began their first semester of
studying Russian, as well as relationships between those beliefs and strategies, and their
stability over the time period of one semester. The data were collected through selfreported online questionnaire administered twice: at the beginning (Time 1) and at the
end (Time 2) of the fall 2014 semester.
First, chapter 4 presented the description of the Time 1 survey responses about
vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies. Since the Time 1 questionnaire was
administered at the beginning of the semester, the beliefs and strategies reported were
most likely based on students’ experiences of studying other foreign languages prior to
taking Russian.
Participants agreed with most of the beliefs listed in the questionnaire. The beliefs
that received most agreement were B15, To really learn words, you have to do two
things: study them and then practice using them, B2, Learning vocabulary is extremely
important for learning a foreign language, and B13, Vocabulary learning includes
learning phrases as well as words. The beliefs about repetition and memorization of new
words also received a lot of agreement. The great majority of participants reported high
motivation and high expectations of their success in learning Russian. In contrast,
participants reported only moderate agreement with the beliefs that vocabulary could be
effectively acquired simply by reading a lot (B8), by memorizing individual words (B6),
or by guessing the meaning of words in context (B11). Finally, more of the participants
disagreed than agreed with two beliefs: B21, I feel bored or frustrated while learning
169
vocabulary and B3, Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from
English.
As for vocabulary learning strategies, all of the participants reported using
dictionary strategies; more than 90% of students reported using repetition strategies, and
nearly 90% of the participants used contextual encoding, note-taking, guessing, and
affective strategies. Fewer participants reported using activation strategies, word lists,
semantic encoding and visual encoding. The least frequently used strategies included
technology, associations, word structure, and imagery.
The study provided evidence for the relationship between learning beliefs and
learning strategies. Many of the five groups of beliefs and seven groups of strategies, as
well as individual beliefs and strategies, significantly correlated with one another, with
correlation coefficients ranging from .21 to .67, which indicated weak to moderate
correlations. Moreover, cluster analysis further supported the existence of relationship
between learning beliefs and learning strategies, as it enabled us to identify groups of
learners who shared similar learning beliefs and to verify that they employed matching
learning strategies.
The final sections of the chapter examined how studying Russian, with its Cyrillic
script and very few cognates, may have affected students’ vocabulary learning beliefs and
strategies. To observe the differences in the participants’ responses given at Time 1 and
Time 2, an independent samples t-test was carried out on the responses to investigate
changes in students’ vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies over the four-month
period. The t-test revealed significant differences in the responses about five beliefs and
seven strategies. The comparison of strongest beliefs and most frequently used strategies
170
reported at Time 1 and Time 2 demonstrated that 80% of most popular beliefs and most
frequently used strategies were still well liked after four months of studying Russian.
Analysis of qualitative data from an open-ended question of the Time 2 survey validated
the quantitative findings and provided more insight into the topic.
In the following chapter we will discuss the findings about vocabulary learning
beliefs and strategies and relationships between them, and their stability over the time
period of one semester will be discussed. The chapter will also address implications of
the current study, its limitations, and recommendations for future research.
171
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
This chapter concludes the study and discusses the results of the quantitative and
qualitative analysis of the data presented in Chapter IV. The discussion summarizes the
findings for each research question and provides a perspective on how these findings fit
within current research. The chapter provides recommendations for further research,
limitations of the study, pedagogical implications, and a conclusion to the study.
5.1 Summary of the Study
Foreign language teachers and researchers are increasingly aware of the
importance of vocabulary in language learning (Folse, 2004; Laufer, 2006, 2010; Meara,
1987, 1995; Nation, 2001, 2006; Richards, 1976; Richards et al., 2009; Schmitt, 2000;
2008). Vocabulary learning beliefs that learners possess and vocabulary learning
strategies they employ are believed to influence the effectiveness of language learning
(Fan, 2003; Fraser, 1999a, 1999b; Ghavamnia et al., 2011; Gu, 2005; Gu & Johnson,
1996; Heidari et al., 2012; Horwitz, 1988, 2008; Hulstijn, 2000; Hulstijn et al., 1996;
Knight, 1994; Krantz, 1991; Laufer, 2006, 2010; Lawson, & Hogben, 1966; J. Li, 2009;
S. Li, 2011; Luppescu & Day, 1993; Ma, 2009; Mizumoto, 2010; Mondria & MondriaDeVries, 1994; Nassaji, 2003; Nation, 2007; Nyikos & Fan, 2007; Paribakht & Wesche,
1997; Peters et al., 2009; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Prince, 1996; Porte, 1988; Rashidi &
Omid, 2011; Raugh et al., 1977; Schmitt, 2010; Takač, 2008; Waring, 1997; Webb, 2005,
2007, 2009). The purpose of the current study was to investigate self-reported beliefs
about learning foreign language vocabulary and self-reported use of vocabulary learning
strategies by a previously unresearched group of students, native speakers of English who
172
are beginning their study Russian at American universities. The study was also designed
to investigate the relationship between learner beliefs and strategies, as well as the
stability of learner beliefs and strategies over the first semester of Russian language
study. The study addressed the following four research questions:
Research Questions
1. What beliefs about foreign language vocabulary learning do beginning learners of
Russian at American universities report holding?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do beginning U.S. university learners of Russian
report using?
3. Is there a relationship between students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and the
learning strategies they use in their first semester of Russian study?
4. Do students’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and vocabulary learning strategies
undergo changes during the first semester of learning Russian?
The study used predominantly quantitative methods of data collection and
analysis. The quantitative data consisted of the responses to two identical online
questionnaires, Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires, which were administered to the same
sample of participants at the beginning and at the end of the fall semester 2014. The
participants in the study were university students who were enrolled in the first-semester
Russian language courses at several American universities. They were all native speakers
of English, and none of them had previously studied Russian at a university or by another
means prior to the time of the study. The mean age of participants was 19,9 years old.
Only 3% of the participants reported no previous experience of studying one or more
foreign languages.
173
The questionnaires were analyzed with the use of descriptive statistics, cluster
analysis, Pearson r correlation, and independent samples t-tests. The quantitative data
were triangulated with qualitative data, which consisted of responses to open-ended
questions in the questionnaires and interviews, both of which were analyzed following
the principles of Grounded Theory (Charmaz, 2007).
The results revealed the vocabulary learning beliefs held by the participants and
vocabulary learning strategies they used at the beginning of the first semester of studying
Russian and at the end of the semester. Moreover, the results indicated multiple
relationships between the participants’ vocabulary learning beliefs and their learning
strategies. The analyses also revealed several changes in vocabulary learning beliefs and
strategies that happened over the period of one semester.
5.2 Discussion
Using the research questions as a framework, this section presents the discussion
and interpretation of findings, as well as relationships of the findings to previous
research.
5.2.1 Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question focuses on learning beliefs that beginning learners of
Russian at American universities report holding. Participants in the study agreed with
most of the beliefs listed in the questionnaire.
5.2.1.1 Beliefs about the Nature of L2 Acquisition
One of the beliefs that received unanimous support (100% of the participants
agreed with it) was B2, Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a
foreign language. The fact that EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners value
174
vocabulary as an extremely important part of learning a language is supported by a lot of
research studies (Dakun & Gieve, 2008; Fujiwara, 2011; Kunt, 1997; Park, 1995; Truitt,
1995; Yang, 1992, 1999). As for American students, more than half of learners of
Spanish, German, and French (Horwitz, 1988) disagreed with the item, but learners of
Japanese (Oh, 1996) agreed with it. It is possible that learners of commonly taught
languages who can rely on numerous vocabulary cognates may not take vocabulary
learning seriously, at least at the beginning level. Learners of less commonly taught
languages with a different script and an absence of cognates may realize the difficulty of
vocabulary learning at the very beginning of the course. In this study, the data from
interviews have provided some valuable information on the topic of students’ beliefs
about the role of vocabulary in language learning:
•
I would say, vocabulary is very important, one of the most important features of
language. I think more important than grammar, I guess. Well, especially in the early
stage of learning a language, when you’re trying to communicate, trying to get your
point across. Then it’s more important to speak badly, but still be able to speak a
little bit than to speak properly and not know how to say, you know, the actual
concepts you are trying to say. So especially in the early part of learning the
language it is more important than anything else, I think.
The interviewee stressed the importance of learning vocabulary in the early stage
of studying a language, the idea that is underlined by many SLA scholars, such as Laufer,
(1998, 2006, 2009, 2010), Meara (1980; 1987; 1993; 1995), and Nation (2001, 2006,
2007), to name just a few.
Ninety-nine percent of respondents believed in the importance of repetition and
practice in the process of learning a foreign language (B5). The participants also
moderately agreed that for people who already know a foreign language, it is easier to
learn another one (B1), it is necessary to know the culture of the country where the target
175
language is spoken (B4), and it is important to have good memory for learning L2 (B6).
These findings are consistent with studies that used BALLI (Horwitz, 1987, 1988) for
American or Asian university students (Fujiwara, 2011; Horwitz, 1999; Rifkin, 2000;
Yang 1999).
Nearly 80% of the participants expressed disagreement with B3, Learning a
foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from English. In this study, a possible
reason for such disagreement may be the amount of foreign language learning
experience—the more prior language learning experience, the greater the disagreement
with this statement. Among the participants who strongly disagreed with B3 (26.6%), 6
students had studied only one foreign language prior to taking Russian, and the time of
studying the language was never less than 5 years. The rest of the participants reported
studying two or more foreign languages. In contrast, among the participants who agreed
or somewhat agreed with the belief (no one responded strongly agree), 2 students had not
studied any foreign languages and the rest of the participants had studied only one foreign
language for no longer than 3 years. Since most participants of the current study had
some previous experience of studying foreign languages, it might be the reason why they
treated translation with caution. For example, one of the interviewed students stated,
•
I go to great lengths to avoid translation. I always try to understand concepts from a
different language rather than think of the thing, find the English word, then find the
matching word in the other language. I've found in tutoring and my own learning that
students often mix up translations with words that have multiple meanings in English,
or they use incorrect English to begin with. Translation is a tool if something is
unclear, but it should not be the only thing one relies on.
In previous studies, B3 generated a lot of contrasting responses among learners of
different languages. American university students of French (Horwitz, 1988; Kern, 1995)
176
and EFL students in Taiwan (Yang, 1992) disagreed with the belief, but American
students of German and Spanish (Horwitz, 1988), Japanese (Oh, 1996), as well as EFL
students in Japan (Sakui & Gaies, 1999), Korea (Truitt, 1995), and Turkey (Kunt, 1997)
agreed with the statement. Besides language learning experience, different instructional
approaches, or cultural differences may play a role in the intensity of agreement with B3.
5.2.1.2 Vocabulary Learning Beliefs
Most participants expressed agreement with beliefs from the group Words should
be studied and put to use (B13–B15). All three items of this group of strategies were
ranked high in the list of strongest beliefs, and Item 15, To really learn words, you have
to do two things: study them and then practice using them, received strong agreement
from 42.3% of participants, and the highest mean score of 5.35. No previous study has
investigated this group of beliefs of American university students, but previous research
of vocabulary learning beliefs among EFL students in various countries demonstrated
popularity of this category of beliefs. The studies that used Gu’s (2005) original
questionnaire or a modified version of it surveyed EFL students in China (Dakun &
Gieve, 2008; Gu, 2005; Zhang, 2009), Singapore (Gu, 2010), Malaysia (Subon, 2013), or
Turkey (Subaşi, 2014). Gu (2005, 2010), Zhang (2009), and Dakun and Gieve (2008)
found that the belief that vocabulary should be carefully studied and put to use was
dominant among the students they surveyed, and Subaşi (2014) found that it was the
second most popular group of vocabulary learning beliefs following contextual
acquisition. These beliefs appear to be universal across Asian university EFL students
from different L1 (native language) backgrounds and American students, who
participated in the current study.
177
The participants in this study agreed with memorization beliefs. The responses
about memorization in the current study were more positive than those in many other
studies that explored memorization beliefs (Dakun & Gieve, 2008; Gu, 2005, 2010;
Subaşi, 2014; Zhang, 2009). The possible reason is that several items from Gu’s (2005)
beliefs about memorization of vocabulary were not included in the questionnaire of the
current study. The inclusion of beliefs taken from Horwitz’s (1988) BALLI necessitated
the reduction of belief statements of other types, so as not to make the questionnaire
overly long. Also, the items that were included were slightly reworded, which resulted in
less categorical phrasing; consequently, more students tended to agree with them. If we
compare the items in Gu (2005) with those in this study, it is not surprising that American
students of Russian expressed more agreement with the effectiveness of memorization for
learning vocabulary than Chinese, Singaporean, or Turkish EFL learners. Table 5.1
shows the difference in the number of beliefs about memorization in Gu (2005, 2010) and
this study, and the changes in the phrasing of the items.
Table 5.1. Memorization beliefs included in Gu (2005) and the current study.
Gu (2005) M=3.04; (7-point Likert scale)
Gu (2010) Time 1: M=2.95, Time 2: M=3.25
1. You can only acquire a large vocabulary by
memorizing lots of individual words.
2. Repetition is the best way to remember
words.
3. Once the English equivalent of all words
have been remembered, English is learned.
4. English words have fixed meanings.
5. It is only necessary to remember one
dictionary definition.
6. Remembering meanings of a word is an end
in itself.
7. The best way to remember words is to
memorize word lists or dictionaries.
The current study: M=4.49
(6-point Likert scale)
1. You can acquire a large vocabulary by
memorizing lots of individual words.
2. Repetition is one of the best ways to learn
words.
3. –
4. –
5. –
6. –
7. –
178
In contrast to Gu (2005), who stresses that the participants of his study do not
seem to believe in memorization, the participants of the current study are strong
advocates of memorization, but it is most probably the result of the difference in the
number and phrasing of the questionnaire items about memorization. The participants of
the current study also believe that it is not the only possible way to learn words, but just a
step in the incremental process of vocabulary acquisition. Qualitative data from
interviews can help us gain insight into students’ view on vocabulary learning and
provide evidence that students see establishing a form-meaning connection not as the end
in learning a word (as some beliefs from Gu (2005) suggest), but as a necessary
beginning stage that should be reinforced with information about contextual use of the
word.
•
If I know a word, then I would like to know the translation, I would know how to spell
it, I would know how to pronounce it properly; I would know what part of speech it
was, and then if it’s in context, I would hope that I would know why it was used in a
certain case, all things like that.
In this interview excerpt, a student listed several components of word knowledge,
and the form–meaning connection was the first, but not the only one. Ninety-eight
percent of the participants agreed that It is easier to learn new words when they are
presented in context (B9), so a belief in the effectiveness of repetition for vocabulary
learning did not cancel out other strategies. One more piece of evidence of the fact that
most of the respondents realized the complexity of vocabulary acquisition process was
that the beliefs that focused on only one separate method of vocabulary acquisition (only
reading, B10, only memorization of individual words, B8, or only guessing from context,
B11) were among the least popular beliefs in this study.
179
5.2.1.3 Expectations of Success as Learners of Russian and Motivational
Beliefs
Respondents in the current study expected Russian to be a difficult or a very
difficult language (74%); half of them estimated the time needed to reach fluency as 3–5
years, 9% as 5–10 years, and 23% agreed that it is impossible to learn a language by
studying it for one hour a day. EFL students and American students of German, French,
and Spanish (Horwitz, 1999; Kunt, 1997; Yang, 1992) considered their target languages
not very difficult and estimated the time needed to learn them more optimistically (or less
realistically). However, in comparison to learners of more commonly taught languages,
Japanese learners in Oh (1996) judged Japanese a more difficult target language that
needed a longer amount of time to learn. Horwitz (1999) noted that Japanese instruction
in the United States might attract “a different type of students” compared to commonly
taught languages; that is why the learners of Japanese seemed to have more realistic
assessment of time involved in language learning (p. 572). Similar to learners of Japanese
in Oh’s (1996) study, most participants of the current study appeared to have realistic
expectations about the difficulty and time needed to learn Russian.
It is noteworthy, though, that in spite of the perceived difficulty of Russian, the
great majority of participants held high expectations about their ability to learn the
language. Almost 90% of participants believed that everybody can learn to speak a
foreign language, and even more students, 97%, believed they would ultimately learn to
speak Russian very well. Among research studies that asked this question (Fujiwara,
2011; Horwitz, 1999; Kern, 1995; Kunt, 1997; Oh, 1996; Park, 1995; Riley, 2009; Truitt,
1995; Yang, 1992, 1999), in the current study, the percentage of respondents who report
180
holding this belief is the highest. EFL students (Fujiwara, 2011; Kunt, 1997; Park, 1995;
Riley, 2009; Truitt, 1995; Yang, 1992, 1999) studied English since middle school, so that
might account for greater awareness of the difficulty of learning a foreign language. The
American foreign language students (Horwitz, 1999; Kern, 1995; Oh, 1996) were
beginning language leaners. The participants of the current study were enrolled in
beginning Russian classes, so it would be possible to explain such high agreement by the
optimism that beginners may have during the first weeks of the semester, but by the end
of the term, the mean score fell only by 0.06, and 88% of students were still sure they
would be able to learn to speak Russian very well. The investigation of students’ real
success in studying Russian was outside the scope of this study, but their self-reported
confidence in their learning abilities may give us one more indication that less commonly
taught languages attract more ambitious and self-confident students.
The students in this study can also be characterized by high self-efficacy beliefs
and motivation in learning Russian, particularly Russian vocabulary: Among the ten most
strongly held beliefs, there were three motivational beliefs and two self-efficacy beliefs.
On the basis of the participants’ self-reports, we can conclude that a typical
student of Russian is sure of the importance of vocabulary in learning a foreign language,
believes in the efficacy of repetition and practice, and understands that the process of
learning vocabulary is not equal to memorizing separate words, but includes many more
components. Besides, a student of Russian is a highly motivated learner, who is aware of
the difficulty of Russian and the long time needed to learn it, but is still confident in his
or her ability to overcome all difficulties.
181
5.2.2 Findings for Research Question 2
Research question 2 focuses on vocabulary learning strategies that beginning U.S.
university learners of Russian report using.
5.2.2.1 Dictionary, Guessing, and Note-taking Strategies
The participants of the study reported using dictionary strategies most frequently.
All three dictionary strategies were the most popular ones: 97–98% of students reported
using them at least sometimes, and 40–50% reported doing so all the time. This finding is
very similar to those of many other vocabulary learning strategy studies (Ahmed, 1989;
Asgari & Mustafa, 2011; Fan, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu, 2005; Gu, 2010; Liu,
2010; Noor & Amir, 2009; Pourshahian et al., 2012; Scholfield, 1997; Subon, 2013; Wu,
2005; Yang & Dai, 2012; Zhang, 2009). Besides dictionary strategies, in all those studies,
participants reported active use of strategies that involve guessing meaning in context and
taking notes. Gu (2005) noted, that the strategies used by Chinese students “centered
around guessing, dictionary work, and note-taking” (p. 158). In the present study, these
strategies were also very popular: the mean agreement with the belief statements in the
guessing group was 4.29, and the mean agreement with the belief statements in the notetaking group was 4.56.
Invariably, the high popularity of these strategies in learning strategy research has
led some scholars to suggest that there are no reasons to consider them strategic
behaviors. Dörnyei (2005) noted that one of the central problems in the research on
learning strategies was the inability to distinguish strategic learning activities from
ordinary ones. Students may use dictionaries, take notes, or infer meaning from context
without the intention to learn vocabulary and remember these words for later use. One
182
additional reason that using dictionaries, guessing, or note-taking may not be considered
strategic behaviors is that SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research presents
inconsistent results about lexical development as a result of using these strategies (ArdenClose, 1993; Fan, 2003; Fraser, 1999a; Haarstrup, 2008; Hulstijn et al., 1996; Hulstijn,
2003; Knight, 1994; Laufer & Hadar, 1997; Liu & Nation, 1985; Luppescu & Day, 1993;
Nassaji, 2003; Pigada & Schmitt, 2006; Prince, 1996). The activity of looking up or
guessing the meaning of unfamiliar words that are necessary for comprehension of
language material may or may not lead to incidental learning (Laufer, 2010). If no effort
is made to commit new words to memory, these behaviors can only be considered
ordinary learning activities, not strategic vocabulary learning actions, in which learners
make a decision to commit words to memory. For these reasons, some researchers (e.g.,
Mizumoto, 2010) did not include dictionary, note-taking, or guessing strategies in their
questionnaires. Thus, the reported frequent use of dictionaries, guessing from context,
and note-taking in this study may not add to our understanding of the strategic behaviors
of learners of Russian.
5.2.2.2 Memorization Strategies
In contemporary Western education, memorization is often set against
imagination, creativity, problem-solving skills, and critical thinking. In a communicativebased approach to teaching foreign languages, the focus is on natural, effortless learning
of a language, and it is believed that vocabulary is best acquired in meaning-focused
instruction (Richards, 2006). As a result, in this approach, memorization is deemed out of
fashion (Read, 2000). Western students are often believed to use memorization strategies
less frequently than Asian learners. Schmitt (1997) concluded that Japanese learners of
183
English tended to use many mechanical strategies for vocabulary learning. Gu and
Johnson’s (1995) investigated “whether Chinese learners employ more rote learning
strategies, the caricature of Asians so often seen in the literature, than other “better”
strategies endorsed by North American researchers (p. 647).” They concluded that
“contrary to popular beliefs about Asian learners, the participants generally did not dwell
on memorization, and reported using more meaning-oriented strategies than rote
strategies in learning vocabulary” (p. 668). Fan (2003) investigated Hong-Kong EFL
students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies and concluded that, in contrast to
O’Malley et al. (1985), who found that Asian students successfully applied memorization
strategies in learning L2 vocabulary, the participants in her study did not perceive
repetition strategies as useful, and did not use them more often than other kinds of
strategies. Moreover, repetition strategies “have been found to be related to poor
learning” (Fan, 2003, p. 235).
However, respondents of the current study reported strong support for
memorization strategies. To explain this contrast in results, we need to remember about
the comparison of the memorization strategies included in different questionnaires. As
already stated, several memorization strategies used by Gu and Johnson (1996) and by
Gu (2005) were excluded from the current survey, and the wording of the strategies that
were included was modified to make them sound less categorical (Table 5.1). As a result,
more of the participants in the current study agreed with them. This situation raises the
question about the possibility to influence the results of surveys by including the
statements that most probably are going to be evaluated negatively by most participants.
For example, Fan (2003) noted that the memorization strategy “I increase my English
184
vocabulary by studying wordlists at the back of the course books and readers” was
reported rarely (p. 229). Hardly any instructor would recommend students to regularly
use such a strategy. For most learners, the ultimate goal of studying a foreign language is
to be able to communicate in it, and they may understand that studying wordlists at the
back of the course books may not help them to develop communicative skills in the target
language. Thus, this strategy would probably be reported rarely in the current study as
well.
Barcelos (2003) noted that many researchers judge some learners’ beliefs as
“erroneous or counterproductive” because they may lead to “unsuccessful strategies” (pp.
14–15). Memorization beliefs and strategies are often considered erroneous and
unsuccessful by default. However, many researchers in the field of SLA (Fitzpatrick, et
al., 2008; Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Meara, 1995; Pulido, 2009; Schmitt, 1997, 2000)
assert that when students are in the initial receptive stage of vocabulary acquisition,
memorization strategies may be very helpful for language learners, especially if they are
not the only strategies used for acquisition of vocabulary.
According to the reported frequency of use by respondents of this study, all
memory strategies can be grouped into three types: high-frequency strategies (repetition
and contextual encoding), medium-frequency strategies (using word lists, semantic and
visual encoding), and low-frequency strategies (using associations, word structure, and
imagery).
5.2.2.2.1 Repetition
In line with many other research studies (Folse, 2004; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu,
2005, 2010; Lawson & Hogben, 1995; Meara, 1995; Schmitt, 1997; Schmitt, 2000),
185
among all memory strategies, repetition strategies were used most frequently. About 25%
of the participants in the current study reported using oral repetition all the time, and an
additional almost 50% more of the participants reported using it frequently. Written
repetition was used a little less frequently: About 15% of participants reported using it all
the time and 30% more used it frequently.
In Gu’s (2005) study, oral repetition positively correlated with general
proficiency, whereas written repetition was a negative predictor of vocabulary size and
general proficiency. In this study, proficiency was not measured, but some students’
responses to the open-ended questions and comments in the interviews seemed to confirm
that written repetition alone might not be very effective.
•
I think I'll have to switch back to flashcards because now I only do writing.
Also, students’ responses suggested that they resorted to the help of written
repetition in case they were not satisfied with the results of oral repetition:
•
•
I do not write words down now, but I think I learned better when I did, it helped me
remember them.
I need to practice the spelling of the vocab words; I know the definitions but mix up
some of the letters.
Since almost all respondents came to the study of Russian with some experience
of learning other foreign languages, the finding that 95% of the participants believed in
repetition as one of the best ways to learn words, and 92.8% (silent repetition) to 95.9%
(repeating words aloud) reported using oral repetition strategies, may suggest that
rehearsal strategies are popular not only among beginning students. The first survey was
administered at the very beginning of the term, and the questions asked were not about
Russian in particular, but about previous foreign language learning experiences. Only
186
four students slightly disagreed that repetition is one of the best ways to learn words.
However, three of the four students who slightly disagreed with B7 reported frequent use
of repetition strategies (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2. Language learning experience and use of repetition strategies by the
participants who slightly disagreed with B7, Repetition is one of the best ways to learn
words.
S1
Language learning
experience
5 years of German
Open-ended
response*
flashcards
S2
2 years of French
S3
5 years of Spanish
Repeating
words aloud
always
Silent
repetition
often
Writing
repetition
often
flashcards/Quizlet often
always
often
flashcards/writing
often
sometimes
often
sentences
* The question was: Imagine that you have to learn several new words for tomorrow’s
class. Describe the methods you would use.
One more participant who slightly disagreed with B7, stated in the open-ended response:
•
Use the words. Imagine how one would use them. Turn them around in your head and
play with them. IF you can KNOW the word as easily as you can know the word in
English, you'll have no troubles. But that's a big if. I can hardly manage it on the best
of days, and yet I still haven't found a better method.
This participant did not mention repetition in this response, but in the quantitative
part of the questionnaire reported always using silent repetition and sometimes practicing
repetitive writing of words. The fact that virtually all of the participants in the current
study used repetition strategies, and even the participants who reported disagreement with
B7 reported active use of repetition, may mean that there are some reasons that students
did not want to abandon these “shallow” strategies, even though they are considered less
affective than “deeper” ones (Schmitt, 2000, p. 132).
187
Recently, it has been argued that naturalistic learning through comprehensible
input is insufficient for acquisition of L2 vocabulary, which needs form-focused
intentional learning (Cobb and Horst, 2004; Ellis, 2008; Hulstijn, 2003; Laufer, 2005,
2010; Nation, 2007). Learning of L2 words from word lists and flashcards was found to
be an efficient and convenient method of vocabulary acquisition (Folse, 2004; Hulstijn,
1992; Laufer, 2005, 2006, 2010; Laufer & Nation, 2011; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997;
Nassaji, 2003; Prince, 1995), and recent semantic priming experiments with pseudowords
(Elgort, 2011) has shown that vocabulary knowledge gained through such deliberate
form-focused learning is stored and accessed in an automatic manner similar to existing
L1 and L2 lexical knowledge. Elgort (2011) argued that intentional learning of words out
of context can trigger the acquisition of the meaning of L2 words and integration of
learned words into the existing architecture of L2 vocabulary, although the learned
lexical–semantic representations were not particularly stable and other types of learning
in a variety of meaningful contexts were needed to enhance the initial acquisition.
5.2.2.2.2 Contextual Encoding Strategies
The respondents to the survey in the current study seemed to understand the
necessity of enhancing initial form–meaning connections. Contextual encoding was the
second most popular memory strategy after repetition: About half of the participants
reported frequent use of context for learning words, and about 10% used it all the time.
Most students reported using both strategies: repetition and using context:
•
First I need to recognize the word and what it means. I read and write it several
times. Then I would say, uh, I need understanding how it works in a sentence. That
takes a day or two just to get it in my brain, and I’d say once we’ve progressed to
that, then I’ve learned the word. Up until that point I can only say that I know what
that means.
188
Participant responses in the interviews suggest that these strategies are often used
not simultaneously, but consecutively. In the excerpt presented above, using such words
as “first”, “then”, “that takes a day or two”, “once we’ve progressed to that”, “up until
that point” indicates that the students perceive the task of learning new words as a
process that takes some time and demands using various strategies at different points of
the process.
5.2.2.2.3 Less Frequently Used Memory Strategies
The medium-frequency group of memory strategies (M=4.08–4.11) included
using word lists, semantic encoding, and visual encoding. In comparison to repetition and
contextual encoding, these strategies require more time and efforts to implement, and the
percentage of students who reported using these strategies was a little lower (70–85%),
but still at least two thirds of the respondents practiced them.
The least frequently employed memory strategies in this study included
associations, word structure, and imagery. These findings are in line with many learning
strategy studies (Fan, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu, 2005; Gu 2010; Lawson &
Hogben, 1995; Liu, 2010; Schmitt, 1997) and are in agreement with depth of processing
theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975). Such elaborate strategies
require active manipulation of information, more mental effort, and time, and as a result,
“more mechanical strategies are often favored over more complex ones” (Schmitt, 2000,
p. 132).
5.2.2.3 Affective Strategies
The critical role of affect in successful language learning is increasingly accepted
by many SLA scholars (Dörnyei, 2001; Griffiths, 2008; Hurd, 2008; Oxford, 1990, 1993;
189
White, 2003). Ehrman et al. (2003) argued that “it is at least as important to manage
feelings as it is to use more cognitive strategies, since negative feelings reduce the
effectiveness of most learning activities” (p. 319). However, many studies that
investigated affective strategy use in language learning have demonstrated that students
reported low to medium usage of them. (Khalil, 2005; Mokhtari, 2007; Oxford, 1990;
Park, 1995; Tam, 2013). There is very little research on the use of affective strategies in
vocabulary learning, because not many researchers included affective strategies in their
questionnaires. However, studies that included affective strategies showed some
similarities. In Li’s (2010) study, the frequency of use of emotional adjustment strategies
followed dictionary, note-taking, guessing and repetition strategies. In Ahour &
Salamzadeh’s (2014) study, affective strategies were used less often than cognitive, but
more often than metacognitive and social strategies. In the current study, affective
strategies were reported more often than all other groups of strategies except dictionary,
note-taking, repetition, and contextual encoding. In their interviews, many students
described their use of affective strategies:
•
I get really frustrated when I can’t remember things; I get really irritated with myself,
and then I have to take a break and relax, and let it all just go away. Then I come
back and try it again, like 15 minutes later. Sometimes I just sit there and not do
anything, or relax and listen to music and ignore everything that is happening, and I
try not to think about it. And then I go back and start over, and forget that I even
didn’t know anything, and I start fresh. I’m a lot calmer then, and I’m just like, “I can
do this, just stay relaxed.” It’s helpful.
The frequent use of affective strategies (M=4.37) showed that in spite of the fact
that about 90% of respondents liked learning vocabulary and found it interesting, this
process could sometimes be a painful experience. Many students had to control their
190
feelings, encourage themselves, and consciously lower their anxiety to cope with the
affective demands of this activity.
5.2.2.4 Activation Strategies
Activation strategies may involve practicing vocabulary in context, and it may
require a lot of learning time and effort, however, the participants in this study reported
using them quite frequently (M=4.10). The most popular vocabulary learning belief, To
really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then practice using them
(B14), may be reflected in the frequent use of activation strategies. In comparison with
Gu (2005), where the mean of activation strategies was a little under the midpoint of the
scale, and Gu (2010), where it was a little above the midpoint, in this study activation
strategies were used more frequently, especially S38, I try to use newly learned words as
much as possible when I write or speak (M = 4.49).
The frequency of using each strategy implies a general trend of strategy use
among the participants of the study. When new words are encountered, as a first step,
nearly all of the participants study the meanings of the words with the help of rehearsal
strategies (mostly repetition), and even participants who did not report strong belief in
memorization still report active use of repetition strategies. Takač (2011) suggests that
there is a set of core vocabulary learning strategies that are universal, can be employed
when learning any language, and are applicable in various learning contexts (p. 144).
Rehearsal strategies seem to be one such cluster of universal strategies used by most
students regardless of any internal or external variables. To reinforce the form–meaning
representation of new words, many participants also used other memory-based
191
strategies—semantic and visual encoding, associations, word structure, and imagery—but
these strategies were used less frequently than rehearsal strategies.
After establishing a form–meaning link, the next step is acquisition of other
components of knowledge about a word: grammatical pattern, syntactic behavior, and
relations with other words (Nation, 2001). Contextual encoding strategies help students
understand how words can be used in speech and writing. After that, the next task is to
activate receptive linguistic knowledge of new words and integrate them into general
linguistic competence. This is a long process that requires practice in using vocabulary in
real language use contexts, and not every student succeeds in doing that. Activation
strategies help participants regulate and facilitate this activity. During all the stages of
vocabulary acquisition, if the process of learning new words becomes frustrating, learners
may use affective strategies to encourage themselves. In interviews, the participants
described new vocabulary acquisition as a process that involves several steps.
•
First, I need to know what a word means, and I think I’d like to make sure I’m saying
it correctly, as far as the stress goes. So, I listen to it and repeat it aloud. Then, once
you can spell it without struggling with it, it would make a big difference. I think
knowing a word definitely involves meaning, reading, writing, and saying. And then I
think grammar is super important, to learn how to get the right cases for the right
scenarios. I think that has been my biggest struggle so far because it takes time to
understand. But that opens up a whole area. I like being able to say things in plural
or use different cases in the same sentence. It’s fun to be able to get to that kind of
level in speaking.
Of course, not every student used all these steps; however, the overwhelming
majority of the participants reported beginning with repetition as the easiest way to
commit form–meaning connections to memory (M=4.61); then nearly all of the
participants used contextual encoding strategies to understand how to use new words in
contest (M=4.51), and after that, the majority of students used activation strategies that
192
focused on practicing the newly learned words in speech and writing (M=4.10). We can
see that the mean score decreases with each step, showing that some students preferred to
(or, for some reasons had to) stop at some point.
5.2.3 Findings for Research Question 3
Research question 3 focused on a relationship between students’ beliefs about
vocabulary learning and the learning strategies they report using. Many SLA researchers
(Abraham & Vann, 1987; Graham, 2003; Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Kim, 2001; Li, 2010;
MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Park, 1995;
Wen & Johnson, 1997; Wenden, 1986, 1987; Yang, 1999) have noticed relationship
between learner beliefs and learning strategies. They have suggested that learners’ beliefs
about language learning may provide the logic for their choice of learning strategies. To
look for such relationships between vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies in the
current study, the questionnaire data were analyzed using the Pearson r correlation
coefficient test. Many significant correlations were found between categories of beliefs
and strategies (Table 4.14). As for individual beliefs, they all significantly correlated with
one or more strategies.
5.2.3.1 Correlational Analysis
The participants’ beliefs about the nature of L2 acquisition were related to all
strategy groups except the most popular (dictionary) and the least popular (using
technology) groups. This result implies that learners with well-defined opinions about the
nature of learning a foreign language tend to employ a variety of learning strategies:
memory, note-taking, guessing, activation, and affective. The strongest correlation was
193
with the memory group of strategies, thus suggesting that the participants tended to focus
on memorization strategies.
Vocabulary learning beliefs were correlated with memory, dictionary, guessing,
and affective strategies. This finding seems reasonable, given that memory, dictionary,
and guessing strategies are usually considered the most frequently used vocabulary
learning strategies in various learning contexts (Ahmad, 1989; Gu, 2005; Gu & Johnson,
1996; Schmitt, 1997), whereas affective strategies can help control possible negative
emotions in the process of vocabulary learning. The correlation of vocabulary learning
beliefs with memory strategies was the strongest.
All belief groups, except for self-efficacy beliefs, correlated with memory
strategies, which were overwhelmingly used by most of the participants in the current
study, no matter what beliefs they supported. On the other hand, no belief groups
significantly correlated with using technology for learning vocabulary. Using technology
is a recent vocabulary learning strategy, and not many students appear to have discovered
its advantages yet. That is why it may currently not be related to any vocabulary learning
beliefs. Correlation of self-efficacy beliefs with affective strategies was in line with Yang
(1999), who stated that students with stronger self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to
report attempts to control their thinking and efforts (p. 517).
Among groups of strategies, the memory group was correlated with all other
groups of strategies. This finding implies that most students who use memorization do
not restrict themselves to this group of strategies alone, but also actively use many other
strategies. The strongest degree of correlation was found between memory and activation
strategies (r =.54), which may indicate that many students do not consider the meaning–
194
form link established with the help of memorization sufficient for desired vocabulary
knowledge level and they continue working with new words by activating them in
different contexts.
The correlations between motivational beliefs and all groups of learning strategies
except using technology supported previous research findings that associated motivation
with the increased use of most learning strategies (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Yang, 1999). Causal statements cannot be
made on the basis of correlational data; thus, the relationship between motivational
beliefs and learning strategies may be cyclical (Yang, 1999). First, it is possible that
highly motivated students are more likely to engage in strategy use to reach their goals.
Second, students who are more aware of learning strategies and can use them effectively
may become more motivated to learn the language (MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989).
The important role of motivation in the use of learning strategies (MacIntyre &
Noels, 1996; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) was supported in this
study by the fact that each motivational belief was positively correlated with many
learning strategies. Horwitz (1988) stated that certain learners’ beliefs about language
learning might restrict or expand the range of learning strategy choice. This idea is
supported by the findings of this study. Table 5.3 shows the number of significant
correlations, and correlations with r ≥ .30 of some motivational beliefs with vocabulary
learning strategies.
195
Table 5.3. Relationship of motivational learning beliefs and vocabulary learning
strategies.
Beliefs
N of significant
positive correlations
with strategies
N of significant
positive correlations
with strategies (r ≥
.30)
6
B17, Learning vocabulary is interesting.
16
B18, I like to learn more words than my
22
9
B20, I like learning vocabulary.
20
11
B21, I feel bored or frustrated while learning
5
3
foreign language teacher assigns us to learn.
vocabulary.
The beliefs that expressed positive attitude to vocabulary learning (B17, B18,
B20) were related to many strategies, whereas a belief that expressed negative feelings,
B21, was related to considerably fewer strategies. This striking difference in the number
of correlations between motivational beliefs and learning strategies supports the
interpretation that students tend to use all kinds of learning strategies if they believe the
course material is interesting and valuable; conversely, students who feel anxious about
course work use fewer learning strategies (Yang, 1999). Anxiety is found to consume
cognitive resources required for language learning, and this would make strategies more
difficult to use (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). It has been
demonstrated that using a variety of vocabulary learning strategies promotes vocabulary
acquisition (Ahmed, 1989; Fan, 2003; Gu, 2005; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Sanaoui, 1995), so
holding positive motivational beliefs may be related to success in vocabulary learning.
Another example of a relationship between vocabulary learning beliefs and
vocabulary learning strategies is connected to the discussion about incidental and
196
intentional learning of vocabulary, a question that generates a lot of discussion (Ellis,
2008; Ellis & He, 1999; Huckin & Coady, 1999; Hulstijn, 2003; Schmitt, 1990). There is
some evidence that the choice of vocabulary learning strategies made by the participants
who agreed with the belief in the effectiveness of incidental acquisition of vocabulary
(B11, Guessing the meaning of words in context is one of the best ways to learn words)
differed from the choice of strategies made by the participants who agreed with the belief
in intentional vocabulary learning (B7, Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words).
Very few correlations in this study were negative, but these beliefs were correlated
negatively (r = –.20). This correlation coefficient is too weak to oppose the two beliefs,
but it is one of the strongest among negative correlation coefficients in the current study,
thus it may deserve some reflection.
Relationship of these two beliefs with vocabulary learning strategies showed that
the participants who believed in incidental learning (B11, Guessing the meaning of words
in context is one of the best ways to learn vocabulary) tended to use such strategies, as
When reading, I have a sense of which word I can guess and which word I cannot (S33),
and I make use of context to guess the meaning of a word I do not know (S34). In
contrast, B11 was negatively correlated with the strategy Repeating a new word aloud
helps me to remember it (S6).
On the contrary, the students, who believed that Repetition is one of the best ways
to learn words (B7), tended to use S3, I go through my vocabulary list several times until
I am sure I know all of the words on the list, S6, Repeating a new word aloud, and S44, If
I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I take a break or I remind myself
that vocabulary is important, and then I go on. These correlations imply that the beliefs
197
about incidental or intentional vocabulary acquisition may have some influence on the
choice of corresponding strategies.
One more example of correlation between individual beliefs and strategies may
signify that overreliance on memory may restrict learners’ use of strategies involving
contextual guessing or word analysis. B6, A good memory is very important for learning
a foreign language well, positively correlated with making flashcards (S1) and regular
review of new vocabulary (S5). In contrast, B6 negatively correlated with three other
learning strategies: I remember new words along with the context in which they occur
(S23), When I guess the meaning of a word, I analyze its parts (S36), and I make use of
context to guess the meaning of a word I do not know (S34).
In summary, the current study found many significant correlations between
various groups of beliefs and strategies and between individual beliefs and strategies.
Most significant correlations had the coefficients from .20 to .50, so we can say that
beliefs and strategies in this study demonstrated weak to moderate significant
correlations.
5.2.3.2 Cluster Analysis
The cluster analysis conducted to answer this research question also gives some
evidence that learning beliefs and learning strategies are related. In this study, the
students from Cluster 1 (N =10) who reported stronger agreement with most beliefs also
tended to use learning strategies more frequently. Although the mean scores of using
learning strategies by participants from Cluster 1 were higher for all strategy groups, due
to the small number of its participants, not all differences were significant (Table 4.18).
Cluster 1 participants were found to use many strategies significantly more frequently:
198
written repetition and word structure analysis more frequently than learners from any
other clusters; associations and activation strategies more frequently than Clusters 3 and
4; imagery, guessing, and contextual encoding more frequently than Cluster 3; affective
strategies more frequently than Cluster 2 and 4.
Cluster 2 participants (N=39) believed in contextual acquisition more than
learners from Cluster 3 and 4, and they reported using contextual encoding strategies
significantly more frequently than students from Cluster 3 and 4. Learners from Cluster 4
(N = 14), who in comparison to Cluster 1 reported significantly less agreement with all
beliefs, and in comparison to Clusters 2 and 3 less agreement with most beliefs, reported
less frequent use of 10 out of 15 learning strategy groups than participants in other
clusters.
In conclusion, the current study gives additional support to the idea that learners’
beliefs about L2 vocabulary acquisition are related to their choice of learning strategies
(Abraham & Vann, 1987; Horwitz, 1988; Li, 2010; Park, 1995; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008;
Wen & Johnson, 1997; Wenden, 1986; Yang, 1999). In this study all learning beliefs
correlated with learning strategies, although some beliefs were related to more strategies
than others. Of all belief groups, motivational beliefs were related to the greatest number
of learning strategies. This finding implies that high motivation is important in learning a
foreign language as it seems to encourage the use of most learning strategies. Although
the effectiveness of using learning strategies may depend not on the quantity or frequency
of their use, but on the quality of learners’ effective management of those strategies
(Ellis, 1994; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008; Wen & Johnson, 1997), motivated learners have
199
more chances to discover the strategies that properly suit them among a variety of
vocabulary learning strategies.
5.2.4 Findings for Research Question 4
Research question 4 investigates whether students’ beliefs about vocabulary
learning and vocabulary learning strategies undergo changes during the first semester of
learning Russian. Very little is known about changes in learners’ vocabulary learning
beliefs and strategies over time. Changes in language learning beliefs and strategies were
recently investigated by several studies (Fujiwara, 2015; Kern, 1995; Peng, 2011; Riley,
2009). As for vocabulary learning strategy shifts over time, only two studies on L2
English vocabulary learning strategies have been conducted: a cross-sectional description
university students in China (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996), and a longitudinal study of university
students in Singapore (Gu, 2010). The present study looked at changes in learner beliefs
and strategies over the period of 15 weeks that constituted the first semester of Russian
study.
5.2.4.1 Changes in Vocabulary Learning Beliefs
The agreement with beliefs was weighted on a six-point Likert scale from 1,
strongly disagree to 6, strongly agree. As a result of a comparison of participants’
responses to the Time 1 and Time 2 questionnaires, significant differences were found for
5 statements about beliefs. The responses to two of these beliefs generated less agreement
at Time 2 in comparison to Time 1. The greatest mean difference (0.7) in a negative
direction was generated by the statement It is easier to learn new words when they are
first presented in context (B9). At Time 1, 98% of students agreed with the statement, but
by Time 2, 15% fewer of the participants reported agreement with it. Also, the SD of the
200
response grew from 0.7 at Time 1 to 1.06 at Time 2, showing that at Time 2 there was
less consensus among the respondents. The change in agreement with B9 may be
interpreted as a consequence of influence of the the learning context. Before studying
Russian, almost all the participants of the study had experienced learning other foreign
languages, but most of them had studied languages with a Roman script and many
cognates. Only 20% of students reported previously studying non-alphabetical foreign
languages or languages with a non-Roman alphabet. The Cyrillic alphabet and the
absence of cognates in Russian mostly likely made learning new words more difficult. In
their interviews, many participants described the difficulties they experienced during
their first months of studying Russian.
•
•
In high school, I could cram for my Spanish vocab tests the night before, but I can't
do that with Russian. It is not nearly as easy.
The words are so complex that it is difficult to memorize them effectively at one time.
The difficulty of learning Russian vocabulary may have influenced the
participants’ approach to the task of learning vocabulary, and in turn changed their beliefs
about the effectiveness of the approach.
•
•
If words are in sentences right away, I think that’s a little overwhelming, because
you’re trying to get so much of it in one. I think it’s more intimidating than having
them isolated, and then using them in sentences.
I like seeing each individual vocabulary word or phrase, so I could see how it’s
pronounced, or how I would go about it. If it’s a verb, I would conjugate it, and then
apply it to a sentence. It’s a little bit easier to just do individual words, and then put
them all together once you have all the pieces. I learn it better that way.
These results do not mean that the participants preferred learning isolated words
to learning words in context. They wanted to combine these two strategies: First, learn
the meaning and pronunciation of a new word, and after that understand how it can be
used in context.
201
•
I think it’s easer to learn words first, and understand what they mean before we put
them in sentences. If the sentences don’t come right after, then it’s a lot easier to
forget them, because you don’t really have context, but then if you just see a sentence
with a word in it, I think that’s also hard to memorize without knowing the individual
words; I think it might be overwhelming a little bit.
These interview excerpts help us understand why at Time 2 not as many of the
participants agreed with B9, It is easier to learn new words when they are first presented
in context. For the interviewee, contextualization is still a necessary step in learning
vocabulary, because once words are acquired in context, they become less prone to
forgetting. However, the students preferred to first encounter new words in minimal
contexts such as vocabulary lists, have some explanations of meaning, pronunciation
practice, and only after that encounter and practice the same words in more richly
contextualized written or oral texts.
The second belief that lost some support was B18, I like to learn more words than
my foreign language teacher assigns us to learn. Only half of the participants strongly
agreed with this statement at Time 2, compared to Time 1. We may suggest that the cause
of this change is the same: Learning Russian words was more difficult than most students
expected, and it took more time, leaving less opportunity for the students to focus on
additional vocabulary.
•
•
My previous method didn't really work at all. I think mostly because the vocabulary is
not very similar and so I get a little messed up. Russian vocabulary is just difficult!
Vocab is very difficult to remember and so are the conjugations.
In contrast, three beliefs received significantly more agreement at Time 2 in
comparison to Time 1. No participant expressed strong agreement with either of them at
Time 1, but at Time 2 many students strongly agreed with them. Two of the beliefs
202
reflect students’ attitudes about the role of memory, practice, and repetition in the process
of L2 learning. The number of participants who strongly agreed with B5, It is important
to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign language, increased from
zero to 33%. The number of strong believers in B6, A good memory is very important for
learning a foreign language well, grew from zero to 9%. These beliefs imply a focus on
isolated linguistic items, and some supporters of natural acquisition and communicative
language learning would describe these beliefs as erroneous and counterproductive, even
“Neanderthal” (Long, 1988, cited in Laufer, 2005). However, the shift to stronger support
of these beliefs may be caused by the participants’ disappointment in previously used
strategies, even if they may be considered more acceptable and progressive within a
communicative framework. From the demographic section of the questionnaire, we know
that at Time 1 most participants considered themselves intermediate or advanced learners
of foreign languages, and they agreed with these beliefs from the point of view of
experienced learners of more commonly taught languages, who might be able to take
advantage of more sophisticated vocabulary learning strategies (Ellis, 2002; Fan, 2003;
Nassaji, 2003; Nation, 1997; Prince, 1996). However, from the point of view of novice
Russian learners, memorization, repetition, and practice might be necessary to build the
basic vocabulary foundation that is required for employment of more cognitively
demanding strategies (Meara, 1995, 1996). For beginners, more complex learning
strategies might not work as effectively with Russian vocabulary as they would work for
vocabulary learning in more commonly taught languages.
The third belief that received more support at the end of the semester was B4, It is
necessary to know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well. During the first
203
semester of studying a foreign language, students usually learn culturally appropriate
rules of conventional behavior and phrases used in common situations: how to address
people, express gratitude, agree or disagree with someone, or make requests. Cultural
connotations of words and phrases in different languages vary, and students are often
interested in the underlying significance of particular words in the target language and
culture. One of the responses to an open-ended question What would you like your
instructor to do in class to make vocabulary instruction more effective? was:
•
Keep providing more cultural background to vocab words. It really helps me to
remember words when I can picture their context and something interesting about
them.
Thus, the increase in agreement with B4 may signify that the knowledge about the
cultural load of words and phrases not only contributes to students’ cultural competence,
but also helps them remember these words.
5.2.4.2 Changes in Vocabulary Learning Strategies
The responses about strategies were weighted on a six-point Likert scale from 1, I
never do that to 6, I always do that. The Time 1 questionnaire revealed that participants
were active users of many vocabulary learning strategies before they started the Russian
course (M=4.30). At Time 2, in comparison to Time 1, significant changes were found in
the use of only 7 of the 44 strategies: Six vocabulary learning strategies were used
significantly more often, and one strategy was used significantly less often.
In contrast to Gu’s (2010) study, where the participants did not report significant
differences in their most frequently used or least frequently used strategies after a six
month period, the list of responses about the use of 7 strategies that underwent changes in
the current study contained 2 frequently used strategies, 3 moderately used ones, and 2
204
least frequently used strategies. Of two frequently used strategies, one was used even
more frequently and one was used less frequently at Time 2. The strategy that was used
significantly less frequently was S22, When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I
try to recall a sentence in which the word was used. This strategy reflects the belief that
also showed less agreement on the part of the questionnaire respondents at Time 2
compared to Time 1, It is easier to learn new words when they are first presented in
context (B9). As discussed above, learning Russian vocabulary may be more difficult in
comparison to learning vocabulary in languages with a Roman script and an abundance
of cognates. Appropriate use of new Russian words in context may not always be a
feasible goal for beginners. The fact that the change in the strategy use echoed the change
in the agreement with the related belief (or vice versa) gives some additional evidence of
interrelation between learning beliefs and strategies.
Another strategy that was popular at the beginning of the semester, and was even
more frequently used at the end of the term was I go through my vocabulary list several
times until I am sure I know all of the words on the list (S3). At Time 1 it was at least
sometimes used by 83.2% of the participants; at Time 2 this number grew up to 93%, and
its SD fell from 1.2 at Time 1 to 0.88 at Time 2. The participants reported using this
strategy more often and more consistently at the end of the semester. The changes in the
use of these two strategies may indicate that some of these beginning students of Russian
found it too difficult to learn new Russian words in context, and focused on vocabulary
lists instead. Several studies (Folse, 2004; Laufer, 2005, 2006, 2010; Laufer & Nation,
2011; Laufer & Shmueli, 1997; Prince, 1995) found that retention scores for word
recognition were higher when words were introduced in vocabulary lists with minimal
205
information, and lower when the words were presented in rich context. The other possible
reason is that if students were assigned to learn Russian vocabulary lists, in comparison
to previously learned languages it may have required more time and effort to master the
words, thus participants had to use S3 more frequently.
The participants also reported using several association and imagery strategies
more often for example, the least frequently used strategies at Time 1, S10, To remember
a new word, I put it into an English sentence, and S17, I associate one or more letters in
a word with the word meaning to help me remember it (e.g., look has two “eyes” in the
middle). The increase in the mean scores between the two questionnaires was the largest
for these two strategies, 0.52 and 0.46, respectively. The reason that the participants
reported rare use of S10 at Time 1 may be that they did not feel any need to use it, as
when they learned commonly taught languages, they were able to put new words in the
context of these languages. However, with Russian, it was more difficult, and students
had to find some other methods. In their interviews, some students gave examples of
using this strategy:
•
A Russian word “там” (there) sounds like an English name Tom. So, I say to myself,
“Tom (the word там) is over there.”
This example also shows the use of S11, I link a new word to an English word
that sounds similar, which was also used significantly more frequently. Also, putting a
Russian word into an English sentence often sounds funny, and some students mentioned
that humor helped their word retention.
•
•
Бег (running) looks like bear. You're running from bears, so I say, бег from bears.
It’s funny and I remember it well.
We had a study group a few weeks ago before we had a test, and then we were trying
to remember the word for “shelf” and it’s “polka”. One of the kids was like, “I
imagine a little German man on a shelf doing the polka” and that helped me
remember it.
206
More frequent use of another strategy, S21, I group words into categories (e.g.,
animals, utensils, vegetables) to remember them, was reported at Time 2. More than
twice as many participants reported that they always used this strategy at Time 2 (14
compared to 6 at Time 1). Even though researchers have repeatedly failed to find a
positive effect on vocabulary learning from organizing words into semantic groups
(Folse, 2004; Tinkham, 1997; Waring, 1997), students seem to believe that this strategy
may make learning Russian vocabulary easier.
•
•
I would like my instructor to give us words already categorized.
It helps when similar words (directions, verbs, animals, etc) are grouped together in
the vocab lists.
Some students reported combining several association strategies, linking words
that look similar (S14) and sound similar (S11) and grouping words into categories (S21)
for example, in this response:
•
I’ll compare some words to something in the same category (лыжи – luge – winter
Olympics = skiing).
•
A lot of Russian words can be cognates for English, such as смотреть (to look)
sounds like “smolders” which involves looking.
•
Вода (water) reminds me of boats, and boats go in water, so that helps. Рыба (fish)
sounds like a strange version of river, so fish and river, I will remember that.
•
Лыжи (skiing) sounds like snow when you ski through it.
In sum, over the four-month period of study, there were some belief and strategy
changes. Five of 26 learning beliefs and 7 of 44 reported learning strategies changed
significantly. As for learning beliefs, at the end of their first semester of studying
Russian, the participants’ beliefs in the importance of a good memory (B6), repetition
and practice (B5), and cultural knowledge (B4) for learning vocabulary effectively
received more agreement, whereas the agreement with the beliefs that it is easier to learn
207
new words when they are presented in context (B9), and that participants liked to learn
more new words than were assigned (B18) weakened by the end of the semester. As for
learning strategies, the participants reported recalling sentences in which new words were
used (S22) less frequently, but using several association and imagery strategies (S11,
S14, S17), putting Russian words into English sentences (S10), and working with word
lists (S3) more frequently.
Examination of responses to the open-ended question Have you changed any of
your methods of studying vocabulary? supported the findings of the quantitative analysis
of the questionnaire responses in that fewer than 20% of the participants changed their
methods of learning vocabulary because their previous strategies were not very effective.
About 70% of the participants reported that they had to invest more time and effort in
learning Russian vocabulary, organize more vocabulary learning sessions, and employ
additional vocabulary learning strategies. In the current study, similar to Gu (2010),
“differences in the learning environment may well be one of the main factors that led to
these changes” (p. 114). Studying Russian required implementing different vocabulary
learning strategies or more intensive use of the strategies that satisfied learners.
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research
The findings of the current study suggest several directions for research on
vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies of learners of Russian. A variety of definitions
and inventories of vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies exists, and they differ from
researcher to researcher. Future research is needed to refine concepts of vocabulary
learning belief and strategy types, and to establish a comprehensive theoretical
framework. Further discussion of the design of questionnaires and possible unification of
208
the items would be another area of concern for research that relies on questionnaires as a
principal source of data.
This study showed the connection between the learning context and the stability
of vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies. Further research is needed to study how the
learning context may affect the development of vocabulary learning beliefs and
vocabulary learning strategy choice over time. Perhaps more longitudinal research, in
which the same learners were followed over two or more semesters, would yield more
insight into changes in students’ vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies overt time.
Besides, the influence of individual differences involved in the implementation of
vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies, such as proficiency, motivation, language
anxiety, or learning style may become even more salient in a longitudinal study, so they
need to be considered.
Research on teaching practices and their relationship to students’ beliefs and
strategy choices may yield fruitful results. Instructors’ evaluation practices (testing
vocabulary in context or out of context) may influence students’ vocabulary learning
beliefs and strategies. One more point of interest would be to identify whether teachers’
beliefs can influence their students’ beliefs and choice of strategies.
The current study gave some indications of relationships between particular
vocabulary learning beliefs and vocabulary learning strategies. More research on such
relationships and their stability over time would be constructive. Vocabulary learning
beliefs and strategies appear to be related to success in L2 learning, but a cause-andeffect approach does not seem to be suitable for the relationships among beliefs,
strategies, and learning outcomes. Further research is needed to explore the relationship
209
between vocabulary learning beliefs, frequency and quality of vocabulary learning
strategy use, and vocabulary learning outcomes in various contexts and at different stages
of language learning.
Finally, comparison of learning beliefs and strategies of American students of
Russian with students of other more commonly and less commonly taught languages
would complement existing research and support or disclaim the assumption that less
commonly taught languages attract “a different type of students” (Horwitz, 1999, p. 572).
5.4 Limitations
With regard to the results of the study, a few limitations should be taken into
consideration. First, students’ use of vocabulary learning strategies and their beliefs about
vocabulary learning were identified through two self-report questionnaires, which
measured beliefs and strategies out of the context in which students engages in
vocabulary learning in their Russian course. As Gu (2005) noted, “there is always a
question of how much self-reports reflect reality” (p. 196). Respondents may feel that
they should report beliefs and strategies that would please the researcher or they may not
be precise in reporting their beliefs and strategies. It is also possible that without being
able to call on or observe their beliefs and strategy preferences while engaged in a
vocabulary learning task, they may not be conscious of what beliefs they hold and what
strategies they use regularly. Further, given that the study was conducted via online
questionnaires, participants may have felt distracted or tired, or they may have responded
automatically, as this respondent admitted:
•
Did I put strongly disagree? Oh, maybe I was off when I took the survey. Because I
definitely don’t strongly disagree. I don’t remember putting strongly disagree for
anything.
210
Second, the scope of vocabulary learning strategies examined in this study was
limited. The questionnaires did not include the metacognitive aspects of vocabulary
learning strategies, which involve planning, monitoring, and evaluation of vocabulary
learning (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). The reason for not including metacognitive
strategies in the questionnaire was that the participants were just beginning their study of
Russian and, thus, might not have been able to apply many metacognitive strategies,
given that these strategies rely on prior knowledge of the language. Third, the items in the
current survey were taken from different existing questionnaires, and although
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the survey was 0.89, which showed high reliability of the
instrument, its internal validity is still an issue that is worth investigating.
Fourth, the analysis of learners’ profiles based on averaging the scores of groups
of beliefs and strategies may be problematic from the point of view of construct validity.
It is a common problem of quantitative research on L2 learning beliefs and strategies
(Dörnyei, 2005; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006). Even the validity of such widely used
questionnaires as the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI, Horwitz,
1988) and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Oxford, 1990) has been
subjected to criticism. Tseng et al. (2006) argued against assuming “a linear relationship
between the individual item scores and the total scale scores” (p. 83). Discussing the
studies of vocabulary learning strategies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997), Tseng et
al (2006) claimed that computing mean scale scores that indicate frequencies of strategy
use may not be psychometrically justifiable because mean scores fail to capture the
quality of learning strategy use. Besides, in this study the beliefs and strategies were
measured with unequal number of items. For that reason, although the current study
211
examined learners’ profiles based on averaging the scores of groups of beliefs and
strategies, it mainly focused on the description of individual beliefs and strategies,
relationship between them, and changes that happened to them between Time 1 and Time
2.
Finally, the study examined a specific group of American university students who
had just begun studying Russian and the size of the sample was 97 participants. The
findings may not generalize to larger samples of learners, to intermediate or advanced
students of Russian, or to learners of languages other than Russian.
5.5 Pedagogical Implications
The findings of the current study suggest that teachers should be aware of their
students’ beliefs and understand why students value particular learning strategies. Wen
and Johnson (1997) suggest that “success in identifying students' beliefs about language
learning and their related strategy preferences, and sensitivity in dealing with these
preconceptions, are likely to have a major bearing upon students' attitudes to the program
and upon its effectiveness” (p. 40). Reporting their learning beliefs may help students get
into the habit of self-reflection, represent their awareness of the process of language
learning, and their self-reflection has the potential for developing self-regulated
behaviors. In the current study many students reported that they found their own ways to
learn vocabulary effectively, but they also asked for help in organizing this process. At
the beginning level of learning a difficult language, it may be challenging for students to
fully self-regulate their learning behavior, and they asked for some guidelines from their
instructors. Answers to an open-ended question What would you like your instructor to do
212
in class to make vocabulary instruction more effective? show that some learners ask to be
forced to learn vocabulary:
•
•
I think having a day devoted in my class to strictly learning vocabulary would help.
Even things such as vocabulary tests, as much as I hate them, would help force me to
learn the vocabulary.
Give more quizzes that are on the syllabus. This forces me to study when I don’t want
to.
Other learners give convincing reasons why their instructors should pay more
attention to vocabulary in class:
•
•
•
I think more in-class repetition would be more helpful. I can practice at home and
believe I have the pronunciation correct, when in reality, my syllables are completely
wrong. Hearing that and cadence are extremely important.
I would like more practice where the instructor introduces words at the beginning of
a unit so that students know how to pronounce them and can start to learn them early
on.
Students should be given a list per chapter with common phrases so that they can
practice repeating them out loud. In this way, they get used to word groups and are
more likely to be able to recognize the words when someone else says them or asks
them a question.
And some students explain how they see “the most efficient, with the most
education gained, and the lowest possible stress inducing” method of organizing work
with vocabulary in the course:
•
Despite my distaste for unnecessary amounts of work and my general dislike towards
vocabulary tests, I don't think that they would necessarily hurt. Of course, it would be
an added assignment to have, but there are ways to make it more efficient. Maybe
what would be helpful is having a unit that you know will take X amount of days, and
then dividing up the words in that unit into smaller vocabulary quizzes throughout a
week. So, for example, if there are 8 days for a single unit, and 50 new words, you
could have a small 6-7 word quiz in each class. This would ensure you cover all the
words, and encourages the students to study the words more often. I think something
else that would be helpful is also telling the students what words they need to know
before hand -- that way they are, at the least, memorizing and learning 6 to 7 new
words each day and with very little stress pertaining to passing/failing and time
consumption. That, to me, seems the most efficient, with the most education gained,
and the lowest possible stress inducing. Also, so long as the students actually follow
the instructions of the instructor, if the words you need to know are given to you
213
before hand, there really should be very little to no negative impact on a student's
grade.
Here is the same idea expressed in a more concise way:
•
Vocab quiz 5 days a week, Russian to English on Monday, and Russian to English on
Tuesday, and so on. All while assigning segments of the vocabulary.
Summarizing these responses, we can conclude that the participants of the study
definitely want their instructors to pay more attention to vocabulary in class and in the
course in general, and they ask for scaffolding because they do not feel capable of doing
the necessary work independently. If they do not receive the help they ask for, it may
influence their motivation and learning outcomes of the course. Instructors who do not
believe in the effectiveness of the approach students ask for, may evaluate such requests
as counterproductive and try to instruct their students in using more sophisticated,
constructive, or beneficial strategies in line with entirely meaning centered instruction
approach, but it may give no results if students resist. The strategies favored by many
students may not be the most useful ones. However, it may also be that the assumptions
held by language instructors “may need to be reexamined, not necessarily because they
are wrong but because, in the case of vocabulary and form-focused strategies, advocates
of the communicative approach may be unduly dismissive of other more traditional
approaches to language learning” (Wen & Johnson, 1996).
Developing vocabulary through comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) does not
presuppose conscious effort to learn new words; in fact, it may even be considered
counterproductive. However, current research (Laufer, 2006, 2009, 2010; Meara, 1987,
1995; Nation, 2001, 2006, 2007) demonstrates that comprehensible input, even in
abundance, is insufficient for acquiring vocabulary, particularly for adult learners in an
214
instructed learning environment. Word-focused practice, where words are not only tools
for communication but also the objects of learning, is found more effective in comparison
to a purely communicative task environment (Folse, 2004; Hulstijn, 1992; Laufer &
Shmueli, 1997; Nassaji, 2003; Prince, 1995). In the current study, respondents expressed
their beliefs in such practice, reported using word-focused learning strategies, and asked
for systematic form-focused instruction of vocabulary words in their respective Russian
courses. They asked for rich instruction that involves “giving elaborate attention to a
word, going beyond the immediate demands of a particular context of occurrence”
(Nation, 2001, p. 95). To respond for students’ needs, instructors must have substantial
knowledge and be skillful in teaching vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies.
5.6 Conclusion
In the past, vocabulary always played an important role in language learning.
However, in the middle of the last century, Chomsky’s conception of generative grammar
redirected linguistic research and teaching practice away from vocabulary, and
“excessive interest in words was followed by excessive neglect” (Miller, 1996, p. 16). In
recent decades, there has been a revival of interest in vocabulary teaching and research.
In light of new findings about the large number of words needed for comprehension of
written and spoken discourse in a foreign language (Hu & Nation, 2000), it becomes clear
that if students do not become active learners and employ vocabulary learning strategies
effectively, they are unlikely to acquire a lexicon of sufficient size to enable them to
function well in the language. Research on language learning strategies has revealed that
more successful learners employ strategies more frequently and more appropriately than
do less successful learners (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). One of the reasons for students’
215
strategy choice may be that learners believe that some behaviors are more effective than
others. Wenden and Rubin (1987) affirmed that students’ beliefs about learning
influenced the variety of strategies used and their ability to use them effectively.
Identifying learners’ beliefs about vocabulary learning and their choice of vocabulary
learning strategies is important for effective teaching of foreign language vocabulary.
The current study was the first to investigate vocabulary learning beliefs and
strategies of American university students beginning to study Russian. With the help of
correlational and cluster analyses, the research supported and supplemented the evidence
of relationships between learning beliefs and strategies, and, finally, identified changes in
the participants’ vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies as a result of one semester of
studying Russian.
The findings of the study demonstrate that the participants highly value the role of
vocabulary in studying a foreign language, understand the complexity of the process of
vocabulary acquisition, and believe that words and phrases should be carefully studied
and then practiced in context. Participants in the current study reported their high
motivation and high expectations of their success as learners of Russian.
As for vocabulary learning strategies, besides active dictionary use of dictionary,
guessing and note-taking strategies, virtually all participants report frequent use of
rehearsal strategies, especially repetition. These findings contradict the view that, in
contrast to Asian foreign language learners who value memorization and repetition,
Western learners tend to downplay the role of repetition in the process of vocabulary
learning. Analysis of the responses to open-ended questions and interviews supports that
216
respondents frequently use repetition and rehearsal strategies and consider them most
effective for establishing form-meaning connections of new words.
The changes in participants’ learning beliefs and strategies at the end of the first
semester of studying Russian showed that students expressed even more agreement with
value of repetition, practice, good memory, and cultural knowledge for learning
vocabulary and started using word lists and some association and imagery strategies more
frequently. In contrast, significantly less agreement with the belief that it is easier to learn
new words when they are presented in context is revealed. Besides, participants reported
less frequent use of the related strategy: while learning vocabulary, trying to recall
sentences in which new words were used. Interviewed students explain this shift by
difficulty of Russian vocabulary and cognitive overload in case of trying to acquire words
in context. These findings once again argue against the claim that contextual acquisition
of foreign language vocabulary is universally effective, and the assumptions of the
default hypothesis (Krashen, 1985) may not work in instructed foreign language learning.
217
REFERENCES
Alanen, R. (2003). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about
language learning. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA:
New Research Approaches (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Abraham, R., & Vann, R. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A.
Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 85–
102). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ahour, T., & Salamzadeh, P. (2014). Vocabulary learning strategies used by poor Iranian
high school students. International Journal of Language Teaching and Research,
2, 12–15.
Al-Handhali, H. K. (2009). Learners’ beliefs about listening in an Omani secondary
school. In M. Wyatt & J. Atkins (Eds.), Research perspectives on education in
Oman (pp. 137–152). Ministry of education, Sultanate of Oman.
Anderson, J. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.
Arden-Close, C. (1993). NNS readers’ strategies for inferring the meaning of unknown
words. Reading in a Foreign Language, 9, 867–893.
Atkinson, R., & Raugh, M. (1975). An application of the mnemonic keyword method to
the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 1, 126–133.
Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968.
Ayatollahi, M, Rasekh, A & Tavakoli, M. (2012). Learner beliefs, self-regulated learning
strategies and L2 academic reading comprehension: A structural equation
modeling analysis. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17, 36–49.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. University of Texas Press.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (1995). A cultura de aprnder lingua estrangeira (inglês) de alunos de
Letras [The culture of learning a foreign language (English) of language students].
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, UNICAMP, San Paolo, Brasil.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In P. Kalaja
& A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 7–
35). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs within a Deweyan framework:
Conflict and influence. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about
SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 171–201). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
218
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language
Learning, 28, 69–83.
Bogaards, P., & Laufer, B. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary in a second language: selection,
acquisition, and testing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bonk, W. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension.
International Journal of Listening, 14, 14–31.
Carter, R. (1987). Vocabulary: applied linguistic perspectives. New York: Routlege.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1988). Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
Chamot, A.U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin
(Eds.). Learner Strategies in Language Learning(pp. 71–84). Cambridge:
Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London:
Longman.
Cobb, T., & Horst, M. (2004). Is there an academic word list in French? In P. Bogaards
& B. Laufer (Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language (pp. 15–38). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory
research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Craik, F., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and retention of words in episodic
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 268–294.
Dakun, W., & Gieve, S. (2008). Learning environment and the use of vocabulary learning
strategies: A case study of Chinese learners. Indonesian Journal of English
Language Teaching, 4, 56–87.
Deng, K. (2009). Rethinking error feedback on L2 writing. JALT 2009 conference
proceedings, p. 579–609.
Devine, J. (1988). A case study of two readers: Models of reading and reading
performance. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive
approaches to second language reading (pp. 127–139). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning
strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 453–464.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited.
219
Dörnyei , Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
Dörnyei , Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and
learning environment. Language Learning, 59, 230–248.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Dufva, H. (2003). Beliefs in dialogue: A Bakhtinian view. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F.
Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 131–153).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ehrman, M., Leaver, B, & Oxford, R. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences
in second language learning, System. 31, 313–330.
Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language.
Language Learning, 61, 367–413.
Ellis, N. C. (1995). The cognitive psychology of foreign language vocabulary learning.
The Language Teacher, 19, 12-16.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological Memory, Chunking and Points of
Order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91-126.
Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language acquisition: A review with implications
for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition. In P. Robinson
& N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language
acquisition (pp. 372–405). New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (1995). Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 409–441.
Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C.
Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 525–547). Malden, Mass.:
Blackwell.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental
acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285310.
220
Fan, M (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, 222–241.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Folse, K. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom
teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fraser, C. (1999a). The role of consulting a dictionary in reading and vocabulary
learning. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 73–90.
Fraser, C. (1999b). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through
reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 225–241.
Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second language learning:
Assumptions, findings and issues. Language Learning, 38, 101–126.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language
learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R., & MacIntyre, P. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in
second language learning. Language Learning. 43, 157–194.
Gao, X. (2006). Understanding changes in Chinese students’ uses of learning strategies in
China and Britain: A socio-cultural re-interpretation. System, 34, 55–67.
Goh, C. (1997). Metacognitive awareness and second language listeners. ELT Journal,
51, 361–369.
Goh, C. (1999). How much do learners know about the factors that influence their
listening comprehension? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 17–41.
Goh, C. (2000). A cognitive perspective on language learners' listening comprehension
problems. System, 28, 55–75
Gu, Y. (2005). Vocabulary learning strategies in the Chinese EFL context. Marshal
Cavendish Academic, Singapore.
Gu, Y. (2010). Learning strategies for vocabulary development. Reflections on English
Language Teaching, 9, 105–118.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643–679.
221
Fitzpatrick, T., Al-Qarni, I., & Meara, P. (2008). Intensive vocabulary learning: A case
study. Language Learning Journal, 36, 239–248.
Ghavamnia, M., Kassaian, Z., & Dabaghi, A. (2011). The relationship between language
learning strategies, language learning beliefs, motivation, and proficiency: A
study of EFL learners in Iran. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5,
1156–1161.
Graham, S. (2006). Listening Comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34,
165–182.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367–383.
Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from Good Language Learners. Edinburgh, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Griffiths, C. (2013). The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Haarstrup, K. (2008). Lexical inferring procedures in two languages. In D. Albrechtsen,
K Haastrup, & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Vocabulary and Writing in a First and
Second Language: Processes and Development (pp. 67–111). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hasan, A.S. (2000). Learners’ perceptions of listening comprehension problems.
Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 137–153.
Heidari, F., Izadi, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2012). The relationship between Iranian EFL
learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and use of vocabulary learning strategies. English
Language Teaching, 5, 174–182.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. New York: Pergamon
Press.
Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: Managing learning or managing to learn? In
A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 145–
157). London, UK: Prentice Hall International.
Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using students’ beliefs about language learning and teaching in
the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18, 333–340.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden
& J. Rubin (Ed.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 119–129).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language students. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
222
Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’
beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557–
576.
Horwitz, E.K. (2008). Why students’ beliefs about language learning matter: Issues in the
development and implementation of the beliefs about language learning
inventory. In H. J. Siskin (Ed.), From thought to action: Exploring beliefs and
outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 2–8). Boston, MA: Thomson
Heinle
Hosenfeld, C. (2003). Evidence of emergent beliefs of a second language learner: A diary
study. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research
Approaches (pp. 37–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by
advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary
use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80,
327–339.
Hulstijn, J. (2000). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning:
Theoretical considerations and pedagogical implications. In J. Coady & T. Huckin
(Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 203–224). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hulstijn, J. H. (2003). Incidental and intentional learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 349–381). Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 403–430.
Hurd, S. (2008). Affect and strategy use in independent language learning. In S. Hurd &
T. Lewis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings: Second
Language Acquisition (pp. 218–236). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kamhi-Stein, L. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language
and beliefs about reading affect the behaviors of “underprepared” L2 college
readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37, p. 35–71.
Kalaja, P. (1995). Students beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA
reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5, 191–204.
Kalaja, P. (2003). Research on students’ beliefs about SLA within a discursive approach.
In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research
Approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches.
Dordrecht: Kluwer
223
Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2013). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, &
issues. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Kern, R. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28, 71–79.
Kim, H. J. (2001). Language learning strategies, learning styles and beliefs about
language learning of Korean university students. Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 5, 31-46.
Kim-Yoon, H. (2000). Learner beliefs about language learning, motivation and their
relationship: A study of EFL learners in Korea. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and
vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 286–298.
Krantz, G. (1991). Learning vocabulary in a foreign language: a study of reading
strategies. Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Langer, J. (1967). Better abstract vocabulary – higher intelligence quotient? The
Elementary School Journal, 68, 157–161.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26).Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Laufer, B. (1988). The concept of 'synforms' (similar lexical forms) in L2
vocabulary acquisition. Language and Education, 2, 113–132.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second
language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19, 255–271.
Laufer, B. (2005). Instructed second language vocabulary learning: the fault in the
‘default hypothesis’. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds.), Investigations in
Instructed Second Language Acquisition (pp. 286–303). Mouton de Gruyter. Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing Focus on Form and Focus on FormS in second-language
vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149–66.
Laufer, B. (2009), Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from
form-focused activities. Language Teaching, 42, 341–354.
Laufer, B. (2010). Form focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning. In
R. Chacón-Beltrán, C. Abello-Contesse, M.M. Torreblanca-López & M.D. LópezJiménez (Eds.), Further insights into non-native vocabulary teaching and
learning (pp. 15–27). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters.
224
Laufer, B., & Girsal, N. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary
learning: A case for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 29,
694–716.
Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual and
'biligualised' dictionaries. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 189–196.
Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K. (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything
to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89–108.
Lawson, M., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreignlanguage students. Language Learning, 46, 101–135.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think?
TESL Canada Journal, 22, 1–16.
Li, F. (2010). Relationship between EFL learners’ belief and learning strategy use by
English majors in vocational colleges. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 1, 858–866.
Li, J. (2009). The evolution of vocabulary learning strategies in a computer-mediated
reading environment. CALICO Journal, 27, 118–146.
Li, S. (2011). Vocabulary learning beliefs, strategies and language learning outcomes.
LAP, Lambert Academic Publishing.
Li, X. (2004). An analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ beliefs about the role of rote
learning in vocabulary learning strategies. University of Sunderland.
Liu, N., & Nation, I.S.P (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC
Journal, 16, 33–42.
Liu, Z. (2010). A study on English vocabulary learning strategies for non-English majors
in Independent College. Cross-Cultural Communication, 6, 152–164.
Long, M. (1985). Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory. In S. Gass & C.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–393). Rowley,
Mass: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Lotfi, G. (2012). A questionnaire of beliefs on English language listening comprehension
problems: development and validation. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16, 508–
515.
225
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009).
Second language learners' beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction.
The Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning.
Language Learning, 43, 263–87.
Ma, Q. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Bern: Peter Lang AG,
International Academic Publishers.
MacIntyre, P., & Gardner, R. (1991). Language anxiety: Its relation to other anxieties and
to processing in native and second languages. Language Learning, 41, 513–534.
MacIntyre, P., & Noels, K. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the
use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 3, 373–386.
McDonough, S. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London:
Edward Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Meara, P. (1980). Vocabulary acquisition: A neglected aspect of language learning.
Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 13, 221–246.
Meara, P. (1984). The study of lexis in interlanguage. In A. Davies & C. Criper & A. P.
R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 225–235). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Meara, P. (1987). Vocabulary in a second language. London: Centre for Information on
Language Teaching and Research.
Meara, P. (1993). The bilingual lexicon and the teaching of vocabulary. In R. Schreuder
& B. Weltens (Eds.), The Bilingual Lexicon (pp. 279–297). Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Meara, P. (1995). The importance of an early emphasis on L2 vocabulary. JALT, 19, 8–
11.
Meara, P. (1997). Towards a new approach to modelling vocabulary acquisition. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy (pp. 109–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, S. (2011). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change.
System, 39, 335–346.
Mizumoto, A. (2010). Exploring the art of vocabulary learning strategies: A closer look
at Japanese EFL university students. Tokyo: Kinseido.
226
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Adaptation and Validation of Self-regulating
Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale. Applied Linguistics, 33, 83–91
Mochizuki, M., & Aizawa, K. (2000). An affix acquisition order for EFL learners: An
exploratory study. System, 28, 291–304.
Mokhtari, A. (2007). Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning: A
study of University students of Persian in the United States. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Mondria, J-A., & Mondria-DeVries, S. (1994). Efficiently memorizing words with the
help of word cards and ‘hand computer’: Theory and applications. System, 22,
47−57.
Mondria, J-A., & Wit-De Boer, M. (1991). The effects of contextual richness on the
guessability and the retention of words in a foreign language. Applied Linguistics,
12, 249–267.
Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: Strategies, knowledge sources,
and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly,
37, 645–670.
Nation, I. S. P. (2000). Learning vocabulary in lexical sets: dangers and guidelines.
TESOL, 9, 6–10.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 59–82.
Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The four strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching,
1, 1–12.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Vocabulary acquisition in second language acquisition. In C. A.
Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 97 – 110). London:
Longman.
Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy (pp. 6-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
227
Navarro, D., & Thornton, K. (2011). Investigating the relationship between belief and
action in self-directed language learning. System, 39, 290–301.
Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. (2007). A review of research on vocabulary learning strategies. In
A. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30 years of research
and practice (pp. 251–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language learning strategy
use: interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology.
Modern Language Journal, 77, 11–22.
Ogden, C. K. (1937). Basic English and grammatical reform. Cambridge: The
Orthological Institute.
O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on
learning English as a second language. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner
Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 133–144). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P.
(1985). Learning strategies application with students of English as a second
language. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 557–584.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (1993). Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and ESL
suggestions. TESOL Journal, 2, 18–22.
Oxford, R. L. (Ed.). (1996). Language learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R.L., (1999). Relationships between learning strategy use and language
proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. In L. Bobb
(Ed.), Learner Autonomy as a Central Concept of Foreign Language Learning
(pp. 109–126). Special Issue of Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching: Language learning strategies. Oxford:
Pearson Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods,
findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404–419.
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1990). Vocabulary learning: A critical analysis of
techniques. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 9–30.
228
Oxford, R. L., Crookall, D., Cohen, A., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990).
Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training
model. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 197–216.
Oxford, R. L., & Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults’ language learning strategies in an
intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23, 359–386.
Oxford R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291–300.
Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for
meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. In J. Coady & T. Huckin
(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 174–200). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Park, G.P. (1995). Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning of
university students learning English in Korea. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
The University of Texas at Austin, TX.
Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean
university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 211–221.
Peng, J. (2011). Changes in language learning beliefs during a transition to tertiary study:
The mediation of classroom affordances. System, 39, 314–324.
Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: A research, learning, and
teaching practice. Language Teaching Research. 7, 259–278.
Peters, E., Hulstijn, J. H., Sercu, L., & Lutjeharms, M. (2009). Learning L2 German
vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques
Compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–151.
Pintrich, P., & De Groot, V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components
of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–
40.
Pigada, M., & Schmitt, N. (2006). Vocabulary acquisition from extensive reading: A case
study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 18, 1–28.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus
translations as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80, 478–493.
Porte, G. (1988). Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new
vocabulary. ELT Journal, 42, 167–172.
Pulido, D. (2009). How involved are American L2 learners of Spanish in lexical input
processing tasks during reading? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31, 31–
58.
229
Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance on language tests: A
structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rashidi, N., & Omid, A. (2011). A survey on Iranian EFL learners' beliefs on the role of
rote memorization in learning vocabulary and its effect on vocabulary
achievement. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 15, 139–
161.
Raugh, M., Schupbach, R., & Atkinson, R. (1977). Teaching a large Russian language
vocabulary by the mnemonic keyword method. Instructional Science, 6, 100–221.
Richards, J. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.
Richard, J. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University
Press, NY.
Richards, B., Daller, M., Malvern, D., Meara, P., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (Eds.).
(2009). Vocabulary studies in first and second language acquisition: The
interface between theory and application. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, J., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classroom.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rifkin, B. (2000). ). Revising beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign Language
Annals 33, 394–420.
Rifkin, B., & Roberts, F.D. (1995). Error gravity: A critical review of research design.
Language Learning, 45, p. 511–537.
Riley, P. (1994). Aspects of learner discourse: Why listening to learners is so important.
In E. Esch (Ed.) Self-access and the adult language learner (pp. 7–19). London:
Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Riley, P. (1996). The guru and the conjurer: Aspects of counselling for self-access. In P.
Benson & P. Voller (Eds.) Autonomy & independence in language learning (pp.
54–65). London: Longman.
Riley, P. (1997). ‘BATS’ and ‘BALLS’: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about language
learning. Mélanges CRAPEL, 23, 125–153.
Riley, P. A. (2009). Shifts in beliefs about second language learning. RELC Journal, 40,
102–124.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:
Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 92–98.
230
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can each us? TESOL Quarterly, 9,
41–51.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language
learning (pp. 15–30). Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner (2nd
ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sakui, K., & Gaies, S. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners' beliefs about language
learning. System, 27, 473–92.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209–231.
Simon, E., & Taverniers, M. (2011). Advanced EFL learners’ beliefs about language
learning and teaching: A comparison between grammar, pronunciation, and
vocabulary. English Studies, 92, p. 896–922.
Skehan, P. (2000). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary. Description, acquisition and pedagogic (pp. 199–227). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching
Research, 12, 329–363.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmitt, N., Jang, X., & Grabe, W. (2011). The percentage of words known in a text and
reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal. 95, 26–43.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N., & Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge
framework: Word associations and verbal suffixes. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 20, 17–36.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318.
231
Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Subaşi, G. (2014). Vocabulary learning beliefs and strategies of Turkish ELT students.
Online International Journal of Art and Humanities, 3, 91–104.
Subon, F. (2013). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by form 6 students.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3, 1–32.
Tam, K. (2013). A study on language learning strategies (LLSs) of university students in
Hong Kong. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 11, 1–42.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL
Quarterly, 15, 285–295.
Takač, V. (2008). Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language acquisition.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Thompson. I. (1987). Memory in language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 15–30). New Jersy: Prentic-Hall.
Tinkham, T. (1997). The effects of semantic and thematic clustering on the learning of
second language vocabulary. Second Language Research, 13, 138–163.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning. 46, 327–369.
Tseng, W. T., Z. Dörnyei, and N. Schmitt. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic
learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 27, 78–102.
Tseng, W., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of motivated vocabulary learning: A
structural equation modeling approach. Language Learning, 58, 357–400.
Tumposky, N. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study.
Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, 50–65.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on
incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19, 287–307.
Waring, R. (1997). The negative effects of learning words in semantic sets. System, 25,
261–274.
232
Waring, R., & Takaki, M. (2003). At what rate do learners learn and retain new
vocabulary from a graded reader? Reading in a Foreign Language, 15, 130–163.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading
and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–
52.
Webb, S. (2007). The effects of repetition on vocabulary knowledge. Applied Linguistics,
28, 46–65.
Webb. S. (2008). The effect of context on incidental vocabulary learning. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 20, 232–245.
Webb, S. (2009). The effects of receptive and productive learning of word pairs on
vocabulary knowledge. RELC Journal, 40, 360–376.
Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., & Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions
with a focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner
(Eds): Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 727–747). San Diego: Academic Press.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315–327). New York:
Macmillan.
Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. English Language
Teaching Journal, 40, 3–12
Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions
from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in
Language Learning (pp. 103–118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 515-537.
Wenden, A. (1990). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language
learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27, 435–441.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge:
Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 13–40.
White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners.
System, 27, 443–457.
233
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Edinburgh, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Worth, R. (2008). Before and after 101: Change in learning attitudes in the Italian as
foreign language classroom. In H. J. Siskin (Ed.), From thought to action:
Exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp. 155–185).
Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
Yang, N. D. (1992). Second language learners' beliefs about language learning and their
use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2722A. (UMI No.9225771).
Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy
use. System, 27, 515–535.
Yang, J., & Kim, T. (2011). Sociocultural analysis of second language learner beliefs: A
qualitative case study of two study-abroad ESL learners. System, 39, 325–334.
Zare-ee, A., & Salami, M. (2014). A close study of the effects of ESP learners’ beliefs on
the choice of language learning strategies. International Journal of Learning,
Teaching and Educational Research, 7, 119–130.
Zhang, B. (2009). FL vocabulary learning of undergraduate English majors in Western
China: Perspective, strategy use and vocabulary size. English Language Teaching,
2, 178–185.
234
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS (85)
(In the operational questionnaire there are no headings and the questions are shuffled.)
I. Demographic information and previous language learning experience.
1. Name and University e-mail
2. Age
3. Native language
4. What language(s) do your parents speak to you at home?
5. Do members of your family, household or community speak Russian?
1. No
2. Yes, but I don’t understand them.
3. Yes, and I understand them, and I always (or mostly) respond in English.
4. Yes, and I understand them, and I always (or mostly) respond in Russian.
6. What foreign language(s) have you studied and for how long?
7. How do you evaluate your proficiency in the language(s) you know or have studied?
(Write down the name of each language next to the appropriate choice)
1
Excellent ____________________
2
Fair _______________________
3
Good _______________________
4
Poor ________________________
8. What made you interested in learning Russian?
9. Are you taking this Russian course to fulfill a degree requirement?
235
10. What is your principal reason for choosing Russian over another language?
1. I was advised to take Russian.
2. It fit into my schedule.
3. I want to speak the language of my parents/grandparents.
4. I heard that it was easier than other languages.
5. I think it will be useful for my future career.
6. I want to use it for vacation/travel purposes.
7. I want to study abroad in Russia.
8. I need it for my major.
9. Other. _____________________________________________________
11. Which of the options best matches your opinion? Choose one.
I expect Russian to be: (Time 2 survey – I have found Russian to be)
1. a very difficult language
2. a difficult language
3. a language of medium difficulty
4. an easy language
5. a very easy language
12.If someone spent an hour a day studying Russian, how long would it take the person to
become fluent?
1
less than a year
2
1–2 years
3
3–5 years
4
5–10 years
236
5
You cannot learn a language by studying it for 1 hour a day.
II. Beliefs (26)
You will see statements about what people do when they study a foreign language.
After reading each statement, make the choice that applies to you. Use your previous
experience with learning languages (for the Time 1 survey). Use your experience with
learning Russian (for the Time 2 survey).
Please note that there are no right or wrong statements.
1) The nature of L2 acquisition (6)
1. It is easier for someone who already knows a foreign language to learn another
one.
2. Learning vocabulary is extremely important for learning a foreign language.
3. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from English.
4. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to learn the language well.
5. It is important to repeat and practice a lot when you are learning a foreign
language.
6. A good memory is very important for learning a foreign language well.
2) The nature of vocabulary acquisition (9)
a. Words should be memorized.
7. Repetition is one of the best ways to learn words.
8. You can acquire a large vocabulary by memorizing lots of individual words.
b. Words should be acquired in context.
9. It is easier to learn new words when they are presented in context.
237
10. You can acquire a large foreign language vocabulary simply by reading a lot.
11. Guessing the meaning of words in context is one of the best ways to learn
vocabulary.
12. When you come across a word several times in different contexts, you eventually
figure out what it means.
c. Words should be studied and put to use.
13. Vocabulary learning includes learning phrases as well as words.
14. To know a word, you have to know its form, its meaning, and how it is used.
15. To really learn words, you have to do two things: study them and then practice
using them.
3) Motivation (6)
1. I would like to learn Russian so that I can get to know Russia and Russians better.
2. Learning vocabulary is interesting.
3. I like to learn more words than my foreign language teacher assigns us to learn.
4. I’m motivated to learn vocabulary because it is important for passing tests.
5. I like learning vocabulary.
6. I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary
4) Self-efficacy
7. I have my own ways to motivate myself in vocabulary learning.
8. I am good at learning languages.
9. I have my own ways to remember the words I learn.
5) Expectations of success as L2 learners
10. I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak Russian very well.
238
11. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
III. Strategies
Now you will read statements about what people do when they study a foreign language.
After reading each statement, mark the choice that applies to you. Use your previous
experience with learning languages (for the Time 1 survey). Use your experience with
learning Russian (for the Time 2 survey).
Please note that there are no right or wrong statements.
1) Memory strategies (26)
Rehearsal: Using word lists
1. I make vocabulary flashcards for new words so that I can memorize them.
2. I keep lists of new vocabulary words.
3. I go through my vocabulary list several times until I am sure I know all of the
words on the list.
4. I make vocabulary cards and take them with me wherever I go.
5. I regularly review new words I have memorized.
Rehearsal: Oral repetition
6. Repeating a new word aloud helps me to remember it.
7. When I am studying new words, I repeat them silently in my mind.
Rehearsal: Written repetition
8. When I try to remember a word, I write it repeatedly.
9. I write both the new words and their translations repeatedly in order to remember
them.
239
Encoding: Associations
10. To remember a new word, I put it into an English sentence.
11. I link a new word to an English word that sounds similar.
12. I link a new word to another foreign language word I know.
13. I associate words that sound similar.
14. I associate words that look similar
Encoding: Imagery
15. I act out a word to remember it better.
16. I create a mental image of the new word to help me remember it.
17. I associate one or more letters in a word with the word meaning to help me
remember it (e.g., look has two “eyes” in the middle).
Encoding: Visual encoding
18. I visualize the new word to help me remember it.
19. I learn the spelling of a word by breaking it into several parts.
Encoding: Semantic encoding
20. I try to remember words in meaningful groups.
21. I group words into categories (e.g., animals, utensils, vegetables) to remember
them.
Encoding: Contextual encoding
22. When I want to remember the meaning of a word, I try to recall a sentence in
which the word was used.
23. I remember new words along with the context in which they occur.
24. I learn words better when I put them in context (sentences).
240
Encoding: Word structure
25. When I learn new words, I analyze them in terms of their prefixes, stems, and
suffixes.
26. I study word-formation rules in order to remember more words.
2) Dictionary strategies (3)
27. When I see an unfamiliar word again and again, I look it up.
28. When not knowing a word prevents me from understanding a whole sentence or
even a whole paragraph, I look it up.
29. When I want to confirm my guess about a word, I look it up.
3) Note-taking strategies (3)
30. I make a note of words that seem important to me.
31. I make a note when I think the word is relevant to my personal interests.
32. When I see an expression or phrase that I think I will want to use someday, I write
it down for future references.
4) Guessing strategies (4)
33. When reading, I have a sense of which word I can guess and which word I cannot.
34. I make use of context to guess the meaning of a word I do not know.
35. When I guess the meaning of a word, I try to understand what part of speech it is.
36. When I guess the meaning of a word, I analyze its parts (prefix, root, and suffix).
5) Activation strategies (3)
37. I make up my own sentences using the words I just learned.
38. I try to use newly learned words as much as possible when I write or speak.
39. I try to use newly learned words in imaginary situations in my mind.
241
6) Using technology to study vocabulary (3)
40. I like to use online dictionaries to look up new words.
41. I use online applications to study new words.
42. I use mobile devices to study new words.
7) Affective strategies (2)
43. If I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I give up.
44. If I feel bored or frustrated while learning vocabulary, I take a break or I remind
myself that vocabulary is important, and then I go on.
Open-ended Questions
1. Imagine that you need to learn several new words for tomorrow’s class. How are you
going to do this task? (Time 1 Questionnaire)
2. You have been studying Russian for a semester. Have you changed any of your
methods of studying vocabulary? (Time 2 Questionnaire)
3. What would you like your Russian instructor to do in class to make / vocabulary
instruction more effective? (Time 2 Questionnaire)
242
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
1. Tell me a little about why you are studying Russian. Is it for your language
requirement? A different reason? Why Russian and not another language?
2. How important is it for you to learn Russian vocabulary? Why do you think this
way?
3. Do you consider yourself an effective vocabulary learner? In what ways? Can you
give me some examples?
4. People have different ways of learning vocabulary. Some must see a word before
it is remembered, others might prefer to hear the word. What is your personal
style?
5. Some people think that as long as they work hard enough, they can learn Russian
vocabulary well. What do you think of this statement? What is your thinking
about what it takes to learn Russian vocabulary well?
6. How do you usually feel while you are studying new vocabulary words? Give an
example of when you feel that way.
7. What approaches do you consider the most effective for learning vocabulary? For
example:
! using flashcards
! saying the words aloud
! writing the words (how many times?)
! studying sentences that contain the vocabulary words
! paying close attention in class to how the words are used
243
! looking for associations between new Russian words and other words you
know (in Russian or another language)
8. For each one:
•
Give an example of how you use this technique
•
How effective this technique is
•
Is this technique the only one you need, or do you like to combine it with other
techniques?
9. What does it mean to you when you say you have learned a word?
10. Do you do extra work in vocabulary learning other than your vocabulary
homework and studying for vocabulary quizzes? If so, what do you do?
11. What do you do when you encounter a word in your homework or reading and are
unsure of what it means? Do you skip over it, or do you stop what you are doing
to look up its meaning? When you look up the meaning of a word, what do you do
next? Do you try to memorize it? Do you write it down somewhere? If yes,
where? Anything else?
12. Is it more effective to study vocabulary on your own, or is it better to do it
together with others? Give me some examples.
13. If you are frustrated or bored while you are studying your vocabulary words, what
do you do?
14. Do you review the vocabulary that you learned in previous chapters? How do you
do that? How often?
244
APPENDIX C
LIKERT–SCALE RESPONSES FOR BELIEFS ABOUT VOCABULARY LEARNING
Table C1. Beliefs about vocabulary learning: Likert–scale responses.
Belief Items
1. It is easier for someone who already knows a
foreign language to learn another one.
2. Learning vocabulary is extremely important
for learning a foreign language.
3. Learning a foreign language is mostly a
matter of translating from English.*
4. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in
order to learn the language well.
5. It is important to repeat and practice a lot
when you are learning a foreign language.
6. A good memory is very important for
learning a foreign language well.
7. Repetition is one of the best ways to learn
words.
8. You can acquire a large vocabulary by
memorizing lots of individual words.
9. It is easier to learn new words when they are
presented in context.
10. You can acquire a large foreign language
vocabulary simply by reading a lot.
11. Guessing the meaning of words in context is
one of the best ways to learn vocabulary.
12. When you come across a word several times
in different contexts, you eventually figure out
what it means.
13. Vocabulary learning includes learning
phrases as well as words.
14. To know a word, you have to know its form,
its meaning, and how it is used.
15. To really learn words, you have to do two
things: study them and then practice using them.
16. I would like to learn Russian so that I can
get to know Russia and Russians better.
17. Learning vocabulary is interesting.
18. I like to learn more words than my foreign
language teacher assigns us to learn.
Note: The percentages have been rounded.
1
2
Responses (%)
3
4
5
0
5.2
10.4
39.6
20.8
24
4.48
1.1
0
0
0
10.3
58.8
30.9
5.21
0.6
0
3.2
18.1
22.3
29.8
26.6
4.59
1.2
0
11.3
23.7
49.5
15.5
0
3.69
0.9
0
0
1
40
59
0
4.58
0.5
0
3
23.7
55.7
17.6
0
3.88
0.7
0
1
4.1
16.5
40.2
38.2
5.10
0.9
1
9.3
19.6
43.3
25.8
1
3.87
0.9
0
0
2
19.6
54.7
23.7
5.00
0.7
3
8.3
23.7
37.2
24.8
3
3.81
1.1
1
8.3
23.7
36
26.8
4.2
3.92
1.1
0
3.2
10.8
37.6
40.9
7.5
4.39
0.9
0
1
2
8.3
53.2
35.5
5.20
0.8
0
3.1
3.1
19.6
47.4
26.8
4.92
0.9
0
0
2
3.1
52.1
42.8
5.35
0.7
0
2.1
0
25.8
36.1
36
5.04
0.9
0
1
4.1
5.1
7.2
12.4
27.9
41.2
36
30
24.8
10.3
4.70
4.25
1
1
6
M
SD
1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=somewhat disagree; 4=somewhat agree; 5=agree; 6=strongly agree
*Refers to reverse–scored items.
245
Table C1. Continued
Belief Items
19. I’m motivated to learn vocabulary because it
is important for passing tests.
20. I like learning vocabulary.
21.I feel bored or frustrated while learning
vocabulary. *
22. I have my own ways to motivate myself in
vocabulary learning.
23. I am good at learning languages.
24. I have my own ways to remember the words
I learn.
25. I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak
Russian very well.
26. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign
language.
Note: The percentages have been rounded.
1
2
Responses (%)
3
4
5
2.1
4.1
10.3
27.8
43.3
12.4
4.43
1.1
1
3.1
4.1
8.3
5.2
37.1
31
35
33
12.4
25.7
4.1
4.68
3.58
1.1
1.1
0
4.1
7.2
23.7
51.6
13.4
4.63
1
4.1
0
1
2.1
20.6
7.2
41.3
40.2
23.7
41.2
9.3
9.3
4.07
4.48
1.1
0.8
1
2
0
38.2
45.4
13.4
4.65
0.9
3.1
3.1
4.1
18.5
49.5
21.7
4.73
1.1
6
M
SD
1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=somewhat disagree; 4=somewhat agree; 5=agree; 6=strongly agree
*Refers to reverse–scored items
246
APPENDIX D
LIKERT–SCALE RESPONSES FOR VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES
Table D1. Vocabulary learning strategies: Likert–scale responses.
Strategy Items
1
1. I make vocabulary flashcards for new 8.3
words so that I can memorize them.
2. I keep lists of new vocabulary words. 2
3. I go through my vocabulary list
1
several times until I am sure I know all
of the words on the list.
4. I make vocabulary cards and take
10.4
them with me wherever I go.
5. I make regular review of new words I 0
have memorized.
6. Repeating a new word aloud helps me 0
to remember it.
7. When I am studying new words, I
0
repeat them silently in my mind.
8. When I try to remember a word, I
1
write it repeatedly.
9. I write both the new words and their
0
translations repeatedly in order to
remember them.
10. To remember a new word, I put it
24.7
into an English sentence.
11. I link a new word to an English
4.2
word that sounds similar.
12. I link a new word to another foreign 17.7
language word I know to remember it.
13. I associate words that sound similar. 1
14. I associate words that look similar.
2
15. I act out a word to remember it
29.9
better.
16. I create a mental image of the new
5.1
word to help me remember it.
17. I associate one or more letters in a
20.6
word with the word meaning to help me
remember it (e.g., look has two “eyes”
in the middle).
Note: The percentages have been rounded.
2
Responses (%)
3
4
5
M
SD
6
6.3
13.5
29.2
22.9
19.8
4.11
1.5
8.3
6.3
18.6
9.5
27.8
22.1
32
43.2
11.3
17.9
4.13
4.54
1.2
1.2
22.9
14.6
24
17.7
10.4
3.47
1.5
2.1
11.3
45.4
35
6.2
4.32
0.8
0
4.1
20.6
48.5
26.8
4.98
0.8
5.2
2
22.7
47.4
22.7
4.80
1
8.3
2.1
42.3
31.9
14.4
4.39
1.1
8.2
15.5
31.9
28.9
15.5
4.28
1.2
25.8
14
23.7
11.8
0
2.72
1.4
10.4
17.7
35.4
27.1
5.2
3.86
1.2
12.5
16.7
20.8
25
7.3
3.45
1.6
7.2
11.3
14.4
5.2
8.3
23.7
44.3
46.4
17.5
33
22.7
13.4
9.3
9.3
1
4.29
4.04
2.73
1
1.2
1.5
9.3
6.2
38.1
28.9
12.4
4.13
1.3
23.7
20.6
24.7
10.3
0
2.80
1.3
1 = I never do that; 2 = I very rarely do that; 3 = I seldom do that;
4 = I sometimes do that; 5 = I often do that; 6 = I always do that
* Refers to reverse–scored items.
247
Table D1. Continued
Strategy Items
1
4.2
18. I visualize the new word to help me
remember it.
19. I learn the spelling of a word by
1
breaking it into several parts.
20. I try to remember words in
3.1
meaningful groups.
21. I group words into categories (e.g.,
2
animals, utensils, vegetables) to
remember them.
22. When I want to remember the
1
meaning of a word, I try to recall a
sentence in which the word was used.
23. I remember new words along with
1
the context in which they occur.
24. I learn words better when I put them 1
in context (e.g., phrases, sentences).
25. When I learn new words, I analyze
4.1
them in terms of their prefixes, stems,
and suffixes.
26. I study word–formation rules in
12.4
order to remember more words
27. When I see an unfamiliar word
0
again and again, I look it up.
28. When not knowing a word prevents 0
me from understanding a whole
sentence, I look it up.
29. When I want to confirm my guess
1
about a word, I look it up.
30. I make a note of words that seem
0
important to me.
31. I make a note when I think the word 2.1
is relevant to my personal interests.
32. I make a note when I see a useful
5.2
expression or phrase.
33. When reading, I have a sense of
0
which word I can guess and which word
I cannot.
34. I make use of context to guess the
0
meaning of a word I do not know.
Note: The percentages have been rounded.
Responses (%)
3
4
5
5.2
34.4 37.5
M
SD
2
7.3
6
11.4
4.28
1.2
13.6
14.6
39.6
30.2
1
3.88
1
3.1
12.4
44.3
30.9
6.2
4.15
1
11.3
11.3
35.2
34
6.2
4.06
1.2
0
8.4
31.6
48.4
10.6
4.58
0.9
2.1
9.3
40.2
44.3
3.1
4.34
0.7
0
8.3
32
44.3
14.4
4.62
0.9
17.5
20.6
35.1
16.5
6.2
3.61
1.3
16.5
23.7
29.9
13.4
4.1
3.28
1.3
0
2.1
14.4
43.3
40.2
5.22
0.7
2.1
1
13.4
32
51.5
5.30
0.9
1
1
15.5
41.3
40.2
5.15
0.9
4.1
6.2
29.9
44.3
15.5
4.61
1
5.1
7.2
22.7
49.5
13.4
4.53
1.1
7.2
3.1
20.6
41.2
22.7
4.54
1.4
3.1
7.2
33
49.5
7.2
4.51
0.9
2
6.2
33
49.5
9.3
4.58
0.8
1 = I never do that; 2 = I very rarely do that; 3 = I seldom do that;
4 = I sometimes do that; 5 = I often do that; 6 = I always do that;
* Refers to reverse–scored items.
248
Table D1. Continued
Strategy Items
1
35. When I guess the meaning of a
3.1
word, I try to understand what part of
speech it is.
36. When I guess the meaning of a
4.1
word, I analyze its parts (prefix, root,
and suffix).
37. I make up my own sentences using
5.1
the words I just learned.
38. I try to use newly learned words as
0
much as possible when I write or speak.
39. I try to use newly learned words in
10.3
imaginary situations in my mind.
40. I like to use online dictionaries to
5.2
look up new words.
41. I use online applications to study
13.5
new words.
42. I use mobile devices to study new
20.6
words.
43. If I feel bored or frustrated while
0
learning vocabulary, I give up. *
44. If I feel bored or frustrated while
2.1
learning vocabulary, I take a break or I
remind myself that vocabulary is
important, and then I go on.
Note: The percentages have been rounded.
Responses (%)
3
4
5
10.3 38.1 27.8
M
SD
2
8.3
6
12.4
4.16
1.1
15.5
15.5
28.9
24.7
11.3
3.89
1.4
9.3
16.5
39.2
23.7
6.2
3.86
1.2
0
10.3
43.3
33
13.4
4.49
0.8
4.1
11.3
35.1
32
7.2
3.96
1.4
1
11.3
27.9
41.2
13.4
4.39
1.2
11.4
16.7
34.4
19.8
4.2
3.48
1.4
7.2
12.4
39.2
19.6
1
3.33
1.4
6.2
14.4
28.9
35
15.5
4.39
1.1
4.1
10.3
39.2
29.9
14.4
4.34
1.1
1 = I never do that; 2 = I very rarely do that; 3 = I seldom do that;
4 = I sometimes do that; 5 = I often do that; 6 = I always do that;
* Refers to reverse–scored items.
249
APPENDIX E
POST-HOC COMPARISONS BETWEEN PAIRS OF CLUSTER MEANS
Table E1. Learning beliefs: Descriptive table.
Groups of
Beliefs
Cluster
L2 Acquisition
1
2
3
4
Total
N
10
39
34
14
97
Mean
4.9834
4.4187
4.3323
4.0644
4.3955
Std.
Deviation
.32819
.35641
.40957
.25393
.42474
Std. Error
.10378
.05707
.07024
.06786
.04312
Min.
4.17
3.83
3.33
3.67
3.33
Max.
5.33
5.33
5.00
4.50
5.33
Memorization
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.1000
4.1282
4.8971
4.0357
4.4845
.39441
.61471
.44003
.97002
.73404
.12472
.09843
.07546
.25925
.07453
4.50
2.50
4.00
2.00
2.00
5.50
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.50
Context
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.9250
4.5577
3.9706
3.7500
4.2732
.33437
.53638
.45960
.83710
.66434
.10574
.08589
.07882
.22372
.06745
4.50
3.50
3.25
2.25
2.25
5.50
5.50
4.75
5.50
5.50
Studying + Use
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.2666
5.1538
5.3383
4.6429
5.1564
.82859
.34916
.36817
.67260
.52145
.26202
.05591
.06314
.17976
.05295
4.00
4.33
5.00
3.00
3.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.33
6.00
Motivation
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.2502
4.5256
4.3971
3.7739
4.4468
.44614
.37377
.65136
.55708
.63127
.14108
.05985
.11171
.14888
.06409
4.67
3.50
2.67
2.33
2.33
6.00
5.33
5.17
4.83
6.00
Self-Efficacy
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.3999
4.6324
4.2156
3.4524
4.3951
.43887
.40323
.63491
.49978
.72379
.13878
.06457
.10889
.13357
.07349
5.00
3.67
2.67
2.33
2.33
6.00
6.00
5.33
4.00
6.00
250
Table E1. Continued
Expectations
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.5500
4.3974
5.0588
4.0000
4.6907
.43780
.73609
.42220
.75955
.77541
.13844
.11787
.07241
.20300
.07873
5.00
2.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
6.00
5.50
6.00
5.50
6.00
Table E2. Learning beliefs: ANOVA table.
L2 Acquisition
Memorization
Context
Studying + Use
Motivation
Self-Efficacy
Expectations
Sum of
Squares
df
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.148
12.170
3
93
17.319
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
17.346
34.381
3
93
51.727
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
14.351
28.019
3
93
42.370
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
4.937
21.166
3
93
26.103
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
13.121
25.135
3
93
38.256
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
25.829
24.462
3
93
50.292
96
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
22.025
35.697
3
93
57.722
96
251
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
1.716
.131
13.113
.000
5.782
.370
15.640
.000
4.784
.301
15.878
.000
1.646
.228
7.231
.000
4.374
.270
16.182
.000
8.610
.263
32.733
.000
7.342
.384
19.127
.000
Table E3. Learning beliefs: Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD).
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Dependent
Variable
(I)
(J)
Mean
Difference
(I–J)
L2 Acquisition
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.5647(*)
.6511(*)
.9190(*)
–.5647(*)
.08639
.3544(*)
–.6511(*)
–.0864
.2680
–.9190(*)
–.3544(*)
–.2680
.128
.130
.150
.128
.085
.113
.130
.085
.115
.150
.113
.115
.000
.000
.000
.000
.739
.012
.000
.739
.098
.000
.012
.098
0.229
0.311
0.527
–0.900
–0.136
0.060
–0.992
–0.308
–0.033
–1.311
–0.649
–0.568
0.900
0.992
1.311
–0.229
0.308
0.649
–0.311
0.136
0.568
–0.527
–0.060
0.033
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.9718(*)
.20294
1.0643(*)
–.9718(*)
–.7688(*)
.0925
–.2029
.7688(*)
.8613(*)
–1.0643(*)
–.0925
–.8613(*)
.216
.219
.252
.216
.143
.189
.219
.143
.193
.252
.189
.193
.000
.790
.000
.000
.000
.962
.790
.000
.000
.000
.962
.000
0.408
–0.369
0.406
–1.536
–1.142
–0.403
–0.775
0.396
0.356
–1.723
–0.588
–1.367
1.536
0.775
1.723
–0.408
–0.396
0.588
0.369
1.142
1.367
–0.406
0.403
–0.356
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.3673
.9544(*)
1.1750(*)
–.3673
.5871(*)
.8077(*)
–.9544(*)
–.5871(*)
.2206
.195
.197
.227
.195
.129
.171
.197
.129
.174
.240
.000
.000
.240
.000
.000
.000
.000
.587
–0.142
0.438
0.581
–0.876
0.250
0.360
–1.471
–0.924
–0.235
0.876
1.471
1.770
0.142
0.924
1.255
–0.438
–0.250
0.677
2
3
4
Memorization
1
2
3
4
Context
1
2
3
252
Std.
Error
Sig.
Table E3. Continued
Studying + Use
4
1
2
3
–1.1750(*)
–.8077(*)
–.2206
.227
.171
.174
.000
.000
.587
–1.770
–1.255
–0.677
–0.581
–0.360
0.235
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.1128
–.0717
.6237(*)
–.1127
–.1844
.5109(*)
.0717
.1844
.6953(*)
–.6237(*)
–.5109(*)
–.6953(*)
.169
.172
.198
.169
.112
.149
.172
.112
.151
.198
.149
.151
.909
.975
.011
.909
.357
.005
.975
.357
.000
.011
.005
.000
–0.330
–0.521
0.107
–0.555
–0.477
0.122
–0.377
–0.108
0.299
–1.140
–0.900
–1.092
0.555
0.377
1.140
0.330
0.108
0.900
0.521
0.477
1.092
–0.107
–0.122
–0.299
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.7246(*)
.8531(*)
1.4763 (*)
–.7246(*)
.1285
.7518(*)
–.8531(*)
–.1285
.6233(*)
–1.4763(*)
–.7518(*)
–.6233(*)
.184
.187
.215
.184
.122
.162
.187
.122
.165
.215
.162
.165
.001
.000
.000
.001
.718
.000
.000
.718
.002
.000
.000
.002
0.242
0.364
0.913
–1.207
–0.191
0.328
–1.342
–0.448
0.191
–2.039
–1.176
–1.055
1.207
1.342
2.039
–0.242
0.448
1.176
–0.364
0.191
1.055
–0.913
–0.328
–0.191
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.7675(*)
1.1843(*)
1.9475(*)
–.7675(*)
.4168(*)
1.1800(*)
–1.1843(*)
–.4168 (*)
.7632(*)
.182
.184
.212
.182
.120
.160
.184
.120
.163
.000
.000
.000
.000
.004
.000
.000
.004
.000
0.292
0.702
1.392
–1.243
0.102
0.762
–1.667
–0.732
0.337
1.243
1.667
2.503
–0.292
0.732
1.598
–0.702
–0.102
1.189
2
3
4
Motivation
1
2
3
4
Self-Efficacy
1
2
3
253
Table E3. Continued
Expectations
4
1
2
3
–1.947 (*)
–1.1800(*)
–.7632(*)
.212
.160
.163
.000
.000
.000
–2.503
–1.598
–1.189
–1.392
–0.762
–0.337
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
1.1526(*)
.4912
1.5500(*)
–1.1526
–.6614(*)
.3974
–.4912
.6614(*)
1.0588(*)
–1.5500(*)
–.3974
–1.0588(*)
.220
.223
.257
.220
.145
.193
.223
.145
.197
.257
.193
.197
.000
.130
.000
.000
.000
.174
.130
.000
.000
.000
.174
.000
0.578
–0.092
0.879
–1.727
–1.042
–0.108
–1.074
0.281
0.544
–2.221
–0.902
–1.574
1.727
1.074
2.221
–0.578
–0.281
0.902
0.092
1.042
1.574
–0.879
0.108
–0.544
2
3
4
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
254
Table E4. Learning strategies: Descriptive table.
Groups of
Strategies
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Cluster
N
Word List
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.580
4.110
4.065
3.914
4.114
1.331
.672
.803
.976
.851
Oral Repetition
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.350
4.744
4.971
4.786
4.892
Written Repetition
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
Associations
1
2
3
4
Total
Imagery
Std.
Error
Min.
Max.
.421
.108
.138
.261
.086
2.600
3.000
2.800
1.800
1.800
6.000
5.800
6.000
5.200
6.000
.580
.595
.590
.975
.674
.183
.095
.101
.261
.068
4.500
2.500
3.500
3.000
2.500
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
5.100
4.385
4.221
3.929
4.335
.810
.921
1.214
.646
1.025
.256
.147
.208
.173
.104
3.500
2.500
1.500
2.000
1.500
6.000
6.000
6.000
4.500
6.000
10
39
34
14
97
4.160
3.863
3.466
3.400
3.688
.497
.743
.944
.773
.833
.157
.119
.162
.206
.085
3.400
2.200
1.200
2.000
1.200
4.800
5.250
4.800
4.400
5.250
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
3.567
3.598
2.824
2.905
3.223
1.155
.883
.850
.800
.954
.365
.141
.146
.214
.097
1.333
1.000
1.000
1.667
1.000
4.667
5.000
4.667
4.333
5.000
Visual Encoding
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.550
4.218
3.853
3.821
4.067
.550
.857
.821
1.103
.880
.174
.137
.141
.295
.089
3.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
1.500
5.500
5.500
5.000
5.500
5.500
Semantic Encoding
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.600
4.269
4.103
3.321
4.108
.658
.818
.824
1.067
.905
.208
.131
.141
.285
.092
3.500
3.000
2.000
1.000
1.000
5.500
6.000
5.500
4.500
6.000
255
Table E4. Continued
Contextual
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.800
4.692
4.304
4.274
4.507
.526
.486
.915
.412
.690
.166
.078
.157
.110
.070
4.000
3.667
1.000
3.500
1.000
5.667
5.667
5.667
5.000
5.667
Word Structure
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.250
3.487
3.279
3.143
3.443
1.359
.956
.994
1.046
1.055
.430
.153
.170
.279
.107
2.000
2.000
1.500
2.000
1.500
5.500
6.000
5.000
4.500
6.000
Dictionary
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
5.467
5.188
5.333
4.881
5.223
.592
.653
.597
.873
.675
.187
.104
.102
.233
.069
4.667
3.333
3.667
3.333
3.333
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
Note–taking
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.800
4.769
4.363
4.262
4.557
.740
.593
1.052
.944
.862
.234
.095
.180
.252
.087
3.667
3.667
2.333
2.667
2.333
6.000
6.000
6.000
5.333
6.000
Guessing
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.800
4.404
4.029
4.196
4.284
.864
.512
.832
.861
.755
.273
.082
.143
.230
.077
3.250
3.250
2.500
2.500
2.500
5.750
5.750
5.750
5.250
5.750
Activation
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.700
4.274
3.794
3.952
4.103
.728
.848
.960
.951
.927
.230
.136
.165
.254
.094
3.667
2.667
1.667
2.333
1.667
5.667
5.667
5.667
5.333
5.667
Technology
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.033
3.500
3.833
3.929
3.734
1.047
1.083
.915
.898
1.002
.331
.173
.157
.240
.102
2.667
1.000
1.000
2.667
1.000
5.333
5.333
5.667
5.333
5.667
256
Table E4. Continued
Affective
1
2
3
4
Total
10
39
34
14
97
4.950
4.333
4.412
3.929
4.366
257
.832
.611
.965
1.016
.859
.263
.098
.166
.272
.087
3.500
3.500
2.000
2.000
2.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
6.000
Table E5. Learning strategies: ANOVA table.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Word List
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2.813
66.727
69.540
3
93
96
.938
.717
1.307
.277
Oral
Repetition
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.325
40.289
43.613
3
93
96
1.108
.433
2.558
.060
Written
Repetition
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.706
92.155
100.861
3
93
96
2.902
.991
2.929
.038
Associations
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
6.254
60.336
66.590
3
93
96
2.085
.649
3.213
.026
Imagery
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
13.517
73.767
87.284
3
93
96
4.506
.793
5.680
.001
Visual
Encoding
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.624
68.691
74.314
3
93
96
1.875
.739
2.538
.061
Semantic
Encoding
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
12.097
66.516
78.613
3
93
96
4.032
.715
5.638
.001
Contextual
Encoding
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
4.361
41.301
45.663
3
93
96
1.454
.444
3.274
.025
Word
Structure
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.760
98.178
106.938
3
93
96
2.920
1.056
2.766
.046
Dictionary
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
2.694
41.030
43.724
3
93
96
.898
.441
2.035
.114
258
Table E5. Continued
Note–taking
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
4.852
66.415
71.267
3
93
96
1.617
.714
2.265
.086
Guessing
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
5.534
49.170
54.704
3
93
96
1.845
.529
3.489
.019
Activation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
8.262
74.255
82.517
3
93
96
2.754
.798
3.449
.020
Technology
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
3.897
92.575
96.472
3
93
96
1.299
.995
1.305
.277
Affective
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
6.202
64.556
70.758
3
93
96
2.067
.694
2.978
.035
259
Table E6. Learning strategies: Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD).
Sig.
.4697
.5153
.6657
–.4697
.0456
.1960
–.5153
–.0456
.1504
–.6657
–.1960
–.1504
.300
.305
.351
.300
.199
.264
.305
.199
.269
.351
.264
.269
.121
.094
.061
.121
.819
.460
.094
.819
.577
.061
.460
.577
–.126
–.090
–.031
–1.066
–.349
–.328
–1.120
–.440
–.384
–1.362
–.720
–.685
1.066
1.120
1.362
.126
.440
.720
.090
.349
.685
.031
.328
.384
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.6064(*)
.3794
.5643(*)
–.6064(*)
–.2270
–.0421
–.3794
.2270
.1849
–.5643(*)
.0421
–.1849
.233
.237
.273
.233
.154
.205
.237
.154
.209
.273
.205
.209
.011
.112
.041
.011
.145
.838
.112
.145
.379
.041
.838
.379
.143
–.091
.023
–1.070
–.534
–.449
–.850
–.080
–.230
–1.105
–.365
–.600
1.070
.850
1.105
–.143
.080
.365
.091
.534
.600
–.023
.449
.230
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.7154(*)
.8794(*)
1.1714(*)
–.7154(*)
.1640
.4560
–.8794(*)
–.1640
.2920
.353
.358
.412
.353
.234
.310
.358
.234
.316
.045
.016
.006
.045
.484
.145
.016
.484
.358
.015
.168
.353
–1.416
–.300
–.160
–1.591
–.628
–.336
1.416
1.591
1.990
–.015
.628
1.072
–.168
.300
.920
(J)
Word List
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
2
3
4
Oral Repetition
1
2
3
4
Written Repetition
1
2
3
95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
Std.
Error
Dependent Variable (I)
1
Mean
Difference
(I–J)
260
Table E6. Continued
4
Associations
1
2
3
4
Imagery
1
2
3
4
Visual Encoding
1
2
3
1
–1.1714(*)
.412
.006
–1.990
–.353
2
–.4560
.310
.145
–1.072
.160
3
–.2920
.316
.358
–.920
.336
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.2972
.6938(*)
.7600(*)
–.2972
.3967(*)
.4628
–.6938(*)
–.3966(*)
.0662
–.7600(*)
–.4628
–.0662
.286
.290
.333
.286
.189
.251
.290
.189
.256
.333
.251
.256
.301
.019
.025
.301
.039
.068
.019
.039
.796
.025
.068
.796
–.270
.118
.098
–.864
.021
–.036
–1.269
–.772
–.442
–1.422
–.961
–.574
.864
1.269
1.422
.270
.772
.961
–.118
–.021
.574
–.098
.036
.442
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
–.0315
.7432(*)
.6621
.0315
.7747(*)
.6936(*)
–.7432(*)
–.7747(*)
–.0811
–.6621
–.6936(*)
.0811
.316
.320
.369
.316
.209
.277
.320
.209
.283
.369
.277
.283
.921
.023
.076
.921
.000
.014
.023
.000
.775
.076
.014
.775
–.658
.107
–.070
–.595
.360
.143
–1.379
–1.190
–.643
–1.394
–1.245
–.480
.595
1.379
1.394
.658
1.190
1.245
–.107
–.360
.480
.070
–.143
.643
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.3321
.6971(*)
.7286(*)
–.3321
.3650
.3965
–.6971(*)
–.3650
.0315
.305
.309
.356
.305
.202
.268
.309
.202
.273
.279
.027
.043
.279
.074
.142
.027
.074
.908
–.273
.083
.022
–.937
–.035
–.135
–1.311
–.765
–.510
.937
1.311
1.435
.273
.765
.928
–.083
.035
.573
261
Table E6. Continued
Semantic Encoding
4
1
2
3
–.7286(*)
–.3965
–.0315
.356
.268
.273
.043
.142
.908
–1.435
–.928
–.573
–.022
.135
.510
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.3308
.4971
1.2786(*)
–.3308
.1663
.9478(*)
–.4971
–.1663
.7815(*)
–1.2786(*)
–.9478(*)
–.7815(*)
.300
.304
.350
.300
.198
.263
.304
.198
.269
.350
.263
.269
.273
.106
.000
.273
.404
.001
.106
.404
.005
.000
.001
.005
–.265
–.107
.583
–.926
–.228
.425
–1.101
–.560
.248
–1.974
–1.471
–1.315
.926
1.101
1.974
.265
.560
1.471
.107
.228
1.315
–.583
–.425
–.248
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.1076
.4960(*)
.5261
–.1076
.3884(*)
.4185(*)
–.4960(*)
–.3884(*)
.0301
–.5261
–.4185(*)
–.0301
.236
.240
.276
.236
.156
.208
.240
.156
.212
.276
.208
.212
.650
.041
.060
.650
.015
.047
.041
.015
.887
.060
.047
.887
–.361
.020
–.022
–.577
.078
.006
–.972
–.699
–.390
–1.074
–.831
–.450
.577
.972
1.074
.361
.699
.831
–.020
–.078
.450
.022
–.006
.390
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.7628(*)
.9706(*)
1.1071(*)
–.7628(*)
.2078
.3443
–.9706(*)
–.2078
.1366
.364
.370
.425
.364
.241
.320
.370
.241
.326
.039
.010
.011
.039
.391
.285
.010
.391
.677
.040
.237
.262
–1.486
–.271
–.291
–1.705
–.686
–.511
1.486
1.705
1.952
–.040
.686
.980
–.237
.271
.784
2
3
4
Contextual
Encoding
1
2
3
4
Word Structure
1
2
3
262
Table E6. Continued
Dictionary
4
1
2
3
–1.107(*)
–.3443
–.1366
.425
.320
.326
.011
.285
.677
–1.952
–.980
–.784
–.262
.291
.511
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.2786
.1333
.5857(*)
–.2786
–.1454
.3071
–.1333
.1454
.4524(*)
–.5857(*)
–.3071
–.4524(*)
.235
.239
.275
.235
.156
.207
.239
.156
.211
.275
.207
.211
.240
.578
.036
.240
.353
.141
.578
.353
.035
.036
.141
.035
–.189
–.341
.040
–.746
–.455
–.104
–.608
–.164
.034
–1.132
–.718
–.871
.746
.608
1.132
.189
.164
.718
.341
.455
.871
–.040
.104
–.034
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.0307
.4373
.5382
–.0307
.4066(*)
.5075
–.4373
–.4066(*)
.1009
–.5382
–.5075
–.1009
.300
.304
.350
.300
.198
.263
.304
.198
.268
.350
.263
.268
.919
.154
.127
.919
.043
.057
.154
.043
.708
.127
.057
.708
–.564
–.166
–.157
–.626
.013
–.015
–1.041
–.800
–.432
–1.233
–1.030
–.634
.626
1.041
1.233
.564
.800
1.030
.166
–.013
.634
.157
.015
.432
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.3962
.7706(*)
.6036(*)
–.3962
.3744(*)
.2074
–.7706(*)
–.3744(*)
–.1670
.258
.262
.301
.258
.171
.227
.262
.171
.231
.128
.004
.048
.128
.031
.362
.004
.031
.471
–.116
.251
.006
–.908
.036
–.242
–1.290
–.713
–.626
.908
1.290
1.201
.116
.713
.657
–.251
–.036
.292
2
3
4
Note–taking
1
2
3
4
Guessing
1
2
3
263
Table E6. Continued
Activation
4
1
2
3
–.6036(*)
–.2074
.1670
.301
.227
.231
.048
.362
.471
–1.201
–.657
–.292
–.006
.242
.626
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.4264
.9059(*)
.7477(*)
–.4264
.4795(*)
.3213
–.9059(*)
–.4795(*)
–.1582
–.7477(*)
–.3213
.1582
.317
.321
.370
.317
.210
.278
.321
.210
.284
.370
.278
.284
.181
.006
.046
.181
.024
.251
.006
.024
.578
.046
.251
.578
–.203
.268
.013
–1.055
.063
–.232
–1.544
–.896
–.722
–1.482
–.874
–.405
1.055
1.544
1.482
.203
.896
.874
–.268
–.063
.405
–.013
.232
.722
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
1
2
3
.5334
.2001
.1048
–.5334
–.3333
–.4286
–.2001
.3333
–.0952
–.1048
.4286
.0952
.354
.359
.413
.354
.234
.311
.359
.234
.317
.413
.311
.317
.135
.579
.800
.135
.158
.171
.579
.158
.764
.800
.171
.764
–.169
–.513
–.715
–1.236
–.798
–1.046
–.913
–.132
–.724
–.925
–.189
–.534
1.236
.913
.925
.169
.132
.189
.513
.798
.534
.715
1.046
.724
2
3
4
1
3
4
1
2
4
.6167(*)
.5382
1.0214(*)
–.6167(*)
–.0784
.4048
–.5382
.0784
.4832
.295
.300
.345
.295
.195
.260
.300
.195
.265
.040
.076
.004
.040
.689
.122
.076
.689
.071
.030
–.057
.336
–1.203
–.467
–.111
–1.133
–.310
–.042
1.203
1.133
1.706
–.030
.310
.920
.057
.467
1.009
2
3
4
Technology
1
2
3
4
Affective
1
2
3
264
Table E6. Continued
4
1
2
3
–1.0214(*)
–.4048
–.4832
.345
.260
.265
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
265
.004
.122
.071
–1.706
–.920
–1.009
–.336
.111
.042
APPENDIX F
STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
Table F1. Students’ responses to the question Imagine that you have to learn several new
words for tomorrow’s class. Describe the methods you would use for this task.
•
I find that flashcards work well for helping me memorize new vocabulary. I also like
to repeatedly write out the new words to cement the spelling and structure into my
memory. Repetition is my preferred study method.
•
Rewrite them with translations in my native language; use them in sentences that I
would expect to use. Finding phonetic similarities. If I think it sounds
funny/entertaining I would probably just repeat it a lot.
•
Make flashcards for each vocabulary word and drill myself aloud, then write the
words in Russian three times each with an English translation below them; repeat
until I feel I have learned the words adequately.
•
Repeat them over and over, individually and in sentences where they make sense.
•
I'd likely copy them many times over in my notebook into a 'glossary' area while
saying the words aloud initially – and time permitting make flash cards for study
throughout the day, always emphasizing vocal articulation of the lexical item while
studying.
•
First, I would make flashcards (to know the spelling). Then I would practice saying
them all aloud in Russian. Finally, I would practice until I knew all of the words.
•
Listening to pronunciation, flash cards, using the words in sentences.
•
Seeing the printed words and mastering the pronunciation and sounds, then I would
practice writing them in cursive.
•
Flash cards with the English words and the Russian words and then being sure to say
these words out loud at least four times.
•
First, read the words and their meanings. Then write them down, read them again,
and listen to their pronunciations. Practice saying them aloud and writing them
properly. Read them again before class.
•
Look at a list with English on one side and Russian on the other. I will read the
words out loud too and listen to my teacher or another native speaker.
266
Table F1. Continued
•
Writing it down multiple times, saying it aloud, using them on random people that
don't even understand ☺
•
The letters are distinct and I may try to relate the meaning to the form of the letters. I
would them try and match them via notecards from English to printed Russian. From
there I would try writing the cursive Russian from the printed Russian while still
trying to match the words.
•
I would write down the words and their translations on flash cards and quiz myself
with them whenever I had time.
•
Make a flash card for each word – English on one side, print and cursive Cyrillic on
the other. Write the words in cursive and say the word as I flip through the English
words. Then check. When I get it perfect, set it aside and focus on other words.
•
If the words are relatively easy (cognates, familiar root words, etc.) I likely would
just look over them a few times as I have a photographic memory and little difficulty
memorizing. If they are unfamiliar, I would write each word 10 times while
pronouncing it in my head and imagining the idea (not the English equivalent) of the
word to associate it with the concept instead of translation. I would quiz myself, and
repeat for the ones that I mess up on or am not 100% comfortable with.
•
I would use flash cards, Google translate, and write the transliteration so I can
visually see it in English how it would be pronounced.
•
I would list them out, make flashcards, or if possible, find the objects and use them.
•
STUDYING, flashcards, practice.
•
I would list them out next to their English equivalents, copy them down several
times, use them in sentences, and finally, make flashcards.
•
Create flashcards with English on one side and Russian on the other. Then simply
drill the words over and over from English to Russian and from Russian to English.
Once I felt proficient and I could remember them fairly well, I would mix the cards
up and maybe add in cards with other words I already knew and drill through them
some more.
•
I tend to find it most useful to write them down several times while practicing
pronunciation. I will practice both writing the word down and saying it until both are
consistent.
267
Table F1. Continued
•
Flash cards, post them on my wall with English translations and match them with the
corresponding translation.
•
Use Quizlet to understand what it means, write it 10x each to learn how to spell it,
then get my tutor to give me a spelling test and speak to me in Russian so I know
how to use this word in context and to hear it in context.
•
I would try to repeatedly expose myself to the sound and spelling of the words and
test my ability to remember them. I would then try to replicate them myself by
writing and speaking. Virtual flashcards would be helpful.
•
I would probably write the words in English and Russian on a piece of paper or
flashcards and test myself by looking at the words in one language and guessing the
meaning in the other. When presented with the word in English, I would also write
it down to practice the spelling before looking to see if I was right.
•
I would write them on note cards and study the flash cards until I knew the words.
•
I use flashcards for virtually everything. Vocabulary isn't something that just sticks
with me, so repetition is very helpful.
•
Read them through, write them down, and while doing both of these sound them out
to the best of my ability.
•
Read them, speak them a couple times until I am fluent at them.
•
Flashcards, repetition, maybe study games if I had any friends in the class.
•
Practice, practice, practice!
•
I will look in my book and workbook, hopefully completing several exercises using
the words in a familiar context. After that, I would put the words in a list if I am still
having trouble and simply start going through the list in an attempt to learn them. I
would learn them in order, forwards and backwards, and then move to out of order
to make sure they stick and I know what they mean.
•
Go over words over and over until I can speak them.
•
Writing words over and over in Russian and English while saying the word each
time maybe 5-10 times depending how hard the word is.
268
Table F1. Continued
•
I would first create flash card, then flip through them until I was completely familiar
with the material. Next I would use the textbook to learn context and grammar in
order to take a step closer to fluency.
•
I would write them all down either on notebook paper or flashcards, then continue to
go through them over and over. Afterwards I see what I can remember by quizzing
myself on what means what in English and then backwards into Russian.
•
Memorization through note cards, as well as practicing with classmates.
•
I will write them, speak them, and repeat.
•
I will use flash cards and study them.
•
Flash cards, have a friend quiz me, speak the words.
•
Flash cards and constant repetition, vocally when I can and mentally when I can't.
When it comes to Russian, because it's written in Cyrillic, I would write the words as
often as I can.
•
I'm a big fan of flashcardmachine.com. I would make flashcards and practice saying
the words out loud before checking the definitions.
•
Make notecards of the words and practice using those.
•
Flash cards for the written portion, and repetition of the words orally.
•
Memorize each word and try to associate them with English words to make it easier
to remember them.
•
Read and write over and over; practice speaking and double-check pronunciation by
listening to actual speakers.
•
Repetition and flash cards.
•
I would write down the words and their translations on flash cards and quiz myself
with them whenever I had time.
•
Flashcards and sound files.
269
Table F1. Continued
•
I would write the words out, speak them while listening to a translator.
•
Writing them out, verbal repetition, attending a Russian conversation group.
•
Flash cards or writing sentences.
•
Online flashcards.
•
Use the words. Imagine how one would use them. Turn them around in your head
and play with them. IF you can KNOW the word as easily as you can know the word
in English, you'll have no troubles. But that's a big if. I can hardly manage it on the
best of days, and yet I still haven't found a better method. To be honest, I've been
having a really difficult time, and though it's fun, I often feel as though my efforts
are inadequate.
•
I will create flashcards, write out the words, and use the Quizlet study games.
•
Make flash cards and write words down repeatedly.
•
I would look over the methods described in the book. After studying my textbook
for ten-twenty minutes I would then look over my notes for ten minutes. After
studying my own notes, I would combine my notes and the textbook's methods to
study for an additional twenty minutes.
•
Flashcards, memorization.
•
I will write down and follow the words.
•
Teach Russian to my roommate.
•
For Portuguese and French I have been using Duolingo, which is a program that
gives sentences to translate and with the repetition of sentences I am able to build
my vocabulary. I tend to pretend that I am speaking with a Brazilian (Neymar) and
that works to keep me motivated, and it helps me create sentences. I also use
repetition of sentences with Arabic and Korean. Since both have a different alphabet
and strange sounds, constantly repeating sentences over and over again helps with
pronunciation. Often times I image situations where I could use those sentences (this
is different from translating sentences and using those words to create sentences.
Here I learn sentences to use). I am not very far in both languages. And with Arabic,
Russian, and Korean, I currently have difficultly associating the letters with the
sounds. Also songs work for building vocabulary. I can memorize and retain all the
lyrics of a song faster than a list of vocabulary words
270
Table F2. Students’ responses to the question You have been studying Russian for almost
a semester. Have you changed any of your methods of learning vocabulary?
•
I still do it the same way. I make myself quizzes with all the words on it and I
translate them multiple times. Until my hand hurts from so much writing.
•
I haven't' really changed anything. I learn best by listening and being quizzed on
words and vocab, and I learn grammar best by practicing.
•
I need to study vocally more frequently – practicing using vocab with Russian
speakers.
•
I have started quizzing myself. It gives me a better idea of how well I know what
we are learning than making flashcards.
•
I have changed the way I study vocab. I focus now on memorizing not just the
sound, but also the spelling of the words. The spelling has been the hardest part of
learning vocabulary.
•
I've spent more time studying it. I use the companion site to listen to the proper way
of pronouncing words and try to do my best at being fluent in the words I do know.
•
I went from just reading the vocab lists to making vocab cards. I need to practice
my oral skills. I think that would help my retention.
•
I think I write it more often, just in practice, to try to get it in my head.
•
I find that I am constantly having to go back and review old chapters and
vocabulary. The words are so complex that it is difficult to memorize such a
numerous amount of words effectively at one time.
•
I study more of the key vocab now and less of the obscure ones.
•
I have changed how I study in that I usually find it best to study with a partner, or
better yet, a native speaker. Since this is difficult to arrange, I usually use Quizzlet.
Most of the vocabulary I know is vocabulary used often in class and on homework.
•
I actually started studying, sort of, because we don't talk about vocab in class.
•
I have not. I find repetition with flash cards or apps like Quizlet is very useful.
•
I have started doing the new vocab the day we are given it instead of last minute.
•
Yes. At the beginning of the semester, I really didn't study vocab that much. Now, I
make flashcards and quiz myself daily.
271
Table F2. Continued
•
Yes, I make more flashcards.
•
I write my vocabulary words even more than I used to, in order to learn them all
efficiently.
•
I just look at the textbook and repeat the words to myself, which is what I had done
at the beginning of the year. If there are more words to memorize, I may need to
make a quizlet or make flashcards.
•
More time spent on vocab. Lots of vocab to learn. I study more frequently now.
•
I have begun to listen to the words more frequently, so I am able to recognize them,
not only on paper, but in spoken language as well.
•
The only thing I do is go over the words again and again, and I attempt to write
them down. If I get the word/spelling right, I check it off and move on. If I get it
wrong, I mark it/erase it and go back to it later for another attempt. In the past I
didn't study them much at all besides just looking over the list.
•
I have put the Russian vocab words on notecards with the English translation on the
other side. This has proven to be the best way to study for vocab quizzes.
•
Repetition is key. The only thing I would change would be the amount of time I
spend studying.
•
I need to practice the spelling of the vocab words; I know the definitions but mix
up some of the letters.
•
I read the vocab lists more.
•
I use more notecards because it helps me to write things down.
•
Rather than rote repetition I've moved on to trying to write sentences that use new
vocabulary words in their proper context, as it seems to be more effective.
•
Yes I have reviewed and studied for much longer with a variety of techniques
•
I have had to study more vocab and I have been listening to more vocab. I find that
listening to it is very helpful.
272
Table F2. Continued
•
Yes, I study every night to memorize vocabulary.
•
I don't think that I have been in Russian long enough to have gone through multiple
study habits.
•
I learned that consistency was important in learning the language.
•
I try to learn it as early as possible, I changed when we stopped using cognates in
the vocabulary.
•
I review the vocabulary in the book more heavily because it helps me remember
everything better.
•
I now study with people, and listening to the words being spoken definitely helps
with comprehension. I now try to pair up words when I speak in English. So, I'll
say I hate Mondays in English and try to think of the equivalent in Russian.
•
I continue to use flash cards. The way I study has helped me to do well in every
language I have studied.
•
I had to study the vocab for couple of hours each day.
•
Keeping a vocabulary diary, adding a Russian keyboard to my phone to implement
the language in my everyday use.
•
I have not changed my methods. Repetition is still the best method for me.
•
I haven't changed much, but I made this book with all the vocab and endings and
rules. It's easier to find in there than searching through the textbook.
•
Yes, doing things a few days before.
•
Memrise.com is something that has been working wonders. I have since learned
how to type in Russian and for some reason I remember certain words better by
typing.
•
I review new material every day and try to practice speaking every day as well.
•
My studying methods have mostly stayed the same, but I have set aside more time
to try to speak through and especially write down new verbs and their conjugations,
as the forms of verbs has become more complex. I also have spent extra time
studying the new cases we have learned.
273
Table F2. Continued
•
I started the beginning of the year by using flash cards and reading the chapters in
the book and it was successful for me, so I will continue to do that.
•
I have tried to become better at memorizing the vocabulary as it has increased in
difficulty and variety. Overall, my study habits have remained the same though.
•
I try to say the words out loud more while doing home work.
•
Nope! My way of studying vocabulary (flashcards) is very efficient for me.
•
I need to. After coming back from Thanksgiving break, a sizable portion of my
meager vocabulary was missing, so my memorization strategies are not working
very well for long term.
•
My strategies worked well at the beginning and I've stuck with them. I haven't
made any changes yet.
•
No changes. Still study vocabulary by using flashcards.
•
No major changes, I've used note-cards all semester and they have been useful for
me.
•
No, I still study with flash cards and it is very effective.
•
I used to just look at the book. Now I rely heavily on flash cards.
•
I've started using more flash cards and writing my words down in a notebook.
•
No, but due to the level of difficulty, I have increased my time studying.
•
No, straight flash cards. I have discovered no other methods.
•
I have kept using flashcards to learn new vocab.
•
I went from online flashcards to hand-written flashcards. They help me to read
cursive and remember words better.
•
I have stopped making flashcards because I don't have enough time.
•
At the beginning of the semester, I studied more with a classmate, but we've both
become busier so that's not happening as much. Mostly now I just study on my own
by going over words or concepts until I feel like I know them.
274
Table F2. Continued
•
There was a change for a moment where I actually did not study as much and it
affected my scores, but I fixed that.
•
I think I need to go back to flashcards for some of the words, so that way they won't
be in alphabetical order like they are in the book.
•
I use quizlet now
•
I think what I do works, it's just a lot of work and practice.
•
I've definitely tried to implement the words I'm using more often because I've
found the meaning sticks better for me, although I still look at the lists to study.
•
I think I'll have to switch back to flashcards because now I only do writing.
•
Yes. In high school, I could cram for my Spanish vocab tests the night before, but I
can't do that with Russian. It is not nearly as easy. I need to space them out.
•
The way I study now is fine for vocabulary quizzes and exams, but if I want to
actually learn Russian (which I do), I need to put a lot more effort into it.
•
I tried learning my vocabulary by writing the word in all the other languages I
knew. That way I could see some similarities across the words. I thought this would
help instead of just flashcards. The method didn't really work at all. I think mostly
because the vocabulary is not very similar, and so I get a little messed up. Russian
vocabulary is just difficult and also I do not feel like I study enough because of the
amount of time I have or better said don’t have...
•
I study it every day about 20 words at a time so that I can remember the words
better.
•
I stopped relying so much on flashcard software and instead switched to simple
repetitive writing and reading exercises. I felt that the flashcard software was time
consuming and that it didn't always easily fit into my schedule.
•
I write the words down like 20x just to see if muscle memory would work better.
•
I had started using flashcards, but they were too time consuming and I stopped.
This was not really a change for the better, as I did not replace them with any other
studying technique.
•
I review new material every day and try to practice speaking every day as well.
275
Table F3. Students’ responses to the question What would you like your instructor to do
in class to make vocabulary instruction more effective?
•
I think my instructor does very well. I am learning a lot in a very small amount of
time. I never thought I would be able to learn Russian this fast!
•
Maybe go over the hardest words together so the students understand how to say
them or spell them. More sentence-creating activities. I'd like to learn new studying
techniques.
•
I think having a day devoted in my class to strictly learning vocabulary would help.
Even things such as vocabulary test, as much as I hate them, would help force me
to learn the vocabulary.
•
I would like more practice where the instructor introduces words and how to
pronounce them at the beginning of a unit so that students can start to learn them
early on.
•
I would like to know the word building method. Maybe they could test us on how
many words we know or learned from the section so that we can choose what
words we deem valuable to learn.
•
I'm not sure there is enough time in first year to cover grammar as well as
vocabulary.
•
Give more quizzes that are on the syllabus. This forces me to study when I don’t
want to.
•
We don't formally go over vocabulary... At least not anymore. At the beginning of
the semester, my instructor made PowerPoints for vocabulary and that helped a lot.
•
Focus more on conversational application and on English to Russian instead of
Russian to English. More spelling exercises would also be helpful.
•
I think we should more frequently be assigned new word lists to work with.
Whenever we're working with new words, we could include them in in-class
examples. Mastering the new words would be as simple as participating.
•
I think putting the words more in context of each other helps immensely. Learning
a word by reviewing a situation in Russian helps me recall the words when they
come up another time.
•
I would like to have activities just for the vocabulary. Let us form sentences or
phrases with new words. For certain words that are very frequent to the Russian
language, I would like to have 5 very different sentences with them implemented
276
Table F3. Continued
•
Some days I wish we went over vocabulary a little more often, but at the same time
I feel we can be responsible enough to accomplish studying on our own.
•
I love vocabulary instruction and would like to do it more in class. Review
vocabulary frequently. More video or clips that are easy to understand
•
Go over vocab list in class, but to be fare we are pressed for time
•
We have a really fantastic instructor, and I feel the only problem I have with
vocabulary is sometimes applying it while speaking. I would prefer to have more
written examples before applying it while speaking so I can visualize the sentence
structure/word order first.
•
I would like to listen to recordings of native speakers more as well as watch videos
in Russian more.
•
Vocab quiz 5 days a week, Russian to English on Monday, and Russian to English
on Tuesday, and so on. All while assigning segments of the vocabulary.
•
Maybe have more vocab quizzes so I am forced to study them more
•
I believe vocabulary is better learned on your own time. The instructor should
come to the lesson assuming the students have studied their vocabulary.
•
The quizzes are in Russian–English, which I like, but at the same time, I think it
would be more beneficial to make it a little harder (English to Russian) so that it
would make me learn the vocabulary even better
•
Online or mobile applications to learn vocabulary would be fun. Additionally, I
would like more opportunities to practice speaking Russian, since I cannot attend
Russian table.
•
The current instruction is quite effective. I think the exercise where we split into
partners and quiz each other on the vocab at the whiteboard is really helpful when it
comes to memorizing words. I do like, though, starting class every day with ten or
eleven vocab words. It helps me pace myself and not procrastinate. Also, I feel
more prepared for class coming in with new words each day.
•
Vocab handouts are always convenient. Ask students to give the English
translations of the new vocabulary words during class more often.
•
Keep providing more cultural background to vocab words. It really helps me to
remember words when I can picture their context and something interesting about
them.
277
Table F3. Continued
•
Students should be given a list per chapter with common phrases/ chapter phrases so
that they can practice repeating the phrases out loud. In this way, they get used to
word groups and are more likely to be able to recognize the words when someone
else says them, or asks them a question.
•
When studying the vocabulary in class, I like to go over the previous list(s) from
earlier in the week to reinforce the vocabulary. It also helps when similar words
(directions, verbs, animals, etc.) are grouped together in the vocab lists.
•
Probably more use of the words in context. The use of all new vocabulary in example
sentences. Maybe homework activities using the words to remember and go over
more.
•
Having more vocabulary practice in class or some sort of game or competition
relating to the vocabulary. I wish I could have more exercises to review old vocab.
•
I think more in-class repetition would be more helpful. I can practice at home and
believe I have the pronunciation correct, when in reality, my syllables are completely
wrong. Hearing that and cadence are extremely important.
•
Write out the vocabulary with stress, so that I am sure I can both spell and pronounce
each word.
•
I would love to do more in-class activities dealing with vocab. It would be helpful to
play games using the vocabulary words (matching, etc.).
•
I think reviewing vocab would be very effective. Maybe the homework over the
weekend could include reviewing a past week's vocab.
•
Despite my distaste for unnecessary amounts of work and my general dislike towards
vocabulary tests, I don't think that they would necessarily hurt. Of course, it would be
an added assignment to have, but there are ways to make it more efficient. Maybe
what would be helpful is having a unit that you know will take X amount of days, and
then dividing up the words in that unit into smaller vocabulary quizzes throughout a
week. So, for example, if there are 8 days for a single unit, and 50 new words, you
could have a small 6–7 word quiz in each class. This would ensure you cover all the
words, and encourages the students to study the words more often. I think something
else that would be helpful is also telling the students what words they need to know
before hand -- that way they are, at the least, memorizing and learning 6 to 7 new
words each day and with very little stress pertaining to passing/failing and time
consumption. That, to me, seems the most efficient, with the most education gained,
and the lowest possible stress inducing. Also, so long as the students actually follow
the instructions of the instructor, if the words you need to know are given to you
before hand, there really should be very little to no negative impact on a student's
grade
278