Abstract
This paper reports on the learning of English vocabulary by college students (N=60) in mainland China. The purpose of this study was three fold: 1) to identify the pattern of vocabulary learning strategies; 2) to look at the differences in vocabulary learning strategy by gender, major, and self-rated English proficiency; and 3) to find out the vocabulary learning problems, attitudes and beliefs in relation to strategy use. A vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire was used for data collection. Statistical analysis revealed that contextualized activation and management strategies were seldom used. This may lead to difficulties in long-term retention and use of vocabulary, the top two problematic areas in vocabulary learning rated by the participants. Significant differences existed in strategy use by field of study and self-rated proficiency level, not by gender. While strategy use was closely related to students’ attitude, there were discrepancies between strategy use and beliefs about vocabulary learning.
Key words:vocabulary learning strategies; gender; attitude; beliefs; problems
Introduction
Since the mid 1980s, vocabulary learning (VL) has been drawing growing attention from ESL researchers. Particularly, the 1990s witnessed a noticeable number of publications; vocabulary is now a current focus in ESL pedagogy and research. Vocabulary has been increasingly recognized as essential to language use; inadequate vocabulary could lead to learner difficulties in language reception and production. Previous research, which mostly focuses either on specific VL strategies or the overall pattern of VL strategy use, has yielded insightful results. However, what seems to have been neglected is that vocabulary learning is a multidimensional construct, often intertwined with various psycho-physiological, affective and cultural variables.
This paper reports the findings of an empirical investigation of vocabulary learning carried out in mainland China. This study is based on the perspective that vocabulary learning is a complex construct. Specifically, it examined the strategies used by Chinese college learners in relation to learners’ fields of study, beliefs, attitudes and problems in VL. It was hoped that this study could get us closer to a comprehensive understanding of vocabulary learning practices of Chinese learners and provide some implications for both the learning and teaching of VL in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts.
Research Review
Construct of knowing a word
The notion of “context” is central to current research on vocabulary learning, which allows us to see that word learning is not simply a matter of memorization chore. The complexity of knowing an L2 word involves not just the ability to recognize its form (pronunciation, spelling, derivations), or knowing its dictionary meaning; it also entails knowledge of its specific grammatical properties, and collocations, functions (frequency and appropriateness), and the ability to use the word appropriately for actual interaction (Nation, 1990; Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). Oxford and Scarcella (1994) categorize vocabulary learning activities into three types: decontextualized (e.g. word lists, flashcards, dictionary-lookup), partially contextualized (e.g. word grouping, word association/elaboration, physical response) and fully contextualized (i.e. practicing the four language skills in authentic communication activities), which provides a more systematic and research-based approach to vocabulary instruction.
Context is perceived by Beheydt (1987) to be of utmost importance to vocabulary learning from the perspective that learning words is a process of “semantization”, i.e. “a continuing process of getting acquainted with verbal forms in their polysemous diversity within varying contexts” (p.56). What matters in retention of memorized material is neither the ability to remember nor frequency of repetition, but depth and variety of processing. The more varied the processing is, the better learners can remember. Beheydt points out that the semantization process in vocabulary learning is based on a provision of a number of concrete representative usages of each word, the meanings of which are more easily semantized if they are embedded in a meaningful context and stimulated by repetitive mental practice. The more extensive the context, the greater the cognitive support for the semantization to take place. This view of word learning calls upon taking into account the construct of knowing a word and the cognitive process involved in the examination of vocabulary learning.
Strategies and outcomes
Along the lines of the contextualized approach to VL, the concept of “semantic field” challenged the word-by-word approach in vocabulary study. Semantic field is a network of associations, each word of which can be the center of the network radiating in all directions (Crow & Quigley, 1985). Crow and Quigley (1985) claimed that information organized into some type of cognitive categories works better than randomly presented material in terms of the effect on long-term retention. They based this claim on a comparison with the traditional approach to vocabulary instruction. However, Tinkham (1993) warned that grouping new vocabulary in sets of semantically similar words might in fact impede the learning of the words rather than facilitate it.
Another contextualized method that has been discussed by researchers concerns guessing. This technique has been shown to be useful by some researchers (e.g. Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Hulstijin, 1993; Oxford and Scarcella, 1994). However, more authors are cautious in espousing it for vocabulary learning. For example, Laufer and Osimo (1991) and Kelly (2000) maintain that guessing is no substitute for systematic learning of lexis and we have to look at the amount of learning that would result. Luppescu and Day (1993) found that students who used a dictionary scored significantly better on a vocabulary test than students who did not use one. Lawson and Hogben (1996) contended that generating possible meanings for the target words by using cues in the sentence did not establish representations for the meanings of the words. They reasonably argued for the need to distinguish “between the use of context for generation of meaning of a new word and the use of context for acquisition of the meaning for subsequent recall” (p.101). This distinction is a valuable compromise between the two opposing views regarding guessing, which makes it possible for us to examine the actual effect of guessing on word learning.
Although the grammar-translation approach to language learning is no longer a major trend in second language acquisition research, some researchers continue to show concerns about the involvement of first language semantic structures in L2 processing (e.g. Jiang, 2004). There has been an ongoing discussion as to whether translation learning affects VL positively or otherwise. Prince’s experimental study (1996) reveals that translation learning is superior in quantity, but weaker learners are relatively unable to transfer their knowledge into L2 contexts. Grace (2000) notes that L1 translation seems to have a positive effect on both short-term and long-term retention of words. No conclusion has yet been drawn regarding using L1 for semantization.
Long-term retention has received wide attention as one of the greatest problems in learning new words (e.g. Crow & Quigley, 1985; Leeke & Shaw, 2000). The inability to recall known words is experienced not only in the production of spoken or written discourse, but also in comprehension. Laufer and Osimo (1991) grouped methods that reinforce vocabulary retention into four categories: frequency of use; meaningful activities; mnemonic techniques and elaborate processing of words. They suggest that the combination of the quantitative and qualitative methods and establishment of both interlingual and intralingual links contribute to better memory performance.
There seems to be a consensus that both incidental and intentional vocabulary learning are needed for language development (Crow & Quigley, 1985; Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Leeke & Shaw, 2000; Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). Comprehensive input can improve vocabulary learning; however, in order to yield more productive learning results, conscious effort will help produce greater gains. For example, although Leeke and Shaw (2000) has provided some proof of the usefulness of recordkeeping of vocabulary, Hulstijn (1993) notes that making a note of unknown words alone is often not enough.
The pattern of strategy use has been examined in connection with its effect on learning outcomes. Fan (2003) conducted a large-scale investigation on college students in Hong Kong and discovered that those who were the most proficient in English vocabulary used strategies more often than the less proficient students. However, the results of the vocabulary test used in the study may reflect only the students’ passive vocabulary knowledge. Sanaoui (1995) argues that consistent use of certain types of strategies forms an approach to vocabulary learning that may considerably influence the effectiveness of L2 learning. He put VL strategies into two categories: structured and unstructured approach. More recently, Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) found that more frequent and elaborate strategy use was associated with higher levels of achievement in vocabulary learning. Five criterion variables were identified that distinguished among various learner types in terms of their approach to vocabulary study: time; learner independence; vocabulary notes review and dictionary use. Although some individual strategies, such as recordkeeping (Leeke & Shaw, 2000), have been shown to be useful, the consensus is that the combination of strategies is a more powerful approach to vocabulary learning (Hulstijn, 1997).
Vocabulary learning in mainland China
English is regarded as an indispensable tool for academic and career advancement in mainland China, a typical EFL environment characterized by learners who “frequently encounter unknown words in text materials and need to learn and retain the meanings of some of these words for later use”(Lawson & Hogben,1996, p.272). With the growing awareness of communicative competence, along with the wash-back effect of the inclusion of speaking tests in major national English exams, Chinese college learners are increasingly concerned about the effectiveness of their vocabulary learning. However, as observed by Kelly (1990), lexical ignorance is still the single largest obstacle to foreign language learning at the intermediate and advanced stage.
Gu and Johnson (1996) administered a VL questionnaire in mainland China and correlated questionnaire responses with test results. They identified self-initiation and selective attention, contextual guessing, skillful use of dictionaries, note taking, paying attention to word formation, contextual encoding, and activation of newly learned words as positively correlate with the test scores, while visual repetition of new words was found to be the strongest negative predictor of both vocabulary size and general proficiency. This study confirms that strategies aiming at vocabulary retention relate more to vocabulary size than to English proficiency, which raises the issue of the appropriateness of using vocabulary size as the major criterion to assess vocabulary learning effectiveness. Chiang (2004) found through his research work in Taiwan that Chinese learners there tended to use more dictionary strategies and contextual guessing strategies.
The existing evidence indicates that the belief that vocabulary is simply the memorization of separate word forms with fixed meanings is too simplistic and inadequate for the learner to build up his/her lexical knowledge. However, what has been neglected is that the actual beliefs, needs and problems of learners might be connected with strategy use, which in turn will affect effectiveness of the learning process. It was hoped that this study, by taking these factors into account, could present a more comprehensive, context-specific and interpretative framework for vocabulary learning; meanwhile, the scarcity of relevant literature about vocabulary learning in mainland China also necessitates additional research effort in order to obtain a more up-to-date and fuller picture of vocabulary learning practice there.
The Present Study
Research questions
The study described in this article was designed to investigate the current practice of vocabulary learning in China and to examine the approaches to VL. It set out to seek answers to the following research questions:
- What is the overall pattern of VL strategy use of Chinese college learners?
- Are there any differences in the use of VL strategies among these students in relation to field of study, self-rated English proficiency and attitude toward VL?
- Are the problems experienced in VL by Chinese college learners related to the strategy use of VL?
- Are learner beliefs about VL consistent with their strategy use?
Method
Participants
A total of 60 Chinese students from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a major Chinese university, participated in the study. Half the students majored in automation (n = 30) and the others majored in English (n = 30). Twenty three were males and thirty seven were females. The age of the students, who were all sophomores, ranged from 18 to 22, with a mean of 20.18. The participants had been studying English between 6 and 12 years, with a mean of 8.33 years (See Table 1 in Appendices).
Instruments for data collection
The data for this study were collected through an instrument consisting of two sections. The first section was a vocabulary learning questionnaire adapted from Gu and Johnson (1996) and Fan (2003). It contained 28 items pertaining to students’ approaches to vocabulary learning, which were divided into eight categories: dictionary use, rehearsal, management, sources, guessing, encoding, activation and vocabulary perceptions The respondents were asked to rate each strategy statement on a 5-point interval Likert scale in terms of their frequency of use in ascending order ranging from 1(“almost never”) to 5(“almost always”); the intermediate levels were unlabeled. This instrument, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, showed an overall internal consistency of .87 (see Table 2 in Appendices). The second section, in addition to a series of demographic questions about their age, sex, field of study, also contained questions about students’ self-rated proficiency, beliefs, attitudes towards vocabulary and vocabulary learning.
Data collection procedures
The instrument required about 15 minutes to complete and was administered in the students’ regular English class. Before filling out the questionnaire, students were told that their participation was voluntary and their responses would remain confidential; they were also asked to give their opinions as honestly as possible, which was crucial to the success of this investigation.
Data analysis procedures
The data gathered through the questionnaire were coded for statistical analysis to answer the research questions indicated above. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 11.0) was used for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviation, etc.) were applied to obtain patterns of demographic information from the background questionnaire and strategy use. Pearson correlations were computed to evaluate the strategy use in relation to self-rated proficiency and perceptions of VL problems. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in strategy use by gender, self-rated proficiency and attitude to VL.
Results
Overall strategy use
A preliminary examination of the data showed that the average mean of frequency of strategy use ranged from 1.77 to 4.15, with a mean of 3.02 (SD = .52), which indicated an overall medium strategy use. The mean values of all the 28 strategies are presented in Table 3 (see Appendices) in descending order. The most frequently used strategy, also the only one with a mean above 4 was “I pay attention to the pronunciation of a new word” (M = 4.15; SD = .91). Only one strategy item (“I look up new words in an English-English dictionary”) had a mean value below 2 (M =1.77; SD = .95).
Strategy use by field of study
In order to evaluate whether there are significant differences in strategy use between the English majors and non-English majors, an independent-samples t test was calculated to compare the means of these two groups. The test was significant, t(58) = 3.39, p< .05. The English majors (M=3.22; SD= .54) used VL strategies more often than the non-English majors (M=2.81; SD= .40). In addition, the means of English majors for all the eight categories were greater than those of non-English majors (see Table 4 in Appendices). Specifically, the means of four categories were significantly different: perceptions (M=3.84 vs. 3.20; p< .05); activation (M=2.83 vs. 2.28; p< .05); management (M=2.81 vs. 2.32; p< .05); dictionary (M=3.08 vs. 2.53; p <.05). In general, the English majors reported making more use of strategies in vocabulary learning than the non-English majors.
Strategy use by self-rated proficiency
The proficiency of English was self-rated on a five-point scale (“excellent”, “above average”, “average”, “below average”, “poor”). The students were divided into three groups: those with high English proficiency (“excellent” or “above average”; n = 12), those with low English proficiency (“below average” or “poor”; n = 11) and the rest who rated their English proficiency as average (n = 27). An independent samples t test was conducted to assess the difference in VL strategy use between the high-proficiency group and the low-proficiency group. The test was significant, t(21) = -2.00, p <.05 . The high-proficiency group (M = 3.44, SD = .61) on the average used VL strategies more than the low-proficiency group (M = 2.88, SD = .58). The high-proficiency group exceeded the low-proficiency group in all categories (see Table 5 in Appendixes), significantly in dictionary (M =3.40 vs. 2.65 respectively; p< .05) and guessing (M=3.59 vs. 3.00 respectively; p< .05). In general, the results indicated a more frequent use of strategies by students with high English proficiency than those with low proficiency in English.
Relationship between attitude and strategy use
To evaluate the relationship between attitude toward vocabulary learning and strategy use as measured by this survey, a Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between the attitude rating and frequency of strategy use. The results indicated a moderate positive correlation, r = .427; p< .05. Independent samples t test showed that the participants with a positive attitude (4 “I like it” or 5 “I like it very much”) had a significantly higher use of strategies than those with a negative attitude (1“I don’t like it” or 2 “I hate it”) in the four following categories (see Table 6 in Appendixes): dictionary, guessing, activation and management. Overall, students who were more positive towards VL used VL strategies more frequently than those who had a negative attitude towards VL.
Perceptions of problems in relation to strategy use
In order to identify the problems experienced by Chinese college students in vocabulary learning, the participants were asked to rate the degree to which the five problems affected them on a five-point interval scale, ranging from 1(“not a problem”) to 5 (“a major problem”). The overall mean rating of the five problems was 3.10 (SD = .63), indicating an overall medium rating. In descending order by their means, the ratings of the problems were as follows: “I have difficulties increasing my vocabulary” (M = 3.43; SD =1.18); “I forget words I’ve learned” (M = 3.35; SD = .99); “I cannot use words properly” (M = 3.17; SD =1.09); “I cannot handle multiple meanings of words” (M = 2.97; SD =1.12); “I cannot remember new words” (M = 2.57; SD =1.00). Correlation coefficients were computed between the average rating of the problems and the mean strategy use. The results of the correlational analyses show that the correlation was significant, r =-.335; p<.05, which suggested a moderately negative relationship between problem rating and strategy use. Meanwhile, there were moderate negative correlations between the problem rating and the following two categories of VL strategies respectively: activation (r =-.381; p< .05); management (r =-0.376; p< .05). This proved that the more frequently the students used VL strategies, the lower they rated VL problems.
Beliefs of knowing a word
To examine Chinese students’ perceptions of knowing a word, the participants were asked to choose from six statements what they believed word learning entailed. The top two statements were: “I can use the word in speaking and writing” (n = 43; 72%), and “I can use the word in appropriate social situations” (n =36; 60%). The results for the other four in descending order were: “I know the pronunciation of the word” (n =32; 53%); “I know the meaning of the word” (n =30; 50%); “I can spell the word” (n =25; 42%); “I can make sentences with the word” (n =22; 37%). Generally, the meaning and form of a word were not regarded as important as the ability to use the word.
Discussion
The VL strategy pattern of Chinese college learners
The results of the study reveal that the students reported the use of most strategies at the medium level, with perceptions strategies at the highest end of the frequency scale and activation strategies at the lowest end. The least attention paid to activation has also been observed by Gu and Johnson (1996). In contrast, mechanical rehearsal strategies have been widely used among learners. This contrast suggests that decontextualized rote learning is still predominant in VL compared to contextualized processing. Within the category of rehearsal, the more frequent use of oral repetition (M=3.58; SD=1.18) than visual repetition (M=3.32; SD=1.24) is consistent with the findings of Gu and Johnson (1996). Management is another area that has been neglected, which is noteworthy as planning and structured learning can affect the overall effectiveness of vocabulary learning.
The data exposed an excessive dependence on textbooks (M=3.70; SD=1.00), the second top rated strategy, as the source for vocabulary. Learners are less likely to use extracurricular sources (such as listening to English songs, radio programs, watching English movies, reading stories, magazines etc.). As incidental and intentional learning are both essential for language learning, a more balanced structure of vocabulary sources seems more helpful in improving learners’ VL (Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; and Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). This is particularly important for a foreign language learning setting where exposure to the target language is limited.
The sharp contrast between the use of English-English dictionary (M=1.77; SD=0.95) and English-Chinese dictionary (M=3.05; SD=1.14) implies that Chinese learners are not used to thinking in the target language; they are more inclined to turn to L1 for semantization. Similar findings have also been observed by Gu and Johnson (1996) and Fan (2003). Though previous research (Prince, 1996; Jiang, 2004; Grace, 2000) generated inconsistent findings regarding the effect of L1 on word retention, excessive dependence on first language is not beneficial. In addition, the unbalanced attention paid to word form as compared to word usage also exacerbates the disadvantage of limited exposure to a genuine target language situation.
VL strategy use in relation to VL problems and attitude
The negative correlation between overall problem rating and strategy use indicates that the more frequently learners use VL strategies, the fewer problems they will experience in VL. The rating of vocabulary size as the greatest difficulty reflects a pressing need of college learners to enhance the effectiveness of their word learning. The negative correlation between this problem and the frequency of strategy use reveals that conscious vocabulary learning helps increase the number of words at the command of learners. What is also worth mentioning is that problem rating was negatively related with activation and management strategies. The relatively low use of these two types of strategies could have an adverse impact on long-term retention of words while rote learning embodied by rehearsal strategy use might only lead to short-term retention.
It would be helpful to look at the attitude toward VL in order to understand the problems learners encounter. This study reveals that learner attitude directly affects the learning process. While participants with a positive attitude expressed a frequent strategy use in all categories, those with a negative attitude showed a remarkably low use of management, activation and dictionary use. In spite of a strong instrumental motivation to study English for career and educational development, many Chinese college students regard English learning as a formidable task, which prevents them from taking positive measures to improve their VL.
Strategy use by field of study
The results of this study correspond with those of Chiang (2004) in that the English majors generally exceeded non-English majors in their report of overall vocabulary use. A possible explanation is that English majors have a stronger motivation to enhance their VL, which can be proven at least partly by the significant difference in the way the attitude towards vocabulary learning was rated.
At the micro level, we should note that both majors rated the use of English-English dictionary as the least-used strategy. However, the differences in VL strategy use between English majors and non-English majors are conspicuous. Even for rehearsal strategies, the only category where there was not a significant difference, these two groups of learners demonstrated different preferences: the former used more oral repetition while the latter preferred more visual repetition. In general, non-English majors rely more on decontextualized mechanical repetition in VL. Although non-English majors are more likely to use contextual cues to guess (M=3.10 for English majors vs. M=3.40 for non-English majors, p < .05), they checked the correctness of their guessing significantly less (M=3.47 for English majors vs. M=2.67 for non-English majors, p < .05). This indicates that guessing alone does not necessarily yield good learning outcomes; more cognitive procedure is needed to enhance learning effectiveness.
Strategy use by self-rated proficiency
The ultimate goal of VL is to improve target language proficiency. This study replicates several previous studies (e.g. Sanaoui, 1994; Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999; Gu & Johnson, 1996) by proving that VL strategy use is related to learning outcomes. Self-rated proficiency is closely connected with the overall level of effort in VL. Low-proficiency students seem to engage more in short-term retention achieved through the use of rehearsal, particularly visual repetition, which, according to Gu and Johnson (1996), “was the strongest negative predicator of both vocabulary size and general proficiency” (p.463). Comparatively speaking, learners are less willing to activate the newly-learnt words by using them and they seldom manage their learning in a structured manner, which, as discussed earlier, may pose an obstacle to their VL and will in turn influence their overall English performance. Also, dictionary use and contextual guessing distinguish between proficient learners and less proficient ones, which is consistent with the finding of Gu and Johnson (1996) that skillful use of these two strategies is advantageous to English proficiency.
VL strategy use in relation to learners’ beliefs about vocabulary learning
Gu and Johnson (1996) point out that “students consistently adopt types of strategies based either on their beliefs about vocabulary and vocabulary learning, or on other preexisting cognitive or social factors” (p.679). The results of the present study indicate that Chinese students are generally aware of the importance of the ability to use words in speaking and writing in appropriate contexts. This is encouraging evidence that students understand that knowing a word involves not only knowing the form and meaning, but also the ability to use it.
However, beliefs about what knowing a word entails contradict the actual learning practice. Although learners are well aware that the ultimate goal of learning English is to be able to use it, the lack of contextualized practice to activate what they’ve learned impedes their progress towards this goal. Vocabulary learning is not only a matter of retention. Its importance lies in its ability to empower learners to communicate in the target language. Learners still concentrate too much on isolated short-term retention of form and meaning in spite of their increasing awareness that passive knowledge of them alone does not help much in achieving communicative competence. Therefore, the input-poor EFL environment makes it desirable not only for learners to make a conscious effort to seek and create opportunities for contextualized processing of vocabulary, but also for teachers to provide adequate guidance.
Summary and Implications
The results of the study indicate an overall medium use of VL strategies of Chinese students, with high-proficiency students learning vocabulary in a more systematic and organized way. This study also shows that Chinese female students make insignificantly more use of VL strategies than male learners; in addition, there are some important differences at the micro level, and female students are more aware of the importance of management in VL. Similar results were also found between English majors and non-English majors, which is consistent with the results of Chiang’s study (2004) on learners in Taiwan. Furthermore, this study suggests that strategy use is closely related to the problems that Chinese students encounter in VL, particularly long-term retention and the ability of using vocabulary.
This study also generated interesting findings regarding learners’ attitude, beliefs and problems in relation to vocabulary learning. Learners’ attitude towards VL significantly is related to the use of VL strategies. Meanwhile, this investigation indicates a balanced awareness of the importance of meaning, form and function of words in students' beliefs of what knowing a word means. However, the contradiction between learners’ beliefs and their actual strategy use suggests that the students are undergoing a dilemma: they are well aware that they should be able to use a word, but they do not know how to achieve this objective. This is reflected partly in the common low use of their management and activation strategies.
In China, a typical EFL environment, words are primarily taught through decontextualized activities in English classes. A considerable amount of instructional time is devoted to presenting, explaining, and defining terms. In addition, students are usually expected to learn vocabulary on their own, mostly by mechanical memorization, without much guidance from teachers. Little effort has been made to teach students strategies to improve their vocabulary learning. However, merely giving students lists of words to learn does not result in effective learning, despite the growing awareness on the part of learners of the importance of enhancing their communicative competence of the target language and the recognition that a much larger vocabulary is needed to this end.
It is important for curriculum designers, teachers and students alike to acknowledge that a balanced and integrated approach is important particularly for foreign language learners in input-poor EFL environments. Since learning words individually will not necessarily take care of other aspects of communicative competence, vocabulary knowledge, to be of real use, must become integrated into discourse. English textbooks in China should be revised in such a way that they address this crucial aspect of vocabulary learning. Pedagogically, it is important and feasible that teachers play a more active role in students’ vocabulary learning, as pointed out by Oxford and Scarcella (1994), by providing learners with systematic L2 vocabulary instruction, offering contextualized learning opportunities, helping students learn specific strategies for acquiring words, and showing students how to learn words outside of their L2 classes. The ultimate purpose is to encourage learner autonomy so that students can learn vocabulary wisely both inside and outside of class for more productive outcomes.
This was an exploratory study that only caught a glimpse of the present status of vocabulary learning by Chinese college students. A larger sample with more diverse backgrounds would be desirable in order to yield more generalizable findings. Furthermore, as with other similar studies, the data for the study were based on the self reports of the participants. Since the extent to which self reports reflect reality is an issue, this study is not meant to offer any conclusive findings about vocabulary learning in China. However, its intention is to be part of a discussion on the complex construct of vocabulary learning, particularly in EFL contexts. Hopefully, this will lead to more thorough investigations in the field.
References
Beheydt, L. (1987). The semantization of vocabulary in foreign language learning. System, 15 (1), 55-67.
Chiang, H. (2004). The relationship between field sensitivity/field independence and the use of vocabulary learning strategies of EFL university students in Taiwan(Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2004). Retrieved April 25, 2005, from ProQuest database (AAT3143596).
Crow, J., & Quigley, R. (1985). A semantic field approach to passive vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 497-513.
Fan, M.Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222-241.
Grace, C.A. (2000). Gender differences: Vocabulary retention and access to translations for beginning language learners in CALL. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 214-224.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R.K. (1996): Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46, 643-679.
Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 327-339.
Hulstijn, J.H. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of tasks and learners variables. Modern Language Journal, 77, 139-147.
Jiang, N. (2004). Semantic transfer and its implications for vocabulary teaching in a second language. Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 416-432.
Kelly, P. (1990). Guessing: No substitute for systematic learning of lexis. System, 18(2), 199-207.
Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176-192.
Laufer, B., & Osimo, H. (1991). Facilitating long-term retention of vocabulary: The second-hand cloze. System, 19(3), 217-224.
Lawson, M.J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46, 101-135.
Leeke, P., & Shaw, P. (2000) Learners’ independent records of vocabulary. System, 28,271-289.
Luppescu, S. & Day, R.R. (1993). Reading dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 43, 263-287.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. NewYork: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Oxford, R.L., & Scarcella, R.C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22(2),231-243.
Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 80(4), 478-493.
Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learner’s approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. Modern Language Journal, 79, 15-28.
Tinkham, T. (1993). The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary. System, 21(3), 371-380.
Appendixes
(see PDF file)
