영어어문교육, 15권 4호 2009년 겨울

Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and

Vocabulary Proficiency

Jin-Hee Huh
(Kongju National University)

Huh, Jin-Hee. (2009). Vocabulary learning strategy use and vocabulary

proficiency. English Language & Literature Teaching, 15(4), 37-54.

This study investigated vocabulary learning strategies used by EFL middle school
learners in Korea and examined the relationship between the middle school learners’
vocabulary learning strategy (VLS) use and their vocabulary proficiency level. One
hundred and forty-one students in a public middle school participated in the study and
the data for this study were collected from a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire
and a vocabulary proficiency test. Based on the result of the vocabulary proficiency test,
the participants were divided into three proficiency groups: high-, mid- and low- level
proficiency groups. The overall findings of the study revealed that the participants used
cognitive strategies most frequently and social strategies least frequently. The most
frequently used individual strategies were ‘using a bilingual dictionary,’ ‘studying the
sound of a word’ and ‘practicing words through verbal repetition.’ The least frequently
used ones were ‘interacting with native speakers’ and ‘studying or practicing the
meaning of a word in a group.’ The research results also showed that the vocabulary
proficiency level has a significant influence on the vocabulary strategy use. The more
proficient learners used vocabulary learning strategies more actively. More specifically,
the high proficiency level group used metacognitive strategies the most. The middle
and low proficiency groups used cognitive strategies the most. It is suggested that
language teachers should facilitate the vocabulary learning process by helping learners
develop appropriate strategies.

[vocabulary learning/vocabulary learning strategy/VLS/vocabulary proficiency]

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the 1980s, vocabulary learning was considered to be a neglected area of second
language learning and teaching (Maiguashca, 1993). Zimmerman (1994) claims that the
teaching and learning of vocabulary have been undervalued in the field of second language
38 Huh Jin-Hee

acquisition (SLA). However, since the 1990s vocabulary studies have received increased
attention by researchers. In addition, in the 1980s, with the shift from a focus on teachers to
a focus on learners, the notion and importance of what we know today as learning
strategies began to draw attention.
Learning strategies play a crucial role in foreign language learning due to their
contribution to helping learners develop language competence in many ways (Oxford,
1990; Rubin, 1981; Jung-Hwan Park, Gun-In Lee & Myung-Seon Kang, 2005). It is
believed that the strategies used by successful learners may be learned by less successful
learners, and language instructors can assist the language learning process by helping
learners develop appropriate strategies (Lai, 2009).
In this light, the present study would provide language instructors with a great
understanding of the ways learners acquire vocabulary and provide language learners with
effective vocabulary strategies to facilitate their vocabulary acquisition. Training students
in the use of learning strategies would maximize their potential and contribute to their
autonomy (Lai, 2009). In light of the purpose of the study, the following questions guided
the present study:

Research Question 1:
What vocabulary learning strategies do EFL middle school learners in Korea
report using? What are the most favored vocabulary learning strategies adopted
by the Korean middle school students?
Research Question 2:
Is there a relationship between vocabulary proficiency and the use of vocabulary
learning strategies?

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Language Learning Strategies

Several researchers have defined learning strategies. Oxford (1990) mentions that
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), and Rubin (1987) states that learning strategies are “those which
contribute to the development of the language system that the learner constructs and affects
learning directly” (p. 23). According to Bialystok (1978), “language learning strategies are
optional means for exploiting available information” to improve competence in a second
language” (p. 71).
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 39

Some researchers have attempted to develop a framework of category of learning

strategies. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) divided language learning strategies into three
types: metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, and social/affective strategies. Oxford
(1990) developed a categorization system that has been considered one of the various
proposed overviews of language learning strategies. Synthesizing other researcher’s
classification systems, Oxford identified two distinct approaches to language learning,
direct and indirect strategies. Direct strategies help learners to learn the target language
directly, and indirect strategies help learners to support and manage language learning
without directly involving the target language. Each class has three categories: direct
strategies are subdivided into memory, cognitive and compensation strategies and indirect
strategies are subdivided into metacognitive, affective and social strategies. The strategy
classification system is presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Classification System
Direct strategies Indirect strategies

1. Memory strategies 1. Metacognitive strategies

Help learners store and retrieve new Allow learners to control their own cognition
information (e.g., applying images and sounds, (e.g., coordinating the planning, organizing,
creating mental linkages) and evaluation of the learning process)
2. Cognitive strategies 2. Affective strategies
Applied by learners to better understand and Refer to the methods that help learners to
produce the target language (e.g., regulate emotions, motivation, and attitudes
summarizing, analyzing, reasoning) (e.g., taking emotional temperature, self-
encouragement)
3. Compensatory strategies 3. Social strategies
Used for overcoming deficiencies in Include interaction with others through the
knowledge of the target language (e.g., target language (e.g., asking questions,
guessing meanings from context, using cooperating with native speakers, becoming
synonyms to convey meaning) culturally aware)

(Lai, 2009, p. 256)

2. Vocabulary Learning Strategy (VLS)

Vocabulary learning strategies constitute a subclass of language learning strategies,

which are applicable to a wide variety of language learning tasks, ranging from the more
isolated (vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar) to integrative tasks like oral communication
and reading comprehension.
40 Huh Jin-Hee

A number of studies have been conducted in the past to investigate the use of vocabulary
learning strategies. In the area of vocabulary learning strategy taxonomy development,
Schmitt (1997) made the most notable effort in terms of range of strategies. Schmitt argued
that the lack of attention on vocabulary learning strategies is due to the lack of their
comprehensive list or taxonomy and developed a comprehensive inventory of individual
vocabulary learning strategies. He distinguished the strategies that learners use to
determine the meanings of new words when they first encounter them from the ones they
use to consolidate meanings when they encounter the words again. The former includes
determination and social strategies and the latter includes social, memory, cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. The social strategies are included in the two categories because
they can be used for both purposes. Schmitt’s taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies
is presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2
Schmitt’s (1997) Taxonomy of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Discovery strategies Determination strategies
Social strategies

Consolidation strategies Social strategies

Memory strategies
Cognitive strategies
Metacognitive strategies

Schmitt defined each category as follows. Determination strategies are used “when
faced with discovering a new word’s meaning without resource to another person’s
expertise” (p. 205). Social strategies are used to understand a word “by asking someone
who knows it” (p. 210). Memory strategies are “approaches which relate new materials to
existing knowledge” (p. 205). The definition of cognitive strategies was adopted from
Oxford (1990) as “manipulation of transformation of the target language by the learner” (p.
43). Finally, metacognitive strategies are defined as “a conscious overview of the learning
process and making decisions about planning, monitoring or evaluating the best ways to
study” (p. 205). Compared to other classification schemes, Schmitt’s taxonomy is
considered the most extensive.
With regard to memory and cognitive categories, they have similar characteristics in that
their goals are to help recall words through some form of language manipulation. However,
Schmitt distinguished memory from cognitive categories, claiming that memory categories
are more obviously linked to mental manipulation.
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 41

Other notable classification schemes have been proposed by Nation (2001) and Gu and
Johnson (1996). Nation suggests, “Three general class of strategies to separate aspects of
vocabulary knowledge (what is involved in knowing a word) from sources of vocabulary
knowledge, and learning processes” (p. 218). The taxonomy of VLS relates to the planning
of vocabulary learning (e.g., choosing words, planning repetition) from strategies involving
access to sources of vocabulary knowledge (e.g., analyzing word parts, using context), and
learning processes (e.g., noticing, retrieving). The latter involves ways of establishing
vocabulary knowledge (noticing, retrieving, and generating) (see Table 3).

TABLE 3
A Taxonomy of Kinds of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
General class of strategies Types of strategies
Planning: choosing what to focus on and Choosing words
when to focus on it Choosing the aspects of word knowledge
Choosing strategies
Planning repetition
Sources: finding information about words Analyzing the word
Using context
Consulting a reference source in L1 or L2
Using parallels in L1 and L2
Process: establishing knowledge Noticing
Retrieving
Generating
(Nation, 2001, p. 218)

Gu and Johnson (1996) have developed a vocabulary learning questionnaire containing a

considerable number of strategies, divided into the following major categories: beliefs
about vocabulary learning, metacognitive regulation, guessing strategies, dictionary
strategies, note-taking strategies, memory strategies (rehearsal and encoding), and
activation strategies.

3. Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency

In the 1970s, individual variations in language learning began to be noticed by

researchers, based on the idea that strategies are affected by a number of factors. These
factors include age, metacognitive awareness, gender, level of language learning, and so on
(e.g., Riazi, Sedighi & Zare, 2005). Gu (2003) also pointed out that the learner himself, the
learning task at hand, and the learning environment affect strategies used by a learner and
their effectiveness.
42 Huh Jin-Hee

The factor, proficiency level, was addressed in studies related to language learning
strategies by researchers. In some research, proficiency level affected the choice of
language learning strategies (Chamot, O’Malley, Küpper & Impink-Hernandez, 1988;
O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper & Russo, 1985; Oxford, 1993; Oxford &
Nyikos, 1989; Politzer, 1983). O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper and
Russo (1985) did a survey that involved seventy high school age students enrolled in ESL
classes from three high schools in an Eastern metropolitan area of the United States. The
results indicated that intermediate level students tended to use proportionally more
metacognitive strategies than students with beginning level proficiency did. The
researchers found that cognitive strategy use decreased and metacognitive strategy use rose
as the foreign language course level increased, but social affective strategy use remained
very low across all course levels.
In the Korean context, Jun-Eon Park (2001) made a comprehensive study of Korean
EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategies. The results revealed that throughout different
age levels the learners increasingly depended on cognitively more complex strategies as
they grew older. In-Jae Jeon (2007) examined the relationship between Korean EFL high
school learners’ vocabulary ability level and vocabulary learning strategy use. According
to the overall findings of the study, there were some noticeable differences in using
vocabulary learning strategies among different proficiency groups. The advanced and
intermediate group tended to use a much wider range of vocabulary learning strategies
more actively than the lower group. The researcher indicated that the higher vocabulary
achievement level students have, the more positive attitude they have in using vocabulary
learning strategies.
Overall, empirical research has provided evidence that there is a positive relationship
between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary proficiency, which means that the
use of effective learning strategies is related to higher levels of language proficiency.
However, as to whether there are certain strategy patterns or specific strategy types that
associate with effective learners, no common consensus has yet been reached (Lai, 2009).
Much research has been made to investigate vocabulary learning strategies. The majority
of past studies, however, have been conducted not only with high school and college
students but also among mixed groups of learners with different level of vocabulary
proficiency. The current study tries to extend the work into vocabulary area for more
specific information.
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 43

III. METHOD

1. Participants

One hundred forty one EFL Korean middle school students in their third year
participated in this study. They came from four classes of a Korean public middle school
located in a metropolitan city. One hundred fifty two copies of questionnaire were
distributed to all the students of four classes. However, one hundred forty one were
included in the data analysis because incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the
analysis.
The participants were 52 % (73) female and 48% (68) male. They were divided into
three proficiency groups, high-, mid-, or low- proficiency groups, based on the scores they
earned on the vocabulary proficiency test. As shown in Table 4, the high-level group
consisted of 47 students with scores ranging from 39-50; the mid-level group consisted of
47 students with scores ranging from 25-38; and the low-level group consisted of 47
students with scores ranging from 9-24.
The distribution of participants in each of the groups is shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4
Distribution of Participants by Proficiency Level
Level N M SD Score Range
High 47 84.93 3.13 39-50
Mid 47 64.12 6.82 25-38
Low 47 35.82 7.91 9-24

2. Instruments

1) VLS Questionnaire

Data of vocabulary learning strategy use were gathered using a VLS questionnaire that
was developed with reference to Schmitt’s (1997) work and Shinwoong Lee’s (2007)
survey. Even though Schmitt’s work is considered the most comprehensive and is widely
used as a vocabulary strategy questionnaire, it includes some strategy items which Korean
students are not aware of or familiar with (Shinwoong Lee, 2007). The researcher excluded
some questionnaire items such as ‘checking L1 cognates’, ‘using scales for gradable
adjectives’, ‘skipping or passing new word’, ‘Loci method’ and so on. On the other hand,
some strategies that students reported they frequently used in their vocabulary learning
were added. ‘Using a vocabulary learning textbook,’ ‘using a new word in sentences’ and
44 Huh Jin-Hee

‘using a new word in English conversation’ were included in the survey items. As to the
categories, the researcher did not make the distinction between discovery and consolidation
strategy as Schmitt did. That is because a number of the students stated that it was
somewhat confusing to differentiate these two categories.
The VLS questionnaire was given in Korean to make sure all the participants understand
the questionnaire items, consisting of 34 statements. Items #1-16 concern the effectiveness
of memory (memory strategies); items #17-27 represent the use of mental processes
(cognitive strategies); items #28-30 deal with the organization and evaluation of learning
(metacognitive strategies); items #31-34 concern learning with others (social strategies).
Students answered each item statement using a 5-point Likert-scale that ranged from 1
(Never or almost never true of me) through 5 (Always or almost always true of me).

2) Vocabulary Proficiency Test

The vocabulary proficiency test used in this study was adapted from a 1,000 Word Level
Test developed by Nation (1993) and a Vocabulary Levels Test developed by N. Schmitt,
D. Schmitt and Clapham (2001). All the forty items from the former and ten items from the
latter’s 2,000 word level part were employed for the vocabulary proficiency test.
The original purpose of the test was diagnostic but many researchers have used it to
explore vocabulary acquisition issues (Read & Chapelle, 2001). The purpose of the test in
the present study was to assess students’ vocabulary proficiency. Based on the test results,
the participants were divided into three proficiency level groups.

3. Data Collection Procedure

Both the VLS questionnaire and the vocabulary proficiency test were administered to the
middle school students in the regular English class time. The researcher gave a brief
explanation on the purpose of the survey and instruction on how to answer the
questionnaire. Students were told to ask questions any time during the process. One
hundred fifty two students were given the questionnaire, and eleven students did not
answer some statements. Their surveys were discarded.

4. Data Analysis

All the data collected from the participants were submitted to the SPSS 12.0 software
package, with the alpha level set at 0.05. The mean scores and standard deviations of the
ratings given by the students on the frequency of use of the 34 VLS were calculated and
compared. In order to describe students’ overall vocabulary learning strategy use and their
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 45

strategy use by proficiency level, descriptive statistics that show mean and standard
deviation were used. In order to find out the differences among proficiency groups, an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. In case there were statistically significant
differences among groups, the Scheffe' test as a post-hoc follow-up procedure was
performed.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

1. Use of VLS for the Entire Group

In order to address research question 1 (What vocabulary learning strategies do EFL

middle school learners in Korea report using? What are the most favored vocabulary
learning strategies adopted by the Korean middle school students?), mean scores of the
entire VLS were calculated. Mean scores of the four subcategories of VLS and the
individual VLS items were calculated for the entire group. Oxford (1990) claimed that
mean scores between 1.0 and 2.4 are defined as “low” strategy use, 2.5 and 3.4 as
“medium” strategy use, and 3.5 and 5.0 as “high” strategy use. In this study, the researcher
adopted these categories of ratings to classify high-, mid-, and low- strategy use.
Table 5 displays the mean and standard deviation of the strategy use of all the items in
the questionnaire, following Oxford’s frequency classification guide. As indicated in Table
5, the participants reported a medium frequency for the mean strategy use on the entire
VLS (M=2.76). The most frequently used strategy by participants was ‘using a bilingual
dictionary’. The result seems to parallel that of Shinwoong Lee’s (2007) survey which
involved four hundred sixty six Korean university students, suggesting that both middle
school students and university students are likely to use the same VLS. The result is also
compatible with Schmitt’s (1997) study, Young-eun Kim’s (2008) study, Jun-Eon Park’s
(2001) study and In-Jae Jeon’s (2007) study that investigated Korean high school students’
vocabulary learning strategy use. The researchers indicated that EFL learners heavily
depended on the dictionary use strategy. Therefore, it can be suggested that Korean EFL
learners throughout the different age levels tend to use a dictionary to get the meaning of
words.
46 Huh Jin-Hee

TABLE 5
Use of VLS for the Entire Group
No. Category Questionnaire items M SD
High strategy use items
18 COG I use a bilingual dictionary. 3.98 1.0
12 MEM I study the sound of a word. 3.87 1.1
20 COG I practice words through verbal repetition. 3.81 1.3
21 COG I write a word repeatedly. 3.74 1.2
11 MEM I study the spelling of a word. 3.74 1.1
22 COG I keep a vocabulary notebook. 3.54 1.0
Medium strategy use items
6 MEM I connect a word to the words that I already know. 3.25 1.3
30 MET I continue to study words over time. 3.04 1.2
15 MEM I learn the words of an idiom together. 3.02 1.0
29 MET I self-test word knowledge. 2.93 1.1
25 COG I utilize the vocabulary section in a textbook. 2.91 1.1
4 MEM I image a word's meaning. 2.84 1.2
17 COG I use word lists. 2.83 1.3
24 COG I study words by taking notes in class. 2.81 1.0
27 COG I use a vocabulary learning textbook. 2.76 1.1
31 SOC I ask teacher for the meaning. 2.72 1.3
7 MEM I connect a word to its synonyms and antonyms. 2.65 1.5
5 MEM I connect word's meaning to a personal experience. 2.63 1.4
28 MET I use English-language media. 2.61 1.4
32 SOC I ask classmates or friends for the meaning. 2.57 1.0
1 MEM I analyze and study parts of speech 2.52 1.2
Low strategy use items
10 MEM I use a new word in English conversation. 2.49 1.3
8 MEM I group words together to study them. 2.48 1.2
2 MEM I analyze and study affixes and roots 2.44 1.1
9 MEM I use a new word in sentences. 2.40 1.0
14 MEM I paraphrase a word's meaning. 2.36 1.1
13 MEM I use Keyword Method. 2.34 1.2
16 MEM I practice words through physical activity. 2.34 1.1
3 MEM I study words with a pictorial representation of its meaning. 2.25 1.0
26 COG I listen to tape (or CD or MP3) of word lists. 2.25 1.3
23 COG I practice words using flash cards. 2.23 0.9
19 COG I use a monolingual dictionary. 1.96 0.9
34 SOC I interact with native speakers. 1.94 1.3
33 SOC I study or practice the meaning of a word in a group. 1.56 0.9

Mean 2.76
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 47

TABLE 6
Mean and Ranking Profile for Four Categories of Participants
Categories M SD Ranking
Cognitive 2.98 0.68 1
Metacognitive 2.87 0.62 2
Memory 2.73 0.58 3
Social 2.20 0.61 4

The next frequently used strategies were ‘studying the sound of a word’, ‘practicing
words through verbal repetition’, ‘writing a word repeatedly’ and ‘studying the spelling of
a word’. The analysis of the use of the individual strategy items for the entire group
indicated that the most frequently used strategies were those that involved simple work and
repetition. On the other hand, the least frequently used items were ‘studying or practicing
the meaning of a word in a group’, ‘interacting with native speakers’ and ‘using a
monolingual dictionary’, which involved ‘working with others’ or ‘speaking and reading in
English’.
As regards each strategy category (see Table 6), participants used cognitive vocabulary
learning strategies the most, and used social category items such as ‘studying or practicing
the meaning of a word in a group’ the least as mentioned above. Participants reported a
medium frequency for the mean strategy use on the cognitive, metacognitive and memory
categories, whereas, in the social category a low frequency was reported. It is suggested
that Korean middle school students like to study vocabulary by themselves and without
other’s help or interaction.

2. Use of VLS and Vocabulary Proficiency

1) Overall VKS by Proficiency Level

In order to address research question 2 (Is there a relationship between vocabulary

proficiency and the use of vocabulary learning strategies?), data collected from each
proficiency group were submitted to an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant
differences in mean strategy use across the entire VLS as well as in the four categories of
the VLS were found in relation to proficiency level. In order to find out where among the
groups any significant differences lay, the Scheffe posthoc test was performed.
As shown in Table 7, the ANOVA test revealed that proficiency level had a significant
effect on frequency of strategy use across the entire VLS (p<0.05). The results indicate that
the higher level students reported using the VLSs more frequently than the lower level
students. It was revealed that the higher level students used the VLSs more frequently than
the mid level students, and the mid level students used the VLSs more frequently than the
48 Huh Jin-Hee

low level students. However, there was no significant difference between high and mid
level groups and between mid and low level groups. Only the high proficiency group
showed significantly more frequent strategy use than the low proficiency group.
The result is consistent with the majority of studies which showed that successful
learners used a larger number of strategies, and used them more frequently than less
successful learners did (e.g., Bruen, 2001; Chamot et al., 1988; Green & Oxford, 1995;
Griffiths, 2003; Wharton, 2000, cited in Lai, 2009).

TABLE 7
ANOVA Results for Use of the Entire VLS by Proficiency Level
Dependent Variable Group M SD Comments
High 2.89 0.43
Overall VLS Mid 2.75 0.46 High>Low*
Low 2.63 0.48
*P<0.05

2) Categories of the VLS and Proficiency Level

The analysis by categories of the VLS - memory, cognitive, metacognitive and social -
also demonstrates the differences among the proficiency groups. Table 8 suggests that the
high proficiency group students used each of the VLSs of the four categories more
frequently than the low proficiency group students did. The posthoc Scheffe’ test indicated
that for all the categories high proficiency students used the strategies significantly more
frequently than low proficiency students did (p<0.05). In the metacognitive category,
however, there was a significant difference among all the proficiency level groups. This
implies that metacognitive category is an indicator that differentiates good learners from
poor learners. The result is consistent with the result of Mochizuki’s (1999) study that
investigated the strategy use of Japanese L2 learners, suggesting that more proficient
students used metacognitive strategies more frequently than less proficient students did.
Halbach (2000) also indicated that the overall frequency of strategy use is related with
learners’ L2 proficiency. It has been claimed that good language learners have their own
special way of doing it. Anderson (2002) points out that the use of metacognitive strategies
ignites our thinking and can lead to higher learning and better performance, defining
metacognition as “thinking about thinking.” Understanding and controlling cognitive
process may be one of the most essential skills that teachers can help foreign language
learners improve their proficiency.

TABLE 8
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 49

ANOVA Results for Use of the Four Categories by Proficiency Level

Dependent Variable Group M SD Comments
High 2.86 0.49
Memory Mid 2.72 0.48 High>Low*
Low 2.60 0.49
High 3.08 0.45
Cognitive Mid 3.00 0.47 High>Low*
Low 2.87 0.50
High 3.09 0.64
Metacognitive Mid 2.84 0.65 High>Mid>Low*
Low 2.67 0.62
High 2.37 0.46
Social Mid 2.15 0.52 High>Low*
Low 2.09 0.59

*P<0.05

FIGURE 1
VLS Use of the Four Categories by Proficiency Level

As regards the memory, cognitive and social categories, the results of the posthoc
Scheffe test indicated that the mid proficiency group students used the strategies more
frequently than the low proficiency group students did, but there were no significant
differences between the mid proficiency and low proficiency group students (p>0.05).
As shown in Figure 1, the high proficiency group students reported using metacognitive
strategies the most frequently and using social strategies the least frequently. On the other
hand, the mid-level and low-level students used the cognitive strategies the most frequently.
Mean scores of the individual items were calculated for each of the three proficiency
groups. There were similarities with regard to general individual strategy items among the
50 Huh Jin-Hee

three groups.

V. CONCLUSION

This study has attempted to investigate the most frequently used vocabulary learning
strategies by Korean middle school learners and to account for the difference between
high-, mid- and low- proficiency group in terms of their vocabulary learning strategies.
The result of the study suggests that in general Korean middle school students are likely
to use the cognitive vocabulary learning strategies most frequently. In order to investigate
any significant difference in terms of vocabulary proficiency, the vocabulary learning
strategy use of high-, mid- and low- proficiency groups were compared and analyzed.
There was a significant effect of vocabulary proficiency on the frequency of the strategy
use. The high proficiency group students used the metacognitive vocabulary learning
strategies most frequently, while the mid- and low- proficiency group used cognitive
vocabulary learning strategies most frequently.
The results have some implications for EFL learners, language teachers and teacher
educators. Language teacher should try to have information on the strategy use of students,
and to give students opportunities to explore various kinds of effective vocabulary learning
strategies to help students find ones that lead them to effective vocabulary learning. Both
instructors and learners need to become aware of learning strategies through strategy
instruction. Teachers should try to help students to become more aware of effective
learning strategies and to help them take responsibility for their learning. Especially,
teachers need to be aware of the importance of metacognitive strategies. Considering the
result that the more proficient learners are, the more metacognitive strategies they use,
teachers should teach students how to use them effectively, and they should be trained in
strategy instruction.
Finally, more research is needed to better understand learners’ vocabulary learning
strategy use and the relation between the strategy use and vocabulary proficiency. There is
also a need for more comprehensive research on a wide range of variables affecting VLS
use with students of different language backgrounds and proficiency levels.

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and

learning. ERIC Digest. Education Resources Information Center.
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 51

Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning,

28, 69-83.
Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective learner of German. Foreign
Language Annals, 34, 216-225.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner strategy in language learning (pp. 71-83). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Chamot, A. U., Küpper, L., & Impink-Hernandez, M. (1988). A study of learning
strategies in foreign language instruction: Findings of the longitudinal study.
McLean, VA: Interstate Research Associates.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency,
and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 261-297.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31(3), 367-383.
Griffiths, C., & Parr, J. M. (2001). Language learning strategies: Theory and perception.
ELT Journal, 55(3), 247-254.
Gu, P. Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and
strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1-28.
Gu, P. Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.
Halbach, A. (2000). Finding out about students’ learning strategies by looking at their
diaries: A case study. System, 28, 85-96.
Jeon, In-Jae. (2007). The relationship between Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary ability
and vocabulary learning strategies. English Teaching, 62(1), 31-54.
Kim, Young-eun. (2008). Receptive vocabulary knowledge and productive vocabulary
knowledge. English Language & Literature Teaching, 14(3), 283-306.
Lai, Y.-C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of university
freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 255-280.
Lee, Shinwoong. (2007). Vocabulary learning strategies of Korean university students:
Strategy use, vocabulary size, and gender. English Teaching, 62(1), 149-169.
Maiguashca, R. (1993). Teaching and learning vocabulary in a second language: Past,
present, and future directions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 83-100.
Mochizuki, A. (1999). Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students.
RELC Journal, 30(2), 101-113.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Measuring readiness for simplified material: A test of the first 1,000
words of English. In M. L. Tickoo (Ed.), Simplication: Theory and application (pp.
193-203). RELC Anthology Series, 31.
52 Huh Jin-Hee

Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P.
(1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.
Language Learning, 35, 21-46.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning
strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
Park, Jun-Eon. (2001). Korean EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategies. English
Teaching, 56(4), 3-30.
Park, Jung-Hwan, Lee, Gun-In & Kang, Myung-Seon. (2005). The effects of cognitive
style and vocabulary learning strategies on students' achievements in web-based
learning. English Language & Literature Teaching, 11(4), 21-47.
Politzer, R. L. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors
and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65.
Read, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary
assessment. Language Testing, 18(1), 1-32.
Riazi, A. M., Sedighi, F., & Zare, S. A. (2005). The effect of EFL students' L2 proficiency
and age on their overall pattern of vocabulary learning strategy use. IJAL, 8(2), 87-
106.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 2, 117-131.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and
typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategy in language learning
(pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199-228). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of
two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners
in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203-244.
 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Proficiency 53

Zimmerman, C. B. (1994). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In

J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language acquisition (pp. 5-19). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX
An English Version of the Questionnaire for VLS
No. Category Vocabulary Learning Strategy Item
1 MEM I analyze and study parts of speech 1 2 3 4 5
2 MEM I analyze and study affixes and roots 1 2 3 4 5
3 MEM I study words with a pictorial representation of its meaning. 1 2 3 4 5
4 MEM I image a word's meaning. 1 2 3 4 5
5 MEM I connect word's meaning to a personal experience. 1 2 3 4 5
6 MEM I connect a word to the words that I already know. 1 2 3 4 5
7 MEM I connect a word to its synonyms and antonyms. 1 2 3 4 5
8 MEM I group words together to study them. 1 2 3 4 5
9 MEM I use a new word in sentences. 1 2 3 4 5
10 MEM I use a new word in English conversation. 1 2 3 4 5
11 MEM I study the spelling of a word. 1 2 3 4 5
12 MEM I study the sound of a word 1 2 3 4 5
13 MEM I use Keyword Method. 1 2 3 4 5
14 MEM I paraphrase a word's meaning. 1 2 3 4 5
15 MEM I learn the words of an idiom together. 1 2 3 4 5
16 MEM I practice words through physical activity. 1 2 3 4 5
17 COG I use word lists. 1 2 3 4 5
18 COG I use a bilingual dictionary. 1 2 3 4 5
19 COG I use a monolingual dictionary. 1 2 3 4 5
20 COG I practice words through verbal repetition. 1 2 3 4 5
21 COG I write a word repeatedly. 1 2 3 4 5
22 COG I keep a vocabulary notebook. 1 2 3 4 5
23 COG I practice words using flash cards. 1 2 3 4 5
24 COG I study words by taking notes in class. 1 2 3 4 5
25 COG I utilize the vocabulary section in a textbook. 1 2 3 4 5
26 COG I listen to tape (or CD or MP3) of word lists. 1 2 3 4 5
27 COG I use a vocabulary learning textbook. 1 2 3 4 5
28 MET I use English-language media. 1 2 3 4 5
29 MET I self-test word knowledge. 1 2 3 4 5
30 MET I continue to study words over time. 1 2 3 4 5
31 SOC I ask teacher for the meaning. 1 2 3 4 5
54 Huh Jin-Hee

32 SOC I ask classmates or friends for the meaning. 1 2 3 4 5

33 SOC I study or practice the meaning of a word in a group. 1 2 3 4 5
34 SOC I interact with native speakers. 1 2 3 4 5

Examples in: English

Applicable Languages: English
Applicable Levels: Secondary

Jin-Hee Huh
Dept. of English Education
Kongju National University
182 Sinkwan-dong, Kongju, Chungcheongnam-do 314-701, Korea
Tel: (041) 850-8190
Email: [email protected]

Received in October, 2009

Reviewed in November, 2009
Revised version received in December, 2009