Upload
adam-lajtai
View
28
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
AbstractEffective vocabulary learning has long been a major difficulty for many languagelearners. According to many studies, it is virtually impossible to achieve palpable progress inEnglish without expanding vocabulary in parallel. This experimental study aims to investigatethe influence factors like learning styles and strategies have on vocabulary acquisition in thecontext of the Institute of English Studies in Pécs. The study enlisted the help of Test Your Vocab, a website designed to estimate the vocabulary size of the respondents. To producequantitative data, a questionnaire was designed to determine whether there is any difference inthese factors (learning styles and strategies) between the more effective and less effectivelearners. Despite it being a pilot study, it found very meaningful data that in most casescorrespond to the data produced by other studies in the field. The Test Your Vocab scoresrevealed that the students’ average vocabulary size is not exceptionally good, but it is indeedabove the national average. The data yielded by the questionnaire implied that there are somevery beneficial styles and strategies, whereas methods might slow down vocabularyacquisition. The results of this study may prove useful (more so if vindicated in other contexts) to learners and teachers alike who wish to enhance the rate of vocabularyacquisition
Citation preview
The Importance of Strategies
in EFL Vocabulary Acquisition
By Lajtai Ádám
English Studies – Applied Linguistics
Consultant: Dr. Horváth József
Department of English Applied Linguistics
University of Pécs
2013
Abstract
Effective vocabulary learning has long been a major difficulty for many language
learners. According to many studies, it is virtually impossible to achieve palpable progress in
English without expanding vocabulary in parallel. This experimental study aims to investigate
the influence factors like learning styles and strategies have on vocabulary acquisition in the
context of the Institute of English Studies in Pécs. The study enlisted the help of Test Your
Vocab, a website designed to estimate the vocabulary size of the respondents. To produce
quantitative data, a questionnaire was designed to determine whether there is any difference in
these factors (learning styles and strategies) between the more effective and less effective
learners. Despite it being a pilot study, it found very meaningful data that in most cases
correspond to the data produced by other studies in the field. The Test Your Vocab scores
revealed that the students’ average vocabulary size is not exceptionally good, but it is indeed
above the national average. The data yielded by the questionnaire implied that there are some
very beneficial styles and strategies, whereas methods might slow down vocabulary
acquisition. The results of this study may prove useful (more so if vindicated in other
contexts) to learners and teachers alike who wish to enhance the rate of vocabulary
acquisition.
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge the support and
contribution of few people. If it hadn’t been for these people, the last some months could have
meant a much bigger struggle for my thesis project. Firstly, I would like to say millions of
thanks to my consultant and supervisor József Horváth, without whose invaluable help, I
could not have progressed the way I did. It was also his highly motivational and inspiring
personality that got me interested in applied linguistics and made me strive for perfection
when writing this thesis.
I also owe a lot to my mother for her patience and understanding, and her unbelievable
support not only in these months but in the last fifteen years.
I have to say special thanks to my friend Barbara for her help with the framing of the
questionnaire and her also precious advice on the evaluation. Many thanks to Patrícia and
Daniela as well for their help with the parts which had to be evaluated manually, I know it
was an excruciatingly boring task to do.
And to all the teachers at the university who assisted me in administering the
questionnaire and also to Éva, the secretary of the institute, who helped me in reaching out to
the respondents and provided me with some very valuable data.
And last, but not least, to the 76 students of English at the faculty who devoted some time
to complete the questionnaire and give me meaningful data to evaluate. I really appreciate
your help.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 2
Chapter One: Vocabulary Acquisition and Vocabulary Size
1.1 Vocabulary Size and Depth in English 3
1.2 Learning Vocabulary: Cognitive Styles and Strategies 6
1.3 Teaching Vocabulary 10
1.4 Vocabulary Assessment 12
Chapter Two: Learning Strategies In Vocabulary Acquisition
2.1 Research Question 14
2.2 Data Collection Instruments 16
2.3 Participants and Procedure 19
2.4 Results and Discussion 20
2.4.1 Overall average vocabulary size 20
2.4.2 Year of study 21
2.4.3 Self-rating of English and vocabulary 22
2.4.4 Enjoyment of learning 22
2.4.5 Outside-of-class English learning 23
2.4.6 Language learning styles 24
2.4.7 Language learning strategies 26
Conclusion and Limitations 32
References 34
Appendices 37
2
Introduction
When I was preparing for my intermediate level language exam in 2006, I asked my
English teacher what she reckoned to be the single most important thing in language learning.
Her answer was a simple: ‘vocabulary’. I believe that her answer would be the same six years
later as well, and also, I usually answer with the same word when my friends with less
experience in English learning ask me what (in my opinion) the most significant difference
between two levels (mostly intermediate and advanced) of English proficiency is.
I have noticed that when these friends talk about their proficiency in English, elements
like grammatical knowledge, fluency, reading and writing skills are always mentioned, but
many ignore vocabulary as a separate element. Personally, I have always imagined grammar
as the core or the frame of a language, and vocabulary as a magical particle that gives mass to
our knowledge. Several studies (Nation & Waring, 1997; Hu & Nation, 2000; Nation, 2001;
Nation & Meara, 2002) also suggest that one might not make a long progress in English
learning without an adequate size of vocabulary, as higher levels of the language require a
higher amount of known words.
Vocabulary acquisition is of key importance when learning a language, and thus the
question arises: ‘how should I learn all these words?’ In the present study I will measure the
English vocabulary size of BA English majors and minors in Hungary and find connections
between their vocabulary knowledge and the strategies they use to learn new words.
3
Vocabulary Acquisition and Vocabulary Size
1.1 Vocabulary Size and Depth in EFL
Measuring the exact vocabulary size of a language and the vocabulary size of a language
learner, of course, is only a distant dream of a linguist. There are several linguistic issues to be
discussed before even attempting to assess the size of one’s vocabulary. Such an issue, for
example, is the definition of a “word” itself. There are several definitions of what a word is
according to which one could attempt to count the size of a person’s vocabulary: such are
word types, lemmas and word families. All of them are connected to sight vocabulary, which
represents the amount of words known well enough to be recognized by the learner quickly
and accurately. Using word types in such a study can be discarded easily because it would
mean that the researcher must count every form of a word (e.g. friend, friends, friendly,
unfriendly, friendship) as different word types, thus even a rough estimate of the vocabulary
size is virtually impossible. A better way to measure vocabulary size is using lemmas or word
families. A lemma consists of a headword and its inflected forms: teach, teaches, taught etc.
A (form-based) word family, on the other hand, includes a headword (e.g. teach) and all the
words that are derived or inflected from it: teach, teacher, taught, teachable etc, as such it is
closer to the definition of the word (Macaro, 2006). As most of the studies on vocabulary size
(Hirsch and Nation, 1992; Hu & Nation, 2000; Nation, 2001; Macaro, 2006), headwords and
word families will be used to represent vocabulary knowledge in this study to avoid (or at
least mitigate) the discrepancies between the source texts and data collection methods used in
the present paper.
Individual vocabulary size can be assumed as the amount of headwords (excluding its
inflected and derived forms as separate types) known. There have been several attempts so far
to measure the vocabulary size of English language, which is considered to have the largest
4
vocabulary of all the languages: Goulden, Nation and Read (1990) examined Webster’s Third
New International Dictionary (1963) and found that it contained about 54,000 word families,
but of course, this number has changed in the last 50 years. Mastery of the complete lexicon
of any language is beyond the capacity of not only second language but also native speakers.
According to Schmitt (2000), native speakers of English know roughly 20,000 word families
on average at the age of 20. As far as the size of vocabulary in EFL is concerned, several
books or lists have been designed so far to help English learners acquire the most frequent
words of each levels of the language, such was the “General Service List” devised by Michael
West in 1953 containing a list of about 2,300 frequently used headwords (West, 1953), and
Averil Coxhead’s “New Academic Word List”, containing 570 additional headwords
(Coxhead, 2000).
A vocabulary size of 2,000-3,000 words, as studies conducted by Hirsch and Nation
show, could cover the 94-97% of unsimplified novels (e.g. Alice in Wonderland by Lewis
Caroll or The Pearl by John Steinbeck) written mostly for young native speakers of English.
A coverage level of this rate might seem good enough at first sight, but statistically it means
that the reader will encounter 3-7 unfamiliar word tokens in every 100 tokens (Hirsch &
Nation, 1992, pp. 689-692). It is necessary, of course, to make a distinction between the texts
analyzed for vocabulary knowledge. In an everyday conversation the first 2,000 headwords
mean 90% coverage, but the same 2,000 headwords would not be enough even for
understanding the 80% of newspapers or the 78% of academic texts (Hu & Nation, 2000, p.
406). In a study conducted in the Netherlands to investigate the amount of words necessary
for reading academic texts, it was found that knowledge of at least 10,000 words is
indispensable for learning at the tertiary level (Hazenberg & Hulstijn, 1996). In a more recent
study, however, Paul Nation sets the minimum at 15,000 to 20,000 headwords for academic
learning without disturbances due to unknown words (2001, p. 20).
5
This vast difference between the several text-types is due to the distribution of words in
the vocabulary. According to Nation, there are four groups of words: high-frequency words,
academic words, technical words and low-frequency words. High-frequency words make up
about the 78-80% of running words (tokens) in academic texts; they usually include the first
2,000 words of most academic corpora. Academic words (included e.g. in Coxhead’s AWL)
usually make up 9-11% of the tokens in academic texts. The two remaining groups are
regularly analyzed together in several studies as ‘other vocabulary’; averagely they represent
the 9-14% of running words in academic texts (Nation, 2001, pp. 9-15).
Another key concept when discussing vocabulary is depth. Whereas vocabulary size (or
breadth) is generally regarded to be the number of words known by a learner, vocabulary
depth is taken to mean how well the learner knows these words (Meara & Wolter, 2004, p.
85). Several studies (Laufer, 1998; Laufer & Paribakht, 1998) suggest that there are two main
components of word knowledge: we can address our knowledge as passive (or receptive)
and/or as active (or productive). Also, we may distinguish between two different kinds of
productive knowledge: controlled productive and free productive. Passive knowledge of a
word means that the learner understands at least one meaning of the word and can define it to
some extent. Controlled productive entails producing and using words when entailed by a
task, whereas free productive has to do with the use of words at one’s free will. By rule of
thumb, passive knowledge always makes up for the greatest amount among them and while
the learner improves in his or her language proficiency, the learner “transfers” words from the
passive knowledge to the productive knowledge (Laufer, 1998, pp. 257-261).
As this study focuses on the vocabulary acquisition strategies of BA students of English
at the University of Pécs, we can turn our attention to the cognitive styles and strategies that
influence vocabulary acquisition.
6
1.2 Learning Vocabulary: Cognitive Styles and Strategies
The vocabulary we learn is the part of our declarative memory, more precisely our
semantic memory, which stores factual knowledge like the name of the painter who painted
The Starry Night or what the word ‘blunderbuss’ means; but the process through which these
facts get stuck in our memory is not this simple (Goldstein, 2008, pp. 186-188). When a child
begins to acquire the native language it happens due to exposure to the language in the
environment. This repeated exposure or ‘meaning-focused input’ is, of course not exclusive to
first language acquisition, it also happens during EFL reading and listening. To enhance this
so-called incidental learning through reading and listening, three major factors must be met.
First, the unknown vocabulary should make up only about two percent of the tokens read or
heard. Second, a very large quantity of input (1 million tokens per year) is necessary. Third,
the learner must be made to notice the unknown words by simple consciousness-raising or by
repeating unknown words in the text (Nation & Meara, 2002, pp. 39-40).
Acquisition of new words is not exclusive to only two of the four skills (reading and
listening) however, it is not easy to provide examples when a learner comes up with new
words during speaking or writing. The two productive skills can be used to increase the
vocabulary depth by putting words from our passive/receptive knowledge into use and thus
transferring them into the active/productive (controlled in deliberate learning situations vs.
free in everyday speaking/writing) vocabulary (Nation & Meara, 2002, pp. 41).
Nation and Meara state that the most common way in vocabulary learning and teaching is
deliberate vocabulary learning (2002, pp. 41). Also, this method is proved to be more efficient
than incidental learning, as Schmidt (1995) suggests that noticing and giving attention to
learning always improves the rate of acquisition (pp. 45-49). Deliberate vocabulary learning
programs, however, can be reinforced or consolidated in the mind through the aforementioned
meaning-focused input and output (Nation & Meara, 2002, pp. 42).
7
The rate of learning depends on other factors apart from these three basic methods.
Second language (L2) learners vary on a number of dimensions, i.e. personality, age,
motivation, aptitude and learning styles (Ellis, 1985, p. 99). Although personality, age,
motivation and aptitude are of equal importance and relevance, the present study focuses on
the learning/cognitive styles and learning strategies.
A cognitive style is the ‘profile of the individual’s approach to learning, a blueprint of the
habitual or preferred way the individual perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning
environment’. Cognitive styles differ from learning styles in a way that its definition is free
of educational interference, and thus it can have several meanings based on the field it is
applied in (Dörnyei, 2005, pp. 120-123). When discussing L2 learning, two kinds of learners
are distinguished based on cognitive styles: the ‘field dependent” and the ‘field-independent’
learner. Field-dependent learners are more responsive to their environment and social
interactions, and tend to care about the social cues more than field-independents. This style is
said to be beneficial when prompted to tasks that emphasized communication rather than
formal aspects of a language. Field-independents, however, are in advantage because they
have a greater capacity to channel attention selectively and to separate the essential from the
inessential (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 137). Despite these obvious differences between the two styles,
it has not been proven that either of the two has an overall advantage in language proficiency.
With SLA in question, it is useful to consult Willing’s (1994) four language learning styles:
1. Communicative learners, who tend to like watching/listening native speakers, talking
to friends, using the language out of classroom context.
2. Analytical learners, who are better at studying grammar, they learn from English
books, newspapers and usually like learning alone, analyzing their mistakes.
3. Authority-oriented learners, who prefer the teacher to explain everything and they
mostly rely on their notebooks and textbooks.
4. Concrete learners, who tend to like games, pictures, film, video, using cassettes, and
practicing English outside class” (Wong & Nunan, 2011, p. 145).
8
Figure 1 – The four language learning styles (Willing, 1994)
In a recent study, Wong and Nunan proved that the more efficient learners of English
were the “communicative” ones and the least efficient were the ‘authority-oriented’ learners
(Wong & Nunan, 2011, p. 150).
While a learning style is a broad term for the several individual, mostly psychological
qualities of a language learner, and it does not necessarily make a difference in linguistic
competence, language learning strategies have been shown by studies (Macaro, 2001;
Macaro, 2006; Wong & Nunan, 2011) to correlate with the rate of acquisition and learning
success. Learning strategies are, as defined by Oxford (1999, p. 518), a set of specific actions,
behaviors, or techniques that students use to improve their progress. Although even the mere
existence of learning strategies have been debated, I build this paper upon Dörnyei’s (2005)
and Macaro’s (2006) views that accept and prove the existence of learning strategies.
When it comes to vocabulary learning strategies, there is a wide-range of different
strategies that could be employed to facilitate the acquisition of new words. Cook (1993)
distinguishes between two major groups of learning strategies, cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. (pp. 114) Cognitive strategies are used to manipulate and process information to
enhance learning, such strategies are: repetition, resourcing (using dictionaries), translation
9
(using L1 as a basis for understanding L2), grouping, deduction (e.g. morphological deduction
to find the meaning of a word), recombination, contextualization (placing the word into a
language sequence), keywords, guessing the meaning, elaboration or transfer. Metacognitive
strategies entail planning and monitoring the learning process itself, they include self-
management, self-monitoring, self-evaluation and directed/selective attention. (Cook, 1993,
pp. 114-115). In 1997, Schmitt devised a new taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies,
which included five groups of these strategies: social, memory, discovery, determination and
consolidation (cognitive or metacognitive) strategies (1997). Most of these strategies can be
used with one of the three main vocabulary learning methods, e.g. guessing the meaning of a
word might be a good idea in incidental, meaning-focused reading, and it bears some results
in enhancing vocabulary learning (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001). Pichette, De Serres, and
Lafontaine examined the effectiveness of sentence reading and writing in vocabulary learning
and the results were convincing of the efficiency of these activities (2011, pp. 75-79). A study
carried out by Dóczi, which used Schmitt’s taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies,
showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the use of strategies between
learners of different years of study (2011, p. 153). Ellis analyzed the vocabulary learning
process of a whole group of language learners: his results showed that the first part is creating
vocabulary lists, the second element is learning words in a familiar context and the third (and
final) part is practicing it and transferring it into the productive vocabulary. He also noticed
that vocabulary was the area that learners seem most conscious of (Ellis, 1985, pp. 103-104).
A more recent study of vocabulary learning strategies shows that a vast number of learners
(75% of the participants), who have been known to create vocabulary lists give up doing so
after some weeks of studying be (Leeke and Shaw, 2000, p. 275). Nation and Meara (2001)
give guidelines to vocabulary learning strategies, e.g. for creating word cards, which is
considered to be one of the easiest methods of deliberate vocabulary learning (pp. 41-42).
10
1.3 Teaching Vocabulary
As a relatively large amount of language learning happens in the classroom, it is also
important to discuss the role of a teacher in vocabulary learning. Nation suggests that the
traditional face-to-face deliberate vocabulary teaching is one of the least efficient ways of
developing vocabulary knowledge (2005, p. 1). Despite this claim, Laufer proved that - with
appropriate teaching and learning strategies - very convincing developments can be reached:
in her research she found out that roughly 8-9 word families (passive vocabulary) can be
learnt in every high school lesson, which means an annual improvement of 1,600 word
families (Laufer, 1998, pp. 264-266).
Learning a word involves knowing several aspects of it (this is called the ‘learning
burden’): its meaning, its spoken and written form, its grammatical functions, collocations of
the word, restrictions of using the word, the parts from which the word is constructed. Apart
from explaining these aspects, it is the teacher’s task to clarify the L2 words similarities or the
lack of those to its counterpart in L1 (Nation, 2005, pp. 2-3). Nation offers several vocabulary
development activities that require little and also some that require more advance planning by
the language teachers. The former include activities like learning to use the dictionary, cutting
up words to examine its parts, suggesting collocates, guessing the meaning of the word from
context; while the latter involve semantic analyses, crossword puzzles, building word family
tables, completing unfinished sentences (Nation, 2005, pp. 3-5).
As the students might go against the teacher’s suggestions and learn words using their
individual strategies, Laufer and Hulstijn provide a solution that can be applied for every
learner in every classroom. The teachers should give the students reading material with an
appropriate amount of unknown words (2-3%) and repetition of these words to “force”
incidental vocabulary acquisition (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001).
11
Nation summarizes a good vocabulary exercise with five criteria (2005, p. 5):
1) It focuses on useful, high frequency words that have already been met before.
2) It focuses on a useful aspect of learning burden and it has a useful learning goal.
3) It gets learners to meet or use the word in ways that establish new mental connections for
the word; it sets up useful learning conditions involving generative use.
4) It involves the learners in active search for and evaluating the target words in the exercise.
5) It does not bring related unknown or partly known words together, so it avoids interference.
12
1.4 Vocabulary Assessment
As there was an increase of interest in vocabulary research beginning in the 1980s,
several new types of methods were designed for the analysis of vocabulary knowledge
(vocabulary size particularly). The emergence of computer programs also brought a great
change in vocabulary assessment and evaluation, as through a corpus linguistic method, data
about the ‘lexical sophistication’ of a language user could be analyzed moments after writing.
Such lexical analysis was carried out by Lehmann when she examined the lexical frequency
profile of student writings via corpus linguistic methods (2003, 172-181). Several aspects
(lexical frequency, sophistication, breadth and depth) of a learner’s vocabulary knowledge can
be analyzed through web-based programs (e.g. www.lextutor.ca) based on the largest corpora
of English.
Several paper-based test types have been designed to measure the vocabulary size of a
learner or to measure what has been learned during a vocabulary development course. One
type is the Vocabulary Levels Test, which has several sections for words from a different
frequency level. The words in the task are usually sampled from frequency lists (GSL, UWL,
AWL etc.) or a corpus (Read, 2007, pp. 109-110). This is a sample unit of a Vocabulary
Levels Test (Nation & Meara, 2002, p. 47):
1 business
2 clock
3 horse _________________ part of a house
4 pencil _________________ animal with four legs
5 shoe _________________ something used for writing
6 wall
These kinds of tests measure both the breadth and the depth of a learner’s vocabulary, as
because of the additional (non-used) answers, there is a little chance for guessing the meaning
of a word.
13
Another type of vocabulary tests is a Yes/No test where the learners see a word (mostly
on a computer) and then have to decide whether they could provide the meaning for the word
or not. Such web-based tests (e.g. www.testyourvocab.com) are useful for measuring a
learner’s vocabulary in a relatively short amount of time. A very unique feature of some of
these Yes/No tests is that they usually include a non-existent word (or an ‘imitation’ of a
word) to rule out that some of the respondents dishonestly choose ‘yes’ (opting for ‘yes’ for
such a word would mean a punishment in the results) to improve their scores (Nation &
Meara, 2002, pp. 46-48).
The present study, as stated earlier, focuses on the vocabulary size of BA English
students of English and the effective relationship between their cognitive styles/learning
strategies. An empirical study was carried out based on the aforementioned Test Your Vocab
site, a web-based Yes/No quantitative test to establish the average vocabulary size and the
vocabulary range of the respondents.
14
Learning Strategies In Vocabulary Acquisition
2.1 Research Questions
The main goal of the study reported here was to explore whether there are significant and
identifiable differences and concurrences in learning styles and learning strategies between
learners of English with larger and smaller vocabulary size at the tertiary level in the context
of the English Department at the University of Pécs. In other words, the aim of the research
was to examine whether there were attitudes, learning styles and strategy preferences that
differentiated learners with a stronger vocabulary, from those who have a weaker one. As
such, the present study relied and drew deeply on Wong and Nunan’s state-of-the-art study on
the learning styles and strategies of effective language learners, which found that there is a
significant correspondence between learning styles and learning effectiveness (2011, p. 150.).
Along the lines of Wong and Nunan’s research, the study attempted to reproduce the results in
another context: namely, that this study focuses on vocabulary size instead of language
learning effectiveness. To decide whether a respondent falls into the group with a larger or
smaller vocabulary size, the present study enlisted the help of the already discussed Yes/No
vocabulary assessment site: Test Your Vocab. Although this online corpus-based program has
been developed for several years and has already had hundreds of thousand respondents, it is
still far from being a completely reliable vocabulary test (See the Limitations section).
Despite some easily identifiable flaws and discrepancies in the program, it is widely believed
that the results it yields are indeed useful for a comparative analysis and also for pedagogical
reasons. The present study also attempts to call Wong and Nunan’s findings (2011) into
question, with the distribution of learning styles being mainly debated. Ultimately, this study
may also have pedagogical functions, as the research was also intended to provide guidelines
about vocabulary strategy preferences for teachers and learners, who wish to add a
metacognitive side to their teaching or learning.
15
Drawing on the discussed literature, seven aspects of English and vocabulary learning
were investigated to determine the effect of several factors on vocabulary acquisition:
1. What is the overall average vocabulary size of the respondents?
2. Are there any differences in the year of study of learners with a larger and learners
with smaller vocabulary size?
3. Do learners with stronger vocabulary and learners with weaker vocabulary differ in
their self-rating of English and vocabulary knowledge?
4. Do learners with stronger vocabulary and learners with weaker vocabulary differ in
their enjoyment of learning English and new words?
5. Is there any difference in the amount of time learners with stronger vocabulary and
learners with weaker vocabulary devote to practicing English off campus?
6. Is there any difference between the overall learning styles of learners with a larger
vocabulary size and learners with a smaller vocabulary size?
7. Is there any difference between the vocabulary learning strategy preferences of
learners with a larger vocabulary size and learners with a smaller vocabulary size?
16
2.2 Data Collection Instruments
The data collection instrument for the quantitative study consisted of a two-part online
survey. In the first part, the respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire at the Test
Your Vocab site, mentioned earlier in “Vocabulary Assessment”. Test Your Vocab is
essentially a Yes/No vocabulary test, originally designed for an American-Brazilian linguistic
research project. It uses a set of words carefully selected from the British National Corpus,
with words ranging from universally known words like go or know to some exceptionally
hard ones like uxoricide or funambulist. The test consists of two main parts: the first one
measures broad vocabulary level, while the second measures narrow vocabulary level based
on the answers given in the first part. According to the creators of the site, the Test Your
Vocab engine works out only close estimates, with a ± 10.33% margin of error.
The second part of the quantitative survey was a questionnaire administered online via
Google Forms, and it is reproduced at Appendix A. The reason for using an online survey was
that the Google Forms software automatically analyzed, categorized and evaluated the data,
which would have been a hugely time-consuming task, if done manually. The survey had two
main goals: to calculate the average vocabulary size based on the results achieved on the
“Test Your Vocab” site, and also to examine the cognitive styles and the learning strategies of
the participants. This questionnaire can be divided into three parts: the first nine introductory
items dealt with the common factual, behavioural and attitudinal elements; the second set of
items was designed to examine the learning styles of the participants; and the third part asked
for the participants’ vocabulary-building strategies. The first two parts of the survey consisted
of elements of which many were adapted from Wong & Nunan’s research on learning styles
and strategies (2011), which in turn was based on Willing’s study on learning strategies
(1994). As was explained above, the first question items solicited biographical and attitudinal
information related to vocabulary learning:
17
The respondents’ Test Your Vocab score
Program which the respondent attends (English major or minor)
Year of study
Number of hours English is used weekly
Self-rating of English language proficiency
Self-rating of English vocabulary
Extent to which the respondent enjoys learning English
Extent to which the respondent enjoys learning new words
The respondents’ judgment of their Test Your Vocab score
The second part of the online questionnaire consisted of multi-scale items designed to
sort the respondents to one (or more) of the four language learning styles set by Willing
(1994): analytical, authority-oriented, communicative and concrete. This block of questions
included 24 items, six questions concerning each learning style. This part asked the
respondents to indicate their attitude towards the 24 learning strategies by rating them on a
five point Likert-type scale. The data were later analyzed and evaluated using IBM’s SPSS
Statistics software to determine the respondents’ major (the most points) and minor (the
second most points) learning style.
The third main part of the qualitative survey was designed to examine and evaluate the
learning strategies used by the respondents. As mentioned earlier in Chapter One, the present
study and questionnaire partly relies on Dóczi’s 2011 research and survey on university
students’ vocabulary strategies at the Eötvös Lóránd University, which in turn used the
taxonomy of Schmitt (1997) as a basis for the questionnaire. The quantitative survey thus,
was a loose adaptation of Dóczi’s state-of-the-art survey, using 29 items for four main
questions, which (as was discussed earlier) corresponded to Schmitt’s taxonomy of
vocabulary learning strategies (1997):
18
How do you meet new vocabulary? (7 items)
How do you discover the meaning of a new word? (5 items)
How do you memorize new words? (9 items)
How do you try to consolidate new vocabulary? (8 items)
In this case as well, all of these questions were to be answered with a five-point Likert-scale
to determine how often a particular respondent uses these strategies.
Besides examining which learning styles and strategies are the most favored by the
students, the study also attempted to evaluate the influence of these cognitive styles and
strategies on vocabulary knowledge. All the answers were sorted into numerous subgroups to
determine whether e.g. people who try to guess the word meaning out of the context have any
advantage in their vocabulary size.
19
2.3 Participants and Procedure
The main goal of this study was to analyze the vocabulary size and learning strategies of
BA students of English in the context of the University of Pécs. The information requested
from the registrar’s office of the university revealed that 241 students participate currently in
the full-time BA English program, while there are 47 full-time minor students of English as of
14 March, 2013.
In all, 76 students responded to the survey, however, only 72 are included in the statistics,
as the questionnaire yielded four highly suspicious Test Your Vocab scores, which were
eliminated from the results. Two were above 35,000, even though Test Your Vocab’s blog
reveals that native speakers of English over 60 years of age have an average vocabulary size
of only about 32-33,000 words. Two other scores were below 2,000, which were eliminated to
balance the results and also due to improbability of someone with that low score passing an
advanced final exam, which is a prerequisite of admission to the BA English program. The 72
respondents’ distribution based on their year of study was appropriately even, with 17 first-
year, 22 second-year and 24 third (or above)-year majors responding to the online survey. The
remaining nine students are studying English as a minor. These figures mean that on average
every fourth student of the English Department answered the questionnaire.
The procedure of administering the questionnaire was made easier and faster thanks to
the easy-to-use Google Forms website; stratified random sampling and quota sampling
methods were used to choose and reach the students. The hyperlink of the online survey was
in the first round posted to the wall of English studies students’ Facebook groups, then it was
distributed to them by the tutors of Reading and Writing seminars and Applied Linguistics
lectures. The survey, which was made open to respondents on March 2, 2013 and was closed
on March 11, included no compulsory items, thus it was unbelievably surprising to see that
99% of the respondents filled out every item and 30% of them asked for feedback via e-mail.
20
2.4 Results and Discussion
The main independent variable throughout the empirical study was the vocabulary score
achieved at the Test Your Vocab site; these scores were analyzed to determine the influence
certain attitudes, styles or strategy preferences had on the scores.
2.4.1 What is the overall average vocabulary size of the respondents?
The blog of Test Your Vocab suggested that the average vocabulary size of Hungarian
respondents is 10,238 words, with this result Hungary is in the 36th
position among the
countries where English is not an official language (For more details, see
www.testyourvocab.com/blog and Appendix B). Based on the results received when piloting
the questionnaire with my closest English major friends, I anticipated a result in the 13,000-
14,000 range, or at least a result over the national average. After eliminating the suspicious
two highest and two lowest scores, the overall average vocabulary size for BA students of
English at the University of Pécs turned out to be 11,400 words. The result is 11,34% higher
than the national average, but the figure is only 1% short of falling into the margin of error
reported by the developers. The highest vocabulary score was of 25,200 words, and it was set
by a third-year major, while the negative record of 2,570 was achieved by a second-year
major student. Test Your Vocab’s blog also offers insight into the scores achieved by native
speakers of English at different years of age (See Appendix B). On this graph one can easily
identify that the average of 11,400 corresponds to eight-year-old native speakers’ average
receptive vocabulary (11,382), while native speakers of English are reported to have a
vocabulary size of approximately 23,000-24,000 words at the age of 21. Even though the
students’ results are – as expected – higher than the national average their vocabulary needs
lots of improvement to be called native-like.
21
2.4.2 Are there any differences in the year of study of learners with larger and learners
with smaller vocabulary?
The friends and teachers I contacted for advice presupposed that there would be no
differences between students in different years of study. Despite these pessimistic guesses
(with some saying that the first years will have the advantage), the questionnaire yielded the
most likely and scientifically anticipated results. The first-year students’ mean score turned
out to be 9,550 words, the second-years students’ 11,049, while the respondents in their third
or more years have a vocabulary size of 13,267 words on average. The mean score for the
minor students was 10,238. As it is clearly visible on Figure 2 (with the margins of error
included), there is a rather significant difference between the freshmen’s vocabulary breadth
and that of the students in their last year(s) of study.
Figure 2 – Vocabulary scores by year of study
These results may indicate that the English studies program is definitely a significant factor in
the learners’ progress, although, according to the Test Your Vocab blog, a difference of 1,700
words also occurs between 18-year-old and 22-year-old natives as well.
22
2.4.3 Do learners with stronger vocabulary and learners with weaker vocabulary differ
in their self-rating of English and vocabulary knowledge?
Wong and Nunan stated that most of the respondents in their survey were able to give
accurate ratings of their own language ability (2011). Questions 4 and 5 in the present survey
solicited information about the respondents’ self-rating of both English proficiency and
vocabulary. In both instances, the approximately the 80% of the respondents rated their
general English and vocabulary knowledge as high, choosing the third or fourth answers for
the question (See Appendices A and C for details). Even though this means a statistically
significant difference in distribution, the scores imply that the respondents of this
questionnaire were also able to rate their proficiency accurately. There is a significant
difference of 4,200 words between the scores of those who rated their English and/or
vocabulary knowledge high and those who rated them as low (For the exact figures, see Table
1 below).
Table 1 – Vocabulary scores and distribution for Questions 4 and 5
2.4.4 Do learners with stronger vocabulary and learners with weaker vocabulary differ
in their enjoyment of learning English and new words?
Wong and Nunan’s 2011 (p. 151) study and the Test Your Vocab blog both report a
statistically significant difference in English learning effectiveness between those who enjoy
and those who do not enjoy learning the language. The results produced by this study also
revealed enjoyment of learning as a significant factor in vocabulary learning. The sixth item
23
of the survey asked simply how much the respondent enjoys learning English. It did not come
as any surprise though, that 91% of the respondents claimed to enjoy learning the language,
with only 9% opting for the neutral option. Due to the lack of substantial negative responses,
the score-related analysis of the question was omitted. The next item was concerned with the
enjoyment of vocabulary learning yielded somewhat more proportionate results: 52% of the
respondents reported to enjoy learning new words, 39% only “somewhat” enjoy vocabulary
learning, while 9% of the respondents said they “don’t really enjoy it”. It is interesting to see
the gap of 4,000 words between the “don’t really enjoy it” and the “absolutely enjoy it”
group. (See Table 2 for further details.)
Table 2 – Vocabulary scores and distribution for Question 7
2.4.5 Is there any difference in the amount of time learners with stronger vocabulary and
learners with weaker vocabulary devote to practicing English off campus?
The blog at testyourvocab.com reveals that the outside-of-class language usage makes up for
the most obvious difference, as learners who use English regularly for out-of-class activities
have a mean vocabulary size of 12,939 words compared to the average 5,824 of those who
answered with “not much” to the amount of these activities. Wong and Nunan’s research also
vindicated the hypothesis that this is one of the most important factors on English proficiency
(2011, p. 151). The data extracted from the responses correspond to these results with those
24
who ticked “Less than 5 hours [spent using English off campus]” having a mean vocabulary
size of 9,668, in contrast to the 14,183 of those answering with “More than 10 hours”. As
shown on Table 3 below, the results indicate a gradual transition in the figures and a gap of
more than 4,000 words between the two ‘extremes’.
Table 3 – Vocabulary scores and distribution of responses for Question 8
2.4.6 Is there any difference between the overall learning styles of learners with a larger
vocabulary size and learners with a smaller vocabulary size?
In their study, Wong and Nunan reported a statistically significant difference between the
learning styles of more effective and less effective learners. More than 50% of the more
effective (based on their scores achieved at a proficiency exam) were assigned to the
‘communicative’ style, which was then followed by ‘analytical’ then ‘authority-oriented’. The
less effective students were split between authority-oriented and communicative, with the
authority-oriented students just edging out the communicative learners. An interesting fact in
their study was the relatively insignificant number of learners with the ‘concrete’ style (Wong
& Nunan, 2011, pp. 150-152). In contrast to Wong and Nunan’s study, I also analyzed the
second most characteristic learning styles as well which I call ‘minor learning styles’ in the
results. The present study yielded substantially different results, mainly because of the
surprisingly high number of ‘concrete’ learners, which phenomenon is discussed later in the
chapter. ‘Concrete’ was assigned to 37 of the 72 respondents as a ‘major style’ and to 19 as a
25
‘minor’ one. If we discount the concrete learning style, the pattern of responses is similar to
Wong and Nunan’s study. (For the results, see Figure 3).
Figure 3 – The distribution of major and minor learning styles
The score-by-style analysis revealed no significant difference between the analytical, the
communicative and the concrete styles in terms of average scores; however, learners with
authority-oriented style (as suggested by Wong and Nunan (2011, p. 151.)) are in significant
fallback.: the average score of the aforementioned three styles are in the 11,000-12,000 area,
while the authority-oriented learners have a mean score of 8,400. (See Appendix C) For the
sake of better understanding, I established two groups: the Group A includes 19 respondents
with scores 7,500 words and Group B including 19 respondents with scores over 14,500
words. The analysis of the groups’ results revealed that the less effective vocabulary learners
are inclined towards authority-oriented and concrete learning styles, while the more
successful learners are assigned the concrete and communicative styles. The statistical results
of the question are shown in Figure 4.
26
Figure 4 – Differences in the learning style of more effective and less effective vocab. learners
2.4.7 Is there any difference between the vocabulary learning strategy preferences of
learners with a larger vocabulary size and learners with a smaller vocabulary size?
The basis of the strategy-related part of the survey was based on Dóczi’s study on vocabulary
learning strategies (2011) rather than on Wong and Nunan’s which did not deal with
vocabulary acquisition specifically, although they correspond to the results to some extent.
This section does not discuss and report all the possible answers, especially in cases where the
difference was not significant or where there were not enough responses to analyze the
differences. In the analysis of each item, the neutral “Sometimes” answer is omitted from the
data. The first strategy-related question was “Where do you usually meet new words?”
exploring discovery strategies. As the figures on Table 4 suggest, most of the respondents
meet new words when reading texts (90%) for university classes, when reading for pleasure
(69%) and when talking or listening to native speakers of English (62%), while only 18%
claim to come across new vocabulary when talking or listening to non-natives.
27
(* The percentages are produced by adding the figures in the “Often” and “Most of the time”
column and dividing the sum by the number of responses. (n = 71))
The next question (“How do you discover the meaning of a new word?”) solicited
information about how the respondents try to determine the meaning of a new word, or in
other words: what determination strategies they use. Dóczi’s study found that the most
popular (98% of the respondents) strategy was contextual guessing followed by monolingual
(71%), then bilingual (64%) dictionary use (2011, p. 148). The data produced by the present
survey are similar to Dóczi’s, the three most popular determination strategies being contextual
guessing, monolingual dictionary and bilingual dictionary use. Table 5 shows the results:
The second and fifth items of this question were not analyzed in terms of Test Your Vocab
score due to the lack of tangible negative and positive answers, respectively. The results of the
remaining three items show a significant difference between Group A and Group B
respondents.
28
Figure 5 – Determination strategies of Group A and Group B respondents
As Figure 5 shows, there is a highly significant difference in the use of word form-analysis
and bilingual dictionaries between successful and unsuccessful ‘word-learners’. Respondents
with a vocabulary size over 14,500 words tend to omit the use of bilingual dictionaries,
whereas four of five Group A learners look up more often words in such dictionaries. Also, a
substantially higher number of Group B participants claimed that they tend to analyze the new
words to discover their meaning. The gap between Group A and B is not statistically
significant in the case of monolingual vocabularies (See Conclusion and Limitations).
Question 13 was designed to examine the memorization strategies of the respondents.
Dóczi’s study found that underlining and making notes, studying the word in a dictionary and
learning the word in short phrases were the most favored memory strategies in the context of
her study (2011, p. 149). The data yielded by the present survey found that “saying the word
aloud” was the only strategy that a large number of respondents claimed to use (68%), it was
followed by “associating it with a similar word in other languages” (58%) and “repeating the
words several times” (55%).
29
Although there were nine items in Question 13, only five of them are shown and are
thoroughly analyzed in this section (For all the results, see Appendix C). The statistics reveal
that more successful vocabulary learners tend to learn in short phrases and study the words in
monolingual dictionaries more often than Group A learners, while the less effective learnerss
use strategies like „underlining words and taking notes” and „repeating the word several
times” more often (See Figure 6).
Figure 6 - Memorization strategies of Group A and Group B respondents
30
The last data solicited by the survey was in connection with the cognitive and
metacognitive consolidation strategies of the respondents. Dóczi’s research revealed that the
majority of the respondents use cognitive strategies for vocabulary acquisition (2011, p. 151).
The most popular strategies were “using new words when writing” (90,5%), repeating the
word (84,5%) and “using new words when speaking” (80%). Table 7 shows the occurrence of
cognitive strategies:
The score-by-strategy results show that more effective learners more often make efforts to use
the freshly acquired words in speaking and/or in writing, while the less effective (Group A)
learners tend to use vocabulary textbooks and repetition techniques instead.
Figure 7 – Cognitive consolidation strategies of Group A and Group B respondents
31
The survey designed by Dóczi produced data that showed the relatively rare use of
metacognitive strategies. The only regular metacognitive technique was “using English
language media”, with 69% of the respondents claiming to practice it (2011, pp. 151-152). In
my study, I found that there was a significant difference between the usage of cognitive and
metacognitive strategies. As in Dóczi’s case, 82% of the respondents reported to use “English
language media” to learn new words. The remaining three metacognitive items were
surprisingly unpopular, the highest percentage being 17% for “I regularly revise new and old
vocabulary.” Table 8 shows the distribution of metacognitive strategies:
Due to the relative lack of negative (14.5) and positive (14.6-14.8) answers, I saw no point in
analyzing the difference in metacognitive strategy usage between Group A and Group B
respondents.
32
Conclusion and Limitations
Despite it being an experimental study, some preliminary conclusions can be made and
taken into consideration for a more precise and improved study.
The answer for the first research question (Overall average vocabulary size) was already
discussed in earlier sections to be not 100% reliable. Even though Test Your Vocab is highly
praised site, many flaws can be found in the system: the random selection of the tested words
and the possibility of dishonest scores deteriorate the precision of the software. Despite these
obvious limitations, the answer was around the anticipated average and may be used for
comparative purposes. These tests could also prove to be useful in tracking vocabulary
progress and keeping up students’ motivation.
The second research question (Year of study) could be answered with a simple “Yes” due
to the large gap between 1st year and 3
rd year students. We could praise the English
Department for this success however, as was mentioned in section 2.4.2, the increase in
vocabulary might also be incidental or due to “natural” growth.
It was very surprising to see that most of the respondents did not overrate nor underrate
their English and vocabulary knowledge (Self-rating of English and vocabulary). I believe
that it is a particularly beneficial thing to know our progress as without an “origo”, one might
get lost in the maze of vocabulary.
The fourth question about the enjoyment of English and vocabulary learning produced
the anticipated results: students who enjoy learning have an overall advantage in their scores.
The direction of influence is dubious, because I feel that having confidence in my abilities
gives me a much desired boost in studying.
33
The results for the fifth research question (Outside-of-class use) were also anticipated, but
the question arises in this case as well: do the more effective learners use English outside the
school because they have a better knowledge, or is it the other way round?
The sixth question about Learning styles produced surprising results being aware of
Wong and Nunan’s and Willing’s original study. I reckon that this is the part where both their
and my survey was flawed the most mainly due to the wording of the questionnaire and the
2011/2013 interpretation of Willing’s 1994 taxonomy of language learning styles.
The seventh research question yielded (Learning strategies) many interesting results that
may be useful for teachers and learners alike. The results have shown that using more active
and communicative strategies and relying less on our native language is a way to achieve
better results. Learners with issues in vocabulary acquisition might use the results of this
survey to change their learning strategy for better acquisition rate. Despite the statistical
significance of the results, however, it cannot be determined using only the questionnaire
whether it is the strategy that boosts the rate of vocabulary acquisition, or whether it is the
larger vocabulary size that has an influence on the strategy preference.
There are many further research possibilities in this field: e.g. the survey could be
reproduced in other contexts (high schools, other tertiary institutions) as well to gather more
data to further vindicate the underlying theory. This may take up a huge amount of time, but
as vocabulary is a main (and I believe the most interesting) element in language learning, that
gives mass to our proficiency, every little progress would be worth the effort.
34
References
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213-238.
Dóczi, B. (2011). Comparing the vocabulary learning strategies of high school and university
students: A pilot study. WoPaLP, 5, 138-158.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Goldstein, E. B. (2008). Cognitive psychology. New York: Cengage Learning.
Goulden, R., Nation P. & Read J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied
Linguistics, 11, 341-363.
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language
vocabulary for non-native university students: An empirical investigation. Applied
Linguistics, 17, 145-163.
Hirsch, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for
pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8 (2), 689-696.
Hu, M. & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 13 (1), 403-423.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language:
same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 255-271.
Laufer, B., & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: The
construct of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 1-26.
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active
vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48 (3), 365-
391.
35
Leeke, P., & Shaw, P. (2000). Learners' independent records of vocabulary. System, 28, 271-
289.
Lehmann, M. (2003). The lexis of writing and vocabulary size: the relationship between
receptive knowledge and productive use. In J. Andor, J. Horváth, M. Nikolov (Eds.).
Studies in English theoretical and applied linguistics. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learner strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. London:
Continuum.
Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the
Theoretical Framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (3), 320-337.
Meara, P., & Wolter, B. (2004). V_Links: Beyond vocabulary depth. In D. Albrechtsen, K.
Haastrup & B. Henriksen (Eds.), Angles in the English-speaking world (pp. 85-111).
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Nation, P. (2005). Teaching vocabulary. The Asian EFL Journal, 7 (3), 47-54.
Nation, P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied
Linguistics (pp. 35-54). London: Arnold.
Nation, P. & Waring, R. (1997).In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.). Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Oxford, R. L. (1999). Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of
educational linguistics (pp. 518–522). Oxford: Elsevier.
Pichette, F., De Serres, L., & Lafontaine, M. (2011). Sentence reading and writing for second
language vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33 (1), 66-82.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language
Testing, 10, 355-369.
Read, J. (2007). Second Language Vocabulary Assessment: Current Practices and New
Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 7 (2), 105-125.
36
Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Manoa, HI:
University of Hawai’i.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London: Longman.
Willing, K., (1994). Learning Strategies in Adult Migrant Education. Sydney: National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Wong, L. L. C., & Nunan D. (2011). Learning styles and strategies of effective language
learners. System, 39, 144-163.
37
APPENDIX A
Survey: The Vocabulary of BA Students of English at the University of Pécs
Dear participant,
My name is Ádám Lajtai, a third-year BA student of English and History at the University of Pécs. I
would like you to help me with my vocabulary acquisition-themed thesis by completing this survey,
which takes about 20 minutes.
As the first task, I would like you to click on the following link: www.testyourvocab.com. This site
can estimate your English vocabulary size by using a quick three-part test. As is explained on the site
itself, it is highly recommended (for more reliable results) that you mark only those words that you
know for sure. Both the test and this questionnaire are completely anonymous. Thank you for your
help!
For any questions or comments, please contact me via [email protected].
1. What score did you achieve at Test Your Vocab?
2. Which year of study are you currently in?
A) 1st year B) 2nd year C) 3rd year or above
3. Are you an English major or minor?
A) Major B) Minor
4. How do you rate your level of English proficiency?
A) I know the vocabulary, expressions, and grammar to talk about basic subjects in
English. I can talk about the past and the future.
B) I have the communication strategies to discuss most subjects in English. I know the
vocabulary and expressions to use in most situations.
C) I can understand long conversations in English on unfamiliar topics. I have a solid
understanding of English vocabulary and expressions.
D) I can participate fluently in English in most conversations and discussions on a
variety of topics.
38 5. How do you rate your vocabulary size?
A) I usually struggle to understand both general and academic texts mostly due of my
weak vocabulary. I believe I must learn lots of new words to improve my English.
B) I have the basic vocabulary knowledge to understand the core of what I read or
hear, be it general or academic, but sometimes I struggle to understand everything mostly
because of unknown words.
C) I understand the majority of the words I encounter while reading texts or listening
to speakers of English. I also have an adequate vocabulary to make sense of academic
texts.
D) I am very confident in my vocabulary; I hardly ever come across any unfamiliar
words even in the academic field.
6. How much do you enjoy learning English?
A) I don’t enjoy it at all.
B) I don’t really enjoy it.
C) I somewhat enjoy it.
D) I really enjoy it.
E) I absolutely enjoy it.
7. How much do you enjoy learning new words?
A) I don’t enjoy it at all.
B) I don’t really enjoy it.
C) I somewhat enjoy it.
D) I really enjoy it.
E) I absolutely enjoy it.
8. How many hours a week do you use English off campus?
A) Less than 5
B) 5 to 9
C) More than 10
9. Did your Test Your Vocab score meet your expectations?
A) Absolutely, it is better than what I expected.
B) Yes, I expected a similar result.
39 C) No, I expected a better result.
D) Other: __________
10. The next items deal with your learning styles. Please select the most appropriate answer.
Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither
disagree,
nor agree Agree
Strongly
agree
In English class, I like to learn by reading.
I like the teacher to give us problems to work on.
In class, I like to learn by conversation.
In class, I like to learn by games.
I want to write everything in a notebook.
I like the teacher to let me find my mistakes.
I like to learn English in a small group.
In class, I like to learn by pictures, films, videos or
records.
I like the teacher to explain everything to us.
I like to study English by myself.
I like to learn English with the whole class.
I like to learn English by surfing the Internet.
I like the teacher to tell me all my mistakes.
I like to study grammar.
I like to learn English words by hearing them.
I like to learn English by doing something (while using
English).
I like the teacher to help me talk about my interests.
I like to learn many new words.
I like to learn by talking to friends in English.
I like to learn by watching films, series in English.
I can learn English words by seeing them.
I like to practice sounds and pronunciation.
I like to learn by watching, listening to native speakers of
English.
I like to learn English by using it outside class (in stores
etc).
11. How do you meet new vocabulary?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Most of
the time
In seminars or lectures
When reading texts for my university courses
When reading texts outside the university
When talking/listening to native speakers of E.
When talking/list. to non-native speakers of E.
When browsing the Internet
When browsing through a dictionary
40 12. How do you discover the meaning of a word?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Most of
the time
I analyse the form of the word.
I try to guess the meaning from context.
I use a bilingual dictionary to find out its meaning.
I use a monolingual dictionary to find out its meaning.
I ask a native speaker for the meaning of the word.
13. How do you memorize new words?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Most of
the time
I underline the new words in the text and make notes of them.
I put their meanings/synonyms/pronunciation in my vocabulary notebook.
I tend to learn new words in short phrases/sentences.
I study the spelling and/or the pronunciation of the new word.
I say the word aloud when studying it.
I repeat the word for several times.
I study the word in a bilingual dictionary.
I study the word in a monolingual dictionary.
I try to associate it with a similar word in my first language or in other languages.
14. How do you try to consolidate new vocabulary?
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Most of
the time
I repeat the words aloud for several times.
I revise the words from words lists/vocabulary notebooks.
I make an effort to use the new words when speaking.
I make an effort to use the new words in writing.
I use English-language media (e.g. news, songs, movies, series, radio broadcast etc.)
I test my knowledge with word tests.
I organize practice times for vocabulary in my schedule.
I regularly revise both the new and old vocabulary.
15. Would you be willing to participate in a short interview about context-based vocabulary learning?
If yes, please enter your e-mail address. If no, please ignore this question.
16. Would you like to receive feedback on your learning style and the general results?
If yes, please enter your e-mail address. If no, please ignore this question.
41
APPENDIX B
Samples and data from the website of Test Your Vocab
www.testyourvocab.com
The first set of words measuring broad vocabulary level
An example from the final results page
42
Results by country on the Test Your Vocab blog as of March 13, 2013
Average vocabulary size of 8-year-old participants of the Test Your Vocab survey
43
Average vocabulary size of 21-year-old participants of the Test Your Vocab survey
Average non-native vocabulary size by the amount of out-of-class langauge usage
44
APPENDIX C
Additional Tables and Figures
Respondents’ self-rating of English proficiency and vocabulary – addition to 2.4.3
Mean scores by language learning styles – addition to 2.4.6
45
Memorization strategies of Group A and Group B respondents – addition to 2.4.7