An Exploration of Breadth and Depth of EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Strategy Use Using Structural Equation Modeling

محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه

Behzad Hayatbakhsh ¹ , Mehry Haddad Narafshan ² , Peyman Seifaddiny ³

1 - Department of English Language, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran
2 - Department of English Language, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, Kerman Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1402/07/02 تاریخ پذیرش : 1402/08/15 تاریخ انتشار : 1402/10/11

کلید واژه: strategy, equation modeling, vocabulary use, breadth and depth of vocabulary,

چکیده مقاله :

Appropriate language learning strategies result in improved proficiency among EFL learners. This paper aimed to investigate the relationship between vocabulary learning strategy use and the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners using structural equation modeling. To fulfill this goal, 200 EFL learners, mainly intermediate level, both genders using cluster sampling procedure, established the participated of the study. Three instruments were used to collect the data: the vocabulary learning strategies survey, the depth and breadth of vocabulary test, and the vocabulary levels test. Friedman’s test results showed that the proportion of using word learning strategies was not the same among the respondents (p-value <0.05). A comparison of the frequency of using strategies indicates that the MEMORY strategy with (69%) was used more than others and the DETERMINATION strategy with (2.5%) was the least used by the respondents. Also, none of the respondents used the SOCIAL vocabulary learning strategy and METACOGNITIVE strategy. Finally, the relationship between DETERMINATION strategy and Breadth of vocabulary knowledge, SOCIAL vocabulary learning strategy and Breadth of vocabulary knowledge, MEMORY learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, COGNITIVE learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, METACOGNITIVE learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, SOCIAL learning strategy and Depth of knowledge, COGNITIVE learning strategy and Depth of knowledge and METACOGNITIVE learning strategy and Depth of vocabulary knowledge is not significant (p-value>0.05). These findings have implications for teachers, students and English language teaching policymakers.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Appropriate language learning strategies result in improved proficiency among EFL learners. This paper aimed to investigate the relationship between vocabulary learning strategy use and the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge of EFL learners using structural equation modeling. To fulfill this goal, 200 EFL learners, mainly intermediate level, both genders using cluster sampling procedure, established the participated of the study. Three instruments were used to collect the data: the vocabulary learning strategies survey, the depth and breadth of vocabulary test, and the vocabulary levels test. Friedman’s test results showed that the proportion of using word learning strategies was not the same among the respondents (p-value <0.05). A comparison of the frequency of using strategies indicates that the MEMORY strategy with (69%) was used more than others and the DETERMINATION strategy with (2.5%) was the least used by the respondents. Also, none of the respondents used the SOCIAL vocabulary learning strategy and METACOGNITIVE strategy. Finally, the relationship between DETERMINATION strategy and Breadth of vocabulary knowledge, SOCIAL vocabulary learning strategy and Breadth of vocabulary knowledge, MEMORY learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, COGNITIVE learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, METACOGNITIVE learning strategy and Breadth of knowledge, SOCIAL learning strategy and Depth of knowledge, COGNITIVE learning strategy and Depth of knowledge and METACOGNITIVE learning strategy and Depth of vocabulary knowledge is not significant (p-value>0.05). These findings have implications for teachers, students and English language teaching policymakers.

منابع و مأخذ:

Alemi, M., & Tayebi, A. (2011). The influence of incidental and intentional vocabulary acquisition and vocabulary strategy use on learning L2 vocabularies. Journal of Lan-guage Teaching and Research, 2(1), 81. https://doi.org/doi:10.4304/jltr.2.1.81-9
Amirian, S. M. R., & Heshmatifar, Z. (2013). A survey on vocabulary learning strategies: A case of Iranian EFL university students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(3), 636. https://doi.org/doi:10.4304/jltr.4.3.636-641
Amirian, S. M. R., Mallahi, O., & Zaghi, D. (2015). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ self-regulatory vocabulary strategy use and their vocabulary size. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2015.20388
Bialystok, E. (1983). Inferencing: Testing the ‘hypothesis testing’ hypothesis. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 104–123). Newbury House.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26.
Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425–434.
Cook, V. (2016). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.
Cornell, D., Klein, J., Konold, T., & Huang, F. (2012). Effects of validity screening items on adolescent survey data. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 21.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Fahim, M., & Ahmadi, H. (2012). Critical thinking, content schemata and EFL readers’ comprehension and recall. Journal of Comparative Literature & Culture, 1(1), 23–28.
Fan, N. (2020). Strategy use in second lan-guage vocabulary learning and its relationships with the breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: A structural equation modeling study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 752. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00752
Flower, J. R. (2000). Start building your vocabulary (Vol. 5). LTP Language.
Fraser, C. A. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 225–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199002041
Grove, C. (1994). The Lexical Approach: The State of ELT and a Way Forward. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 828. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/3587574
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01355.x
Haastrup, K. (1991). Lexical inferencing procedures, or, talking about words: Receptive procedures in foreign language learning with special reference to English (Vol. 14). Gunter Narr Verlag.
Harley, B., & Hart, D. (2000). Vocabulary learning in the content-oriented second-language classroom: Student perceptions and proficiency. Language Awareness, 9(2), 78–96. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667139
Hedge, T. (2001). Teaching and learning in the language classroom (Vol. 106). Oxford university press Oxford, UK.
Henriksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 303–317.
Intaraprasert, C. (2004). EST Students and vocabulary leaning strategies: Apreliminary investigation.
Janebi Enayat, M., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2020). The relationship between vo-cabulary size and depth for Iranian EFL learners at different language proficiency levels. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 8(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2020.120891
Kanatlar, M. (1995). Guessing Words in Context Strategies Used by Beginning and Upper-intermediate Learners. Un-published Master’s Thesis]. Bilkent University.
Kitajima, R. (2001). The effect of instructional conditions on students’ vocabulary retention. Foreign Language Annals, 34(5), 470–482. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02086.x
Komol, T., & Sripetpun, W. (2014). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by undergraduate students and its relationship to their vocabulary knowledge.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary‐learning strategies of for-eign‐language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101–135. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00642.x
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford University Press.
N. Schmitt. (2000). Richards, J. C. Series editor’s preface. In Vocabulary in language teaching (pp. xi–xii). Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. (2022). Teaching and learning vocabulary. In Handbook of Practical Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 397–408). Routledge.
Nirattisai, S., & Chiramanee, T. (2014). Vo-cabulary learning strategies of Thai university students and its relationship to vocabulary size. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(1), 273–287.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching & Learning. ERIC.
O’malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge university press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. (No Title).
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1999). Reading and “incidental” L2 vocabulary acquisition: An introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 21(2), 195–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226319900203X
Rahimy, R., & Shams, K. (2012). An Investigation of the Effectiveness of Vocabulary Learning Strategies on Iranian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Test Score. International Education Studies, 5(5), 141–152.
Read, J. (2013). Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In Validation in language assessment (pp. 41–60). Routledge.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 77–89.
Richards, J. C. (1985). The context of lan-guage teaching. (No Title).
Rubin, J., Thompson, I., & Sun, H. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Heinle & Heinle Boston.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2020). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge university press.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220101800
Shoari, R. B., & Elnaz, J. (2017). The effect of games on iranian young EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
Soria, J. (2001). A study of Ilokano learners’ lexical inferencing procedures through think-aloud.
Soureshjani, K. H. (2011). The effect of contextualizing and decontextualizing techniques on lexical-oriented knowledge of Persian EFL language learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(5), 547–552. https://doi.org/doi:10.4304/tpls.1.5.547-5
Stoffer, I. (1995). University foreign language students’ choice of vocabulary learning strategies as related to individual difference variables. The University of Al-abama.
Weaver, S. J. (1997). Strategies-based instruction: A teacher-training manual. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition.
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2015). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 740–753. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12277
Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 5–19). Cambridge University Press.