Strategies and performance in intentional L2 vocabulary learning

Abstract

This study was designed to identify strategies used during intentional vocabulary learning and to assess the relationship between strategy use and vocabulary learning performance. English-speaking students of Spanish studied new Spanish words while viewing word-picture pairs. The participants then completed posttests and answered questions about their strategy use. Their responses were coded to identify each participant's most frequently used strategy (MFS). Frequency of use of each MFS was determined. A subset of posttest scores were submitted to an analysis of variance with MFS as a between-subjects independent variable, recall type as a within-subjects independent variable, and score as the dependent variable. The results indicated significantly better scores for mnemonic technique and L2–picture association over L2–L1 translation and repetition. A significant positive correlation was also observed between the number of strategies used and vocabulary recall. Theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study are discussed. Sample activities for raising awareness about L2 vocabulary learning strategies and effective strategy use are also provided in the Appendix.

Keywords:

• language
• learning
• strategies
• vocabulary

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Eva-Maria Russo, Specialist in Foreign Language Pedagogy in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at Washington University in St. Louis, for her assistance in completing the study reported in this paper.

Notes

1. The purpose of including only MFSs reported by five participants or more in this ANOVA was to obtain sufficiently large samples within each cell for the ANOVA.

2. Means in Table 2 are estimated marginal means that were generated from a repeated measures ANOVA that included all 12 MFSs (with recall type as a within-subject variable, strategy as a between-subjects variable and score as the dependent variable). These means differed somewhat from the estimated marginal means generated by the ANOVA conducted only on MFSs reported at least five participants.

3. Because the participants were only one semester apart and because none of the participants correctly translated any of the target words on the pre-test, course level was not expected to produce significant effects in this study. Nonetheless, an additional ANOVA was conducted to explore whether level might have had an effect on vocabulary learning. For this analysis, the data provided by the 93 original participants in the study were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA with recall type (picture-to-L2, L2–L1) as a within-subjects independent variable, level (first-semester, second-semester) as a between-subjects variable and score as the dependent variable. A significant effect for recall type, F(1, 91) = 19.33, p < 0.001, η² = 0.175, was observed. No other significant main effects or interactions were revealed (for level, p = 0.613; for Level × Recall Type, p = 0.965). Overall means were 13.07, SE = 0.54, for first-semester students and 12.53, SE = 0.92, for second-semester students.