632-Using Vocabulary Games to Increase the Use of Language Learning Strategy

7/29/2019 632-Using Vocabulary Games to Increase the Use of Language Learning Strategy

1/29

Using Vocabulary Games to Increase the Use of

Language Learning Strategy

Margaret ChenAssociate Professor of

Graduate Institute of Foreign Languages Education and Cultural Industries

Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Ying Ting, HsiaoResearch Assistant of Language Diagnostic and Consulting Center

Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how a 20-hour-vocabulary-game training

program affected the participants use of language learning strategies. The participants in the

experiment were 46 EFL college students who voluntarily joined the program either from July

14th

to 25th

or from August 11th

to 22nd

, 2008, two hours a day. The vocabulary training

program adopted three types of games, invented by Chen, M. (2008) in the form of Poker

cards, Chinese Chess and Gobang. The three games were consisted of 153 words which,

through the games regulations could generate another 454 compound words. After playing

the three types of games for approximately 20 hours, the participants were expected to learn

607 words altogether. Oxfords Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) was used

to find out if the use of learning strategies differed before and after the training program. A

vocabulary test written by the authors was employed to investigate the gains of vocabulary

size, but its result is not included in this paper. SPSS was used for data analysis. The

paired-sample t-test result showed that there were significant differences between pretest and

post-test in the use of all strategies, and direct strategies in particular. It is suggested that a

further series of researches be conducted with more participants from different groups of

learners so that a norm of this designed vocabulary training program can be established.Moreover, the retention rate of the words can be measured again with the same participants so

to find out if the games help long-term memory. Finally, studies of comparison between an

experiment group and a control group can be conducted for further investigation regarding the

result of the three types of vocabulary learning games with those of other vocabulary learning

methods.

Key words: Language learning strategies, vocabulary learning strategies, educational games,

vocabulary games


2/29

Introduction and Background of the Study

In Taiwan, English is a compulsory language subject from the third grade of elementary

school to the end of high school. Looking back over the time that Taiwanese students have

spent in learning English, excluding attending supplementary classes in cram schools, they

have learned English for almost 10 years, or 20 semesters, equivalent to 360 school weeks, or

1080 hours (averaging three hours a week). If we take the CEFR as an index, anyone who

spends1080 hours learning a language would have achieved at least B1 level with the

following competence:

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly

encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise

whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected

text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and

events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for

opinions and plans.

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

Learning, Teaching, Assessment, p.24

However, observing from the facts and existing phenomena, Taiwanese TOEFL-iBT

average scores in 2006-2007 increased from 71 to 72 out of a full score of 120

(www.toefl.org). Granted that progress exists, Taiwan still ranked a considerable distance

behind both China and South Korea (or with an average score of 78 and 77 respectively). In

addition, most university students, on average should be able to reach the intermediate level

of the national testGeneral English Proficiency Test (GEPT). The Department of

Technological and Vocational Education of the Ministry of Education (MOE) tested the

English language proficiency of 11,205 students in technological and vocational colleges and

universities over three consecutive annual tests from 2001 to 2003. These tests revealed that

only 18.1% (2026 students) achieved the basic level of the GEPT. More than 80% of students

from the technological and vocational system were not even able to comprehend or use the

simplest phrases of daily English language in the tests established by the Language Training

and Testing Center (LTTC, 2004). A year later, according to data collected in 2005 by the

Integrated Higher Education Database System in Taiwan, among 71,104 university and

technological and vocational freshmen, only 35.94% of them had passed the basic level of the

GEPT test, which means that more than 64% of university freshmen failed to achieve the

basic level of the GEPT. The results of the above mentioned proficiency tests reveal the

Taiwanese students levels of English proficiency.

However, in a test-oriented country such as Taiwan, test scores are often used as

indicators influencing the objectives of English courses. Most of the English learned inschools is for test purposes and not for communication, nor for career preparation. Therefore,


3/29

if one looks at the English curriculum, most objectives are related to teaching content, not

strategies. Researches in fields pertaining to language learning strategy application in Taiwan

also reflect a scarcity in teaching strategies. Even when reviewing researches on learning

strategies in second language acquisition, studies intended to validate strategy effectiveness

and how they help students become good language learners still require further exploration.

Thus, a brief introduction to the background of this study will be further set out in the

following section.

Language Learning Strategy

In the past 30 years, attempts to investigate language learning strategies in both ESL and

EFL have been prolific. Starting from Rubins (1975) investigation on how good language

learners learned to understanding the learning processes of good language learners (Naiman,

Frohlich, Stern & Todesco (1978), they spearheaded the exploration in this field, and led other

researchers in the 1980s to identify and classify language learning strategies (OMalley,

Chamot, Stewner-manazares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,

Nyikos, & Crookall, 1987; Rubin, 1981, 1987). Meanwhile, researchers also proposed

language learning techniques for specific language skills and tasks (Naiman, et al, 1978;

Rubin & Thompson, 1994) and compiled inventories for Language learning strategies for

both ESL and EFL learners (Brown, 2002; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999;

Cohen & Chi, 2001; Cohen & Oxford, 200l; Ehrman, 1998; Oxford, 1986, 1990; Pintrich,

Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Efforts done in the past few decades all presented their

intentions to find the most effective methods for language learners. Thus, following the trend,more and more efforts have been dedicated to examining factors that affect the choices

(Oxford & Bury-stock, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), frequency (Chamot & Kupper, 1989;

Chamot & OMalley, 1987; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995) and variety (Cohen, 1990; OMalley,

Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, & Kupper, 1985; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,

1989, 1990, 1992; Wenden & Rubin, 1987) of language learning strategies and their

correlation with language proficiency and effectiveness among different groups (Green, 1991;

Green & Oxford, 1995; Ho, 1999; Mangubhai, 1991; Okada, Oxford & Abo, 1996; Politzer &

McGroarty, 1985; Park, 1997; Purpura, 1998).

Language Learning Strategy in Taiwan

Researchers on Taiwan were no exception in their intention of identifying language

learners frequent use of language learning strategies (Chang, 2002; Chen, Y. C., 2005; Chen,

M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002; Huang, 2002; Teng, 2000; Yang, N. D., 1993; Yang, S. C.,

1997). In addition, investigating factors that affected the use of language learning strategies

was also a major area for researches in this field: language proficiency level (Chen, Y. C.,

2005; Chen, M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002; Fan, 2003; Ho, 1999; Ku, 2003; Teng, 2000;

Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1997, 1999), motivation (Yang, N. D, 1996), gender (Chen,

M., 2007; Chang & Chang,1998; Teng, 2000; Sy, 1996; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1997,


4/29

1999), years of study English and the participants major (Chen, 2007; Yang, N. D., 1996;

Yang, S. C., 1997, 1999). However, in Yang S. C.s major study done in 1999, she also

attempted to investigate how learning type, psychological types, listening, vocabulary and

reading related with language learning strategies. Yang N. D. (2003, 2005), however, after

conducting a systematic research with respect to factors affecting the use of language learning

strategies, revised her focus on the implementation of Learning Strategy-Based instruction in

the language classroom by using both paper and web-based portfolios that promoted

independent learning and a tailor-made program for each individual learner. Huang (2001)

also implemented an English learning strategy training course and assessed its impacts on

college-level students learning achievement, attitudes, anxiety, and proficiency. The training

program showed significant improvement in English proficiency, motivational intensity,

strategy use, and a significant decrease in English learning anxiety.

Vocabulary Learning Strategies

As a major sub-field in language learning strategies, vocabulary learning strategy,

investigated by researchers in the 1970s, was derived from fields related to good learners

(Schmitt, 1997). Despite the fact that a great majority of studies related to language learning

strategies had concentrated on vocabulary, possibly for its discrete point tasks and ease of

experiment execution (Schmitt & Schmitt, 1993), few studies, if not dealing with individual

or small numbers of learning strategies, emphasized vocabulary learning strategies as a whole

(Schmitt & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt, 1997). Individual vocabulary learning strategies such as

contextual guessing, association, note-taking, use of a dictionary, and rote repetition amongdifferent groups of learners were widely investigated. For instance, repetition was regarded as

the most commonly mentioned strategy while strategies that require complex manipulation of

information were used less frequently (OMalley, et al., 1985). Rote memory tools such as

word lists were considered effective to enhance the acquisition of a great deal of vocabulary

in a short period of time (Nation, 1982). On the other hand, Cohen and Aphek (1980) found

that proficient students tended to be better at applying association skills.

Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training Program

While abundant studies have shed light on understanding learners vocabulary learning

strategies, it is argued that a lack of application of vocabulary strategy training must be

complemented by further investigation. Fan (2003) investigated the frequency, perceived and

actual usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies, as well as the strategies students applied

to learn the high- and low-frequency words among 1067 Hong Kong ESL students. It was

reported that students have a predilection for applying guessing strategies to high-frequency

words while they tend to use source strategy, such as using the known words, to learn the

low-frequency words. The result of the study reflected Asian students vocabulary strategy

use and its perceived usefulness. However, the study failed to incorporate a more structured

training course or a designed training program in order to further support its findings.


5/29

In Taiwan, Yen & Chuo (2007) incorporated Memory Trigger Instruction (MTI)

techniques into reading classes which consisted of Oxfords SILL, and mnemonic devices

(including keyword method, discourse and music application, and association). The study

concluded that MTI significantly enhanced learners use of memory strategy and overall

English proficiency, while it made no impact on other language learning strategies. Though

MTI mainly focused on vocabulary learning strategies, the study did not measure learners

vocabulary gains.

The notion of integrating strategy into the classroom or advocating strategy training

programs is not new, OMalley, et al. (1985), Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995), and other

Taiwanese researchers advocated it for further studies (Chiang & Liao, 2002; Ku, 1998; Ku,

2003; Teng, 2000; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1999). However, regarding researches done

either in Taiwan for EFL students or in other countries for ESL students, the above described

literature review indicates that up to now, the focus has still been placed on identifying,

classifying and finding the factors of the use of language learning strategies. Particular

programs created for increasing learning strategies for language learning both inside and

outside the language classroom are, as yet, insufficient, not to mention using games for

enhancing learning strategies, so substantial measures can still be taken to enhance learning

effectiveness.

Responding to the necessity, this study, the 20-hour-vocabulary-game-training program

was purposely designed to follow up the research results and recommendation of Chen, M.

(2007), Chen & Hsiao (2007), and Chen & Hsu (2006). In her 2007 study, Chen, M. surveyed

1090 participants use of language learning strategies and found that, over the whole group,

memory strategy was used the least frequently in comparison with cognitive, compensation,

meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies based on Oxfords Strategy Inventory of

Language Learning (SILL, 1990). Even reviewing the order of strategies used from the

perspective of the participants gender, proficiency levels, major study, different year levels,

or educational system, memory strategy still ranked the least often used strategy among others.

In Chen & Hsus case study (2006), the authors tried to identify the most effective learning

strategies used by 77 students who made progress and students who regressed greatly in their

English proficiency scores taken in 2004 and 2005. Although the result reinforced many

predecessors research results that language learning strategies were positively related tolanguage proficiency, the study corresponded again with the result of Chens study (2007).

Regardless of the two groups proficiency levels, memory strategies which help learners store

and retrieve new information, including creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds,

reviewing well, and employing action were the least used among the other five categories of

language learning strategies.

In order to increase the usage rate, the Language Diagnostic & Consulting Center

(LDCC), a center established for helping students in the authors workplace, constantly

provides courses for a small group of students with the same need or difficulty, training

learners to incorporate learning strategies into their learning (Chen & Hsiao, 2007).

In short, a major portion of the paper is devoted to introducing types of vocabulary


6/29

games and their application in a strategy learning program in the hope that through playing

games, the fun, challenges, and stimulation can influence the participants towards a novel

way of learning vocabulary. The study also includes an initial small scale of experiment on

the acceptance level.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to test the following two hypotheses:

1. The designed vocabulary learning games will increase overall use of the participantslanguage learning strategies after completing the 20-hour program.

2. The designed vocabulary learning games will particularly increase the use of directstrategies especially memory and compensation strategies.

Limitations

1. The experiment was limited to a small number of participants who came from the samecollege. Therefore, it may limit the relevance of the finding.

2. The vocabulary training program covered 20 hours. Whether the gain of the vocabularysize and increase use of learning strategy have a long term effect requires further study

with the same group of the participants for validating the programs and the designed

games.

Definition of Terms

Language Diagnostic & Consulting Center (LDCC)

Established in 2005 at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, the

LDCC integrates diversified language learning resources under systematic but distinctive

processes. It provides multi-functional and multi-disciplinary resources for students, hoping

to trigger learners motivation and cultivate learning autonomy. Through diagnosis of

language learning strategies and learning styles, advisors in the LDCC offer customized

learning programs to individual students. Meanwhile, the LDCC constantly invents and brings

in short-term intensive programs for learners. Detailed information regarding this center is

presented in Chen & Hsiaos work (2007).

Poker cards

Unlike universally recognized Poker games, the game rule from which our designed

vocabulary poker card game derived is from a popular variation in Taiwan PickRed.

PickRed is a type of game in which players are given up to six cards, depending on the


7/29

number of the players. The rest of the cards are put aside and four cards are put face-up on the

table. Players begin to play by making a pair either from their hand or from the table to make

the sum of their two cards to be 10. Only the red cards (hearts and diamonds) count.

Chinese ChessChinese Chess (Xiang-qi), originating from China, is one of the most popular board

games in the world. Distinct from the traditional Chinese Chess which is set up on the board

with certain restraints, a simpler variation called Blind Chess (An-qi) is adapted for the

designed vocabulary games. Blind Chess is played with all pieces upside down on only one

half of the board. The powerful pieces beat the weaker ones. There are 16 red pieces and 16

black pieces. Each piece has its own restraints of moving; pieces may move horizontally,

vertically and diagonally; they may leap over another piece to capture their target or directly

capture their target in any non-diagonal direction. The game ends when one player

successfully takes the general, or checkmates the other player.

Gobang

Gobang, also known as 5-in-a-Row, is a traditional oriental game played with black and

white pieces on a 19x19 go board. The pieces can be lined vertically, horizontally and

diagonally. The first one who has lined up five pieces of the same color wins.

The designed vocabulary games adopted game rules from the above mentioned game

types and their designed content is introduced in the following section.

The Study

Subjects

Forty-six students voluntarily registered for the vocabulary learning program. The

participants were students from a language college in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China.

Except for one male student who majored in Translation and Interpreting, the group was

formed of 45 female students whose majors were in English (9), French (3) German (10),

Spanish (2), Japanese (14) , Applied Chinese (1), Foreign Language Instruction (1),

Translation and Interpreting (1), International Affairs (1), International Business (1), and

Communication Arts (2). Among the 46 students, 17 students were from the 4-year college,

and the remaining 29 were from the 5-year junior college. All of them had learned English for

at least eight to ten years. Their average English proficiency score was 143.65 based on the

test result of the College Students English Proficiency Test (CSEPT), administered in

September, 2007 by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) in Taiwan. The

average score is equivalent to the level of CEFR A1 (Common European Framework

Reference). During the training program, the 46 participants (15 from the July program and

31 from the August program) were divided into groups based on the nature of the games.


8/29

However, to make the learning process equally competitive and challenging, the participants

were also divided into groups based on their proficiency scores. All the participants

completed the 20-hour program and tests.

Four staff members from the Language Diagnostic and Consulting Center (LDCC)

where the activity took place were recruited to act as game dealers. All the four dealers were

female with a bachelor degree in English or Foreign Language Instruction. Three other

student tutors also majored in English or Foreign Language Instruction were recruited and

trained to be game dealers. One college student from another university in Southern Taiwan

who was doing internship in the LDCC also received training to be a game dealer.

Instruments

In this study, three instruments were used. First, three types of vocabulary games: Poker

cards, Chinese Chess and Gobang comprising 153 original single words (all nouns) which

could be matched among each other to create up to 454 compound nouns were selected.

Second, a vocabulary test written by the authors was administered before the program started.

The same test was given again after completion of each type of game. Oxfords SILL was also

employed before and after the program. Details about the construct of the instruments are

provided as follows.

Vocabulary games

1. Poker cardsThree types of vocabulary games had been invented by Chen, M. (2008, Patent No.

097101167), and were adopted in this study. Two sets of Poker cards were created for the

training program. Each set has 54 cards just like the regular deck of poker cards, but the first

set uses 42 words and while the other uses 45 words. That means words with higher

frequency to be matched appear on more than one card. All words used are nouns and only

compound nouns are designated to be matched. The first set of Poker cards ultimately can

generate 159 compound nouns by matching every two cards within the set. The second set of

Poker cards (made of 45 words) can be matched to produce 147 compound nouns. However,

if the two sets are put together to play, players can match up to at least 306 compound nouns,

although 21 noun words and 61 compound nouns may be repeated.

As well as the printed word on each card, a picture indicating the meaning of the word is

also provided and the Chinese translation of the word appears below the picture in relatively

small print to avoid interference for players who already know the meaning of the word, or

know the word by looking at the picture. For those who do not know the word even with the

aid of the picture, the Chinese translation of the specific word will help smooth learning.

Moreover, the Poker cards, if not used to play the matching game, can be used as flash cards

for learning vocabulary.


9/29

The following cards are real examples which the authors used to conduct the

program.

Figure1. Invented Poker cards (P1)

Figure2. Invented Poker cards (P2)

The above examples illustrate some words on the cards played in the first four to five

hours of the program. All the words used on the Poker cards range between Level A1 to A2

based on the CEFR, and a majority of them also appear in Taiwanese elementary and junior

high school English textbooks. For instance, man can be matched with power and

become manpower or powerman. Power can also be matched with lifter thus become

powerlifter. Ship can be matched with either friend or wreck to form friendship or

shipwreck.

2. Chinese Chess (Xiangqi)Unlike the Poker cards created with illustrations to indicate the meaning of the word on


10/29

each card, the Chinese Chess is made of 32 word pieces with eight red core words and 24

black words to be matched. The eight red pieces are the key words which can be matched

with at least three black ones to form compound nouns. Four sets of the Chinese Chess were

used in the training program. Each set can generate another 33 to 58 compound nouns. Totally,

if repeated noun words within these four sets are deducted, 107 noun words are used to

compose the four sets of the Chinese Chess and another 161 compound nouns can be

generated all together. The following picture shows what the Chinese Chess looks like.

Figure3. Invented Chinese Chess game

3. GobangGobang is a popular game played in Asian countries. Chen, M. (2008) adopted the game

rule and invented a new instrument for vocabulary matching games. In this game, there are 60

noun words which can be matched to create up to 221 compound nouns. This game can be

played by two individual players or by two groups of learners against each other. Each

player/team has the same 60 noun words in two different colors in his/her own bowl.

Whoever lines up five compound nouns in the same color from any direction wins the game.


11/29

Figure4. Invented Gobang

If calculated, the total number of noun words and the created compound nouns in the

two sets of Poker cards, four sets of Chinese Chess and one set of Gobang based on the noun

words and compound nouns appearing in Gobang, there are 153 noun words and

approximately 454 compound nouns that can be matched excluding the repeated matched

pairs in different types of games. Most noun words chosen to compose the games are between

the beginning and lower intermediate levels, but the derived compound nouns are one to two

levels higher.

The following table shows the noun word counts and the repeating compound nouns in

each game based on the total number of noun words and compound nouns in Gobang.

Table 1

The word counts and repeating words in each game

Game

typeCoding

Original word

count

Unrepeated

original word

count

Compound

noun count

Unrepeated

compound noun

count

P1 42 18 159 88Poker

Cards P2t 45 19 147 67

C1 31 4 58 7

C2 31 14 38 17

C3 32 18 34 26

Chinese

Chess

C4 32 20 33 28

Gobang G 60 60 221 221

Total 273 153 690 454

Total compound 607 words after these games


12/29

nouns obtained

Vocabulary Test

A vocabulary test made by the authors comprising 174 matching questions was used for

pre and post tests to measure the participants vocabulary gains from the training program.The 174 questions were written in Chinese and 348 English compound nouns were used for

matching the 174 questions. The authors adopted the format of Vocabulary Level Test

developed by Schmitt, Schmitt & Clapham (2001), using six test items to match with three

definition items. In Vocabulary Level Test, English definitions were used. However, instead of

using English definitions, the authors chose Chinese translations so as to allow more items to

be taken within a given period of time. All the words were taken from the three types of

games. Among 348 English compound nouns, except for the 19 repeated test items, 187

words appeared from the two sets of Poker cards, 76 words from the four sets of Chinese

Chess and 66 from the set of Gobang. The test was administered four times after finishing

each set of games including a pretest and a post-test. The order of the test items was altered

once to prevent students from memorizing the answers. The following example illustrates the

format of the test, and the complete test can be obtained from the authors upon request.

Table 2

Excerpt from the vocabulary test

1. airman

2. headman3. houseman

4. skylark

5. skyscraper

6. workman

_____

_____

_____

1. airtime

2. lifetime

3. rainbelt

4. raincheck

5. sandbox

6. sandstorm

_____

_____

_____ /

1. airhead

2. backroom

3. ballroom

4. boardroom

5. headman

6. headroom

_____

_____

_____


13/29

The Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

In order to find out whether learners use of language learning strategies would increase

after the 20-hour vocabulary training program or not, Oxfords SILL (50-item, Version 7.0 for

ESL/EFL) was used for data collection. According to Oxford (1990), the SILL is comprised

of six categories of language learning strategies, namely, memory strategies, cognitive

strategies, compensation strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies and social

strategies; of which the first three categories belong to the direct strategies and the other three

belong to indirect strategies.

CSEPT Score

The participants College Students English Proficiency Test (CSEPT) scores were used

to identify their English proficiency levels for grouping purpose. The full score is 360 and the

test comprises listening, reading comprehension and grammar usage sections scoring 120each. The test is designed and administered by LTTC in Taipei, Taiwan for two levels. The

test is administered annually to students at the request of this particular college. For the

purpose of this study, only the total score of the CSEPT administered in September, 2007 was

used for grouping and quantitative data analysis.

Procedures

Pretest

The vocabulary learning program began from July 14th

to July 25th, and August 11

thto

August 22nd during which the participants met two hours a day except for the weekends. On

the first day of the program, the participants filled in SILL, did the vocabulary test and were

given the course syllabus so as to know what kind of games would be played and how much

time would be used for each game. Activities took place inside the Language Diagnostic and

Consulting Center (LDCC). Requirement of the training course relating to punctuality, issue

of certificate upon the completion of the course, and grouping were explained at the outset of

the program, and before each meeting, one of the dealers would announce the types of games

to be played and explain the rules.

Game Length & Rounds

Equal amounts of time were allocated among the three different types of games,

approximately five to six hours. For instance, for each type of game, the participants had

about five hours to play at least three to four rounds for each set (two sets of Poker cards, four

sets of Chinese chess and one set of Gobang). Some of the groups took longer time to finish a

round, but all groups were controlled to play an equal number of rounds for each game and

the same amount of time to review the word list of the vocabulary game after each round.

After completing five to six hours for one type of game and before playing the next type of

game, the participants took the vocabulary test. Totally, the participants wrote the vocabulary

tests four times.


14/29

The detailed time used for each game set and the number of rounds played are listed in

the table below.

Table 3

Time used and the rounds played in the program

Game type (1) Poker (2) Chess (3) Gobang

Game set P1 P2 P1+P2 C1 C2 C3 C4 G Contest

Time used (hr) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 2

No. of round

played5 5 3

Vocab.

Test

(0.5hr)3 3 3 3

Vocab.

Test

(0.5hr)3 5-6

Game Grouping

The players were grouped according to the nature of the game. Poker cards were played

by three to four and the Chinese Chess was played by two to three. However, Gobang was

played by two and when there were odd numbers of participants, the student intern would join

the game and play with the participants. During the last four hours of the program, a Gobang

tournament was designed to create fun and competitiveness. The champion and the group

winners were awarded prizes.

Game Rule

During the process of the games, the participants were requested to say out loud the

word in their hands which they intended to match with the words on the table, and also read

the formed compound noun they successfully matched out loud too so that the other players

would know which words had been matched. The request to read out loud the words during

the play was to enhance memorization. If a wrong match occurred, the dealer would caution

the player by withdrawing the cards and returning them to the player without saying the

correct answer. Not until the end of each round, would the players be provided with the word

list of the vocabulary game for review. However, during the recess between rounds, the

players were allowed to ask questions related to the games, word meaning and pronunciation

of the words. Moreover, during the recess, the players were encouraged to write down the

compound nouns they or other players had matched.

Basically, all games used in this research were designed to encourage players to match as

many compound nouns as they could. Therefore, whoever could match the most compound

nouns won the game and the dealer recorded each players score. During the play, the dealers

would repeatedly encourage the players to match different compound nouns which they had

not matched in the previous rounds.

Game dealer

Each group had a dealer to supervise the game process and regulations. Before the

program started, all dealers received approximately five-hours of training to conduct the

experiment and met with the researchers every day after the game session for discussion

about the flow of the games and the problems that needed to be adjusted or solved.


15/29

The following chart gives brief introduction to illustrate the procedure of the program.

The Procedure

Start to play

Number of rounds played: Poker (13); Chinese Chess (12); Gobang (8-9)

Game type (1) Poker Cards (2) Chinese Chess (3) Gobang

A complete

round

Rule Explanationat the outset of each type of game

Arrange cards/ chessboard

Start playing game /Play next round

Game over

Write down matched compound nouns (10 mins)

Review word list of the vocabulary game (10 mins)

Figure4.

1.Strategies Inventory of Language learning (SILL)2.Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP)3.174-items Vocabulary Matching Test

1st

hour:

Administering

Pretest

Grouping: Participants were grouped based on their proficiency

level and regrouped according to the nature of the game

during the program

1. Correcting pronunciation2. Explaining unfamiliar words raised by participants

Wrap-up Class

10~15mins

1. Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL)2. Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP)3. 174-item Vocabulary Matching Test4. 24-item questionnaire with 4 open-ended questions

Administering

Post-test


16/29

Data Collection

SILL results and vocabulary test results were recorded and computed for data analysis.

Questions raised by students during the program, as well as class observations recorded by

each dealer and meeting minutes after everydays lessons were collected for future program

modification. The time used in each round, records of winners and losers, as well as

compound nouns they matched in each game were also filed for further studies and

modification of the program.

Data Analysis

SPSS was applied to calculate the mean scores, standard deviations of the vocabulary

tests, questionnaire and students use of language learning strategies. One-way ANOVA and

paired-sample t-testwere used to investigate if the implementation of the training program

affected language learning strategies among different language proficiency groups.

Results and Discussion

The paper set out to test two hypotheses. To respond to the first hypothesis, The

designed vocabulary learning games will increase the use of the participants overall language

learning strategies after playing the games for 20 hours, the results correspond positively if

we compare the results of pretest and post-test by applyingpaired-sample t-testto the strategy

uses as a whole (see Table 4). The result can be explained from the following two aspects.

For the whole group of 46 participants, the mean of their overall language learning

strategies use before attending the program was 3.09 (SD=.64) out of the full score 5.

According to Oxfords SILL Profile of Result (1990), the statistical average shown in this

study was at a medium level of frequency (2.5 to 3.4). That means the participants believed

that they sometimes apply language learning strategy in the process of learning. The mean of

their individual language learning strategies use is shown in Table 4 as well.

After 20 hours of training, the participants mean of SILL as a whole had increased to

3.31 (SD=.63), and the use of every language learning strategy had increased as well. The

order of frequency use of language learning strategy discovered from the two results,

remained almost identical in that affective strategy was used the least frequently and

compensation strategy the most.

Table 4

The participants use of strategy before and after the program (Paired-sample t-test)

Overall Memory Cognitive Compensation Meta-cognitive Affective Social

Pre-mean 3.09 2.86 3.16 3.29 3.18 2.79 3.19

Post-mean 3.31 3.22 3.34 3.49 3.39 3.03 3.37

t -5.801 -6.475 -4.324 -2.895 -3.408 -3.013 -2.225

p .000*** .000*** .000*** .006** .001*** .004** .031*

Note: *= p


17/29

The above mentioned result (Table 4) shows that participants language learning strategy

use had increased after the 20-hour training program, and significant difference was found in

each strategy use. Examining from the t-value, memory strategy was reported to show the

most significant difference, followed by cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective, compensation

and social strategies.

In order to determine whether proficiency, as numerous studies had indicated, was

related to the frequent use of language learning strategy or not (Chamot & Kupper, 1989;

Chamot & OMalley, 1987; Chen, Y. C., 2005; Chen, M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002;

OMalley, et. al., 1985; Yang, S. C., 1997), 46 participants were divided into three proficiency

groups based on their CSEPT scores for the purpose of examining each groups strategy use

after implementing the program. Table 5 presents the grouping information.

Table 5

The participants grouping information

Group No. of subjectsCSEPT

Range

Avg. CSEPT of

each groupSD

Pretest Overall

strategy Means

Group 1 7 114 96.86 8.84 3.07

Group 2 30 115~172 142.43 17.37 2.95

Group 3 9 173 184.11 9.31 3.57

Overall 46 86~198 143.65 29.82 3.09

The average CSEPT score among 46 participants was 143.65 (SD=29.82). Group 1

consisted of seven students who scored the lowest (below 114), Group 2 included 30 students

whose score were about the average, and there were nine students in Group 3 whose scores

were above 173.

To find out the use of the SILL among different groups, the pretest SILL score of

different groups were compared, the authors found that, as predicted, Group 3 applied the

highest frequency of overall strategy use. However, participants in Group 2 reported least

strategy use. The result corresponds with most of the studies that higher language proficiency

students tend to apply language learning strategies more frequently. Although from the

statistics, Group 2 used the strategies less frequently than Group 1, the lowest proficiency

group, the phenomenon required further examination from the aspect of the numbers of

participants which might affect the results. Group 2 had the largest number of participants and

their standard deviation of the proficiency score happened to be in a wide range (SD=17.37).

However, since the paper did not aim at investigating the correlation between the students

proficiency level and their use of strategy, the following section will center on identifying

each groups increased use of strategy before and after the program.

In order to examine if significant difference exists in pretest and post-test within

different proficient groups, a one-way ANOVA andpost-hoc analysis were applied within the

three proficiency groups. The following tables explain the results of one-way ANOVA andpost-hoc in pretest and post-test among the three groups.


18/29

Table 6

Comparison of three groups usage of language learning strategies before the program

(One-way ANOVA)

Overall Memory Cognitive Compensation Meta-cognitive Affective Social

Pretest M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Group 1 3.07 .57 2.80 .64 3.10 .60 3.23 .71 3.27 .66 2.96 .67 3.13 .78

Group 2 2.95 .62 2.67 .67 3.04 .65 3.16 .69 3.03 .83 2.66 .72 3.04 .75

Group 3 3.57 .55 3.52 .55 3.63 .50 3.74 .56 3.63 .59 3.09 .68 3.72 .87

p. .033* .005** .048* .081 .121 .228 .082

f-ratio 3.69 6.05 3.26 2.66 2.22 1.53 2.65

Post - hoc G3>G2* G3>G2** G3>G2*

Note: *= pG2* G3>G2*

Note: *= p


19/29

Table 8

Comparison of participants use of language learning strategies in pretest and post-test within

each group (Paired-sample t-test)

Mean Overall Memory Cognitive Compensation Meta-cognitive Affective Social

Group 1Pretest

3.07 2.80 3.10 3.23 3.27 2.96 3.13

Group 1

Posttest3.30 3.17 3.33 3.49 3.39 3.26 3.17

t -1.96 -3.83 -3.20 -.938 -.868 -1.76 -.206

p .098 .009** .019* .385 .419 .129 .844

Group 2Pretest

2.95 2.67 3.04 3.16 3.03 2.66 3.04

Group 2

Posttest3.17 3.08 3.21 3.32 3.27 2.82 3.26

t -4.67 -5.14 -3.14 -1.95 -3.16 -1.65 -2.18

p .000*** .000*** .004** .060 .004** .109 .037*

Group 3Pretest

3.57 3.52 3.63 3.74 3.63 3.09 3.72

Group 3

Posttest3.79 3.72 3.78 4.06 3.80 3.53 3.89

t -2.63 -3.32 -1.64 -2.44 -1.06 -2.29 -.811

p .030* .010** .141 .040* .320 .051 .441

Note: *= p


20/29

show significant differences between pretest and the post-test in cognitive strategies, but no

difference in compensation strategy. Such complementary distribution might suggest that

slow learners could improve cognitive strategy use and lessen the gap between proficient

learners provided that they were exposed to this kind of learning method, for proficient

learners might have already applied cognitive strategies very often before the program. Yet,the use of compensation and affective strategy revealed a slight difference after the program.

The difference of compensation strategy, mainly found in Group 3 (See Table 8), connotes

that higher proficiency learners were inclined to apply guessing, using resources and

linguistic clues to learn vocabulary with higher frequency than others after the program.

As for indirect strategies, only Group 2 reported a slight difference in using

meta-cognitive strategy. Referring from the statistics in the one-way ANOVA analysis (See

Table 6, 7) which showed insignificant difference in meta-cognitive strategy use, one may

conclude that the difference in Group 2 is rather limited. As for affective strategy use, though

slight difference was found among three groups in the post-test in one-way ANOVA analysis

(See Table 7), none of the groups showed significance in using the strategy when viewing the

results frompaired-sample t-test(As listed in Table 8). In general, participants increased the

average use of affective strategy, which means that they were less anxious and more

encouraged to learning vocabulary after the program.

However, even though the program was executed in groups, no difference was found

when examining the result in one-way ANOVA analysis (See Table 6, 7), while a slight

difference was shown for participants increase in social strategy use merely in Group 2 (See

Table 8). The scale of difference is yet limited, but it could be implied that learners were used

to cooperative learning methods before they came to this program. Coming from a language

college in which collaborative learning, group work and discussions are often applied, it was

not surprising that social strategy use remained at medium level.

In brief, after the 20-hour training program, each group had increased its use of

every language learning strategy. Significant difference has been found in direct

strategies, and in some of the indirect strategies, which positively corresponds to the

second hypothesis.

The second hypothesis postulated by the authors argues that the designed vocabulary

learning games will increase learners use of direct learning strategies such as memory,

cognitive and compensation strategies. According to the aforementioned statistics, regardless

of data interpreted as a whole group or as different proficiency groups, memory strategy hasincreased dramatically during the training program. A significant difference has been detected

in memory strategy for both paired-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA methods. Cognitive

strategy has been proved significantly increased when scrutinizing participants frequency as

a whole, but it is not the case for high proficiency students when interpreting the data based

on different proficiency groups. On the other hand, compensation strategy was found

significantly increased among participants in Group 3 when observing statistics based on

distinct proficiency groups, and a significant difference was also found when comparing

participants results as a whole. Table 9 synthesizes thepaired-sample t-testresults of pretest

and post-test when examining participants as a whole and as different proficiency groups.

Table 9


21/29

Comparison of direct strategies use between pretest and post-test Paired-sample t-test

Memory Cognitive Compensation

paired t-test:Whole Mean p-value Mean p-value Mean p-value

pretest 2.86 3.16 3.29

posttest 3.22 .000*** 3.34 .000*** 3.49 .006**

paired t-test:Group Mean p-value Mean p-value Mean p-value

Group 1-pre 2.80 3.10 3.23

Group 1-post 3.17.009**

3.33.019*

3.49.385

Group 2-pre 2.67 3.04 3.16

Group 2-post 3.08.000***

3.21.004**

3.32.060

Group 3-pre 3.52 3.63 3.74

Group 3-post 3.72

.010*

3.78

.141

4.06

.040*

Note: *= p


22/29

To sum up, the study validates the effectiveness of using games to enhance the

participants use of language learning strategies, most significantly of memory strategy.

Although in this paper, a report on vocabulary gains is not the main focus, the training

program has achieved its initial purpose. Participants in this study enjoyed the fun and the

competitiveness in their learning process, and at the same time, increased their use of

language learning strategies. We rather believe that after the 20-hour program, the participants

will not be limited to a few approaches of language learning strategies. When they read, they

will not be afraid of guessing the meaning of compound words or longer words, and their

curiosity towards new words will be enhanced as well.

Recommendation

The authors would like to propose pragmatic recommendations in order to shed light on

future studies. They are stated as follows:

1. As we stated earlier, the number of participants in this study is not representativeand balanced enough, for there were only 45 female students and one male student

involved in the study. Therefore it is recommended that a greater number and a

greater variety of participants need to be investigated under this training program

so as to strengthen the claim that effectiveness in the game-based vocabulary

learning method works among different groups of people. Ultimately, a norm of

this kind of training program could be established.

2. Four vocabulary tests were administered during the program, and the result in thepost-test outperformed that in the pretest which indicates that the designed

vocabulary learning games effectively facilitate participants short-term memory.

However, the question Do the designed vocabulary games facilitate learners

long-term memory? is left unanswered. For this reason, an interim vocabulary test

is needed in order to evaluate the retention rate.

3. With regard to the program design, this study was conducted in circumstanceswhere students registered into the program voluntarily. It is suggested aquasi-experiment be conducted in which participants in a experimental group learn

vocabulary through the designed vocabulary games in the training program while

participants in a control group are given word lists for rote memorization. Learning

effectiveness could be compared and analyzed after 20 hours.

4. The training program began with Poker cards, followed by Chinese Chess andending with Gobang. Thus, it is envisaged that the order of the games might

influence the vocabulary gains. This needs further investigation into the effect of

order, arrangement, and the possible learning effectiveness they lead to. It is

suggested that participants can be divided into various groups, who play the games


23/29

in a different order.

5. Currently, the designed vocabulary games put their emphasis on Englishvocabulary, and it is argued that pedagogical implications are needed to prove their

effectiveness. Researches using these series of games in language classrooms can

be generated prolifically and further designs in other languages can be adapted

from the English ones.

6. Whether the particular sets of games help improve reading comprehension abilityis a question worth of exploration to increase the value of the invented games. It is

suggested that an integrated learning task with reading can be implemented in the

training program.


24/29

References

Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for Success. NY: Longman/Pearson Education.

Chamot, A. U. & OMalley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning

approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249.

Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction.

Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.

Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Strategies

Handbook. NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Chang, J. (2002). A study of vocabulary learning strategies of college students in

Taiwan-Fortune College as an example, Journal of Fortune Institute of Technology,9,

53-63.

Chang, J. S & Chang, Y. J. (1998). A study of English learning achievement in relation to

English learning strategy of junior high school students in Taiwan, Educational Review,

14, 115-154.

Chen, Y. C. (2005). The research history and trend of language learning strategies, Chaoyang

Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 3(2), 57-98.

Chen, M. (2007). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Taiwan language

college students, Languages, Literary Studies and International Studies: An

International Journal, 4, 97-115.

Chen, M. (2008). Taiwan. Patent No. 097101167. Taiwan. Intellectual Property Office.Chen, M. & Hsiao, Y. T. (2007). Language diagnostic and consulting centerA structured

access to successful language learning, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Cross Straight

Conference on Foreign Languages Teaching, Beijing Foreign Studies University, China.

Chen, M., & Hsu, C. J. (2006). The usage of learning strategies and its effects on English

language proficiency, Paper Presented at 3rd Annual Cross Straight Conference on

Foreign Languages Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan.

Chiang, M. Y & Liao, P. S. (2002).The study of Learning Strategies used by Applied English

Majors in Junior College. The Journal of Chungchou, 16, 309-325.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers.

New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.

Cohen, A.D. & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second language vocabulary over time:

investigating the role of mnemonic associations, System, 8, 221-235.

Ehrman, M. (1998). Motivation and Strategies Questionnaire (MSQ), In Reid, J. M., (Ed.)

Understanding Learning Styles in the Second LanguageClassroom. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall Regents, 169-70.

Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second

language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners, The Modern Language


25/29

Journal, 87(2), 222-241.

Green, J. (1991).Language learning strategies of Puerto Rican university students.Paper

Presented at the Annual Meeting of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez.

Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2

proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.

Ho, I. P. (1999). Relationships between motivation/attitude, effort, and English proficiency

and Taiwan technological university students English learning strategy use. Journal of

National Taipei University of Technology, 32(1), 611-674.

Huang, E. (2002). A study on English Learning Strategies Comparison,Journal of Chungchou,

16, 293-308.

Huang, S. C. (2001). Effects of language learning strategy training on English learning.

ERIC number: ED466628.

Ku, I. J. (2003). The correlations of English performance with learning strategies of college

students in Taiwan,Journal of the Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, 21, 31-44.

Ku, P. Y. (1998). Strategies associated with listening comprehension of EFL students in

Taiwan. The proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English

Teaching, Taipei: The Crance Publishing Co.

Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their

relationship to second language proficiency.Applied Linguistics, 12, 268-298.

Nation, I. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a review of the research. RELC

Journal, 13(1), 14-37.Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner.

Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education.

Okada, M., Oxford, R.L. & Abo, S. (1996). Not all alike: Motivation and learning strategies

among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In

Oxford, R.L. (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century, 107-119.

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990).Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U, Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. & Russo, R. (1985).

Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language

Learning, 35, 21-46

O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Manzanares, G. S., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985).

Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language.

TESOL Quarterly,19(3), 557-584.

Oxford, R.L. (1986). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning: Various Versions.

Tuscaloosa, AL: Oxford Associates.

Oxford, R.L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with


26/29

implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.

Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.

Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R.L. (1992). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187.

Oxford, R. L. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies

worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning.

System, 23(2), 1-23.

Oxford, R. L.,& Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive

foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386.

Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies

by university students.Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 291-300.

Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M. & Crookall, D. (1987). Learning Strategies of University Foreign

Language Students: A Large-scale Study. Unpublished Paper, TESOL Annual Meeting,

Miami, 1987

Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University

students, Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221.

Politzer, R. L. & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their

relationships to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19,

103-124.

Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language testperformance with high-and low ability test takers: a structural equation modelling

approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9,

41-51.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11 (2), 117-131.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history, and typology.

InWenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 15-30.

Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rubin, J.,& Thompson, I. (1994). Assessment of strategy use. In How to be a More Successful

Language Learner, 70-78. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Sy, B. M. (1996). Sex differences and language learning strategies, Papers from the 11th

Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 19-51. Taipei:

The Crane Publishing Co..

Schmitt, N., (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.)

Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge University Press,

199-227.


27/29

Schmitt, N. & Schmitt, D., (1993). Identifying and assessing vocabulary learning strategies,

Thai TESOL Bulletin, 5(4), 22-33.

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.

Teng, H. C. (2000). An investigation of EFL learning strategies used by technology college

students,

, 169-177.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language, 3-13. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Yang, N.D. (1993).Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: a study of

college students of English in Taiwan. Papers from the Tenth Conference on

English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 193-219. Taipei: The Crane

Publishing Co.

Yang, N. D. (1996). A study of factors affecting college EFL students use of learning

strategies. Paper from the Eleventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the

Republic of China, 53-82. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.

Yang, N. D. (2003). Integrating portfolios into learning-strategy-based instruction for EFL

college student, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,

41(4), 293-317.

Yang, N. D. (2005). Building a Web-Based Learning Portfolio System.Paper Presented at

the 2005 World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 24-29.Yang, S. C. (1997).

, 8(3), 119-140

Yang, S. C. (1999). A relationship study of English learning strategies, learning style and

English proficiency. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Part C:Humanities

and Social Sciences, 10(1), 35-59.

Yen, S. C. & Chuo, T. W. (2007). The effect of MTI on L2 proficiency and learning strategies,

Proceeding of 2007 International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Foreign

Language Instruction, 13-29. Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan.

[WWW document]

Cohen, A. D., & Chi, J. C. (2001). Language Strategy Use Survey. Minneapolis, MN:Center

for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.

Downloadable from the CARLA website:

http://www.carla.umn.edu/about/profiles/Cohen

Cohen, A. D. & Oxford, Rebecca L. (2001).Learning Style Survey for Young Learners: ssessing

Your Own Learning Styles. http://www.carla.umn.edu/about/profi les/Cohen.html


28/29

Council of Europe (1996). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.

Retrieved July, 2008, from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/

Framework_EN.pdf

Integrated Higher Education Database System in Taiwan (2005)

Retrieved

September, 2008 from: http://www.cher.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/analyze.php? submenu=1

&tab=4#

Language Training and Testing Center

(2004) Retrieved July,

2008 from: http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/research/92 .pdf

Pintrich, R. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and

predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ),

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. http:// www.ulc.arizona.edu/

mslq.php

TOEFL Homepage (2007) Retrieved September, 2008 from: http://www.ets.org /Media/

Research/pdf/71943web.pdf


29/29

/

153 454

607

2008 7 14 7 25 8 11 8 22

46

Oxford

(SILL)

SPSS

1)

2)

(Retention

rate)

3)

Documents

632-Using Vocabulary Games to Increase the Use of Language Learning Strategy