The process of vocabulary learning: Vocabulary learning ... · PDF fileThe process of vocabulary learning: Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language and language learning

The process of vocabulary learning:

Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language

and language learning

Robert Michael Easterbrook

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Education,

The University of Canberra, November 2013

i

Abstract

The process of learning a foreign language is an important and challenging component in foreign

language students’ lives due to the students’ limited language exposure and opportunities to

practice the language. While research in China has focused on vocabulary learning strategies and

the Chinese culture of learning beliefs about language and language learning, these have been

explored as individual factors. Research has not explored these factors as part of a process of

learning that is driven by both strategies and beliefs in the one research project. In attempting to

fill this gap, the present research thus explored the possible influence of vocabulary learning

strategy use and beliefs about language and language learning on the process of vocabulary

learning in the Chinese university context. The research was novel in that it compared

vocabulary strategy use, students’ language learning beliefs and examined potential impact on

vocabulary development across 4 grades at a university level.

Using mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative, the research explored vocabulary learning

strategy use (VLS), beliefs about language and language learning (BALLL), general and

specific, and English vocabulary size, in this order, to gain insights into the process of English

vocabulary learning. Data was collected using three questionnaires (one vocabulary learning

strategies questionnaire, and two beliefs questionnaires), a range of vocabulary size tests (e.g.

vocabulary size tests 1000, 2000, 3000 and Academic) and interviews with Chinese English

Majors in a university context. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman’s rho correlation

tests were run, the first to observe statistically significant differences in mean-scores, at the

individual level within a grade, and then between grades, and second, to observe the relationship

among strategies, beliefs and vocabulary size test scores. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to

observe relationships among the main factors (e.g. strategies, beliefs and vocabulary size test

scores), as well as between the main factors and age and years of English education. The

interviews underwent thematic analysis to highlight common themes which allowed students to

elaborate on some questionnaire responses.

The results show that there is consistency in strategy use and beliefs about language and

language learning in Chinese English Majors process of vocabulary learning. The process:

students often discover new vocabulary in written materials, sometimes TV/movies and songs,

and then use a small range of strategies to learn it using other strategies to complement the small

ii

range of strategies. The most frequently used strategies included guessing meaning, looking up

dictionary, learning its spelling, writing it down, learning its pronunciation, saying it aloud, and

connecting it with the Chinese meaning. This process was observed in and/or interpreted from

their VLS use and their BALLL, general and specific. The results of exploring these factors

highlighted 1) particular VLSs repeatedly used across four grades which included discovering

new vocabulary in textbooks, when reading English materials; memorizing the new word’s

pronunciation and spelling; connecting new words to the Chinese meaning; looking at the new

word several times; remember the new word by its meaning (when read again)), and 2) general

and specific beliefs about language and language learning, for example, it’s important to repeat

English words and practice often and I learn English to find a good job in the future.

Other strategies were used on occasion to complement the fixed set of strategies, depending on

the learning task such as remembering a new word by its meaning (when heard again); the way

the new word is used; trying to guess the word’s meaning from context (e.g. the sentence the

word is used in). There were strong correlations found among vocabulary learning strategies and

beliefs, both general and specific. There was no significant correlation found between strategy

use/ beliefs and vocabulary size tests. Vocabulary size grew incrementally but not dramatically

throughout the four-year degree. There was little difference in scores for all students in the 4

grades on the vocabulary size tests 1000 to 3000 and Academic, with scores decreasing from

vocabulary size tests 1000 to 3000. However, scores increased in each grade on the Academic

size test e.g. English vocabulary size ranged from 2400 to 5200 for grade 1; from 3900 to 6300

for grade 2; from 1900 to 5900 for grade 3; from 3500 to 6100 for grade 4. The result can be

attributed to students following a fairly fixed regime of vocabulary learning strategy use, driven

by a range of beliefs that reflect how students conceptualise language and how to learn it, as well

as a lack of opportunity to use it and limited exposure. The fixed regime of vocabulary learning

strategy use might also be explained by classroom pedagogy which tends not to focus on oral

communication therefore limiting or constraining English vocabulary size and language

development. The discussion provides recommendations for teaching vocabulary and strategy

training in the Chinese university context.

iv

v

Acknowledgements

This thesis would never have been completed if it hadn’t been for the help and support of so

many people. I want to express my thanks to them here.

Dr. Stracke, Dr. Houston, Dr. Jones, Dr. Hill, Dr. Petraki and Dr. Zhang who willingly accepted

to supervise me at some stage during the research project but soon found it tough supervising,

their warm encouragement and dedication to perfection, and their excellent assistance and

abundant ideas and suggestions contributed to the completion of the thesis. Dr. Petraki,

especially, for her commitment and hard work in the final stage when much revision and work

was achieved.

The Chinese English Majors who willingly participated in the research. If these willing few

hadn’t have agreed to participate, the project would never have seen full fruition. They made my

life very interesting when I taught many of them, and by giving their time and effort to informing

me about themselves and their lives without hidden agenda.

The university research site teachers and administrators. If the administrators hadn’t have given

permission for the research to go ahead at the site, it would have had to have searched for and

used another site. And there was no telling how enthusiastic or how indifferent the administrators

at another site would have been to the research given the context of the research. I thank the

many teachers at the research site for the support and friendship.

‘Dean’ Wang Lei, a dedicated Chinese English language teacher, excellent research assistant and

very good friend. Firstly, I thank him for his enduring friendship despite the hassles associated

with being involved in the research project, secondly, for his willing assistance without which

the data collection process would have been more trouble than it was, and thirdly, for carry the

burden of association beyond the use by date.

Yu Hong, excellent Chinese English teacher, research assistant, and partner during the many

years spent in northern China. Firstly, I thank her for her willingness to commit her time and

vi

energy to assisting with the administrative duties attached to the data collection process and

management of the questionnaires, and secondly, for her love and companionship without which

my life in northern China would have been more lonely and barren than it was.

I offer the University of Canberra a special thank you for offering me candidature. I thank the

university for giving me the chance to fulfil a childhood dream that was finally realized, but not

until I was in the autumn of my youth. And without the support of the university in several

important areas, completing the thesis might have been more challenging than it was.

Some of my fellow PhD candidates during the PhD program, Josh Rosner, Andrew Blythe,

Kilala Chi (now Dr. Chi), Sri Wahyuni (now Dr. Wahyuni), Yoshi Yamamoto (now Dr.

Yamamoto), Ross Hamilton, Walter Steensby, Dr. Man Chul and many others who, while I was

completing my thesis, supported me in many interesting and kindly ways; especially with

humour and great conversation. Firstly, I thank them for their camaraderie, and secondly, for the

special encouragement some of them gave me when the journey got very challenging and tough,

and thirdly, the small kindnesses some of them showed me that made the journey far more

bearable and sustained me through the toughest times.

To Dr. Judith Ascione, a special thank you, for the wonderful assistance on the statistics. Miss

Jee Lee, for additional brainstorming on the approach to statistical analysis. And a special thank

you to Belinda Henwood for the excellent editorial work.

To the many people who, though I was unknown to them, were role models and inspirational in

the most important ways. I give a special thank you to these people because if it hadn’t have

been for their lives and the milestones they each achieved, I might not have been inspired to

undertake one of the most interesting journeys ever during my short years on this planet.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract i

Form B: Certificate of Authorship of Thesis iii

Acknowledgements v

Table of contents vii

List of abbreviations xi

List of tables, graphs, charts and illustrations xiii

Section Page

1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction & Overview 1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Steps taken to explore the process of vocabulary learning

Background

Research questions

Definitions of Key Terms

Contribution to knowledge and significance of the research

The structure of the thesis

1

2

4

5

7

9

2.0 Chapter 2: Vocabulary, Vocabulary Learning, and Vocabulary

Learning Strategies

11

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.3.2

2.4

2.4.1

2.5

Vocabulary and vocabulary knowledge

Vocabulary learning

Definitions of vocabulary learning strategies

Classifications of vocabulary learning strategies

Vocabulary learning strategy research – a brief outline

Vocabulary learning strategy research conducted globally outside China

Vocabulary learning strategy research in a Chinese context

11

16

22

23

28

28

32

3.0 Chapter 3: Beliefs About Language and Language learning 41

3.1

3.2

3.3

Beliefs about language and language learning – research in a global

context

Beliefs in relation to language and language learning/strategies

Chinese culture of learning – English language education/learning in a

Chinese context

41

42

54

4.0 Chapter 4: Methodology & Procedures 63

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.6.1

4.7

4.8

Methods and selection of methods

Mixed methods design

Reliability and validity

Case and participants

Role of the researcher

Data collection method & Procedures

Data collection instruments, their nature and function

Procedures – administration, data management and data analysis

Intended outcomes of the research

63

65

69

71

74

75

75

86

104

5.0 Chapter 5: Results – Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about

language and language learning – descriptive statistics

107

5.1

Part 1: Research question No. 1: Which vocabulary learning strategies do

Chinese English Majors tend to use?

107

viii

5.2

5.3

5.3.1

5.3.2

5.3.3

5.3.4

5.3.5

5.3.6

5.3.7

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.6.1

5.6.2

5.7

5.7.1

5.8

Frequency-of-use strategy groupings

Questionnaire & Interview data compared

Question #1: Where do you meet new vocabulary?

Question #2: What do you usually do when you meet a new word?

Question #3: Do you practise the new vocabulary? What strategies do you

use?

Question #4: How do you memorise new words?

Question #5: Should vocabulary learning strategies be taught?

Strategies rarely or never used

The percentage of students often using a strategy

Research question No. 2: What is the difference in VLS use among the four

grades of CEMs?

Additional questions: Where do you often learn vocabulary during the

semester? and Of four possible sources to obtain VLS, which do CEMs

source the most?

Part 2: Research question No. 3: What are Chinese English Majors

Western and Chinese culture of learning beliefs?

Beliefs about language and language learning

Three general groupings

Chinese culture of learning

Some general groupings in the data

BALLLQ & CCLQ beliefs compared with interview data

Research question

121

138

138

140

141

143

145

147

150

151

155

160

160

165

172

178

187

6.0 Chapter 6: Results – Statistical Analysis of Vocabulary Learning

Strategy use, Beliefs About Language and Language Learning, and

Vocabulary Size Test

197

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

Correlational analysis of three factors – No. 4: Do Chinese English Majors

beliefs, general and specific, correlate with vocabulary learning strategy

use?

Spearman’s rho Correlational analysis of VLS use against VST/Academic

score-means in each grade

Correlational analysis of 7 factors in each grade

Kruskal-Wallis test of beliefs & strategies against 3 means of scores on

Academic size test

Boxplots analysis of beliefs against Academic size test means of scores

197

198

203

208

210

7.0 Chapter 7: Discussion 213

7.0

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

Section 1: Research question No. 1 & Research question No. 2:

Vocabulary learning strategies

CEMs’ memorization strategies compared to Schmitt (1997)

VLS use compared with Gu and Johnson (1996)

Patterning of VLS use compared to compared to Gu and Johnson (1996)

Use of discovery and consolidation strategies compared to Griffiths (2013)

The present research compared to Ma (2009)

Clustering of VLSs in four grades

Variable use of VLSs

213

217

217

218

219

222

225

227

ix

7.8

7.8.1

7.9

7.9.1

7.9.2

7.9.3

7.9.4

7.9.5

7.9.6

7.9.7

7.10

7.10.1

7.10.2

7.10.3

7.10.4

7.10.5

7.10.6

7.10.7

7.10.8

7.10.9

7.10.10

7.10.11

7.10.12

7.10.13

7.10.14

7.11

7.12.1

7.12.2

7.12.3

Research question No. 2: What is the difference in VLs frequency of use

among the four grades of CEMs?

Gu’s Tetrahedral Model

Section 2: Research question No. 3 & Research question No. 4: Beliefs

about language and language learning

Horwitz’ BALLI

The difficulty of language

Foreign language aptitude

The nature of language learning

Learning and communication strategies

Motivations and expectations

Additional research into the relationship between beliefs and VLs

generally

Shi’s CCL BALLL

Attitude to learning English

Learner’s aims for learning English

Criteria for being a good teacher of English

Teacher-student relationship

Perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’ questions in the

classroom

Favoured teaching method

Attitudes to the content of textbooks

Memorising vocabulary

Practising reading skill

Practising speaking skill

Practising listening skill

Practising writing skill

Barriers to learning English

What makes a good learner?

Research question No. 6: Do BALLL and VLSs have an impact on EVS of

CEMs?

Section 3: The process of vocabulary learning uses strategy clusters

The PVL involves strategies and beliefs

The importance of the findings

229

232

236

237

237

238

238

239

239

241

244

245

245

248

251

253

254

255

256

257

258

258

259

260

260

262

263

265

271

8.0 Chapter 8: Conclusion 277

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

Summary of project aims

Major findings - summary

Theoretical implications & contribution

Practical implications

Limitations and Recommendations

277

278

283

289

List of References 291

1

2

3

4

Appendices GDLB

VLSQ

BALLI

CCLQ

305

305

307

311

313

x

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

VSTs

English vocabulary size – research question No. 4

Statistical formula for the Kruskal-Wallis test and Spearman’s rho

correlations

VLSQ tables of means, percentages, groupings graphs, and interview

tables

BALLI tables of means, percentages, groupings graphs, interview tables,

and comparisons

CCLQ tables of means, percentages, groupings graphs, interview tables,

and comparisons

Interview tables

Participant information sheets – for the questionnaire

Participant information sheets – for the interview

Informed consent form – for the questionnaire

Informed consent form – for the interview

Permission to conduct research

317

323

337

341

381

405

445

457

461

463

465

467

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BA Bachelor of Arts degree

BALLI Beliefs about language and language learning inventory

BALLL Beliefs about language and language learning

BALLLQ Beliefs about language and language learning questionnaire

CCL Chinese culture of learning

CCLQ Chinese culture of learning questionnaire

CEMs Chinese English Majors

CET College Entrance Test

DV Dependent variable

EFL English as a foreign language

EGP English for general purposes

ELT English language teaching

ESL English as a second language

EVS English vocabulary size

FLC Foreign language community

FLL Foreign language learning

FLLs Foreign language learners

GDLB General demographics and language background

ICQ Abbreviation of ‘I seek you’

IV Independent variable

LLSs Language learning strategies

LTM Long term memory

MoE Ministry of Education

NET Native English teacher [online]

PVL Process of vocabulary learning

SD Standard deviation

SILL Strategy inventory of language learning

SLA Second language acquisition

SPSS Statistical package for the social sciences

xii

TEM Test for English Majors

USA United States of America

UU University of Utah

VLS Vocabulary learning strategy

VLSQ Vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire

VLSs Vocabulary learning strategies

VST Vocabulary size test

xiii

LIST OF TABLES, GRAPHS, CHARTS & ILLUSTRATIONS

Table 2.1 Schmitt’s 26 memory strategies 22

Table 2.2 Schmitt’s 2001 VLS taxonomy 25

Table 2.3 Vocabulary learning strategy categories 25

Table 2.4 Vocabulary strategy categories & strategy function 26

Table 4.1 Researcher, method and factor researched 67

Table 4.2 ‘Multi-questionnaire’ data collection instruments and method 75

Table 4.3 General demographics and language background 77

Illustration

No. 1 VLSQ Question No. 1 78

Table 4.4 Three Means-score range analysis 80

Illustration

No. 2

BALLI Belief statement No. 5: English is structured in the same way

as Chinese 81

Illustration

No. 3

CLQ Belief statement No. 3: A good teacher of English should be

knowledgeable in his/her area 82

Table 4.5 VLT 1000 Question 1 85

Table 4.6 One student’s general characteristics and language background 89

Table 4.7 GDLB for whole of grade 1 90

Table 4.8 One student’s raw data of VLS use 91

Table 4.9 Percentage of student VLS and frequency of use at the grade 1 level 91

Table 4.10 VLS use raw data of grade 1 re: Question 1 92

Table 4.11 Raw data converted to percentages for all grades for each question 92

Table 4.12 Percentage of students using a VLS and VLS frequency of use at grade

1 level 93

Table 4.13 Percentage of CEMs who use a VLS and VLS frequency of use of all

grades 94

Table 4:14 Overall ranking of VLSs 94

Table 4.15 All students all grades responses to BALLI Belief Statement #1 96

Table 4.16 All students in all grades responses to BALLI Belief Statement #1 as

percentages 97

xiv

Table 4.17 All students in all grades responses to CCL Belief statement #1 98

Table 4.18 All students in all grades responses to CCL Beliefs statement #1 as

percentages 99

Table 4.19 Known words at the 1,000 words size 100

Table 4.20 Discovery strategies 103

Table 5.1 Categories & Strategies and means suggesting use 109

Tables 5.2 Categories & Strategies for whole group 109

Table 5.3 Question 1: Where do you meet new words? 112

Table 5.4 Question 3: What do you do when you meet new vocabulary? 113

Table 5.5 Question 4: when learning new vocabulary, what aspects do you study? 114

Table 5.6 Question 5: How do you put in order the info about then new

vocabulary? 115

Table 5.7 Question 6: How do you memorize new vocabulary? [First group] 116

Table 5.8 Question 6: How do you memorize new vocabulary? [Second group] 117

Table 5.9 Question 7: How do you review vocabulary? 118

Table 5.10 Question 8: How do you remember words you have memorized? 119

Tables 5.11 Question 9: How do you make use of new vocabulary? 120

Graph 1 Increase 122

Graph 2 Increase then decrease 123

Graph 3 Increase, decrease then increase 125

Graph 4 Increase, decrease then unchanged 126

Graph 5 Increase, then unchanged 127

Graph 6 Increase, unchanged then increase 128

Graph 7 Increase, unchanged then decrease 129

Graph 8 Decrease 130

Graph 9 Decrease then increase 131

Graph 10 Decrease, increase then decrease 132

Graph 11 Decrease, increase then unchanged 133

Graph 12 Decrease then unchanged 134

Graph 13 Unchanged, increase then decrease 135

Graph 14 Unchanged, decrease then increase 136

xv

Graph 15 Unchanged then decrease 137

Table 5.12 Should vocabulary learning strategies be taught? 146

Table 5.13 Vocabulary learning strategies rarely or never used 148

Table 5.14 Ranked vocabulary learning strategies over all by percentage 151

Table 5.15 VLSs regularly used per grade 153

Table 5.16 Strategies that complemented the Eight 154

Table 5.17 Percentage of students per grade who chose a place and frequency of

use per Question 2 157

Table 5.18 Percentage of students per grade who chose a source of VLSs and

frequency of choice 159

Table 5.19 BALLI beliefs by percentage, frequency and mean 162

Table 5.20 BALLI beliefs by percentage, frequency and mean [continued] 163

Table 5.21 BALLI beliefs by percentage, frequency and mean [continued] 164

Graph 1 Agree 167

Graph 2 Disagree 168

Graph 3 Neither disagree or agree/agree 169

Graph 4 Disagree/neither disagree or agree/agree 170

Graph 5 Level of difficulty 171

Graph 6 Time till fluency 172

Table 5.22 CCL beliefs by grade percentage, frequency and mean 173

Table 5.23 CCL beliefs by grade percentage, frequency and mean [continued] 175




Graph 1 Agree 181

Graph 2 Disagree 182

Graph 3 Disagree, neither disagree or agree/agree 183

Graph 4 Agree/neither disagree or agree 185

Graph 5 Neither disagree or agree 186

Graph 6 Disagree/neither disagree or agree 187

xvi

Table 5.27 What should the student-teacher relationship be like? 190

Table 5.28 Should vocabulary learning strategies be taught? 192

Table 6.1 Three factors correlated 198

Table 6.2 Category & strategies against VST & Academic scores for grade 1 199




Table 6.6 Analysis of all factors for grade 1 203




Table 6.10 Differences in means-scores to show difference or no difference 209

Boxplot 1 Mann-Whitney for BALLI beliefs against Academic scores 210

Boxplot 2 Mann-Whitney for CCL beliefs against Academic scores 211

Table 7.1 Guessing from context, Dictionary & Rehearsal strategies 218

Table 7.2 Discovery & Consolidation strategies compared to Oxford’s SILL 219

Table 7.3 Categories & Strategies for whole group CEMs & Ma 2009 222

Table 7.4 Categories & Strategies and means suggesting use CEMs & Ma 2009 224

Table 7.5 Individual difference in VLS use Question 2 231



Table 7.8 Discovery-place strategies Question 2 233

Table 7.9 Determination-initial response strategies Question 3 233

Table 7.10 Determination-study strategies Question 4 233

Table 7.11 English vocabulary size in grade 2 Xiao A & Xiao B 234

Graph 1 I enjoy English CEMs & Shi 245

Graph 2 I learn English to improve myself/self-development CEMs & Shi 246

Graph 3 I learn English to find a good job in the future CEMs & Shi 246

Graph 4 I learn English for daily communication CEMs & Shi 247

Graph 5 I learn English for the honour of my family CEMs & Shi 247

Graph 6 I learn English to pass exams CEMs & Shi 248

xvii

Graph 7 A good teacher of English should improve my English skills CEMs &

Shi 248

Graph 8 Good teachers should be knowledgeable CEMs & Shi 249

Graph 9 A good teacher should provide comprehensible notes CEMs & Shi 249

Graph 10 A good teacher should improve students’ language skills CEMs & Shi 250

Graph 11 A good teacher should help students pass exams CEMs & Shi 250

Graph 12 The teacher-student relationship should be friend-friend CEMs & Shi 251

Graph 13 The teacher-student relationship should be parent-child CEMs & Shi 252

Graph 14 I love my teacher, but I love the truth more CEMs & Shi 253

Graph 15 If not agreeing with teacher’s teaching, still follow teacher CEMs &

Shi 254

Graph 16 I prefer the teacher use different teaching activities CEMs & Shi 254

Graph 17 I prefer the teacher to encourage me to learn CEMs & Shi 255

Graph 18 I think textbook content is not totally correct CEMs & Shi 255

Graph 19 I think textbook knowledge is useful in real life CEMs & Shi 256

Graph 20 I memorize vocabulary using rehearsal strategies CEMs & Shi 256

Graph 21 I practice reading with textbooks CEMs & Shi 257

Graph 22 I practice speaking by reading aloud & reciting texts CEMs & Shi 258

Graph 23 I practice listening by listening to textbooks tapes CEMs & Shi 258

Graph 24 I practice writing with a diary CEMs & Shi 259

Graph 25 I think the main barrier is I don’t work hard enough CEMs & Shi 260

Graph 26 A good learner of English should respect teachers CEMs & Shi 260

xviii

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

1.0 Introduction

The foreign language learning process is a significant event in the life of the learner

attempting to learn a foreign language for various reasons in contexts like China, and interest

in exploring and highlighting its nature and impact on eventual foreign language proficiency

spans many decades. The present research explores the English vocabulary learning process,

a key aspect of foreign language learning (FLL), and in particular, two influential factors, that

of vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) and beliefs about language and language learning

(BALLL), in order to provide useful insights into the English vocabulary learning process in

China. Section 1.1 discusses steps taken to explore the process of vocabulary learning (PVL),

1.2 discusses the background to the research, 1.3 research questions, 1.4 definitions of key

terms, 1.5 contribution to knowledge/significance of research and 1.6 structure of thesis.

1.1 Steps taken to explore the process of vocabulary learning

To better know the process of vocabulary learning (PVL) in a Chinese context, VLSs and

their use was explored. Early research (e.g. Stern, 1975) found VLSs influenced how

vocabulary is learned, and subsequent research confirmed it (e.g. Jiang, 2000; Schmitt, 2010).

But it was found that VLSs influenced the range of vocabulary eventually learned (e.g. Gu &

Johnson, 1996; Nation, 2001). Research (e.g. Oxford, 1990) suggests that language learning

strategies (LLSs) influence the outcome of language learning (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu,

2010), and that VLS use, specifically, can enhance vocabulary learning generally (e.g.

Schmitt, 1997).

Beliefs about language and language learning (BALLL) — general (e.g. Horwitz, 1988) and

specific, Chinese culture of learning beliefs (CCL) (Shi, 2006) — were explored. Beliefs

have been found to influence how language is learned (e.g. Wenden, 1987), and also the

range of language eventually learned (e.g. Horwitz, 1999). Research (e.g. Elbaum et al.,

1993) suggests that BALLL influence the initial stage of vocabulary learning. Language

learners initially create a mental representation of the object of learning, for example, a

foreign language is a ‘tool’ (see Everett, 2012), based on factors like experience and/or agent

2

influence, such as parents and teachers. Secondly, they create a mental representation of the

process of learning the foreign language (e.g. rote memorisation of words and grammar (e.g.

Gu & Johnson, 1996), again based on factors like experience and/or agent influence, such as

parents and teachers. However, an established belief in the mind of the language learner

might be difficult if not impossible to change, even when the learner is faced with evidence

that contradicts the belief; for instance, the belief that learning another language, for example

English, is achieved primarily by imitation alone and doing nothing else.

The research explored the impact of VLSs and BALLL on English vocabulary size (EVS).

Research (e.g. Nation, 2001) suggests that vocabulary learning is incremental, the result of

not only repeated exposure to language (for instance, new language repeatedly exposed to

cognitive processes and consciously manipulated in working memory), but also repeated

opportunities to use it (for instance, recycling learned language). Nation (2001) identifies

three main aspects of vocabulary knowledge, 1) orthography, 2) pronunciation, and 3)

language use, which must be learned. This thesis supports this idea, and vocabulary is seen as

the learning objective of all English as a foreign language learners (EFL learners) in order to

have complete vocabulary knowledge of a foreign language, particularly English. EVS is

explored as an aspect of the process of vocabulary learning (PVL) as much as an outcome

(e.g. Levin & Pressley, 1985), and explored with a view to better understanding it and

subsequently improving vocabulary learning.

Using mixed methods, the research is exploratory, gathering quantitative and qualitative data

to explore VLS use, BALLL and EVS as aspects of the PVL, based on evidence from

questionnaires, interview and tests. The research is also interpretive, in that making sense of

the data collected on VLS use, BALLL and EVS was achieved through both quantitative

measures (e.g. non-parametric tests), qualitative analysis of qualitative data (e.g. thematic

analysis) and reference to prior research — see Chapter 4: Methodology and Procedures.

1.2 Background

In the foreign language learning (FLL) field, particularly in a Chinese context, no (known)

research has explored the English vocabulary learning process the way the present research

does (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996), researching the relationship among VLS use and BALLL,

general and specific, and vocabulary size test (VST) scores to gain insight into the PVL. Gu

3

and Johnson (1996) suggested strategy use and beliefs were the whole process of FLL and a

process of vocabulary learning but did not show its details, other than list some VLSs and

beliefs that were somehow involved, and mentioned that time was a factor. Schmitt (1997)

hinted at it in his VLS taxonomy. Griffiths (2013) found patterns of LLS use and highlights

that patterns of use were correlated with course level. VLS use, beliefs about language and

language learning, general and specific, and EVS (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu, 2003; Tsai

& Chang, 2009) have been researched as individual factors affecting language learning

outcomes in Chinese contexts. Little is known of the actual process of vocabulary learning in

a Chinese context (e.g. Ma, 2009), though research has shown the initial phase of learning

vocabulary (e.g. Jiang, 2002). Research has been done on each variable as an individual

factor (in both non-Chinese and Chinese contexts) and conclusions drawn about the likely

impact on learning outcomes generally, and vocabulary size specifically — see Chapter 2,

section 2.3 and Chapter 3. The current research is predicated on previous research on each

factor, but explores VLS use and BALLL together in the one project. Although VLS use and

learning outcomes have been matched in a Chinese context (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Gu,

2002), albeit at a general level, theories posed to explain the outcome of using strategies, as

well as the impact of beliefs — for example, the beliefs of the Chinese culture of learning and

its impact on proficiency (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Shi, 2006) — there is a gap in the

research regarding the process of English vocabulary learning where VLS use and BALLL

play a role in the development of EVS in a Chinese context. The present research tries to fill

this gap.

English language teaching was not explored — English vocabulary teaching specifically, or

the direct relationship between language teaching and vocabulary learning. The research is

focused on the learning side of the equation. Learning is therefore explored without strong

reference to teaching, though the context of learning is English language teaching in a formal

learning context of higher education in China. Based on the literature (see Chapter 2, section

2.2), learning, especially in relation to English vocabulary learning, is viewed as the result of

prior (and continuing) formal education and training, and learning experiences associated

with formal education in China.

As will be discussed, learning is influenced by factors, such as cognitive style, learning style

and cultural style (e.g. Ehrman, 1996, p. 49), acquired in prior formal learning contexts

(primary and middle school) and other sociocultural experiences (such as family life) (e.g.

4

Cortazzi & Jin, 1996) as well as the one in which students presently find themselves (higher

education). Chinese English Majors (CEMs) primarily experience formal education (even

formal English education) in China — though they may experience a Westernized education

later as senior undergraduates and/or postgraduates — so their early experience of formal

education is culturally different from students, particularly university students, in either

Australia or the United States. This prior, and often continuing, educational and cultural

experience must be acknowledged in any analysis of EFL learning in China. Learning holds

strong implications for teaching generally, and teaching pedagogy specifically, so the results

will provide further insights for both teaching and pedagogy, and vocabulary teaching

specifically, in Chinese higher education contexts.

1.3 Research questions and their relationship to the research

In order to gain insights into the English vocabulary learning process in a Chinese context,

the research explored CEMs’ vocabulary learning, their VLS use and beliefs as well as their

EVS, and gathered pertinent data to answer the following questions:

Research question No. 1: Which vocabulary learning strategies do Chinese English Majors

tend to use? This will be determined using a questionnaire constructed by Ma (2009) with

slight modification. The idea is to observe which strategies are used and observe patterns of

strategy use across the four grades of a Bachelor degree.

Research question No. 2: What is the difference in vocabulary learning strategy frequency of

use among the four grades of Chinese English Majors? This will be determined using a

scaling that indicates frequency of use — for example, never, rarely, sometimes, often and

always, and, firstly, Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Spearman’s rho to observe

differences in mean scores among individuals within a grade. The students will be able to

indicate whether they use a particular strategy and whether they use it on a regular basis (e.g.,

rarely or often).

Research question No. 3: What are Chinese English Majors’ general ‘Western’ beliefs about

language and language learning and specific Chinese culture of learning beliefs about

language and language learning? Research question No. 4: Do their beliefs about language

and language learning correlate with vocabulary learning strategy use? These will be explored

5

using questionnaires validated in and out of China; one exploring general beliefs about

language and language learning (Horwitz, 1988), and the other exploring specific Chinese

beliefs — Chinese culture of learning (Shi, 2006). Non-parametric Correlations Test using

Spearman’s rho will be run.

Research question No. 5: What is the general English vocabulary size of Chinese English

Majors in each of the four grades (grade is used in China instead of year) of a four-year

Bachelor degree? This will be determined using Nation’s Vocabulary Size Test. Students’

vocabulary size will be observed across four grades to observe vocabulary development

patterns in each grade and then observe whether the vocabulary learning strategy use and

beliefs correlate with vocabulary size in each grade. Non-parametric Correlations Test using

Spearman’s rho will be run.

Research question No. 6: Do beliefs about language and language learning and vocabulary

learning strategy use influence English vocabulary size? Non-parametric Correlations Test

using Spearman’s rho will be run.

1.4 Definitions of key terms

1.4.1 Vocabulary

English vocabulary is viewed in the present research (see Chapter 2, section 2.1) as having

two main appearances, orthographical and phonological: a stand-alone language item (e.g.

dog), which possesses meaning, or a combination of stand-alone items often called a

multiword (e.g. three dogs) which may or may not consist of morphological components such

as prefixes, suffixes, or a lexical ‘chunk’ like ‘not least of all’, ‘well and good’ and ‘as well

as’, or acronyms that can carry meaning in an unusual way (e.g. ‘AIDS’) (e.g. Aitchison,

2003; McCarthy, 1990; Nunan, 2003; Proctor, 1996). The research agrees with these

definitions. These aspects of English are generally called English vocabulary, and Chinese

EFL learners will learn them as part of their continuing formal English language education in

a Chinese university.

6

1.4.2 Learning

Learning is viewed as a complex process that uses many cognitive resources (see Chapter 2,

section 2.2), not least of all a cognitive ‘tool’ to ‘acquire’ generally both skills and knowledge

and experience (Phye & Andre, 1986, pp. 142-144). These cognitive resources (Phye &

Andre, 1986) include general LLSs and specific VLSs (e.g. Schmitt, 1997) gained/developed

in the process of acquiring the first or other foreign language or skill/knowledge — see

Chapter 2, section 2.3. Illeris defines learning as any cognitive process that “leads to

permanent capacity change and which is not solely due to biological maturation or aging”

(2007, p. 3). In the case of FLL, or more specifically foreign language vocabulary learning,

the CEMs in this research are acknowledged as bringing VLSs with them to the English

vocabulary learning task, strategies gained in the process of learning a first language (e.g.

Chinese Mandarin) or another foreign language (e.g. Russian), as well as other knowledge

(such as mathematics and science) and experience which they may or may not modify for

learning English vocabulary.

1.4.3 Vocabulary learning strategies

VLSs include learning strategies widely accepted and known by other names: learning skills,

learning-to-learn, thinking skills and problem solving skills (e.g. Pan, 2005; Phye & Andre,

1986). These broad definitions and classifications of ‘learning’ are subsumed in the use of the

term ‘learning’ as it is used in the present research. Language learning isn’t viewed here as a

single factor activity. Explicit reference is made to Rubin’s (1987) definition of language

learning, which views it as a process — using many strategies — by which language

information is obtained, stored, retrieved and used, and which was co-opted by Schmitt

(1997), for instance, to define and classify VLSs. This definition is applied to the cognitive

‘tools’ employed in vocabulary learning, and the present research will do the same — see

Chapter 2, section 2.3.

1.4.4 Beliefs about language and language learning

Beliefs are viewed in the present research as “psychologically held understandings, premises,

or propositions about the world that are felt to be true” (Richardson, 1996, p. 103). Beliefs are

also described as the relation between two categories when neither defines the other (Open

7

University, 1975), for instance, VLSs and BALLL — see Chapter 3, section 3.2. Beliefs are

often categorised as mental representations. A mental representation is a presentation in the

mind in the form of an idea or an image (Mohamed, 2006) or common sense mental states —

for example, thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions and imaginings (Pitt, 2008). They are

about or refer to aspects of reality (e.g. ‘my girlfriend is a blonde’ or ‘the moon is made of

cheese’), and are evaluated with respect to consistency, truth, appropriateness and accuracy

(Pitt, 2008). For instance, in terms of truth, the moon is not made of cheese; it is made of

geological material similar to the planet Earth. Whatever the content of beliefs (e.g.

descriptive, evaluative or prescriptive), they are action oriented (Rokeach, 1968).

1.4.5 Cognitive and cultural learning styles

Ehrman (1996, p. 49) defined a ‘cognitive learning style’ as “broad preferences for going

about the business of learning”. Dörnyei (2005, p. 121) said a standard definition refers to

cognitive styles as “an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way(s) of absorbing,

processing, and retaining new information and skills.” Thus a profile of an individual’s

approach to learning (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1999), if one can be compiled, is “a blueprint of the

habitual or preferred way the individual perceives, interacts with, and responds to the

learning environment” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 121). And with respect to the present research

involving CEMs, such a ‘blueprint’ is generally referred to as the beliefs of the Chinese

culture of learning — see Chapter 3, section 3.4.4.

1.5 Contribution to knowledge and significance of the present research

The research is significant and a worthy project. Firstly, the thesis will contribute to the field

of the PVL in China. In particular, the thesis will contribute to a deeper understanding of

CEMs’ English vocabulary learning in a university context in China (e.g. four years of a

Bachelor degree). Secondly, the thesis will contribute to theory — the PVL (for instance, how

students behave when they discover new vocabulary and what they do when consolidating

learning it). At the time of undertaking the research project, there appeared to be no other

studies that explore the PVL in China. Some studies have been conducted in China, firstly, on

vocabulary learning strategies and learning outcomes (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Ma, 2009;

Tsai & Chang, 2009; Wei, 2007), and secondly, on BALLL (e.g. Shi, 2006). The present

research findings will be useful for: a) Chinese and non-Chinese academics, teachers and

8

students who study vocabulary development, vocabulary learning specifically, language

learning generally; b) course designers; and c) improving understanding of learning in

Chinese contexts, the impact of Chinese beliefs on learning behaviour specifically.

Academics will find the information on vocabulary development, the vocabulary learning

process, useful; as well as how learners behave according to their BALLL, and how beliefs

impact VLS use. Curriculum designers will find this research useful because the insights into

vocabulary learning may suggest ways to improve it, for example, explicit vocabulary

teaching vs. incidental vocabulary learning.

The present research extends previous research (e.g. Ma, 2009; Horwitz, 1988; Shi, 2006;

Nation, 2001). The thesis provides insight into CEMs’ English vocabulary development (in a

Chinese university) which Chinese teachers can use to assist their students achieve a larger

vocabulary size. Moreover, the research will extend the research on the relationship between

VLS use, beliefs and their relationship to vocabulary development.

Improving the understanding of the PVL in China will benefit Australian universities,

particularly the number of Chinese students that attend them. If the universities are aware of

the learning patterns of Chinese students, they may wish to modify existing programs to

accommodate or alleviate culturally specific learning styles, and improve Chinese student

participation in Australian higher education.

The contribution this thesis makes to vocabulary learning is that beliefs and VLS use impact

vocabulary development. This is clear in the research literature (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996;

Gu, 2010), though the specific gain from using particular strategies is not clear; this is known

only in a general sense. With regard to beliefs and their relationship to learning: beliefs

impact learning behaviour, language learning generally, and vocabulary learning specifically.

Therefore, the thesis will show that VLS use is significant to the process of vocabulary

learning, and indirectly to teaching, and worth investigating, and that beliefs are resilient and

difficult to change once established early in a learner’s life (e.g. Mohamed, 2006). Research

(e.g. Gao, 2006) suggests beliefs may change in new learning contexts outside those where

the beliefs were established and away from influencing agents (such as parents and teachers)

which pressure learners to maintain the beliefs of local culture established early in life, but

this needs further research, and therefore, makes local beliefs a worthy research topic.

9

1.6 The structure of the thesis

The thesis consists of eight chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the background to the research, its

significance, as well as the research questions and boundaries, in addition to some details

about the research context which impact higher education — the EFL university context.

From the literature it is revealed that CEMs’ VLS use and vocabulary learning outcomes are

influenced by their VLS use and BALLL, and act as a restraining influence on choice of VLS

and consistent use of VLSs over time. Exploring VLS use, BALLL and EVS will help EFL

learners become more aware of their VLS use as well as their BALLL, and the impact these

have on their vocabulary learning and development (as outlined above). This research does

not explore whether increased awareness of VLSs has a positive impact on VLS use or

encourages CEMs to become more autonomous learners (Pan, 2005). To answer the research

questions, the research focuses on the contemporary university context where young adult

Chinese nationals pursue a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in English, in which they learn EFL. The

research focus, therefore, is understanding the learning behaviour(s) and beliefs of CEMs in a

real-life context.

Chapter 2 provides a literature review of the conceptual background of English vocabulary,

vocabulary learning, establishing learning to be in the cognitive domain and VLSs. The

conceptual background of VLSs is discussed in Chapter 2 as well as the research literature on

VLSs globally, and then in China.

Chapter 3 provides a literature review of the conceptual background of beliefs generally,

BALLL and their influence on language learning, specifically vocabulary learning.

Chapter 4 sets out the methodological framework of the research and the procedures used to

achieve the research goals. It also outlines the rationale for the research design, the mixed

methods as well as its quantitative and qualitative aspects.

Chapter 5 presents other findings not observed in the statistical analysis but in descriptive

statistics to examine individual and group differences in VLS use. It also presents other

findings not observed in the statistical analysis but in descriptive statistics to examine

individual and group differences in BALLL/CCL.

10

Chapter 6 presents the results of the statistical analysis of differences in individual and group

differences in VLS use, BALLL/CCL and EVS as well as correlations among the main

factors explored. Correlational analysis is also conducted among sub-aspects of the research

concerning the main factors against age and years of English language education.

Chapter 7 discusses the results and interprets their meaning in relation to the research. This

chapter highlights the contribution to knowledge, providing recommendations, suggesting

what teachers and learners should do to be aware of the requirements and discusses the

overall result.

Chapter 8 concludes the thesis and provides a general discussion of the research, its aims,

the results and its implications for the research stakeholders, and makes suggestions for

further research.

11

CHAPTER 2: VOCABULARY, VOCABULARY LEARNING AND

VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES

2.0 Introduction

The literature review in this chapter discusses the research background to the research topic:

the PVL in a FLL context. This chapter highlights research on two of the three main factors

explored: vocabulary (2.1), learning (in relation to vocabulary learning) (2.2), including

learning theory, definitions of VLSs (2.3), and VLS research outside China (2.4), and then

research in a Chinese context (2.5). The literature review on BALLL is found in Chapter 3.

2.1 Vocabulary and vocabulary knowledge

The discussion begins with definitions of English vocabulary (e.g. Proctor, 1996). What it

means to learn and eventually possess vocabulary knowledge (e.g. Nation, 2001) is then

discussed. The thesis does not present a theory of vocabulary, rather, how it is generally

defined in the literature. This is used as a basis for discussion. The importance of defining

English vocabulary is highlighted by the fact that Chinese EFL learners, besides other EFL

learners, think learning vocabulary is one of the most important aspects of learning a foreign

language (e.g. Horwitz, 1988; Law, 2003; Yang, 1999). The literature on vocabulary is

substantial, both on what it is and what it means to possess it (e.g. Aitchison, 2003; Ellis,

1997; Field, 2005; Laufer, 1997; Laufer, 2001; Ma, 2009; McCarthy, 1990; Nation, 2001;

Nation & Waring, 1997; Nunan, 2003; Proctor, 1996; Schmitt, 1997). Vocabulary is discussed

first because this is the object of learning, the knowledge EFL students are trying to learn.

2.1.1 Definitions of words/word families/morphemes/lemmas and lexemes

Words are used every day but few stop to ask what they are. According to Procter (1996, pp.

1628–678), the word vocabulary means “all the words used by a particular person or all the

words which exist in a particular language or subject”. The present research is not concerned

with all the words used or all the words in a particular language, English specifically. It is

concerned with the exact meaning of the noun word. For instance, in a general sense the

meaning is given as ‘language unit’; and in a more specific sense, as “a single unit of

language which has meaning and can be spoken or written” (Proctor, 1996, pp. 1628–678).

12

However, McCarthy (1990, p. 3) offers this clarification: “it is most convenient to think of

words as freestanding items that have meaning”. But what is a freestanding item?

A freestanding item is discussed in contrast to a bound item, or what are generally referred to

as bound and freestanding words or morphemes. The word ‘eating’ is an example. ‘Eat’ in

eating and the ‘-ing’ in eating are viewed as separate ‘morphemes’, yet one is a freestanding

morpheme while the other is a bound morpheme. The ‘eat’ in eating is a freestanding

morpheme whereas the ‘-ing’ in eating is not an English word with any specific meaning

(McCarthy, 1990). Freestanding morphemes are usually referred to as root words (possessing

meaning), while bound morphemes are referred to as prefixes or suffixes, depending on

whether they appear at the end or at the front of a root word. Placing a suffix or prefix on a

root word results in either deriving a new word from the root — for instance, eater, where ‘-

er’ is added or eating, where ‘-ing’ is added (Nation, 2007). The process of adding ‘-er’ is

derivation, where a new word is derived from the root word, while the process of adding ‘-

ing’ is inflection, where the root word is inflected for grammatical meaning — for instance, ‘-

ing’ indicates tense, in the sense that it highlights a particular aspect of the verb.

Vocabulary is clearly words. However, words are often discussed more technically in terms of

‘lemmas’ and ‘lexemes’. A lemma is a word’s generalised or glossed meaning and its word

class — for instance, noun, verb and adjective (Aitchison, 2003; Field, 2005) — whereas a

‘lexeme’ is a word’s morphology and form (Aitchison, 2003, pp. 220–21), highlighted above

in the example ‘eating’. Nunan (2003) and Schmitt (2010) include multiword units in the

category of lexemes, for example, ‘absolutely fantastic’, ‘at once!’, ‘in a minute’, ‘portable

TV’, ‘the United States of America’. These multiword units are emphasised in the discussion

of word families, in which a word can be either a single word item (e.g. ‘die’) or a multiword

item (e.g. ‘give up the ghost’) (Nation, 2001; Nunan, 2003). Multiword items obviously

highlight the combinatorial nature of words, and are often referred to as ‘lexical chunks’

(Schmitt & McCarthy, 1997), for example, ‘There’s no answer’ vs. ‘There is no answer’,

‘heavy rain’ vs. ‘severe rain’, ‘take medicine’ vs. ‘have medicine or drink medicine’ (Nunan,

2003, p. 130).

McCarthy (1990) also says that categorising vocabulary proves to be a rather complicated

undertaking due to issues like morphology. Morphology is used here to refer to the basic

word building patterns found in words, for example, plural, past tense, present tense, stem +

13

ing, stem + ed, possessive, (highlighted above) (Nunan, 2003, p. 131). Vocabulary is

distinguished according to word families (for instance, walk, walks, walked, walking)

(Nation, 2000, p. 2), as well as by ‘token’ or a ‘type’. Word types can be type-tokens and

word classes, such as lexical, functional, and inserts (Biber et al., 1999), where the tokens are

simply every word counted in a text, while types are every word that has been counted at

least once in a text (highlighting word class); a word that appears twice is not counted a

second time (Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 1997). Thus words are basically freestanding objects that

possess meaning, can be combined with other ‘morphemes’ (e.g. suffixes) to make new

words or can be combined to make bigger ‘lexical items’, and initially exist as phonological

objects (spoken words) but can be made into orthographic objects (written words). What a

word is seems clear enough, but what about the idea of word meanings?

2.1.2 Definitions of word meanings/core meanings

A lexeme refers to a word’s morphology and form but a lemma refers to a word’s generalised

or glossed meaning and its role in syntax. The present research concerns words and word

meanings and does not cover syntax. Word meaning is often associated with its dictionary

meaning, but word meaning also “consists of the relationship between a word and its referent

(the person, thing, action, condition, or case it refers to in the real or an imagined world)”

(Nation, 2001, pp. 22–23). The relationship, often untidy and indirect, is said to be arbitrary,

that is, until a community of speakers of a language all tend to agree on a word’s ‘referent’

(Nation, 2001, p. 23). According to Nation (2000), because relationships between word and

referent can be untidy and indirect, it is better to talk of relationships between a word and its

concept. Therefore, establishing the meaning of a word often means describing the concept it

represents (Nation, 2001; Ungerer & Schmid, 1996). The relationship aspect of words to

concepts is not within the scope of this discussion because the main research concern is

learning words, but it is accepted to mean that words possess meanings. In most cases words

possess a ‘core meaning’. Core meanings are discussed next.

The idea that a word has a ‘core meaning’ can be demonstrated using any content word. A

content word is one that contains knowledge/information, and is not therefore a function

word — for example, ‘the’, ‘but’, ‘a’, ‘of’. But take the word ‘neutral’, for example (Nunan,

2003). The Collins COBUILD dictionary lists ten different meanings (in 2003) for the word

‘neutral’. These meanings, of course, are not just ten different meanings; they are in fact ten

14

different ‘senses’ of the word, or its ‘core meanings’ (Aitchison, 2003; Nation, 2001; Nunan,

2003; Schmitt, 1997). But what is really meant by the idea of a ‘core meaning’? A policy of

dictionary editors in relation to the order of senses — how they appear in a dictionary — will

help clarify the idea of a ‘core meaning’:

As a general rule, where a headword has more than one sense, the first sense given is the

one most common in current usage. Where the editors consider that a current sense is the

‘core meaning’, in that it illuminates the meaning of other senses, the core meaning may

be placed first.

(Jackson & Amvela, 2000, p. 178)

On the denotative level, word meaning is its commonly accepted dictionary meaning, or

current usage according to the dictionary. According to Procter (1996, p. 776), for example,

the word ‘keep’ has an initial meaning or ‘core meaning’ of “to have or to continue to have in

your possession”. Core meaning also suggests that the commonly accepted usage can be

found in a given community of speakers at a given time, a word’s referent however can

change over time. On the connotative level, word meaning also includes a commonly

accepted additional meaning or socio-cultural meaning, above and beyond the dictionary

denotative meaning (Procter, 1996; see Richards et al., 2002). For example, the word

‘chocolate’ connotes pleasure and indulgence. Word core meanings can, therefore, be quite

diverse depending on how and when a word is used and quite ambiguous if the meaning isn’t

clear.

The idea that words possess a strong ‘societally’ imposed element is significant. According to

Schmitt (2000, p. 27), societally imposed meaning is a common meaning shared by members

of the society that imposes meaning on a word or words. While words can also be defined in

isolation from context, some word meaning is still attached by societal convention. According

to Schmitt (2000), encyclopaedic information, for instance, is a substantial part of a word’s

meaning, so there is some dependence on a word’s basic core meaning in order to construct

encyclopaedic information. And such information, which can be idiosyncratic from individual

to individual, will often include an individual’s experience and beliefs. Such information can

vary from individual to individual, even though they are members of a society, so word

meaning will necessarily be communal to a certain extent. Schmitt (2000) uses the word

‘bachelor’ as an example — that everyone would need to agree that the word bachelor refers

15

to a male person who is definitely not married, which, consequently, becomes its core

meaning. While defining what a word is and how it carries meaning seems clear, Aitchison

(2003) says that there were difficulties associated with defining what constitutes vocabulary

and where word meaning begins and ends. However, these definitions provide a strong sense

of what a word is and what a word may mean, and of vocabulary, generally. The next section

discusses is what it means to know a word.

2.1.3 Definition of vocabulary knowledge

According to Nation (2001), the different aspects of a word or vocabulary can be generally

referred to as vocabulary knowledge. But what does it mean to possess vocabulary

knowledge? For Nation (2001), vocabulary knowledge should be discussed in terms of

possessing the item and system features of vocabulary. Possessing vocabulary knowledge,

according to Nation, means being able to recognise word items (‘item knowledge’) and being

able to understand the various features of word items (‘system knowledge’) (Nation, 2001, p.

23). Nation (2001) explains item knowledge as the individual word or form of the word, for

instance, ‘dog’ (the orthographic form), and system knowledge to mean the various features of

the word (e.g. phonological, orthographic, semantic) including the word’s relationship with

other words in a person’s mental lexicon. Mental lexicon is used here and glossed to mean

what a person knows about words (Aitchison, 2003; McCarthy, 1990; Nation, 2001). A three-

category framework was devised by Nation to discuss what it means to possess this

vocabulary knowledge. It comprises: 1) word form — the spoken form (phonological), the

written form (orthographic) and the word parts (e.g. base, affixes); 2) word meaning —

including connecting form and meaning (of a word), concepts and referents, and associations;

3) word use — including grammatical functions, collocations and constraints on use (e.g.

register, frequency) (Nation, 2001). Nation’s framework underpins the vocabulary size test

used in the current research.

Now that vocabulary has been defined, and how it is defined as knowledge and knowledge to

be learned, how vocabulary knowledge can be learned, more specifically, how it can be

learned by EFL learners is discussed next.

16

2.2 Learning vocabulary

2.2.1 A view of learning (in relation to vocabulary learning)

According to Seedhouse (2010, p. 242), it would help greatly if research projects would

“adopt a simple protocol briefly detailing the conceptualization of learning” used in the

research. Nation, though, was quoted (in Chacón-Beltrán et al., 2010, p. 2) as saying (in

1995) that “there isn’t an overall theory of how vocabulary is acquired,” and Chacón-Beltrán

et al. (2010) agrees. Therefore the present research will, in the interim, do the same.

Chacón-Beltrán et al. (2010, p. 2) also say that unsuccessful attempts have been made “to

provide a theory or model that can explain vocabulary learning … it will require the

coordinated work of linguists, SLA [second language acquisition] researchers, psychologists

and neurobiologists” in order to create one. Working within the constraint of the absence of

an established theory of vocabulary learning, the present research will posit vocabulary

learning and VLS use, in particular within the cognitive domain (Schmidt, 1990). Huitt

(2009) refers to it as the learning domain, and the present research adopts this view.

Tomasello (2000) tries to place learning entirely in the social domain. However, social theory

is concerned with what happens in the environment immediately outside the brain — for

instance, the language learner interacts with an interlocutor or language material in a social

context and somehow learning results. This approach bypasses the process involved and goes

directly to the product of learning; such views talk of language or vocabulary acquisition as a

spontaneous event (e.g. Franceschini, 2003). Therefore, they do not address what happens

inside the brain while social interaction happens or immediately after social interaction, and

is more a ‘cause and affect’, ‘stimulus-response’ theory, or, perhaps even implies that

spontaneous acquisition occurs while the learner is engaged in social interaction. Social

theory is not rejected here; it is criticised for not providing a complete picture of the process

of learning in social interaction. Strategy research highlights the use of social strategies, for

example, ‘ask a classmate for the meaning’, in both language learning generally and

vocabulary learning specifically — its cognitive dimension is the focus in relation to

vocabulary learning.

The research recognises the important role social interaction plays in vocabulary learning

(e.g. Ellis, 2010; Rosenthal, 1978), but here the cognitive domain is the focus. ‘Cognitive

17

domain’ is used here to mean that learning is generally “connected with thinking or conscious

mental processes” (e.g. Procter, 1996, p. 255; Schmidt, 1990; LeFrançois, 2000). The view of

vocabulary learning adopted in the present research is this rather broadly defined process: the

process by which (language) information is obtained, stored, retrieved and used (Schmitt,

1997).This leads us to the next step, how learners can get vocabulary knowledge into

memory.

Britton (1971, pp. 128–29) states that “the idea that learning [as] something you do sitting in

a seat is a highly sophisticated notion.” He was referring to learning in formal contexts, of

course. Learning in formal contexts is the focus here; how EFL students learn English

vocabulary, specifically in formal learning contexts. According to Schmitt (2007), vocabulary

learning is an incremental process, and therefore a complicated process — in any learning

context. The incremental nature of vocabulary learning strongly suggests “words must be met

and used multiple times to be truly learned” (Schmitt, 2007, p. 830). The number of

exposures though, cannot be easily known, because of factors like “how salient the word

itself is, how necessary the word is for a learner’s present needs, and whether the word is met

incidentally while pursuing some other purpose or studied with the explicit goal of learning

it” (Schmitt, 2007. p. 830). Certainly, aspects of word knowledge may require a high number

of exposures before permanency is achieved. However, is there something that the learner can

do to begin the process of achieving permanency?

Britton (1971) hints at the process of learning well before SLA research began — that if

something remains in ‘consciousness’ long enough, it can be ‘modified’. This is the opposite

of Altman and Gray’s (2002, in Willingham, 2004) contention. Therefore the act of modifying

is not a one-off event, but one that is often done to prevent decay and proactive interference

from new information. Getting something to remain in ‘consciousness’ long enough to

actually ‘modify’ it is referred to as a ‘cognitive process’ (Malim, 1994) — this refers to

working memories’ storage capacity. Many cognitive processes are to do with ‘cognition’.

Cognition, Malim says, is concerned with conscious rather than unconscious processes.

Cognition includes issues like selective attention, perception, memory, language and thought

(Schmidt, 1990). This is the framework in which the present research is understood.

18

2.2.2 Learning vocabulary (for example, words, units) as generally conceived

Dörnyei (2005) describes the origins of learning strategy research as beginning in the late

1960s, when information processing theories were applied to memory strategies. Out of this

research came “a broader conceptualization of planful and self-directed cognitive strategies”

(Dörnyei, 2005, pp. 188–89), and resulted in learning strategies becoming a ‘hot’ topic.

Attempts to theorise the concept ensued. Those of Schmeck (1988) and Kirby (1988)

produced the most far-reaching implications (see Dörnyei, 2005). The term strategy

purportedly originated as a military term, but used in a non-military sense, the term means

“the implementation of a set of procedures (tactics) for accomplishing something” (Schmeck,

1998, pp. 3–19). Schmeck conceived the notion that a learning strategy is, in a general sense,

“a sequence of procedures for accomplishing learning” (see Dörnyei, 2005, p. 189). The idea

developed further in an effort to specify the relationship between strategies, skills and

abilities. The argument was that “skills are existing cognitive routines for performing

specified tasks, and strategies are the means of selecting, combining, or redesigning those

cognitive routines” (see Dörnyei, 2005, p. 189). Schmeck (1988) further defined skills as

either knowledge skills or action skills; knowledge skills are used to access stimulus patterns

of stored representations and associations and action skills are used to transform input

information to obtain desired results. For Dörnyei (2005, p. 189), “learning strategies offered

a unique insight into the mechanisms of the learning process in general and they also

represented a significant mutable factor in promoting academic achievement for students”.

This is the heart of the present research.

While learning is generally defined as being “connected with thinking or conscious mental

processes” (e.g. Procter, 1996, p. 255; LeFrançois, 2000), some of the factors involved in

learning the vocabulary of another language — ones that might make learning the vocabulary

relatively easy or relatively difficult — should also be appreciated. According to Paribakht

and Wesche (1998), knowing a word is sometimes not an easy task. They also say the

complexity and amount of information needed, the knowledge associated with a word, is

considerable. The learner must establish relationships between form, meaning and function,

both in utterances and in texts; they must establish the elaborate knowledge about individual

words so they can be used communicatively; and they must establish an associational

network of words. The learner must know the meanings associated with stand-alone

vocabulary items, bound items or multiword items, in the case of English. These ‘cluster’

19

features represent how the vocabulary items, of English for instance, will mostly appear (as

single words, phrases and chunks), and, of course, they will vary from language to language.

If the meaning of one of these vocabulary items is already known, there is no need to learn it

— the meaning, that is. Initially the learner simply links the new language item, whether

phonological or orthographic, with its already known L2 (second language) meaning, for

instance, ‘hello’ in English is linked to ‘ni hao’ in Chinese (see Jiang, 2000). Research

suggests orthographies tend to be re-coded acoustically (Baddeley, 1964, in Willingham,

2004) — auditory input is converted to a visual image. This is a two-way street — audio is

translated into visual and visual re-translated into audio — as demonstrated by Willingham’s

(2004) acoustic translation experiment. This happens in working memory and is manipulated

by the person doing the learning. A factor that can significantly make learning the vocabulary

of another language difficult, however, is said to be its distance from the L1, or the learner’s

first language. Nation (2001) refers to this aspect as the additional language’s receptive

learning burden. This factor is significant for CEMs and their English vocabulary learning

because the distance can be said to be significant at the orthographic level (e.g. written), and

less so at the phonological level (e.g. spoken).

2.2.3 Receptive learning burden of words

The idea that the vocabulary items of another language can possess a ‘receptive learning

burden’ has been discussed from different perspectives, and is said to play an important role

in vocabulary learning (e.g. Nation, 2001). When Nunan (2003) discusses this issue, however,

he seems to mean that the existence of word families makes it easier to learn words — for

instance, learning a base/root word like ‘farm’ makes any derivations/inflections easier to

learn (see Nation, 2001; Jiang, 2000). Derivations are derived words, for instance, farmer,

‘farm+er’, whose word class has been changed, for instance, adjective, noun, verb (Schmitt,

2000), whereas inflections are inflected words, for instance, farms, ‘farm+s’, farmed,

‘farm+ed’, farming, ‘farm+ing’, whose grammatical category has been changed, for instance,

plural, tense (see Schmitt, 2000). Learning derivations/inflections is presumably easier if the

learner knows the base/root word, s/he can then easily learn a derived form like ‘farmer’ or an

inflected form like ‘farming’, because learning units is “made easier in most cases if the

meanings of the single words that make up the multiword units are also understood” (Nunan,

2003, p. 131). Put another way, there are fewer affixes (for instance, -er, -ate, -ion, -ably)

used to derive or inflect words (Bursuck & Damer, 2010) and should be easy to learn as one

20

learns vocabulary as a whole — meaning, the whole word with suffixes and affixes attached

(Nation, 2001). But this is not what Nation means by the term receptive learning burden.

Discussing the receptive learning burden of words in relation to single vocabulary items,

Nation (2001, pp. 23–24) grounds it in this warning, that “[vocabulary learning is] very

demanding, [and] often [an] impossible task to [achieve]”. This contrasts sharply, of course,

with notions of implicit or unconscious acquisition (e.g. Krashen, 2002). In terms of learning

vocabulary items, whether single or multiword, ‘learning burden’ has to do with “the amount

of effort required to learn [vocabulary]” (Nation, 2001, pp. 23–24). Nation’s general principle

is that “the more a word represents patterns and knowledge” already familiar to a learner,

then “the lighter its learning burden” (Nation, 2001, pp. 23–24; see Jiang, 2000). If the L2

sound patterns, for instance, are similar to the L1, L2 spelling patterns are similar to the L1,

L1 contains L2 cognates, L2 words appear in similar grammatical patterns to L1, with similar

collocations/constraints, then the learning burden is very light, making vocabulary easier to

learn (Nation, 2001; Laufer, 2001; Jiang, 2000). So when the distance between L1 and L2 is

minimal then the learning burden is light; when the distance between L1 and L2 is great, then

the learning burden is heavy (Nation, 2001; Jiang, 2000). The assumption here is that the

receptive learning burden of English, for instance, is heavy for Chinese EFL learners because

the distance between English and Chinese is great, and therefore may present a significant

learning issue for CEMs. However, discussing the learning burden of words only goes so far

into the PVL; it is necessary to take a step back and review the process by which words can

be entered into the mental lexicon, through the use of VLSs (Jiang, 2000; Ma, 2009).

2.2.4 The formal stage of the development of a lexical entry

Jiang (2000) describes the formal stage of the development of a lexical entry or how words

can be entered into a person’s mental lexicon in great detail. Ma (2009, p. 57) summarises

Jiang’s (2000) discussion of the formal stage of the development of a lexical entry as follows:

In the initial stage of learning an L2 word, the learner’s main task is to connect the L2

word form with an existing meaning in the mind, [whose] form [is/must be] an L1

translation or [an L1] definition.

For clarification, word form equals Nation’s item knowledge. Besides clarifying the idea of

21

receptive learning, this particular process of learning was initially referred to as ‘associative

learning’ (Malim, 1994) —that is, learning which happens when an association or a

connection is made, usually between two things (Richards et al., 2002; Jiang, 2000; Schmitt,

2000; Nation, 2001; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). However, a recent development in

understanding this process now sees it referred to as ‘connectionism’, meaning 1) information

processing takes place through the interconnections of a large number of simple units,

organised into networks and operating in parallel; 2) learning takes place through the

strengthening and weakening of the interconnections in a particular network in response to

examples encountered in the input; and 3) the result of learning is often a network of simple

units that acts as though it ‘knows’ abstract rules, although the rules themselves exist only in

the form of association strengths distributed across the entire network (Richards et al., 2002;

Ellis, 2001; MacWhinney, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Hulstijn, 2001; Harrington, 2001).

Jiang (2000, p. 51) summarises ‘connectionism’ in relation to vocabulary learning:

As one’s experience in L2 increases, stronger associations are developed between L2

words and their L1 translations … What these strong associations mean, among other

things, is the simultaneous activation of L2 word forms and the lemma information

(semantic and syntactic specifications) of L1 counterparts in L2 word use … Such

simultaneous activation of L2 word form and language lemma information may result in

a strong and direct bond between L2 word and the lemma of its L1 translation.

Jiang’s account of the initial stage of the development of a lexical entry brings the discussion

to a precise understanding of how L2, or English vocabulary in this case, can be learned in

the initial stage of learning an L2, or an English vocabulary item.

To conclude this section, Schmitt’s (1997) classification of cognitive and memory strategies

(Table 2.1) are used to focus the discussion at this point. Schmitt (1997) lists cognitive

strategies to be, for example, verbal repetition, written repetition, using word lists, using flash

cards, taking notes in class, using the vocabulary section in a textbook, listening to audio

recordings of vocabulary lists, putting English labels on physical objects and keeping a

vocabulary notebook. The strategies (Schmitt, 1997, pp. 207–08) are listed below.

22

Table 2.1: Schmitt’s 26 memory strategies

studying words with a pictorial representation of its meaning

grouping words together spatially on a page

using the Keyword Method

imaging a word’s meaning using a new word in a sentence

remembering affixes and roots

connecting a word to personal experience

grouping words together in a storyline

remembering parts of speech

associating a word with its coordinates

studying the spelling of a word

paraphrase a word’s meaning

using a semantic map studying the sound of a word using cognates in study

using ‘scales’ for gradable adjectives

saying a new word aloud when studying

learning the words of an idiom together

using the Peg Method imaging a word’s form using physical action when learning a word

using the Loci Method underlining the initial letter of a word

using semantic feature grids

using configuration connecting a word to synonyms and antonyms

Section 2.3.1 discusses the development of definitions of VLSs, and section 2.3.2.1 discusses

the development of classifications of VLSs.

2.3 Definitions of vocabulary learning strategies — a brief outline

Early definitions of LLSs implicitly subsume VLSs within them (e.g. Oxford, 1990;

O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Oxford (1990, p. 1) defines LLSs as, “steps taken by students to

enhance their own learning”. She classifies LLSs in relation to the four skills (speaking,

listening, reading and writing). O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 1), working on LLSs at the

same time as Oxford, also subsume VLSs within a broad definition of LLSs, defining them as

“the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or

retain new information”. However, unlike Oxford, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) were

working on situating LLSs within an information processing theory of cognition and memory,

while researchers like Gao (2006) tried to situate LLSs within a critical/political sociocultural

perspective. Schmitt’s (1997) work, however, extends LLSs research by expanding and

clarifying Oxford’s work with his VLS taxonomy, which brings us closer to a clear definition

of VLSs. However, while creating his VLS taxonomy, Schmitt (1997) used Rubin’s early

broad definition of LLSs as a definition of VLSs, which Rubin (in Schmitt, 1997) defines as

the process by which information is obtained, stored, retrieved, and used.

23

This initial foray into the field of VLSs found definitions that situate them within a broader

definition of LLSs. This research contends with VLS definitions which seem to be

inconsistent, attracting only general agreement (Oxford, 1990; Gu & Johnson, 1997; Schmitt,

1997), and general criticism (Dörnyei, 2005), and defined in a very general way. Schmitt’s

(1997) general definition of VLSs is the guiding reference in the present research, and defers

to Rubin’s early definition adopted by Schmitt (1997), which sees VLSs as any which affect

(Rubin’s (1987)) rather broadly defined process: the process by which information is

obtained, stored, retrieved and used.

2.3.2 Classifications of vocabulary learning strategies — a brief outline

With observed inconsistencies in definitions of VLSs, any discussion of their classification

may show signs of inconsistency and imprecision (Gan et al., 2004). The present study keeps

all general classifications in mind but relies on Schmitt’s (1997) approach to classifying

VLSs because his taxonomy is developed from Oxford’s LLSs list, and clarifies which LLSs

are specifically VLSs.

Amid the early search for strategies, work progressed on a categorisation framework.

O’Malley and Chamot (1985) began by categorising LLSs as ranging from the metacognitive

(our understanding of our own learning experiences), cognitive (the mental activities in our

conscious mind) and the social/affective (our interaction with others and the emotions

attached to learning). This categorisation describes a large range of strategies, which at the

time challenged researchers to create a more detailed classification. Oxford (1990) seems to

be the first to produce one of the most comprehensive LLS classification systems. She

developed six categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and

social. Gu and Johnson (1997) appear to be the first to produce a list of VLSs, which

includes, for instance, BALLL as a strategy. This is important to the present research because

it views BALLL as one of two major factors involved in the PVL.

Schmitt (1997, p. 205), however, believed Oxford’s classification system “unsatisfactory in

categorizing vocabulary-specific strategies”. Schmitt believed it was unsatisfactory in several

ways: firstly, it failed to “describe the kind of strategies used by an individual when faced

with discovering a new word’s meaning without recourse to another person’s expertise”

(1997, p. 205). Secondly, Oxford’s categories were a little imprecise, or too general, in that

24

“some strategies could easily fit into two or more” categories, making their classification

problematic (Schmitt, 1997, p. 205). Thirdly, that “it was often unclear whether some

strategies should be classified as Memory Strategies or Cognitive Strategies” (Schmitt, 1997,

p. 205). Not all cognitive strategies are employed for the purposes of storage — putting

words in memory. Schmitt (1997, p. 205) believes that “the goal of both [Memory Strategies

and Cognitive Strategies generally] was to assist recall of words through some form of

language manipulation, so some other criteria [for categorizing them] must be invoked” —

for example, consolidating learning, hence Schmitt’s new category of consolidation strategies

(as mentioned in Table 2.1) and discussed next.

Schmitt created his taxonomy of VLSs by subdividing storage or memory strategies (see

Table 2.2 below), and in turn further subdivided these into six areas: a) repeating, b) using

mechanical means, c) associating, d) linking with prior knowledge, e) using imagery, and f)

summarising. He thinks a) and b) are closer to cognitive strategies and c), d), and e) are

clearly memory strategies (1997, p. 205). Storage refers to working memory and how it

allows the holding of ‘input’ — the incoming information being deliberately focused on —

for a certain length of time before the student must engage a memory strategy like say the

word several times or write the word several times (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.1, Table 5.4).

Repeating and using mechanical means are cognitive strategies because their manipulation of

information is less obvious, whereas associating, linking with prior knowledge, and using

imagery are traditionally closer to mnemonic techniques that “organize mental information

together or transform it in a way which makes it more memorable” (Schmitt, 1997, p. 205).

Schmitt makes a distinction between activities useful for, “a) the initial discovery of a word’s

meaning and b) remembering that word once it had been introduced” (1997, p. 205). He also

says that, “when encountering a word for the first time, learners must use their knowledge of

the language, contextual clues, or reference materials to figure out the new meaning

(Determination Strategies), or ask someone else who knows (Social Strategies)” (Schmitt,

1997, p. 205).

Besides learning the meaning of vocabulary (if that is required), there are “various other

kinds of knowledge about words, such as word class, spelling, collocations, and register” that

students must learn (Schmitt, 1997, p. 206; see also Nation & Waring, 1997). In addition,

“determining the meaning appropriate to the situation must normally be the most fundamental

25

task on initial introduction” (Schmitt, 1997, p. 205).

Table 2.2: Schmitt’s 1997 VLS taxonomy Discovery Consolidation

Determination strategies Social strategies

Social strategies Memory strategies Cognitive strategies Metacognitive strategies

Thus the additional category of consolidation strategies is born (see Table 2.2), the idea being

that “once learners have been introduced to a new word, it is worthwhile to make some effort

to remembering it using strategies from the Social, Memory, Cognitive, or Metacognitive

Strategy groups” (Schmitt, 1997, p. 206). While initially criticising Oxford’s classification

system as unsatisfactory in categorising vocabulary-specific strategies, Oxford’s (and others’)

work inspired Schmitt to develop a VLS taxonomy — see Table 2.2. In fact, his taxonomy

includes Oxford’s and others’ work on LLSs. For the purposes of the present research, the

category names have been expanded to highlight their function and goal.

Table 2.3: Categories and strategies

for whole group

Categories and strategies

Discovery: place to find

Determination: initial response

Determination: study

Consolidation: organisation

Consolidation: memorisation

Consolidation: review

Consolidation: remember

Consolidation: production

In addition, Schmitt’s taxonomy categorises six strategy groups under the two new main

strategy groups of discovery strategies and consolidation strategies. Discovery strategies

include 9 types of determination strategies and 5 types of social strategies, while

consolidation strategies include 3 types of social strategies, 27 types of memory strategies, 9

types of cognitive strategies and 5 types of metacognitive strategies. The present research will

use Schmitt’s taxonomy as a reference when presenting the results in Chapters 5 and 6, and

the discussion of the results in Chapters 7 and 8. The discussion now turns to some of the

research into VLSs. Table 2.4 below shows the main categories and the associated strategies

and a brief about function and how they will be thought of in the present research.

26

Table 2.4: Categories and strategies and function

Categories and strategies Function


1a in textbooks and classroom activities

1b in vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical

order

1c in vocabulary lists arranged by meaning

1d during English conversation with others

1e when reading English materials

1f when singing English songs and watching

English movies/TV

1g when using/surfing the internet

Discovery-place strategies are where a learner

meets new vocabulary, the specific place (e.g.

a textbook, vocabulary lists), such an

encounter may not directly result in the new

language item being learned, but will trigger a

response of some kind, referred to as a

determination strategy


3a pay no attention to and never go back to it

3b pay no attention to it, but go back to later

3c I try to guess the new word’s meaning from

the context

3d study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and root

word for meaning

3e ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning

3f read a Chinese-English or an English-

Chinese dictionary

3g read an English-only dictionary

Determination-response strategies are the

initial response to meeting a new vocabulary

item (e.g. pay no attention to it and never go

back to it), but whose goal is generally to

acquire the meaning of the new vocabulary

item


4a its pronunciation

4b the spelling

4c the prefixes, suffixes and root words

4d the Chinese translation

4e the English explanations

4f the example sentences

4g the way the new word is used

4h the new word’s relationship with other

words

4i the new word’s part of speech

Determination-study strategies concern

determining what else to do after encountering

a new vocabulary item if not to ignore it (e.g.

study its pronunciation, study its Chinese

translation), and may or may not result in the

new vocabulary item being learned, but will

certainly result in added meaning and

understanding about it


5a write it down

5b order the information in a vocabulary

notebook

5c make vocabulary cards

5d use the vocabulary lists in the textbooks

5e use a vocabulary list like those in the

VOCABULARY 5000 and TEM4EasyTest

Consolidation-organisation strategies concern

action taken to order the information about the

new vocabulary item (e.g. write it down, make

vocabulary cards), which will make it easier to

manage and learn


6a say the word aloud several times

6b write the word several times

6c look at the word several times

6d memorise Chines-English/English-Chinese

lists

6e do vocabulary exercises

6f link the word to similar meaning words or

opposite meaning words

6g link the word with already known words

and have similarities

6h compare words with similar meaning and

study together

6i group words in order e.g. meaning, part of

speech

6j place word in a context e.g. sentence,

conversation

Consolidation-memory strategies refer to

action taken to memorise new vocabulary (e.g.

say the word aloud several times, link the new

word with to similar meaning words or

opposite meaning words), whose goal is to try

to permanently store new vocabulary in

memory by these various means, and which

may be called surface learning but can

contribute to deep learning

27

6k use the new word to make up a sentence

6l listen to tape/CD recordings of words

6m make up rhymes to link new words

together

6n practise new words by acting them out e.g.

verbs

6o try to imagine what the new word looks

like (in a sentence)

6p draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of

the new words

6q try to imagine in my head what the new

word looks like

6r remember the prefix, suffix and root word

of the new word


7a say the new word 2 or 3 times the first day

7b say the new words the next time I read

them, and again after that

7c read the new words the first day, but not

after that

7d read the new words 2 or 3 times first, then

again a few days later, a week later, a month

later

7e test the new words on my own

7f test the new words with classmates

Consolidation-review strategies refer to action

taken after memorisation has been attempted

to deflect decay and forgetting (e.g. say the

new word 2 or 3 times the first day, read the

new word words 2 or 3 times the first day,

then a gain a few days later, a week later, a

month later), and contribute to permanency


8a remember the new word the way I learned

it

8b remember the new word by its meaning

(when heard again)

8c remember the new word by its meaning

(when read again)

8d remember the new word’s meaning first,

then think about its meaningful parts e.g.

prefix, suffix and root word

8e try to remember where I first met the word

Consolidation-remember strategies are

remembering new vocabulary that has been

memorised and reviewed but which doesn’t

not often get used (e.g. remember the new

word the way I learned it, remember the new

word’s meaning first, then think about its

meaningful parts, e.g. prefix, suffix and root

word), which can contribute to deep learning

and permanency


9a try to use words in speaking and writing

9b try to use idioms when I speak

9c try to think in English with the new

vocabulary

9d try having conversations using the new

words with English speakers e.g. teachers

9e try to e-chat on the internet using QQ,

MSN

Consolidation-production strategies are using

what has been memorised, reviewed and

remembered in social interaction (e.g. try to

use words in speaking and writing, try to think

in English with the new vocabulary), and

deeper process knowledge making it part of an

existing system of communication

The reader will notice the emphasis on Schmitt’s work on VLSs, because Schmitt is

considered the most suitable and authoritative on the subject of VLSs. Schmitt’s VLSs

taxonomy is viewed as more useful, practical and less ambiguous than other lists. The present

research, while concerned with VLS use, defers to Schmitt’s definition of VLSs, and delimits

the exploration of VLS use to Ma’s (2009) list of VLSs — see Appendix 2.

28

2.4 Vocabulary learning strategy research — a brief outline

This subsection has two main parts: 1) VLSs in a global context outside China (2.4.1), and 2)

the VLSs research in a Chinese context (2.5).

2.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategy research conducted globally outside China

LLSs research began in the 1970s, and was viewed as a move away from teaching-oriented

perspectives to an interest in how the actions of learners might affect their language learning

(Schmitt, 1997). The view that aptitude governs language learning waned, implying that it

must be determined more by learner effort (e.g. Ahmed, 1989; Cohen & Aphek, 1981;

Horwitz, 1988; Coady & Huckin, 1997; O’Malley & et al., 1985; Oxford, 1990; Pressley et

al., 1982; Schmitt, 1997; Stern, 1975).

The following brief research review gives an overview of the field in the areas of: the ‘good

learner’ (Stern, 1975); word list, contextualised words and association tasks (Cohen & Aphek,

1981); keyword method (Pressley et al., 1982); strategy training (O’Malley & Chamot,

1985); guessing from context (Coady & Huckin, 1997); and five types of learner (Ahmed,

1989).

The ‘good learner’

Stern (1975) explored the LLSs of the ‘good language learner’ and found that they are

different from the so-called ‘poor learner’. He listed (Stern, 1975, p. 316) no less than ten

speculative features that might mark a good language learner: 1) a personal learning style or

positive learning strategies; 2) an active learning approach to the learning task; 3) a tolerant

and ongoing approach to the target language and empathy with its speakers; 4) technical

know-how about how to tackle a language; 5) strategies of experimentation and planning

with the object of developing the new language into an ordered system and of revising this

system progressively; 6) constantly searching for meaning; 7) willingness to practise; 8)

willingness to use the language in real communication; 9) self-monitoring and critical

sensitivity to language use; and 10) developing the target language more and more as a

separate reference system and learning to think in English.

Today (e.g. Posser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003), the implied idea in the ‘good’ vs.

29

‘poor’ learner, which can be extended to language learning, is that good and poor learners are

equally motivated, just that one is a poor learner. That is, their motivation for learning is

identical but their approach to learning is different (for example, shallow vs. deep learning).

Such a view doesn’t take into consideration true motivation for learning (e.g. exams (shallow

learning) vs. learning for understanding (deep learning)), as well as cognitive and cultural

styles, and learning styles particularly.

2.4.1.1 Use of strategies by L2 learners

Word lists, rote repetition, contextualised words, and association tasks

Cohen and Aphek (1981) found that beginner learners find word lists beneficial while more

advanced learners find contextualised words more beneficial, and if learners are more

proficient they can better use associations in recall tasks. Associations are a ‘peg method’, in

which the L1 word is linked to the L2 word and meaning, and sometimes just to the meaning

(e.g. a semantic encoding). Some even find using a word that is dissimilar or sounding

different as a ‘peg’ to help them learn the new word. Nation (1982) found that using a word

list was an effective way to quickly learn large amounts of vocabulary. Cohen and Aphek

(1981), Nation (1982) and O’Malley and Chamot (1985) found word lists and rote repetition,

what they called ‘shallow strategies’ (e.g. exam oriented (shallow learning)) were effective.

Keyword Method

Pressley et al. (1982) found the keyword method had a positive long-term effect. The word to

be learned is linked to a keyword, one that sounds like the native word (an auditory

encoding), but is also an interactive image involving both the foreign word and the native

word, so it can also be an imagery link (a visual encoding).

Repetition, manipulation of information and mechanical strategies

O’Malley et al. (1985) found that repetition was a common strategy, but active manipulation

of information (imagery, inferencing, keyword method) was used less frequently. Mechanical

or basic strategies, for instance repetition, tend to be used rather than more complex ones like

keyword method (Schmitt, 1997).

Guessing from context

Coady and Huckin (1997) explored guessing from context, which means guessing the

30

meaning of the new word from the context of its use, for example, in a conversation or in a

passage of written text. Highlighting its sophistication, guessing, however, involves using

background information about previously learned language knowledge and encyclopaedic

knowledge.

2.4.1.2 The importance of strategy use

Efficacy of strategies

Politzer and McGroarty (1985) warned that the frequent use of a strategy does not necessarily

mean that it is a ‘good’ strategy and that strategy use depends on the context of use. Context

of use mostly refers to the social, cultural and political environment in which learning occurs,

and includes aspects like the teacher, the students, the classroom, the classroom culture, the

learner’s family support, the social and cultural tradition of learning, the syllabus and

curriculum, and the learning materials (Gu, 2003). Cohen and Aphek (1981) found that

shallower strategies (for example, rote memorisation) can be more beneficial for beginner

learners. Active management of strategies (e.g. metacognitive strategies) is found to be an

important factor too. Schmitt (1997, p. 201) argues that evidence from cognitive psychology

suggests that, “activities requiring a deeper, more involved manipulation of information

promoted effective learning” (the surface vs. deep approaches to learning (e.g. Prosser &

Trigwell, 1999)).

Five types of learner and awareness of learning

Ahmed (1989) isolated five types of learner who use certain strategies. ‘Good learners’ are

“aware of their learning, [know] the importance of learning words in context, and [are]

conscious of the semantic relationships between new and previously-learned L2 words”

(Ahmed 1989, cited in Schmitt, 1997, p. 202); ‘poor learners’, on the other hand, “[use] fewer

strategies, [show] little awareness of how to learn new words or how to connect the new

words to old knowledge” (Ahmed, 1989, cited in Schmitt, 1997, p. 202). The research then

returns to notions of the ‘good’ vs. ‘poor’ learner (Stern, 1975; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

Sanaoui (1995) found two distinct types of learner, those that structure their vocabulary

learning, independently engage in a variety of learning activities, review and practise the

target words, and those that do not.

31

Learner characteristics

Chamot and Rubin (1994, p. 774) say that the effectiveness of the strategies used “will

depend on a number of variables, including proficiency level, task, text, language modality,

background knowledge, context of learning, target language, and learner characteristics”.

Cohen and Aphek (1981), O’Malley and Chamot (1985), Politzer and McGroarty (1985),

Chamot and Rubin (1994) and Schmitt and Meara (1997) found that learner characteristics

and learner culture were influential.

Cultural differences

Schmitt and Meara (1997) found that different cultural groups sometimes have quite different

opinions about the usefulness of various VLSs.

Extent of vocabulary learning strategy use vs. language learning strategy use

Schmitt (1997) found that VLSs appears to be used more than other LLSs. He adds that VLS

use was more than strategy use for listening comprehension, oral presentation and social

communication. Schmitt makes some suggestions for the frequent use of VLSs. Firstly,

vocabulary learning tends to be a private activity compared to an oral presentation which is a

public activity, so VLS use may be easier and applied more effectively given it is undertaken

privately in the learner’s own time away from the pressure of public performance. Secondly,

classroom work reportedly emphasises learning activities over integrated activities (e.g.

learning grammar and vocabulary vs. learning culture and pragmatics). Thirdly, VLS use is

more than general LLS use because learners tend to place great importance on vocabulary

learning.

The importance of learning vocabulary

Horwitz (1988) found 25 to 39 per cent of the participants in her study agreed with the idea

that vocabulary learning was the most important part of learning a foreign language — see

Section 2.6 for a discussion. This highlights the importance of exploring BALLL (see Tweed

& Lehman, 2002).

Prioritising word learning

Nation (1994) found that teaching learners the strategies to deal with low frequency words

was more efficient than teaching learners the strategies to deal with high frequency words. He

also argued that vocabulary can be considered from a cost/benefit point of view. High

32

frequency words are essential to comprehending language so the cost (time and effort) of

teaching them is justified. Teaching low frequency words, on the other hand, is not so

beneficial and should be left to the learner. Nation suggests three strategies for dealing with

low frequency words: guessing from context (e.g. sentences, conversation), using mnemonic

techniques (e.g. peg method, keyword method), and using word parts (e.g. prefixes, root

word).

Frequency of strategy use

Unlike Politzer and McGroarty (1985), Schmitt (1997) found that certain strategies (allegedly

the most effective) tended to be used with increasing frequency. Increasing frequency of use

suggests the strategy is useful and assists the learner in achieving their learning goal.

Section summary

This section discussed vocabulary learning strategy research in a global context outside

China. Research began in the 1970s, and was viewed as a move away from teaching-oriented

perspectives to how learner actions affect language learning. In this move, aptitude was no

longer viewed as governing language learning. The ‘good learner’ study of 1975 produced

some speculative features that mark a good learner. Some of those features included a

personal learning style, an active learning approach, and willingness to practise. The notion

of a good versus poor learner appears to have been revisited in later research into surface

versus deep learning, the former to do with quantity of knowledge, the later to do with

understanding knowledge. However, these are equally important for the language learning,

where quantity deeply affects later proficiency. A range of strategies have been explored since

the mid-1970s, such as learning from word lists, using mnemonic methods, repetition, and

guessing form context. The importance of strategy use was also observed, in terms of the

efficacy of strategies, types of learning and awareness, learner characteristics, cultural

differences and frequency of strategy use.

The discussion now turns to research into VLS use in China or in a Chinese context.

2.5 Vocabulary learning strategies research in a Chinese context — a brief outline

Research on VLSs in a Chinese context has generally focused on strategy use in a formal

33

language learning context, for example, middle school and college/university, and use by

non-majors or low achievers (e.g. Gu, 2003; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Law, 2003; Wu, 2008;

Hwang, Tsai & Yang, 2008; Sun, 2003; Zhang et al., 2004). These studies have also generally

looked at all LLSs subsuming vocabulary learning, or on a small group of strategies (for

instance, mnemonics, guessing from context) used to learn vocabulary as a whole.

Participants in these studies tended to speak Chinese-Cantonese rather than Chinese-

Mandarin, as in the present research and come from a background where English plays a

larger role. Sometimes speakers’ native language was not mentioned but assumed to be one of

the two. Many Chinese in Hong Kong — the site of many studies — tend to be speakers of

Cantonese rather than Mandarin. The participants in mainland China studies were assumed to

speak Chinese-Mandarin (if not clearly stated) since the studies were situated in Beijing, and

‘Beijingers’ tend to be speakers of ‘putonghua’ or standard Chinese, such as Mandarin. These

studies are important to the present research because they highlight VLS use in China and

provide the research foundation.

This section is divided into four subsections: 1) China mainland studies of VLSs as a whole

group of interrelated strategies (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996) (2.5.1); 2) Hong Kong studies of

LLSs (2.5.2); 3) Hong Kong studies of VLSs as a whole group of strategies (2.5.3); and 4)

Hong Kong studies of strategies as a small group (2.5.4). Hong Kong studies are categorised

as studies in a Chinese context though Hong Kong was ruled by the British for about 100

years (e.g. Evans, 2000; Poon, 2004) and only recently returned to China’s governance. In

Hong Kong, schools teach certain subjects in English and the majority are bilingual.

2.5.1 Studies of whole groups of VLSs in mainland China

Gu and Johnson (1996) investigated the VLSs of 850 sophomore Chinese non-English

Majors at Beijing University in relation to learning outcomes. They correlated questionnaire

data with results on a vocabulary size test and the College English Test (CET) Band 2, or

CET 2. Students reported using a wide variety of VLSs and a multiple regression analysis

revealed that self-initiation and selective attention, both classified as metacognitive strategies,

proved positive predictors of scores on the CET 2, the College Entrance Test for students

wishing to enter university.

In terms of beliefs, they found three were prominent: words should be memorised, acquired

34

in context and learned and put to use. Other VLSs included the following: metacognitive

regulation, selective attention and self-initiation; guessing strategies, wider context and

immediate context; dictionary strategies, comprehension, extended dictionary strategies and

look-up strategies; note-taking strategies, meaning-oriented note-taking and use-oriented

note-taking; rehearsal strategies, using word lists, oral repetition and visual repetition;

encoding strategies, association/elaboration, imagery, visual and auditory encoding, using

word-structure, semantic and contextual encoding; and activation strategies.

In terms of outcomes, they matched VLSs against English proficiency and vocabulary size. A

belief in memorisation was negatively correlated with both English proficiency (CET 2) and

vocabulary size. Visual repetition negatively correlated with English proficiency and

vocabulary size. However, the two metacognitive strategies, the two guessing strategies

positively correlated with the two dependent variables, while only two of the three dictionary

strategies showed a significant correlation, and the other a negative correlation. The

mnemonic devices (imagery, visual and auditory) were either insignificantly or negatively

correlated with the dependent variables, or thought to be related more to vocabulary size. The

vocabulary size was found to be the same for the semantic encoding strategies, while word

list learning negatively correlated with English proficiency but significantly correlated with

vocabulary size. Contextual encoding, on the other hand, positively correlated with both

dependent variables. Vocabulary size, however, was found to positively correlate with

English proficiency.

They found seven variables significantly predicted scores on the CET 2. The two

metacognitive strategies were found to significantly predict overall English proficiency,

including contextual encoding and oral repetition. While significant, visual repetition,

imagery mnemonics and a belief in memorisation were found to be negative predictors of

overall English proficiency. Self-initiation was found the best predictor of vocabulary size,

closely followed by dictionary look-up strategies, extra-curricular time spent on English and

intentional activation of new words. Semantic encoding was found to “only seem to play a

role in predicting vocabulary size” (Gu & Johnson, 1996, pp. 658–59). Visual

repetition/imagery encoding were found to be “strong negative” predictors of vocabulary

size.

This study provides a research foundation for the present research to explore the relationship

35

among VLS use and BALLL in relation to the PVL.

2.5.2 Studies of whole groups of LLSs in Hong Kong

Wu’s (2008) more recent study of the LLSs of ten Chinese ESL students at a vocational

institute in Hong Kong also provides some clues about LLS use in a Chinese context. (Note:

Wu studied Chinese ESL students as many schools are bilingual, whereas the current research

is done on Chinese mainland students where English is learnt as foreign language.) Wu tried

to identify the contextual influences on LLS use, as well as the learning strategy use among

Chinese students in Hong Kong. The participants were students who had completed their five

years of secondary schooling.

Wu focused on the use of metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective strategies.

Metacognitive strategies included advance organisation, advance preparation, organisational

planning, selective attention, self-monitoring, self-evaluation and self-management.

Cognitive strategies included resourcing, grouping, note-taking, summarising, deduction,

imagery, auditory representation, elaboration, transfer, inferencing and practising.

Social/affective strategies included questioning for clarification, co-operation and positive

self-talk. In terms of contextual influences, Wu also found that there was “a lack of

knowledge of LLSs and a perception that they were too difficult to use” (2008, p. 77). He

concluded that a number of contextual factors influenced strategy use: the role of English in

the society, the education system and Confucianism, as well as low English language

proficiency.

Wu’s study is significant for the present research because it highlights the widespread use of

LLSs generally in Chinese contexts and that the belief that certain contextual factors

influence strategy use.

2.5.3 Studies of whole groups of VLSs in Hong Kong

Law (2003) investigated 80 Form One, Form Three and Form Four Chinese medium-school

students’ VLSs in a Hong Kong Band 4 secondary school context. Her aims were: 1) to

explore and describe VLS use through interviews, a survey and think-aloud tasks, and 2) to

identify specific strategies or a combination of strategies likely to promote vocabulary

36

acquisition, both with a view to causing changes in vocabulary teaching as well as promoting

strategy training.

The results of Law’s study indicate that most students thought “vocabulary was particularly

important in reading comprehension and writing where they needed to comprehend and

produce messages with the use of vocabulary” (2003, p. 44). However, difficult, boring and

troublesome were words used to describe how they felt about learning vocabulary. Fifteen

(15) strategies were highlighted and ranked, and included the following (ranked 1 to 15): 1)

guessing from contextual context, 2) using an electronic or online dictionary, 3) learning from

the mass media (newspapers, TV, radio), 4) taking notes in class, 5) using a conventional

Chinese-English dictionary, 6) asking the teacher for the meaning, 7) asking classmates or

peers for the meaning, 8) analysing available pictures/gestures, 9) analysing the part of

speech (e.g. noun, verb or adjective), 10) analysing prefixes, suffixes and roots, 11) learning

words through ICQ online chat or chat room communication [‘ICQ’ is an abbreviation for ‘I

seek you’], 12) learning words from English learning or vocabulary websites, 13) interacting

with native speakers (for example, the Native English Teacher online or NET teacher for

short), 14) discovering new meaning through group work activity, and 15) singing English

songs.

Law (2003) concluded that, while her findings may not be generalisable, the themes

generated by her study may well be relevant to students in similar situations. In addition, she

believes that “the choice and the effects of VLSs are likely to be highly influenced by

individual styles, preferences, personalities, and motivations” (Law, 2003, p. 84).

Law’s study is important because it highlights that choice and effect of strategy use is

probably influenced by individual learning style, preference, personality and motivations,

which the present research indirectly explores by exploring BALLL.

2.5.4 Studies of small groups of VLSs in Hong Kong

Chan (2000) conducted a comparative study of two instructional methods for mnemonics in

an EFL secondary teaching context in Hong Kong using 47 Cantonese-speaking students. The

two instructional methods studied were 1) the context method that puts the target word,

together with its L1 equivalent and a linguistic context exemplifying its meaning, and 2) a

37

combined context + keyword method, where an acoustic and imagery link is developed

between the target word and its referent. Results of the study indicated that the combined

context + keyword method proved superior in helping the students retain their learning over

time, though more effort and time were required when using this method.

Cheung (2004) investigated the effectiveness of the VLSs of 40 Cantonese-speaking Chinese

students in a ‘low band’ (assumed to be ‘low ranked’) secondary school in Hong Kong. The

primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of combined context method and

the keyword method on vocabulary retention. A secondary aim was to observe and describe

the different ways to employ the keyword method. In particular, whether students use L1 or

L2 keywords or whether they create their own.

The results of Cheung’s study indicate that of the 18 strategies covered, 5 were used often

and were found very useful. They were: I remember words by doing dictations, I link the

word to a Chinese word with similar sound, I repeatedly spell the word in my mind, I

repeatedly write the word and I repeatedly say the word in my mind. These strategies indicate

that these students often used repetition and formed an acoustic link from L1 sound to

remember the word. Two strategies ‘least often used’ and ‘least useful’ were I group words

together in a story line and I use sound and meaning associations. These students seemed to

prefer to use cognitive strategies and also seemed “not to favor strategies like using

associations and imagery in learning vocabulary” (Cheung, 2004, p. 46).

Cheung’s (2004, p. 47) findings indicated that secondary school “students remembered more

words when taught with the Keyword Method”. However, a question remained about whether

it was beneficial or not, since a delayed test one week later indicated that students in the

keyword condition had lost approximately 52 per cent of the words, while students in the

combined context condition had lost approximately 76 per cent. The results seem to support

what many studies said about the keyword method, even though its use was queried by some.

Cheung’s study demonstrates that the keyword method can be practical in a public classroom

context and that it can be beneficial to low achievers. Results also indicate that the keyword

method is more conducive to cued recall conditions regardless of L1 or L2 keywords. Cheung

says that “the proportion of words with L1 keywords and L2 keywords recalled, both L1 and

L2 keywords are a better receptive retrieval cue while L2 keyword also enhanced productive

performance” (2004, p. 53). Cheung believes that a L2 vocabulary size issue remained when

38

using L2 keywords, that these students’ vocabulary size was not large enough. This was

indicated by the fact that no L2 keywords were generated by the students.

Cheung (2004) concludes that the keyword method is superior to the combined context

method in enhancing retention. In addition, the combined context method, which was being

used at that time, may not benefit low achievers in recall, while the keyword method may

benefit recall of vocabulary meanings.

The studies discussed in this section are significant because they highlight the prevalence of

some individual strategies (for instance, combined context method and keyword method), and

their effectiveness in teaching and learning.

Section summary

This review of the research into LLSs generally and VLSs specifically in a Chinese context

shows that Chinese EFL students use strategies, but that this research is still in its infancy and

at a general level of investigation. The research into LLSs generally and VLSs specifically

and strategy use is substantial and suggests that EFL learners use strategies; that strategy use

is widespread; and that it produces outcomes for learners. The present research will expand

research on VLS use in the university context of CEMs, where research is limited. The

research will also discuss VLSs and BALLL and their impact on EVS. The present research

relies on the cognitive aspect of language development as it investigates conscious use of

VLSs.

Chapter summary

This review of the literature demonstrates that English vocabulary can be described and

defined according to its phonological shape (spoken item) and/or its orthographic shape

(written item), and can exist as a single item (e.g. people) or multiword item (e.g. farm

animal) or even as a large chunk (e.g. the United States of America). These descriptions and

definitions of vocabulary are widely accepted and uncontroversial.

There has been significant work defining VLSs by Oxford (1990), Gu and Johnson (1997),

and Schmitt 1997, but less agreement on a list or taxonomy that is exhaustive. This seems to

39

be due to questions remaining regarding their nature and existence in cognition. But methods

found reliable and valid in other contexts (e.g. outside China) or similar contexts (e.g. China)

have been used to extend understanding of this issue. Learning English vocabulary seems

somewhat of a challenge for many EFL learners (Nation, 2001). This is due to many factors,

including the linguistic distance between the native language and the language being learned,

personality factors and preferred learning styles, motivation and the language itself (Dörnyei,

2007). If, for instance, the language being learned is similar to the known or native language,

less effort seems to be needed to learn it (Nation, 2001).

Besides personality factors, preferred learning styles, motivation and the language itself,

learning vocabulary involves the use of novel, consciously controlled strategies (Oxford,

1990; Schmitt, 2001). These strategies can range from what learners do when they first meet

a new vocabulary item (discovery strategies), whether heard or seen, to what they do when

they store it in LTM (consolidation strategies), including retrieving it from LTM (rehearsal

strategies), so it becomes part of their mental lexicon (Schmitt, 2001; Jiang, 2000). Strategy

use may vary between individuals, including intra-group (within the same/similar groups of

EFL learners — for example, Chinese EFL learners) (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Wu, 2008; Yu

et al., 2004), and variable inter-group (within all EFL/ESL learners whether, for example,

Chinese, French, Italian, Russian) (e.g. Ahmed, 1989; Cohen & Aphek, 1981; Coady &

Huckin, 1997; Oxford, 1990).

Why VLS use varies from individual to individual and within and between groups of

individuals isn’t thoroughly understood, but several factors may account for it. Some of the

factors found to cause variable VLS use include those mentioned above: personality

differences, preferred learning style differences and differing motivations for learning a

language, as well as differing experiences of being taught language in formal learning

contexts. One significant factor, however, is individual and/or collective beliefs (for instance,

within-group beliefs) about language and language learning (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1999;

Horwitz, 1988; Mohamed, 2006; Yang, 1999), which is included in this study. Chapter 3 will

review the literature on BALLL.

40

41

CHAPTER 3: BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE

LEARNING

3.0 Introduction

This chapter will highlight and discuss selected samples of the literature in two main areas: 1)

BALLL outside China (3.1), and 2) the beliefs of the Chinese culture of learning (3.3).

3.1 Beliefs about language learning — research outside China

In section 3.1.1 a general definition of BALLL is provided to aid discussion, then 3.2 BALLL

is discussed in a general and global sense (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1999; Elbaum et al., 1993;

Horwitz, 1988, 1999; Jones & Gerard, 1967; Mohamed, 2006; Seedhouse et al., 2010; Open

University, 1975; Yang, 1999), including a discussion of research into the effect of beliefs on

vocabulary learning (e.g. Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005; Gao, 2006; Gu & Johnson, 1997;

Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Wenden, 1987). In section 3.3, the research into the Chinese culture

of learning is discussed (e.g. Hird 1995; Li 1984; Ma 2009; Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Xing

2009). In the section following this, the beliefs of the CCL are discussed in more detail (e.g.

Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Kelen, 2002), in relation to language education in China, and

specifically English language education in China (e.g. Chan, 2000; Kee & Wang, 2004;

Samuelowicz, 1987).

3.1.1 General definition of beliefs

Beliefs are defined as something that “denotes an assertion about some aspect of the world or

the relation between two such aspects” (Open University, 1975, p. 16): the relation between

two categories when neither defines the other (Jones & Gerard, 1967, cited in Open

University, 1975). The words opinion, value and ideology have also been used to denote

beliefs (Open University, 1975). Opinion is usually a verbal statement of an attitude or belief,

value denotes what is believed to be good and desirable, while ideology denotes a cluster of

related values, attitudes and beliefs. Mohamed (2006) lists several terms that have been used

to define beliefs: explicit propositions, subjectively reasonable beliefs, implicit theories,

conceptions, personal theories, judgments, untested assumptions, perceptions, images,

42

maxims. But what needs to be known is how beliefs are defined in relation to language and

language learning.

Horwitz (1988, p. 283) pointed out that “if beliefs about language learning are prevalent in

the culture at-large” then EFL teachers “should consider that students bring these beliefs with

them into the classroom.” Elbaum et al., (1993, p. 333; emphasis in the original) found that

“adults’ strategy beliefs are … fairly-well matched to the demands of the learning task as the

learners themselves define it,” however, they did not specifically define beliefs either. Yang

(1999) found that beliefs and strategy use correlate, and proposes a theoretical construct that

centres on metacognitive and motivational strategy use, but still does not provide a definition

of beliefs. Horwitz (1999), ten years after her landmark 1988 study, found no unambiguous

differences between cultural groups, but did find a number of intriguing group differences.

However, she still said that it was premature to conclude that beliefs about language vary by

cultural group. Yet despite this conclusion, she did not provide a succinct definition of beliefs.

Benson and Lor (1999) bring us closer to a succinct working definition of beliefs in their

research into conceptions of language and language learning. They place beliefs in the

cognitive realm saying that, “learning attitudes and behaviours are conditioned by a higher

order of mental representations concerning the nature of language and language learning”

(Benson & Lor, 1999, pp. 459–72). They developed a framework for discussing beliefs in

relation to conceptions of and approaches to language and language learning (see Seedhouse

et al., 2010). While conceptions of learning were found to be concerned with “what a learner

thinks the objects and processes of learning are … beliefs were found to be concerned with

what the learner holds to be true about these objects and processes, holding a certain

conception of what they are” (Benson & Lor, 1999, p. 464; emphasis in the original). While

beliefs can be inferred directly from the data (one collects on beliefs), conceptions must be

analysed in a different way. And, most importantly, conceptions and beliefs are related to and

responsive to context, but beliefs were found to manifest in the approaches learners took to

learning. The present research will employ Benson and Lor’s definition of beliefs as this

seems to be the most comprehensive.

3.2 Beliefs in relation to language and language learning/strategies

The literature review of BALLL begins with the early work of Horwitz (1988) followed by

notable research on differing aspects of the phenomenon (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1999; Bernat &

43

Gvozdenko, 2005; Elbaum et al., 1993; Gao, 2006; Gu & Johnson, 1997; Horwitz, 1988;

Horwitz, 1999; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989; Yang, 1999).

Earlier research (Horwitz, 1988) demonstrates that language learners possess beliefs about

language and language learning; in particular, EFL students. Horwitz (1988) investigated

beliefs about language learning and new university foreign language students. She says that if

beliefs about language learning are ubiquitous in any culture, then foreign language teachers

must realise that students do not dump them at the classroom door but bring them in

(Horwitz, 1988). She also says that while the focus of much research has been learner

errors/interlanguage systems with a view to documenting learner hypotheses about the

language system they’re learning, the research seems to have ignored “conceptions of the

language learning task” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 283). The discussion will now take a step back

and explore the cognitive realm to get a better understanding of beliefs in relation to language

and language learning, and then move forward.

The individual beliefs of and definitions of the learning task reflect “the demands and

opportunities of” students “in and out of school foreign language learning experience,” the

type of instruction experienced and experience of living in a foreign language community

(Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 320–23). Students’ definitions of the learning task are related to

their beliefs about strategies. Elbaum et al. (1993) surveyed 194 undergraduates at the

University of Utah (UU) in order to ascertain previous FLL experience, as well as the type of

instruction experienced. Sixteen LLSs were given to ten of these UU undergraduates to

classify as either a formal strategy or a functional strategy. They were also asked to select

what they believed to be the best combination of strategies from the previous exercise. They

were then asked to rate how much they would enjoy using these strategies. In terms of

definition of the learning task, they were also asked to “read descriptions of four types of

knowledge that contribute to communicative competence,” and assign a percentage to each

type of knowledge reflecting the contribution they felt this knowledge makes to a person’s

ability to communicate in another language.

Benson and Lor (1999) investigated conceptions of language and language learning. They

begin with the “cognitivist assumption that learning attitudes and behaviours are conditioned

by a higher order of mental representations concerning the nature of language and language

learning” (Benson & Lor, 1999, p. 459). They also say that preferred learning styles can

44

enable learning, however, “certain attitudes and behaviours may be more enabling than

others” (Benson & Lor, 1999, p. 459). So after reviewing much of the literature on the topic,

they drew three broad conclusions: 1) it is helpful to distinguish between two levels of

representation in learners’ thinking about their learning: conception and belief; 2) conceptions

of learning characterise learners’ thinking at a higher level of abstraction than beliefs; and 3)

conceptions and beliefs are understood as relational and responsive to context.

Dart et al. (2000) explores students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment and

approaches to learning, surveying 457 from 22 classes in two metropolitan secondary schools

in Australia. Referring to Allan (1996, p. 264), they say that an assertion was made that the

critical variable in determining how students learn was their conception of learning. The

results of Dart et al.’s (2000, p. 267) research suggest important associations between

conceptions and approaches to learning. Students holding quantitative conceptions of

learning tend to use deep approaches to learning and suppress surface approaches (see Biggs,

1999). Quantitative conceptions tend to view the acquisition of knowledge above meaning

(the more you know, the better student you are), while qualitative conceptions tend to view

the acquisition of understanding and meaning above quantity of knowledge. The problem

with this notion is that it cannot be applied to FLL because quantity is very important to the

language learner; especially those with goals of further higher education (for example,

postgraduate study in an English-speaking country). A high level of proficiency, even

vocabulary range, needs to have been achieved to succeed in this environment, especially in

universities in English-speaking countries where the notion of surface vs. deep approaches to

learning is being adopted.

Data collected through interviews with 16 first-year Arts undergraduates at the University of

Hong Kong between 1996 and 1997, identified three broad domains of belief: beliefs about

language learning, beliefs about self and beliefs about the learning situation. “Within the

domain of beliefs”, roughly “14 discrete beliefs” were identified, which appear repeatedly in

the data (Benson & Lor, 1999, p. 465). The discrete beliefs were categorised under three

major headings: work, method and motivation. They concluded that conception does

constitute “a higher and more abstract order of representation that constrains beliefs” (Benson

& Lor, 1999, p. 471). This is relevant to the present research because the research explored

whether CEMs’ conceptions of language and language learning, and the process of language

learning specifically, constrains their beliefs about how best to learn a foreign language.

45

Wenden (1987, cited in Horwitz, 1988), however, explored the connection between students’

theories about language learning and students’ self-reports of LLSs. In a series of interviews,

she found that “students described language learning strategies consistent with their professed

beliefs about language learning” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 284). While Wenden explored the

connection between students’ theories about language learning through interviews, she did so

in a general language learning sense (e.g. Oxford, 1990), not in a specific vocabulary learning

sense (e.g. Schmitt, 1997) like the present research. Furthermore, Wenden explored the

connection between students’ theories and language learning strategies in a Western context

of language learning. The present research explores the connection between BALLL in a

general Western sense (i.e. Horwitz, 1988) and a specific Chinese sense (i.e. Shi, 2006) in a

Chinese context of language learning (China), for comparative purposes (recognising that

Western beliefs may have infiltrated the thinking of Chinese students since the late 1970s),

thereby making it methodologically different if not conceptually different from Wenden’s

research.

Horwitz (1988) investigated the beliefs of new university students about language learning,

and focused on “individual learner beliefs and belief systems by student type” — for

instance, foreign or second, country of origin, instructional setting, target language (1988, p.

284). She developed a BALLI (Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory) (Horwitz, 1988,

p. 284) to collect data on beliefs in relation to five major areas:

1) difficulty of language learning;

2) foreign language aptitude;

3) the nature of language learning;

4) learning and communication strategies; and

5) motivations and expectations.

Horwitz’s findings on BALLI item 4, the nature of language learning, revealed that 67 per

cent of her respondents in each of the three language groups (German, French, Spanish)

agreed with the idea that “learning a language differs from learning other school subjects”

(1988, p. 288). Her respondents also appeared to have “endorsed statements indicative of a

restricted view of language learning” (Horwitz, 1988, p. 288). Restricted view here means

learning for examinations and social status. Twenty-five to 39 per cent of those respondents

46

also appeared to endorse the BALLI item “the most important part of learning a language is

learning vocabulary” (1988, p. 288). This tells us how important vocabulary learning is to

foreign language learners and FLL generally, and the significance of it to the present research.

Elbaum et al. (1993) investigated self-regulated learning in relation to previous learning,

strategy beliefs and task definition. They defined self-regulated learning as a type of learning

in which individuals “personally initiate and direct their own efforts to acquire knowledge

and skill rather than relying on teachers, parents, or other agents of instruction” (Elbaum et

al., 1993, pp. 318–20). They thought by the time of their study beliefs had not been

considered a factor influencing choice of learning strategy, so they investigated two aspects

of beliefs about learning: 1) individuals’ beliefs about the efficacy of different learning

strategies, and 2) individuals’ definitions of the learning task. Furthermore, Elbaum et al. held

the belief that there was a relationship between definitions of the learning task and strategy

choice. They also wanted to understand “the role of school experience in shaping beliefs

about learning” (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 318–20). Learning strategies were investigated from

the perspective of two general categories in the literature: formal and functional learning

strategies. Formal was defined (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 318–20) as “activities that focus

attention on the language itself, such as doing pattern drills or memorizing vocabulary,” while

functional was defined as “activities that use the language for communicative purpose, such

as conversing with native speakers or reading foreign language newspapers for news about

events in other countries”.

However, Elbaum et al. (1993) say that the distinction between formal and functional

learning strategies has been equated with the distinction between implicit and explicit

learning, but do not say how these concepts have been equated. This suggestion is important

because, even though it was made in the early 1990s, it implies that formal learning strategies

are implicit learning or unconscious learning. Regarding the meaning of implicit learning, the

suggestion that formal learning strategies are unconscious learning strategies is problematic.

However, to investigate “individuals’ definition of the learning task,” they drew on

conceptualisations of learning to acquire communicative competence (Elbaum et al., 1993, p.

320).

The results of Elbaum et al.’s (1993, p. 324) study show that “no significant group differences

were found with regard to participants’ age, major, or reported average grade received in

47

previous foreign language courses”, but group differences “did differ with regard to gender”.

A significant difference was found between groups, for example, “TRADONLY [traditional

instruction only] group had studied foreign language significantly longer than had individuals

in the TRAIN + FLC [training in a foreign language community] group” (Elbaum et al.,

1993, p. 324). However, results indicate that “neither gender, length of previous language

study, or the interaction between the two accounted for a significant proportion of the

variance in hours assigned to functional learning strategies” (Elbaum et al., 1993, p. 324).

Elbaum et al. (1993, pp. 324–26) also found a correlation between “length of previous

foreign language study and the two principal dependent variables”, but not between “length

of previous foreign language study and enjoyment”. There was significant correlation,

however, between “previous length of study and hours assigned to functional strategies”

(Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 324–26). A significant difference was found between the groups’

assigned hours to functional strategies; the IMMERSION group assigned significantly more

hours than the other groups, while the TRAD + FLC (foreign language community) and

TRAIN + FLC groups were not significantly different. These results, however, “confirmed

the hypothesis that individuals with immersion or community foreign language experience

would place greater emphasis on functional language learning strategies than individuals with

only traditional instruction” (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 324–26). So those individuals who had

thought certain strategies more enjoyable had assigned more hours to them, but individuals

with more classroom language learning experience had assigned more hours to functional

strategies. Differences were not therefore due to perceptions of enjoyment of strategy. It

would interesting to find whether CEMs in this study, because they receive traditional

instruction, will have assigned less hours to functional strategies.

The results of Elbaum et al.’s (1993, pp. 327–28) study also indicate significant differences

among groups per strategy beliefs. In terms of opportunities to use either formal or functional

strategies, results indicated that TRADONLY groups “had many opportunities to use formal

strategies rather than functional strategies” (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 327–28), while

IMMERSION groups were the opposite. TRAIN + FLC and TRAD + FLC groups appeared

to be equal with respect to using formal and functional strategies. Also, the TRADONLY

group tended to use foreign language for classroom language exercises, while the TRAIN +

FLC group tended to use foreign language primarily for conversing with native speakers and

the memorisation of religious texts. The TRAD + FLC and the IMMERSION groups, on the

48

other hand, appeared to be equal in terms of using the foreign language for in-class and out-

of-class communicative purposes.

Significant differences were found among groups in terms of the relative importance assigned

to different types of knowledge (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 328–29). The IMMERSION and

TRAD + FLC groups were not significantly different, and placed less importance on

grammar than either the TRADONLY or TRAD + FLC groups. Neither of these groups

differed from each other. The hypothesis that “individuals with either immersion or foreign

language community experience would place less importance on grammar than individuals

with only traditional instruction” (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 328–29) was only partially

confirmed, meaning that the individuals, despite their experience in a foreign language

community (for example, TRAIN + FLC), placed as much importance on grammar as

individuals with only traditional instruction. Furthermore, “the IMMERSION group placed

more importance on this type of knowledge [grammar] than any of the other groups”; TRAD

+ FLC individuals “placed greater importance on communication strategies” (Elbaum et al.,

1993, pp. 328–29) than the TRADONLY group, while the TRAIN + FLC group, was not

significantly different from either the TRAD + FLC or the TRADONLY group, and did not

differ significantly from either group. These results appear to confirm the hypothesis “that

individuals with experience in either a foreign language community or an immersion program

would place greater importance on communication strategies than individuals with only

traditional instruction” (Elbaum et al., 1993, pp. 328–29). The TRAIN + FLC group,

however, placed less emphasis on knowledge of communication strategies and this was an

unexpected finding.

The relationship between individuals’ strategy beliefs and their definition of the language

learning task, and the number of hours that participants assigned to functional learning

strategies was correlated with the percentage assigned to each type of knowledge (Elbaum et

al., 1993, p. 329). Vocabulary and grammar were negatively correlated, while communication

strategies were positively correlated. There was not a significant correlation between

sociolinguistic knowledge and hours assigned to functional strategies. These results partially

support the hypothesis “that individuals who define the language learning task as involving

more declarative knowledge tend to advocate more formal learning strategies [implicit

learning], while individuals who define the task as involving more procedural knowledge

tend to favour more functional learning strategies [explicit learning]” (Elbaum et al., 1993, p.

49

329).

The relevance of Elbaum et al.’s findings cannot be overlooked, given the present research

focus on BALLL. This research may find that CEMs frequently use more formal learning

strategies given the emphasis on declarative knowledge at the research site, and therefore

may rely heavily on this approach undermining the value of explicit learning, and

underutilising functional learning strategies.

Oxford and Nyikos (1989) investigated variables affecting choice of language learning

strategies by university students. The 1200 participants were equally balanced between male

and female university students whose majors were humanities/social and science/education.

Using a SILL (Strategy Inventory of Language Learning) to collect data on LLSs and a

background questionnaire covering several different variables (for instance, motivation),

Oxford and Nyikos found that certain variables do affect choice of LLSs. Five significant

general categories emerged from Oxford and Nyikos’s (1989) data on strategy use: formal

rule-related practice strategies, functional practice strategies, resourceful independent

strategies, general study strategies and conversational input elicitation strategies. From their

second research question, which variables affect choice of strategy, motivation emerged as

the single most influential factor. Other factors included proficiency ratings (including

speaking, reading and listening), elective vs. required status of a course, years of study, sex

(gender) and major. Motivation was found to have significantly interacted with several of the

variables. Other interactions included major and elective vs. required status of a course, and

years of study and course status.

Horwitz (1999) investigated cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’

beliefs about language learning and at the same time conducted a review of BALLI studies.

She says, “learner beliefs have the potential to influence both their experiences and actions as

language learners” (Horwitz, 1999, p. 558). In addition, “although beliefs about language

learning would seem to be naturally related to culture and situational differences … no

examination of how they differ across learner groups” (Horwitz, 1999, p. 558) had been

conducted before her study. She then reviewed the BALLI research to observe any cultural

and situational differences across learner groups in the data. She focused on the data from

seven studies, which included her earlier 1988 study, Kern (1995), Oh (1996), Kunt (1997),

Park (1995), Truitt (1995) and Yang (1992).

50

While Horwitz (1999, pp. 558–71) began with a note that the BALLI was initially “designed

to demonstrate individuality in beliefs about language learning,” it could also be used “to

look for similarities as well as differences in beliefs among groups of learners”. She found

that there are similarities and differences across learner groups. For example, there were a

number of belief differences among the American groups. Primary differences appeared

between the French instructors and American learners, students of Japanese and students of

more commonly studied languages. The data showed that, “Both groups of French learners

and French instructors differed on a wide range of belief items having to do with the

difficulty of language learning, language learning aptitude, the nature of language learning,

the importance of accent, and motivation for language teaming” (Horwitz, 1999, pp. 558–71).

The French instructors and French learners belonged to the same cultural group, which

suggests that beliefs were influenced by factors other than culture; perhaps age, stage of

learning and professional status.

Horwitz (1999, p. 575) concludes that the “data did not point to any unambiguous differences

in the groups examined; that in spite of a number of intriguing group differences, it seems

premature to conclude that beliefs about language learning vary by cultural group”. Within-

group differences, in fact, might be accounted for by individual characteristics/different

instructional practices. And while there appears to be much commonality across beliefs held

by the groups of learners in this study, these BALLI studies did not survey the beliefs of all

cultural groups. However, the BALLI has proven validity for identifying learner beliefs. And

this is important for the present study because it explores CEMs’ BALLL in order to observe

whether they are strongly those of the so-called Chinese culture of learning or more of so-

called Western culture, given that China has opened up to the West and is modernising. These

culture-specific beliefs are discussed in more detail later, because as will be seen, Shi (2006)

found significant differences between Chinese students’ beliefs and Horwitz’s participants.

And individual differences and instructional practices for the CEMs in the present study may,

in fact, prove a significant finding.

Gu and Johnson (1997) investigated the VLSs and language learning outcomes of 850

sophomore non-English majors at Beijing Normal University. The participants had

experienced six years of English language education prior to participating in the study. Data

was collected using a questionnaire designed by Gu and Johnson specifically for the study.

51

The questionnaire was administered in the native language of the participants, and though not

stated was presumably Mandarin. The questionnaire contained three sections: personal data,

beliefs about language learning and VLSs. The three beliefs were vocabulary should be

memorised, acquired in context, and learning vocabulary and putting it to use. They found

that the beliefs that vocabulary should be memorised received a higher score than the beliefs

acquire vocabulary in context and learning vocabulary and putting it to use. They also

suggested that beliefs are strategies. While the idea that beliefs are a strategy is appealing, it

isn’t a strong argument because a belief is not protocol for achieving a goal (e.g. the way to

do that); a belief is a statement about what you believe to be true. Believing that vocabulary

should be acquired or learned in context does not tells us exactly how the learner goes about

learning vocabulary in context, though it may hint at it.

Yang (1999) investigated the relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy

use. Yang surveyed 505 Taiwanese university students about their beliefs. Yang uses a

combined BALLI and SILL, plus Yang-designed questions. Yang’s participants had

experienced at least six years of English language education, including their first year of

university. A factor analysis revealed that at least four factors represented participants’ beliefs

about language learning:

1) self-efficacy and expectation about learning English;

2) perceived value and nature of learning spoken English;

3) beliefs about foreign language aptitude; and

4) beliefs about formal structural studies.

About 80 per cent of Yang’s participants held the belief that they would learn to speak

English very well. About 32 per cent held the belief that they had a special ability to learn

foreign languages. About 22 per cent held the belief that Chinese were good at learning

foreign languages. About 50 per cent judged English to be of medium difficulty to learn, 37

per cent designated it an easy language to learn, while 2 per cent designated it as either very

difficult or very easy to learn. The difficulty rating was correlated with expectations and

commitment to the learning task, so ‘easy to learn’ correlated with ‘expect to speak English

very well’, but those who thought English was difficult to learn invested less commitment in

the venture. The remainder of the discussion of Yang’s findings will be paraphrased as much

as possible given the extent of the findings.

52

In terms of self-efficacy and expectation about learning English, Yang’s participants indicated

that they had “a strong sense of self-efficacy about learning English” (1999, p. 522). In terms

of the perceived value and nature of learning spoken English, there was a “general belief in

the importance and usefulness of speaking English and a strong interest in learning spoken

English” (Yang, 1999, p. 522). In terms of beliefs about foreign language aptitude,

participants “generally endorsed the concept of special abilities for learning” (Yang, 1999, p.

522). In terms of beliefs about formal structural studies, more than half of the participants,

those influenced by traditional teaching methods, held strong beliefs about it and agreed that

“the most important part of learning a foreign language is learning vocabulary” (Yang, 1999,

p. 522). Some thought grammar was the most important, while some thought translation and

memorizing language were important. Some even rejected the formal structural approach.

Yang (1999) applied a factor analysis to the results of the SILL which revealed six categories

of LLSs. They included 1) functional practice strategies, 2) cognitive-memory strategies, 3)

metacognitive strategies, 4) formal oral-practice strategies, 5) social strategies and 6)

compensation strategies. As discussed above, beliefs are statements about the things or the

relations between things that the learner believes to be true, of language and language

learning particularly; however, they do not reveal the actual process/the protocol followed by

the learner to affirm the belief as true or valid. Furthermore, beliefs can change when the

learner enters a new and different cultural learning context and finds the cultural pressure to

adhere to a particular belief isn’t there anymore. Yang’s findings are compared with the

findings of the present research in Chapter 7.

Gao (2006) studied changes in Chinese students’ use of learning strategies from a

sociocultural perspective. An analysis of 14 Britain-based Chinese learners’ “experiential

[interview] narratives” — interviews he conducted for his 2002 Masters dissertation – “lent

tentative support” for the hypothesis “that the popular language learning discourses,

assessment methods, and influential agents that had been influencing” (Gao, 2006, p. 55)

frequency of use and choice of strategy while getting an education in China either

disappeared or were undermined by the new sociocultural educational setting sometime after

settling in Britain.

Gao (2006) found that the 14 Chinese learners’ narrative accounts of their strategy use while

53

based in China revealed some interesting things. For example, these students had been

“subject to a predominant learning discourse that had conceptualized English as a means or

tool to pursue social promotion in mainland China” (Gao, 2006, p. 58). Gao said this

‘discourse of English as a tool’ was “particularly useful in mobilizing their learning effort and

directly associated with the frequency and intensity of strategy uses” while in China. Strategy

use was found to be “closely related to popular perceptions of ‘exams’ under this ‘tool’

discourse” (Gao, 2006, p. 58). Mediating or influencing agents, including teachers, learning

experts and parents, in China had advised these learners to pursue language learning in

relation to exams, as well as advising them to engage in strategy use oriented to exam

settings.

Focusing only on mediating agents in China, Gao’s procured narratives revealed much about

the ‘beliefs about language learning’ of mediating agents in China. For instance, mediating

agents had “directly or indirectly caused these Chinese learners to adopt certain strategies, for

instance, rote memorization” (Gao, 2006, p. 62). The participants are quite clear on this issue,

saying the teacher made them recite all classroom texts, suggesting it was compulsory, or that

an expert suggested they could learn words through at least seven revisions aloud of a word.

With regard to family members as a mediating influence, some students’ parents were English

language teachers. These parents encouraged their children to learn English while young and

sent them to private providers of English language education. These learners experienced a

certain type of mediating-agent influence while living in China; however, on relocating to

Britain, the mediating agent’s influence disappeared or was undermined by the new

sociocultural educational setting and so the learner was therefore forced to devise new ways

of learning to compensate, because the ‘old’ ways weren’t as effective in achieving academic

goals.

This last point raises an important question about the efficacy of learned beliefs and

behaviours in China if they must be changed in order to achieve academic goals in a new

cultural setting. This does not question the value of the beliefs and behaviours in the home

setting, just queries why they seemed ineffective in another setting.

Section summary

This discussion tells us that investigations into beliefs about language and language learning

54

since Horwitz’s (1988), investigations into beliefs in relation to LLSs specifically, VLSs

generally, as well as research into beliefs about language and language learning in relation to

other factors has been substantial (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1999; Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005;

Elbaum et al., 1993; Gao, 2006; Gu & Johnson, 1997; Horwitz, 1988; Horwitz, 1999; Oxford

& Nyikos, 1989; Yang, 1999). All of this research affirms that beliefs about language and

language learning are strongly linked to and can affect language learning strategies (LLSs)

generally, vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) specifically. There is limited research on

VLSs and BALLL and their influence on vocabulary learning, which this thesis addresses. In

the next section 3.3, the discussion of beliefs progresses but narrowly focuses on beliefs

about language and language learning in a Chinese context; specifically, the beliefs of the

Chinese culture of learning.

3.3 Chinese culture of learning beliefs about language and language learning and

English language education/learning in a Chinese context

Previous research has affirmed the importance of learning culture to BALLL. The discussion

of research into the nature of Chinese culture of learning beliefs about language and language

learning begins with early research (e.g. Hird, 1995) into Confucian beliefs about language

learning and then includes later notable research (e.g. Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Ma, 2009;

Xing, 2009).

An early discussion by Hird (1995, p. 23) on the nature of Confucian beliefs about language

learning began by characterizing it as a Chinese tradition of language study involving “a

meticulous analysis in a textbook-based approach,” and included “a systematic unlocking of

the meaning of each fragment of language”. Other characterizations included the following:

perfection through a painstaking undertaking of every language item; no personal creations

and interpretations; care and certainty favoured above quantity and experimentation; rote

memorization; passive classroom learning; teacher-centred approach; social distance and

formality. A principle of ‘learning sparingly but well’, however, was thought to place a

particular constraint on language ‘output’, “the obligation to be error-free”. Such an approach

to language learning would appear 1) to place a significant teaching burden/constraint on

Chinese English language teachers who “are strongly aware of a personal responsibility” they

have “for their students’ fortunes in English courses,” and 2) a significant restricted learning

burden/constraint on students of English language.

55

In a detailed discussion by Phuong-Mai et al. (2005) of the Confucian heritage culture’s

(CHC) collectivism in relation to education, teaching and learning, group learning was

highlighted. A study of group learning within the CHC reveals the inter-dependency of CHC

students when it comes to learning. Such strong inter-dependency suggests that

autonomous/independent learning might be a challenge for many Chinese students. However,

the preferred learning styles – in relation to teaching – of CHC learners appeared to be

didactic and teacher-centred. Fourteen per cent of CHC respondents in one study had

indicated that they “prefer to be spoon-fed by the teacher” while 21 per cent of CHC

respondents in the same study had indicated that “they learn well when most of the

information is given by the teacher”. Other studies (Samuelowicz, 1987, Chan, 1999, cited in

Phuong-Mai et al., 2005, p. 407) reveal that CHC respondents/learners are “more likely to

depend on the teacher and not on themselves in order to engage in group learning”.

The Phuong-Mai et al. (2005) study of the nature and character of CHC inter-dependency

learning seem to imply that the other 86 per cent/79 per cent of CHC learners engage in

independent learning when not engaged in such inter-dependent/group learning. While the

findings may characterise CHC learners as having a strong inter-dependency condition or

prefer group learning over individual/autonomous learning, another reading of the findings

suggests something else, if Phuong-Mai et al.’s opening statement about the experience of an

American teacher called Samantha Burk is any indication. Samantha had assigned some

group work activity to her students, and two weeks later got the group work assignments

back. She was stunned to learn that in two of the groups, students had paid money to one of

the members of the group, who did all of the assignments for all the members of that group.

Another interpretation of the findings then, might be one that suggests that the behaviour of

Samantha Burk’s students is rather more common and widely spread than might appear from

her lone anecdotal. In other words, even when faced with individual learning, though passive,

learning in the classroom, students’ strong inter-dependency condition might result in

students more often than not relying on one or two of the best students in the classroom group

– study groups are in fact a microcosm of the larger macrocosm of classroom group (see Ma,

2009) – to do their work for them; even going so far as to pay them to do it for them. This, in

fact, has also been my observation and experience as an EFL teacher in China.

This situation is alluded to in Phuong-Mai et al.’s (2005) discussion of student-student

56

relationships. It would appear that in a learning group (for instance, classroom group),

“power distance does affect” (2005, pp. 407–08). A chief characteristic of a Confucian

society is its unequal relationships, and patriarchal orientation. The father is the leader of the

family, the teacher is the leader of the school, and the class monitor [a student] is the leader of

a classroom. There are strong hierarchy rules in a Confucian society: “If there is a group,

there is a leader” (2005, pp. 407–08). In a collectivist society like China, as opposed to an

individualist society like the U.S.A., “people … from birth onwards are integrated into

strong, cohesive in-groups which continue to protect them throughout their lifetime in

exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (2005, pp. 407–08).

More insights can be gleaned from Phuong-Mai et al.’s (2005, pp. 409–10) discussion of

whether “collectivism can actually act as cultural supportive background for group-working

success”. Harmony seems to be viewed as a virtue in a collectivist classroom; therefore,

confrontations and conflicts should be avoided at all cost. Losing face seems to be viewed as

a very serious issue, apparently, and can result in “serious personal damage”, so it too should

be avoided at all cost. Fear of losing face, which appears a belief of CHC students, tends to

constrain students’ behaviour in the classroom: remain silent in the classroom to avoid being

thought of as silly or to avoid humiliating others. Saving face is more important than telling

the truth, apparently. The ‘silent way’ in the classroom appears to satisfy ‘giving face’,

‘saving face’, and ‘asserting face’ all in the same approach. A CHC student’s objective

appears to be “to maintain harmony”.

The above discussion highlights the significance of the present research, in that beliefs can

have a strong influence on learning, English vocabulary learning specifically, in a Chinese

context, but again, though they may serve a particular cultural predilection for certain cultural

behaviours in China, but not be so useful in a non-Chinese context.

The above discussion of the nature and characterization of apparent Confucian constraints on

learning behaviour is also referred to as the Chinese culture of learning (CCL). One

prominent discussion of the CCL describes it as being “associated with traditional beliefs and

attitudes to teaching and learning, often under the influence of the specific culture of a group”

(Ma, 2009, pp. 243–46). Such a description seems to agree with another prominent

description by Cortazzi and Jin (1996, p. 169, cited in Ma, 2009, p. 243):

57

[…] behaviour in language classrooms is set within taken-for-granted frameworks of

expectations, attitudes, values and beliefs about what constitutes good learning, about

how to teach or learn, whether and how to ask questions, what textbooks are for, and how

language teaching relates to broader issues of the nature and purpose of education.

This particular description or framework for the taken-for-granted ‘norms’ [the term used

here after to refer to the framework above] has been referred to as the “hidden curriculum”.

While the CCL appears to be “subject to the influence of the socio-economic environment”

within which it exists, understanding it means understanding the learning process and

learning outcome of language learning” (2005, pp. 407–08). Hird (1995) and Phuong-Mai et

al. (2005), above, have discussed in detail some of these characteristics.

The taken-for-granted norms, Ma (2009) said, are heavily rooted in culture and tradition. This

appears to be particularly true for the Chinese culture of learning (CCL). The CCL is said to

have been deeply influenced by both Confucianism and Taoism – apparently, more than 2000

years of influence. The ideas of Confucianism and Taoism are said to permeate the Chinese in

China, “influencing their daily behaviour, their thinking and attitudes” (2009, pp. 243–44).

They have been passed down from generation to generation, and have come to be known as

the so-called “Chinese orthodoxy”. And this ‘orthodoxy’ persists in influencing the lives of

the Chinese in China despite the influx of Western philosophies and ideologies. The influence

can be seen, apparently, in “the conception of language, assumptions about language learning,

and the way language learning should be conducted in the classroom” (2009, pp. 243–44).

Ma (2009) said the Chinese conception of language has been found to differ from the Western

conception of language. The Chinese conception is said to be “prescriptive and pragmatic”

while the Western conception is said to be “descriptive and semantically motivated” (2009,

pp. 243–44). This conception of language, therefore, assumes “that language can be learned

and taught in a prescriptive manner” (2009, pp. 243–44). Such a conception also defines the

role of the teacher, and indirectly, the student: “the teacher prescribes the correct words, their

correct uses; the teacher corrects the students’ errors” (2009, pp. 243–44). This is a Confucian

view of the teacher no less, and indirectly, the Chinese student. A fundamental assumption of

this conception of language is that (italics mine) “language is the ‘means by which right

action is achieved’ or a ‘system of appropriate discursive acts …’” (2009, pp. 243–44). This

assumption raises an important question: Were Samantha Burk’s students (and mine)

58

behaving like they possessed a language which helps them achieve ‘right action’? If they

were behaving according to their cultural expectation in China, they would, yes. But what

effect does this behaviour have on the learning of a foreign language; the learning of English

vocabulary, specifically?

While Kelen (2002) purportedly approaches his discussion of the CCL from a philosophical

point of view, Hu (2002, cited in Ma, 2009, p. 245) purportedly approaches his discussion of

the CCL from a more education-oriented point of view. Hu (2002) observes a series of

features in the CCL which he believes to be innate:

1) A high respect for education

2) That education involves gaining knowledge/developing moral qualities

3) Education is perceived as a process of increasing knowledge (rather than constructing

it)

4) An insistence placed on keeping hierarchical yet harmonious relationships between

the teacher and the students

5) That education can be achieved by individual effort (including determination and will

power) regardless of intelligence/ability/family background

Ma (2009, p. 245), however, says “these traditional Chinese educational features are heavily

rooted in Confucianism”. Such a view of education is closely linked with “the close bond

between knowledge and power” (2009, p. 245).

Ma (2009) concludes her discussion of some of the consequences of the CCL ‘perceptions

and practice’ with the Cortazzi and Jin (1996, cited in Ma, 2009, p. 246) summary, which is

reproduced here to conclude this section:

Chinese approaches to language teaching have a long-standing concern with mastery of

knowledge, which is focused on the four centers of the teacher, the textbook, grammar

and vocabulary. Knowledge of English is transmitted through the teacher, as an authority,

a source of knowledge and an intellectual and moral example. This knowledge is also in

the textbook, which is a key element in Chinese learning; texts are taught and learned in

exhaustive detail. They are often memorized. Grammar and vocabulary are further

elements of knowledge which are explained and transmitted. Students engage heavily in

59

memorizing hundreds, even thousands, of words each year.

Section summary of the CCL beliefs about language / language learning

The discussion of the so-called Chinese tradition of language study found it defined,

characterized and discussed extensively in the literature (e.g. Chan, 1999; Cocroft & Ting-

Toomey, 1994; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996a; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b; Hansen, 1999; Hird, 1995;

Hofstede, 2003; Hu, 2002; Wong, 2004; Kelen, 2002; Li, 1984; Ma, 2009; Phuong-Mai et al.,

2005; Samuelowicz, 1987; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Xing, 2009). The characterization of

Confucian beliefs is viewed by some as a constraining force on language learning (Hird,

1995), while others speak more positively of Confucian beliefs about language and language

learning (Gu, 1996). A strong interdependency condition appears to be instilled in Chinese

language learners (Phuong-Mai et al., 2005); which sometimes has a positive effect on

language learning or a negative one. That is to say, that while Chinese education invokes a

strong cooperative principle in a Chinese learning context, the strong interdependency is

positively applied in language learning contexts; in particular, English language education in

China (e.g. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Hofstede, 2003; Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Ma,

2009). This Confucian way of conducting language education, including English language

education, is called the Chinese culture of learning (CCL) (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b; Ma, 2009).

The CCL is also referred to, in perhaps a negative sense, the “hidden curriculum” (Ma, 2009,

pp. 243–44). And understanding it means “understanding the learning process and learning

outcome of language learning” (2009, pp. 243–44). The ‘hidden curriculum’ in turn is

referred to as a “Chinese orthodoxy”. This ‘orthodoxy’ is said to persist in influencing the

lives of the Chinese in China despite the influx of other philosophies (Western philosophies

and ideologies). The influence can be seen, apparently, in “the conception of language,

assumptions about language learning, and the way language learning should be conducted in

the classroom” (2009, pp. 243–44). This conception of language and language learning is a

prescriptive one, describing not only how Chinese language should be taught in the classroom

but how it should be learned by Chinese students (e.g. Kelen, 2002), and such a prescription

seems also applied to English language teaching and learning in China (e.g. Chan, 1999;

Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b; Hansen, 1991; Hofstede, 2003; Hu, 2002; Samuelowicz, 1987; Ma,

2009). This situation may be a constraining factor for Chinese EFL learners both in the way

they experience ELT (English language teaching) in China and how they should go about

60

learning English since the Confucian view of education is closely linked with “the close bond

between knowledge and power” (e.g. Ma, 2009, pp. 245–46; Phuong-Mai et al., 2005), strong

hierarchy rules, and an ‘orthodoxy’ that persists in influencing the lives of the Chinese in

China.

Hence to understand learning and teaching in the Chinese context, research into the Chinese

culture of learning is an essential first step in the aims to explore the extent to which beliefs

of the CCL permeate the thinking and learning behaviour of a group of Chinese EFL learners’

who use VLSs in the overall process of English vocabulary learning for mainly academic

purposes. As stated before, the gap in the knowledge regarding the process of English

vocabulary learning in a Chinese context, will be in identifying a relationship between

general BALLL/CCL beliefs and VLS use and the subsequent effect these working together

have on overall English vocabulary size.

Chapter summary

The review of the literature of language learning beliefs suggests they are universal. That is,

they can be found in every culture (e.g. Horwitz, 1987). Such ‘universal’ beliefs have been

found in several diverse cultures as well as shared within the same culture, for instance, intra-

group. However, beliefs tend not to be particularly contrastive intra-group. Though they have

been found in shared intra-group contexts, they tend not to have a specific historic-cultural

origin in such contexts (e.g. Horwitz, 1987). That is, the beliefs appear to originate from a

general, global culture of language learning rather than a specific historic-culture of learning,

for instance, Anglo-Saxon. Beliefs found in some cultural groups, however, appear to share a

single historic-cultural origin, for instance, Asian cultures (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Shi,

2006). One cultural group in particular which appears to share a single set of beliefs about

language and language learning that originates from an historic-cultural origin is the Chinese

in China (e.g. Ma, 2009; Shi, 2006; Xing, 2009).

The Chinese in China generally share a set of beliefs about language and language learning

that originates in Confucianism and Taoism (e.g. Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Ma, 2009; Xing,

2009). The beliefs of Confucianism view language and language learning in a pragmatic and

prescriptive sense (e.g. Ma, 2009). In a pragmatic sense, language is viewed as something

that can lead one to achieve the right action, for instance, speaking Chinese Mandarin can

61

lead one to the right action. In a prescriptive sense, language is viewed as a simple set of

discursive acts, for instance, every utterance made by one person has its counterpart in what

is uttered by another. However, for Chinese, at least, what one says must have its correct

corresponding utterance in someone else, not just any utterance; it must be the ‘right’

utterance, for example, face-saving activity. Thus behaviour will conform to the Chinese

culture of learning’s conception of language as a set of discursive acts (if one adheres strictly

to Grice’s (1975) ‘conversational maxims’, for instance), which has significant consequences

for learning a foreign language like English (in which Grice’s conversational maxims can be

regularly flouted).

Learning the English language according to the norms of Confucianism may be rather novel.

And novel here means learning English in an untypical or unusual way. For instance, learning

English in China will not be the same for French learners of English (e.g. Noels et al., 2001).

The French in Canada learn English according to some generalized collective European

ideals (e.g. Commission of the European Communities, 2004), whereas the Chinese in China

learn English according to some non-generalized ideas of Confucianism, or generalized to all

Chinese. Therefore, English language learning tends to be contrastive from a French,

European context to a Chinese, Confucian context.

Confucianism, therefore, may influence Chinese students’ learning of English. Research on

the influence of Confucianism on Chinese students’ learning of English isn’t extensive, less

than on other cultural groups. And the findings tend to be mixed; neither completely negative

nor completely positive.

Teaching and learning English vocabulary in a Chinese Confucian oriented context may be

quite customized. Customized teaching/learning here means that teaching English vocabulary

tends to apply Confucianism or Chinese culture of learning beliefs about education/learning

in every English language education context in China, whether private or public. While

studies suggest that English vocabulary learning can be characterized as involving a large

range of language learning strategies, the picture of the process of English vocabulary

learning through vocabulary learning strategy use in Chinese context is still far from being

solid. One estimate (see Cortazzi & Jin, 1996) put English vocabulary learning for Chinese

students of English at hundreds, even thousands of English vocabulary items every year and

use a range of strategies to learn it. Thus the present study extends the research on VLSs and

62

BALLL in the Chinese context, for which research is not extensive. It specifically focuses on

university vocabulary learning of Chinese English Majors, which is a context overlooked.

63

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

4.0 Introduction

The first part of this chapter (4.1) outlines the approach or methodological framework

informing the research design (for example, mixed methods — questionnaire and interview),

the theoretical perspective (4.2.1) and the rationale behind the questionnaire and interview

method (4.2.2.1) in relation to the aims of the present research. The research design and the

administration of the data collection instruments (4.6), is discussed in the second part, along

with a discussion of the data collection methods, the questionnaires (4.6.1.2 to 4.6.1.4) and

interview method (4.6.1.6), to show the link between the research design and the research

questions. This discussion includes data management and data analysis (4.7.2.1 to 4.7.2.6). A

summary of the intended outcomes completes the chapter.

4.1 Methods and selection of methods

The focus of the present research is the process of English vocabulary learning in a Chinese

context. This automatically implies a path of some sort, or at least, a starting point and an end

point. The starting point is the moment a foreign language learner encounters a new piece of

vocabulary belonging to the foreign language and then behaves in such a way as to learn that

new piece of vocabulary. The end point of the process, viewed as achieving the goal of the

learning process, is that which is learned. To better understand this process in a FLL context,

the research firstly explored CEMs’ VLS use; secondly, their BALLL; and thirdly, their EVS.

Several LLS ‘taxonomies’ will be referenced (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996; Oxford, 1990), some

explicitly; Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy is the primary VLSs reference; general BALLL are

explored with reference to Horwitz (1988); and specific CCL beliefs explored with reference

to Shi (2006). EVS is explored using Nation’s (2001) VST.

Selection of the data collection instruments can be viewed as an extension of the research

questions. According to Nunan (1992), the research questions by their very nature suggest

which method(s) of data collection to use to collect the necessary data. For example, the

construction of relationships in interview sessions cannot be done with a questionnaire.

64

However, this immediately raises some questions about data collection methods and their

suitability to highlighting an almost invisible behaviour, vocabulary learning, given that it

occurs inside the head of the learner (see Illeris, 2007; Phye & Andre, 1986), whether

‘spontaneously’ as some researchers argue (e.g. Franceschini, 2003), or consciously as many

researchers have found through empirical research, through the use of some cognitive ‘tools’

(e.g. Anderson et al., 2001; Pan, 2009; Phye & Andre, 1986). Therefore, any investigation of

cognitive activity is going to be indirect. Thus any exploration of cognitive behaviour uses

indirect methods to collect data on what learners do in their heads when they learn something

(see Macaro, 2006); in this case, vocabulary.

4.1.1 Self-reports

According to Chamot (2005), self-reports can provide the best picture of the mental/cognitive

processes involved in a learning task. Self-reports can be defined as respondents’ generalised

statements, including the answers to multiple choice questions on a questionnaire about

his/her learning behaviour and descriptions of what he/she believes about him/herself

(McDonough & McDonough, 1997). The self-report instruments used to observe strategy use

tend to be the questionnaire, think-aloud, written diary and interview.

According to Chand (2007), there are two types of self-reports. One is when a learner is

instructed to use a particular strategy or set of strategies and asked to report what happened

when the strategies were used. The second type is when a learner is simply asked to report on

the strategy or set of strategies being used when engaged in a task but where the strategy use

is not predetermined by the researcher/instructor. The present research elicited the second

type of self-reports from learners/participants, but predetermined the questions (for example,

questionnaires, interview questions); the second type was collected because the first type is

associated with experimental research.

Zhang (2003), for instance, conducted a review of the data collection instruments used in

LLS research up until 2002 (it is assumed that no new data collection methods have been

added to this list): questionnaire, interview, think-aloud, diary and experiment. Of these, the

presented research used the questionnaire and interview method, because of 1) expediency,

working within a time constraint and the busy schedules of the participants, and 2) because it

can conveniently gather useful information when time is a factor and is a common form of

65

data collection to understand the vocabulary learning process in terms of VLS use and

beliefs. Apart from the traditional methods, researchers are now using technology to collect

data — for example, online questionnaires and interviews (for instance, James & Busher,

2009).

4.2 Mixed methods design

4.2.1 Theoretical framework

The present research is informed by a combination of positions, the most prominent being the

constructionist and advocacy/participatory paradigms and a critical theory perspective

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). The research uses a mixed methods approach; it uses

surveys, interviews, case study and grounded theory. The research recognises that all methods

have limitations, but that the results from one method can inform the other. The data

collection was sequential, in that quantitative data was collected first, then the qualitative

data. Creswell and Plano Clark (2006, p. 21) argue “a research problem … is an issue or a

concern that needs to be addressed.” A specific research approach is often called for “if a

concept or phenomenon needs to be understood because little research has been done on it”

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006, p. 22). The specific type of mixed methods design chosen is

the quantitative-to-qualitative, discussed by Creswell and Plano Clark (2011).

4.2.2 Definition of mixed methods

Generally speaking, a mixed methods approach is one in which elements of quantitative and

qualitative approaches are used (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Richards et al., 2012). This

may mean using both quantitative and qualitative points of view in data collection and

analysis methods. Such is the case in the present research.

The present research used questionnaires to collect quantitative data, which was collected

prior to the qualitative data. Administering the questionnaires first was more convenient

because the participants were students with a busy course program and their availability

depended on when they were free to participate. The interviews were also conducted later as

a result of participant availability. My interest was in collecting quantitative data first and,

based on the design, interview questions were used to probe further answers to the

66

questionnaire. Participation in the interviews was different time-wise, because they were

required to make more time than for the questionnaires. Participation also depended on the

reliability of the online communication tool QQ. At the research site, while audio was

generally available on QQ, video was not, and vice versa. The research could not be

conducted face to face because participants weren’t available during the fieldwork.

Research exploring language learning in a classroom context or formal learning context tends

to employ a qualitative or quantitative design or a combination of both (Best & Khan, 1989).

The difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches lies generally in observing

and asking (qualitative) or counting and measuring (quantitative). If observing, as in

ethnography, the researcher watches people doing whatever it is they do, asks them questions

about what they do and aims to provide a ‘thick description’ of the activity and people

involved (see Fontana & Frey, 2005). If the researcher prefers to count the number of times

an incident occurs or to measure the time it takes to complete a task, then quantitative

research is undertaken. The present research design, in fact, satisfies one of Grotjahn’s (1987,

p. 59-60) ‘mixed forms’ paradigm — number six — in which the study:

1) is a non-experimental design;

2) collects quantitative and qualitative data;

3) applies an interpretive analysis of the data (e.g., thematic analysis).

The present research is exploratory, mixed methods, interpretive and collects data on:

1) VLS use;

2) frequency of VLS use across four grades;

3) BALLL, particularly, the beliefs of the CCL;

4) the EVS of CEMs.

The benefits of using mixed methods are the ability to generate and test theory, to answer

complex research questions and the possibility of corroborating findings (DeCuir-Gunby,

2008).

The use of mixed methods the present research followed the tradition of previous research in

exploring VLSs and beliefs. Table 4.1 highlights some LLSs researcher(s), their method(s) of

data collection and the factor they explored.

67

Table 4.1: Researcher, method and factor researched

Researcher: Year: Questionnaire: Interview: Think-aloud:

Diary: Factor:

Oxford 1990 yes LLSs

Schmitt 1997 yes VLSs

Gu & Johnson

1996 yes VLSs

Gu 1997 yes VLSs

Law 2003 yes yes yes VLSs

Wu 2008 yes VLSs

Horwitz 1988 yes Beliefs

Shi 2006 yes Beliefs

Elbaum et al.

1993 yes Beliefs

Oxford & Nyikos

1989 yes Beliefs

Yang 1999 yes Beliefs

Wenden 1987 yes Beliefs

Benson & Lor

1999 yes Beliefs

Gao 2006 yes Beliefs

Ma 2009 yes VLSs

4.2.2 Benefits and influence of the self-report questionnaire and interview method

4.2.2.1 The questionnaire method

Some of the scholarly explorations into LLSs/VLSs were highlighted in Chapter 2: Literature

Review, section 2.3.1., and below in section 4.2.2.2. Many studies (e.g. Elbaum et al., 1993;

Gu, 1997; Gu & Johnson, 1996; Horwitz, 1988; Law, 2003; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos,

1989; Schmitt, 1997; Shi, 2006; Wu, 2008; Yang, 1999) have used the questionnaire method

to research LLSs generally, VLSs specifically, and BALLL, and point to the method’s

dependability (McDonough & McDonough, 1997). Other reasons include: 1) the

questionnaire method provided easy access to suitable data (for example, VLSs use; BALLL;

EVS); and 2), the interruption to the participants was minimal. DeCuir-Gunby (2008) says

quantitative data is useful in generalising and studying large numbers of people. The

questionnaire was used to answer the research question about VLSs used and frequency of

use and BALLL — No. 1: Which VLSs do CEMs tend to use (as individuals and as a

group)?; No. 2: What is the difference in frequency of use of VLSs among individuals within

68

and between grades (four grades) and as a group of CEMs?; No. 3: What are CEMs’

‘Western’ or Chinese BALLL?; No. 4: Do their specific BALLL correlate with VLS use?;

No. 5: What is the general EVS of CEMs in each of the four grades (years) of a four-year

Bachelor degree?; No. 6: Do BALLL and VLS use influence EVS?

4.2.2.2 The interview method

The interview method is widely used in strategy research, and most researchers have used

face to face (off line) and telephone methods. Wenden (1987) explored learners’ explicit

beliefs about how best to approach the task of learning a second language. She used a semi-

structured face-to-face approach, taking 90 minutes to complete. In her analysis, which used

adapted procedures for content analysis, she searched her transcripts for recurring statements

of beliefs. Benson and Lor (1999) also used the interview method to explore higher order

conceptions of BALLL, and analysed their transcripts for categories following

phenomenography.

According to Fontana and Frey (2005), the reliance on electronic outlets is only recent but

increasing. University campuses around the world are now, generally speaking, connected.

Electronic interviewing has the potential to reach 100 per cent of specialised populations,

which would include foreign language learners in countries distant from the researcher

(Fontana & Frey, 2005). The possibility of ‘virtual interviewing’, as they put it, “where

Internet connections are used synchronically or asynchronically to obtain information” must

be viewed as a positive development (Fontana & Frey, 2005, pp. 695-728). The immediacy of

internet communication tools like QQ and Skype allows for synchronised interviewing, and

thus can offset the effects of non-synchronised discussion and survey research (Gaiser &

Schreiner, 2009). When video is added, there is little to distinguish it from face-to-face

interviews, except that the environment (the space in which interaction occurs) is slightly

different (e.g., computers and screens) (James & Busher, 2009). The present research has

used the internet communication tool QQ to conduct interviews: 1) as this is a popular and

familiar tool to the participants and they frequently use it, and 2) they were not available for

interview on site due to their busy schedules.

69

4.3 Reliability and validity

This thesis embraces a particular view of language and language learning, particularly

vocabulary learning. This has influenced the focus of the research to some degree. As an

English language teacher at the research site, the learning behaviours of most of the CEMs

were observed in their learning context without hindrance. However, VLS use was not

observed with any intensity as the CEMs used them to learn English vocabulary. The

assumption was that, most of the time, vocabulary learning happened, except when explicitly

observed in the classroom context or in class tests. Observing how vocabulary learning was

happening (though through self-reports), for this particular group of Chinese EFL learners,

was one of the aims of the research.

According to Yin (2005), reliability is concerned with whether the next researcher can follow

the procedures used and whether s/he can replicate the case study, and generate the same

findings and conclusions. The emphasis is on replicating the same case study, not on getting

the same results. The goal of reliability, according to Yin (2005), is to minimise the errors and

biases. Essentially, if there is no careful documentation of procedures, not even the researcher

could repeat his or her own work. The questionnaires were administered first, and then the

interviews were conducted at a later stage. Students were recruited from their home

classroom — students in Chinese universities are grouped and allocated a classroom where

they meet and study, called the home classroom — and a day and time agreed to complete the

questionnaires and tests. On this day, informed consent was obtained and instructions given

on how complete the activity. The questionnaires and tests were collected, scanned and

emailed. The completed questionnaires and tests were then checked for consistency and

errors.

On the issue of external validity, the issue is whether the findings can be generalised beyond

the immediate case study (Yin, 2005). This study involves replicating some of what others

have done: Horwitz’s (1987) exploration of general BALLL, Shi’s (2006) exploration of the

beliefs of the CCL, Ma’s (2009) exploration of VLSs and Nation’s (2001) exploration of

vocabulary size using units of analysis previously explored in other contexts validating the

test (e.g. Beglar, 2010), thus demonstrates replication is possible using the same methods of

data collection and analysis as previous studies. However, this research is conducted in the

context of CEMs in China combining questionnaire and interview. The questions in the

70

questionnaires were not fundamentally changed, though they were, in some instances,

clarified to meet the needs of pre- to intermediate students and to sharpen the focus of the

research (for instance, the original questionnaire questions referred to a foreign language,

whereas the present research refers to the English language).

Paltridge and Phakiti (2010) discuss the dual concerns of reliability and validity and sampling

when the sample size is low. The sample size for the research was 105 — 80 for the

questionnaires and 25 for the interviews. The concerns are whether the data collection

instruments are reliable and valid in the context. Potential participants were informed of the

nature of the research, sufficient for participants at the research site to decide to participate

(see Appendix 11), to try to counter issues relating to the Hawthorne Effect (behavioural

change due to being observed) (Paltridge & Phakiti, 2010). Paltridge and Phakiti also (2010)

say the receptive vocabulary size test (e.g., 2000, 3000, 5000, 10,000 and academic

vocabulary) can be completed in 30 minutes, and imply that this time of completion can

satisfy the dual concerns of reliability and validity. However, during the pilot study for the

present research, the multi-questionnaire — the combined VLSs questionnaire, two beliefs

questionnaires, and the vocabulary size test (1000, 2000, 3000 and academic words) — took

an average of 30 and 55 minutes to complete; the VST took an average of 8 and 20 minutes to

complete. This is within Paltridge and Phakiti’s contention that 30 minutes would satisfy the

dual concerns of reliability and validity. Perhaps they think that if the time is longer,

reliability may decrease? The patterning of the data does not suggest that participants in the

present research rushed to complete the multi-questionnaire (see Chapter 5). The time taken

to complete the vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire VLSQ (see section 4.6.1.2

below) was between 30 and 50 minutes for grade 1 students — the time decreased with each

successive grade.

To increase validity of results, a variety of methods were used — questionnaires and

interviews — to achieve consistency in the results. The present research uses a form of

triangulation, by gathering data with two methods: questionnaire and interview (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2006). The interviews aimed to provide support and explain some of the

questionnaires, depending on the Creswell and Plano Clark model (2011), the sequential

exploratory. A sequential design can apply to any sequence of data collection but the present

research begins with quantitative data collection (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The

quantitative is collected and analysed first, then the qualitative. The qualitative is used to

71

either help explain or elaborate on the quantitative result. The quantitative provides a general

understanding of the issue being explored, and the qualitative refines and possibly explains

the results.

While studies can be influenced by researcher bias, every effort was made to ensure that the

results and interpretations were reliable. This was achieved by providing a thick description

of the research activities and events throughout the research; by conducting an extensive

search of the literature; by using reliable and valid data collection methods; by doing a pilot

study; by holding briefing and debriefing sessions with the CEMs wherever possible; and by

allowing Chinese nationals to review the interpretations of the data. Such an approach aimed

to minimise the threats to the reliability and validity (Yin, 2005).

4.4 Case and participants

4.4.1 The case study of a Chinese university

According to Nunan (1992, pp. 75–76), the case study can be “initiated in two ways”. The

first can be “when an issue or hypothesis is proposed, and an instance drawn from that class

is selected and studied” (Nunan, 1992, pp. 75–76). The other way is “when a case is selected

and studied in its own right rather than as an exemplar of a class” (Nunan, 1992, pp. 75–76).

Whichever way is chosen, “the case will be a ‘bounded system’ or ‘single instance’, such as

an individual teacher, a classroom, or even a school district” (Nunan, 1992, pp. 75–76). Best

and Khan (1993, p. 193), however, say a case can be an exemplar, “even a prototype for, a

category of individuals”. McDonough and McDonough (1997, p. 205) highlight aspects such

as key players, key institutions, group characteristics and critical incidents as a guide, which

includes issues such as geographical parameters, group characteristics and organisational and

institutional arrangements. Case study is an empirical enquiry investigating a contemporary

phenomenon, and a range of evidence is used, including both qualitative and quantitative data

(Yin, 2005). The results can be used to extend our understanding of the issue studied, the

relationship between phenomena, and even offer suggestions about how to better manage it

and its effects.

The present exploratory research of the PVL concerns English — an instance of it drawn

from a university context — in which a group of CEMs learn English vocabulary. The

72

university context and English vocabulary learning of CEMs was selected as a case study for

this group of Chinese students. English vocabulary learning usually happens in this higher

education context in China. The research site enrols several hundred English Majors every

semester and, as is the case at most if not all universities in China, enrolled students are

placed in a course of study. Students do not normally choose their course of study but are

placed in different disciplines depending on exam scores.

An English Majors’ curriculum is supported by China’s MoE. The curriculum has an

emphasis on grammar, reading, writing and listening. The teaching method is also supported

by the China MoE. The method is, therefore, a typical Chinese traditional teaching method,

(e.g., teacher-centred), where students are generally viewed as recipients of teaching

(Richards et al., 2002). Teaching typically involves the grammar–translation method.

Grammar–translation here means that teaching makes use of “[Chinese] translation and

grammar study as the main teaching and learning activity” (Richards et al., 2002, pp. 231,

563). According to Richards et al. (2002), this type of lesson typically involves presenting

grammar rules, lists of vocabulary and a translation exercise. Learned language knowledge is

measured through formal tests such as the Test of English Majors Band 4 (TEM 4) and the

Test of English Majors Band 8 (TEM 8). Passing these formal tests is believed to demonstrate

language proficiency. Students can sit these tests twice; if they fail the first time they sit it the

same time the following year. There are no specific vocabulary classes or vocabulary training

on site.

Anecdotal evidence from both students and teachers at the research site (and other sites)

suggests most students fail formal English tests the first time and many fail the second time.

This provided a strong incentive to conduct this research, to investigate vocabulary learning

strategies and because they have been found to contribute to language learning. This research

aimed to find out if students employed VLSs in general, and how they approached their

vocabulary learning.

4.4.2 Participants in the research

This research offers an exploration into the process of English vocabulary learning by pre- to

intermediate CEMs. The research does this by focusing on their VLS use, their beliefs and

EVS in a university context in China. The students were categorised by different factors —

73

grade, VLS use, BALLL and EVS.

The CEMs were mostly speakers of Mandarin, although some spoke Cantonese. They had

experienced roughly six years of formal English language education prior to entering

university. As English Majors they study English for general purposes (EGP) (Richards et al.,

2002). EGP here also means EFL — “someone who learns English [for general purposes] in a

formal classroom setting, with limited or no opportunities for use outside the classroom, in a

country in which English does not play an important role in internal communication (China,

Japan and Korea, for example)” (Richards et al., 2002, p. 233). Although these students learn

English in an EFL context, they are expected to continue learning English vocabulary

throughout their undergraduate degree program. Most have plans either for further study at a

university in an English-speaking country such as the USA or Australia, or work as a

translator/interpreter in their home country. However, informal observations suggest learning

English vocabulary in at least one Chinese university seems to be viewed as an implicit

activity (by teachers and university administrators) in the classroom and an explicit activity

outside the formal activities of the classroom. That is, these particular university students do

not have a class with a specific focus on vocabulary. The researcher was a teacher in some of

their institutions and is aware of the system. The classes these students generally attend

emphasise reading (for instance, intensive, extensive), pure linguistics (for instance,

phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics), and compulsory traditional grammar, in which

vocabulary is presented as part of the class content but not explicitly focused on — for

example, vocabulary is viewed as incidentally learned. An ‘adjunct class’ here means that the

class uses a topic-centred approach, “in which content and teaching and learning activities are

centred around topics or themes, i.e. the family” (Richards et al., 2002, p. 717).

Therefore, vocabulary is expected to be learned in preparation for the formal tests that must

be completed, but not as explicit activity in the classroom — and cannot be monitored. Given

the pressure of time to learn vocabulary, this possibly contributes to the observed

phenomenon that students do not often pass the formal tests on their first attempt and must try

a second time (see section 4.4.1 above).

Participants in the research were English Majors in one of the four grades (years) of a four-

year undergraduate degree course. The partitioning of the CEMs by grade is deliberate, since

the present research tries to capture not only the experience of grade one students but the

74

experience of continuing students in an effort to capture a snapshot of VLS frequency of use

and beliefs in each of the four years of their undergraduate degree program (as well as the

development of EVS). This is the main contribution of this research, which hasn’t been

addressed before.

The expectation was that 120 CEMs would be surveyed but the actual number was 80. The

research goal was to survey 30 students from each of the four grades. The reduced sample

size was due mainly to students’ busy study schedules and student numbers at the research

site. Fewer grade four students participated in the research. Twenty-five participants were

interviewed after the questionnaire phase to gain further insight into VLS and beliefs.

Participants were randomly chosen from among the CEM cohort at the university based on

membership in this group.

A gender imbalance was expected since more females than males were enrolled as English

Majors at the research site — a ratio of roughly 25 females to 1 male. The CEMs (n=105 (80

+ 25) were presumed to hold a particular English proficiency level; although proficiency

levels were not measured, it was estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of pre-

intermediate to intermediate, according to the ACTFL Proficiency guidelines (SIL

International, 1999).

4.5 Role of the researcher

The present research was exploratory and interpretive, using mixed methods (questionnaires

and interview). The approach involved providing explicit reasons for the focus of the

research, views about the research and my relationship with the people/issue/phenomenon

being explored. I was initially an outsider, who at one time was a teacher of CEMs. As a

result, I possess ‘insider’ knowledge of the CEMs’ learning behaviour and their BALLL.

Some of the CEMs may not have known me as well as other CEMs, since I did not teach

them English language instruction or they did not interact with me when I worked at the

research site, though they may have been aware of me or have known of me. In addition, I

was an Australian conducting research in a Chinese context, which means that some of the

participants or interested parties may view my interest in their learning behaviour and beliefs

with suspicion (for instance, threats to integrity, threats to ‘face’) (Phuong-Mai et al., 2005),

though none of the participants involved in the research experienced this view. These issues

75

were dealt with by discussing them with Chinese nationals (e.g., students and teachers) at the

research site and at other times. Most of the participants, however, seemed to be open and

sincere in their interactions with me because I was not their teacher.

While studies can be influenced by researcher bias, the study addressed the limitations by

providing a thick description of the research activities and events throughout the research; by

conducting an extensive search of the literature; by using reliable and valid data collection

methods; by doing a pilot study; by holding briefing and debriefing sessions with the CEMs

wherever possible; and by allowing Chinese nationals to review the interpretations of the

data. These measures were taken to minimise the threats to the reliability and validity (Yin,

2005).

4.6 Data collection method and administration procedures

4.6.1 Data collection instruments, their nature and function

This subsection is divided into two: section 4.6.1 discusses the multi-questionnaire data

collection instrument, its nature and function, as well as the interview method and interview

questions; and section 4.7 discusses the administration of the multi-questionnaire data

collection instrument and interview protocol, and management of the collected data and data

analysis. The Table 4.2 below shows all data collection instruments in the multi-questionnaire

instrument and the interview method in the research and in which section each is discussed:

Table 4.2: ‘Multi-questionnaire’ data collection instruments and methods

Items: Section: 1 General Demographics and Language Background (GDLB) 4.6.1.1

2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ) 4.6.1.2

3 Beliefs about Language and Language Learning Questionnaire (BALLLQ) 4.6.1.3

4 Chinese Culture of Learning Questionnaire (CCLQ) 4.6.1.4

5 Vocabulary Size Test (VST) 4.6.1.5

6 Interview (Int.) 4.6.1.6

Five main data collection instruments, collectively known as the multi-questionnaire data

collection instrument, plus the interview, were employed in the present study:

1) Characteristics and Language Background (Appendix 1);

76

2) Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire, the first data collection instrument

(Appendix 2) — to answer research questions No. 1 and No. 2;

3) Beliefs about Language and Language Learning Questionnaire, the second data

collection instrument (BALLI – Appendix 3) — to answer research questions No. 3

and No. 4;

4) Chinese Culture of Learning Questionnaire, the third data collection instrument (CLQ

— Appendix 4) — to answer research questions No. 3 and No. 4;

5) Vocabulary Size Test, the fourth data collection instrument (Appendix 5) — to answer

research question No. 5;

6) Statistical tests to observe relationships between the main factors and answer research

question No. 6; and,

7) Interview — to answer research questions No. 1 to No. 3.

The quantitative data collection instruments, referred to as the multi-questionnaire, were

collectively employed at a particular moment in time to collect data cross-sectionally (e.g.,

between grades, but were not different nominally because they were all English Majors; they

were different in terms of being in a different grade while in the same major) and pseudo-

longitudinally (e.g., providing a snapshot of four different grades in a BA) (Jarvis &

Pavlenko, 2008; Chun & Quaddus, 2012). Each data collection instrument is highlighted and

discussed below, including a discussion of which research question(s) was answered by

which research instrument. The interviews were conducted at a later stage, to gain qualitative

insights into students’ VLS use and beliefs and strengthen the validity of the research.

4.6.1.1 Characteristics and language background

The characteristics and language background questionnaire (GDLB) was designed to collect

the characteristics of the CEMs participating in the research (see Table 4.4 below). The data

collected were name, age, gender, native language spoken, number of years of English

language education, grade (at the time of the survey) in university, and College Entrance Test

score (CET 2) (if known). It was collected at the time the student participated in the study

(see Table 4.3 below and see Appendix 1). This data answered several aspects of the research

questions for the present study — for instance, inter-group differences and strategy use trends

in one of the four grades were gathered through the questionnaires (VLSQ, BALLLQ, CLQ,

and VST), the multi-questionnaire. Collecting this demographic information allowed

77

participants’ data to be cross-referenced (though coded) with the information obtained by all

the data collection instruments. Students took on average five minutes to complete the

GDLB.

Table 4.3: General demographics and language background

Category: Details: Averages: Ethnicity Han 97.5%

Hui 1.25%

Bai 1.25%

Year of enrolment Grade 1 27.5%

Grade 2 27.5%

Grade 3 30%

Grade 4 15%

Age 19 to 20 21.25%

21 to 22 53.75%

23 to 24 plus 25%

Gender Female 88.75%

Male 11.25%

Degree English 100%

Years of English language education

7 to 9 57.5%

10 to 12 36.25%

13 to 15 plus 3.75%

Mother tongue Mandarin 80%

Cantonese 13.75%

4.6.1.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire

The VLSQ was used to gather information on VLSs and VLS use of the CEMs. A distinction

is made because one can talk about strategies without talking about their actual use, which is

what the present research is more concerned with. The VLSQ was a slightly modified version

of Ma’s (2009) VLSQ used in a Chinese context (see Appendix 2). The version in the present

research includes two new questions, one about where students obtain or acquire the VLSs

they use (for instance, teacher, classmate), and one about the location or space in which the

VLSs are used, as well as where vocabulary is generally learned (for instance, classroom,

library, dormitory room), given that the broadened definition of a formal learning context

goes beyond the classroom but includes it. The first question was included because the

present research explores the idea that CEMs are not necessarily born with VLSs, which are

therefore obtained from an external source (or developed through experience and reflection),

78

and from this the research can infer training practices (e.g., strategy training). The second

question was included because CEMs did not attend a class in which vocabulary is explicitly

a focus, so they were asked where in the broader conception of the formal learning context at

the research site VLSs were used, where they tended to learn vocabulary the most if not in the

classroom. This will provide useful suggestions for student learning and how they generally

approach vocabulary learning. This might also provide insights into language teaching.

The main goal of the questionnaire, however, was to collect data on VLSs and VLS use, those

listed by Ma (2009) in her questionnaire. Question 1 asks ‘Where do you discover new

words?’ and provides participants with seven choices of place of discovery — for instance,

textbooks and classroom activities, lists of vocabulary arranged alphabetically, lists of

vocabulary arranged semantically. This type of question reflects Schmitt’s (1997) idea that

learners discover a word — initially a strategy in its own right (discovery strategies) — and

then determine what to do with it, and employ a strategy or group of strategies to learn it

(consolidation strategies). Thus it is viewed as belonging to Schmitt’s first group of

strategies: discovery strategies (see Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.3.1). However, certain

words and phrases in the questionnaire have been simplified, where necessary, to cater for

students with a lower than expected English proficiency — for instance, ‘arranged

semantically’ was replaced with ‘arranged by meaning’ (see Appendix 2). Questions which

seemed vague were modified to make them more specific. For example, Q1: Where do you

discover new words? – with the strategy choice ‘When using/surfing the Internet (for

example, English websites, e-chatting)’ (see Appendix 2). Students took on average 10

minutes to complete the VLSQ. Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.877 suggests the slight modification

of the questionnaire did not affect the questionnaire’s reliability.

The rating scale (Likert) measured the ‘frequency’ of VLS use (Dörnyei, 2007) — never,

rarely, sometimes, often, always — with which the discovery of a new word occurs in a

particular place, such as textbooks, classroom activity, and was numbered 1 to 5. Illustration

No. 1 shows the Likert rating scale as it appears in the questionnaire.

Illustration No. 1: 1. Where do you discover new words?

In textbooks and from classroom learning activities F: 1 2 3 4 5

Frequency of use (F:) 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always

79

Participants only needed to draw a circle around the number that represented the frequency.

The data generated by the questionnaire answered the following research questions:

No. 1: Which VLSs do CEMs tend to use (as individuals and as a group)?

No. 2: What is the difference in frequency of use of VLSs among individuals within and

between grades (four grades) and as a group of CEMs?; and, provides a basis for

answering part of research question No. 3: What are CEMs’ ‘Western’ or Chinese beliefs

about language and language learning? No. 4: Do their specific beliefs about language

and language learning correlate with vocabulary learning strategy use?

Statistical analyses conducted were non-parametric tests to produce descriptive statistics

(e.g., means, standard deviations, minimum, maximums), Kruskal-Wallis Test to produce a

student mean (to show variability in individual scores), as well as correlational analysis

(Spearman’s rho) to show how strong the relationship is among the factors. Factor here

means an aspect of the phenomenon being explored — for example, the PVL. The two main

factors in the process of vocabulary being explored are VLS use and BALLL. The tests were

used to observe individual differences within a grade and between grades on each factor (e.g.,

VLS use, BALLL and VST), as well as to observe statistically significant relationships

between individuals within a grade and between grades, and overall (e.g., to observe

relationships between VLSs, BALLL and CCL, and VST). Non-parametric tests were used

because 1) the sample is less than 100, 2) because normality could not be determined with a

sample below 100, and 3) these factors are viewed as unevenly distributed among the

population.

The statistical justification for observing between grade differences was the Kruskal-Wallis

(ANOVA-type) Test, shown below in Table 4.4.

80

Table 4.4: three mean-scores ranking against factor mean-scores

Range: N Mean Rank Chi-square df Asymp. Sig.

CCLTOTAL Upper 29 39.31

Middle 28 49.20 7.521 2 0.023*

Lower 23 31.41

BALLLTOTAL Upper 29 37.17

Middle 28 49.48 6.724 2 0.035*

Lower 23 33.76

VLSTOTAL Upper 29 42.74

Middle 28 44.29 3.370 2 0.185

Lower 23 33.07

* p < 0.05

Table 4.4 shows that null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and that the between grade scores would

be the same as the individual scores within a grade between beliefs and academic size test

scores, except for VLS use and academic size test scores. There is a significant difference for

general BALLL and CCL beliefs and academic scores, therefore, we accept H1 that they

would be the same or similar at the all-students level or between grades for VLS use and

academic scores, at least, if observed in the ranges of mean-scores of upper, middle and lower

academic mean-scores.

The data generated by the two additional questions in the questionnaire, ‘Do you remember

who taught you how to learn a foreign language?’ and ‘Where do you often learn English

vocabulary during the semester?’ allowed the indirect exploration of the influence of context

and culture on learning (e.g. O’Malley & Chamot, 1985). The assumption behind the first

question is that if the ‘strategy’ is one that was taught and/or promoted by a teacher (or

parent) during the student’s early or later education (for instance, university education), then

it might be a strategy that is promoted by a particular point of view or is a culturally based

BALLL (for instance, the CCL). Statistical analyses were applied to the data generated by

these questions and the result can be found in Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis. The data

generated by these two questions is not used in the main discussion of the process of

vocabulary learning, but as an aside to it.

4.6.1.3 Beliefs about Language and Language Learning Questionnaire

The BALLI was designed and validated by Horwitz (1988) and demonstrates BALLL.

81

Horwitz (1988) used the BALLI (the BALLLQ in the present research) to collect data on

BALLL in a non-Chinese context (see Appendix 3), but the present research uses it in a

Chinese context. As far as is known, it has not been used before in China, therefore, this is an

important contribution of this study.

The BALLI’s reliability and validity is discussed by Kuntz (1996). The present research used

a modified version of the BALLI, which refers to learning English since the participants are

CEMs. Students took about seven minutes to complete the BALLLQ for the present research.

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for this modified version of the questionnaire and the result

was 0.622. This finding suggests that the slight modification and reducing the scaling from 6

to 5 maintained a good reliability rating.

The rating scale (Likert) measured the strength of the ‘belief’ held by the participant

(Dörnyei, 2007, p. 36) — strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, strongly

disagree. Illustration No. 2 shows Question 5 and the rating scale as it appears in the

questionnaire but later coded to reflect the scaling on the other instruments (for instance,

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5):

Illustration No. 2: Q.5 English is structured in the same way as Chinese S: A B C D E

(A) strongly disagree (B) disagree (C) neither agree or disagree (D) agree (E) strongly agree

The respondents only had to draw a circle around the letter representing the strength of

opinion about the belief statement. The order in which the values appeared in the

questionnaire used in the present research is the reverse of Horwitz’s. The reason for the

reverse order was consistency. The VLSQ values begin with a negative (‘never’) and the

CCLQ values begin with a negative (‘disagree’). Beginning the value range in the BALLLQ

with a negative value (‘strongly disagree’) averts any confusion that might have been created

by the switch from a negative value to a positive value from one instrument to the next.

The data generated by the BALLLQ answered research question No. 3: What are CEMs’

‘Western’ and Chinese beliefs about language and language learning? No. 4: Do their specific

beliefs about language and language learning correlate with each other and their vocabulary

learning? This relationship was shown running a Kruskal-Wallis Test.

82

4.6.1.4 Chinese Culture of Learning Questionnaire

The CCLQ was designed by Shi (2006) and validated in a Chinese context, and was used to

gather information on the beliefs that Shi (2006) classified as belonging to the CCL. The

questions were designed to elicit culturally biased responses (Shi, 2006) from participants

(see Appendix 4).

The rating scale (Likert) used an odd number of values (5) and the Shi questionnaire used an

even number (4) (see Illustration No. 3 below). The decision to use five values in the present

research was for consistency; the other questionnaires use a 5-point rating scale.

Illustration No. 3 3. A good teacher of English should …

a) Be knowledgeable about his/her area 1 2 3 4 5 b) Often use games/activities when s/he teaches 1 2 3 4 5 c) Be light-hearted 1 2 3 4 5 d) Be serious 1 2 3 4 5 e) Provide clear and comprehensive notes 1 2 3 4 5 f) Help me pass exams 1 2 3 4 5 g) Improve my English skills (reading, writing, listening,

speaking) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (Please explain):

1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither disagree or agree; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree

The respondent only has to do draw a circle around the number that represents the strength of

his/her belief. Besides increasing the rating scale to 5 points, extra formatting was added (see

Appendix 5) to increase participant accuracy when rating a statement. The 5-point Likert

scaling was chosen because it is the most common, and because it was used in the other

questionnaire. Changes were made so there wouldn’t be any confusion in scaling from one

questionnaire to the next. The Shi questionnaire does not have the content in boxes and, when

it was initially reviewed, the numbering was not very clear. Students took about 10 minutes to

complete the CCLQ. To ensure reliability of the modified questionnaire, Cronbach’s Alpha

was calculated and was found to be 0.790, which suggests reliability was not affected.

The data generated by the CCLQ provided information on whether the beliefs held by the

students within a grade were strongly those of the CCL. In particular, the data answered

83

research question No. 3: What are CEMs’ ‘Western’ or Chinese beliefs about language and

language learning? and No. 4: Do their specific BALLL correlate with vocabulary learning

strategy use? The beliefs of the CEMs in the present research are presumed to belong

strongly to the CCL (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996b; Flowerdew, 1998; Hird, 1995; Jin & Cortazzi,

2006; Ma 2009; Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Shi, 2006; Xing, 2009), given that the participants

are Chinese. For instance, the belief that a good teacher should be ‘knowledgeable about

his/her area’ is a belief of the CCL, whereas ‘often uses games/activities when s/he teaches’ is

not. The results were compared with Shi’s (2006) classification of the beliefs of the CCL and

the results of her exploration, and can be found in Chapter 5.

Gaining insights into the beliefs of the CCL will suggest, by the strength of the belief (e.g.,

strongly agree, disagree), a possible influence on CEMs and subsequently on whether they

tend to learn English vocabulary from this particular cultural point of view. Such data allows

inferences be made about their role in the PVL. This can also inform vocabulary teaching

pedagogy.

4.6.1.5 Vocabulary Size Test

In the present research the VST was used to collect data on the vocabulary size (according to

Nation’s measurement tools) of the CEMs (see Appendix 5). The data generated by the VST

was expected to answer research question No. 5: What is the general English vocabulary size

of CEMs in each of the four grades (years) of a four-year Bachelor degree? And part of

research question No. 6, with the help of non-parametric tests. Students took on average 15

minutes to complete the VST.

Initially, the question was posed and explored as a logical extension of research question No.

1: VLS use. It was also asked in response to Cortazzi’s and Jin’s (1996) statement that

Chinese EFL learners memorise thousands of words each year in the standard six years of

English language education prior to university. ‘Memorise’, however, can mean remember

forever once memorised. But remembering must be discussed in relation to forgetting

(Schmitt, 2000; Anderson, 1995). The research does not take for granted that all the English

vocabulary a CEM encounters and memorises is remembered forever. The vocabulary size of

the CEMs at the research site, for instance, were estimated at entry to university to be

somewhere between 1500 and 2000 vocabulary items (see Appendix 6). The estimate seemed

84

low and was far less than the vocabulary size suggested by Cortazzi and Jin (1996) —

thousands of words each year.

Vocabulary size is the logical outcome of learning, though only a rough outcome when all

factors are taken into consideration (e.g., forgetting). If one learns, there will be a result:

something. But is the result of learning always remembered? No, it is not. What will remain

is the learner’s vocabulary size at the moment in time it is measured regardless of how much

has been learnt; basically, what is retained after learning. Vocabulary size is therefore

explored merely as a reflection of learning, not as the exact outcome of learning but to argue

that learning happens; retaining what is learned is not explored in this research.

Nation (2001) devised the VST and argued that knowing a word involves being able to

recognise it when it is seen/heard (item knowledge) and being able to understand it

systemically — for instance, the various meanings and relations with other words (see

Chapter 2, section 2.1). Even if the CEMs in the present research had merely undertaken to

memorise thousands and thousands of words, as Cortazzi and Jin (1996) suggest, it implies

remembering everything always. However, Nation (2001) implies that English language

learners might still be able to recognise words, despite the fact that a certain amount of

forgetting may have occurred since they initially memorised the vocabulary. Therefore, the

bilingual version was used at the lower levels but not for the size tests. The present research

did not explore vocabulary testing, but explored vocabulary size because, according to entry

levels, only a certain amount of vocabulary seemed to have been retained.

The VST 1000, a test of the first 1000 most frequently used English words, contains four

sections of 10 vocabulary points (see Appendix 6). The VST 1000 tests a learner’s knowledge

of the first 1000 words in which a vocabulary item is presented in context. See illustration

VST 1000 Question 1 (Table 4.5) with four vocabulary items. One item represents the

meaning, while the other three are distracters. Distracters are items like a polysemous word,

an antonym or an unrelated item. Table 4.5 provides an illustration of the bilingual version of

VST 1000 Question 1. As will be seen, the first answer to Question 1 is a polysemous word

while the other two possible answers are unrelated.

85

Table 4.5: VST 1000 Question 1

1. see: They saw it.

a. 切 (cut)

b. 等待 (wait for)

c. 看 (looked at)

d. 始 (started)

The testee only had to draw a circle around one of four multiple-choice answers. The correct

answer is c, and the others (a, b and d) are distracters. The VST appears to test reading skills

rather than listening skills but the present research explores English vocabulary learning from

the perspective of reading rather than learning vocabulary from the perspective of listening.

(The VST does not test retention, but retention may result when other strategies are regularly

used, for example, consolidation strategies.) The listening aspect is acknowledged to have

been a feature of the CEMs’ prior English language education. However, the present study is

premised on the notion that a substantial amount of an EFL learner’s vocabulary, especially

the students in the present research, is gained through reading. The CEMs would have learned

much of the English vocabulary required for their formal tests from a vocabulary book (for

instance, TEM 4EasyTest). Therefore, the version of the VST used in the present study is

viewed as valid, reliable and practical, given the circumstances of its use (Nation, 2001).

4.6.1.6 Interviews

Wenden (1999), Benson and Lor (1999) and Gao (2006) all used the interview method;

Wenden, and Benson and Lor, on beliefs and Gao on Chinese students’ strategy use in an

English learning context. Gan et al (2004) used interviews to collect data on successful and

unsuccessful Chinese EFL learners. Peacock (2009) used interviews to collect data on learner

attributions, that is, what learners attributed to their success or failure in FLL.

The benefits of the interview method were discussed in section 4.2.2.2 above. Generally, they

give additional insight into a phenomenon, complement quantitative data and help strengthen

validity. They gather respondents’ generalised statements about learners’ learning behaviour,

as well as descriptions of what they believe about themselves. These mental/cognitive

processes, generally invisible, are exposed with targeted, useful questioning.

Twenty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted in an effort to gain further insight

86

into the PVL by CEMs. Semi-structured interviews were used where questions were used to

guide the responses of the participants (Cohen, 2010). These questions were asked to enhance

the quantitative data and strengthen reliability.

The following questions from the three questionnaires (VLS use, general BALLL and CCL)

were used to further explore the vocabulary learning process, and as a guide to data

gathering:

1. Where do you meet/encounter new words?

2. What do you usually do when you meet a new vocabulary item?

3. Do you practise vocabulary items? What strategies do you use?

4. How do you memorise vocabulary items?

5. How would you rate your English competence?

6. What are the characteristics of a good teacher?

7. What do you think the relationships between the teacher and the student should be like?

8. What does learning another language involve in your opinion?

9. Do you think vocabulary learning strategies should be taught?

Such questions are designed to delve deeper into the PVL (see Section 4.7.2.6 below and

Chapter 5). This design is also part of the mixed methods approach.

4.7 Procedures: administration, data management and data analysis

The multi-questionnaire was administered in the following order: the GDLB section 4.7.2.1

(see Appendix 1; 4.6.1.1 above), VLSQ section 4.7.2.2 (see Appendix 2; 4.6.1.2 above),

BALLLQ section 4.7.2.3 (see Appendix 3; 4.6.1.3 above), CCLQ section 4.7.2.4 (see

Appendix 4; 4.6.1.4 above), VST section 4.7.2.5 (see Appendix 5; 4.6.1.5 above) and the

interview section 4.7.2.6 (see Appendix 11; 4.6.1.6 above). The questionnaires were

administered together, and the interviews separately, and to all who participated (n=105 (80

questionnaires and 25 interviews post-questionnaires).

The researcher visited the ‘home’ classrooms of all the CEMs at the research site, inviting

them to participate. At the same time on a specified day, students were briefed on the nature

of the project and a time was organised for students to complete the multi-questionnaire. On

87

the day, the students were briefed about informed consent (see Appendix 12), and those

agreeing to participate completed the informed consent form (see Appendices 13 and 14)

prior to completing the multi-questionnaire data collection instrument. Students were asked to

record start and completion times on each data collection instrument. When the multi-

questionnaire was administered, students indicated they did not have time for immediate

interview.

The completed multi-questionnaires were then collected and processed by the on-site

research assistant. Processing involved, among other things, collecting and counting the

number of questionnaires, and then scanning them and emailing the digital file. Two research

assistants, Chinese English teachers — one was a teacher at the research site, the other was a

student at the research site (but soon after graduated as a teacher) — were briefed on and

assisted with the procedure for administering the multi-questionnaire. Before the data was

analysed important checks were carried out to ensure that all questionnaires contained the

relevant and appropriate information.

4.7.1 Pilot study

A pilot study was conducted to ascertain the impact on students of such a large data collection

process, and to improve validity of questionnaire items. There were concerns that students

may find completing three consecutive questionnaires, followed immediately by a set of

VSTs, overwhelming. Seven CEMs participated in the pilot study; six females and one male;

ages 19 to 21; 7 to 12 years of English language education; enrolled in grade 2 of a Bachelor

degree.

The time taken by students to complete three questionnaires was commensurate with times

taken to complete each individual questionnaire when administered in previous research (e.g.

Ma, 2009; Horwitz, 1987; Shi, 2006). Students were asked if they encountered any problems

in the questionnaires (e.g., structure and language) and how they felt after completing them

(e.g., tiredness) and the response was positive. No problems were encountered with length of

questionnaires and/or time taken to complete them; no problems were encountered with the

structure and/or language used in them.

The pilot study helped to validate questionnaire items and provide insight into potential

88

practical problems.

4.7.2 Data management and data analysis

The data management was similar for all the data collection instruments — VLSQ,

BALLLQ, and CCLQ — except the VST, which received additional and slightly different

data analysis because it was a test. All the quantitative data generated by the instruments —

GDLB, VLSQ, BALLLQ, CCLQ and VST — was initially managed and analysed in Excel

data tables, generating descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations. The

means present an average of scores while the standard deviation shows the closeness or

distance of scores from each other (e.g., individual scores were slightly further apart than

overall scores).

The data was entered into SPSS [statistical package for the social sciences] for further

analysis using Non-parametric Tests to observe mean differences and correlational analysis

using Spearman’s rho. Non-parametric analysis was run because the factors (for example,

VLS use, BALLL) were not viewed as being normally distributed in the population of CEMs,

and because the sample size was less than 100 (StatSoft, 2003) — a sample above 100 will

provide evidence of normality. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test was used to observe

differences in scores on the three questionnaires and the four VSTs to see if they are related.

The Spearman’s rho was run to observe correlations among three factors (VLS use, general

beliefs and CCL beliefs) and between five factors including age and years of English

language education (see Chapter 6, section 6.3, Tables 6.6 to 6.9).

The descriptive statistics show, for instance, averages of students’ VLS use within a grade,

and percentages provide a general range of the most students using VLSs within a grade. The

results of the analyses can be found in Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis.

The multi-questionnaire instruments were all offered in English with a Chinese translation in

order to cater for students with lower than expected proficiency (see Appendices 2 to 5).

There were no reports of a translation being needed. All instruments were checked to ensure

that all had been properly completed. There were no invalid or excessively incomplete

questionnaires (for instance, a few questions were not answered by only one student).

Questionnaire data was then transferred to computer storage and/or data storage disk while

89

the paper copy of the questionnaire was stored in an appropriate folder in a lockable cupboard

(in a Chinese research assistant’s home).

The interview data was transcribed and analysed for themes and categories (see section

4.7.2.6 below). Following a phenomenographic analysis (Paltridge and Phakiti, 2010), in

which key data are coded into categories (e.g., ‘informal behaviour’, ‘gender division’), then

depending on the frequency of the ‘codes’, grouped in themes.

4.7.2.1 Characteristics and language background, analysis and management

Students took, on average, a few minutes to complete the short general demographics part of

the multi-questionnaire: 11 questions in all (see Appendix 1).

Participants’ names were coded where necessary (see Table 4.6). The research was not

initially anonymous because names were used to match up an individual’s data on each of the

data collection instruments and with other data in the correlation analyses. Names were

preserved until after the analysis phase, but were coded (made anonymous) as data in Chapter

5. Each student provided GDLB data which was entered into a table like Table 4.6 below.

Table 4.6: One student’s general characteristics and language background

2010 RESEARCH DATA from Multi-Questionnaire: GRADE 1 Xiao A

Part 1: General Demographics and Language Background

Name: A G E NL YoELE D YoE CET Date:

Xiao A 20 f Han Cantonese 7 English 1 124 12/03/2010

Note: A for Age, G for gender, E for Ethnicity, NL for native language, YoELE for years of

English language education, D for BA degree, YoELE for year of enrolment or grade and

CET for College Entrance Test score. The research ran correlational tests on the explored

factors (e.g., VLS use, BALLL, VST) against Age and Years of English language education

(see Chapter 6, section 6.3, Tables 6.6 to 6.9).

The whole grade GDLB data was collated and presented in extended versions of Table 4.6 in

Table 4.7 below.

90

Table 4.7: GDLB for whole of grade 1

RESEARCH DATA 2010: CEMs GRADE 1

Part 1: Characteristics and Language Background of GRADE 1

Name: A G E NL YoELE D YoE CET Date:

1. Xiao A 20 f Han Cantonese 7 English 1 124 21/04/2010

2. Xiao B 20 f Han Mandarin 7 English 1 111 21/04/2010

3. Xiao C 20 f Han Mandarin 9 English 1 107 21/04/2010

The data generated by this can be viewed in the table in section 4.6.1.1.

4.7.2.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategy Questionnaire

Students took, on average, about 40 minutes to complete the VLSQ which contained 62

questions (see Appendix 2).

The VLSQ was a slightly modified version of Ma’s (2009) questionnaire which was used in

China (see Appendix 2). The survey had a strict structure but allowed respondents to add new

strategies not mentioned in the questionnaire on some questions, but not in all questions. This

was done to cut completion time and focus students’ attention on the strategies offered.

Following Ma (2009), participants ranked each strategy in terms of frequency of use, but not

for helpfulness. Helpfulness was not explored in the present research. Comparisons were

made between the four grades of students in terms of the percentage of students using the

strategy and the frequency of strategy use.

Each student’s raw data of response choices was entered into a table like Table 4.8 below to

observe individual VLS use.

91

Table 4.8: One student’s raw data of VLS use Part 2: VLS use of Xiao A GRADE 1 Question 1

Scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Q.1 Where do you meet new words?

1a

1

1

1b

1

1

1c

1

1

1d

1

1

1e

1

1

1f

1

1

1g

1 1

max: 0 1 3 2 1

Key to scaling: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, and 5=always

Key to Q.1 codes: 1a to 1g represent sub-aspects or strategies of the main question seen in

Table 4.9

Table 4.8 above revealed patterns in the data of individual VLS use. It shows the total number

of response choices, with the heading ‘max’ meaning maximum number of response choices

per response range. Table 4.9 below shows which strategy is used and the frequency with

which it is used.

Table 4.9: Percentage of students using a VLS and VLS frequency of use at grade 1 level

grade 1: Vocabulary Learning Strategy Used by Frequency of use

Q1 Discovery strategies: Where do you meet new vocabulary?

% Response item

1a In textbooks and learning activities 50 often

1b In vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical order 45 sometimes

1c In vocabulary lists arranged by meaning 50 sometimes

1d During English conversations with others 45 rarely

1e Reading English materials e.g. newspapers, magazines 45 often

1f When singing English songs and watching English movies/TV

41 often

1g When surfing/using the internet 50 sometimes

Each individual’s raw data was then entered into a table like Table 4.10 below to show the

whole grade’s raw data.

92

Table 4.10: VLS use raw data of grade 1 re: Question 1 Part 2: VLS use of CEMs in GRADE 1


Q.1 Where do you meet new words?

1a 0 2 6 11 3 22

1b 0 1 10 9 1 21

1c 0 5 11 4 2 22

1d 0 10 7 3 2 22

1e 0 3 7 10 2 22

1f 1 2 8 9 2 22

1g 1 4 11 2 4 22

max: 1 10 11 11 4 22

Key to scaling: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, and 5=always

Key to Q.1 codes: 1a to 1g represent sub aspects or strategies of the main question seen in

Table 4.9 above

Table 4.10 above revealed patterns in the data in terms of whole grade VLS use. Note that

VLS 1b in Table 4.10 only has 21 respondents because one student did not respond to the

sub-aspect.

Table 4.11 also revealed patterns in the data in terms of the percentage of students using a

particular VLS (e.g., roughly 60 per cent of grade 3 students often use VLS 1a: In textbooks

and classroom learning activities). While Table 4.10 above shows the largest response to a

question and then made a percentage (e.g., 50% of students often use strategy 1a), Table 4.11

below shows what all the raw data converted to percentage looks like for a single question. A

table containing all results like this can be found in Appendix 8.

Table 4.11: Raw data converted to percentages for all grades for each question item never % rarely % sometimes % often % always %

1. In textbooks and classroom learning activities

grade 1 0 9.1 27.1 50.0 13.6

grade 2 0 0 22.7 54.5 22.7

grade 3 0 0 16.7 62.5 20.8

grade 4 0 0 33.3 50.0 16.7

Key: item = sub-aspect of question 1; never % = response item in the scale 1 to 5 which

equals 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always.

93

Differences in the data were highlighted with tables highlighting percentages (see Table 4.11

above) and frequencies (e.g., the percentage of students generally using a particular strategy

and the frequency with which it is generally used) (see Chapter 5). Tables like Table 4.12

below were used to help show percentages and frequencies within a grade; the highest

response percentage is shown.

Table 4.12: Percentage of students using a VLS and VLS frequency of use at grade 1 level

grade 1: Vocabulary Learning Strategy Used by Frequency of use

Q5 Consolidation strategies: How do you put in order the info about the new vocabulary?

% Response item

5a Write it down 45 sometimes

5b Order the info in a vocabulary notebook 32 often

5c Make vocabulary cards 55 rarely

5d Use the vocabulary lists in a textbook 41 often

5e Use a vocab list like those in the VOCABULARY 5000/TEM4EasyTEST

32 often

Key: Q5=Question 5; 5a to 5e are question sub aspects or strategies; Used by % = the

percentage of students using a strategy; Frequency of use/Response item = the frequency

scaling; scaling = never, rarely, sometimes, often, always; in the far left column and at the top

is the phrase grade 1, this is just indicate that the table highlights the analysis of grade 1

students response to Question 5, indicated with Q5, and its sub aspects or strategies 5a to 5e.

Table 4.12 above revealed differences in VLS use and VLS frequency of use in grade 1. The

table shows all the necessary information to highlight the question and strategy offered, the

data converted to show the percentage of students who use it, and the response choice that

shows the frequency with which the strategy is used. In the above table, colour highlights the

grade, and italics the question asked.

To highlight all grades percentages and frequencies, Table 4.13 showed all four grades

(represented by the code: g1, g2). The highest response percentage is shown, meaning the

most students.

94

Table 4.13: Percentage of CEMs who use a VLS and VLS frequency of use of all grades

Q5 Consolidation strategies: How do you put in order the info about the new vocabulary?

g1 g2 g3 g4 Response item

5a Write it down 45 45 38 42 sometimes

5b Order the info in a vocabulary notebook

32 41 33 42 sometimes/often

5c Make vocabulary cards 55 59 50 42 rarely

5d Use the vocabulary lists in a textbook 41 45 42 42 rarely/sometimes/often

5e Use a vocab list like those in the VOCABULARY 5000/TEM4EasyTEST

32 36 42 50 sometimes/often

Key: Table 4.13 highlights the analysis of data for all four grades on each sub aspect of

Question 5 (Q5 – top of far left column), 5a to 5e; grade has been abbreviated to ‘g’ – g1

(grade 1); Response item (top of far right column) indicates the frequency item from the

scaling, for example, 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5-always.

However, VLSs were ranked by the percentage of students using it, see Table 4.14 (see

Chapter 5, Table 5.1). The table shows, in the first column the ranking (for example, 1 to 62),

1 being that students used it the most, in the second column the VLS code (for example, 8c,

1a, 4g), highlighting where it appears in the questionnaire (for example, 8c is Question 8

subpart c), in the third column the name of the VLS (for example, Remember a new word by

its meaning (when read again)), and in the last column the percentage of CEMs that used it.

The ranking was calculated by percentage rather than by the mean because the present

research was more concerned with the percentages of students using a strategy and the

frequency of use.

Table 4.14: Overall ranking of VLSs

Rank: S#: Ranked vocabulary learning strategies over all: %

1 8c Remember a new word by its meaning (when read again) 63%

2 1a In textbooks and classroom learning activities 55%

3 1e When reading English materials 50%

4 8b Remember a new word by its meaning (when heard again) 49%

5 4g The way the new word is used 48%

6 3c I try to guess the word's meaning from the context 48%

7 6b Write the word several times 46%

8 3f Read a Chinese-English or an English-Chinese dictionary 45%

9 4d The Chinese translation 41%

10 6c Look at the word several times 40%

95

Key: Table 4.14 highlights the results of analysing strategy use based on the percentage of

students using a strategy (based on the highest response percentage), but the analysis is based

on one the response item ‘often’, for example, 63 per cent of all students often use strategy

8c: Remember a new word by its meaning (when read again).

Two additional questions were added to the VLSQ (see Appendix 2). One asks ‘Where do

you obtain the VLSs you use?’. A VLS or all VLSs used may have been acquired from a

teacher, a classmate or a textbook, or be self-generated. The source of the VLSs the students

use was believed familiar to students and also believed that students would be able to say

whether they obtained the strategies they use from one of these possible sources, and this

knowledge contributed to the research. Other sources conceivably exist, but these were not

explored in the present research. The other question asks ‘Where do you often learn

vocabulary during the semester?’ This question relates to the fact that an inclusive view of the

learning context (for instance, the university) has been adopted in the present research.

Obtaining data that reflects vocabulary learning in this broader view of the learning context

was thought advantageous, rather than a traditionally narrow view of the formal learning

context as the classroom.

However, to conduct the statistical analysis, the raw data were analysed in SPSS (see Chapter

6: Statistical Analysis).

4.7.2.3 Beliefs about Language and Language Learning Questionnaire

The BALLLQ was designed to collect contextual data on BALLL. The questionnaire

contains 57 belief statements. The questionnaire is an exploratory tool and the data generated

by it answers the general question of whether CEMs BALLL can be classified as

‘Westernized’ and then compared with the results of data generated by Shi’s (2009) CCL

questionnaire (see Appendix 3) to observe any differences and whether they correlate.

Table 4.15 below was created to show the raw data generated by the BALLLQ.

96

Table 4.15: All students all grades responses to belief statement #1 (BS#1)

BS#1 It's easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language


grade 1

0 0 6 10 6 22

grade 2

0 3 1 10 8 22

grade 3

0 4 1 12 6 23

grade 4

1 1 2 6 2 12

min: 0 0 1 6 2

max: 1 4 6 12 8

mean: 0.3 2.0 2.5 9.5 5.5

SD: 0.5 1.8 2.4 2.5 2.5

Key to scaling: 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither disagree or agree; 4=agree;

5=strongly agree; Table 4.15 highlights raw data responses by each grade to belief statement

No. 1.

Table 4.15 above revealed patterns in the data at the grade level. It shows all the information

needed to highlight the actual question, or, in this case, the belief statement, and the raw data

(not converted to a percentage — see Table 4.16 below) showing the total number of

responses per response choice. The most responses per response choice are highlighted with

colour, along with the grade and the raw data for the whole grade as a total number, and the

belief statement. The largest number (for instance, 12 – the cell is highlighted in green)

indicates the number of students that agreed with the belief statement. In all grades, most

students (12 in grade 3) tend to agree with the belief statement BS#1.

97

Table 4.16: All students all grades responses to belief statement #1 (BS#1) as percentages

BS#1 It's easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language


grade 1

0 0 27.3 45.4 27.3 22

grade 2

0 13.6 4.5 45.4 36.4 22

grade 3

0 16.7 4.2 50.0 25.0 23

grade 4

8.3 8.3 16.7 50.0 16.7 12


5=strongly agree; Table 4.16 shows raw data (highlighted in Table 4.16 above) converted to a

percentage.

The raw data was analysed using SPSS, running Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Tests and

correlations by Spearman’s rho — for example, for grade 1, grade 2 — per instrument. The

tables generated are the same as the tables shown in 4.7.2.2 above. The results of the

statistical analysis can be found in Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis.

4.7.2.4 Chinese Culture of Learning Questionnaire

The CCLQ was designed to answer the general question of whether and to what extent the

participants (CEMs) BALLL are those of the CCL, generally. The questionnaire has 18

questions (see Appendix 4). The quantitative data generated affirmed/disaffirmed whether

CEMs beliefs are distinctly those of the CCL (see Chapter 3, section 3.4). Whether beliefs

actually drive VLS use was inferred from the data.

Tables like Table 4.17 below were created to show the raw data generated by the CCLQ.

98

Table 4.17: All students all grades responses to CCL Beliefs #1

B#1 I enjoy learning English


grade 1

0 1 4 9 6 20

grade 2

0 1 6 13 0 20

grade 3

0 0 5 10 3 18

grade 4

0 1 0 8 2 11

min: 0 0 0 8 0

max: 0 1 6 13 6

mean: 0.0 0.8 3.8 10.0 2.8

SD: 0.0 0.5 2.6 2.2 2.5


5=strongly agree; Table 4.17 highlights raw data responses by each grade to CCL belief

statement No. 1

Table 4.17 above was useful in revealing patterns in the data at the grade level. It shows all

the information needed to highlight the actual question, or, in this case, the belief statement

asked about, the raw data (not converted to a percentage — see Table 4.18 below) showing

the total number of responses per response choice. The most responses per response choice is

highlighted by colour. The reader can also see in the above table, with the added help of

colour, the grade and the raw data score for the whole grade as a total score. The largest

number (for instance, 13) indicates the number of students who agree with the belief

statement (for instance, in grade 2) and the strength of their belief (e.g., agree). The table

shows that most grade 1 students (9) agree with B#1 and that, in all four grades, most

students tend to agree with the CCL B#1.

99

Table 4.18: All students all grades responses to CCL Beliefs #1 as percentages



grade 1

0 4.5 18.2 40.9 27.3 20

grade 2

0 4.5 27.3 59.1 0 20

grade 3

0 0 20.8 41.7 12.5 18

grade 4

0 8.3 0 66.7 16.7 11


5=strongly agree; Table 4.18 shows raw data (highlighted in Table 4.17 above) converted to a

percentage.

Mean analyses using SPSS, Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test and then the correlations by

Spearman’s rho were conducted — for instance, for grade 1, grade 2 — per instrument. The

tables generated look the same as the tables shown in 4.7.2.2 and 4.7.2.3. The results can be

found in Chapter 6: Statistical Analysis.

4.7.2.5 Vocabulary Size Test

The VST collected data on the vocabulary size of CEMs. The goal was to roughly ascertain

vocabulary size at entry to university and a snapshot of each of the four years of a Bachelor

degree post entry to observe changes in vocabulary size. The VST was designed by Nation

(2001) and had been shown to be a valid and reliable instrument for ascertaining ESL/EFL

learners’ vocabulary size (Schmitt et al., 2001) (see Appendix 5). The VST used in the present

study includes the bilingual Mandarin version (Nation, 2009) of the VST 1000 word size, but

not for the other sizes. There are 10 vocabulary items per size and each item represents 100

vocabulary items for that size (for instance, 10 items in a test represent 100 vocabulary items

for the respective 1000 word size or 10 X 100 = 1000). Therefore, if a student gets one wrong

answer in the VST 1000, for instance, it would generally mean that less than 1000 words are

known in this range, or approximately 900 words are known at that particular size (Nation,

2009).

100

The raw data was collated and presented in tables like Table 4.19 below showing students

general vocabulary size in grade 1 at the first 1000 most frequent English words (1000 word

size).

Table 4.19: Known words at the 1000 word size

Words: No. K % Total

1. saw 21 95 22

2. time 21 95 22

3. period 16 73 22

4. figure 10 45 22

5. poor 21 95 22

6. drives 19 86 22

7. jump 21 95 22

8. shoe 21 95 22

9. standards 19 86 22

10. basis 3 14 22

Key: No. K = number of students who knew the word; % = the number of students who knew

the word converted to a percentage.

Table 4.19 above revealed patterns in the data at the grade level, or individual differences

within a grade. Tables show all the information needed to highlight the actual question, or the

word asked about, the raw data showing the total number of students who gave an answer or

knew the word, and a percentage, meaning the percentage of students who knew the word

(Table 4.19). The left-hand column lists the word asked about; the second column lists the

number of students who knew the word; the third column lists the number of students who

knew the word, converted to a percentage; the far right-hand column lists the total number of

students who did the test. A whole grade mean of the total number of students who knew the

word was used to make comparisons between grades and the whole group level (80); the

means were used to make general observations about group differences in known words at a

particular word size (e.g., an average of 17 grade 1 students knew all the words at the 1000).

The scores can be found in Appendix 6.

101

4.7.2.6 Interviews

Interviews were conducted after questionnaires were collected and analysed using QQ, an

internet communication tool (see section 4.2.2.2 above). QQ is widely used in China by

Chinese students, and therefore is more familiar to them than Skype. QQ and Skype are

virtually identical allowing the same applications to run — for example, written chat, audio

and video. However, many of the students in China do not have access to the video app. (or

restrictions on use apply) and therefore interviews were restricted to written chat — most of

the time the student was seen.

Students were initially invited to participate (through a contact at the research site) and asked

to provide an email address so the details of the interview could be sent them, as well as an

informed consent form to sign and return. Students provided details of availability and a time

suggested to conduct the interview. They could negotiate the time, but most were happy with

the time suggested and they made themselves available at that time.

The initial interview began with ‘ice-breakers’ in an effort to relax the student. A range of

general demographic questions was asked prior to the interview proper (e.g., age, gender,

year of enrolment). Then the main interview began (see Chapter 5). When responses to the

main questions appeared to be exhausted, the student was thanked for their participation and

asked if they would like to receive the results of the interview.

The analysis of interviews for themes and categories can be found in Chapter 5. An example

of the interview transcript and a first-look analysis appear below:

FriendshipOn11:11:37 AM

So you meet new words when surfing internet websites?

Donna 11:11:44 AM

yes


What about when you [are] chatting in QQ?


... when you’re chatting in QQ

Donna 11:13:18 AM

in [the] website there are many professional words [belief – experience]


102

Are the websites English websites?

Donna 11:13:50 AM

but in QQ a little better [belief - experience]

Donna 11:13:56 AM

yes [the websites are English websites]


Why is QQ a little better?

Donna 11:14:24 AM

we can communicate [goal of strategy use]

Donna 11:14:38 AM

with each other


So you meet more new words when chatting [on QQ]

than reading English websites?

Donna 11:15:55 AM

no, chatting is better than reading [quality of activity - experience]


Ok

The part interview above occurred on the internet communication tool QQ in chat form. The

combined video/audio aspects were not available at the time of the interview. QQ

automatically transcribes the chat and can be easily printed. My membership name is

FriendshipOn and the interviewee’s membership name appears in Chinese characters with a

question mark either end, though she used the English name Donna.

Paltridge and Phakiti (2010, pp. 102–103) say the classic method for analysing qualitative

data usually follows these steps:

1 Coding: converting the comments on each piece of data to key words or phrases —

for example, ‘informal behaviour’, ‘gender division’, ‘teacher control’. There may be

more than one such code for each piece of data; but basically this is a method for

seeing how each code is distributed throughout the data.

2 Determining themes: the codes which occur with significant frequency are then

grouped within themes.

3 Constructing an argument: The themes are then used as headings and subheadings

for constructing an argument about what can be learnt from the data. Under each

thematic heading, extracts from the data which exemplify the theme are collected and

used as evidence for the points made in the argument.

103

4 Going back to the data: Collecting extracts to support the argument will involve

going back to the data, reassessing the codes and refining or possibly changing the

themes. The process of drafting and redrafting the argument will also add to this

process of refinement.

This was the general approach to analysing the interview data. It was analysed quantitatively

by putting the themes in a table in categories and counting them. Table 4.20 below shows the

discovery strategies students suggested. Discovery-place strategies concern the place where

new words are met. Excerpts from the interview are shown below and show how students

responded to the question. How the interview data was analysed and mined for the themes

that appear in table 4.20, is also shown.

Table 4.20: Discovery-place strategies

Theme #: Theme: No.:

1 in books 3

2 in textbooks 16

3 in newspapers 8

4 in magazines 8

5 extensive readers 1

6 in passages 1

7 in novels 4

8 educational books 1

9 vocabulary books 1

10 other books 1

11 listening resources 1

12 in tests 2

13 in exams 2

14 in school 1

15 in class 1

16 in conversation 1

17 on computer 1

18 computer games 1

19 in libraries 1

20 on internet 4

21 news websites 1

22 on TV 10

23 on radio 1

24 in public 1

25 on trains 1

104

26 in hotels 1

27 restaurant menu 1

28 in advertising 4

29 in posters 1

30 in movies 9

31 in music 1

32 in songs 3

33 everywhere 1

Interview data tables were constructed after the interview. This allowed the interview

response to be placed in the appropriate place after the initial question and subsequent

questions (see table below). The interview data as it appeared in QQ was simply cut-and-

pasted into the table to be analysed.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE

1) Xiao HONG 21 English 3 111 f 12

Question: Answer:

1) Where do you meet/encounter new English

words?

English text books, newspapers and

magazines.

Ok Anywhere else? On the internet

Anywhere else? Anywhere around where I live; life; yeah, and

on billboard, on the street, and in the

product Introductions.

When you meet them in your textbook, are they

by themselves in a list or in sentences and

passages?

When I am in grade1 and grade 2 there

is a new word list but now,

there is no word list in text books;

we learn it in the sentences.

Why is there no word list now? Because when we are freshmen, we need to

learn new words to be the foundation.

Now I'm a junior and

the textbooks focus on other abilities;

like rhetorical device.

Which abilities? What the author want to tell the readers.

What kind of words do you learn as a freshman? Many kinds of new words; in our text books,

each lesson will have a word list, and belong to

the lesson.

They belong to the lesson? What kind of lesson

will you have?

Maybe some essays and novels.

So the new words are in the essays and novels? Yeah

Are the words you learn as a freshman different

from the words you learn now?

Yeah, the words I learn now are longer and

more difficult to remember.

To make the responses to the questions more legible, some spacing was added between some

words. The questions elicited responses about where new words are met or found by the

student. The first response shows ‘English text books’, which is expected given the

105

respondent is a student, ‘newspapers’ and ‘magazines’. Subsequent probing questions elicit

more places new words are met by the student. The nominals (‘newspapers’; ‘on the

internet’; ‘on the billboard’) were extracted from the responses and tabled. If a response

could be generalised, for example, ‘on the billboard’, then it was classified under the rubric

‘Advertising’.

4.8 Intended outcomes of the research

The intended outcomes reflect the main objectives of the research. As mentioned in 4.1

above, and throughout the methodology, the research questions for the present research

reflect the main objectives of the study:

1) Observe CEMs’ VLS use and frequency of use in a higher education context;

2) Observe any differences in VLS frequency of use in each grade of a four-year

Bachelor degree;

3) Compare and contrast strategy use among the four grades of strategy users and with

previous research;

4) Observe CEMs’ beliefs, generally and specifically, and observe differences and

compare with previous research;

5) Compare and contrast the findings of all four factors (VLS, BALLL, CCL, VST) and

observe the relationship among them; and,

6) Observe patterns in the data that reveal aspects of the PVL.

The research generated data that:

1) explored CEMs’ VLSs and frequency of use in a Chinese university context in

mainland China;

2) explored CEMs’ BALLL, generally, and CCL, specifically; and,

3) explored CEMs’ EVS.

This was done to better understand the process of English vocabulary learning by CEMs in

China. The term ‘factor’ to label VLS use and beliefs isn’t a substitute for the label ‘variable’

or ‘status variable’ (Heppner et al, 1999), they are synonymous because these factors (e.g.,

VLS use and beliefs), as with status variables, are liable to change. A VLS or belief may not

106

change its nature, however its utility may change given a learner’s experience and/or

reflection, and depending on the circumstances of use (e.g., learning task). A VLS or set of

strategies will be employed during the learning task (for instance, use X to do Y); a belief,

depending on the learner’s experience of learning — whether a learning goal was achieved,

for instance — is part of the learner’s particular learning approach and a belief or set of

beliefs will be activated during the learning task (for instance, use X to do Y because X is the

best way to do Y or because X is expected to be used to do Y). The utility of the factor being

liable to change, they are never-the-less the process (VLSs being procedural knowledge and

beliefs action directed) of vocabulary learning, the independent variable (IV), if you will,

whose utility is dependent on the demands of the learning task (for example, preparing for an

exam). The IV, the process of vocabulary learning (VLS use and beliefs), has some effect on

the dependent variable (DV), in this case, vocabulary learning. The present research does not

conduct an experiment (Kerlinger, 1986) or try to manipulate the IV to observe the impact on

the DV (vocabulary learning), it explores the process of vocabulary learning — the IV; it

explores VLS use and beliefs to better understand the process (IV), and infers the impact or

effect on vocabulary learning (DV) through observing vocabulary size.

A mixed methods approach was used. Quantitative and qualitative data collection methods

were used. The quantitative was collected with three questionnaires and vocabulary tests. The

qualitative was collected with an interview. The research is exploratory, interpretative and a

case study. The research explores the PVL, focusing on two important aspects, VLSs and

BALLL. The possible effect on EVS was explored using several VSTs. Chapter 5 presents the

results of the research.

107

CHAPTER 5: VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES AND

BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING —

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

5.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses the results of descriptive analysis to observe trends and patterns in the

data. There are two main sections: Part 1, section 5.1, Vocabulary learning strategies, and Part

2, section 5.6, Beliefs about language and language learning. Section 5.1 discusses the results

by research question, and begins with research question No. 1: Which vocabulary learning

strategies do Chinese English Majors use?; and 5.2 discusses research question No. 2: What

is the difference in vocabulary learning strategy use among the four grades of Chinese

English Majors?. Part 2, section 5.6, discusses research question No. 3: What are Chinese

English Majors’ ‘Western’ beliefs about language and language learning and Chinese culture

of learning beliefs about language and language learning?, but only the presentation of

similarities and differences; meaning, where general beliefs and CCL beliefs are similar or

different.

5.1 Research question No. 1:

Which vocabulary learning strategies do Chinese English Majors tend to use?

The purpose of this section is to highlight through descriptive statistics significant trends and

patterns in the data. Percentages rather than means are preferred when discussing frequency

because the latter highlights general use (yes/no) whereas scaling (e.g., rarely, often)

highlights frequency of use. The means are also included, however, to strengthen confidence

in percentages. The discussion begins with the questionnaire data, then interview data is

presented and compared with the questionnaire data.

108

5.1.2 General differences in students VLS use and the frequency of VLS use

5.1.2.1 VLSQ data

The aim of the research question was to explore CEMs’ use in relation to Ma’s (2009) list of

VLSs and their frequency of use. The view was that CEMs do use VLSs, since the existence

of VLSs have been empirically confirmed (see Chapter 2: section 2.3 Definitions of

vocabulary learning strategies — a brief outline) and research has shown that Chinese EFL

learners do use VLSs (see Chapter 2: section 2.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategies research in

a Chinese context — a brief outline). Therefore, the research explored VLS use by CEMs in

relation to Ma’s (2009) list and Schmitt’s (1997) general classification of VLSs (for example,

discovery and consolidation strategies).

5.1.2.2 Means of strategy use show level of strategy use

The following means tables are used to highlight and add support to the observation in

descriptive statistics that strategy use is medium. Table 5.1 presents the means for the whole

group and all VLSs, while Table 5.2 presents the means for individual strategies.

CEMs showed average VLS use, generally, shown in the means (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2

below). Using the idea that 1.00 to 2.49 is low use, 2.50 to 3.49 is medium use, and 3.50 to

5.00 is high use (see Wahyuni, 2013), 15 out of 62 VLSs experienced high use and only one

category (determination-study strategies) experienced high use. Table 5.13 provides another

view of the spread of strategies not used in each grade. In grade 1, a total of 19 strategies

were not generally used, 15 were not used in grade 2, 18 were not used in grade 3 and 12

were not used in grade 4 (see Table 5.15). However, while strategy use happened to a greater

or lesser extent in each grade, strategy use was variable.

Key to Table 5.1: table shows means of categories and strategies for the whole group; left-

hand column shows the categories; the three right-hand side columns shows mean, standard

deviation and sample number.

109

Table 5.1: Categories and strategies and means suggesting use

Categories and strategies M SD n

1. Discovery: place to find 3.39 0.57 80

2. Determination: initial response 3.03 0.64 80

3. Determination: study 3.64 0.60 80

4. Consolidation: organization 3.06 0.71 80

5. Consolidation: memorization 2.95 0.56 80

6. Consolidation: review 2.92 0.63 80

7. Consolidation: remember 3.46 0.49 80

8. Consolidation: production 2.93 0.57 80

Table 5.1 shows the means of the 8 categories of vocabulary strategies. The means firstly,

show use, specifically, the first four groups and seventh group seemed to experience medium

use, whereas categories 5, 6 and 8 seem to experience less use.

Key to Table 5.2: left-hand column shows the categories and all sub-strategies; the three

right-hand side columns show mean, standard deviation and sample number. Category 3

experienced high use, the rest experienced medium use.

Table 5.2: Categories and strategies for whole group

Categories and strategies M SD n



1b in vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical

order




1f when singing English songs and watching

English movies/TV


3.89

3.33

3.15

2.71

3.75

3.55

3.31

0.72

0.95

0.94

0.75

0.79

0.92

0.97

80

80

80

80

80

80

80


3a pay no attention to and never go back to it

3b pay no attention to it, but go back to later

3c try to guess the new word’s meaning from

the context

3d study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and

root-word for meaning

3e ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning


Chinese dictionary


1.92

2.94

3.67

3.28

2.65

3.98

2.76

0.74

1.00

0.80

0.82

0.91

0.82

1.03

80

80

80

80

80

80

80



4b the spelling




4.27

4.21

3.13

4.29

3.32

0.78

0.87

0.89

0.71

0.99

80

80

80

80

80

110




words


3.23

3.69

3.05

3.59

0.97

0.83

0.88

1.08

80

80

80

80


5a write it down


notebook





2.98

3.43

2.26

3.44

3.19

0.91

1.09

1.04

0.97

1.00

80

80

80

80

80





6d memorise Chinese-English/English-

Chinese lists


6f link the word to similar meaning words or




6h compare words with similar meaning and

study together

6i group words in order e.g. meaning, part of

speech


conversation


6l listen to tape-/CD recordings of words


together

6n practise new words by acting them out e.g.

verbs




the new words


word looks like

6r remember the prefix, suffix and root word

of the new word

3.17

3.81

3.27

3.50

3.01

3.04

3.21

3.02

2.76

3.32

2.89

2.64

2.45

2.44

3.05

1.85

2.64

3.09

0.96

0.92

1.03

0.99

0.91

0.91

0.79

0.92

0.92

0.83

1.05

0.98

0.92

1.01

1.01

0.83

1.10

0.95

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80


7a say the new word 2 or 3 times the first day




after that

7d read the new words 2 or 3 times first, then


later



3.09

3.13

2.55

2.98

3.19

2.61

0.93

0.84

1.12

1.08

1.12

0.98

80

80

80

80

80

80


8a remember the new word the way I learned

it


(when heard again)

3.41

3.63

0.73

0.88

80

80

111


(when read again)




8e try to remember where I first met the word

3.87

3.23

3.17

0.62

0.81

1.08

80

80

80





vocabulary




MSN

3.60

2.83

3.18

2.76

2.30

0.89

0.92

1.00

0.90

0.95

80

80

80

80

80

In Table 5.2 above we see the individual strategies within a category and the whole group

mean for each strategy is highlighted. Five determination-study strategies appeared to

experience high use, with means 3.50 or higher: 15 strategies experienced high use, 41

medium use and 6 low use.

5.1.2.3 Frequency of vocabulary learning strategy use

The following subsection presents the highest percentage of students using a VLS and

frequency of use to observe patterns and in relation to Schmitt’s (1997) categorisation of two

main VLS groups — discovery/determination strategies and consolidation strategies (see

Chapter 2, section 2.2.4, Table 2.1). When reading this presentation of a specific finding, the

reader is asked to think about how strategy use may affect the way students learn in each

grade of their Bachelor degree.

Tables 5.3 to 5.11 show which VLSs were often/always, rarely/never or sometimes used, or a

combination of these, by CEMs. A total of 26 VLSs of 62 strategies were rarely or never

used. A total of 17 VLSs were rarely or never used in grade 1, 15 VLSs were not used in

grade 2, 16 VLSs were not used in grade 3 and 12 VLSs were not used in grade 4 (see Table

5.15 below). Five VLSs were consistently not used across all grades: VLSs 3a, 5c, 7c, 7f and

9e (highlighted in soft orange — see Appendix 8, Table 4). While 3a was a discovery strategy

(‘Pay no attention to a new word, and never go back to it’), the others were consolidation

strategies (5c: make vocabulary cards; 7c: read the new words the first time, but not after

that; 7f: test new words with classmates; and 9e: try to e-chat on the Internet using QQ, MSN

Messenger).

112

The combination of the total number of response choices shows which strategy was regularly

used and the frequency of VLS use (for instance, ‘never’ (1), ‘rarely’ (2), ‘sometimes’ (3),

‘often’ (4) and ‘always’ (5)). The data shows whether 1) the same VLS was used in

successive grades, and 2) the frequency of its use. The strength of the frequency of VLS use

can be seen in terms of use [not means] (for instance, the frequency of VLS use was

unchanged in each a grade (for example, ‘rarely’ used in each grade), or increased (for

example, went from ‘rarely’ to ‘often’), or decreased (for example, went from ‘often’ to

‘rarely) (see section 5.2 Three frequency-of-use strategy groupings below).

Tables 5.3 to 5.11 below also highlight the grade percentage, frequency, mean and standard

deviation of CEMs’ strategy use and the frequency. Key to Table 5.3: the left-hand column

lists the question and its parts, with its code at the top, for example, 1/1a, 1/1b, and the name

of the strategy next to it; the second column shows grade; the third column shows the

percentage of students using the strategy in each grade; the fourth column lists frequency

item — all percentages and frequencies for each grade can be seen in Appendix 8, Table 2;

the fifth column shows the mean for each grade; the sixth column shows the standard

deviation (SD); and the end column shows the number of students in each grade who

completed the questionnaire.

Table 5.3: Question 1: Where do you meet new words? [Discovery-place strategies]

By grade, highest percentage, frequency, mean and SD

strategy grade % freq. mean SD n

1/1a: In textbooks and

classroom learning activities

1 50 often 3.68 0.84 22

2 55 often 4.00 0.69 22

3 63 often 4.04 0.62 24

4 50 often 3.83 0.72 12

2/1b: In vocabulary lists

arranged in alphabetical order

1 45 often 3.32 0.99 22

2 36 often 3.59 0.96 22

3 54 sometimes 3.17 0.64 24

4 33 sometimes 3.25 1.22 12

3/1c: In vocabulary lists

arranged by meaning

1 50 sometimes 3.14 0.89 22

2 41 sometimes 3.18 0.85 22

3 33 sometimes 3.21 0.93 24

4 50 often 3.08 1.08 12

4/1d: During English

conversation with others

1 45 rarely 2.82 1.01 22

2 50 rarely 2.41 0.59 22

113

3 42 rarely/often 2.96 0.91 24

4 67 sometimes 2.67 0.49 12

5/1e: When reading English

materials

1 45 often 3.50 0.86 22

2 59 often 3.91 0.75 22

3 42 often 3.83 0.92 24

4 58 often 3.75 0.62 12

6/1f: When singing English

songs and watching English

movies/TV

1 41 often 3.41 0.96 22

2 45 sometimes 3.59 0.80 22

3 38 often 3.71 0.91 24

4 33 often 3.50 1.00 12

7/1g: When using/surfing the

internet

1 41 sometimes 3.18 1.10 22

2 55 sometimes 2.91 0.87 22

3 42 sometimes 3.33 1.09 24

4 58 often 3.83 0.83 12

Table 5.3 shows frequency of use of a discovery-place strategy in each grade — there are

seven in this category. This information tells us about the popular strategies used in each

grade. Knowing this also suggests what type of learning is being done in each grade or what

students did or didn’t do in each grade — for instance, they often meet new words in

textbooks but they rarely find new words during English conversations with others. Three

were used often, three sometimes and one rarely.

Table 5.4: Question 3: What do you do when you meet new vocabulary items? [determination initial response strategies]



8/3a: Pay no attention to it

and never go back to it

1 50 rarely 2.05 0.65 22

2 68 rarely 1.77 0.53 22

3 50 rarely 2.13 0.80 24

4 50 never 1.75 0.97 12

9/3b: Pay no attention to it,

but go back to it later

1 41 often 3.50 1.01 22

2 64 rarely 2.73 0.77 22

3 29 sometimes 2.46 1.14 24

4 42 sometimes 3.08 1.08 12

10/3c: I try to guess the

word’s meaning from the

context

1 41 often 3.86 0.94 22

2 59 often 3.59 0.73 22

3 54 often 3.71 0.62 24

4 50 sometimes 3.50 0.90 12

11/3d: Study the word’s

prefixes, suffixes and root

1 50 sometimes 3.32 0.84 22

2 45 sometimes 3.14 0.83 22

114

word for meaning 3 50 sometimes 3.00 0.72 24

4 42 often 3.67 0.89 12

12/3e: Ask a classmate or

teacher for the meaning

1 45 rarely 2.91 1.15 22

2 41 rarely/sometimes 2.36 0.79 22

3 42 rarely 2.67 0.82 24

4 42 rarely 2.67 0.89 12

13/3f: Read a Chinese-

English or an English-

Chinese dictionary

1 41 often 3.86 1.08 22

2 50 always 4.45 0.60 22

3 50 often 3.83 0.87 24

4 42 sometimes/often 3.75 0.75 12

14/3g: Read an English-only

dictionary

1 45 rarely 2.55 1.22 22

2 45 rarely 2.64 0.90 22


4 50 sometimes 3.08 0.90 12

Table 5.4 shows the use of a determination initial response strategy, concerning what a

student does when meeting a word for the first time. We can see that students often try to

guess the new word’s meaning from the context but rarely ask a classmate or teacher for the

meaning. Two were used often, one sometimes and the rest had a mix of frequencies.

Table 5.5: Question 4: When learning new vocabulary, what aspects do you study? [determination-study strategies]



15/4a: Its pronunciation

1 41 often 4.09 0.87 22

2 45 often/always 4.36 0.66 22

3 50 always 4.38 0.71 24

4 50 always 4.25 0.87 12

16/4b: The spelling

1 45 often 4.27 0.70 22

2 45 often/always 4.36 0.66 22

3 63 always 4.38 1.01 24

4 33 often/always 3.83 1.11 12

17/4c: The prefixes, suffixes

and root word

1 45 sometimes 3.32 0.95 22

2 55 sometimes 3.14 0.77 22

3 46 sometimes 3.08 0.88 24

4 67 sometimes 3.00 0.95 12

18/4d: The Chinese

translation

1 50 often 4.18 0.80 22

2 55 always 4.50 0.60 22

3 58 always 4.46 0.72 24

4 50 often 4.00 0.74 12

19/4e: The English 1 32 sometimes 3.36 1.05 22

115

explanations 2 50 sometimes 3.59 0.85 22

3 42 sometimes 3.33 0.92 24

4 42 often 3.00 1.13 12

20/4f: The example

sentences


2 50 sometimes 3.27 0.77 22

3 58 sometimes 3.04 0.69 24

4 58 often 3.17 1.27 12

21/4g: The way the new

word is used

1 41 sometimes 3.64 0.90 22

2 64 often 4.00 0.62 22

3 42 often 3.54 1.02 24

4 50 often 3.58 0.79 12

22/4h: The new word's

relationship with other words

1 64 sometimes 3.05 0.84 22

2 41 sometimes 3.14 0.77 22

3 46 sometimes 2.92 0.83 24

4 42 sometimes 3.08 1.08 12

23/4i: The new word's part

of speech

1 45 sometimes 3.32 1.09 22

2 41 often 3.91 1.06 22

3 38 sometimes 3.54 0.93 24

4 33 often 3.58 1.24 12

Table 5.5 shows the use of a determination-study strategy. This is a range of strategies

concerning studying a new word a student has just met for the first time. We can see that

students often study the new word’s pronunciation but sometimes its prefixes, suffixes and

root word. Four were used often, four sometimes and one a mix of frequencies.

Table 5.6: Question 5: How do you put in order the info about the new vocabulary? [consolidation-organisation strategies]



24/5a: Write it down

1 45 sometimes 3.05 0.84 22

2 45 sometimes 2.91 0.92 22

3 38 sometimes 3.04 1.08 24

4 42 sometimes 2.92 0.79 12

25/5b: Order the

information in a vocabulary

notebook

1 32 often 3.41 1.14 22

2 41 sometimes 3.59 1.05 22

3 33 often 3.29 1.16 24

4 42 sometimes 3.42 1.00 12

26/5c: Make vocabulary

cards

1 55 rarely 2.27 0.98 22

2 59 rarely 2.05 0.84 22

3 50 rarely 1.96 1.12 24

4 42 rarely 2.75 1.22 12

116

27/5d: Use the vocabulary

lists in the textbooks

1 41 often 3.73 1.08 22

2 45 sometimes 3.36 0.85 22

3 42 often 3.50 0.93 24

4 42 rarely 3.17 1.03 12

28/5e: Use a vocabulary list

like those in the

VOCABULARY

5000/TEM4EasyTEST

1 32 often 3.32 1.25 22

2 36 sometimes 2.68 1.13 22

3 42 sometimes 3.75 0.90 24

4 50 sometimes 3.00 0.74 12

Table 5.6 shows how students organise the information about a new word they have just met

in preparation to engage in learning it. Sometimes write it down, and they rarely make

vocabulary cards. Two were used sometimes, one rarely and the rest was a mix of

frequencies.

Table 5.7: Question 6: How do you memorise new vocabulary? [consolidation-memory strategies — the first 9]



29/6a: Say the word aloud

several times

1 32 often 3.36 1.36 22

2 45 sometimes 3.23 0.97 22

3 58 sometimes 3.08 0.65 24

4 58 sometimes 3.00 0.85 12

30/6b: Write the word

several times

1 50 often 3.55 1.18 22

2 45 often 4.14 0.83 22

3 42 often 3.96 0.86 24

4 50 often 3.58 0.79 12

31/6c: Look at the word

several times

1 36 often 3.59 0.96 22

2 36 often 3.05 1.09 22

3 50 often 3.21 1.10 24


32/6d: Memorise Chinese-

English/English-Chinese

lists

1 45 often 3.45 1.14 22

2 36 often 3.77 1.02 22

3 38 sometimes 3.54 0.93 24

4 50 sometimes 3.25 0.87 12

33/6e: Do vocabulary

exercises


2 45 sometimes 3.14 0.99 22

3 38 rarely 2.96 0.86 24

4 33 rarely/often 3.17 1.03 12

34/6f: Link word to

similar meaning words or


1 50 sometimes 2.82 0.80 22

2 36 sometimes 3.09 1.11 22

3 46 sometimes 3.00 0.98 24

117

4 67 sometimes 3.25 0.75 12

35/6g: Link the word with

already known words and

have similarities

1 59 sometimes 3.14 0.64 22

2 45 often 3.41 0.96 22

3 54 sometimes 3.13 0.85 24

4 50 sometimes 3.17 0.72 12

36/6h: Compare words

with similar meaning and

study together

1 55 sometimes 2.73 0.83 22

2 55 sometimes 3.18 1.01 22

3 33 sometimes 3.25 1.07 24

4 42 sometimes 2.92 0.79 12

37/6i: Group words in

order e.g. meaning, part of

speech

1 55 rarely 2.82 0.91 22

2 45 rarely 2.50 0.91 22

3 42 sometimes 2.79 0.98 24

4 42 rarely 2.92 0.90 12

Table 5.7 shows the first range of consolidation-memory strategies; how a student will

attempt to memorise a new word. They often write the new word several times, but rarely

group words in order. Two were used often, four sometimes, one rarely and the rest were a

mix of frequencies.

Table 5.8: Question 6: How do you memorise new vocabulary? [consolidation-memory strategies — the second 9]



38/6j: Place word in a

context e.g. sentence,

conversation


2 41 sometimes 3.05 0.95 22

3 54 sometimes 3.25 0.74 24


39/6k: Use the new word

to make up a sentence

1 32 rarely/often 3.00 1.02 22

2 50 sometimes 2.68 0.99 22

3 33 rarely 2.79 1.02 24

4 33 often 3.08 1.16 12

40/6l: Listen to tape-/CD

recordings of words

1 45 rarely 2.27 0.88 22

2 45 rarely 2.36 0.85 22

3 42 sometimes 2.67 0.96 24

4 33 sometimes 3.25 1.22 12

41/6m: Make up rhymes

to link new words together

1 36 sometimes 2.86 0.89 22

2 45 rarely 2.23 0.81 22

3 50 rarely 2.38 0.82 24


42/6n: Practise new words

by acting them out e.g.

1 41 sometimes 2.77 1.07 22

2 41 rarely 1.95 0.95 22

118

verbs 3 50 sometimes 2.54 0.93 24

4 42 sometimes 2.50 1.09 12

43/6o: Try to imagine

what the new word looks


1 41 often 3.09 1.11 22

2 36 sometimes 3.09 0.97 22

3 46 sometimes 3.08 0.97 24


44/6p: Draw pictures to

illustrate the meaning of

new words

1 64 rarely 1.64 0.49 22

2 41 never/rarely 1.82 0.85 22

3 58 rarely 1.88 0.74 24

4 42 sometimes 2.08 1.24 12

45/6q: Try to imagine in

my head what the new

word looks like

1 41 sometimes 2.55 1.06 22


3 50 sometimes 2.92 1.02 24

4 33 never 2.42 1.24 12

46/6r: Remember the

prefix, suffix and root

word of the new word

1 45 sometimes 2.91 0.92 22

2 59 sometimes 3.27 0.88 22

3 46 sometimes 3.08 0.83 24

4 33 often 3.08 1.16 12

Table 5.8 is the second list of consolidation-memory strategies to memorise a new word.

Students in grades 1 and 2 rarely listen to tape-/CD recordings of new words, but sometimes

do this in grades 3 and 4. They sometimes remember the prefix, suffix and root word of the

new word in grades 1 to 3, but often do this in grade 4. All strategies experienced a mix of

frequencies.

Table 5.9: Question 7: How do you review vocabulary? [consolidation-review strategies]



47/7a: Say the new word

2 or 3 times the first day

1 41 rarely 2.91 1.11 22

2 41 sometimes 3.36 0.95 22

3 58 sometimes 2.92 0.83 24

4 42 often 3.17 0.83 12

48/7b: Say the new words

the next time I read them,

and again after that

1 59 sometimes 3.05 0.65 22

2 41 sometimes 3.00 1.02 22

3 46 often 3.29 0.86 24

4 42 often 3.17 0.83 12

49/7c: Read the new

words the first day, but not

after that

1 45 rarely 2.55 1.10 22

2 27 never/rarely 2.41 1.14 22

3 54 rarely 2.67 0.87 24

4 33 rarely 2.58 1.38 12

119

50/7d: Read then new

words 2 or 3 times first,

then again a few days

later, a week later, a month

later

1 36 sometimes 2.86 1.25 22

2 36 sometimes 3.09 1.11 22

3 29 never/rarely 2.88 1.08 24

4 50 sometimes 3.08 0.90 12

51/7e: Test the new words

on my own

1 27 never/rarely 3.41 1.10 22

2 41 sometimes 3.27 0.98 22


4 33 rarely 3.08 1.38 12

52/7f: Test the new words

with classmates

1 36 rarely 2.91 0.97 22

2 50 rarely 2.45 1.06 22

3 50 rarely 2.50 0.88 24

4 50 rarely 2.58 1.00 12

Table 5.9 shows a range of consolidation-review strategies used to review a new word and

any information about it that students are trying to learn. Grade 1 students rarely say the new

word aloud 2 or 3 times the first day they meet it. Grades 2 and 3 sometimes do this, but

grade 4 does it often. One was rarely used and the rest had a mix of frequencies.

Table 5.10: Question 8: How do you remember words you have memorised? [consolidation-remember strategies]



53/8a: Remember the new

word the way I learned it


2 50 sometimes 3.32 0.65 22

3 50 sometimes 3.58 0.65 24

4 58 sometimes 3.42 0.51 12

54/8b: Remember the new

word by its meaning

(when heard again)

1 41 sometimes 3.82 0.96 22

2 55 often 3.86 0.77 22

3 71 often 3.75 0.61 24


55/8c: Remember the new

word by its meaning

(when read again)

1 55 often 4.18 0.66 22

2 50 often 4.00 0.82 22

3 88 often 3.88 0.34 24

4 50 often 3.42 0.67 12

56/8d: Remember the new

word’s meaning first, then

think about its meaningful

parts e.g. prefixes

1 55 sometimes 3.14 0.77 22

2 36 sometimes 3.18 0.96 22

3 58 sometimes 3.33 0.76 24


57/8e: Try to remember

where I first met the word

1 41 rarely 2.95 1.17 22


3 38 often 3.21 1.22 24

120

4 50 often 3.17 1.03 12

In Table 5.10 there is a range of consolidation-remember strategies used to try to remember

the new word students are trying to learn. Students in all grades often remember the new

word by its meaning when read again, but sometimes remember the new word’s meaning

first, then think about its meaningful parts, but some students in grade 4 do this often. One

was often used, two sometimes and the rest had a mix of frequencies.

Table 5.11: Question 9: How do you make use of new vocabulary? [consolidation-production strategies]



58/9a: Try to use words

in speaking and writing

1 36 sometimes 3.64 1.05 22

2 50 often 3.50 0.74 22

3 25 rarely/often/always 3.50 1.14 24

4 58 often 3.75 0.62 12

59/9b: Try to use idioms

when I speak

1 36 rarely/often 3.00 0.87 22

2 50 sometimes 2.64 0.73 22

3 38 rarely 2.83 0.96 24


60/9c: Try to think in

English with the new

vocabulary

1 41 often 3.32 0.99 22

2 50 sometimes 3.18 1.01 22

3 42 sometimes 3.13 0.99 24

4 58 sometimes 3.08 1.00 12

61/9d: Try having

conversations using the

new words with English

speakers e.g. teachers



3 42 rarely 2.75 0.90 24

4 58 sometimes 2.92 1.00 12

62/9e: Try to e-chat on

the internet using QQ,

MSN

1 55 sometimes 1.95 0.79 22

2 41 sometimes 2.05 1.00 22

3 50 sometimes 2.38 1.10 24

4 50 sometimes 2.83 0.94 12

In Table 5.11 there is a range of consolidation-production strategies, which involve making

use of the new vocabulary students are trying to learn. Students in grade 1 sometimes try to

use words in speaking and writing, grade 2 students often do this, grade 3 are mixed in this

activity, and grade 4 often use the strategy. Most students in all grades sometimes try to e-

chat on the internet using communication tools like QQ (a popular Chinese communication

tool), MSN Messenger, or Skype. One was used sometimes, and the rest had a mix of

121

frequencies.

Tables 5.3 to 5.11 above show the highest percentage of student response to a question and its

frequency, highest percentage of students using it and grade mean. Appendix 8 shows all

student responses to the questions as percentages and frequency of use. The major finding is

that CEMs’ VLS use is on a range of frequencies ‘never’ to ‘always’.

Section summary

This section presented the results of the analysis of the data collected to answer the question

of VLS frequency of use among CEMs, and discussed in relation to Schmitt’s (1997) general

list of VLSs (e.g., discovery and consolidation strategies) — see Table 5.1 above. The

questionnaire data revealed 1) that the CEMs sampled in this research indicate that they use

many of the strategies on the questionnaire to a greater or lesser degree (never, rarely,

sometimes, often or always), 2) that they generally use VLSs frequently (often) or

infrequently (rarely) as the case may be (in each grade of a four-year Bachelor degree), and 3)

that VLS use tends to be variable. Interview data extended the range of VLSs in discovery

strategies generally (e.g., where new vocabulary is met), determination strategies (e.g., the

response to the new word and what to do with it), consolidation-practice strategies (e.g., ways

to practise new vocabulary), and consolidation-memorisation strategies (e.g., ways to

memorise the new word) — see section 5.3 below.

5.2 Three frequency-of-use strategy groupings

Three general groupings of frequency of VLS use were observed in Tables 5.3 to 5.11

according to the highest percentage of students using a strategy. For instance, if the lowest

percentage was in grade 1, a higher percentage in grade 2, the highest percentage in grade 3,

and a lower than grade 3 percentage observed in grade 4, the pattern of frequency of use is

increasing then decreasing. From this grouping we can determine which strategies are used

and which never or rarely used in each grade, when strategies are used and for which learning

activity and task, generally.

One graph will be used to highlight the patterning for the group. A certain percentage of

students in all grades, the highest percentage, often or always or sometimes or rarely or never

122

use the strategy. The distribution of the remaining percentages can be seen in Appendix 3.

5.2.1 – 1) Increase grouping

In the increase group, the trend in strategy use increased from grade 1 and either kept

increasing or experienced one of several other trends (e.g., decreasing; decreasing then

increasing; decreasing then unchanged). There are 33 strategies in this grouping. Only the

highest percentage of responses to questions is discussed because it suggests what the most

students are doing.

Increase (1) in percentages of students using a strategy

Here there is an increase in the percentage of students using of S#5e in each grade. Maybe it

is not surprising given that English language learning in China appears to be exam oriented

and the two vocabulary books are used when preparing for an exam, so students would have

relied heavily on these vocabulary resources to organise vocabulary for learning. For grade 1,

it was often, but for the other grades it was an increase in the percentage of students

‘sometimes’ using lists.

50

42

36

32

strategy 28/5e Use a vocabulary list likethose in the VOCABULARY

5000/TEM4EasyTEST

graph 1 - increase

grade 1 grade 2 grade 3 grade 4

often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

123

Increase then decrease (11) in percentage of students using a strategy

There are 11 strategies highlighted in this section.

#: Code: Strategy used: Type of strategy: Occurrence of

strategy:

1 1/1a in textbooks and from

classroom activities a discovery-place strategy

when meeting new

words

2 6/1f when singing English

songs and watching

English movies a discovery-place strategy

when meeting new

words

3 10/3c I try to guess the new

word’s meaning from the

context

a determination initial

response strategy when meeting new

words

4 18/4d the Chinese translation a determination-study strategy when deciding how to

study a new word

5 26/5c make vocabulary cards a consolidation-organise

strategy

when deciding what to

do with a new word to

try to learn it

6 33/6e do vocabulary exercises a consolidation-memory

strategy when trying to learn a

new word

7 38/6j place the new word in a

context e.g. a sentence a consolidation-memory


new word

8 41/6m make up rhymes to link

words together a consolidation-memory


new word

9 46/6r try to remember the

prefix, suffix and root


a consolidation-memory

strategy when trying to use a new

word

10 54/8b remember the new word

by its meaning (when

heard again)

a consolidation-remember

strategy when trying to

remember a new word

11 59/9b try to use idioms when I

speak a consolidation-production

strategy when trying to use a new

word

The above graph shows an example of the highest percentage of students in each grade who

50

63

55

50

Strategy 1/1a In textbooks and fromclassroom activities

graph 2 - increase then decrase


often

often

often

often

124

use the strategy, in this case 1/1a, a discovery-place strategy, In textbooks and from classroom

activities, when meeting new words.

This grouping appears perhaps because students focus on English language learning

throughout their degree program but may focus on different aspects of the language at

different times through their degree program. Their focus may not be always on vocabulary;

it may be on vocabulary during one semester — for example, in preparation for tests like the

Test of English Majors (TEM) Band 4, focused on in grade 2, and the TEM Band 8, focused

on in grade 4.

Increase, decrease then increase (9) in percentage of students using a strategy

There are nine strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 5/1e when reading English

materials a discovery-place strategy

the place students meet

new words

2 7/1g when using/surfing the

internet a discovery-place strategy

the place where students

meet new words

3 9/3b pay no attention to it and

never go back to it a determination initial

response strategy

what students initially do

when they meet a new

word

4 17/4c the prefixes, suffixes and

root-word a determination-study strategy

what students study

when learning a new

word

5 21/4g the way the new word is

used a determination-study strategy

what students do to learn

a new word

6 25/5b order the information

about a new word in a

notebook

a consolidation-organise

strategy

organising information

about a new word in

order to learn it or

review it as part of the

process of learning

7 58/9a try to use words in

speaking and writing a consolidation-production

strategy

what students do to use

what they are learning to

establish it in memory

8 60/9c try to think in English

with the new vocabulary a consolidation-production

strategy

what students do to

make what they are

learning permanent in

memory

9 61/9d try having conversations

using new words with

English speakers

a consolidation-production

strategy

what students do to

make what they are

learning permanent in

memory

125

In the example above the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 5/1e,

when reading English materials, a discovery-place strategy, is shown. The strategy concerns

the place students meet new words. A certain percentage of students in all grades often use

the strategy.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus changes on English language learning

increases from grade 1 to grade 2, decreasing from grade 2 to 3, and increasing from grade 3

to grade 4. Why a decrease from grade 2 to 3 is unclear, but suggests less focus on reading

English materials in grade 3.

Increase, decrease then unchanged (5) percentage of students using a strategy

There are five strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 8/3a pay no attention to it and

never go back to it a determination initial

response strategy

what students do when

they first meet a new

word

2 19/4e the English explanations a determination study strategy what students decide to

study of the new word

after they first meet it

3 27/5d use the vocabulary lists

in the textbooks a consolidation-organise

strategy what students do to learn

new words

4 39/6k use the new word to

make up a sentence a consolidation-memory

strategy

what students do to

memorise the new words

they meet

58

42

59

45

Strategy 5/1e when reading Englishmaterials

graph 3 - increase, decrease then increase


often

often

often

often

126

5 51/7e test the new words on my

own a consolidation-review

strategy

what students do to

review the new

vocabulary they are

trying to learn

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students using strategy 8/3a, pay no

attention to it and never go back to it, a determination initial response strategy. The strategy

concerns what students do when they first meet a new word. We see that students in grade 1

to 3 grades rarely do this and grade 4 students never do it.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus changes on English language learning; it

increases from grade 1 to grade 2, decreases from grade 2 to 3 and is unchanged from grade 3

to grade 4. Why the others are rarely used is unclear, given for instance, that students are

preparing for exams in grades 2 and 4 but rarely use the vocabulary lists in the textbooks and

do use the vocabulary test books (strategy 28/5e above).

Increase then unchanged (4) in percentage of students using a strategy

There are four strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 15/4a its pronunciation a determination-study strategy what a student decides to

study of the new word in

order to learn it

50

50

68

50

Strategy 8/3a

graph 4 - increase, decrease then unchanged


rarely

rarely

rarely

never

127

2 20/4f the example sentences a determination-study strategy what a student decides to

study of the new word in

order to learn it

3 29/6a say the new word aloud

several times a consolidation-memory

strategy what a student does to

memorise the new word

4 52/7f test the new words with

classmates a consolidation-review

strategy

what a student does to

establish the new word

in memory

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 15/4a,

its pronunciation, a determination-study strategy. The strategy concerns what a student

decides to study of the new word in order to learn it. Grade 1 students often do this, grade 2

students often and always do it, while grade 3 and 4 students always do it.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus on the pronunciation of English does

change; it increases from grade 1 to grade 2, decreases from grade 2 to 3 and is unchanged

from grade 3 to grade 4. Knowing the pronunciation of English vocabulary helps to make the

connection between written words and spoken, or their syllabic nature.

50

50

45

41

Strategy 15/4a its pronunciation

graph 5 - increase, then unchanged


often

often/always

always

always

128

Increase, unchanged then increase (1) in percentage of students using a strategy

In the above graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 53/8a,

remember the new word the way I learned it, a consolidation-remember strategy, is shown.

The strategy concerns how a student remembers a new word they have tried to learn. We see

grade 1 students sometimes and often do this, while grade 2 to 4 students sometimes do this.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus changes on English language learning and

students do not have much time to do revision; it increases from grade 1 to grade 2, decreases

from grade 2 to 3 and is unchanged from grade 3 to grade 4. The result seems to suggest that

students progressively reduced the use of this strategy.

58

50

50

32

Strategy 53/8a remember the new wordthe way I learned it

graph 6 - increase, unchanged then increase


sometimes/often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

129

Increase, unchanged then decrease (1) in percentage of students using a strategy

In the above graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 6/1f, when

singing English songs and watching English movies/TV, a discovery-place strategy, is shown.

The strategy concerns where students meet new words. We see that grade 1, 3 and 4 students

often meet new words in entertainment, whereas grade 2 students sometimes do.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus changes on English language learning but

students desire variety in their classroom and learning activities; it increases from grade 1 to

grade 2, decreases from grade 2 to 3 and is unchanged from grade 3 to grade 4. The result

seems to suggest that students progressively reduced the use of this strategy.

5.2.2 – 2) Decrease grouping

In the decrease group, the trend in strategy use decreased from grade 1 and either kept

decreasing or experienced one of several other trends (e.g., increase; increase then decrease;

increase then unchanged). There are 19 strategies is this grouping.

42

50

50

41

Strategy 6/1f when singing English songs& watching movies & TV

graph 7 - increase, unchanged then decrease


often

sometimes

often

often

130

Decrease (1) in percentage of students using a strategy

In the above graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 23/4i, the

new word’s part of speech, a determination-study strategy, is shown. The strategy concerns

what a student will study of the new word in order to learn it. Grade 1 and 3 students

sometimes do this, while grade 2 and 4 students often do it.


students tend not to do this by grade 3; it increases from grade 1 to grade 2, decreases from

grade 2 to 3 and is unchanged from grade 3 to grade 4. The result seems to suggest that

students progressively reduced the use of this strategy.

Decrease then increase (4) in percentage of students using a strategy



strategy:

1 3/1c in vocabulary lists

arranged by meaning a discovery-place strategy

where students meet new

words

2 32/6d memorise Chinese-

English and English-

Chinese lists


strategy what students do to

memorise a new words

3 34/6f link new word to similar

meaning words or




memorise new words

4 57/8e try to remember where I a consolidation-remember what students do to

33

38

41

45

Strategy 23/4i the new word's part ofspeech

graph 8 - decrease


sometimes

often

sometimes

often

131

first met the word strategy remember a word they

are trying to learn

In the example graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 3/1c, in

vocabulary lists arranged by meaning, a discovery-place strategy, is shown. The strategy

concerns where students meet new words. We see grade 1 to 3 students sometimes meet new

words, whereas grade 4 students often do.


students don’t meet this type of list until grade 4, decreasing from grade 1 to grade 3, and

then increasing from grade 3 to 4. The result seems to suggest that students increasingly use

these strategies.

Decrease, increase then decrease (9) in percentage of students using a strategy

There are nine strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 2/1b in vocabulary lists

arranged in alphabetical

order a discovery-place strategy


meet new words

2 4/1d during English

conversations with

others a discovery-place strategy


meet new words

3 11/3d study the word’s prefixes,

suffixes and root word

for meaning


response strategy


they meet a new word

for the first time

50

33

41

50

Strategy 3/1c in vocabulary listsarranged by meaning

graph 9 - decrease then increase


sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

often

132

4 22/4h the new word’s

relationship with other

words a determination-study strategy


the meet a new word,

what they will do to

study it

5 44/6p draw pictures to

illustrate the meaning of

new words



memorise a new word

6 45/6q try to imagine in my head

what the new word looks

like



memorise a new word

7 48/7b say the new words next

time I read them, and

again after that

a consolidation-review

strategy

what students do to

review new words they

are trying to learn

8 55/8c remember the new word

by its meaning when read

again


strategy

what students do to

remember a new word

they are trying to learn

9 56/8d

remember the new word’s

meaning first, then think

about its meaningful

parts e.g. prefixes,

suffixes and root word


strategy

what students do to

remember a new word


In the example graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 2/1b, in

vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical order, a discovery-place strategy, is shown. The

strategy concerns the place where students meet new words. Grades 1, 3 and 4 sometimes

meet new words in these lists, but grade 2 students often do.

This grouping appears perhaps because the focus changes on English language learning and

such lists are found in textbooks and vocabulary books used for exams, decreasing from

grade 1 to grade 2, then increases from grade 2 to 3 and then decreases from grade 3 to grade

4. The result seems to suggest that students increasingly used the strategy in grade 2, but in

33

54

36

45

Strateg 2/1b in vocabulary lists arrangedin alphabetical order

graph 10 - decrease, increase then decrease


sometimes

often

sometimes

sometimes

133

other grades less so, perhaps due to the time pressure to focus on other aspects of language.

Decrease, increase then unchanged (2)

There are two strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 12/3e ask a classmate or

teacher for the meaning

of a new word


response strategy



for the first time

2 62/9e

try to e-chat on the

internet using

communication tools like

QQ, MSN Messenger

a consolidation-production

strategy

what students do to try

to use the new

vocabulary they are

trying to learn

In the example graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 62/9e,

try to e-chat on the internet using communication tools like QQ, MSN Messenger, a

consolidation-production strategy, is shown. The strategy concerns what students do to try to

use the new vocabulary they are trying to learn. Students in all grades rarely do this.


students rarely have time to chat in English on QQ as they use it to chat with their parents and

friends; it decreases from grade 1 to 2, then increases from grade 2 to 3 and then decreases

from grade 3 to 4. The result seems to suggest that students rarely used the strategies due to

rarely meeting English speakers on QQ but perhaps increased their use of it in grade 2.

50

50

41

55

Strategy 62/9e try to e-chat on theinternet

graph 11 - decrease, increase then unchanged


rarely

rarely

rarely

rarely

134

Decrease then unchanged (1)

In the above graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 37/6i,

group words in order, for example, by meaning, a consolidation-memory strategy, is shown.

The strategy concerns what students do with new vocabulary in order to memorise it. We can

see students in grades 1, 2 and 4 rarely do this, while students in grade 3 sometimes do this.


their focus is on translation rather than the English meaning; it decreases from grade 1 to 3,

and then is unchanged from grade 3 to 4. The result seems to suggest that students rarely used

the strategy in grade 1 but perhaps increased their use of it by grade 3, due to a focus on

translation.

5.2.3 – 3) Unchanged grouping

In the unchanged group, the trend in strategy use was unchanged from grade 1 and either

remained unchanged or experienced one of several other trends (e.g., increase; decrease;

increase then decrease; decrease then increase). There are seven strategies is this grouping.

42

42

45

55

Strategy 37/6i group words in order egmeaning

graph 12 - decrease then unchanged


rarely

rarely

sometimes

rarely

135

Unchanged, increase then decrease (4)



strategy:

1 16/4b the spelling a determination-study strategy what students do when

studying the new word

to learn it

2 31/6c look at the word several

times a consolidation-memory


memorise a new word

3 42/6n

practise new words by

acting them out e.g.

verbs


strategy

what students do to

memorise a new word

4 47/7a say the new word 2 or 3

times the first day


strategy

what students do to

review new vocabulary


In the example graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 16/4b,

the spelling, a determination-study strategy, is shown. The strategy concerns what students do

when studying the new word to learn it. Grade 1 students often do this, grade 2 and 4 students

often and always do this, while grade 3 students always do this.


aspects like 16/4b, 31/6c and 47/6c and 47/7a are often a focus; it was unchanged from grade

1 to 2, increased from grade 2 to 3 and then decreased from grade 3 to 4. The result seems to

suggest that students increased their use of these strategies by grade 3 then decreased their

use in grade 4, due to the constant focus.

33

63

45

45

Strategy 16/4b the spelling

graph 13 - unchanged, increase then decrease


often/always

always

often/always

often

136

Unchanged, decrease then increase (2)

There are two strategies highlighted in this section.


strategy:

1 14/3g read an English-only

dictionary a determination initial

response strategy



for the first time

2 50/7d

read the new words 2 or

3 times first, then again a

few days later, a week

later, a month later


strategy

what students do to

review new vocabulary


In the example graph the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 14/3g,

read an English-only dictionary, a determination initial response strategy, is shown. The

strategy concerns what students do when they meet a new word for the first time. Students in

grade 1 and 2 rarely do this, students in grade 3 rarely and sometimes, while grade 4

sometimes do this, due to focus on translation and time pressure to review.


translation is common and was unchanged from grade 1 to 2, decreased from grade 2 to 3,

and then increased from grade 3 to 4. The result seems to suggest that students increased their

use of these strategies by grade 3.

50

29

45

45

Strategy 14/3g read an English-onlydictionary

graph 14 - unchanged, decrease then increase


rarely

rarely

rarely/sometimes

sometimes

137

Unchanged then decrease (1)

The graph above shows the highest percentage of students in each grade using strategy 40/6l,

listen to tape-/CD recordings of words, a consolidation-memory strategy. The strategy

concerns what students do to memorise new words. Students in grade 1 and 2 rarely do this,

while students in grade 3 and 4 sometimes do this.


listening is not emphasised in grades 1 and 2, was unchanged from grade 1 to 2, then

decreased from grade 2 to 4. The result seems to suggest that students increased their use of

the strategy by grade 4.

Section summary

This section discussed three groupings of VLS use that appeared in the highest percentage of

students using a strategy table (see Appendix 8): increasing strategy use, decreasing strategy

use and unchanged strategy use. This patterning of strategy use not only reveals trends in

strategy use but that at certain times during the CEMs’ education, strategy use either

increased, decreased or was unchanged. This gives insights into student learning behaviour,

vocabulary learning specifically — that it is variable and may depend on the type of learning

activity and tasks they engaged in during their four-year Bachelor degree, or the value and

efficacy of using certain strategies. Perhaps it shows that vocabulary learning is not a

33

42

45

45

Strategy 40/6l listen to tape and CDrecordings of words

graph 15 - unchanged then decrease


rarely

rarely

sometimes

sometimes

138

constant activity, a steady increasing activity, but a variable one that experiences bouts of

action and lulls (e.g., preparing for exams).

5.3 Questionnaire data compared with interview data

This section presents the interview data by each question about strategy use: 1) Where do you

meet new words?; 2) What do usually do when you meet a new vocabulary? 3) Do you

practise new vocabulary? What strategies do you use?; 4) How do you memorise new

words?; and, 9) Do you think VLSs should be taught? (see Chapter 4, section 4.6.1.6). It then

compares it with the questionnaire data — a single percentage is calculated from the four

grades data. Students’ responses to the interview questions are provided in each of the

sections below in support of the strategies elaborated in the data.

Interview data was collated and placed in tables. The tables show how the students responded

to the questions, and the analysis of interview data involved extracting the nominals – nouns,

noun phrases and other indicators. The information is summarised and the most popular

answers presented (see Appendix 3). For convenience and anonymity, students’ names have

been changed to English names but the number before the name, e.g. 1) Susan, indicates their

ranking in the data. Students’ responses have been edited for reading convenience.

5.3.1 Question #1: Where do you meet new vocabulary?

The first question asked in the interview Where do you meet new vocabulary? is the same as

the first question on the questionnaire (see Appendix 8, Table 2). The answers were presented

as discovery themes because they concern where students meet new words, and were

classified as discovery-place strategies.

Seven discovery strategies were asked about on the Ma VLSQ (see Tables 5.3 to 5.11 above),

however, interviews were open about where students might meet new vocabulary. Thirty-

three places were gleaned from the interview answers. The list highlights 27 more than the

Ma questionnaire. The strategies repeated in both interview and the questionnaire are: #2: in

textbooks, #9: in vocabulary books — assumed to contain lists; #16: in conversation; #1 to

10: English materials; #32: in songs; #30: in movies; #22: on radio; #20 and 21: on the

internet and news websites. The interview result showed additional places where new

139

vocabulary may be encountered. The most popular strategies coming from the interview were

#2: in textbooks; #22: on TV; #30: in movies; #3: newspapers; #4: magazines; #7: novels;

#20: on the internet; and then #28: in advertising.

Here are some examples from the electronic interview from two of the students mentioning

the source of new vocabulary are novels, newspapers and magazines.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE

1) SUSAN 21 English 3 111 f 12

Question: Answer:


words?

English text books, and newspapers and magazi

nes.

Ok Anywhere else? On the internet

Anywhere else? In any place around where live; life.

Yeah, and on billboards, on the street, in the

product Introductions.

When you meet them in your textbook, are they

by themselves in a list or in sentences and

passages?

When I am in grade 1 and grade 2.

There is a new word list, but now,

there is no word list in text books, and

we learn it in the sentences.

Why is there no word list now? Because when we are freshmen, we need to

learn new words to be the foundation.

Now I'm a junior, so

the textbooks focus on other abilities,

like rhetorical devices.

Which abilities? What the author wants to tell the readers.

What kind of words do you learn as a freshman? Many kinds of words, in our text books, each

lesson will have a word list; they belong to

the lesson.

They belong to the lesson? What kind of lesson

will you have

Maybe some essays and novels.

So the new words are in the essays and novels? Yeah.

Are the words you learn as a freshman different

from the words you learn now

Yeah, the words I learn now are longer and

more difficult to remember.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 2) CHRISTINE 22 English 3 124 f 10

Question: Answer:


words?

In some English magazines or movies.

Can you name some of the magazines? and movies Too many to mention.

Just one or two is enough Readers' taste; the movie ... such as Oliver twist.

Anywhere else? No.

Student 1 is more verbose than student 2. Students 1 mentions more places than 2 where new

vocabulary is met. The contrast is interesting because 1) student 2 is older than 1 (by one

year), student 2 achieved a higher CET score than 1, but student 2 has 2 years less English

140

language education. Years of English language education may account for the difference but

temperament may better account for 2’s response.

The 27 potentially new strategies emerging from the interview are: 1) in books; 2) in

newspapers; 3) in magazines; 4) in extensive readers; 5) in passages; 6) in novels; 7) in

educational books; 8) in vocabulary books; 9) in listening resources; 10) in tests; 11) in

exams; 12) in school; 13) in class; 14) in conversation; 15) on computer; 16) in computer

games; 17) in libraries; 18) on the internet; 19) on news websites; 20) on TV; 21) on radio;

22) in public; 23) on trains; 24) in hotels; 25) restaurant menus; 26) in advertising; and, 27) in

posters. The most popular of these were #2, in books, 64 per cent; #22, on TV, 40 per cent;

#30, in movies, 36 per cent; #3, in newspapers, 32 per cent; and #4, in magazines, 32 per

cent.

5.3.2 Question #2: What do you usually do when you meet a new word?

The themed interview data from Question 2 is found in Appendix 8, Table 3. Determination

strategies concern a learner’s initial response to meeting a new word and what they’ll do to

study it.

Seven determination strategies were asked about on the Ma VLSQ (see Tables 5.3 to 5.11

above) (e.g. Schmitt, 1997). There were more responses about the initial response of students

when meeting new vocabulary in the interview than for the questionnaire. Forty-eight

responses to the question were listed, and that is 41 more VLSs than the Ma questionnaire.

Some of the responses were similar to the Ma questionnaire: #48: ignore it; #1: guess its

meaning; #18: notice its suffixes; #31 to 32, ask a teacher or classmate; #9 and 10: look up

Chinese-English and English-Chinese dictionary; #6: look up English dictionary.

The 41 potentially new strategies were: #5: look up dictionary; #11: look up phone/pc

dictionary; #12: search the internet for it; #13: note its meaning; #14: note its background

history; #15: note its history; #16: find its function; #20: separate short from long words; #21:

read it; #22: try to read it; #23: learn how to read it; #24: read it aloud; #27: recite it; #28:

recite its syllables; #29: recite it when I meet it again; #33: ask friends about it; #34: use it in

daily life; #37: connect sentences with new word in it; #38: make a phrase with it; #41:

memorise it; and #44: remember it through its context.

141

The most popular strategies from the interview were: #5: look up dictionary; 72 per cent; #1:

guess its meaning, 32 per cent; #27: recite it, 24 per cent; #6: look up English dictionary, 20

per cent; #8: look up internet dictionary, 20 per cent; #26: know its pronunciation, 20 per

cent; #35: write it down, 20 per cent; #9: look up English-Chinese dictionary, 16 per cent; and

#17: know its usage, 16 per cent. The responses from the two students below demonstrate

their preference for guessing the meaning and revision and recital as their most popular

strategies.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 3) SHEILA 23 English 3 130 f 10

Question: Answer:

2) What do you usually do when you meet a new

vocabulary item?

First, I will guess,

and then look up the new word in the dictionary.

Do you often guess correctly? Sometimes.

What helps you guess correctly? The context.

What is usually the context? What’s the meaning?

Oh, you said the context helps sometimes guess

correctly, what is the context?

Do you mean the sentence the word is in?

According to the context,

maybe you can understand the general idea; yes?

Maybe the paragraph too? Yes

So the other words in the sentence help you

make a good guess, yes?

Yes; that is it.

Anything else? Maybe sometimes the background information.

What is usually the background information? There are so many, I can’t say them all now.

Can you name one of them? Maybe a historical event.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 4) FREDIKA 20 English 2 120 f 8

Question: Answer:

2) What do you usually do when you meet a new

vocabulary item?

I usually write it down and recite it when I have

free time.

What else do you do? I use it when I have a chance to speak English.

Anything else? Nothing else.

Student 3 is more verbose than student 4. Student 3 is older than 4, is in a grade higher than

4, student 3 achieved a higher CET score than 4, and student 4 has had 2 years less English

language education. Again, temperament maybe account better for 4’s response.

5.3.3 Question #3: Do you practise the new vocabulary? What strategies do you use?

The themed interview answers yielded a number of consolidation-practice strategies, used to

practise a new word (see Appendix 8, Table 4). Student 5 below discusses his preference for

142

using example sentences to remember new words and student 5 suggests he rehearses it.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 5) KAREN 22 English 3 121 f 10

Question: Answer:

3) Do you practice vocabulary items? What

strategies do you use?

I’m sorry, what do you mean by "practice"?

Practice means what you do with the new word to

learn it or remember it.

First, I will remember the pronunciation; then the

spelling; finally, how to use it.

What do you do when you use it? I mean grammar.

Can you explain this more? For example, I have to know how to use the word

to form a sentence correctly.

So you make sentences using the new word? No; let me think. If the new word is a verb, I

should know some phrases that can be made with

that word.

What other ways do you practice new words? I also look at some example sentences.

Ok anything else? That's all.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 6) JESSICA 23 English 3 121 f 13

Question: Answer:

3) Do you practice vocabulary items? What

strategies do you use?

Yeah; write and remember.

How else do you practice new words? Listen to new words.

How do you practice new words when listening? I imitate the audio; to read in it.

So imitating the new

word is practicing its pronunciation, yes?

Yes, I think it is important.

What other ways do practice new words? Language is a tool, no?

You mean you don't practice new words other ways? Those are all the ways I practice new words.

Student 5 is slightly more verbose than student 6. However, student 5 does not catch the

meaning of the question immediately and requires it to be restated. Student 5 mentions more

ways to practice new words than 6 though 5 did not initially catch the meaning of the

question, both have the same CET score, though 6 is one year older (though both are in the

same grade), and 6 has three years more English language education. Again, temperament

may better account for 6’s response to the question.

Students provided 62 consolidation-practice strategies not asked about on the Ma VLSQ (see

Table 5.3 to 5.11 above) (e.g. Schmitt, 1997); however, interviews were open about how

students might practise new vocabulary. Sixty-two ways to practise new words were gleaned

from the data. Given that Ma (2009) and Schmitt (1997) did not explicitly ask their

respondents about how they practise new words, the responses therefore extend research into

VLS use.

143

However, some of the practice strategies do appear on Ma’s questionnaire classified as other

strategies with other uses, for example, consolidation-memorisation, consolidation-review,

and consolidation-study strategies (see Table 5.3 to 5.11 above or Appendix 2). Some of the

themes are repeated on the questionnaire: #1: write it down; #8: vocabulary notebook; #20:

vocabulary book; #45: by reciting; #2: write it many times; #22: look at it; #10: doing

exercises; #32: noticing synonyms and comparing; #4, 5 and 6: making phrases, sentences

and composition (with the new word); #54, 56, 58, 59 and 60: talk about it, using in essays, in

class, in dialogues, in life; #49 and 50: listening to new words, pronunciation; #40: using

imagery (in the mind); #41: drawing pictures; #38: memorising suffixes; #14: reading new

words again; #53: practise with classmates; #25 and 26: know its meaning (first), know its

Chinese meaning; #15, 17 and 18: reading paragraph (with new word in it), reading books,

reading English books; #55 and 56: sing along to a song, watch and recite lyrics; #62: leaving

it alone; #28: guessing meaning; #34: studying; #23 & 24: look up dictionary, look up

internet dictionary; #44: its pronunciation; #12: with spelling; #27: remember English and

Chinese meanings; #11: using examples; and #31: noting usage.

Students provided an additional 24 practise strategies compared to Ma’s list: #6: write

composition; #9: writing it in a diary; #13: reading it; #15: reading a paragraph with the new

word in it; #16: read it while I write it; #17: reading books; #18: reading English books; #19:

re-read word lists; #23: look up a dictionary; #24: look up internet dictionary: #25: know its

meaning first; #29: reviewing for exams; #30: noting sentence context; #37: learning high

frequency words; #39: memorising sentences; #43: knowing its phonetic symbols; #51:

imitating audio; #52: through dictation; #54: talk about it; #56: watch and recite lyrics; #57:

using in essays; #58: using in class; #59: using in dialogues; and #60: using in life.

The most popular strategies from the interview were: #45: by reciting, 28 per cent; #1:

writing down, 20 per cent; #20: vocabulary book, 20 per cent; #36: memorising words, 20 per

cent; #49: listening to new words, 20 per cent; #12: with spelling, 16 per cent; #53: practising

with classmates, 16 per cent. Sixteen students said they meet new words in textbooks. Only

one student said they meet new words in class. Students indicated they meet new words in

English materials (for example, textbooks, newspapers, magazines, extensive readers,

educational books, vocabulary books, computer games, libraries, TV, radio advertising,

movies and songs). Students consolidated learning through a new word’s pronunciation, its

spelling, through translation, by writing the new word down, by looking at the new word and

144

by remembering the new word when read again. Determining whether interview participants’

strategy use is grade specific could not be ascertained given the majority were grade 3

students.

5.3.4 Question #4: How do you memorise new words?

The interview answers to question 4 show consolidation-memorization strategies for

memorising a new word. Student 7 and 8 below explain their preference for learning the new

word’s pronunciation, and sometimes getting help from other students.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 7) THELMA 22 English 3 128 f 11

Question: Answer:

4) How do you memorize the new words? It seems that I have already finished question 4.

Maybe ... but practicing new words isn't the same as

memorizing them, yes?

I memorize new words by practicing them.

So reciting and writing them down from dictation,

etc, this is your way of memorizing the new words?

Yes.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 8) THERESA 23 English 3 120 f 10

Question: Answer:

4) How do you memorize the new words? NA

You said before that you memorized the word, how

did you do it?

I memorize mechanically.

How do you do that? According to the pronunciation of the new

word to be memorized.

So reciting is your way of memorizing? No; according to the pronunciation of the word.

Yes, but you will have to say the word to know its pr

onunciation?

I look at its phonetics.

Ah so you learn the phonetics and just read the word

according to the phonetics, yes?

Sometimes I am uncertain how to read, so

I will listen to the mobile phone about

how to read it.

Did you do anything else? Ask another student.

Did you ever ask the teacher in class? Yes, of course.

Did you do anything else No, I only ask other people or listen to the phone.

Student 7 is less verbose than student 8. Student 8 provides more ways to memorize new

words compared to 7, though 7 achieved a higher CET score and has one more year of

English language education. Perhaps temperament may account for the difference.

Students provided 57 memorisation strategies, also asked about on the Ma VLSQ (see Tables

5.1 to 5.11 above or Appendix 2, Table 5) (e.g. Schmitt, 1997). Fifty-seven ways to memorise

145

new words were suggested in the interview answers. Although Ma (2009) and Schmitt (1997)

asked their respondents how they memorise new words, the interview responses extend the

research into VLS use.

However, some of the memorisation strategies do appear on Ma’s questionnaire (and

Schmitt’s list (1997)) as other strategies with other uses. The repeated strategies were #1: by

looking at the word many times; #10 and 11: by reciting, by reciting many times; #12: by

reciting in my head; #14: by reciting sentences; #15: by imaging new word; #17: by linking

known words; #18: by constructing meronyms; #20: by using flash cards; #21: by using a

vocabulary book (lists); #22: by guessing meaning (determination strategy); #23 and 24: look

up dictionary, look up internet dictionary (determination strategy); #25: by thinking about

meaning; #26: by learning its spelling; #27: by knowing its part of speech; #28: by learning

its suffixes; #29: by learning synonyms; #30: by noticing similarity; #31: by knowing how to

read it; #32: by reading while I write it; #33, 34 and 35: by reading, by reading aloud, by

reading many times; #37: by learning roots; #38: by learning affixes; #39: by learning

antonyms; #40 and 41: by writing it down, by writing it down many times; #42: by making

sentences; #44: by learning usage; #45: by studying examples (determination-study strategy);

#12: by doing exercises; #47: by repetition; #48: by reviewing for exams; #52 and 53: by

listening to new words, by dictation; #54: by asking others (about it); #55: by practising with

classmates; and #56: by thinking in English. Students provided an additional 18

memorisation strategies with accompanying sub-strategies. This is the largest contribution

from the interviews, making it significant. The new strategies are: 1) by following the rules of

memorisation; 2) by memorising; 3) by memorising frequently; 4) by remembering it; 5) by

memorising high frequency words; 6) by memorising sentences; 7) by knowing phonetics; 8)

by pronunciation; 9) by reciting many times; 10) by reciting in my head; 11) by reciting in

class; 12) by reciting sentences; 13) by constructing meronyms; 14) by memorising large

chunks of textbooks; 15) by looking up dictionary; 16) by looking up internet dictionary; 17)

by thinking about meaning; 18) by knowing how to read it; 19) by reading it while I write it;

20) by reading; 21) by reading aloud; 22) by reading many times; 23) by reading books; 24)

by writing down; 25) by remembering through grammar; 26) by repetition; 27) by reviewing

for exams; 28) by answering questions; 29) by using it immediately; 30) by finding new

words in newspapers; 31) by dictation; and 32) by paying more attention next time.

The additional 21 (or similar to Ma’s list) practice strategies are: #1: by following the rules of

146

memorisation; #2: by memorising; #3: by memorising frequently; #4: by remembering it; #5:

by memorising high frequency words; #6: by memorising sentences; #7: by knowing

phonetics; #8: by pronunciation; #9: by reciting many times; #10: by reciting in my head;

#11: by reciting in class; #12: by reciting sentences; #13: by constructing meronyms; #14: by

memorising large chunks of textbooks; #15: by looking up dictionary; #16: by looking up

internet dictionary; #17: by thinking about meaning; #18: by knowing how to read it; #19: by

reading it while I write it; #20: by reading; #21: by reading aloud; #22: by reading many

times; #23: by reading books; #24: by writing down; #25: by remembering through grammar;

#26: by repetition; #27: by reviewing exams; #28: by answering questions: #29: by using it

immediately; #30: by finding new words in newspapers; #31: by dictation; and #32: by

paying more attention next time.

The most popular strategies from the questionnaire were: #40: by writing down, 52 per cent;

#9: by pronunciation, 28 per cent; #10: by reciting, 24 per cent; #47: by repetition, 20 per

cent; #35: by reading many times, 16 per cent; #42: by making sentences, 16 per cent.

It should be noted that responses to interview questions do not show frequency of use because

the questionnaire provides a range of frequencies, ordinal data, whereas the interview did not

ask students to indicate frequency of use, it just asked what was done (nominal data). So no

comparison can be made about frequency of use between the questionnaire data and the

interview, except on a very general level: interviews indicate used whereas questionnaire data

indicates used/not used and frequency of use.

5.3.5 Question #5: Should vocabulary learning strategies be taught?

In Table 5.12 below, the interview answers from Question 9 are presented.

Table 5.12: Should VLSs be taught?

#: Answer: Number of

students

1 Yes 18

2 Not sure 1

3 No 3

4 Not at all 2

5 Maybe 1

147

This question was not asked on the Ma VLSQ (see Tables 5.3 to 5.11 above) (e.g. Schmitt,

1997), but was asked in this research as previous research advocated strategy training. Out of

25 students, 18 said Yes, while 5 said No. The response highlights the need for strategy

training. This provides further insight into Question 10 on the VLSQ, where students were

asked where they get their strategies (see section 5.5.1 below). The majority of respondents

on the questionnaire suggested they get their strategies from a teacher. Given the research that

suggests strategy training enhances vocabulary learning, training is important. Implications

for language teaching are discussed in Chapter 7: Discussion.

Section summary

When analysing the interview data, many strategies used were similar to Ma’s list, but some

were new strategies. In terms of discovery-place strategies, the place where new words are

met, 26 other places were found in the interview data. In terms of determination initial

response strategies, initial response to the new word and what to do with it, 41 other ways to

respond and deal with the new word were found. In terms of consolidation-practice strategies,

how to practise new vocabulary, 21 other ways to practise were found. In terms of

consolidation-memorisation strategies, how to memorise new vocabulary, 18 other ways were

found. This result extends the range of strategies involved in English vocabulary learning and

gives us insights into CEMs’ English vocabulary learning.

Sometimes a strategy was not used (see Appendix 8) in grade 1 (for instance, 8e: try to

remember where I first met the word), the first 2 grades (for instance, 3g: read an English-

only dictionary), or the first 3 grades (for instance, 9d: try having conversations using the

new words with English speakers — for instance, teachers). Sometimes a strategy was not

used in grade 2 (for instance, 6l: listen to tape- / CD recordings of words), grade 3 (for

instance, 3b: pay no attention to it but go back to it later), or grade 4 (for instance, 5d: use

the vocabulary lists in a textbook). Sometimes a strategy was not used in grade 1 and 4 (for

instance, 9b: try to use idioms when I speak).

At least one strategy was not used in all grades: 4f: the example sentences; one was not used

in two grades: 6q: try to imagine in my head what the new world looks like; one was not used

in three grades 1d: during English conversations; and one was not used in any of the four

148

grades: 9e: try to e-chat on the internet using QQ, Messenger. Why students indicated on the

questionnaire that they tended not to use these strategies in all grades or one or two grades is

unclear. The interview did not elaborate on this, and students provided answers that suggest

that they did use these strategies.

5.3.6 A range of strategies were rarely or never used

The following 26 strategies, roughly 42 per cent, were not used in a grade or all grades, based

on the highest percentage of use on the questionnaire.

Key to Table 5.13: left-hand column just indicates a number, not ranking; the second column

is the code representing the strategy, for example, 1d, the number 1 represents the question it

belongs to on the questionnaire, and the letter d represents its subpart in the question; the

third column is the strategy; the last column is the briefing on it not being used by a grade or

in all grades.

Table 5.13: rarely or never used VLSs

S#: Vocabulary learning strategy name: Meaning:

1 1d during English conversations with others

was not used in most grades, meaning that

the majority of students indicated that they

did not meet new vocabulary during

English conversations with others

2 3a pay no attention to it, and never go back to

it

was not used in all four grades, meaning

that the majority of students indicated that

they did not ‘pay no attention’ to new

vocabulary and ‘never go back to it’

3 3b pay no attention to it, but go back to it later



did not ask a classmate or a teacher for the

meaning of a new word when they first met

it

4 3e ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning



did not meet new words ‘during English

conversation with others’

5 3g read an English-only dictionary



did not read an English-only dictionary

6 4f the example sentence



generally don’t use the example sentences

7 5c make vocabulary cards



they did not make vocabulary cards

8 5d use the vocabulary lists in a textbook was not used in most grades, meaning that

most students said they did not use the

149

vocabulary lists found in textbooks to order

new vocabulary

9 6e do vocabulary exercises



did not do the vocabulary exercises

10 6i group words in order e.g. meaning, part of

speech



did not group words in order (e.g. meaning,

part of speech)

11 6k use the new word to make up a sentence



do not use the new word to make up a

sentence

12 6l listen to tape-/CD recordings of words



did not listen to tape-/CD recordings of new

words

13 6m make up rhymes to link new words together


the majority of students indicted that they

did not make up rhymes to link new words

14 6n practise new words by acting them out i.e.

verbs


the majority of students did not practise

new words by acting them out (i.e. verbs)

15 6p draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of

the new word


the majority of students did not draw

pictures to illustrate meaning of the new

words

16 6q try to imagine in my head what the new

word looks like


the majority of students did not try to

imagine in their head what the new word

looks like

17 7a use word to make up a sentence/phrase


the majority of students tend not to use

words in this way

18 7c read the new words the first day, but not

after that



they did not read new words the first day,

and rarely after that

19 7d read the new words 2 or 3 times first, again

a few days later, a week later, a month later


most students indicated that they did not

read the new words 3 or 3 times the first

day, a few days later, a week later, a month

later

20 7e test the new words on my own


the majority of students indicated that did

not test new words on their own

21 7f test the new words with a classmate

was not used in all grades, meaning that the

majority of students indicated that they did

not test new words with classmates

22 8e try to remember where I first met the word



did not try to remember where they first

met the new word

23 9a try to use new words in speaking and

writing

was not used in some grades, meaning that


did not try to use the new words in speaking

and writing

24 9b try to use idioms when I speak was not used in most grades, meaning that


150

did not try to use idioms when they speak

25 9d try having conversation using the new




did not try having conversation using the

new words with English speakers (e.g.

teachers)

26 9c try to think in English with the new

vocabulary

was not used in all grades, meaning that the

majority of students indicated that they did

not try to e-chat on the internet using an

internet communication tool such as QQ,

MSN Messenger

Table 5.13 shows which strategies were either rarely or never used. This information is

important because it is the other side of the coin. Why students tended not to use the above

strategies is puzzling. There is a range of strategies in this group: 1d is a discovery-place

strategy; 3a, 3b, 3e, 3g, are determination initial response strategies; 4f, is a determination-

study strategy; 5c, 5d, are consolidation-organisation strategies; 6e, 6i, 6k, 6l, 6m, 6n, 6p, 6q

are consolidation-memory strategies; 7a, 7c, 7d, 7e, 7f are consolidation-review strategies; 8e

is a consolidation-remember strategy; and 9a, 9b, 9d and 9e are consolidation-production

strategies. The highest number of never or rarely used strategies are the consolidation-

memory strategies, 8 in all. The tendency not to use these suggests students spend less time

on memorisation strategies. Most of the consolidation-review strategies were never or rarely

used, 5 in all. The result suggests students tend not to engage in revision of vocabulary. Most

of the consolidation-production strategies were never or rarely used, and suggests a tendency

not to use what is being learned.

Appendix 8 Table 2 shows the ‘often’ used VLSs of all students by percentage. Often used

reflects the ‘often’ response choice. The 62 strategies were ranked according to the

percentage of students using it. The 10 with the highest percentages were: 1) 8c: remember a

new word by its meaning (when read again) (consolidation-remember strategy); 2) 1a: in

textbooks and classroom activities (discovery-place strategy); 3) when reading English

materials (discovery-place strategy); 4) 8b: remember a new word by its meaning (when

heard again) (consolidation-remember strategy); 5) 4g: the way the new word is used

(determination-study); 6) 3c: I try to guess the word’s meaning from the context

(determination-response strategy); 7) 6b: write the word several times (consolidation-

memorisation strategy); 8) 3f: read a Chinese-English or an English-Chinese dictionary

(determination-response strategy); 9) 4d: the Chinese translation (determination-study

strategy); and 10) 6c: look at the new word several times (consolidation-memorisation

151

strategy).

5.3.7 The percentage of students often using a strategy

The number of VLSs often used in each grade can be found in Appendix 8 Table 2. The often

used strategies are highlighted to provide a clearer picture of strategy use among the surveyed

students.

The listing provided a clearer picture of students often using a strategy and a deeper picture

of the most often to the least often used strategy than the analysis of grade means did. The

most often used strategy was 8c: remember a new word by its meaning (when read again),

with 63 per cent of students; the least often used strategy was 3a: pay no attention to it, and

never go back to it, with 3 per cent of students. The 10 most often used strategies are found in

Table 5.14:

Table 5.14: Top 10 ranked VLSs over all:

Rank: S#: Strategies %






6 3c I try to guess the word’s meaning from the context 48%





The percentage of students often using a strategy drops by 20 per cent by number 10, strategy

6c. However, the top 10 most often used strategies hint at something significant: the favoured

approach to learning English vocabulary. This idea is elaborated in section 5.4.1 below.

Section summary

Analysing the grade means of strategies produced a more generalised observation of strategy

use than percentages. Fifteen strategies had more use according to the mean analysis, with

152

most experiencing average use and a few experiencing low use — if means are interpreted

through this measure: 1.00 to 2.49 is low use, 2.50 to 3.49 is medium use, and 3.50 to 5.00 is

high use (see Wahyuni, 2013) — while 13 were often/always used, and 10 often/sometimes.

The average mean score was 3.17 for the whole group and suggests medium use. Roughly 26

strategies were found to be rarely or never used. The percentage of students using the

remaining strategies decreased from 39 per cent to 3 per cent — see Appendix 8. This result

and other findings are discussed further in the Discussion chapter.


What is the difference in VLS use among the four grades of CEMs?

This section discusses the observation of trends in the data not seen in the formal statistical

tests in Chapter 6. The discussion begins with the finding that there is a difference, variability

in individual students’ VLS frequency of use and in the percentage of students using a VLS.

Then strategy clustering is highlighted to provide further evidence of variability within a

grade and between grades.

5.4.0 Is there a difference?

There is variability in VLS use in each of the four grades (as shown in Tables 5.3 to 5.11).

The students in each grade indicated they use VLSs. Frequency of use of a VLS is discussed

in terms of unchanged (e.g., all students in all grades ‘rarely’ use the VLS), or changed, in

terms of either increased use (e.g., most students in grade 2 ‘often’ use the VLS though

students in grade 1 ‘rarely’ used it) or decreased use (e.g., most students in grade 2 ‘rarely’

use the VLS though students in grade 1 ‘often’ use it). A major finding was the VLS

clustering in each grade (for instance, a small set of VLSs were used in each grade), and this

is discussed next. Interview data is only used to affirm ‘use’ but not to add to the discussion

of frequency of use (see section 5.3 above and Chapter 7).

5.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategy clustering

A particular patterning of strategy use was observed in each grade.

153

Table 5.15 below shows the number of VLSs regularly used and the type of VLSs used in

each grade. Key to Table 5.15: each column lists the strategy often or always used in a grade;

at the top of each column representing the grade in which the strategy is used; colour is used

to highlight a repeated strategy, for example, strategy 1a is used in all four grades; use is

determined by ‘often’ and ‘always’ frequencies.

Table 5.15: VLSs regularly used per grade

g1 g2 g3 g4

1a 1a 1a 1a

1e 1b 1b 1c

1f 1e 1e 1d

3b 1f 1f 1e

3c 3c 3c 1g

4a 3f 3f 4a

4b 4a 4a 4b

4d 4b 4b 4d

4f 4d 4d 4e

5b 4g 4g 4f

5d 4i 5b 4g

5e 6b 5d 4i

6a 6c 6b 6b

6b 6d 6c 6c

6c 6g 7b 6d

6d 8b 7d 6e

6j 8c 8b 6f

6k 8e 8c 6j

6o 9a 8e 6k

7e 9a 6o

8a 6r

8c 7a

9b 7b

9c 8b

8c

8d

8e

9a

24 19 20 28

Students in grade 1 regularly used 24 VLSs; students in grade 2 regularly used 19 VLSs;

students in grade 3 regularly used 20 VLSs; students in grade 4 regularly used 28 VLSs — an

154

average of 22 VLSs. The number of regularly used VLSs was different in each grade, and the

type of VLS regularly used in each grade was generally different. Except for the repeats in at

least two grades, eight VLSs experienced repeated use in all four grades. Eight VLSs were

used in all four grades:

1) 1a: in textbooks and classroom learning activities (discovery-place strategy);

2) 1e: when reading English materials (discovery-place strategy);

3) 4a: its pronunciation (determination-study strategy);

4) 4b: the spelling (determination-study strategy);

5) 4d: the Chinese translation (determination-study strategy);

6) 6b: write the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy);

7) 6c: look at the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy); and

8) 8c: remember a new word by its meaning (when read again) (consolidation-remember

strategy).

This strategy clustering suggests that the trend is to focus on reading and writing rather than

speaking and listening.

The eight VLSs above are a process or route to vocabulary gain. The data showed that 36

other strategies complemented the eight. Some of these strategies were used in one grade,

while others were used in three. Key to Table 5:16: the far left-hand column just numbers the

range of strategies; the middle column lists the name of the strategy; the far right-hand

column shows the grade in which the strategy was used.

Table 5.16: strategies that complemented the eight #: Complementary strategies: grade:

1 1b: I meet new words in vocabulary lists arranged in

alphabetical order 2, 3

2 1c: I meet new words in vocabulary lists arranged by meaning 4

3 1d: I meet new words during English conversations with

others 4

4 1g: I meet new words when using/surfing the internet 4

5 1f: I meet new words when singing English songs and

watching English movies/TV 1, 2, 3

6 3b: I meet new a word, pay no attention to it, but go back to it

later 1

7 3c: I try to guess the word’s meaning for the context 1, 2, 3

8 3f: read a Chinese-English or English-Chinese dictionary 2, 3

9 4e: study the English explanations 4

10 4f: study the example sentences 1, 4

155

11 4g: study the way the new word is used 2, 3, 4

12 4i: study the new word’s part of speech 2, 4

13 5b: I order the information about the new word in a

vocabulary notebook 1, 3

14 5d: I order the information about the new word by using the

vocabulary lists in the textbooks 1, 3

15

5e: I order the information about new words by using the

vocabulary lists in vocabulary books like VOCABULARY

5000 and TEM4EasyTEST

1

16 6a: I memorise the new word by saying the new word aloud

several times 1

17 6d: I memorise the new word by memorising Chinese-English

and/or English/Chinese lists 1, 2, 4

18 6e: I memorise the new word by doing vocabulary exercises 4

19 6f: I memorise the new word by linking it with similar

meaning words or opposite meaning words 4

20 6g: I memorise the new word by linking it with already known

words and have similarities 2

21 6j: I memorise the new word by placing the new word in a

context e.g. a sentence, conversation 1, 4

22 6k: I memorise the new word by using the it to make up a

sentence 1, 4

23 6o: I memorise the new word by trying to imagine what it

looks like (in a sentence) 1, 4

24 6r: I memorise the new word by remembering its prefix, suffix

and root word 4

25 7a: I review new vocabulary by saying the new word 2 or 3

times the first day 4

26 7b: I review new vocabulary by saying the new words the next

time I read them, and again after that 3, 4

27 7d: I review new vocabulary by reading the new words 2 or 3

times first, then a few days later, a week later, a month later 3

29 7e: I review new vocabulary by testing the new words on my

own 1

30 8a: I remember words I have memorised by remembering it by

the way I learned it 1

31 8b: I remember words I have memorised by remembering it

by its meaning (when heard again) 2, 3, 4

32

8d: I remember words I have memorised by remembering its

meaning first, then think about its meaningful parts e.g.

prefixes

4

33 8e: I remember words I have memorised by trying to

remember where I first met them 2, 3, 4

34 9a: I use new words by trying to use them in speaking and

writing 2, 3, 4

35 9b: I use new words by trying to use idioms when I speak 1

36 9c: I use new words by trying to think in English with them 1

The range of use of a particular strategy is from 1 to 3. Sixteen strategies were used in grade

1; 11 were used in grade 2; 12 in grade 3; and 20 were used in grade 4. So 44 per cent were

used in grade 1, 30 per cent were used in grade 2, 33 per cent in grade 3, and 55 per cent were

used in grade 4. Sixteen strategies were used to complement the eight in grade 1 (8 + 16 =

24); 11 were used to complement the eight in grade 2 (8 + 11 = 19); 12 were used to

complement the eight in grade 3 (8 + 12 = 20); and, 17 used in grade 4 to complement the

156

eight (8 + 20 = 26).

While VLS clustering was observed in VLS use in four grades (Macaro, 2006; and discussion

in Chapter 7), it was not observed in either general BALLL or specific CCL (see Part 2

below).

Section summary

While 26 VLSs were never or rarely used in each grade, 36 were often/always or sometimes

or rarely/never or a combination of these used in each grade. While 63 per cent of all students

often remembered a new word by its meaning (when read again), 55 per cent often met new

words in textbooks and classroom activities. All other strategies experienced a decrease from

50 to 3 per cent. VLS use clustered in each grade. Eight VLSs were repeatedly used in each

grade. 1) 1a: in textbooks and classroom learning activities (discovery-place); 2) 1e: when

reading English materials (discovery-place); 3) 4a: its pronunciation (determination-study);

4) 4b: the spelling (determination-study); 5) 4d: the Chinese translation (determination-

study); 6) 6b: write the word several times (consolidation-memory); 7) 6c: look at the word

several times (consolidation-memory); and 8) 8c: remember a new word by its meaning

(when read again) (consolidation-remember). This suggested a core set of VLSs — a plus

strategy group according to Griffiths (2013). The eight core set of VLSs was complemented

with a range of VLSs among the 36 often/always used VLSs (see Table 5.17 above). Grade 1

students often/always used 24 VLSs, grade 2 used 19, grade 3 used 20, and grade 4 used 28.

5.5 Additional questions (No. 2 and No. 10 on the VLSQ):

Q.2: Where do you often learn vocabulary during the semester?

Q.10: Of four possible sources to obtain VLSs, which do CEMs source the most?

Two questions that did not appear on Ma’s (2009) questionnaire or Schmitt’s (1997) list were

added to the VLSQ, Questions no. 2 and no. 10 (see Appendix 2), and concerned the location

or space in which students tend to learn vocabulary. The questions reflect the expanded

definition of the formal learning context used in the present research to include the entire

university campus. The questions are asked because learning also happens in the library and

157

even in the students’ dormitory room. These are major features of the formal learning

environment in higher education because most if not all undergraduate students live on

campus.

5.5.1 Q.2: Where do you often learn vocabulary during the semester?

Table 5.17 below shows the highest percentage of students per grade who indicated that they

learned vocabulary in one of three general locations within a broad definition of the formal

learning context of a university, as well as how frequently they learned vocabulary in these

locations.

Key to Table 5.17: the far-left column shows the code for the question asked about (Question

2 and subparts a to c); column two shows the issue or ‘place of learning’; column three shows

the grade and percentages of students; and the final column shows the response item and

frequency with which students choose the item as a place of learning.

Table 5.17: Percentage of students per grade who chose a place and frequency of use

Place of vocabulary learning % of student who chose

place Frequency

Q2 Discovery-space strategies: the physical

space in which word learning takes place g1 g2 g3 g4 Response item

2a In my classroom 45* 41* 46* 42^"* sometimes/often

2b In the library 32" 32" 46* 42* sometimes/often

2c In my dormitory room 41* 41" 46" 42* sometimes/often

Key: * means frequency of use was ‘often’; ˇ means ‘always’; ” means ‘sometimes’; ˜ means ‘rarely’; ° means

‘never’; ^ means frequency of use was split, shared with another frequency

P#2a: In my classroom

The small variation in the frequency of use of place of vocabulary learning #2a

(‘sometimes’/‘often’) indicates that students supported the idea. However, the percentage of

students indicating they often learn in the classroom is lower than expected. The result

suggests that most students tend not to learn in the classroom, which is puzzling.

P#2b: In the library

The small variation in the frequency of use of place of vocabulary learning #2b

158

(‘sometimes’/‘often’) indicates that students generally supported the idea. However, grade 1

and 2 students said they only sometimes do learning in the library. Perhaps grade 1 and 2

students are too busy or have less time for English than with other subjects in the library.

P#2c: In my dormitory room

The small variation in the frequency of use of place of vocabulary learning #2c

(‘sometimes’/‘often’) indicates that students generally supported it. Only certain grades do

learning in the dormitory, for example, grades 1 and 4. Perhaps this reflects the needs of

exam preparation. That is, the extra learning done in the dormitory may reflect the fact that

grade 1 and 4 students are preparing for English exams and make use of their dormitory space

at such times in their education.

5.5.2 Q.10: Where did you acquire the VLSs you use?

Table 5.18 below shows where the highest percentage of students acquired the VLSs they

use. This is another question that does not appear in the Ma (2009) version of the

questionnaire (see Chapter 3, section 3.7.2). The question was included because it is believed

important to the research focus, and because it is often only implied or assumed in the

research literature that either EFL learners already possess VLSs before they embark on

learning a foreign language (for instance, unconscious mechanisms), or acquire VLSs from

an external source over the course of FLL or at the time they engage in it (for instance,

consciously employed strategies). For instance, strategies are either 1) assumed to exist inside

the learner’s brain and automatically engage when the learner learns another language (e.g.,

second/foreign language learning is the same as first language learning), as in the innatist

view, or 2) VLSs are not assumed to exist inside the learner’s brain and therefore will be

obtained from an external source (e.g., a teacher, a classmate, a textbook, or elsewhere), but

not in the first instance from inside the learner. Of course, the fact that a language learner

could conceivably use a learning strategy honed in the process of learning some other

knowledge or skill is not discounted.

The view taken in the present study is that, if the literature does not explicitly state whether

VLSs are already present in the learner before they engage in learning or are acquired from

an external source, then the literature must be assuming one of the positions above, and

159

therefore the literature offers an unclear position on the issue. However, if the literature does

explicitly state where VLSs come from, then the literature is not making any explicit

assumptions about the origin of VLSs, and therefore implicitly holds one of the positions

above. The present research does not empirically explore whether VLSs are naturally

occurring phenomena that exist inside an EFL learner’s brain prior to beginning to learn a

foreign language, but takes the view that learners use a combination of acquired learning

skills (see Chapter 2, section 2.2). The EFL learner simply uses what s/he already knows

(prior learned general learning and language learning skills) or acquires strategies through the

process of learning a foreign language — modifying existing strategies. In either case, the

view taken here is that the learner consciously employs a strategy to learn English

vocabulary.

Table 5.18 highlights grade differences regarding where students think they got or get their

VLSs. Key to Table 5.18: the far-left column shows the code for the question asked about

(Question 10 and subparts a to d); column two shows the issue or ‘source of strategies’ (e.g.,

my teacher, my classmates); column three shows the grade and percentages of students

choosing item; and the final column shows the response item and frequency of experience

with which students choose the item as a source of strategies.

Table 5.18: Percentage of students per grade who chose a source of VLS and

frequency of choice

Source of VLS % of students choosing source

of strategy Frequency

Q10 Do you remember who taught you how

to learn new words? g1 g2 g3 g4 Response item

10a My Chinese English teacher 36 41 38 67 always

10b My classmates 32^˜" 36^˜" 50" 50" rarely/sometimes

10c My textbooks 36" 32* 50* 42" sometimes/often

10d I taught myself/seemed natural to learn

words this way 50* 36* 38* 42* often

Key: * means frequency of use was ‘often’; ˇ means ‘always’; ” means ‘sometimes’; ˜ means ‘rarely’; ° means

‘never’; ^ means frequency of use was split shared with another frequency

SS#10a: My Chinese English teacher

The lack of variation in the frequency of source #10a (‘sometimes’/‘often’/‘always’)

indicates that students strongly supported the idea. Given that this asked specifically about

160

strategies for learning English vocabulary, the result seems reasonable. One would expect that

students would learn how to learn English vocabulary from a teacher.

SS#10b: My classmates

The small variation in the frequency of choice of #10b (‘rarely’/‘sometimes’) indicates that

students generally supported the idea. This does not seem unreasonable given that these

students indicate above in #10a that they always learn them from their teachers. One would

not expect them to automatically know VLSs for learning English, though they would know

plenty for learning Chinese and may modify them to meet the demands of learning English.

SS#10c: My textbooks

The small variation in the frequency of choice of #10c (‘sometimes’/‘often’) suggests that

students generally supported the idea. There is low support for the idea of strategies for

learning English vocabulary from a textbook. Given English is being taught in a foreign

language context, one would expect to find strategies for learning, generally, if not

specifically, in a textbook.

SS#10d: I taught myself/seemed natural to learn words this way

The lack of variation in the frequency of use of #10d (‘sometimes/‘often’), though in the

percentage of students experiencing it (36–50%), suggests that students tended to support the

idea. This is not so surprising; students, if motivated enough and left to their own devices to

learn English vocabulary, should be quite capable of devising VLSs for learning English

vocabulary given that they already possess a range of VLSs for learning Chinese vocabulary.

It is conceivable that some strategies for learning Chinese vocabulary can be used, even

modified, to learn English vocabulary.

Section summary

The raw data indicates that students tended to learn new words mostly in the classroom,

sometimes in their dormitory and rarely in the library. Students indicated they always get

VLSs from their English teacher and that they often get them from themselves, less so from a

161

textbook and even less so from a classmate.

Part 2: Beliefs about language and language learning


What are CEMs’ general ‘Western’ beliefs about language and language learning and

Chinese culture of learning BALLL?

The BALLLQ questionnaire asked about 34 beliefs (see Chapter 3, section 3.7.3), and the

CCLQ asked about 18 general beliefs with accompanying sub-parts, 57 beliefs in total (see

Chapter 3, section 3.7.4). Respondents indicated on the questionnaires whether they agreed

with the particular ‘belief’ by circling a number from 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘Strongly

disagree’, 2 represents ‘Disagree’, 3 represents ‘Neither disagree or agree’, 4 represents

‘Agree’, and 5 represents ‘Strongly agree’. The results from the BALLLQ (5.6.1) are

highlighted first, followed by the results from the CCLQ (5.7). Interview participants were

asked nine general questions and the data was themed — three concerned beliefs.

5.6.1 Beliefs about language and language learning

The data generated by the BALLLQ questionnaire is presented first using percentages,

frequencies and means, then the data generated by the CCLQ (section 5.7). The data indicate

1) that the surveyed CEMs hold BALLL, and 2) that they tend to maintain their beliefs about

the issues, rarely deviating from them in each of the four grades of a four-year undergraduate

degree.

Tables 5.19 to 5.21 below show by grade the percentage, frequency and mean of students

indicating a preference for a belief statement, the strength of agreement with it and the grade

mean (see Appendix 9 for just means and SDs). The mean provides a general measure of

agreement strength. Subsection 5.6.2, highlights an observed patterning of the data, three

general groupings: strongly agree/agree, strongly disagree/disagree and neither disagree or

agree. Interpreting mean scores as 1.00 to 2.49 as low agreement, 2.50 to 3.49 as medium

162

agreement, and 3.50 to 5.00 as high agreement (see Wahyuni, 2013), gives a general idea of

CEMs’ agreement with these general ‘Western’ BALLL. The tables have been divided into

smaller tables to create a more manageable table.

Key to the tables: the left-hand column lists the number of the belief statement as it appears

on the questionnaire; the second column lists the grade; the third column lists the highest

percentage of students in the grade indicating a position on the belief; the fourth column lists

frequency of the belief in terms of agreement; the fifth column lists the grade mean; the sixth

column lists the SD; and the final column lists the number of students in each grade;

shorthand indicators: NDoA = neither disagree or agree, and s.agree = strongly agree.

Table 5.19: By grade, percentages, frequency and mean #: grade % freq. mean SD n

1 1 45 agree 4.05 0.72 22

2 45 agree 4.05 1.00 22

3 50 agree 3.92 1.02 24

4 50 agree 3.58 1.16 12

2 1 50 agree 3.59 0.96 22

2 41 agree 3.95 0.95 22

3 46 agree 3.50 1.22 24

4 42 agree 3.33 1.44 12

3 1 64 agree 3.64 0.73 22

2 54 agree 3.55 0.91 22

3 54 agree 3.46 0.88 24

4 33 NDoA/agree 3.42 1.16 12

4 1 68 NDoA 3.18 0.50 22

2 45 NDoA 3.09 0.75 22

3 75 NDoA 3.00 0.51 24

4 58 NDoA 3.25 0.62 12

5 1 54 disagree 3.15 0.45 22

2 82 disagree 2.92 0.40 22

3 71 disagree 3.11 1.08 24

4 50 disagree 3.05 0.90 12

6 1 32 NDoA 3.68 1.04 22

2 64 agree 4.09 0.61 22

3 33 agree 3.67 1.05 24

4 33 agree 3.33 1.23 12

7 1 64 s.agree 4.41 1.05 22

2 50 agree/s.agree 4.50 0.51 22

3 58 agree 4.21 0.59 24

4 42 agree 3.50 1.09 12

163

8 1 54 agree 4.23 0.75 22

2 68 agree 4.00 0.69 22

3 50 agree 4.17 0.87 24

4 58 agree 4.00 0.85 12

9 1 64 s.disagree 1.45 0.67 22

2 50 disagree 1.64 0.73 22

3 37 disagree 2.04 1.08 24

4 50 disagree 2.08 0.90 12

10 1 41 NDoA 3.14 0.83 22

2 50 agree 3.32 0.95 22

3 37 disagree/agree 2.92 0.97 24

4 50 agree 3.33 1.15 12

11 1 50 agree 4.41 0.59 22

2 64 s.agree 4.50 0.80 22

3 67 s.agree 4.54 0.72 24

4 50 s.agree 4.42 0.67 12

12 1 54 agree 3.73 0.88 22

2 50 agree 3.68 0.65 22

3 50 agree 3.88 0.80 24

4 50 agree 3.83 0.72 12

Table 5.20: By grade, percentages, frequency and mean

#: grade % freq. mean SD n

13 1 73 agree 4.00 0.53 22

2 68 agree 4.00 0.69 22

3 54 agree 3.92 0.97 24

4 83 agree 3.92 0.67 12

14 1 64 disagree 2.27 0.83 22

2 41 disagree 2.55 1.18 22

3 46 disagree 2.21 1.02 24

4 50 NDoA 2.50 0.90 12

15 1 50 NDoA 2.77 1.07 22

2 50 NDoA 3.14 0.71 22

3 46 NDoA 3.42 0.72 24

4 42 NDoA 3.08 0.79 12

16 1 41 agree 3.00 0.98 22

2 50 disagree 2.86 0.94 22

3 50 NDoA 3.29 0.75 24

4 42 disagree 3.08 1.08 12

17 1 68 agree 4.05 0.84 22

2 50 agree/s.agree 4.50 0.51 22

3 63 agree 4.21 0.59 24

4 58 agree 4.00 0.85 12

18 1 36 agree 2.82 1.50 22

164

2 50 agree 3.41 0.67 22

3 37 NDoA/agree 3.50 0.88 24

4 75 agree 3.58 0.90 12

19 1 32 disagree 2.59 1.22 22

2 41 agree 3.23 1.11 22

3 42 NDoA 3.17 0.92 24

4 50 disagree 2.58 1.08 12

20 1 36 agree 3.05 1.09 22

2 45 agree 3.00 1.07 22

3 37 NDoA 3.17 1.01 24

4 58 NDoA 2.83 0.83 12

21 1 50 agree 3.59 1.10 22

2 64 agree 3.73 0.83 22

3 54 agree 3.67 1.13 24

4 42 agree 3.25 1.14 12

22 1 41 s.disagree/

disagree 1.73 0.94 22

2 45 s.disagree 1.77 0.87 22

3 37 disagree 1.92 0.88 24

4 42 s.disagree 2.00 1.13 12

23 1 50 agree 4.23 0.92 22

2 68 agree 4.00 0.69 22

3 37 agree 3.96 0.95 24

4 58 agree 4.25 0.62 12

24 1 54 agree 2.45 1.01 22

2 54 disagree 2.73 1.08 22

3 42 NDoA 2.63 1.10 24

4 58 disagree 2.75 1.06 12


25 1 54 agree 3.41 0.73 22

2 45 agree 3.45 1.06 22

3 50 agree 3.63 0.88 24

4 42 NDoA/agree 3.42 1.00 12

26 1 50 disagree 2.32 0.84 22

2 50 disagree 2.45 0.86 22

3 33 disagree 2.96 1.00 24

4 42 disagree 2.58 0.90 12

27 1 59 agree 4.05 0.90 22

2 64 agree 4.09 0.61 22

3 50 agree 4.25 0.68 24

4 50 agree 3.75 1.14 12

28 1 41 agree 3.32 1.09 22

165

2 36 agree 3.32 1.09 22

3 37 agree 3.17 1.17 24

4 42 NDoA/agree 3.67 0.65 12

29 1 50 disagree 2.09 0.81 22

2 41 disagree 2.36 0.95 22

3 50 disagree 2.25 0.74 24

4 67 disagree 2.17 1.03 12

30 1 68 agree 4.05 0.58 22

2 64 agree 4.05 0.72 22

3 58 agree 3.58 0.93 24

4 75 agree 4.00 0.74 12

31 1 41 agree 3.18 0.96 22

2 50 NDoA 3.55 0.60 22

3 54 agree 3.54 0.72 24

4 58 agree 3.67 0.78 12

32 1 41 agree 3.05 1.17 22

2 41 NDoA 3.14 0.94 22

3 46 agree 2.96 1.16 24

4 42 agree 3.08 0.90 12

33 1 36 NDoA/agree 3.32 0.99 22

2 77 NDoA 3.18 0.59 22

3 54 NDoA 3.25 0.74 24

4 42 agree 3.58 1.00 12

34 1 64 agree 3.59 0.80 22

2 59 agree 4.00 0.76 22

3 54 agree 4.08 0.78 24

4 58 agree 4.00 0.85 12

The above tables show the highest percentage of students indicating a position with respect to

each of 34 general BALLL. Eighteen beliefs were generally agreed with; roughly 53 per cent.

This suggests that CEMs do not exclusively hold beliefs belonging to the CCL, and that

‘Western’ BALLL have infiltrated their belief systems. These and other groupings of

positions on the beliefs are presented next.

5.6.2 Three general groupings

Three general groupings appear in the questionnaire data (seen in the tables above), based on

the highest percentage of students in each grade (see Appendix 9). Two belief statements

concern the time taken to become fluent in English (BS#14: If you spent 1 hour a day

speaking/learning English, how long would it take for you to become fluent? 1/1 year; 2/1–2

166

years; 3/3–5 years; 4/5–10 years; 5/you can’t), and the level of difficulty learning English

(BS#4: the English I am learning is: 1/very difficult, 2/difficult, 3/medium difficulty, 4/easy,

5/very easy), and are separated from the rest. A brief running analysis will appear for each

belief discussed and expanded in the discussion chapter. The following beliefs are in relation

to learning behaviour and how they might affect behaviour.

Section 5.6.2.1: Agree and strongly agree

There are 18 general beliefs highlighted in this section.

#: Code: Belief statement: Type of belief:

1 #1 it’s easier for children than adults to learn a

foreign language foreign language

aptitude

2 #2 some people are born with a special ability which

helps them learn a foreign language foreign language

aptitude

3 #3 some languages are easier to learn than others the difficulty of

language

4 #6 I believe I will ultimately speak English very well the difficulty of

language

5 #7 it’s important to speak English with an excellent

accent

learning and communication

strategies

6 #8 English culture should be known to speak English

very well the nature of language

7 #11 it’s better to learn English in an English-speaking

country like the United States the nature of language

8 #12 if I heard someone speaking English, the

language I am trying to learn, I would try to

speak with them in order to practise my English


strategies

9 #13 it’s ok to guess the meaning of an English word if

you don’t know it


strategies

10 #17 it’s important to repeat English words and

practise often


strategies

11 #18 I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of

others


strategies

12 #21 it’s important to practise in a language lab learning and

communication strategies

13 #23 if I speak English very well I will have many

opportunities to use it motivation and

expectations

14 #25 learning English is different from learning other

university subjects the nature of language

15 #27 if learn to speak English very well it will help me

get a good job motivation and

expectations

16 #28 it’s easier to read and write English than it is to

speak it/listen to it and understand it the difficulty of

language

17 #30 Chinese think it is important to speak English motivation and

expectations

167

18 #34 everyone can learn to speak English foreign language

aptitude

The above example graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade indicating

agreement with belief statement BS#1 it’s easier for children than adults to learn a foreign

language, a general BALLL. A certain percentage of students in all grades agreed with it (see

Appendix 9 for the full spread of percentages). Five categories of beliefs were agreed with: 1)

foreign language aptitude, 2) the difficulty of language learning, 3) learning and

communication strategies, 4) the nature of language, and 5) motivation and expectations.

Perhaps the agreement in this grouping appears because CEMs’ English language learning

experience changes with each passing grade, so maturity and experience are a factor. Also,

because their English teachers, in university at least, can be native speakers from English-

speaking countries like the USA and Australia they bring their beliefs with them into the

classroom. Access to the internet may well play a role too. The logical assumption was to

assume that agreement would increase as well, because CEMs are interested in English

culture and English-speaking countries generally.

Section 5.6.2.2: Strongly disagree and disagree

There are four general beliefs highlighted in this section.

50

50

45

45

B#1 it's easier for children than adults tolearn a foreign language

graph 1 - agree


168


1 #5 English is structured in the same way as Chinese the nature of language

learning

2 #9 you should not speak English until you can speak

it correctly learning and

communication

3 #26 learning English is mostly a matter of translating

English into Chinese the nature of language

learning

4 #29 people who are good at maths and science are

good at learning English foreign language

aptitude

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students indicating a preference for beliefs

statement BS#5 English is structured in the same way as Chinese. A certain percentage of

students in all grades disagree with it. However, the disagreement increases from grade 1 to

grade 2 then decreases from grade 2 to grade 4. Three categories of beliefs were disagreed

with: 1) the nature of language, 2) learning and communication strategies, and 3) foreign

language aptitude.

This disagreement grouping appears perhaps because CEMs can recognise certain differences

in different languages, for example, Chinese vs. English structure. Other beliefs are more

perceptions about learning not necessarily based on experience. The logical assumption was

to assume that agreement would increase or decrease with additional experience, for instance,

if CEMs begin learning maths and science subjects and discover no difference or difference.

Three categories of beliefs experienced mixed preference: 1) foreign language aptitude, 2) the

nature of language learning, and 3) motivation and expectations.

50

71

82

54

B#5 English is structured in the sameway as Chinese

graph 2 - disagree


169

Section 5.6.2.3: Neither disagree or agree/agree plus

There are six general beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #15 I have foreign language aptitude foreign language

aptitude

2 #20 learning English is mostly a matter of its many

grammar rules the nature of language

learning

3 #22 males are better than females at learning English foreign language

aptitude

4 #31 I would like to speak English so I can learn more

about English people motivation and

expectations

5 #32 people who can speak more than one foreign

language are intelligent people foreign language

aptitude

6 #33 Chinese are good at learning foreign languages foreign language

aptitude

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade indicating a

preference for belief statement BS#20 learning English is mostly a matter of its many

grammar rules. Students in grades 1 and 2 agree with this, while students in grades 3 and 4

neither disagree or agree [NDoA] with it. Four categories experienced mixed preference: 1)

foreign language aptitude, 2) the nature of language learning, 3) learning and communication

strategies, and 4) the difficulty of language.

This mix of agree and neither disagree or agree appears perhaps because CEMs focus on

grammar early. Other beliefs are more perceptions about learning not necessarily based on

experience. The logical assumption was to assume that agreement would increase or decrease

58

37

45

36

B#20 learning English is mostly a matterof its many grammar rules

graph 3 - neither disagree or agree/agree


agree

agree

NDoA

NDoA

170

with additional experience, for instance, if CEMs begin learning grammar early and then drift

away to focus on other aspects of English.

Section 5.6.2.4: Disagree, neither disagree or agree, agree

There are four general beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #10 it’s easier to learn another foreign language if

you already know one foreign language foreign language

aptitude

2 #16 learning English is a mostly a matter of learning

many new English vocabulary items the nature of language

learning

3 #19 if you are allowed to make mistakes they will be

hard to get rid of later


strategies

4 #24 it’s easier to speak English than it is to

understand it the difficulty of

language

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade indicating a

preference for belief statement BS#10 it’s easier to learn another foreign language if you

already know one foreign language. Grade 1 students neither disagree or agree [NDoA] with

it, grade 2 and 4 students agree with it, and grade 3 students disagree and agree with it.

This mix of agree and neither disagree or agree and disagree appears perhaps because CEMs

must learn more than one foreign language as part of their degree program — for example,

English and Russian. Other beliefs are more perceptions about learning not necessarily based

on experience. The logical assumption was to assume that agreement would increase or

50

37

50

41

B#10 it's easier to learn another foreignlanguage if you already know one

foreign language

graph 4 - disagree/neither disagree or agree/agree


NDoA

agree

disagree/agree

agree

171

decrease with additional experience, for instance, if CEMs begin learning another foreign

language in a four-year degree program, in languages as diverse as English and Russian, this

may be a unachievable challenge for everyone.

Section 5.6.2.5: English learning difficulty and time till fluency (2 beliefs)

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade indicating the level

of difficulty learning English. Students in all grades indicate the level is ‘medium’ (by

choosing neither disagree or agree [NDoA]). Students indicated their agreement on a 5-point

Likert scale where 1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=neither disagree or agree; 4=agree;

5=strongly agree.

58

75

45

68

B#4 the English I am trying to learn is acertain level of difficulty

graph 5 - level of difficulty


NDoA

NDoA

NDoA

NDoA

172

The above graph shows the highest percentage of students indicating agreement with belief

statement BS#14 if you spent 1 hour a day speaking/ learning English, how long would it

take you to become fluent? We can see that students in grades 1 to 3 indicated that they

‘disagree’, meaning they believed it would take them between 1 to 2 years to become fluent if

they acted on the belief statement, while grade 4 students indicated that they ‘neither disagree

or agree’ [NDoA], meaning they believed it would take 3 to 5 years to become fluent if they

acted on the belief statement.

Section summary

Some general groupings appeared in the data: 1) strongly agree/agree, 2) disagree/strongly

disagree, 3) neither disagree or agree plus something else, and 4) disagree/neither disagree or

agree (NDoA)/agree. Eighteen general BALLL were strongly agreed/agreed with, roughly 53

per cent. Four beliefs were disagree/strongly disagreed with, roughly 12 per cent. Six were

NDoA with, roughly 18 per cent. Four were disagree/neither disagree or agree/agree, 12 per

cent. Two beliefs concerned English learning difficulty and time till fluency. For level of

difficulty, students indicated English was generally medium difficulty, while time till fluency

for grades 1, 2 and 3 would take 1 to 2 years, but grade 4 students generally thought it would

take 3 to 5 years to achieve fluency in English.

50

46

41

64

B#14 if you spent 1 hour a day speakinglearning English how long would it take

to become fluent

graph 6 - time till fluency


disagree

disagree

disagree

NDoA

173

5.7 The Chinese culture of learning (CCL) BALLL

The CCLQ was conducted to ascertain, firstly, whether CEMs hold beliefs consistent with the

CCL, and, secondly, whether those beliefs correlate with general BALLL and VLS use.

Whether beliefs actually influence strategy choice is inferred from the data.

Tables 5.22 to 5.26 show by grade, percentage, frequency, means and SDs for CCL beliefs

(see Appendix 10 for just the means). The total number of responses per belief statement (for

instance, ‘strongly disagree’ (1), ‘disagree’ (2), ‘neither disagree or agree’ (3), ‘agree’ (4), and

‘strongly agree’ (5)) have been tallied and converted to a percentage to illustrate general

trends in both the percentage of students indicating a position on the belief and the strength of

the beliefs in terms of frequency. Section 5.7.1 below discusses three general groupings found

in the data: 1) strongly agree/agree, 2) strongly disagree/disagree, and 3) neither disagree or

agree.

Key to the tables: the left-hand column lists the number of the belief statement as it appears

on the questionnaire; the second column lists the grade; the third column lists the highest

percentage of students in the grade indicating a position on the belief; the fourth column lists

frequency of the belief in terms of agreement; the fifth column lists the grade mean; the sixth

column lists the SD; and the final column lists the number of students in each grade;

shorthand indicators: NDoA = neither disagree or agree, and s.agree = strongly agree.


1 1 41 agree 3.64 1.43 22

2 59 agree 3.27 1.20 22

3 42 agree 3.04 1.71 24

4 67 agree 3.67 1.37 12

2a 1 50 agree 4.32 0.65 22

2 86 agree 4.14 0.35 22

3 62 agree 4.08 1.02 24

4 67 agree 4.17 0.58 12

2b 1 45 agree/s.agree 4.32 0.78 22

2 68 agree 4.09 1.02 22

3 71 agree 4.13 0.54 24

4 67 agree 4.17 0.58 12

2c 1 36 NDoA 3.05 1.05 22

174

2 45 agree 3.23 0.97 22

3 42 agree 3.21 0.93 24

4 33 disagree 3.33 1.15 12

2d 1 41 agree 3.18 1.22 22

2 41 agree 3.55 1.10 22

3 37 NDoA 3.42 0.93 24

4 50 agree 3.83 0.83 12

2e 1 36 agree 3.64 1.05 22

2 41 NDoA/agree 3.50 0.80 22

3 46 agree 3.54 0.93 24

4 58 agree 4.08 0.67 12

2f 1 41 NDoA 3.41 0.85 22

2 45 NDoA 2.82 0.91 22

3 46 NDoA 3.25 0.94 24

4 33 disagree/NDoA/agree 3.00 0.85 12

3a 1 54 s.agree 4.45 0.74 22

2 54 agree 4.45 0.51 22

3 62 agree 4.38 0.49 24

4 50 agree 4.33 0.65 12

3b 1 36 agree 3.77 1.02 22

2 54 NDoA 3.41 0.67 22

3 67 agree 3.71 0.55 24

4 33 NDoA/s.agree 3.83 1.03 12

3c 1 32 s.agree 3.77 1.07 22

2 45 agree 3.55 0.96 22

3 50 agree 3.67 0.76 24

4 33 agree 3.42 1.08 12

3d 1 36 NDoA 3.27 0.94 22

2 45 agree 3.18 1.05 22

3 50 agree 3.46 0.88 24

4 33 disagree 3.25 1.14 12

3e 1 45 agree 3.86 0.99 22

2 59 agree 4.14 0.64 22

3 58 agree 4.00 0.83 24

4 42 agree 3.92 0.79 12

3f 1 41 NDoA 3.09 1.02 22

2 36 NDoA/agree 3.50 0.91 22

3 50 NDoA 3.17 0.87 24

4 67 NDoA 3.17 0.58 12

3g 1 73 s.agree 4.68 0.57 22

2 54 s.agree 4.59 0.50 22

3 54 agree 4.46 0.51 24

4 58 s.agree 4.58 0.51 12

175



4a 1 32 disagree 2.73 1.28 22

2 54 disagree 2.41 0.85 22

3 46 disagree 2.96 1.04 24


4b 1 50 agree/s.agree 4.45 0.51 22

2 50 agree 4.32 0.65 22

3 67 agree 4.29 0.55 24

4 50 agree 4.25 0.87 12

5a 1 41 NDoA 3.41 0.85 22

2 41 agree 3.50 0.86 22

3 58 agree 3.46 0.88 24

4 42 NDoA 3.58 0.90 12

5b 1 45 agree 4.09 0.75 22

2 68 agree 3.86 0.64 22

3 42 NDoA/agree 3.46 0.72 24

4 33 agree 3.58 1.24 12

6a 1 41 disagree 2.50 1.10 22

2 54 disagree 2.32 0.72 22

3 46 disagree 2.50 1.02 24

4 33 disagree 2.58 1.08 12

6b 1 68 agree 3.91 0.87 22

2 77 agree 3.95 0.49 22

3 67 agree 3.83 0.56 24

4 67 agree 4.00 0.60 12

6c 1 45 disagree 2.50 1.01 22

2 45 NDoA 3.00 0.93 22

3 46 disagree 2.56 1.10 24

4 33 disagree/NDoA 2.75 0.97 12

7 1 64 agree 3.77 0.87 22

2 82 agree 3.82 0.39 22

3 62 agree 3.79 1.06 24

4 50 agree 3.67 0.98 12

8 1 41 NDoA 3.45 1.10 22

2 64 agree 4.18 0.59 22

3 54 agree 3.71 0.81 24

4 50 agree 3.58 0.79 12


9a 1 41 NDoA 3.23 1.07 22

2 32 agree 3.64 1.09 22

3 37 NDoA 3.17 1.17 24

176

4 33 NDoA 3.33 1.07 12

9b 1 50 agree 4.14 0.89 22

2 54 agree 4.36 0.58 22

3 71 agree 4.21 0.51 24

4 50 agree 4.33 0.65 12

9c 1 41 agree 4.00 1.02 22

2 50 agree 4.22 0.65 22

3 67 agree 4.00 1.06 24

4 42 agree/s.agree 4.25 0.75 12

10a 1 41 disagree 2.82 1.01 22

2 59 disagree 2.50 0.91 22

3 42 disagree 2.54 1.02 24

4 33 disagree/NDoA 2.17 1.11 12

10b 1 50 agree 3.50 0.74 22

2 68 agree 3.68 0.95 22

3 62 agree 3.63 0.71 24

4 67 agree 3.75 1.14 12

11a 1 45 agree 3.41 1.14 22

2 45 agree 3.09 0.92 22

3 37 NDoA 3.17 0.87 24

4 33 NDoA 3.25 1.22 12

11b 1 41 NDoA 2.77 0.87 22

2 36 NDoA 3.09 0.97 22

3 37 disagree 2.75 0.99 24

4 25 disagree/NDoA/agree 2.83 1.27 12

12a 1 59 agree 3.59 0.96 22

2 73 agree 3.82 0.50 22

3 58 agree 3.58 1.02 24

4 58 agree 3.58 0.90 12

12b 1 50 agree 3.55 0.67 22

2 45 NDoA/agree 3.50 0.67 22

3 58 agree 3.67 0.56 24

4 42 NDoA 3.33 0.89 12

13a 1 59 agree 3.82 0.80 22

2 59 agree 3.59 0.73 22

3 87 agree 3.75 0.85 24

4 75 agree 3.50 1.00 12

13b 1 73 agree 3.86 0.47 22

2 54 agree 3.41 0.73 22

3 71 agree 3.79 1.02 24

4 75 agree 3.75 0.97 12

13c 1 45 agree 3.27 0.83 22

2 59 agree 3.55 0.80 22

3 79 agree 3.88 0.45 24

177

4 58 agree 3.83 0.83 12

13d 1 54 disagree 1.82 0.85 22

2 45 disagree 1.64 0.85 22

3 46 disagree 1.67 0.87 24

4 50 disagree 2.00 1.04 12



14a 1 45 agree 3.68 0.99 22

2 73 agree 3.82 0.50 22

3 71 agree 3.67 1.01 24

4 50 agree 3.92 1.24 12

14b 1 50 agree 3.91 0.68 22

2 45 NDoA/agree 3.50 0.67 22

3 62 agree 3.67 1.05 24

4 58 agree 3.25 1.06 12

14c 1 32 agree 3.50 1.10 22

2 45 agree 3.41 1.10 22

3 46 agree 3.42 1.44 24

4 50 agree 4.08 0.90 12

14d 1 50 disagree 1.64 0.73 22

2 54 s.disagree 1.64 0.90 22

3 62 s.disagree 1.63 1.06 24

4 58 disagree 1.83 0.72 12

15a 1 64 agree 3.82 1.01 22

2 73 agree 3.68 0.78 22

3 62 agree 3.54 0.98 24

4 50 agree 3.50 1.00 12

15b 1 64 agree 4.05 0.79 22

2 82 agree 4.09 0.43 22

3 67 agree 4.25 0.53 24

4 67 agree 4.17 0.58 12

15c 1 59 agree 3.86 0.83 22

2 54 agree 3.91 0.68 22

3 50 agree 3.88 1.19 24

4 58 agree 3.75 1.06 12

15d 1 50 s.disagree 1.59 0.67 22

2 64 s.disagree 1.36 0.49 22

3 58 s.disagree 1.46 0.93 24

4 58 disagree 1.92 0.67 12

16a 1 36 agree 3.18 1.10 22

2 54 NDoA 3.09 0.87 22

3 29 s.disagree/agree 2.63 1.50 24

4 25 disagree/s.agree 3.42 1.16 12

178

16b 1 59 agree 3.95 0.84 22

2 86 agree 4.05 0.38 22

3 71 agree 3.79 0.72 24

4 50 agree 3.58 0.79 12

16c 1 59 agree 3.91 0.75 22

2 64 agree 3.59 0.85 22

3 58 agree 3.38 1.10 24


16d 1 54 s.disagree 1.45 0.51 22

2 54 s.disagree 1.45 0.51 22

3 67 s.disagree 1.38 0.92 24

4 67 disagree 1.83 0.58 12

Table 5.26: By grade, percentages, frequency and mean #: grade %. freq. mean SD n

17a 1 59 agree 3.36 1.05 22

2 45 agree 3.59 1.26 22

3 67 agree 3.46 1.10 24

4 42 agree 3.67 0.89 12

17b 1 50 disagree 2.00 0.82 22

2 59 disagree 2.36 0.73 22

3 58 disagree 2.33 0.92 24

4 42 disagree 2.83 1.11 12

17c 1 41 agree 3.32 0.99 22

2 36 agree 3.41 1.01 22

3 42 agree 3.71 0.95 24

4 58 agree 3.83 1.19 12

17d 1 50 disagree 2.45 0.91 22

2 41 NDoA 2.95 0.95 22


4 25 NDoA/agree 3.08 1.38 12

18a 1 50 agree 4.18 0.80 22

2 68 agree 4.18 0.66 22

3 54 agree 4.17 1.05 24

4 58 agree 3.83 1.19 12

18b 1 64 agree 4.00 0.62 22

2 82 agree 3.77 0.53 22

3 62 agree 3.88 1.08 24

4 50 agree 3.83 0.94 12

18c 1 41 NDoA 3.82 0.80 22

2 45 agree 3.95 0.95 22

3 46 agree/s.agree 4.38 0.65 24

4 50 agree 4.17 0.94 12

18d 1 54 agree 4.14 0.89 22

179

2 50 agree/s.agree 4.50 0.51 22

3 46 s.agree 4.21 1.10 24

4 50 agree 4.17 0.94 12

18e 1 50 agree 4.14 0.83 22

2 68 agree 4.05 0.90 22

3 58 agree 4.27 0.55 24

4 50 agree 4.33 0.89 12

As with general beliefs, the results were presented using the highest percentage of students to

show a preference with respect to each of the 57 CCL BALLL. Agreement is suggested by

the highest percentage of students agreeing with it. Thirty-three beliefs were generally agreed

with, roughly 58 per cent. Therefore CEMs tended to agree with many beliefs of the CCL

BALLL. These and other groupings of positions held on the above beliefs are presented next.

Section 5.7.1: Some general groupings in the data

Some general groupings appear in the questionnaire data and categorised: 1) strongly

agree/agree, 2) strongly disagree and disagree, 3) neither disagree or agree (NDoA) and

agree, and 3) disagree, NDoA, agree. Two single findings were 1) NDoA, and 2)

disagree/NDoA. This finding is not merely a position on a range of beliefs about relations

between two phenomena but about the effect on learning behaviour.

Section 5.7.2: Beliefs statements students strongly agree/agree with

There are 33 CCL beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #1 I enjoy learning English attitude to learning

English

2 #2/2a I learn English to find a good job in the future learner’s aims for learning English

3 #5/2d I learn English to pass exams learner’s aims for learning English

4 #8/3a a good teacher of English should be

knowledgeable about their area criteria for being a

good teacher

5 #10/3c a good teacher of English should be light-hearted

when teaching criteria for being a

good teacher

6 #12/3e a good teacher of English should provide clear

and comprehensive notes criteria for being a

good teacher

7 #14/3g a good teacher of English should improve my

English skills e.g. reading, writing, speaking,

listening

criteria for being a good teacher

8 #16/4b I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like teacher-student

180

a friend-friend relationship relationship

9 #18/5b how much do you agree with the statement, I love

my teacher but love the truth more

perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’ questions in the

classroom

10 #20/6b if you do not agree with the teacher’s teaching in

the classroom do you ask the teacher after class


classroom

11 #22/7 my English teacher likes me asking questions in

the classroom


classroom

12 #23/8 my English teacher likes me asking questions

after class


classroom

13 #25/9b I prefer the teacher to encourage me to learn favoured teaching

method

14 #26/9c I prefer the teacher use different activities to help

me learn favoured teaching

method

15 #28/10b I think the contents of textbooks are not totally

correct attitudes to the

content of textbooks

16 #31/12a I memorize vocabulary by rehearsal strategies

like word lists, oral and visual repetition memorising vocabulary

17 #33/13a I practice reading English by reading the

materials in the textbooks practising reading

skills

18 #34/13b I practice reading in English by reading the

materials in other textbooks practising reading

skills

19 #35/13c I practice reading in English by reading

newspaper practising reading

skills

20 #37/14a I practice speaking in English by reading aloud

or reciting the texts in books practising speaking

skills

21 #39/14c I practice speaking in English by talking with

native English speakers practising speaking

skills

22 #41/15a I practice listening to English by listening to the

tapes that accompany the textbook practising listening

skills

23 #42/15b I practice listening to English by watching

English movies and TV shows practising listening

skills

24 #43/15c I practice listening to English by listening to

English radio practising listening

skills

25 #46/16b I practice writing in English by finishing the

writing tasks assigned by my teachers of English practising writing skills

26 #47/16c I practice writing in English by writing in my

diary in English practising writing skills

27 #49/17a the main barrier to improving my English is I do

not work hard enough barriers to learning

English

28 #51/17c the main barrier to improving my English is I do

not have a good English learning environment barriers to learning

English

29 #53/18a a good learner of English should work hard what makes a good

learner?

181

30 #54/18b a good learner of English should respect teachers what makes a good

learner?

31 #55/18c a good learner of English should practise using

English all the time what makes a good

learner?

32 #56/18d a good learner of English should never give up

learning English what makes a good

learner?

33 #57/18e a good learner of English should have their own

opinion about language and language learning what makes a good

learner?

The above example graph shows the highest percentage of students in each grade indicating a

position on the belief BS#1 I enjoy learning English. Students in all grades agreed with it.

Agreement with the CCL beliefs is because they are held by CEMs, Chinese nationals, and

therefore reflective of the belief systems of the Chinese culture. There are 11 categories of

beliefs agreed with: 1) attitude to learning English, 2) learner’s aims for learning English, 3)

criteria for being a good teacher of English, 4) teacher-student relationship, 5) perceptions of

teachers’ attitudes towards students’ questions in the classroom, 6) favoured teaching method,

7) attitude to the content of textbooks, 8) memorising vocabulary, 9) practising reading skills,

speaking skills, listening skills and writing skills, 10) barriers to learning English, and 11)

what makes a good learner? The logical assumption was to assume that this range of beliefs is

fairly normal for Chinese foreign language learners, but more so because these are specific

cultural BALLL.

67

42

59

41


graph 1 - agree


182

Section 5.7.3: Beliefs students strongly disagree and disagree with

There are eight CCL beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #14/4a I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like

a parent-child relationship teacher-student

relationship

2 #19/6a If you do not agree with what the teacher is

teaching, do you still follow the teacher’s idea?

perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’’

questions in the classroom

3 #27/10a I think the contents of textbooks are totally correct attitudes to the content of the

textbooks

4 #36/13d I practise reading in English by reading nothing practising reading

skills

5 #40/14d I practise speaking in English by doing nothing practising speaking

skills

6 #44/15d I practise listening to English by listening to

nothing practising listening

skills

7 #48/16d I practise writing in English by doing nothing practising writing skills

8 #50/17b The main barrier to improving my English is that

my teacher of English does not teach well barriers to learning

English


position on belief statement BS#14/4a I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like a

parent-child relationship. Students in grades 1 to 3 disagree with it, while students in grade 4

disagree and agree with it.

33

46

54

32

B#14/4a I prefer the teacher studentrelationship to be like a parent child

relationship

graph 2 - disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree/agree

183

Agreement with the CCL beliefs are because they are held by CEMs, Chinese nationals, and

therefore reflective of the belief systems of the Chinese culture. There are five categories of

beliefs: 1) teacher-student relationship, 2) perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’

questions in the classroom, 3) attitude to the content of textbooks, 4) practising reading skills,

speaking skills, listening skills and writing skills, and 5) barriers to learning English. The

logical assumption was to assume that this range of beliefs is fairly normal for Chinese

foreign language learners; they are negatives, beliefs they disagree with. However, a reason

for B#27/10a: I think the content of textbooks are totally correct is challenging. Students are

suggesting that the contents of their textbooks are not totally correct, which seems

counterintuitive.

Section 5.7.4: Belief statements students disagree, neither disagree or agree, agree with

There are six CCL beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #4/2c I learn English for the honour of my family learner’s aims for learning English

2 #7/2f I learn English because it is compulsory learner’s aims for learning English

3 #11/3d a good teacher of English should be a serious

teacher criteria for being a

good teacher

4 #30/11b the knowledge from textbooks is not useful in real

life attitudes to the


5 #45/16a I practise writing in English by exchanging letters

with a my pen pals in English practising writing skills

6 #52/17d the main barrier to improving my English is that

our learning materials are already out of date barriers to learning

English

33

50

45

36

B#11/3d a good teacher of Englishshould be serious

graph 3 - disagree, NDoA, agree


NDoA

agree

agree

disagree

184


position on belief statement BS#11/3d a good teacher of English should be a serious teacher.

Students in grade 1 neither disagree or agree with it, students in grades 2 and 3 agree with it,

and students in grade 4 disagree with it.

The mixed agreement of the CCL beliefs appears because they are held by CEMs, Chinese

nationals, and therefore reflective of the belief systems of the Chinese culture. There are five

categories of beliefs: 1) learner’s aims for learning English, 2) criteria for being a good

teacher of English, 3) attitude to the content of textbooks, 4) practising writing skills and 5)

barriers to learning English. The first two concern a CCL belief that a foreign language might

be learned to honour the family, but there are mixed feelings about it, perhaps because

‘Western’ beliefs have displaced this traditional belief. There are mixed feelings about

learning English being compulsory, which is puzzling: students should be able to say whether

learning English is compulsory or not. Perhaps students’ developing experience of FLL is a

reason for mixed feelings about this small group of issues.

Section 5.7.5: Beliefs statements students neither disagree or agree/ agree with

There are seven CCL beliefs highlighted in this section.


1 #6/2e I learn English for daily communication learner’s aims for learning English

2 #9/3b a good teacher of English should often use games

and other activities when teaching criteria for being a

good teacher

3 #17/5a being a teacher for a day entitles them to lifelong

respect from students in the same way students

respect their fathers

perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’

question in the classroom

4 #24/9a I prefer the teacher to tell me everything I should

learn favoured teaching

method

5 #29/11a I think the knowledge from the textbooks is useful

in real life attitudes to the


6 #32/12b I memorise vocabulary by using other mnemonic

techniques memorising vocabulary

7 #38/14b I practise speaking in English by talking with my

classmates in English practising speaking

skills

185


position on belief statement BS#6/2e I learn English for daily communication. Students in

grades 1, 3 and 4 agreed with it, and students in grade 2 neither disagreed or agreed and

agreed with it.

The mixed agreement and neither disagree or agreement of the CCL beliefs appears because

increasingly they perceive the need to communicate using the new language, gaining

confidence every year. There are seven categories of beliefs: 1) learner’s aims for learning

English; 2) criteria for being a good teacher of English; 3) perceptions of students question in

the classroom; 4) favoured teaching method; 5) attitude to the content of textbooks; 6)

memorising vocabulary; and 7) practising speaking skills. Finding a reason for the mixed

feelings about these issues is challenging. Perhaps #32/12b is a complex topic, a mnemonic

being a strategy for improving their memory of English vocabulary apart from those already

being used (see section 5.1.2.1 above on VLSs), using cognitive phenomena like visual, audio

and semantic aspects of English vocabulary. Students may have been hard pressed to think of

other strategies they may have been using at the time they were surveyed. However, during

the interviews (see section 5.8) many students were able to offer alternatives to those on the

questionnaire. Students’ developing experience of FLL may be a reason for these mixed

feelings about this small group of issues.

58

46

41

36

B#6/2e I learn English for dailycommunication

graph 4 - agree/NDoA


agree

NDoA/agree

agree

agree

186

Section 5.7.6: Beliefs statements students neither disagree or agree


position on belief statement BS#13/3f a good teacher of English should help me pass exams.

Students in grades 1, 3 and 4 neither disagree or agree with it, while students in grade 2

neither disagree or agree and agree with it.

The mixed feelings about this issue is interesting because students should pass exams to

progress given that learning a foreign language is their major, and learning English is what

they are trying to achieve as part of their degree program. There is some agreement with it so

there are some students who think this is something a teacher should help them with.

67

50

36

41

B#13/3f a good teacher of Englishshould help me pass exams

graph 5 - neither disagree or agree


NDoA

NDoA/agree

NDoA

NDoA

187

Section 5.7.8: Disagree/neither disagree or agree


position on belief statement BS#21/6c if you do not agree with what the teaching is teaching,

do you ask the teacher immediately in the classroom? Students in grades 1 and 3 disagree

with it, students in grade 2 neither disagree or agree with it, and students in grade 4 disagree

and neither disagree or agree with it.

The mixed feelings, though mostly disagreement on this issue, are hard to account for.

Students are suggesting that if they disagree with what the teacher teaches, they will not ask

about it in the class. Perhaps this is a form of respect for the teacher. Perhaps doing this is a

face-saving action.

Section summary

This subsection presented the data generated by the exploration of CEMs’ beliefs about the

CCL. The data suggests that 1) CEMs hold beliefs that belong to the CCL, and 2) CEMs’

CCL beliefs are consistent across the four grades. The section on general BALLL shows that

18 beliefs were agreed with, roughly 53 per cent, while of CCL beliefs 33 beliefs were agreed

with, roughly 59 per cent. This suggests that CEMs have a preference for CCL beliefs,

understandable given that they are Chinese nationals living in China. They are learning

English, so the appearance of general ‘Western’ beliefs among their preferences suggests they

33

46

45

45

B#21/6c if you do not agree with theteacher's teaching do you ask the

teacher immediately in the classroom

graph 6 - disagree/NDoA


disagree

NDoA

disagree

disagree/NDoA

188

have picked them up as a result of an influx of native English speaker teachers and the

internet, as well as China’s general ‘opening up’ to the West. The result is discussed further in

Chapter 7.

5.8 BALLLQ and CCLQ data compared with interview data

Interview data is presented next. The data is themed and contrasted with, where possible, the

same questions on the questionnaire. General BALLL and CCL beliefs are generalised here

because the interviews did not ask about culturally specific beliefs, but the questions aimed to

draw out those beliefs. The interview data was placed in tables. The tables show how the

student responded to the question, and the analysis involved extracting the nominals – nouns,

noun phrases and indicators.

5.8.1: Question 5: How would you rate your English competence?

Thirteen interviewees said their English competence was ‘medium’ (see Appendix 11, Table

1). This question was also asked on the BALLLQ and got a similar response. Perhaps ‘just so

so’, ‘average’ are variations on ‘medium’, and ‘poor’ is similar to ‘bad’. Below are some

students’ responses for this answer.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 9) CLARE 21 English 3 122 f 12

Question: Answer:

5) How would you rate your English competence? In China, I am rated medium.

What does that mean? I mean, I am medium just because I am not naive.

What has naive got to do with your English ability? I am sorry, I typed wrongly again.

No problem. I mean, I am not an American or English native

speaker.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 10) ANNA 23 English 3 128 f 10

Question: Answer:

5) How would you rate your English competence? Of course, poor.

Why? NA

Student 9 rated their English competence at ‘medium’, while student 10 rated it ‘poor’.

Student 9 is 2 years younger than student 10, but in the same grade, yet student 10’s CET

score was 128, higher than student 9, but student 10 rates their English competence as ‘poor’.

189

The difference in years of English education may provide some insight into the self-rating,

may account for the ‘confidence’ to rate English competence but needs further investigation.

The fact that student 9 says the rating in China is ‘medium’, and based on the fact that she is

not a native English speaker suggests the rating of CEMs’ English competence, at least, in

China is not how EFL learners may suggest answers for confidence in self-rating.

In the interview responses (see Appendix 11, Table 1), the student that said ‘bad’ did not

really display English competence commensurate with the belief. The student that said ‘not

sure’ can be viewed as not unconfident in rating her competence, just not sure about how to

rate it. The student that said ‘through exams’, is suggesting that this is how her English

competence is normally rated in her context of learning.

5.8.2: Question 6: What do you think makes a good teacher of English?

Personality traits and teacher qualities have been separated for what makes a good teacher?

(e.g. responsible, humorous, patient) because they are viewed as separate though linked

issues, the first are personal qualities whereas the other a specific teacher quality (see

Appendix 11, Table, 2). Separating ‘person’ qualities from those that the teacher really should

possess seemed logical and useful. From reading this list of teacher qualities, perhaps

students sometimes imagine teachers are more than professional educators, or wish them to

be. The highest percentage of students (32%) who offered an opinion was for has knowledge

of English. Under other traits, some interesting expectations were observed, for example,

makes English sound beautiful. This may be more an aesthetic expectation, besides a simple

preference. What is meant by ‘sound beautiful’ was not explored. This might be a reflection

of Chinese calligraphy in which students learn to write and are assessed on ideographs as part

of their schooling.

Students 11 and 12 explain their preference for teachers to have good knowledge of English

but make learning enjoyable. This is an interesting addition and will be explained later in the

discussion.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 11) DEBBIE 23 English 3 115 f 13

Question: Answer:

6) What do you think makes a good teacher of First of all, a good English teacher

190

English? must have the conscious that they need to know

the students well.

Ok anything else? Logical and considerate.

Ok anything else? That's all I can figure.

Ok If you are going to teach English, what would

you teach first?

According to myself, I will teach speaking first.

What else? Or the English cultural.

If you teach speaking first, how will you begin? First, tell the students to not be shy when

they speak English aloud.

Ok anything else? Just enjoy themselves during the learning process.

Then maybe teach the vowels and consonants.

Ok anything else? That's all.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 12) LESLIE 22 English 3 NA f 8

Question: Answer:

6) What do you think makes a good teacher of

English?

He should be kind and knowledgeable; skilful.

Kind and knowledgeable? Yes.

What else? Open.

What do you mean, open? Know many things, and understand students.

Anything else? Be devoted to his job; careful.

Anything else? That's all.

Student 11 made more suggestion about what makes a good teacher of English than student

12. Perhaps this can be accounted for in the years of English education each has received:

student 11 has had 13 years of English education while student 12 has had 8 years of English

education.

The most popular beliefs about what makes a good teacher of English were #68: has

knowledge of English, #17: responsible, #15: patient, #18: humorous, #34: helps students

pass exams, #46: understands students, #51: makes English sound beautiful, #61: has good

English pronunciation, #66: has high level of English, #69: knows English culture, #77: has

good teaching skill, #86: teaches culture, and #96: teaches grammar.

5.8.3: Question 7: What should the student-teacher relationship be like?

Table 5.27: What should the student-teacher relationship be like?

#: Answer: Interview

percentages

BALLL

percentages

CCL

percentages

1 friends 48 - 54

2 respect 40 - 25

3 harmony 4 - -

The student-teacher relationship is emphasised in traditional Chinese culture. Traditionally it

191

has been one where students must show respect for the teacher. Forty-eight per cent of

students said they wanted the relationship to be a friend-friend relationship. From some of the

interviews, it seemed that this was rarely the case. The fact that 40 per cent of students said

the relationship should be students’ respecting the teacher suggests that this traditional view

of the relationship is still a preference for some.

5.8.4: Question 8: What does learning another language involve in your opinion?

Asking what is involved in learning another language? seemed to be a challenge for students.

Many seemed to struggle to articulate the process they go through, though they had had an

average nine years of English language education by the time they answered the research

questions (see Appendix 11, Table 3). The examples below demonstrate this uncertainty.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 14) SALLY 23 English 3 131 f 6

Question: Answer:

8) What does learning another language involve in

your opinion?

What?

I mean, if you learn another language, what must

you learn?

Vocabulary; grammar.

Ok anything else? The culture.

Ok anything else? No.

student Age Major grade CET score gender YoELE 13) LUCY 20 English 1 131 f 10

Question: Answer:

8) What does learning another language involve in

your opinion?

I do not know how to answer it well;

could you explain it to me?

Ok, imagine you will learn English from the

beginning, what will you learn first?

Aa, Bb, Cc.

What next? Words.

Then what? Then grammar;

and next I will learn to write a short passage.

Ok, then what? Then I will say the words aloud.

Ok and after that? After that,

I will try to communicate with others as much as

possible; in English.

Ok so you read the passage aloud, or you will

memorize it and say it aloud from memory?

Yeah.

Both? Yes.

Anything else? No.

Student 14 provided fewer suggestions than student 15 about what is involved in learning

another language. Student 14 achieved the same CET score as student 15, yet student 14 has

192

had fewer (6) years of English language education than student 15 (10). This is puzzling

because she is grade 3 whereas student 15 is in grade 1. The difference in responses may be

accounted for by temperament rather than the difference in years of English education,

because they both achieved the same CET score.

Some students simply said that learning English was the same as learning any other foreign

language. But they were quick to point out that learning English wasn’t the same as learning

their native Chinese. The highest percentage response was 56 per cent, for culture. Students

seemed to suggest that learning another language also involved learning the culture of the

other language. This may suggest students’ interest in learning about the culture of L2.

The most popular beliefs regarding what is involved in learning another language were, #13:

culture, #4: words, #7: grammar, #12: pronunciation, #11: speaking English, #10: writing

English, #2: alphabet, #6: phrases, #15: reading English, #21: history, #3: phonetic symbols,

and #19: listening in English.

5.8.5: Question 9: Should vocabulary learning strategies be taught?

Table 5.28: Should VLSs be taught?

#: Answer: Interview

percentages

1 yes 72

2 not sure 4

3 no 12

4 not all 8

5 maybe 4

An important question with reference to the nature of the research (should vocabulary

learning strategies be taught? (Table 5.28 above)) was asked, and 72 per cent of students

agreed that it should. This is a strong show of support for the idea, given that these students

are not explicitly taught English VLSs. However, despite the strong support, 12 per cent of

students said no. When students were asked to clarify their response, they generally said

every student has his own way. See section 5.5.

This suggests that CEMs have a range of views on the above issues, some creative and

innovative. Many of these views have not been offered in previous research. The interviews

193

gave deeper insight into CEMs’ beliefs and preferences, not so much on the issue of what is

involved in learning another language but that learning the culture of the foreign language is

an aspect that should also be learned. The importance of strategy training, however, should

not be understated.

From the analysis of interview data, a range of new beliefs was found. In terms of English

competence, 52 per cent of students rated theirs as ‘medium’, while 28 per cent rated it as

‘poor’. In terms of what makes a good English teacher?, there was a range of new beliefs.

Five general groupings of beliefs appeared: personality traits, other traits, teacher qualities,

teaching tools and what the teacher should teach. For personality traits, 20 per cent of

students said the teacher should be ‘responsible’, 16 per cent each for ‘patient’ and

‘humorous’. For other traits, 12 per cent each for ‘helps students pass exams’, ‘understands

students’ and ‘makes English sound beautiful’; 8 per cent each for ‘helps students enjoy

English’ and ‘makes classes interesting’. For teaching qualities, 32 per cent said ‘must have

knowledge of English’; 12 per cent each for ‘has good English pronunciation’, ‘has high level

of English’, ‘knows English culture’ and ‘has good teaching skills’; 8 per cent each for

‘understands textbooks’, ‘has good English skills’, ‘uses professional skills’, ‘has good

teaching method’ and ‘has good teaching technique’. For teaching tools, 8 per cent said ‘uses

dialogues’. For what the teacher should teach, 12 per cent each for ‘teaches culture’ and

‘teaches grammar’. For what the student-teacher relationship should be like, 48 per cent said

friend-friend and 40 per cent said ‘respect’, which equates to a parent-child relationship. For

what is involved in learning another language, 56 per cent said ‘culture’, 44 per cent each for

‘words’ and ‘grammar’, 32 per cent for ‘pronunciation’, 28 per cent for ‘speaking English’,

and 24 per cent for ‘writing English’.

Section summary

By converting raw data to percentages, trends and patterns were observed in the data. Of the

34 general BALLL asked about, 18 were agreed with — approximately 53 per cent. Of the 57

CCL beliefs asked about, 33 beliefs were agreed with — approximately 58 per cent. Three

general groupings were observed in the data: 1) strongly agree/agree, 2) strongly

disagree/disagree, and 3) neither disagree or agree.

However, few comparisons were found between the questionnaire data and the interview. For

194

English competence, a possible 60 per cent of interviewees said ‘medium’ compared to 61 per

cent of BALLLQ respondents. For the student-teacher relationship, while 48 per cent of

interviewees said the relationship should be friend-friend, 54 per cent of CCLQ respondents

said it should be friend-friend. While 40 per cent of interviewees said the relationship should

be one of respect, 25 per cent of students said it should be like a parent-child relationship. No

comparisons were found for what is involved in learning another language. On the question

of whether VLSs should be taught, 72 per cent of interviewees said it should be, while 12 per

cent said no.

Chapter summary

On the question of which VLSs CEMs use, 58 per cent were found to be often/always used.

This suggested medium use of VLSs. The finding that strategy use clustered in each grade

was significant. From this clustering, it was inferred that it was a core set of VLSs and a

strong indicator of a PVL followed by CEMs. The interview data revealed a range of new

VLSs from discovery-place and determination initial response and study strategies to

consolidation-memorisation and consolidation-practice strategies. On the question of

differences in VLS use among the four grades, it was variable. The difference was observed

in percentages of students using a strategy in each grade. Three general groupings appeared in

the data: 1) increasing strategy use, 2) decreasing strategy use and 3) unchanged strategy use.

These groupings revealed trends in strategy use in each grade and reasons offered for the

trend. Comparison of questionnaire data and interview data provided some significant

confirmation of the questionnaire data. For instance, that students discover new vocabulary in

textbooks was comparable percentage-wise; discovering new vocabulary while watching

English TV/movies were both comparable. Determination strategies were comparable for

guess the meaning of a new word, look up English dictionary, know its pronunciation, and

write the new word down. For consolidation-practice strategies, they were comparable on

write the new word down, use a vocabulary book and practise new words with classmates.

For consolidation-memorisation strategies, reciting new words and making sentences with

new words were comparable.

The question of whether general BALLL correlate with CCL beliefs is answered in Chapter

6. The correlation was strong. However, in terms of agreement, students showed average

agreement on both general and specific BALLL — in terms of overall percentages of students

195

agreeing. However, descriptive analysis revealed that CEMs’ CCL beliefs were stronger than

their general beliefs. The formal statistical analysis revealed that beliefs and VLSs strongly

correlated. Chapter 6 discusses the formal statistical analysis.

196

197

CHAPTER 6: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VLS USE, CCL, BALLL

AND VST

6.0 Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis of data gathered through three

questionnaires and VSTs. Data was gathered through a VLS questionnaire, two belief

questionnaires about language and language learning (BALLLQ and CCLQ), and four VSTs

(VST 1000, VST 2000, VST 3000 and VST Academic). One of the aims of the research was

to observe the statistical relationship between VLS use, beliefs and English VST scores, so

the statistical analysis explored the strength of the relationship among these factors, and their

statistical characteristics. This chapter answers research question No. 5 Do their specific

beliefs about language and language learning correlate with vocabulary learning strategy

use?. The discussion of the result is found in Chapter 7. The data was analysed in SPSS using

Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test and non-parametric correlations by Spearman’s rho (see

Chapter 4). The first section, 6.1, presents the non-parametric correlations by Spearman’s rho

on three main factors (VLSs and BALLL, general and specific). The second section, 6.2,

presents the non-parametric analysis of differences within each grade on all factors and

between five factors including age and years of English language within a grade. The third

section, 6.3, presents the statistical results of the Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis Test to

observe differences in score-means on the three questionnaires and VST and to observe

differences and/or similarity in mean differences.

6.1 The relationship between VLSs, general BALLL and CCL beliefs

Non-parametric correlation was run to observe the strength of the relationship among the

main factors, VLS use, BALLL and CCL. The analysis Spearman’s rho was run for VLS use

and general BALLL, between VLS use and CCL beliefs, between general BALLL and CCL

beliefs. The non-parametric correlation was run in SPSS on all factors for all grades.

198

Table 6.1 shows the correlation test run for three factors.

Table 6.1: Three factors correlated

CCL

TOTAL BALLL TOTAL

VLS TOTAL

CCLTOTAL 1.000 0.552** 0.420**

BALLLTOTAL 1.000 0.298**

VLSTOTAL 1.000

** p < 0.01

Key to Table 6.1: the test was run separately on all three factors at the same time (e.g., VLS

use matched with beliefs) and then highlighted in the one table; in the top row far right-hand

cells, the factor coded, CCLTOTAL, BALLLTOTAL and VLSTOTAL, and below it, for each

factor that was tested the name of the test, Spearman’s rho, the correlation coefficient range,

the significance (2-tailed), and number of samples (80); under Sig. (2-tailed), the value of

greater significance here, the value of the significance or correlation, significant at p < 0.01

indicated by **, that the three factors strongly correlate.

The result of the analysis shows a strong and significant relationship among the three factors

explored in the research. Knowing that there is a strong relationship between these three

factors means that VLSs and beliefs work together during the process of vocabulary learning,

among the other factors that come into play.

6.2 Within grade correlation by Spearman’s rho of all categories and strategies against

VST 1000 to 3000 and Academic scores

Tables 6.2 to 6.5 show the non-parametric correlation test run on category and strategies

against VST and Academic test scores; the test was run because no correlation was observed

between VLS and VST/Academic scores in Table 6.10 Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test.

Key to tables: the top row lists the items; the far left-column lists the test; the second column

lists the category and strategies in it; the third column lists the labels items shown in the two

right-hand columns, for example, correlation value, p value and number of samples; the two

right-hand columns show the result of the Spearman’s rho for VST 1000 to 3000 and

Academic scores, and the strength of the correlation indicated by * or **.

199

6.2.1 Grade 1

Table 6.2: Category and strategies against VST and Academic scores for grade 1

Test Category and strategies VST 1000 to 3000

Aca

Spearman’s rho discovery-place correlation 0.022 0.287

P value 0.923 0.195

N 22 22

determination-response correlation - 0.248 0.090

P value 0.265 0.689

N 22 22

determination-study correlation 0.068 0.104

P value 0.764 0.645

N 22 22

consolidation-organisation correlation 0.126 0.188

P value 0.578 0.402

N 22 22

consolidation-memory correlation -0.156 0.112

P value 0.487 0.621

N 22 22

consolidation-review correlation - 0.114 - 0.052

P value 0.613 0.819

N 22 22

consolidation-remember correlation 0.005 0.087

P value 0.982 0.701

N 22 22

consolidation-production correlation -0.084 0.110

P value 0.709 0.627

N 22 22

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Table 6.2 above is concerned with the relationship among VLSs explored and four VSTs. The

aim was to observe a relationship between scores on the tests and strategy use within a grade

of undergraduates (grade 1). Past research (Gu & Johnson, 1996) observed a relationship

between determination-study strategies and English proficiency scores for one large sample

(850). The above table shows no statistically significant relationships.

200

6.2.2 Grade 2

Table 6.3: Category and strategies against VST and Academic scores grade 2


Aca

Spearman’s rho discovery-place correlation 0.039 - 0.066

P value 0.863 0.770

N 22 22

determination-response correlation 0.023 .011

P value 0.919 0.960

N 22 22

determination-study correlation 0.223 0.412

P value 0.319 0.057

N 22 22


P value 0.140 0.623

N 22 22

consolidation-memory correlation 0.209 0.296

P value 0.351 0.181

N 22 22

consolidation-review correlation 0.221 0.325

P value 0.323 0.140

N 22 22

consolidation-remember correlation 0.115 0.276

P value 0.610 0.214

N 22 22

consolidation-production correlation - 0.152 0.084

P value 0.500 0.709

N 22 22

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Table 6.3 above shows the result of exploring statistically significant relationships among

scores on four VSTs and strategy use. A relationship has been observed in the past between

determination-study strategies and proficiency scores. For grade 2 undergraduate CEMs, no

statistically significant relationships were observed.

201

6.2.3 Grade 3



Aca

Spearman’s rho discovery-place correlation - 0.388 - 0.118

P value 0.061 0.584

N 24 24

determination-response correlation - 0.382 - 0.260

P value 0.065 0.220

N 24 24

determination-study correlation 0.104 0.433*

P value 0.627 0.034

N 24 24


P value 0.482 0.679

N 24 24

consolidation-memory correlation - 0.462* - 0.110

P value 0.023 0.608

N 24 24

consolidation-review correlation - 0.277 - 0.099

P value 0.189 0.646

N 24 24

consolidation-remember correlation -0.125 0.067

P value 0.562 0.757

N 24 24

consolidation-production correlation - 0.113 - 0.091

P value 0.598 0.673

N 24 24

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

In Table 6.4 above, the relationship between grade 3 undergraduate CEMs’ scores on four

VSTs and strategy use were explored. A statistically significant relationship was observed

between determination-study strategies and scores on the Academic VST. A statistically

significant relationship was also observed between consolidation-memory strategies and

scores on three VSTs (1000, 2000, and 3000). This finding is significant and confirms

previous research (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996), that there is a relationship between VLS use

and proficiency, at least, and is reflected on in Chapter 7, section 7.5, comparing more recent

research by Ma (2009) which focused on VLS categories.

202

6.2.4 Grade 4


Test Category & strategies VST 1000 to 3000

Aca

Spearman’s rho discovery-place correlation 0.446 0.513

P value 0.146 0.088

N 12 12

determination-response correlation - 0.427 - 0.007

P value 0.166 0.982

N 12 12

determination-study correlation 0.331 0.592*

P value 0.293 0.042

N 12 12


P value 0.542 0.663

N 12 12

consolidation-memory correlation 0.605* 0.167

P value 0.037 0.603

N 12 12

consolidation-review correlation 0.312 - 0.123

P value 0.324 0.702

N 12 12

consolidation-remember correlation 0.576* 0.317

P value 0.050 0.315

N 12 12

consolidation-production correlation 0.542 0.076

P value 0.069 0.815

N 12 12

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Table 6.5 above is the analysis of grade 4 undergraduate CEMs’ strategy use and scores on

VSTs. A statistically significant relationship was observed between determination-study

strategies and Academic vocabulary size scores; between consolidation-memory strategies

and scores on three VSTs (1000, 2000, 3000); between consolidation-remember strategies

and scores on three VSTs.

The result of the correlational analysis shows a strong correlation between determination-

study strategies and Academic scores in grade 3, between discovery-memory strategies and

VST 1000 to 3000 in grade 4, between determination-memory strategies and VST 1000 to

203

3000 scores in grade 4, and between consolidation-remember strategies and VST 1000 to

3000 scores in grade 4. The result is similar to Gu’s and Johnson’s (1996) findings

concerning determination-study strategies and English proficiency scores. More research of a

larger scope may be needed to verify these results.

Section summary

While the aim was a deeper analysis of the VLSs against VST/Academic scores at the

categories level (8) on the questionnaire, few correlations were found. Grades 1 and 2 did not

show any correlations, however, grade 3 showed a correlation determination-study strategies

and Academic scores and between consolidation-memory strategies and scores on the VST

1000 to 3000, and in grade 4 between determination-study strategies and Academic

vocabulary size scores, between consolidation-memory strategies and scores on the VST

1000 to 3000 scores and between determination-remember strategies and scores on the VST

1000 to 3000.

6.3 Differences within each grade on all factors including age and years of English

language education

6.3.1 Correlations within grade 1 for all factors

The correlations were run first, then the ANOVA-type test. The ANOVA-type test has been

run by previous researchers on all these factors. The test was run on all factors at the same

time and then the result put with the other test results in one table.

Table 6.6 shows the Non-parametric Correlation test run on all factors.

Table 6.6: Analysis of all factors for grade 1

CCL BALLL VLS Academic VST 1 to 3 Age YoELE

CCL 1.000 0.558** 0.520* 0.197 0.155 0.548* 0.354

BALLL 1.000 0.385 0.367 0.246 0.272 -0.128

VLS 1.000 0.090 -0.085 -0.029 0.249

Academic 1.000 0.680** -0.178 0.085

VST 1 to 3 1.000 0.042 -0.114

Age 1.000 0.027

YoELE 1.000

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

204

Key to Table 6.6: in the top row far left-hand cell, the test, then the factor tested, then the

correlation coefficient, the significance (2-tailed), and then value of the correlation; for the

correlation coefficient, the value of greater significance here, the value of the relationship

between the factors, some of those factors have strong correlations at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01

indicated by * and **.

The three factors explored in the research were also analysed for correlations against each

other and with two other factors, age and years of English language education. This analysis

explored correlations within a grade (grade 1, grade 2, grade 3 and grade 4). Table 6.6 shows

correlations in grade 1 were observed between cultural beliefs (CCL) and general BALLL. A

relationship was also observed between the beliefs of the CCL and age. This suggests a

relationship between age and beliefs.


The test was run on all factors at the same time and then the result put with the other test

results in the one table. Table 6.7 shows the non-parametric correlation test run on all factors.



CCL 1.000 0.636** 0.321 0.086 0.029 0.046 0.170

BALLL 1.000 -0.045 -0.077 -0.282 -0.412 0.187

VLS 1.000 0.344 0.172 0.029 -0.201

Academic 1.000 0.483* 0.106 0.140

VST 1 to 3 1.000 0.206 -0.036

Age 1.000 0.136

YoELE 1.000

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05

Key to Table 6.7; in the top row far left-hand cell, the test, then the factor tested, then the

correlation coefficient, the significance (2-tailed), and then value of the correlation; under




205

The three factors explored in the research were analysed for relationships with each other and

two other factors, age and years of English language education in grade 2. Few statistically

significant relationships were observed. Similar to grade 1, a strong relationship was

observed between general beliefs (BALLL) and cultural beliefs (CCL), and between scores

on the Academic VST and three other VSTs (1000 to 3000).


The test was run on all factors at same time and then the result put with the other test results

in the one table. Table 6.8 shows the non-parametric correlation test run on all factors.



CCL 1.000 0.463* 0.281 0.092 -0.392 0.176 0.339

BALLL 1.000 0.492* -0.115 -0.161 -0.057 0.060

VLS 1.000 0.109 -0.262 -0.167 0.145

Academic 1.000 0.398 0.133 -0.471*

VST 1 to 3 1.000 -0.206 -0.267

Age 1.000 -0.070

YoELE 1.000

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05






Within grade 3, significant correlations were observed between cultural beliefs (CCL) and

general beliefs (BALLL), between general beliefs (BALLL) and VLS use, and between

scores on the Academic VST and years of English language education (YoELE).


The test was run on all factors at same time and then the result put with the other test results

in the one table. Table 6.9 shows the non-parametric correlation test run on all factors.

206



CCL 1.000 0.506 0.667* 0.248 0.520 0.130 -0.039

BALLL 1.000 -0.011 0.263 0.603* 0.180 0.433

VLS 1.000 0.217 0.386 -0.334 -0.329

Academic 1.000 0.529 -0.271 0.364

VST 1 to 3 1.000 -0.253 0.202

Age 1.000 0.458

YoELE 1.000

** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05






For grade 4, correlations were observed between cultural beliefs (CCL) and VLS, and

between general beliefs (BALLL) and scores on three VSTs (1000 to 3000).

CCL beliefs against other factors

Grade 1 CCL beliefs correlated strongly with BALLL and VLS use and age. The strong

correlation with BALLL and VLS use confirms they work together. The strong correlation

with age and not YoELE, however, is interesting. Age maybe a stronger factor in the process

of vocabulary learning than hitherto imagined, and needs further research to reveal its role.

Grade 2 CCL beliefs strongly correlated with only BALLL.

Grade 3 CCL beliefs correlated with only BALLL.

Grade 4 CCL beliefs correlated with only VLS use.

General BALLL against other factors

Grade 1 general BALLL did not correlate with other factors.

Grade 2 general BALLL did not correlate with other factors.

207

Grade 3 general BALLL correlated strongly with VLS use.

Grade 4 general BALLL correlated strongly with VST 1000 to 3000 scores.

VLS use against other factors

Grade 1 VLS use did not correlate with other factors.




Academic vocabulary size scores against other factors

Grade 1 Academic scores correlated with VST 1000 to 3000 scores.

Grade 2 Academic scores correlated with VST 1000 to 3000 scores.

Grade 3 Academic scores correlated with years of English education.

Grade 4 Academic scores did not correlate with other factors.

VSTs 1000 to 3000 scores against other factors

Grade 1 VST scores did not correlate with any other scores.




Age against other factors

Grade 1 Age did not correlate with any other scores.




Years of English education against other factors

Grade 1 YoELE did not correlate with any other scores.

208




Section summary

Despite significant differences in scores within a grade being observed with Kruskal-Wallis

ANOVA showing strong relationships among three factors (BALLL, CCL, VLS use), there

were few correlations found among seven factors. Correlations were observed among three

factors (BALLL, CCL, VLS use) providing further evidence of their relationship.

Correlations were observed between grade 1 CCL and age, and Academic and VST 1000 to

3000; for grade 2, between CCL and BALLL, and between Academic and VST 1000 to 3000;

for grade 3, between CCL and BALLL, between BALLL and VLS use, and between

Academic and years of English language education; and for grade 4, between CCL and VLS

use, and between BALLL and VST 1000 and 3000. This suggests a more consistent

relationship between CCL and BALLL, but more research is required on the other factors.

6.4 Statistically significant difference in the three factors and four tests in terms of

highest, middle and lowest scores

To see if scores are the same/similar or different, because vocabulary size (e.g. Academic

vocabulary size) is dependent on the process of vocabulary learning, the independent variable

(e.g. strategies and beliefs), an alternative approach was used to observe significant difference

not observed in the Spearman’s rho analysis. If students have strong beliefs, for example,

they will get a high score on the questionnaires; likewise, if students have strong regular

strategy use, it will show as a high score on the questionnaire. When looking at three groups

of score-means, a difference will be seen depending on the three groups Upper, Middle and

Lower.

209

Table 6.10 shows the Kruskal-Wallis Test (an ANOVA-type test) mean ranks of the scores in

three ranges, Upper, Middle and Lower.

Table 6.10: Difference in score-means to show difference or no difference

Aca

Range: N Mean Rank Chi-square df Asymp. Sig.

CCLTOTAL Upper 29 39.31

Middle 28 49.20 7.521 2 0.023

Lower 23 31.41

BALLLTOTAL Upper 29 37.17

Middle 28 49.48 6.724 2 0.035

Lower 23 33.76

VLSTOTAL Upper 29 42.74

Middle 28 44.29 3.370 2 0.185

Lower 23 33.07

*Grouping variable: Gr_Academic

Key to Table 6.10; in the far left-hand column is ‘factor’ tested against VST scores; in the

second and third column is the mean rank of the scores in the range of Upper, Middle and

Lower on each of the factors matched against VST scores. There was a significant difference

in the means of CCL, BALLL and VLS, but not against the Academic VST. There was a

significant difference in BALLL/CCL scores and Academic scores, restricting analysis at a

deeper level. The assumption was that the Upper scores would be the highest scores, but the

Middle score were the highest. There was, however, no significant difference between VLS

use and Academic scores among three levels of Academic scores. The result provides an

opportunity for more analysis on at least the two beliefs factors (see section 6.5 below). This

Kruskal-Wallis Test was run after the correlations because no significant correlation was

found between VLS use and scores on the VST 1000 to 3000 and Academic size tests.

Among the three mean score groupings, there is significant difference on each factor.

Interestingly, of the three groups, the Middle showed the highest score, for example, the

Middle group showed more ‘agreement’ with CCL beliefs than the Upper group, though they

showed stronger belief agreement (see Appendix 5). For instance, the minimum score was 6

while the highest was 36 on the Academic VST; so within this range of scores were three

distinct groupings of scores: Upper, from 36 to 33; Middle, from 32 to 23; Lower, from 22 to

6. However, given that non-parametric tests were used, no generalisation about the findings

can be made. Non-parametric tests were run because 1) the sample size was below 100, and

210

2) because normal distribution cannot be determined with this size sample.

For a clearer picture of changes in vocabulary size from one grade to the next over the four

years of a Bachelor degree, see Appendix 1. The method of analysis is found in Appendix 7.

6.5 A closer look at the relationship between two belief factors against Academic scores

To observe the difference in mean scores in Table 6.10 above at a deeper level MannWhitney

was run. It begins with a deeper analysis of CCL against Academic size test mean scores.

In the above boxplot a difference can be seen in the scores in the Middle range and the Lower

range (shown by these indicators O72 and O51) — they were the same between the Middle and

Upper range. This means that on the CCLQ there were more ‘higher scores’ regarding

agreement than at the Lower range. This makes sense. The Lower range concerns

‘agreement’ — in this case no agreement with the beliefs asked about. So the difference on

211

three ranges of mean scores observed in Table 6.10 above is found between the Middle range

and the Lower range. The mean scores were similar between the Middle and Upper range,

meaning there were more ‘agreement’ with CCL beliefs than not.

The boxplot below explores the difference observed in Table 6.10 regarding general beliefs

(BALLL) and Academic scores.

In the boxplot above a difference can be seen in mean scores between the Middle and Upper

range — they were the same between the Middle and Lower range. The difference means that

there was less ‘agreement’ in the Upper range than in the Middle. This might make sense if

Chinese students CCL beliefs are stronger than general beliefs held elsewhere in the world

about language and how to learn it. The Upper range for the BALLLQ is less than the Upper

range for the CCLQ, and suggests that CEMs agreed more with these beliefs than with the

general BALLL.

212

Section summary

A statistically significant difference was observed between individuals’ VLS use, BALLL,

CCL, but not for the VST. VLSs and general and specific beliefs were strongly related. This

provides strong evidence that they are part of the process of vocabulary learning, but that

their impact on vocabulary size is uncertain. Looking further into the difference observed

between two beliefs questionnaire results and Academic VST mean scores suggests CEMs’

CCL beliefs were stronger than general BALLL. The strength of general BALLL, commonly

referred to as ‘Western beliefs’, suggests they have infiltrated CCL beliefs.

Chapter summary

Few strong correlations were observed using Spearman’s rho to observe correlations between

VLSs and VST scores. Previous research had found correlation between VLSs, a different

range and College Entrance Test scores, so was inspirational to the present research.

Correlations were not observed between some strategies and VST scores, and this is logical

given their function, for example, some strategies do not relate to actual learning. Strong

correlations were observed among the three main factors, providing evidence that they are

related. There were significant correlations observed within a grade on some of seven factors

explored but not all, for example, between strategies and beliefs, between beliefs and age, and

between beliefs and years of English language education.

The results of the present research are discussed in Chapter 7 and then compared with the

literature.

213

CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION

The chapter discusses the main results of the research. There are three sections: Section 1

discusses vocabulary strategies and strategy use, research question No. 1 (7.0) and then

research question No. 2 in subsection 7.8; Section 2 discusses beliefs, research question No.

3, Horwitz’s general beliefs (7.10.1) and then Shi’s CCL beliefs (7.11). Each section

discusses the results in terms of whether the research question was answered or not and the

main findings from each as well as unexpected findings. Finally, section 3 (7.12.1) discusses

the process of vocabulary learning, the theme of the research.

Section 1: VLSs

7.0 Which VLSs do CEMs tend to use?

Despite the fact the research was limited to Ma’s (2009) list of 62 VLSs, the purpose was not

to determine a priori which strategies CEMs might use, but to observe which strategies they

may use of Ma’s substantial list. Of the 62 VLSs presented for consideration, 8 were

often/always used in the four grades (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.15), roughly 11 per

cent. The percentage suggests VLS use was medium. Only 37 VLSs were regularly used;

others were used but not so regularly — regularly meaning either in the four grades or only in

some grades (for example, grades 3 and 4) (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.16). This

finding is different from previous research (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996), which will be

discussed in 7.2.

While roughly 60 per cent of VLSs belonging to Ma’s list were variably used across the four

grades, variable VLS use was greatest at the individual level, which is also significant

because, once again, the individuality of CEMs is observed as well as their collective group

character as Chinese EFL learners. Variable use means strategy use fluctuated between

rarely/never and often/always, and the percentage of students using the strategy also

fluctuated (see Appendix 8). The reason for fluctuating strategy use is argued to be related to

learning activities and tasks, and perhaps motivation and time. For instance, while 5

discovery strategies (determination and social strategies) were used in grade 1, 6 in grade 2

and grade 3, and 5 in grade 4, the strategies included in a cluster of discovery strategies

214

(social, memory, cognitive and metacognitive) varied between grades (see Chapter 2, section

2.3.2.1, Table 2.2). This suggests students spent more time discovering new vocabulary than

consolidating their learning of it. This could also be a reflection of what a host of researchers

have found about language learners’ employment of a cluster of strategies in relation to

successful reading integrating meaning in preference to surface text-based strategies (e.g.

Anderson, 1991; Block, 1986; Carrell, 1989). It also may be understood if we take into

account that strategy use can vary depending on the cultural group (Kim, 1999; Koda, 1990;

Levine et al., 1996; LoCastro, 1994), that inexperienced L2 learners use different strategies

compared to experienced L2 learners (e.g. De Larios et al., 1999; van Hell & Mahn, 1997),

and that individual learners may use an ineffective subset of strategies (e.g. Kember & Gow,

1994; Porte, 1997).

The average mean of 3.2 (see Appendix 8, Table 1) for scores on the VLSQ (see Chapter 5,

section 5.1.2.2, Tables 5.1 and 5.2), using a 5-point Likert scale, suggests average strategy

use — using this measure: 1.00 to 2.49, low use, 2.50 to 3.49, medium use, and 3.50 to 5.0,

high use. Generally CEMs rarely or never used between 12 and 19 (in each grade and 26 in

total) of the 62 VLSs from Ma’s general list (see Chapter 5, section 5.3.6, Table 5.13). Four

discovery strategies and 21 consolidation strategies were never or rarely used (see Appendix

8, Table 4): 1 discovery-place strategy, 6 determination strategies (4 determination initial

response strategies and 1 determination-study strategy), 20 consolidation strategies (2

consolidation-organisation strategies, 8 consolidation-memory strategies, 5 consolidation-

review strategies, 1 consolidation-remember strategy and 4 consolidation-production

strategies). The average mean is shown in Appendix 8, Table 1. This average of VLSs

perhaps means CEMs don’t know about VLSs or aren’t taught about VLSs so aren’t aware of

their existence, or it is a cultural preference to use the strategies used.

The interview supported the questionnaire result on a number of strategies (see Chapter 5,

section 5.3.1). The discovery-place strategy, ‘in textbooks’, was used by 64 per cent of

students (55% on the questionnaire), ‘on TV’ was used by 40 per cent (38% on the

questionnaire), ‘in movies’ was used by 36 per cent, and ‘in newspapers’ and ‘in magazines’

were both used by 32 per cent of students. The determination initial response strategies in the

interview were ‘look up a dictionary’ (72%) (‘English-Chinese dictionary’, 45% on the

questionnaire; ‘Chinese-only dictionary’, 45% on the questionnaire), ‘guess its meaning’

(32%) (48% on the questionnaire), ‘recite it’ (24%). The ‘new’ category of consolidation-

215

practice strategies observed in the interview saw ‘reciting’ (not a new strategy) used by 28 per

cent of students. Others were ‘recite words in a vocabulary book’, ‘write it down’ (‘write it

down many times’, 46% on the questionnaire) and ‘listening to new words’. In terms of

consolidation-memory strategies, 52 per cent of students said they memorise new words by

‘writing them down’, by learning the pronunciation (28%), by using repetition (20%) and

practising with classmates (16%) (15% on the questionnaire). Perhaps the interview was a

‘better’ method than the questionnaire because strategy use could be discussed with a person

rather than being restricted to ticking boxes.

This finding suggests that not all strategies are used by every CEM. They rarely seem to use

the discovery-place strategy (1d: during English conversations with others to meet new

vocabulary) and this may be attributed to the fact that they do not often have conversations in

English. They also show preference for specific consolidation strategies, these include —

vocabulary exercises, grouping words together, making up sentences, listening to recordings

of vocabulary, making up rhymes, less physical connection with verbs, visual connection

with word meaning and little visualising new words in the mind.

A range of strategies (on the questionnaire) was rarely/never used (highlighted in soft pink in

Appendix 8, Table 4). The strategies are written in full below (3a, 5c, 7c, 7f and 9e) (see

Chapter 5, Table 5.15):

1. the discovery-determination strategy 3a, pay no attention to it and never go back to it;

2. the consolidation-organisation strategy, 5c, make vocabulary cards;

3. the consolidation-review strategy 7c, read the new word the first day, but not after

that;

4. the consolidation-review strategy 7f, test the new words with classmates; and,

5. the consolidation-production strategy 9e, try to e-chat on the internet using QQ, MSN

Messenger.

Why the above strategies were not used may depend on several reasons and they make sense

from a learning perspective. Strategy 3a is highly likely not used if students are determined to

learn, especially CEMs who might be interested in learning English as they are going to be

teachers. Strategy 5c was rarely used; perhaps students didn’t see the value of it. Strategy 7c,

again if students are determined to learn vocabulary, then they will make an effort to spend

time with new words. For English Majors, the absence of strategy 7f is puzzling; perhaps

216

students felt too shy to practise new words with classmates. Not using strategy 9e may be due

to a lack of opportunities to chat in English on chat software; they tend to chat in Chinese on

QQ rather than in English with English speakers, so perhaps again a lack of opportunity.

The result that CEMs’ VLS use is variable is not unexpected, perhaps because of issues like

the types of learning activities and tasks done, and time and motivation to learn. There are

probably other barriers to learning not revealed in this research. What is not asked in previous

and the present research is whether vocabulary learning is a constant activity. Perhaps it

wasn’t for CEMs. While Cohen and Aphek (1981) suggested memorisation one of the ‘best’

VLSs, ‘memorisation’ isn’t a single strategy, it involves several strategies (see Chapter 5,

Tables 5.7 and 5.8, Question 6) and CEMs indicate mixed frequency of use for many

memorisation strategies (see Appendix 8), which was surprising given previous research had

found that Chinese EFL learners strongly use them (see Chapter 2, section 2.4.2.1). Only one

strategy, 6b: write the new word several times, was often used in the four grades. However, of

the 18 memorisation strategies listed in Chapter 5, Table 5.7, 15 were affirmed as used in the

interview data (see Chapter 5, section 5.3.4). The results are unexpected, given that these are

CEMs and more strategy use was expected.

The four grades indicated (on the questionnaire) that they ‘often’ use the strategy ‘look at the

word several times’, but one grade (grade 4) split the frequency of use between ‘sometimes’

and ‘often’ (33% each); 36 per cent of both grade 1 and grade 2 students indicated that they

used the strategy ‘often’; and 50 per cent of grade 3 students indicated that they used it

‘often’.

‘Link the word to similar meaning words or opposite meaning words’ and ‘compare words

with similar meaning and study together’ were also used consistently: an average 36 per cent

of grade 2 students and 37 per cent of grade 4 students indicated that they ‘sometimes’ used

the strategy.

‘Memorise Chinese-English/English-Chinese lists’ was ‘often’ used by 45 per cent of grade 1

students and 36 per cent of grade 2 students, and ‘sometimes’ by 41 per cent of grade 3

students and 50 per cent of grade 4 students (see Chapter 5, section 5.1, Table 5.6). There was

strong support for using memorisation strategies as an aspect of the CCL, even though they

weren’t highly used by students in the present research. The idea of using ‘rehearsal

217

strategies’ (e.g., ‘using word lists’, ‘oral repetition’ and ‘visual repetition’) to memorise

vocabulary was ‘agreed’ to by 59 per cent of grade 1 students, 73 per cent of grade 2 students,

58 per cent of grade 3 students and 58 per cent of grade 4 students. The idea of using ‘other

mnemonic techniques’ (e.g., linking the word with something known or remembering the

context of its use) to learn vocabulary was ‘agreed’ to by 50 per cent of grade 1 students, 45

per cent of grade 2 students, 58 per cent of grade 3 students and 42 per cent of grade 4

students. CEMs were average in their overall use of memorisation strategies, which was

surprising given its prevalence in previous research (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996).

7.1 CEMs’ memorisation strategies compared to Schmitt (1997)

The CEMs in the present research were asked approximately 18 questions about how they

memorise vocabulary (see Chapter 5, Tables 5.6 and 5.7), which were used by about 44 per

cent of CEMs (see Appendix 8, Table 2).

In Schmitt’s (1997) research, students rated ‘use a bilingual dictionary’ No. 1, with 85 per

cent using it, whereas CEMs rated it No. 10, with 45 per cent using it. Verbal repetition was

rated second by Schmitt’s sample, with 76 per cent using it, whereas CEMs rated it No. 34,

with 25 per cent indicating they used it. Schmitt’s sample rated ‘ask classmates for the

meaning of a vocabulary item’ No. 6, with 73 per cent of the sample indicating they used it,

whereas CEMs rated it No. 50, with only 16 per cent indicating they used it. This probably

suggests that CEMs are different from Schmitt’s sample, but the difference cannot be viewed

as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ simply because CEMs tended not to use a bilingual dictionary, engage

in verbal repetition, or ask classmates for the meaning of a word.

7.2 VLS use compared with Gu and Johnson (1996)

Like Schmitt, Gu and Johnson (1996) found ‘oral repetition’ was highly used by Chinese

EFL learners. However, CEMs were very different in their use of VLSs compared with Gu

and Johnson’s sample, rating ‘say the word aloud several times’ No. 25, with only 25 per cent

using it (‘by reciting’, 28% in the interview; ‘know its pronunciation’, 39% in the interview).

Gu and Johnson’s sample rated ‘use vocabulary lists’ the lowest, whereas it was rated highly,

(No. 16) for CEMs, with 36 per cent of CEMs indicating they use it. The Gu and Johnson

sample rated ‘contextual encoding’ (e.g., ‘associate the new word with its context of use’)

218

highly, whereas was ranked No. 21 and 22 respectively for CEMs (e.g., ‘try to remember

where I first met the word’, ‘try to imagine what the new word looks like in a sentence’), with

34 per cent of CEMs using it.

What can be learned from this is that CEMs are different from other Chinese students, or at

least those in Gu and Johnson’s study. And this is a strong clue that their learning activities

and tasks may be different. The result suggests that their curriculum is perhaps different and

the goal of learning English vocabulary may be different. They also rely heavily on the use of

a bilingual dictionary. The use of such electronic media suggests the nature of some

vocabulary learning strategies have changed, as a result of the internet age.

7.3 Patterning of VLS use compared to Gu & Johnson (1996)

Table 7.1 shows a comparison of certain strategies from the Gu’s and Johnson’s (1996) study

and the present research.

Key to Table 7.1: left hand column lists strategies; middle column lists research — G&J =

Gu & Johnson, CEMs = present research; M = mean, SD = standard deviation, and n =

sample size.

Table 7.1: Guessing from context, dictionary and rehearsal

strategies

Strategies: Sample M SD n

Guessing from context CEMs 3.67 0.80 80

G&J 4.47 0.84 824

Look up dictionary CEMs 3.37* 0.93 80

Rehearsal strategies

1 using word lists CEMs 3.44 0.97 80

G&J 3.15 0.99 824

2 oral repetition CEMs 3.17 0.96 80

G&J 4.20 1.07 840

3 visual repetition CEMs 2.85* 1.06 80

G&J 3.92 1.17 833

Beliefs

1 Words should be memorised G&J 3.04 0.83 849

**Using rehearsal strategies (e.g. using word

lists, oral repetition, visual repetition) CEMs 3.64* 0.85 80

219

2 Acquire vocabulary in context G&J 4.94 0.78 850

**Learning English is mostly a matter of

learning many new English vocabulary items CEMs 3.06 0.94 80

3 Learn vocabulary and put it to use G&J 5.74 0.62 847

**It’s important to repeat English words and

practise often CEMs 4.19 0.70 80

* combined with another look-up dictionary strategy

** Because the same statements were not asked about in the current research,

the highlighted examples are the closest ones and used for comparative

purposes only

There is a difference on all strategies, and this suggests Chinese EFL learners are not all the

same, particularly in their strategy use when learning English vocabulary.

7.4 Use of discovery and consolidation strategies compared to Griffiths (2013)

Key to Table 7.2: left-hand column lists strategies by category; middle column lists research

—G = Griffiths, CEMs = present research; M = mean and n = sample size.

Table 7.2: Discovery and consolidation strategies compared

to Oxford’s SILL

Discovery and consolidation strategies sample M n

Determination initial response strategies

3c I try to guess the new word’s meaning from

the context CEMs 3.8 80

Griffiths’ ‘compensation’ strategies (SILL)

Elementary learners G, 2013 3.1 44

Advanced learners G, 2013 3.3 34

3e ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning CEMs 2.6 80

Griffiths’ ‘social’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I ask for

help from English speakers’



Determination-study strategies

4b its pronunciation CEMs 4.3 80

Griffiths’ ‘cognitive’ strategies (SILL)



220

4d the Chinese translation CEMs 4.3 80

Griffiths’ ‘cognitive’ strategies (SILL) – ‘try

not to translate word for word’



4i the new word’s part of speech CEMs 3.6 80

Griffiths’ ‘cognitive’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I try

to find patterns in English’



Consolidation-organisation strategies

5c make vocabulary cards/flashcards CEMs 2.3 80

Griffiths’ ‘memory’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I use

flashcards to remember words’



Consolidation-memorisation strategies

6a say the word aloud several times CEMs 3.5 80

Griffiths’ ‘cognitive’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I say

or write the word several times’




and have similarities CEMs 3.2 80

Griffiths’ ‘memory’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I

think of relationships’




the new word CEMs 1.8 80

Griffiths’ ‘memory’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I

create images of new words’



Consolidation-review strategies

7f test the new words with my classmates CEMs 2.6 80

Griffiths’ ‘social’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I

practice English with others’



221

Consolidation-remember strategies

8e try to remember where I first met the word CEMs 3.2 80

Griffiths’ ‘memory’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I use

location to remember new words’



Consolidation-production strategies

9a try to use words in speaking and writing CEMs 3.6 80

Griffiths’ ‘cognitive’ strategies (SILL) – ‘I

start conversations in English’



Being unable to compare many strategies with Schmitt (1997), a comparison was made with

Griffiths’ (2013) analysis of LLSs, particularly those that Schmitt re-categorised and re-

classified as specific VLSs. The comparison shows that CEMs are similar to Griffiths’ sample

on some strategies but not on others. Griffiths has highlighted the means for Elementary and

Advanced learners, which allows comparison of CEMs with these two groups. CEMs are

comparable, but often between Elementary and Advanced learners, yet they appear to be

classified by their university as intermediate level learners. CEMs were found to have higher

use of pronunciation and translation strategies and lower use of drawing strategies.

The fact that CEMs use these VLSs is significant, however; though there may be variable

use, it is significant. Variable use compared to other Chinese EFL learners (e.g. Gu &

Johnson, 1996; Gu, 2010; Yang, 1999; Tsai & Chang, 2009) is significant because it shows

something different was happening in the higher education context where CEMs were

enrolled regarding English vocabulary learning compared to research at other research sites in

China (e.g. Ahmed, 1989; Kok & Canbay, 2011; Subekti & Lawson, 2007). The following

discussion of clustering of VLSs (see section 7.6 below) in each grade may suggest more

clues. Tsai and Chang (2009) found an average frequency of use mean of 3.04, indicating

overall medium strategy use for Taiwan undergraduates, whereas the present research found

an average overall frequency of use mean of 3.15 for CEMs. This suggests CEMs strategy

use is comparable to Tsai’s and Chang’s study, and perhaps that the nature of learning might

have changed, as these two studies, the current and Tsai’s and Chang’s, report different

findings to those of Gu’s and Johnson’s (1996).

222

7.5 The present research compared to Ma (2009)

Table 7.3 below highlights the means for strategy use and frequency of use compared to Ma’s

(2009). Key to Table 7.3: the frequency of use is indicated by the F, and the frequency ranges

the first letter of each frequency: n = never; r = rarely; s = sometimes; o = often; a = always;

the Ma data is shown in the last 3 columns.

Table 7.3: Categories and strategies for whole group of CEMs and Ma (2009)

Categories and strategies M SD n F Ma n F



1b in vocabulary lists arranged alphabetical

order




1f when singing English songs and

watching English movies/TV


3.89

3.33

3.15

2.71

3.75

3.55

3.31

0.72

0.95

0.94

0.75

0.79

0.92

0.97

80

o

s/o

s/o

r/s/o

o

s/o

s/o

4.13

2.76

2.38

2.17

2.95

2.78

2.33

109

o

s

r

r

s

s

r


3a pay no attention to and never go back to

it

3b pay no attention to it, but go back to

later

3c I try to guess the new word’s meaning

from the context

3d study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and

root word for meaning

3e ask a classmate or teacher for the

meaning


Chinese dictionary


1.92

2.94

3.67

3.28

2.65

3.98

2.76

0.74

1.00

0.80

0.82

0.91

0.82

1.03

80

r/s/o

r/s/o

s/o

s/o

r/s

s/o/a

r/s

2.81

3.63

3.62

3.03

2.64

3.63

1.99

109

s

o

o

s

s

o

r



4b the spelling







words


4.27

4.21

3.13

4.29

3.32

3.23

3.69

3.05

3.59

0.78

0.87

0.89

0.71

0.99

0.97

0.83

0.88

1.08

80

o/a

o/a

s

o/a

s/o

r/s/o

s/o

s

s/o

4.28

4.36

3.47

4.45

2.76

2.73

3.50

3.82

3.47

109

o

o

s

s

s

s

s

o

s


5a write it down


notebook





2.98

3.43

2.26

3.44

3.19

0.91

1.09

1.04

0.97

1.00

80

s

s/o

r

r/s

s/o

2.48

3.28

2.14

2.67

2.23

109

r

s

r

s

r

223





6d memorise Chines-English/English-

Chinese lists


6f link the word to similar meaning words

or opposite meaning words



6h compare words with similar meaning

and study together

6i group words in order e.g. meaning, part

of speech


conversation


6l listen to tape-/CD recordings of words


together

6n practise new words by acting them out

e.g. verbs



6p draw pictures to illustrate the meaning

of the new words


word looks like

6r remember the prefix, suffix and root


3.17

3.81

3.27

3.50

3.01

3.04

3.21

3.02

2.76

3.32

2.89

2.64

2.45

2.44

3.05

1.85

2.64

3.09

0.96

0.92

1.03

0.99

0.91

0.91

0.79

0.92

0.92

0.83

1.05

0.98

0.92

1.01

1.01

0.83

1.10

0.95

80

s/o

o

s/o

s/o

r/s/o

s

s/o

s

r/s

s/o

r/s/o

r/s

r/s

r/s

s/o

n/r/s

n/r/s

s/o

3.88

3.54

3.34

2.49

2.60

2.78

2.83

3.14

2.61

3.32

2.42

2.71

2.23

2.05

2.95

2.01

3.78

3.02

109

o

o

s

r

s

s

s

s

s

s

r

s

r

r

s

r

o

s


7a say the new word 2 or 3 times the first

day




after that

7d read the new words 2 or 3 times first,

then again a few days later, a week later, a

month later



3.09

3.13

2.55

2.98

3.19

2.61

0.93

0.84

1.12

1.08

1.12

0.98

80

r/s/o

s/o

n/r

r/s/o

r/s/o

r

3.42

NA

NA

NA

2.72

2.22

109

s

NA

NA

NA

s

r


8a remember the new word the way I

learned it


(when heard again)


(when read again)




8e try to remember where I first met the

word

3.41

3.63

3.87

3.23

3.17

0.73

0.88

0.62

0.81

1.08

80

s/o

s/o

o

s/o

r/s/o

NA

NA

NA

3.02

3.58

109

NA

NA

NA

s

o





vocabulary

3.60

2.83

3.18

0.89

0.92

1.00

80

s/o/a

s/o/a

s/o

3.25

2.88

2.48

109

s

s

r

224




MSN Messenger

2.76

2.30

0.90

0.95

r/s

r

1.98

NA

r

NA

Although some of the data for Ma’s research is absent, a comparison can be made. The most

similar strategy means are 3c (3.67/3.62), 3e (2.65/2.64), 4a (4.27/4.28), 6c (3.27/3.34), 6j

(3.32/3.32), 6r (3.09/3.02) and 9b (2.83/2.88). This suggests only a few similarities with Ma’s

sample. The most dissimilar frequency of use is highlighted in green; otherwise frequency of

use is comparable. Some dissimilarity can be attributed to data from four grades in the

present research and Ma’s being a single sample, so other factors may affect use — for

example, maturity, experience, education, proficiency.

Key to Table 7.4: left-hand column lists strategies by category; M = mean, SD = standard

deviation, and n = sample size, and Ma = Ma’s mean.

Table 7.4: Categories and strategies and means suggesting use

by CEMs and Ma (2009)

Categories and strategies M SD n Ma

1. Discovery: place to find 3.39 0.57 80 2.79

2. Determination: initial response 3.03 0.64 80 3.05

3. Determination: study 3.64 0.60 80 3.65

4. Consolidation: organisation 3.06 0.71 80 2.56

5. Consolidation: memorisation 2.95 0.56 80 2.87

6. Consolidation: review 2.92 0.63 80 2.79

7. Consolidation: remember 3.46 0.49 80 3.30

8. Consolidation: production 2.93 0.57 80 2.65

The similarities in means on the strategy categories were #2 (3.03/3.05) and #3 (3.64/3.65).

This suggests CEMs were similar in initial response to new vocabulary and in determining

how to study the new vocabulary. Otherwise, CEMs were different on other strategy

categories compared to Ma’s sample. Perhaps it’s no surprise that the two results are similar

on #3; this was also found by Gu and Johnson in 1996. This average use may be the result of

not only differing learning activities and tasks, but the nature and efficacy of the category of

strategies (from the learner’s perspective), and suggests further research on this issue.

Consolidation strategies seemed to be more prominent in this group and may be due to their

motivation to learn English to be able to teach it.

225

7.6 Clustering of VLSs in the four grades

VLS use was found to ‘cluster’ in each grade (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.15), with

a small group of VLSs used within each grade’s ‘cluster’ varying from the VLSs often/always

used in a previous or subsequent grade — for example, used in grade 2 and 3 but not in grade

1 and 4.

The raw data indicated that grade 4 students used more VLSs than the other grades (see

Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.15). Grade 1 students mostly used 24 VLSs, grade 2 students

mostly used 19 VLSs, grade 3 students mostly used 20 VLSs and grade 4 students mostly

used 28 VLSs. This may be attributed to them developing as a learner of language and

learning more strategies along the way. The fact that grade 4 used more VLSs might be

because they’ve developed strategies over the 4 years of their degree.

Although some VLSs were used in a previous grade (e.g., grade 1, if used in grade 2) or a

following grade (e.g., grade 2, if used in grade 1), or in two or three grades, some were used

in all four grades (from the questionnaire) (see interview data, Appendix 11). For example,

the following VLSs were used across all four grades (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table

5.15):

1a in textbooks and classroom learning activities (discovery-place strategy);

1e when reading English materials (discovery-place strategy);

4a its pronunciation (determination-study strategy);

4b the spelling (determination-study strategy);

4d the Chinese translation (determination-study strategy);

6b write the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy); and

8c remember a new word by its meaning (when read again) (consolidation-remember

strategy).

Why the clustering of these particular strategies occurred requires further research, however

it is thought to be related to learning activities and tasks, as well as to the learner’s BALLL

(see Gu, 2003). Given that general and specific beliefs and strategies in the present research

are strongly statistically related (see Chapter 6), we can understand there is a relationship

between beliefs and strategies. Gu and Johnson (1997) found two categories of beliefs,

226

acquire vocabulary in context, and learning vocabulary and put it to use, were emphasised

less than a third: vocabulary should be memorised. These beliefs were not asked about in the

present research. However, ‘I memorise vocabulary by rehearsal strategies like word lists,

oral and visual repetition,’ was asked about in the BALLI (see Appendix 9, Table 2), and in

the interview (see Chapter 5, section 5.3.4). CEMs agreed strongly (a mean average between

3.49 and 5.00) with the BALLI belief statement. From the interview, ‘repetition’ (though no

elaboration on the type) was mentioned by 20 per cent of students (see Appendix 11). Many

consolidation-memory strategies were mentioned too, but word lists were not directly

mentioned. Oral and visual repetition were mentioned often. It is argued that the beliefs

explored in the present research are related to the strategies explored, some, like those

mentioned above, are directly linked, while others can also be directly linked (e.g., BALLI

#33/13a ‘I practise reading English by reading the materials in the textbooks’ was agreed

with, and VLS #1/1a ‘I meet new words in textbooks’ and VLS #5/1e ‘I meet new words when

reading English materials’ were both used often).

Other researchers have also observed the strategy ‘clustering’ phenomenon (e.g. Horwitz,

1985; Green, 1971, cited in Richardson, 1996; Griffiths, 2013; Mohamed, 2006; Macaro,

2006). The main reason given was learner maturation. That is, the older and more

experienced a language learner becomes, the more flexible they become, and the more

strategies they tend to use at any given moment to learn aspects of another language.

However, the present research might be the first to observe this phenomenon at the level of

vocabulary learning, rather than at the level of general language learning or LLS use, which

is a major contribution to vocabulary learning. This finding is discussed in section 7.12.

The implication for the Chinese EFL learners with respect to ‘flexibility’ is improved

language learning outcomes. However, it has not necessarily been observed in the present

research. An alternative explanation for VLS clustering in the present research is task type

and context of learning, which may be revealed through Gu’s (2003) Tetrahedral Model, but

further research would be needed to confirm this. The main reason for the clustering in the

present research is task type. In other words, CEMs employed a small cluster of strategies on

a regular basis to learn English generally, and English vocabulary specifically. This is

important in two ways: 1) it represents the core approach to learning vocabulary of these

CEMs; and 2) it reveals something about the type of English language education these CEMs

experienced over their average nine years of English language education. They tended to

227

learn English vocabulary from textbooks and are generally taught English through textbooks.

Further research is required.

7.7 Variable use of VLSs

The general variable use of approximately 60 per cent of Ma’s (2009) list of VLSs reveals

something significant about VLS use by the CEMs sampled. The EFL context in China is not

viewed as an ESL context but still one that affects VLS use, especially in the area of social

strategies use. This variability is perhaps due to the lack of opportunity to engage strategies,

or beliefs constraining their use, and productive use of English which is said to be necessary

to facilitate better possession or acquisition.

For example, roughly 45 per cent of grade 1 students indicated (from the questionnaire) that

they rarely to sometimes use the VLS ask a classmate or a teacher for the meaning of a new

word, a determination initial response strategy — what a learner might do the instant they

meet a new word. This might be because they rely more on dictionaries. Large class sizes

could also hinder them from asking questions in the classroom. They might have been too shy

to ask in English — BALLI belief #18 was agreed with (see Chapter 5, section 5.6.2.1) – or

are practicing ‘face’ culture (Xie, 2009, p. 11). CEMs indicated that the VLS when singing

English songs and watching English movies/TV (a discovery-place strategy) was also used

little, with approximately 45 per cent of grade 2 students indicating they sometimes used it,

41 per cent of grade 1 students and 38 per cent of grade 3 students indicated they often used

it, while 33 per cent of grade 4 indicated they both sometimes and often used it. CCL belief

#26/9c ‘I prefer the teacher use different activities to help me learn’ was a favoured teaching

method (see Chapter 5, section 5.7.2), and #42/15b ‘I practise listening to English by

watching English movies and TV shows’ was also agreed with. Whether this activity is part of

the syllabus/curriculum or something students like to do in their own time is unclear. Belief

#26/9c shows an indirect preference for variable strategy training and teacher’s use of

activities in the classroom. This calls for strategy training in the classroom which will be

discussed later.

Wei (2007) also found medium strategy use in a Chinese context but the rating of VLSs was

different. Wei’s sample rated pay attention to the pronunciation of a new word (a

determination initial response strategy) with the highest percentage, with a mean of 4.15,

228

whereas it was No. 12 for CEMs, with 36 per cent of students indicating they used it,

generating a mean of 4.27, a little stronger than Wei’s sample. (Wei sampled 60 students

whereas the present research sampled 80.) However, pay attention to the pronunciation of a

new word (a determination-study strategy) would be rated No. 2 by CEMs if rated by mean,

and pay attention to the Chinese translation (a determination-study strategy) would be rated

first, with a mean of 4.29 — high use. In the present study, VLS use was rated by percentage

of students using it and the frequency of use, but not according to mean because it provides a

less specific average of use. Frequency of use was thought to be related to the language

learning task generally, and the vocabulary learning task specifically.

Section summary

Although VLS use was medium, and variable, roughly 11 per cent were often/always used.

Roughly 37 were used regularly and accounts for the variability, and a finding that is different

from previous research. The variable use of strategies suggests CEMs spent more time

discovering new vocabulary than they did consolidating their learning. A number of strategies

were never/rarely used. Only one strategy (7f ‘test the new words with classmates’, a social

strategy) was generally not used or used infrequently in three grades. They were generally

aware of, and used, VLSs — the interview affirmed this. The raw data indicates that CEMs

generally used a certain number of strategies, depending on their grade (see Chapter 5, Tables

5.3 to 5.11 and Table 5.15). In addition, they used a core set of VLSs in the four grades. More

consolidation strategies were used, which was not unexpected. The top 10 most used

strategies included 2 discovery-place strategies, 2 determination initial response strategies, 2

determination-study strategies, 2 consolidation-memory strategies, and 2 consolidation-

remember strategies.

Previous research found memorisation the ‘best’ strategy, but the present research viewed

memorisation as a range of strategies (e.g., consolidation-memory strategies) not a single

strategy. CEMs were asked about approximately 18 memorisation strategies. There were clear

differences between the findings and previous research (e.g. Schmitt, 1997; Gu & Johnson,

1997). The differences were observed in means and when strategy use is ranked by the

percentage of students using it. This difference in strategy use suggests CEMs are different

from students in previous research or that they experience a different type of English

education. Research (Griffiths, 2013) that tried to observe type of learner (e.g., Elementary

229

and Advanced) did not clearly show where CEMs were, sometimes elementary and at other

times advanced learners in terms of mean scores for use of a particular category of strategy.

One notable category was determination-study strategies (or cognitive strategies), where

CEMs were similar with the previous research on studying the pronunciation and the Chinese

translation. This finding again suggests CEMs were different from other Chinese English

language learners. In terms of which strategy categories CEMs tended to used, they were

comparable with previous research (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1997) on the use of determination-

study strategies. A ‘new’ category of consolidation-practice strategies was observed in the

interview (see Appendix 11).

The unique finding was the clustering of VLSs in the four grades. Strategy clustering is

touched on in previous research (e.g. Horwitz, 1985; Griffiths, 2013), but only generally at

the level of language learning. Maturation is offered as the main reason for strategy

clustering. The strategy clustering in the present research is thought to reflect the type of

learning CEMs do, which suggests the type of learning activities and tasks they do, not

necessarily maturation. The present research might be the first to observe it at the level of

vocabulary learning. When students begin a new course of study or academic activity, they

use a new set of learning strategies which they generally resume in each grade. This core set

of strategies was complemented by a range of other strategies to assist them in learning

English vocabulary (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1). The data revealed that they had maintained

their use of a particular set or ‘cluster’ of strategies in the four grades, but the complementary

strategies were often used in one or two or three grades at most. Eight strategies were used in

the four grades. While contrasting with previous research, some instances of VLS use were

similar. However, the findings require further research to affirm aspects of VLS use observed

here.

7.8 Research Question No. 2:

What is the difference in VLS frequency of use among the four grades of CEMs?

The data to answer this question was drawn from the VLSQ (see Appendix 2). The raw data

indicated that there was a difference both in the VLS frequency of use and the percentage of

students using VLSs (see Chapter 5, Tables 5.3 to 5.11; Appendix 8). This aspect was not

230

observed in the Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis (ANOVA) and correlation by Spearman’s rho

analysis (see Chapter 6), but was observed in descriptive statistics (e.g., means, SDs and

percentages).

Exploring the frequency of VLS use was useful in highlighting variability in students’ VLS

use in order to see the trend of use in each grade, not just overall. Observing the trends in use

through percentages shows the strength of VLS use at a particular time (for example, second

semester) in each grade of a four-year Bachelor degree. Observing this patterning or trending

also suggests reasons (e.g., beliefs, task), but also shows which strategies are frequently used

in each grade to make inferences about such use and then attempt to explain the variability.

While there was more variability between individuals, there was less variability between

grades.

The use of percentages shows that CEMs used VLSs differently in each grade. While there is

a difference in VLS use in each grade (see Chapter 5, section 5.1, Table 5.3 to 5.11), there is

also some similarity. The specific difference, however, was within a grade between

individuals; individually, students’ VLS use is different. Although individual difference isn’t

new, knowing about individual difference affirms that: 1) individual difference suggests

individually different approaches to learning; and, 2) individually different approaches to

learning suggest individually different learning outcomes (see Gu & Johnson, 1996). The data

(see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.15) indicated that a core set of VLSs were regularly

used, allowing the inference that there is a general CEM approach to the learning of English

vocabulary, in a particular way as a group. But individually, each learner approaches learning

slightly differently and complements their vocabulary learning, their core set of strategies,

with a range of additional VLSs. Take for instance Xiao A and Xiao B, both grade 1 students.

Tables 7.5 to 7.10 show the patterning of strategy use for Questions 2, 3 and 4 with respect to

similarity and dissimilarity, shown here because there doesn’t appear to be other research that

covers this.

Key to Tables 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9 and 7.10: left-hand column lists students; column two

lists the question and strategy asked about; the last five columns represent the scaling

highlighted by a number, for example, 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, and 5

= always.

231

Table 7.5: Individual difference in VLS use

Q2: Where do you often learn vocabulary during the semester?

Student: Q2 parts: 1 2 3 4 5

Xiao A 2a: In the classroom

√

Xiao B 2a:

√

Xiao A 2b: In the library

√

Xiao B 2b:

√

Xiao A 2c: My dormitory room

√

Xiao B 2c:

√


Q3: What do you do when you meet new vocabulary items?


Xiao A 3a: Pay no attention to it and never go back to it

√

Xiao B 3a:

√

Xiao A 3b: Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later

√

Xiao B 3b:

√

Xiao A 3c: Try to guess its meaning from the context

√

Xiao B 3c:

√

Xiao A 3d: Study its prefixes, suffixes and root word meaning

√

Xiao B 3d:

√

Xiao A 3e: Ask a classmate/teacher its meaning √

Xiao B 3e:

√

Xiao A 3f: Read a Chinese-English or English-Chinese dictionary

√

Xiao B 3f:

√

Xiao A 3g: Read an English-only dictionary

√

Xiao B 3g:

√


Q4: When learning new vocabulary, what aspects do you study?


Xiao H 4a: Its pronunciation

√

Xiao I 4a:

√

Xiao H 4b: The spelling

√

Xiao I 4b:

√

Xiao H 4c: The prefixes, suffixes and root-word

√

Xiao I 4c:

√

Xiao H 4d: The Chinese translation

√

Xiao I 4d:

√

Xiao H 4e: The English explanations

√

Xiao I 4e:

√

Xiao H 4f: The example sentences

√

Xiao I 4f:

√

Xiao H 4g: The way the new word is used

√

Xiao I 4g:

√

Xiao H 4h: The new word’s relationship with other words

√

Xiao I 4h:

√

Xiao H 4i: The new word’s part of speech

√

Xiao I 4i:

√

232

On this analysis of three questions only, it can be seen that grade 1 students Xiao A and Xiao

B answered different questions differently, or, in this case, indicated which strategy they used

frequently or infrequently, as the case may be. While the patterning of VLS use was similar,

the difference was obvious in some question parts. One notable difference was 3b (pay no

attention to it, but go back to it), to which Xiao B indicated that she ‘always’ does this,

whereas Xiao A indicated that she ‘sometimes’ did this.

This differential learning approach continued in other grades and can be seen by looking at

other students in a range of other questions.

Taken together, the data reveals a pattern of VLS use that suggests differences between

individuals. This result suggests that CEMs are different at the individual level and suggests

students have different learning styles (with respect to using VLSs) when it comes to learning

English vocabulary. This may also reflect their motivations and expectations.

7.8.1 Gu’s Tetrahedral Model

Gu (2003) argues for a Tetrahedral Model of person, task, context and strategies, which

should be considered when explaining VLS use. He acknowledges that context had received

little if any research — and it seems that little research has been done on this aspect since.

Gu’s Tetrahedral Model provides a possible explanation for the results of the present

research. He argues that, while learning vocabulary is a problem-solving task with different

levels of complexity, VLS use and effectiveness depend on “the learner him/herself (for

example, attitudes, motivation, prior knowledge), the learning task at hand (for example,

type, complexity, difficulty, and generality), and the learning environment (for example, the

learning culture, the richness of input and output opportunities)” (Gu, 2003, p. 2). The result

of the present research suggests the task of learning vocabulary in each grade affected VLS

choice, as well as the other factors of the learner and the learning environment (e.g., beliefs).

More research will be needed to affirm this.

By observing the category of strategies used by at least two learners, Gu’s Tetrahedral Model

is applied and the impact on outcomes is observed.

233

Key to Tables: left-hand column lists students; number columns question and parts, for

example, Question 2, part a; the scaling item is represented by the letter, N, R, S, O, A, for

example, N = never, R = rarely, S = sometimes, O = often, and A = always:

Table 7.8: Discovery-

place strategies Q2: Where do you meet new

words? 2a: In the classroom 2b: In the library 2c: In my dormitory room

Student: 2a 2b 2c

Xiao A O R S

Xiao B S R O

Table 7.9: Determination initial response

strategies

Q3: What do you do when you meet new vocabulary?

3a: Pay no attention to it and never go back to it 3b: Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later 3c: Try to guess its meaning from the context 3d: Study its prefixes, suffixes and root word meaning 3e: Ask a classmate/teacher its meaning 3f: Read a Chinese-English or English-Chinese dictionary 3g: Read an English-only dictionary

Student: 3a 3b 3c 3d 3e 3f 3g

Xiao A R S O O N O R

Xiao B S A O S R S S

Table 7.10: Determination-study strategies

Q4: When learning new vocabulary, what aspects do you study?

4a: Its pronunciation 4b: The spelling 4c: The prefixes, suffixes and root word 4d: The Chinese translation 4e: The English explanations 4f: The example sentences 4g: The way the new word is used 4h: The new word’s relationship with other words 4i: The new word’s part of speech

Student: 4a 4b 4c 4d 4e 4f 4g 4h 4i

Xiao A O O A S S R S S S

Xiao B O O O O S S S S S

To see in more detail the number of strategies a student uses, all we need do is highlight

which strategy was used, with respect to a given question. One might conclude that Xiao B

used more strategies than Xiao A (17 to 14). Observing only counted ‘often’ and ‘always’ as

definite strategy use, arguably they used an equal number of strategies. But there would be a

difference in which ones they used. And another pattern emerges. They both used 3c, 4a, 4b

and 4c. This means that they regularly used ‘try to guess the word’s meaning from the

234

context’, ‘its pronunciation’, ‘the spelling’, ‘the prefixes, suffixes and root word’. Two of

these, incidentally, were among the eight regularly used by all students across four grades (4a

and 4b). It is argued that students used a core set of strategies and occasionally supplemented

these with other strategies (depending on the learning task).

This finding suggests individual’s different approaches to learning. This may suggest

individually different outcomes too which, as will soon be seen, is not as clear cut as it might

appear. By looking at the vocabulary size, or learning outcome, of the students’ patterns of

VLS use, there is a hint of what Gu (2003) was suggesting.

Key to Table 7.11: range = vocabulary size test; No. k = number known; No. nk = number

not known; % nk = percentage of words not known. Key to reading Tables below: left-hand

column lists students; second lists vocabulary size test by number, for example, 1000, 2000;

third, fourth and fifth columns list score for the test indicated by whether they knew or didn’t

know all the range of words on the test, for example, No. k = number known, No. nk = not

known, % nk = percentage not known:

Table 7.11: English vocabulary size in

grade 2 Range, known and not known words, percentage

not known and vocabulary size for 2 grade 1

students

Student: range No. k No. nk % nk

Xiao A 1000 900 100 10%

Xiao B 1000 800 200 20%

Xiao A 2000 700 300 30%

Xiao B 2000 300 700 70%

Xiao A 3000 600 400 40%

Xiao B 3000 500 500 50%

Xiao A Academic 3000 600 17%

Xiao B Academic 1800 1800 50%

Xiao A EVS 5200

Xiao B EVS 3400

Starting with Xiao A and Xiao B, it can be seen that they regularly used an equal number of

strategies. They both used 3c, 4a, 4b and 4c. They regularly used ‘try to guess the word’s

meaning from the context’, ‘its pronunciation’, ‘the spelling’, ‘the prefixes, suffixes and root

word’. Two of these, incidentally, were among the eight regularly used by all students across

four grades (4a and 4b). However, this did not mean that they both learned an equal amount

235

of vocabulary; in fact, the data shows a distinct difference in not only vocabulary size for

each VST), but also for overall vocabulary size; Xiao A had a larger vocabulary. Perhaps the

difference can be attributed to something else Xiao A did that Xiao B didn’t do, resulting in

the larger English vocabulary.

Finally, the difference in EVS of Xiao A and Xiao B compared to Xiao H and Xiao I is

notable. Xiao A’s EVS is only slightly smaller (5200) than Xiao I’s (5900) — the data shows

a dip in EVS for grade 2 generally (see Appendix 6). Xiao H’s EVS is larger (4500) than

Xiao B’s (3400), which might be expected since more vocabulary should have been learned

in grade 2. However, Schmitt (2012) argues that CEMs’ vocabulary size at entry to university

has to be at least 3000 — Xiao B’s EVS suggests then that her vocabulary didn’t increase

substantially in grade 1, with roughly only 400 more words added by second semester —

whether high frequency or Academic cannot be easily ascertained. Further research is

required to get a clearer picture of what is happening.

236

Section 2 — BALLL

7.9 Research Question No. 3:

What are CEMs’ general ‘Western’ beliefs about language and language learning and

specific Chinese culture of learning beliefs about language and language learning?

7.9.0 Introduction

General BALLL are those suggested by Horwitz (1988) as ‘Westernized’ beliefs and CCL

beliefs are those suggested by Shi (2006). The analysis of beliefs is important for at least two

reasons: 1) beliefs drive learning behaviour; and 2) beliefs drive VLS use specifically. Beliefs

are defined as something that “denotes an assertion about some aspect of the world or the

relation between two such aspects” (Open University, 1975, p. 16) — the relation between

two categories when neither defines the other. Richardson (1996, p. 103) says beliefs are

“psychological understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be

true”, whose content is descriptive, evaluative or prescriptive (Rokeach, 1968). These

definitions will underscore the discussion of beliefs, particularly that they are action oriented.

Horwitz (1988) says BALLL are prevalent, with students bringing them into the classroom.

Research has found a link between them and the learning task (e.g. Elbaum et al, 1993; Yang,

1999; Horwitz, 1987; Benson & Lor, 1999). This research found beliefs and VLSs strongly

correlate — they work together. The discussion begins with Horwitz’s BALLI in 7.9.1, and

then Shi’s beliefs of the CCL in 7.10.0, and comparisons are made with previous research

where possible.

In Chapter 6 CEMs’ general BALLL were found to be statistically significantly different

within a grade but similar between grades, and correlated strongly with CCL beliefs and VLS

use. The mean range for beliefs on Horwitz’s BALLI was 3.2 (see Chapter 5, section 5.6.1,

Tables 5.19 to 5.21 and in Appendix 9), suggesting that the students’ beliefs were medium

strength, and that they were close — based on the measure: 1.00 to 2.49 weak, 2.50 to 3.49

medium and 3.50 to 5.00 strong. This ‘medium’ strength of beliefs on the BALLI might

suggest that these CEMs’ general beliefs were not strongly agreed with but many were (see

Chapter 5, section 5.6.2.1) — 18 were agreed with out of 34, roughly 53 per cent. This

237

finding was unexpected — it was thought fewer ‘Western’ beliefs would be agreed with.

The mean range for beliefs on Shi’s inventory of CCL beliefs was about 3.3 (see Chapter 5,

section 5.7, Tables 5.22 to 5.26), indicating that the students’ beliefs were medium strength

— based on the measure: 1.00 to 2.49 weak, 2.50 to 3.49 medium and 3.50 to 5.00 strong.

This medium strength of beliefs on the Shi inventory might suggest that these CEMs did not

strongly agree with the beliefs of the CCL, but many of them did (see Chapter 5, section

5.7.2) — 33 out of 57 beliefs were agreed with. This finding was unexpected because more

agreement was expected of the CCL beliefs (against the general BALLL). CEMs agreed with

33 out 57 CCL beliefs (see Chapter 5, section 5.7.1), roughly 58 per cent. Nearly twice as

many CCL beliefs were agreed with compared with the general BALLL. There is a difference

in the strength of beliefs between the BALLI and the CCL, with the CCL beliefs being

stronger than the general BALLL beliefs (see Chapter 5, section 5.7, Tables 5.22 to 5.26 and

Appendix 10). This suggests that Horwitz’s general ‘Western’ BALLI have made their way

into Chinese culture and have mixed with or been added to the beliefs of the CCL.

7.9.1 Horwitz’s BALLI

Horwitz (1987) classified general beliefs about language and language learning in a number

of ways in the present research, into five groupings: 1) the difficulty of language, 2) foreign

language aptitude, 3) the nature of language learning, 4) learning and communication

strategies, and 5) motivations and expectations. The discussion will proceed according to

each of Horwitz’s categories, for brevity and convenience, making running comparisons

between her findings and the findings of the present research and other research were

applicable.

7.9.2 The difficulty of language

Compared with Horwitz’s (1988) findings, CEMs were similar on most questions in terms of

the difficulty of language — see Appendix 9, Table 4. The similarity is uncanny in strength of

belief between Horwitz’s sample and CEMs; all except in BS#14. For BS#14, Horwitz’s

sample were asked about a foreign language rather than a specific foreign language, like the

present research (English), Horwitz’s sample was split between 1 to 2 years and 3 to 5 years

to become fluent. Choosing ‘disagree’ does not here mean disagree — it means the time

238

taken to become fluent. The belief must be viewed as prescriptive rather than evaluative since

CEMs were not fluent. Prescriptive means students think fluency should take this much time

whereas evaluative means their belief is that it should take this much time based on

experience (Rokeach, 1968). It is interesting that after 9 to 11 years of EFL learning they still

hadn’t reached fluency.

7.9.3 Foreign language aptitude


foreign language aptitude — see Appendix 9, Table 5. CEMs were similar on six of the

beliefs, but not for BS#22, 29 and 32. Horwitz’s sample seemed unsure whether males are

better than females at learning a foreign language, CEMs seemed confident that males aren’t

better than females at learning English. Horwitz’s sample seemed unsure that people who are

good at maths and science being good at learning a foreign language, CEMs seemed

confident that they are not good. And while Horwitz’s sample seemed unsure whether people

who speak more than one foreign language are very intelligent, CEMs seemed confident that

they are intelligent. This last finding may be attributed to the nature of students being

interested in language teaching and thus valuing language more.

7.9.4 The nature of language learning


the nature of language learning — see Appendix 9, Table 6. CEMs were similar on one belief

compared with Horwitz’s sample. CEMs were confident that it’s necessary to know English

culture in order to speak English, whereas Horwitz’s sample seemed unsure. In the interview

(see Appendix 11, Table 7), 56 per cent of students (58% on the questionnaire) said learning

culture was involved in learning another language, suggesting its importance. Students

embracing of the culture might be because they recognised the inextricable relationship

between language and culture. CEMs were very confident that it’s better to learn English in

an English-speaking country like the United States, whereas Horwitz’s sample strongly

disagreed. CEMs were split between disagreeing and agreeing with the idea that learning

English is mostly a matter of learning many new vocabulary items, whereas Horwitz’s sample

disagreed. In the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 7), 44 per cent of students said learning

words was involved in learning another language, which suggests its importance. CEMs were

239

confident that learning English is mostly a matter of many grammar rules, whereas Horwitz’s

sample seemed unsure or disagreed with the idea. Forty-four per cent in the interview said

learning grammar was involved in learning another language, which suggests its importance

(see Appendix 11, Table 7). Horwitz’s sample was split between disagreeing and agreeing

with the idea that learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating the foreign

language, whereas CEMS were only asked about translating English into Chinese, and they

disagreed. Again, notions of prescriptive, evaluative and descriptive beliefs must be invoked

to explain the nature of beliefs. BS#8 is evaluative, BS#11 is prescriptive, BS#16 and BS#20

are descriptive, and BS#25 and BS#26 are evaluative. This result might be explained with the

focus of language teaching in the Chinese classroom which is product and exam oriented.

Students seem to value grammar rules and translation and this might be attributed to the

teaching/learning style they are exposed to.

7.9.5 Learning and communication strategies


learning and communication strategies — see Appendix 9, Table 7. There was a difference in

strength of beliefs on BS#12 and 13. Horwitz’s sample was mixed on the idea that if I heard

someone speaking the foreign language I am trying to learn, I would try to speak with them in

order to practise my foreign language, whereas CEMs were confident that they would. On

BS#13, Horwitz’s sample was split between NDoA and agree on the idea that it’s ok to guess

the meaning of a foreign language word if I don’t know it, whereas CEMs were confident that

it was ok. BS#6, 9, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are evaluative beliefs, while BS#17 and 21 are

prescriptive. In the interview (see Appendix 11, Tables 2 and 3), 48 per cent of students said

‘guessing the meaning’ was both an initial response to new vocabulary and a way to practise

new words. The differences may be because students are CEMs and interested in the

language and interested in what they are learning.

7.9.6 Motivations and expectations


motivation and expectations — see Appendix 9, Table 8. There was little similarity between

Horwitz’s sample and CEMs on beliefs about motivation and expectations. Horwitz’s sample

was split between unsure and agreeing with the idea that if I speak a foreign language very

240

well, I will have many opportunities to use it, whereas CEMs were confident they would (if

they spoke English very well). Horwitz’s sample was unsure about the idea that if I learn to

speak a foreign language very well, it would help me get a good job, whereas CEMs were

confident that they would (if they learn to speak English very well). Horwitz’s sample

disagreed with the idea that Europeans, in particular, think it is important to speak a foreign

language, whereas CEMs were confident that Chinese think it is important to speak English.

And Horwitz’s sample had mixed feelings about the idea that I would like to speak the foreign

language so I can learn about those people, whereas CEMs were confident that learning to

speak English was about learning about English people. This suggests students had extrinsic

motivation to learn English (Liu, 2007). This confirms the value of learning about culture and

becoming global citizens. BS#23, 27, 30 and 31 are evaluative. From the interview (see

Appendix 11, Table 7), 28 per cent of students said learning to speak English was involved in

learning another language.

This comparison shows that CEMs appear to hold Western beliefs more than Europeans do,

which suggests that CEMs are more Western in their BALLL than Westerners. But that would

be deceptive. While CEMs may have, in this instance, agreed with more Western BALLL

than their European FLL friends, beliefs should be considered in Rokeach’s (1968) terms,

with respect to their content (descriptive, evaluative or prescriptive).

It is clear why CEMs didn’t agree with some beliefs but Europeans did. CEMs strongly

disagreed with their European friends on BS#22, males are better than females at learning a

foreign language/English; the reason may be because the majority of participants in the

present research were females, and they may have realised that females in many Western

contexts are treated more equally. Therefore, their response is perhaps more about how they

would like it to be — thus the belief is a prescriptive one, prescribing how it should be. On

BS#32, people who speak more than one language well are very intelligent, CEMs were

confident that it is so. This confidence should be viewed as projecting beliefs in a prescriptive

sense; that is, CEMs want this to be the case, and given that ‘intelligent’ is vaguely defined.

CEMs strongly agreed with BS#11, it’s better to learn English in an English speaking country

like the United States. Given that most if not all the CEMs in the present research had never

been to the United States, they weren’t relying on their experience to support the belief,

therefore it is prescriptive. CEMs were confident about BS#13, it’s ok to guess the meaning of

an English word if you don’t know it, whereas Europeans were unsure.

241

7.9.7 Additional research into the relationship between beliefs and language learning

strategies generally

Research by Yang (1999) explored the relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and

learning strategy use. Yang specifically investigated the relationship between college EFL

students’ BALLL and LLS use in a Chinese Taiwan context, sampling 505 university

students. Using Horwitz’s BALLI and Oxford’s SILL, Yang collected data from 14 college

English classes in the first two months of a new semester, sampled from six public and

private universities (73% freshman (grade 1), 9% sophomores (grade 2), 11% juniors (grade 1

& 2),and 7% seniors (grade 3 and 4)). Yang’s research is discussed because it is similar with

the present research. However, there is some difference in the purpose and analysis of the

research data.

Factor analysis of the BALLI by Yang identified four factors that constitute learners’ beliefs

about language learning:

1) self-efficacy and expectations about learning English (0.71);

2) perceived value and nature of learning spoken English (0.63);

3) beliefs about foreign language aptitude (0.52); and,

4) beliefs about formal structural studies (0.55).

It should be pointed out that Yang (1999) used a modified version of the BALLI, shifting the

place of beliefs on the BALLI (evidenced by the number in brackets after the number of the

belief statement (BS#) in the left-hand column of each table — see Appendix 10, Tables 3 to

7) which required some initial deciphering before comparison could be undertaken.

Factor 1: Self-efficacy and expectations about learning English

While there are some similarities between CEMs and Yang’s sample, there are also some

differences (see Appendix 10, Table 3). The difference is in BS#4 and 13. While Yang’s

(1999) students were unsure about English being a matter of learning many new vocabulary

items, CEMs were confident that it was (see interview data, Appendix 11, Table 7). CEMs

were not asked about practising English with Americans, they were asked about practising

242

with their classmates and others who speak English generally. While Yang’s students believed

they enjoyed speaking English with the Americans they meet, CEMs were not asked to

comment on a speaking with a specific English-speaking culture; they were asked ‘if I heard

someone speaking English, the language I am trying to learn, I would try to speak with them

in order to practise my English’, to which 71 per cent agreed that they would try. Applying

Rokeach’s (1968) tri-notion about the nature of beliefs, all except BS#4 are evaluative, BS#4

is descriptive.

Factor 2: Perceived value and nature of learning spoken English

In terms of perceived value and nature of learning English the two groups were similar (see

Appendix 10 Table 4). Except on BS#31 and 32, there were no differences in perceived value

and nature of English. Yang (1999) asked students if they wanted to speak English well, to

which there was a strong positive response, which is not surprising. CEMs were not asked

this. Yang also asked students if I would like to have American friends, to which there was a

strong positive response. Applying Rokeach’s notions, BS#31, 20, 12, 32, 7, 33 and 29 are

evaluative, while BS#18 and 9 are prescriptive.

Factor 3: Beliefs about foreign language aptitude

CEMs beliefs about foreign language aptitude were similar on agreement but different

percentage-wise compared to Yang (see Appendix 10, Table 5). The percentage difference

was on BS#2, 8 and 24. While Yang’s (1999) students seemed unsure whether people who

speak more than one language are very intelligent, CEMS were confident they were. They

are justifiably confident. While Yang’s students were unsure about women being better than

men at learning foreign languages, CEMs disagreed; and disagree, they should. One wonders

if Taiwan students’ belief is evaluative more than descriptive. Of the 505 participants in

Yang’s research, 311 were female. Females constituted 61 per cent of the response and thus

possibly may have been modest in their ability. Yang asked students if they would like to

learn so that they could get to know Americans better, to which students surprisingly

answered in the negative. CEMs were asked if they would like to speak English so they could

learn more about English people, a more general question, to which 49 per cent of students

agreed. CEMs’ response aligns with the value they place on learning culture and meeting

people from other countries would assist them in this aim. They also may have realised the

243

need to be global citizens and more international.

Factor 4: Beliefs in formal structural studies

There were some differences in beliefs about formal structural studies (see Appendix 10,

Table 6). The differences were on BS#23 and 35 — the latter is because Yang asked a

different question. On BS#23, the most important part of learning a foreign language is

learning the grammar, Yang’s students disagreed, whereas CEMs agreed. This is an

interesting question and one that should be looked into further (see Appendix 11, Table 7).

Why Yang’s students disagreed that grammar was the most important is also interesting —

perhaps they experience a different type of ELT to mainland Chinese students (see research

on Chinese students’ experience of communicative language teaching in China (Hu, 2002;

Rao, 2001))? Just as interesting is CEMs agreement with the statement. It is possible that

because CEMs are taught English grammar and see the value of it as English teachers. On

#35, Yang asked students if language learning involves a lot of memorisation, to which they

responded that it did. This is an empirical statement, and the question affirms it. In the

interview (see Appendix 11, Table 3), students offered at least 14 aspects of memorisation

(suggesting its popularity with CEMs). On #34, Yang asked students if it is easier to read and

write English than to speak and understand it, to which students indicated that it was. This is

a complex and puzzling question, given that ‘understand’ English is premised on speaking

English rather than reading and writing it. It is surprising that 45 per cent of students

answered in the affirmative. In China, the emphasis seems to be on reading and writing rather

than speaking English. CEMs, however, agreed with it too. So they are saying that it is easier

to read and write and understand English, rather than speak/listen to it and understand it.

Yang’s ‘other’:

Yang (1999) created this ‘other’ list because these beliefs scored a loading below 0.30 (see

Appendix 10, Table 7). However, they are just as significant as the four beliefs. There was no

difference between Yang’s students and CEMs on these beliefs, in terms of strength of belief.

There were slight percentage differences on some of the beliefs, for example, 1, 3, 15 and 27,

while the others were fairly close. BS#1 is descriptive, BS#15 and 26 are prescriptive and

BS#3, 14 and 27 are evaluative.

244

Yang’s (1999) research demonstrates that Taiwan students and CEMs are fairly similar for

general BALLL. In addition, while Yang’s research was similar to the present research, it is

conceptually different and conducted for different reasons — the present research was

conducted to observe the PVL.

Section summary

CEMs agreed with 18 out of 34 general BALLL, roughly 53 per cent. Twenty-seven beliefs

were concerned with what is involved in learning another language were offered in the

interview. They agreed with 33 out of 57 CCL beliefs, roughly 58 per cent. This result is

important on at least two levels: 1) CEMs possess BALLL that reflect EFL/ESL learners in

Western contexts of EFL learning and suggests CEMs beliefs are not exclusively those of the

CCL, that some cross-fertilisation has occurred, probably due to the opening up of China and

the influx of Western teachers (in person and online); and 2), agreeing with roughly 58 per

cent of CCL beliefs suggests CEMs still possess beliefs about language and language learning

from this cultural perspective.

7.10 Shi’s CCL BALLL

Shi (2006), as far as is known, was the first to construct a taxonomy of 18 general Chinese

BALLL (57 in all), and classified them the CCL beliefs. At the time of writing the thesis,

there appeared to be no research in China using Shi’s questionnaire. Shi classified 14

categories of CCL beliefs: 1) attitude to learning English; 2) learner aims for learning

English; 3) criteria for being a good teacher of English; 4) teacher-student relationship; 5)

perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’ questions in the classroom; 6) favoured

teaching method (of teachers); 7) attitudes to the content of textbooks; 8) memorising

vocabulary; 9) practising reading skill; 10) practising speaking skill; 11) practising listening

skill; 12) practising writing skill; 13) barriers to learning English; and 14) what makes a good

learner?

The average mean for the CCLQ was 3.46, indicating medium strength in these beliefs (see

Chapter 5, section 5.7, Tables 5.22 to 5.26, and Appendix 5), following the measure: 1.00 to

2049 low, 2.50 to 3.49 medium, and 3.50 to 5.00 high. The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test (see

245

Chapter 6, Table 6.10) found a statistically significant difference in mean scores.

7.10.1 Attitude to learning English (Question 1)

Shi (2006) found that there was a steady decrease in the strength of beliefs/attitudes toward

learning English or enjoying learning English, from 62 per cent in grade 6 to 26 per cent in

grade 10. However, 41 per cent of grade 1 CEMs indicated that they agreed with enjoy

learning English (see Chapter 5, section 5.7). The percentage increased from grade 1 to 59

per cent in grade 2, decreased to 42 per cent in grade 3, and then increased again in grade 4 to

67 per cent. Key to the graph below: the graph highlights the difference between CEMs and

Shi’s sample.

As was observed above, beliefs cannot always be taken at face value; if students really did

enjoy learning English, there should have been less fluctuation in their responses. Enjoyment

must be viewed as contingent upon other factors — for example, the fluctuating demands of

the learning context, task and personal ambitions. Roughly 50 per cent of CEMs indicated

they enjoy learning English, a little below Shi’s finding, probably because CEMs’ learning

load increases in university.

7.10.2 Learner’s aims for learning English (Questions 2a to 2e)

Key to the graphs below: the graph visually highlights the difference between CEMs and

Shi’s sample; the far left side shows the percentage of students agreeing with the belief in

terms of grade, for example, grade 1/6 — CEMs first then Shi’s sample; CEMs indicated in

the left column in blue and the Shi sample brown.

0

20

40

60

80

CEMs ShiPe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 1: I enjoy learning English

246

Shi (2006) found that her student sample indicated ‘self-improvement’ (Question 2a) as the

main aim for learning English, as did CEMs in the present study, with 66 per cent of CEMs

indicating they agreed with the idea. Students seem to be evaluating their lives with reference

to the foreign language they have been learning.

While Shi (2006) found some fluctuation between grades on agreeing that finding a good job

in the future (65% in grade 8 and 66% in grade 10) was important, there was little to no

fluctuation between grades, with roughly 63 per cent of CEMs indicating that they agreed

‘finding a good job in the future’ was a main reason for learning English — the highest

percentage of CEMs agreeing was grade 3 with 71 per cent. This belief was strong, because

these particular CEMs were being trained as English language teachers.

0102030405060708090

100

grade1/6 grade2/7 grade3/8 grade4/10Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 2: I learn English to improve myself/self-development

0

20

40

60

80

grade 1/6 grade2/7 grade3/8 grade4/10

Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 3: I learn English to find a good job in the future

247

Shi (2006) found that her sample rated learning English for daily communication as the third

aim for learning English, and so did the present research, with 44 per cent of all CEMs

agreeing with the idea. In the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 7), 8 per cent of students said

‘learning to communicate’ was involved in learning another language.

While Shi (2006) found that her sample rated learn English for the honour of my family as the

fourth aim (decreasing from 28% in grade 6 to 0% in grade 10), CEMs, however, were almost

divided in their agreement about this issue. These students want to be English teachers, or are

participating in teacher training, so their reason for learning English is different.

0

20

40

60

80

grade1/6 grade2/7 grade3/8 grade4/10P

erc

en

tage

agr

ee

ing

Comparison

graph 4: I learn English for daily communication

0

10

20

30

40

50

grade1/6 grade2/7 grade3/8 grade4/10

Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 5: I learn English for the honour of my family

248

Roughly 40 per cent of Shi’s (2006) sample supported this idea, with an increase in grade 10.

CEMs where similar on learn to pass exams and was placed as the fourth aim (40% of all

CEMs). This reinforces the role of exams in the students’ learning.

However, the present research finding was similar with Shi’s (2006) finding that learn

English to pass exams belong in the realm of the CCL (one-third of Shi’s sample agreed with

it), with 40 per cent of CEMs agreeing (see Chart 11 below) (but not conclusive evidence that

it belongs to the CCL alone). On the other hand, while Shi found that 50 per cent of her

students agreed that a good teacher of English should help me pass exams, the present

research found that 46 per cent of CEMs neither disagreed or agreed with the idea, although

26 per cent of CEMs in the present research agreed. This supports other research which found

language learning to be predominantly exam oriented in China (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996;

Ma, 2009).

7.10.3 Criteria for being a good teacher of English (Questions 3a to 3g)

Shi (2006) found the top three criteria for a good teacher of English were to be

0

20

40

60


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 6: I learn English to pass exams

0

20

40

60

80

100


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 7: A good teacher of English should improve my English skills

249

knowledgeable, improving students’ language skills and using different activities or games

when teaching. In the present research CEMs placed improving my English skills at the top

(graph 7 above), with 58 per cent of students (on the questionnaire) strongly agreeing with it.

This belief would be prescriptive, meaning that students would want teachers to do this.

Twelve per cent of students in the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 6) said teachers should

help students pass exams.

The other criteria in the ‘top three’ in the present research were knowledgeable (graph 8

above) and provide clear and comprehensible notes, with 53 per cent of CEMs agreeing with

each. Again, a prescriptive belief, it is a quality students want in a teacher. Thirty-two per

cent of students in the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 6) said English teachers should have

knowledge of English, and suggests its importance to students.

While 88 per cent of grade 10 students in Shi’s (2006) study (an increase from 54% in grade

6% to 88% in grade 10) indicated that they agree with provide clear and comprehensible

notes (graph 9 above), only 45 per cent of grade 1 CEMs in the present study agree with it —

0

20

40

60

80

grade 1/6 grade 2/7 grade 3/8 grade 4/10

Oe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 8: Good teachers should be knowlegeable

020406080

grade 1/6 grade 2/7 grade 3/8 grade 4/10Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 9: A good teacher should provide comprehesible notes

250

fewer than the grade 6 students in Shi’s study. This is another prescriptive belief — students

want comprehensible notes to read after the class. In the interview (see Appendix 11, Table

6), 4 per cent of students said teachers should use ‘easy words’ when teaching.

While 88 per cent of grade 10 students in Shi’s study (an increase from 54% in grade 6% to

88% in grade 10) indicated that they agreed with improving students’ language skills (graph

10 above), only 45 per cent of grade 1 CEMs agreed with it — fewer than the grade 6

students in Shi’s study. The percentage decreased from grade 1 (73%) to grade 2 (with 54%

agreeing), in grade 3 (with 46% agreeing), and in grade 4 (with 58% agreeing). This

prescriptive belief sees students wanting a teacher who can do this. A small percentage of

students in the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 6) said teachers should teach the four skills

(writing, reading, speaking, listening). This may suggest a strong belief in the teacher as

knowledge owner and knowledge giver, and is consistent with most beliefs.

While 54 per cent of grade 10 students in Shi’s (2006) study agreed with help me pass exams

(graph 11 above), only 22 per cent of grade 1 CEMs agreed. This is a prescriptive belief,

020406080

100


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 10: A good teacher should improve students' language skills

0

20

40

60


Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 11: A good teacher should help students' pass exams

251

which contrasts with the results of #6 above, but it seems obvious that students would expect

a teacher to do this given the emphasis on completing exams to progress. In the interview

(see Appendix 11, Table 6), 12 per cent of students said teachers should help them pass tests.

Maybe the students realise their level of autonomy? Either CEMs felt confident enough not to

rely on their teacher’s help or it contradicts their top three choices, the first being improve my

English skills. Interestingly, only 26 per cent of the CEMs in the present research agreed with

help me pass exams — 46 per cent neither disagreed or agreed. Also, 40 per cent of CEMs

agreed that they learn English to pass exams. They are CEMs, they should not just pass

exams but be English teachers.

7.10.4 Teacher–student relationship (Questions 4a to 4b)

Shi (2006) found that students preferred a friend–friend relationship (graph 12 above) rather

than a parent–child relationship, as did the present research, with 50 per cent of grade 1

CEMs agreeing/strongly agreeing that a friend–friend relationship would be better with their

teacher, but grade 4 lower than Shi’s grade 10 students. In the interview (see Chapter 5,

section 5.8, Table 5.27), 48 per cent of students said they would prefer the teacher-student

relationship to be a friend-friend relationship. While 4 per cent of students in the interview

(see Appendix 11, Table 6) said teachers should be a friend of students, and 8 per cent said

teachers should love students. This suggests they think this will improve their language

education experience, and it is influenced by Western style of teaching.

020406080

100


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 12: The teacher-student relationship should be friend-friend

252

However, when CEMs answered the very next question about preferring a parent–child

relationship (graph 13 above), approximately 25 per cent agreed, while 19 per cent neither

disagreed nor agreed, and 4 per cent strongly agreed. In the interview (see Chapter 5, section

5.8, Table 5.27), 40 per cent of students said the teacher-student relationship should be one of

‘respect’; this is taken to mean that students feel teachers deserve respect.

This result suggests either strong contradiction or some confusion — that they really weren’t

sure how they should answer the question. Shi (2006) found a steady increase in the

preference for a friend–friend relationship from grade 6 to grade 10, with 93 per cent of grade

10 students indicating that they preferred it. Approximately 70 per cent of grade 1 CEMs

indicated that they preferred this type of relationship, which supports Shi’s findings, but

approximately 37 per cent of grade 3 CEMs and 32 per cent of grade 4 CEMs indicated that

they preferred the parent–child relationship, while grade 1 and grade 2 CEMs agreed at a

lower percentage (12–18%).

This result tends to support the findings thus far, that some CEMs still hold certain beliefs of

the CCL, otherwise their preference for a friend-friend relationship would have been more

strongly indicated in the data. While there was no data to understand the preference for a

friend-friend relationship with their Chinese teachers, it is speculated to be as a result of

having been exposed to/having seen student-teacher relationships in Western contexts or their

experience of being taught by English teachers from English countries, and wishing for the

same. However, this wish to have such a relationship with their Chinese teachers does not

imply that it is necessarily good; there may be some underlying attribute attracting CEMs to

desire such a relationship given the strong parent-child relationships observed in middle

school and higher education. CEMs are university students, which makes them different from

01020304050


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 13: The teacher-student relationship should be parent-child

253

Shi’s (2006) middle school students (for example, in terms of maturity).

7.10.5 Perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards students’ questions in the classroom

(Questions 5a to 5b; 6a to 6c; 7 to 8)

Here, the present research findings were the opposite of Shi’s (2006), with 36 per cent of

grade 1 CEMs and 33 per cent of grade 4 CEMs indicating that they believe in the teacher

(graph 14 below), while 74 per cent of Shi’s grade 6 sample and 3 per cent of the grade 10

sample agreed.

Shi’s (2006) result shows a steep descent in believe in the teacher, whereas the present

research found a steady increase, from 36 per cent in grade 1 to 58 per cent in grade 2,

followed by a steep descent to 33 per cent in grade 4. Why CEMs’ agreement steadily

increased is difficult to understand, because agreement with it then suddenly dipped in grade

4 to just below grade 1 levels.

In grade 6, 42 per cent of Shi’s (2006) sample agreed with believe in truth, rising to 98 per

cent in grade 10. However, while 45 per cent of grade 1 and 68 per cent of grade 2 CEMs

agreed with believe in truth, only 33 per cent of grade 4 CEMs agreed. Again, it is difficult to

understand the variations. Generally speaking, 45 per cent of CEMs agreed with believe in

the teacher but 39 per cent neither disagreed nor agreed; and 49 per cent agreed with believe

in truth but 18 per cent strongly agreed.

020406080

100


Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 14: I love my teacher, but I love the truth more

254

The result in the present research in terms of students’ reactions to teachers’ attitudes was

similar to Shi’s (2006) finding. There was less support for still follow teacher’s idea (14%)

(graph 15 above), ask the teacher immediately (19%) and ask the teacher after class (70%).

The result in terms of students’ perceptions of teachers’ attitudes toward students’ questions

in the present research result was similar to Shi’s (2006) result. By grade 10, 96 per cent of

Shi’s students indicated that their teachers preferred them to ask questions after class, and 67

per cent indicated that the teacher preferred them to ask questions in class. In the present

research, 66 per cent of CEMs indicated that their teachers preferred them to ask questions in

class, and 51 per cent agreed that the teacher preferred them to ask questions after class.

However, unlike Shi’s students, while there was a steady increase in students agreeing from

grade 1 (64 per cent) to grade 2 (82 per cent), the percentage of CEMs agreeing declined to

50 per cent in grade 4, with a similar pattern for asking questions after class.

7.10.6 Favoured teaching method (Questions 9a to 9c)

Once again the pattern of agreement differed between the present research result and Shi’s

(2006). Using different activities (graph 16 above) was rated first by Shi’s students, with 98

0

20

40


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 15: If not agreeing with teacher's teaching, still follow teacher

020406080

100


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 16: I prefer the teacher use different teaching activites

255

per cent of grade 10 students agreeing with it. This was hinted at in the interview (see

Appendix 11, Table 6), where students said teachers should use multimedia, movies,

dialogues, songs and easy words as teaching tools.

Encourage me to learn (58 per cent) was similar to use different activities (51 per cent) in the

present research, and 24 per cent agreed with tell me everything I need to learn, which rated

second for Shi’s (2006) students, with encourage me to learn rated third (graph 17 above).

Some students in the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 6) said teachers should teach them

how to learn. This highlights the issue’s importance. Students in this study may have realised

the need for individual learning thus they didn’t expect everything from the teacher, like Shi’s

younger students.

7.10.7 Attitudes to the content of textbooks (Questions 10a to 10b)

Shi (2006) found a rough balance between total correctness (51%) and usefulness in real life

(56%) of textbook content in grade 6, but this was strongly opposed by grade 10 (with 81%

indicating textbook content not always right (graph 18 above) and 22% indicating textbook

01530456075


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 17: I prefer the teacher to encourage me to learn

020406080


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 18: I think textbook content is not totally correct

256

content was useful in real life), while the present research found approximately 41 per cent of

grade 1 and 33 per cent of grade 4 CEMs did not agree that textbook content was totally

correct. This is in line with Chinese students being more mature and critical (with age). In the

interview (see Appendix 11, Table 2), students said teachers ‘understand textbooks’, which

suggests students prefer it when the teachers understand the material they are trying to teach

them.

Overall, approximately 61 per cent of CEMs agreed that textbook content was not always

right. However, they were divided in their attitude to textbook content is useful in real life

(graph 19 above), with 39 per cent agreeing, 25 per cent disagreeing and 26 per cent neither

disagreeing or agreeing. This result was similar to Shi’s (2006) grade 6 students. While Shi

concluded that her students developed a stronger ‘negative’ attitude toward textbook content

with age, such an attitude seems contradictory, given that students indicated on the one hand,

that they thought textbook content was totally incorrect but on the other hand, thought

textbook content was useful in real life.

7.10.8 Memorising vocabulary (Questions 12a to 12b)

015304560

grade 1/6 grade 2/7 grade 3/8 grade4/10Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 19: I think textbook knowledge is useful in real life

01530456075


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 20: I memorise vocabulary using rehearsal strategies

257

Shi (2006) found an interesting trend upward from grade 6 to grade 10 in the use of rehearsal

strategies and a trend downward in other mnemonic strategies to memorise vocabulary. A

similar trend appeared in the present research. Use of rehearsal strategies (graph 20 above)

increased from 59 per cent in grade 1 to 73 per cent in grade 2, but thereafter dropped to

grade 1 levels in grade 3 (58%) and remained there in grade 4 (58%). However, Shi’s finding

that the younger learners used more mnemonic strategies than rehearsal strategies was not

supported by the present study. While the patterning is similar, the ‘older’ CEMs continued

using other mnemonic strategies equally to match rehearsal strategy use in grade 3 (58% for

each), but then use of other mnemonic strategies dropped off. The present findings, in this

last aspect, also matches Gu’s and Johnson’s (1996) work.

7.10.9 Practising reading skill (Questions 13a to 13d)

Textbook material was also a source of reading practice for CEMs, as with Shi’s (2006)

students. CEMs chose textbook material (graph 21 above) as the main source of reading

material (70%), closely followed by other textbook material (68%), and newspapers (61%)

(see Chapter 5, section 5.3.1). Interestingly, the trend in Shi’s sample was gradually

downward from grade 6 (49%) to grade 10 (12%) for newspapers as a source of reading

material. CEMs used newspapers increasingly from grade 1 (45% per cent) to grade 3 (79%),

before use dropped to grade 2 levels (58% for grade 4). It is probably true to say, as Shi did,

that increasing pressure to satisfy exams played a role in extensive reading. A range of

reading issues to do with practising were offered in the interview (see Appendix 11, Table 6).

Perhaps CEMs realise the importance of reading in their learning.

0153045607590


Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 21: I practise reading with textbooks

258

7.10.10 Practising speaking skill (Questions 14a to 14d)

Practising speaking by reading aloud and reciting textbook material (graph 22 above) was

rated first by CEMs (61%) and Shi’s (2006) students. The pattern was similar for CEMs both

for talking with classmates or friends (54%) and talking with native English speakers (43%).

While the trend was much lower for Shi’s students (13% for grade 8 and 10% for grade 10),

32 per cent of CEMs in grade 1, 45 per cent in grade 2, 46 per cent in grade 3 and 50 per cent

in grade 4 indicated they practised speaking with native English speakers. Listening was

supported by interview students (20% listening to new words), and 16 per cent practised with

classmates (see Appendix 11, Table 3). University students may have more opportunities to

speak with native English speakers than senior middle school students.

7.10.11 Practising listening skill (Questions 15a to 15d)

While grade 2 CEMs rated practise listening by watching English movies/TV first, Shi’s

(2006) students rated listening to textbook tapes highest (graph 23 above). CEMs rated

listening to textbook tapes second and English language radio third (see interview data

Appendix 11, Table 6). While Shi’s data reveals a downward trend on all three practise

020406080


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 22: I practise speaking by reading aloud and reciting texts

01530456075


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 23: I practise listening by listening to textbook tapes

259

methods, from 65 per cent of grade 6 students to 45 per cent of grade 10 students, 64 per cent

of grade 1 CEMs chose textbook tapes to practise listening skill, equivalent to Shi’s grade 6

students. University students may have more opportunities to watch English movies/TV than

senior middle school students or watching English movies may have been a subject in their

course.

7.10.12 Practising writing skill (Questions 16a to 16d)

Both Shi’s (2006) students and the CEMs (69%) chose finishing the writing tasks set by the

teacher as the main way to practise writing. While Shi’s students had begun by writing in a

diary (45% in grade 6 and grade 7, before declining to 16% in grade 8 and 12% in grade 10),

few were writing in a diary by grade 10. In the current study, 56 per cent of CEMs were

writing in a diary: 59 per cent in grade 1, 64 per cent in grade 2, 58 per cent in grade 3 and 33

per cent in grade 4. CEMs began using a diary in grade 1 and maintained the strategy until

grade 3, when there was a sharp decline. CEMs may be encouraged to write in a diary as part

their study, but they dropped the activity in grade 4, perhaps when there was no more

pressure to practise writing. This is a descriptive belief — it describes the action taken to

practise writing in English.

015304560


Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 24: I practise writing with a diary

260

7.10.13 Barriers to learning English (Questions 17a to 17d)

CEMs rated do not work hard enough as the main barrier to improving their English, which

differed from Shi’s (2006) finding which observed variability from grade to grade in rating

the main barriers. More CEMs rated do not work hard enough (55%) as a barrier, 43 per cent

rated do not have a good learning environment as the second barrier, and 21 per cent rated

learning materials out of date as the third barrier; 10 per cent of CEMs thought their teachers

did not teach well. Shi’s students thought they did not have a good learning environment

(89% of grade 10 students). In comparison, approximately 40 per cent of grade 1, grade 2 and

grade 3 CEMs, and 59 per cent of grade 4 CEMs thought they did not have a good learning

environment. Many grade 4 CEMs spend their fourth year searching for work, so the rating is

interesting.

7.10.14 What makes a good learner? (Questions 18a to 18e)

Shi (2006) observed some variability in students’ opinions regarding what makes a good

learner. CEMs, however, were not as variable in their opinions. Grade 2 CEMs (82%) held

the strongest opinion on respect for teachers. Respect for teachers gradually declined by

015304560


rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 25: I think the main barrier is I don't work hard enough

020406080


Pe

rce

nta

ge a

gre

ein

g

Comparison

graph 26: A good learner of English should respect teachers

261

grade 10 for Shi’s students (58%), while respect for teachers began at 64 per cent for grade 1

CEMs, peaking in grade 2 at 82 per cent, and then gradually declining to 50 per cent for

grade 4 CEMs. Respect for teachers was rated first overall (66%), working hard and having

own opinion were equally rated second (58%), Never give up was rated third (49%), and

practice English all the time was rated least important (44%). Shi concluded that students’

maturity increased their critical assessment of teachers, but that could not be substantiated in

the present research. Also, holding their own opinion about what makes a good learner was

variable for Shi’s students: 56 per cent for grade 6, 31 per cent for grade 7, 59 per cent for

grade 8 and 15 per cent for grade 10. CEMs rated having own opinion consistently: 50 per

cent in grade 1, 68 per cent in grade 2, 58 per cent in grade 3, 50 per cent in grade 4. Shi

concluded that, while holding own opinion was ‘the most controversial criteria’ (2006, p.

136), probably because Chinese are not really allowed to hold their own opinions on

education generally, and English language education specifically, there might well be

‘conflict between students’ ideas/feelings and the Chinese education system. This is a

reasonable conclusion but maturity did not seem to increase the possible conflict between

these issues for CEMs; they rated having own opinion quite strongly. Perhaps CEMs did not

think there was much of a conflict between their ideas/feelings and the Chinese education

system. Perhaps they tended to agree with it more as more mature students.

Compared to Shi’s (2006) finding, CEMs were similar roughly 58 per cent of the time. Some

important points were that they enjoy learning English, learn English to find a good job in the

future, learn English to pass exams, think teachers should improve English skills, think good

English teachers should be knowledgeable, prefer the teacher-student relationship to be a

friend-friend relationship, prefer the teacher to use different teaching activities, question the

accuracy of textbook content, practise reading skill by reading textbook material, and think

good learners respect teachers.

This comparison of Shi’s (2006) exploration of CCL beliefs and CEMs is that CEMs possess

CCL beliefs but their support for them is different from Shi’s. This suggests CEMs are

different from Shi’s sample, or that some other factor (e.g., maturity and experience) has

modified their stand on these beliefs — perhaps they were similar with Shi’s middle school

students before entering university. More research is needed on these issues to get a better

understanding of their effect on learning behaviour.

262

Section summary

While CEMs indicated that they hold beliefs (found in the questionnaires and interview data)

that could be classified as belonging to the CCL, they also indicated that they hold beliefs

that could be classified as belonging to a Westernised culture of learning. The mean range for

Horwitz’s BALLI was slightly lower than Shi’s CCL, and suggests CEMs’ beliefs belonging

to the CCL are stronger than their beliefs belonging to Western culture. Based on the data,

percentage-wise, CEMs were almost balanced in their BALLL. This result could be explained

in three ways:

1) increased openness by China to the West in the last 30 years has resulted in Chinese

students being exposed to Western ideas about language and language learning;

2) while CEMs may hold beliefs that might be classified as belonging to a Westernised

culture of learning, such beliefs had not strongly displaced the beliefs of the Chinese

culture of learning; and,

3) globalisation and the influence of the internet.

On the second point, it could be said that the Chinese want to maintain something distinct

about themselves and their way of life, which still has a strong impact on Chinese youth even

though they may be engaged in learning English.

7.11 Research question No 6:

Do BALLL and VLSs have an impact on EVS of CEMs?

From the statistical analysis in Chapter 6, section 6.2, Tables 6.2 to 6.5, we saw that VLSs did

have an impact on English vocabulary size, both high frequency words and Academic words,

in grades 3 and 4. In Tables 6.6 to 6.9, we saw that BALLL have an impact on high frequency

words. In Table 6.10, we saw how BALLL also have an impact on Academic vocabulary size.

And in the Boxplot analysis in section 6.5, we saw where the impact was in the three mean-

score ranges for Academic size vocabulary, the upper range (high to medium agreement) for

CCL beliefs and the lower range (medium to low agreement) for Western BALLL. This

confirms previous research on the importance of beliefs in language learning, and vocabulary

learning in this context. Teachers need to be made aware of such beliefs and their impact in

language learning.

263

Section 3: PVL

The aim of this section is to discuss the result with respect to the PVL. The process relies on

strategy clusters, discussed in 7.12.1. The notion of a process is discussed in 7.12.2, and the

data from the questionnaires and interview that supports a process is synthesised to provide

insights into the PVL. In 7.12.3, the importance of knowing the process and the strategy

cluster observation is recapped.

7.12.1 The PVL uses strategy clusters

The PVL does not really involve the use of a single vocabulary learning strategy at any given

moment, but involves the use of strategy clusters, some of which will be general LLSs or

general skills (e.g., making lists or making vocabulary flash cards), and others specific VLSs

(e.g., reciting new words many times or writing the new word many times). Take for instance

VLS 6b: write the new word several times (see Chapter 5, section 5.1, Table 5.7). At first

glance, it may be seen as a straightforward strategy, but on closer examination it is more

complex than it appears. Strategies are not simple one-off events in working memory (see

Macaro, 2006), they are often complex procedural knowledge. A brief digression into what is

involved in the use of a strategy ensues to clarify the point that strategy use is complex.

What is involved, for instance, in the strategy to write the new word several times? One needs

several skills and certain materials. First, take a pen and paper (large enough to write a new

word several times); second, take the pen in hand and write the new word. At this point, what

is the student doing; are they writing the new word from memory, or are they copying it? The

assumption is the latter — it is held in working memory — because the student hasn’t as yet

learned the new word as it isn’t in long-term memory to recall. Therefore, they will copy it

from wherever it was first discovered (having located it again); writing the new word several

times is, after all, a consolidation-memory strategy, not a discovery strategy. When the

student engages in initial copying, they are engaging several cognitive strategies — for

example, look at the word and keep it in working memory long enough to begin writing it;

working memory is essential to the success of the task. Immediately following this, the

student engages motor skills associated with writing and proceeds to sketch the first marks of

the new word (if they are using pen and paper technology, not typing it on a computer

264

keyboard), the first part of the first letter. Then they sketch the remaining letters of the new

word. Size of sketched letters is arbitrary, depending on the student’s preference. However,

would copying the new word be a silent activity? Would the student also be ‘saying’ the

sounds of the letters, or the syllables of the word if not the whole word, as s/he copies it? (see

Chapter 5, section 5.1) What is suggested here is that the student would be sounding out

words as they are written. Of the eight strategies listed below, some of them are concerned

with pronunciation and spelling. After copying the new word, the student simply focuses on

the first copy made and re-copies it several more times using the same strategies and skills as

before.

Macaro (2001) talks of combinations of strategies in relation to reading but doesn’t make it

clear which strategies are being employed. He provides a short general list but the reader

must decipher them all from the evidence he provides. He is far more explicit, however, in his

2006 paper ‘Strategies for Language Learning and for Language Use: Revising the

Theoretical Framework’, in which he proposes a cognitive framework for learner strategies.

In this framework, Macaro highlights the location of LLSs — working memory. Working

memory is where they become functional. Without delving deeply into the design of his

framework, the focus here will be on his discussion of strategy clustering (Macaro, 2006, p.

326).

Macaro (2006, p. 327) discusses the location of learning strategies and describes their action

component, which “helps us understand what a strategy actually purports to do”. He

discusses how they promote learning, and how they must be combined with other strategies

to be effective. Macaro (2006, p. 327) provides an example of a strategy cluster and his

example illustrates how a learner looks up a new word in an L1-L2 dictionary (e.g., Chinese-

English dictionary) while engaged in writing. His non-exhaustive list of elements is:

remember prior problems with dictionary use; predict what problems I might encounter this

time; think about what part of speech I am looking for; compare all definitions given;

compare collocations in L2 and L1; evaluate predictions; remember to copy word correctly;

check that it makes sense in the sentence generated. He adds that this cluster may well be

combined with other clusters. What can be seen here is just how complex strategy use can be.

Macaro uses very general examples which must be unpacked further. For example, predict

what problems I might encounter this time, if used in relation to using a Chinese-English

dictionary, what should be known is what is involved in making such predictions. Depending

265

on the strategy cluster used, and depending on which other strategy cluster is drawn into the

process, the outcome of strategy use will be affected.

In order for strategy use to be successful, however, it must occur in the presence of other

strategies, not in isolation. The CEMs in the present research have shown that their strategy

use is not done in isolation, but is combined. They have demonstrated a particular process of

vocabulary learning by regularly reusing a core set of VLSs.

7.12.2 The PVL involves strategies and beliefs

As stated above, the process of learning is a complex process that uses many cognitive

resources, not least of all a cognitive ‘tool’ to ‘acquire’ both skills and knowledge (Phye &

Andre, 1986) (see Chapter 5, section 5.5). Phye and Andre’s (1986) cognitive resources are

also employed with general LLSs and specific VLSs gained/developed in the process of

learning the first or other foreign language or skill/knowledge. In the process of learning

English vocabulary, CEMs employ specific VLSs (e.g. Schmitt, 1997) to learn the English

vocabulary — probably those used to learn their native language and modified to learn

English vocabulary. Illeris (2007, p. 3) defined learning as any cognitive process that “leads

to permanent capacity change” not due to other factors, like maturity and aging. One of the

processes that can lead to ‘permanent capacity change’ is the use of a VLS, or a bunch of

them used consecutively to learn a new vocabulary item — for example, a strategy that

allows the learner to focus on the meaning (e.g., look up a dictionary), or the word’s

morphology (e.g., root words, suffixation) or its pronunciation (e.g., phonetics). The use of

questionnaires and interviews allowed the collection of data on CEMs VLS use, not just at

one time but in each year of a four-year Bachelor degree. Such strategy use information was

viewed as the best way to gain insight into the process of English vocabulary learning by

CEMs, even though indirect. The finding was interesting.

Beginning with strategy use, CEMs regularly use a small range of VLSs to learn English

vocabulary. ‘Regularly’ here means the strategies were often used in each grade. According to

the data (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Tables 5.15 and 5.16), CEMs regularly reuse at least

eight VLSs, restated here:

1a: in textbooks and classroom learning activities (discovery-place strategy);

266

1e: when reading English materials (discovery-place strategy);

4a: its pronunciation (determination-study strategy);

4b: the spelling (determination-study strategy);

4d: the Chinese translation (determination-study strategy);

6b: write the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy);

6c: look at the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy); and,

8c: remember the new word by its meaning (when read again) (consolidation-review

strategy].

This short list, which highlights what appears at first sight a disparate group of strategies, can

be argued to reflect a pattern of learning that is common among CEMs. When one reflects on

the learning context in China, or at least, higher education from which CEMs were sampled,

one may see its validity. This list, arguably, represents a core set of commonly used strategies,

regularly used to learn English vocabulary. These strategies also represent the PVL. The

process tends to be: first, students discover new vocabulary in textbooks and other classroom

activities (implied in the learning activities) — the main one being to learn the content of a

textbook — and, second, when they read English materials. They consolidate their learning of

new vocabulary by looking at the word several times, focus on its pronunciation, the Chinese

translation (of its meaning), write the word several times and remember the new word by its

meaning (when read again). (This activity is supported by the interview data — see Chapter

5, sections 5.31 and 5.3.5) This is a core activity, and is sometimes complemented by the use

of other strategies, which will be discussed later.

Looking at the other major factor involved in the PVL, BALLL, general and specific, further

insights can be gained.

According to Richardson (1996), a belief is a psychologically held understanding, premise or

proposition about the world that is felt to be true. Beliefs are often viewed as the relation

between two categories which do not define each other (Open University, 1975) — for

example, language and how to learn it. They are mental representations (Mohamed, 2006),

and refer to specific aspects of reality (Pitt, 2008) — for example, the objects of learning and

the actions taken to learn them. And according to Rokeach (1968), beliefs are categorised

according to their internal structure, whether they are descriptive, evaluative or prescriptive

— descriptive describes action taken, prescriptive prescribes action to be taken and

267

evaluative evaluates outcomes of action and states, the former outcomes on experience.

The importance of studying beliefs is due to their influence on behaviour. Horwitz (1987)

listed some of the following general beliefs: some languages are easier to learn than others;

the English I am trying to learn is X difficulty; I believe I will ultimately speak English very

well; it’s easier to read and write English than it is to speak it/listen to it and understand it;

and, it is easier to speak English than it is to understand it. The complete list of Horwitz’s

BALLI can be found in Appendix 9. These beliefs, in particular, were supported by CEMs

and incidentally in terms of the difficulty of language Horwitz’s sample supported them too,

(see section 7.9.3 above). Finding statistically significant correlations between general beliefs

and VLS use, 0.298 at p < 00.1 and CCL beliefs and VLS use, 0.420 at p < 0.01, provides

support for the claim that they work together (see Gu & Johnson, 1996). Horwitz (1988)

found that learners behave in accordance with their beliefs. So, one should find that learners’

behaviour is fairly consistent with their beliefs, whether general or specific beliefs (e.g. Shi,

2006).

Take the belief that some languages are easier to learn than others, an evaluative belief,

which 54 per cent of CEMs agreed with, as did Horwitz’s (1987) sample. If a learner believes

this strongly enough then that’s going to be ‘true’ of a particular language they are learning

and be reflected in their learning behaviour, or their experience of learning it at least. CEMs

suggested that the English they are learning is medium difficulty (see Chapter 5, section

5.6.2.5). This belief was ranked No. 8 by percentage of students supporting it out of 34

ranked general beliefs. Given that the VLSs this belief impacted cannot actually be seen, a

guess can be made by looking at which VLSs are frequently used in learning English

vocabulary and which were not (see Appendix 9, Table 2). Referring back to the regularly

reused VLSs listed above (see Chapter 5, section 5.4.1, Table 5.15), it can be seen how

learning any language might become difficult, if these were the only strategies used. Of

course, if one only focused on that list, one would not get a clear idea of which strategies are

involved in learning vocabulary. In fact, it is not just a single strategy alone that results in

learning, but a combination of strategies.

Though a combination of strategies is used, their use is supported by a belief or set of beliefs

that they are at least useful (e.g. Schmitt, 1997), or they have proven useful in the past or are

promoted by a teacher — research into teachers’ beliefs would complement this idea. Asking

268

students where they got their VLSs, students indicated that they often got them from a teacher

(see Chapter 5, section 5.5.2, Table 5.18). However, the problem of taking beliefs at face

value immediately becomes apparent when you see the belief, it’s better to learn English in

an English-speaking country like the United States, is strongly supported by students, and

ranked No. 1 by percentage of students agreeing with it (see Appendix 9, Table 2). One has to

wonder why and how students developed such a strong belief since few, if any, of the

students sampled have ever been to an English-speaking country. So their support for such a

belief is not based primarily on experience. One should then categorise such a belief as

prescriptive rather than evaluative — for instance, if you want to learn English well, learn it

in an English-speaking country.

The beliefs that underlie or drive the vocabulary learning process CEMs use are reflected in

the list of eight regularly used VLSs listed above. The first two VLSs are discovery-place

strategies: 1) English vocabulary is found in textbooks and classroom activities, and 2) when

reading English materials. The suggestion that English vocabulary is rarely found anywhere

outside these contexts is indicated in the lack of use of other VLSs. To begin with, they

expect to find English vocabulary in textbooks (and classroom activities), rarely in the

mouths of teachers or others, generally. It is certain that CEMs know English can be heard

from peoples’ lips, but the point concerns their context of learning. Perhaps that is implied in

classroom activities, but certainty is elusive — students would need to be asked if this is what

they think is meant by classroom activities. The implied idea that English vocabulary is

usually found in books and rarely elsewhere is supported by the second discovery-place

strategy, when reading English materials. The idea is also supported in the discovery-place

strategy, when singing English songs and watching English movies/TV, but with far less

support (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.3, Q1:1f). The strongest support for this

strategy was roughly 50 per cent of grade 3 students. Further, the frequency of use of the

discovery-place strategy, during English conversations with others (see Chapter 5, section

5.1.2.3, Table 5.3, Q1:1d), lends strong support to the argument, with the implication that

CEMs (with only 42% of grade 3 students often using it) indicating that they rarely engage in

English conversation, either with a teacher or a classmate. Beliefs drive strategy use.

In terms of consolidating vocabulary learning, six strategies suggest which beliefs drive

CEMs strategy use: 1) its pronunciation (determination-study strategy); 2) the spelling

(determination-study strategy); 3) the Chinese translation (determination-study strategy); 4)

269

write the word several times (consolidation-memory strategy); 5) look at the word several

times (consolidation-memory strategy); and, 6) remember the new word by its meaning

(when read again) (consolidation-remember strategy). The VLS, its pronunciation, suggests

that CEMs at least had pronunciation classes; however, little use of the spoken mode suggests

they did not expect it was going to happen in their context of FLL. The lack of use of the

strategy during English conversations with others (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.3,

Q1:1d), try using the new word in speaking and writing (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table

5.11, Q9:9a), and try to have conversations using the new words, with people who speak

English, for example, teachers, classmates (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.11,

Q9:9d), all provide some support for the argument, despite roughly 50 per cent of grade 2 and

4 indicating that English vocabulary is to be found, or at least expected to be found, not in the

mouths of teachers and others, but in textbooks in the context of learning. CEMs seemed to

spend most of their time looking at words and less time listening to words is also support for

the argument. This suggests that the focus is on reading and writing English rather than

speaking it.

The focus on pronunciation may well be a phonics one. That is, it may be for the purposes of

strengthening students’ understanding of the one-to-one syllabic correspondence between

written English and spoken English, because that syllabic relationship does not exist in

Chinese. It may not have been so much the purposes of speaking English as it was for reading

and writing it. Support for the argument comes from the support for the VLS for focusing on

the spelling (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.5, Q4:4b). Additional support for the

argument comes from the response to the VLSs, write the words several times (see Chapter 5,

section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.7, Q6:6b), and remember the new word by its meaning (when read

again) (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.10, Q8:8c). CEMs seem not to support the idea

they would speak English or develop fluency in it in their context of learning, a FLL context,

and indicated that with this core approach to learning English vocabulary. Again, this

suggests more focus on reading and writing than speaking.

Chinese learners rely on a Chinese translation which should not surprise us. They are learning

English in a FLL context, not an English-speaking country, with few opportunities to use it

outside the classroom. They have already learnt a first language, Mandarin or Cantonese,

which they rely on heavily for communication and learning. If Chinese students are taught

Grammar Translation (and they are), then support for translation is going to be strong. Jiang’s

270

(2000) description of the formal stage of the development of a lexical entry or how words can

be entered into a person’s mental lexicon will be examined here. Ma’s (2009, p. 57) summary

of this is also revealing:

In the initial stage of learning an L2 word, the learner’s main task is to connect the L2

word form with an existing meaning in the mind, [whose] form [is/must be] an L1

translation or [an L1] definition.

To clarify this further, word form equals Nation’s (2001) item knowledge (see Chapter 2,

section 2.1.3). The learning process, though discussed in relation to receptive learning, is

‘associative learning’ (Malim, 1994) — for instance, learning which happens when an

association or a connection is made, usually between two things (Richards et al., 2002; Jiang,

2000; Schmitt, 2000; Nation, 2000; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). Recent developments view this

process as ‘connectionism’, meaning: 1) information processing takes place through the

interconnections of a large number of simple units, organised into networks and operating in

parallel; 2) learning takes place through the strengthening and weakening of the

interconnections in a particular network in response to examples encountered in the input;

and 3) the result of learning is often a network of simple units that acts as though it ‘knows’

abstract rules, although the rules themselves exist only in the form of association strengths

distributed across the entire network (Richards et al., 2002; Ellis, 2001; MacWhinney, 2001;

Greg, 2001; Hulstijn, 2001; Harrington, 2001).

Jiang’s (2000, p. 51) summary of ‘connectionism’ is also revealing:

As one’s experience in L2 increases, stronger associations are developed between L2

words and their L1 translations … What these strong associations mean, among other

things, is the simultaneous activation of L2 word forms and the lemma information

(semantic and syntactic specifications) of L1 counterparts in L2 word use … Such

simultaneous activation of L2 word form and language lemma information may result in

a strong and direct bond between L2 word and the lemma of its L1 translation.

Jiang’s (2000) account of the initial stage of the development of a lexical entry precisely

illustrates what happens when L2, or English vocabulary in this case, is learned in the initial

stage of learning an L2 or an English vocabulary item. The heavy reliance on translation

271

supports the argument. Student support for the strategy remember the new word by its

meaning (when read again) (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Table 5.10, Q8:8c) achieved the

No. 1 position, with 63 per cent of students supporting it (see Appendix 8, Table 7). Perhaps

this is due to the fact that learning does not mean only learning vocabulary.

Focusing on some specific beliefs, the CCL beliefs (about language and language learning),

there is further support for the arguments made thus far. The argument that CEMs tend not to

expect to discover English vocabulary anywhere other than in textbooks and classroom

activities in their context of learning is found in CCL BS#38 (14b): talking to my classmates

or friends in English (see Chapter 5, section 5.7, Table 5.25, practising speaking skills),

which roughly 54 per cent of students agreed with it but did not seem to behave according to

the belief — perhaps limited opportunity?; BS#6/2e: for daily communication, which many

students agreed with, yet they indicated that they tended to rarely engage in English

conversations with either teachers or classmates (see Chapter 5, section 5.1.2.3, Tables 5.3 to

5.11, 1d; 9a; 9d). This raises a question about who they were communicating in English with

daily if they tended not to do so with teachers and classmates. The conclusion is to view this

belief, on the evidence, as prescriptive rather than evaluative — for instance, learn English to

communicate with English speakers. Further support for this conclusion is drawn from

BS#39: talking with native English speakers, which most students agreed with as a way to

practise speaking English. This strategy should be viewed as prescriptive rather than

evaluative (Rokeach, 1986) — for instance, to practise speaking English, speak with native

English speakers (as opposed to speaking with other students). This suggests again that the

focus is on reading and writing, not on speaking English.

7.12.3 The importance of the findings

The findings have shown that there is a process to vocabulary gain. The process supports

what Schmitt (1997) claimed about VLSs in his taxonomy which classifies VLSs as

discovery strategies and consolidation strategies. Discovery strategies include determination

and social strategies, and consolidation strategies include cognitive, metacognitive, social and

memory strategies.

The PVL used by CEMs involves the first set of discovery strategies, discovery and

determination strategies. Discovery strategies concern the initial encounter with a new word;

272

the place the new word is discovered, for example, a book, a list of words, a conversation.

Determination strategies concern the response to the new word and what to do with it.

Determination strategies play two roles: 1) the initial response to the new word (e.g., ignore

it, find its meaning), and 2) what to do to study it (e.g., study its spelling, study its

pronunciation, study the English explanations).

This narrow set of discovery and determination strategies was used by CEMs. There are eight

vocabulary strategies in total (not including strategies used to complement this set of

strategies). The first is the discovery strategy in textbooks and classroom activities; the

second is the discovery strategy when reading English materials; the third is the

determination strategy study its pronunciation; the fourth is the determination strategy study

its spelling; the fifth is the determination strategy study its Chinese translation; the sixth is

the memory strategy write the word several times; the seventh is the cognitive strategy look at

the word several times; and the eighth is the metacognitive strategy remember the new word

by its meaning (when read again).

While the PVL CEMs use when learning English vocabulary is observed in the data, the data

suggests the process contains some weaknesses. The weakness in the process suggests CEMs

may not achieve the kinds of learning outcomes they may desire; especially if they are to

teach English as a foreign language in their home country or if they have plans to study in an

institute of higher education outside their home country. The process suggests 1) that it is an

exam oriented approach to learning English vocabulary, and 2) that it is a process that is

culturally preferred (revealed in the process) when approaching learning English. Vocabulary

learning seems to be approached in a specific way and students are not offered instruction on

how to learn, practice new vocabulary which is an important building block in language

learning. Such an approach will not cater for individual differences in learning. The data

suggests CEMs use individually different approaches to learning. The exam oriented

approach in a formal learning context is constrained by time and the effect on learning

language deeply in an EFL context is undesirable, limiting students’ opportunities to

consolidate learning. This suggests the syllabus/curriculum approach to learning is not

learner-centred and requires revision and evaluation.

The PVL used by CEMs suggests a group similarity when approaching learning English

vocabulary, though they all employ their own strategies in vocabulary learning. The

273

curriculum and syllabus does not cater for individual learning styles and follows traditional

modes of learning. This creates an unnecessary restraint on CEMs when approaching learning

English vocabulary, and combined with the exam oriented approach will have an undesirable

effect. This culturally preferred way of approaching learning another language means CEMs

experience a weakened capacity to achieve learning outcomes they might otherwise imagine

will be the case.

This study highlights the importance of evaluating and further enhancing the teaching

methods and curriculum employed in English language teaching in that institution. The

curriculum can be improved in at least two ways. Firstly, it can be improved by incorporating

a communicative approach to learning. A communicative approach can provide ample

opportunities for consolidation of learning, facilitates interaction and promotes learner

autonomy. This will overcome the limitations of the exam based approach to learning and

grammar translation approach which focus simply on learning of grammar. Secondly, the

PVL can be improved by incorporating strategy training within the syllabus and

acknowledging it within the curriculum. Providing explicit strategy training has proven to

have a beneficial effect on learners’ confidence and learning outcomes. It was clear in the

interview data that CEMs desired strategy training as part of their language education. The

questionnaire data supported this preference for strategy training by showing that strategy use

was far from optimal.

Section summary

The questionnaires and interview provided data to observe the PVL used by CEMs. The

evidence for their particular process was found in the exploration of CEMs VLS use and

beliefs, general and specific. CEMs using the same small cluster of VLSs (8) in each grade

provides strong evidence of this. Why the eight VLSs is not clear in the data — it is

speculated that it is due to the learning tasks CEMs engage in, which are viewed as often

exam oriented. The process begins with discovering new vocabulary, determining what to do

with it, and then consolidating learning by focusing on particular aspects of the new

vocabulary using memory, review and production strategies. The process is complex, uses

strategy clusters and occurs in working memory. What happens in working memory is not a

one-off event but a series of events relying on procedural knowledge to be successful.

274

Chapter summary

VLS use was generally variable in each grade, though the same eight strategies were used in

each grade. This clustering of strategies in each grade was viewed as a core set of strategies

used by CEMs, and arguably the PVL CEMs tend to use when learning English vocabulary.

Using Schmitt’s (1997) VLS taxonomy as a general reference to discuss strategies and use, it

was seen that two discovery-place strategies, three determination-study strategies, two

consolidation-memory strategies, and one consolidation-review strategy made up the core set

of strategies regularly used in each grade. Some of the literature (e.g. Macaro, 2006; Griffiths,

2013) discusses strategy clustering and provides a way to begin understanding the nature and

goal of strategies. Macaro (2006) provides a cognitive domain within which to place them:

working memory. However, it is argued here that strategies must have their roots in long-term

memory given the components of strategies (e.g., look up a dictionary is premised on

knowing what a dictionary is and what is involved in the action of looking up), and can be

classified procedural knowledge, because they are action oriented.

The two beliefs questionnaires provided data to show that CEMs hold BALLL. By using the

descriptive statistic of percentages, it was seen that the strength of students’ agreement or not

with a particular BALLL differed. Three general patterns emerged from the data:

agree/strongly agree; disagree/strongly disagree; and, neither disagree or agree. Students

indicated they generally agreed or strongly agreed with 18 general ‘Western’ BALLL out of

34, approximately 53 per cent of BALLL. The reason they hold beliefs that are generally

classified as Western BALLL could be due to China’s recent attempt to integrate into the

global village. With respect to CCL BALLL, 33 beliefs statement were agreed with or

strongly agreed with out of 57, approximately 58 per cent of CCL beliefs.

The statistical analysis showed how BALLL and VLS use are strongly related and had an

impact on English vocabulary size, for high frequency words and Academic size vocabulary.

The result showed several things: 1) that CEMs do use VLSs, and 2) individual CEMs are

different in the strategy use, but not as a group. As a group, they are similar. The result also

showed that CEMs use a cluster of strategies in each grade of a four-year Bachelor degree.

This evidence was used to infer that it is a core set of strategies, and that it suggests it is the

PVL for these CEMs, at least. The data also showed that CEMs are variable in their VLS use.

275

Variable use here means that CEMs used a strategy in one grade but may not use it in another

and the percentage of students using the strategy fluctuated with each grade.

276

277

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION

8.0 Introduction

This chapter concludes the research project with a general summary followed by a summary

of the major findings (8.1), highlighting significant aspects and generalisations, then

implications and contribution (8.2), limitations (8.3) and concluding remarks (8.4).

8.1 Summary of the project and its aims

The main aim of this research was to explore the process of English vocabulary learning by

CEMs and to better understand the process. The process involves two important factors:

VLSs and BALLL. Specifically the project explored the relationship between VLS use and

BALLL, general BALLL and specific CCL, and their influence on EVS. A secondary aim

was to know where CEMs obtain the VLSs they use, including the place, in the wider context

of a university, where they often ‘do’ vocabulary learning.

The project used a mixed methods approach to explore the PVL. Eighty CEMs from four

different grades were surveyed on strategy use and BALLL. The project also surveyed CEMs’

EVS through four tests. A further 25 students were interviewed to explain strategy use and

beliefs, and to validate questionnaire results. Data collection was sequential: quantitative then

qualitative. The data were analysed by descriptive and non-parametric statistics. The

descriptive statistics helped observe patterns in the data and frequency of use. The non-

parametric statistics helped observe differences in mean scores and strength of relationships.

The interview data was themed to allow organisation around categories and formal

classifications. Questionnaires and interview results were combined and compared.

The results demonstrated which VLSs were used, and the frequency of use cross-sectionally

(across four grades of a Bachelor degree) and as a whole. The results showed a strong

correlation between VLS use and beliefs. The project showed EVS, in a general sense, and

the differences in EVS in each grade. However, there was no significant correlation found

between VLS use and VST/Academic mean scores in grades 1 and 2, but there was between

VLS use and VST/Academic mean scores in grade 3 and 4.

278

8.2 Major findings

The Process of Vocabulary Learning

Gu and Johnson (1996) suggest strategy use and beliefs are the whole process of FLL, and

Schmitt (1997) hints at it in his vocabulary learning taxonomy. The key result of the research

was that the PVL could be observed in VLS use and beliefs. The process could be strongly

inferred from the use of a core set of VLSs (Griffith, 2013) which were repeatedly used in

each grade of a four-year Bachelor degree and students’ BALLL, with the two working

together (see Chapter 5). Other strategies were used to complement the core set of strategies

engaged in learning activities and tasks.

The PVL was inferred from the key finding of the ‘clustering’ of VLS use in each grade (e.g.

Flavell et al., 1993; Mohamed, 2006). CEMs had used a particular set of eight VLSs in each

grade, supplemented by a certain number of other VLSs in each grade (see Chapter 5, Table

5.16). The idea of strategy ‘clustering’ also extended to beliefs (e.g. Horwitz, 1985).

However, there was no evidence in the data to suggest ‘clustering’ of beliefs in each grade.

The data showed that CEMs mostly agreed/strongly agreed with 18 of Horwitz’s (1985) 34

Western beliefs (53%), and 33 of Shi’s (2006) 57 beliefs of the CCL (58%) (see Chapter 5,

sections 5.6.1 and 5.7).

Vocabulary Learning Strategy use

The data strongly suggested that CEMs use VLSs but that their use of VLSs is variable at the

individual level. CEMs regularly used, across the four grades, eight of the 62 VLS asked

about:

1) discover new words in textbooks and classroom learning activities;

2) discover new words when reading English materials;

3) when studying new words, study its pronunciation;

4) when studying new words, study the spelling;

5) when studying new words, study the Chinese translation;

6) when memorising new words, write it several times;

279

7) when memorising new words, look at it several times; and

8) remember memorised words by its meaning (when read again).

The result can be attributed to the nature of learning tasks and activities at the research site.

The students’ preference for strategies on translation, spelling, pronunciation can also be

explained by the teaching methodology which might have been traditional, as explained in

the introduction.

Across the four grades, 29 VLSs were used variably, and 36 were used ‘rarely’ or ‘never’,

and 5 were ‘never/rarely used’:

1) when I meet a new word I pay no attention to it, and never go back to it;

2) I order new words by making vocabulary cards;

3) I review new words by reading the new words the first day, but not after that;

4) I review new words by testing new words with classmates; and

5) I use new words by trying to e-chat in English using QQ, MSN Messenger (see Chapter

7, Table 7.2).

The possible reason for number 1 is due to students being proactive when learning

vocabulary. The reason for numbers 2 to 4 is probably due to students not viewing these

strategies as useful or as inconvenient. CEMs probably have fewer opportunities to use

strategy number 5. The VLS use fluctuated in each grade, both in the number of students

using a VLS and the frequency with which the VLS was used — for example, grade 1 used

39 per cent, grade 2 used 31 per cent, grade 3 used 32 per cent, and grade used 45 per cent of

the 62 VLSs asked about. For the whole group, it was an average of 37 per cent of VLSs

asked about. The results confirm that EFL learners use VLSs to learn English vocabulary and

must be recognised as important in EFL teaching. Further research is needed to understand

why such a low percentage of VLSs were used.

CEMs use VLSs to learn English vocabulary and this supports other research (e.g. Gan et al.,

2004; Gu & Johnson, 1997; Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1990; see Chapter 2, section 2.4.1). There

were strong statistically significant differences (SSD) within grades for VLS use, and a

significant finding was the variability in VLS use at the individual level; another was the

‘clustering’ of VLS use in each grade. The significant difference within a grade is due to

280

students using individual approaches to learning. The strategy clustering is due to CEMs

using culturally significant approaches to learning English vocabulary.

CEMs achieved a certain EVS which could not be convincingly correlated with VLS use (see

Chapter 6). The literature has consistently claimed they are strongly related but research is

light on showing a statistical relationship (see Griffiths, 2013). Few VLS subgroups (e.g.,

determination-place strategies, determination-study strategies and consolidation-production

strategies) actually correlated with VST/Academic mean scores (see Chapter 6). The

subgroups which did correlate were determination-study and consolidation-memory strategies

in grade 3, and determination-study, consolidation-memory and consolidation-remember

strategies in grade 4. More research is needed to understand the precise relationship between

strategy subgroups and vocabulary learning outcomes. The CEMs indicated a low end of

medium level of VLS use – they indicated they had ‘often’ and ‘always’ used roughly 37 per

cent of the 62 VLSs asked about; they indicated they had ‘sometimes’, ‘never’ or ‘rarely’

used the remaining 64 per cent of the 62 VLSs. Moreover, there were few instances in the

data that indicated they had used the strategies more regularly than ‘sometimes’. Therefore,

their self-reported VLS frequency of use indicated a low end of medium VLS use as

individuals, modifying their strategy use in each grade in response to specific learning tasks.

CEMs strongly indicated that they preferred strategy training. Given their EFL context, this

may be useful.

Chinese English Majors and the beliefs about language and language learning

With regards to beliefs, the sampled CEMs used VLSs, and possessed general BALLL fairly

consistent with Horwitz’s (1988) classification of Western beliefs and specific beliefs

classified by Shi (2006) as the CCL beliefs.

With regard to BALLL, the surprising finding was that CEMs’ general BALLL was almost as

strong as their CCL (see Chapter 5, section 5.6.1 & 5.7). The assumption was that CEMs’

CCL beliefs would be much stronger than their general BALLL, given that the researcher had

observed reasonably strong CCL beliefs being employed by students when teaching many of

the CEMs who participated in the research. The data did not, however, strongly support that

observation. The difference in the number of BALLL and CCL questions, for instance, may

be a factor: 34 for the BALLLQ and 57 for the CCLQ. Fifty-eight per cent of CCL beliefs

281

were agreed with compared with 53 per cent for the general BALLL. The result for BALLL

BS#4 (the English I am trying to learn is a particular level of ‘difficulty’) was surprising,

with 61 per cent of CEMs giving the same response of ‘medium difficulty’ compared with

Horwitz’s (1987) European learners of English. The fact that the result suggests Chinese

students beliefs are partially Westernised beliefs would account for this result.

While CEMs may belong to a collective, in the Chinese sense, and live in a cultural setting

that emphasises a particular culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Shi, 2006), the data

confirmed that CEMs are individuals in both their beliefs and learning behaviour (see

Chapter 7). They were very similar as a group in their beliefs and learning behaviour, which

affirms their ‘collectivist’ outlook. CEMs’ individual beliefs and learning behaviour were not

altogether unusual, and affirmed that all humans are distinct at the individual level (Dörnyei,

2009). The strong group characteristic, however, can be viewed as reinforcing a preferred

cultural learning style; they were all similar in their choices as a group (see Chapter 5). For

example, unquestionably two of the most important beliefs to entertain as EFL learners are

learning English is mostly a matter of learning many new words and learning English is

mostly a matter of learning its grammar rules; CEMs rated them respectively No. 22 and 23

and, incidentally, the two weakest beliefs (36% and 34% agreed). These weakest beliefs

broke the pattern of all students in all grades holding a belief at similar strengths and at

similar frequencies.

The CCLQ was useful in affirming CEMs’ CCL beliefs (Shi, 2006). For example, CEMs

‘strongly agreed’ (58%) with the belief that a good teacher of English should improve my

English skills (for example, reading, writing), which affirms the idea that Chinese students

tend to be passive learners in the classroom (Gu, 1997; Gu & Johnson, 1996). The second

choice was ask the teacher after class, which also affirms the idea that Chinese students in

China tend not to interrupt the teacher during class. However, there was evidence to support

the conclusion that these CEMs, at least, had been influenced by Western BALLL, enough to

alter their perception of BALLL if not their behaviour. For instance, the beliefs my English

teacher likes me asking questions in the classroom and in my opinion, a good learner of

English should respect teachers were rated equally (66%), showing an increased flexibility

perhaps of some Chinese teachers but still tempered by Chinese beliefs. The top 20 beliefs

indicate a tendency to follow CCL beliefs and the occasional Westernized belief but, even so,

the general BALLL should have resulted, if the rhetoric is to be believed, in a greater

282

knowledge of English vocabulary than was observed.

English Vocabulary Size

A surprising result was observed in the CEMs’ EVS (see Appendix 6). While CEMs’

vocabulary size was as low as expected overall, the word in each size that was known most

by all students was surprising. For instance, for all students in all grades, the word most

known at the 1000 size was ‘poor’; at the 2000 word size it was ‘upset’; at the 3000 word

size it was ‘soldier’; and at the Academic size, it was ‘method’. There was not enough data to

explain why such variability existed in their receptive vocabulary knowledge (Nation, 2001).

In addition, there was an increase in vocabulary knowledge from grade 1 to grade 4 in the

Academic size test, the opposite of the 1000 to 3000 word tests. This was an unexpected

finding, and again there was not enough data to explain why their Academic vocabulary

should be increasing in each grade while their general vocabulary should be decreasing.

CEMs focus on Academic vocabulary in higher education and are trained to be English

teachers, perhaps this contributed to the result.

The EVS of CEMs in the present research was average, and variable. The average EVS was

observed in their results on Nation’s VST (see Appendix 6). Students were asked to complete

the first three of Nation’s size tests — 1000, 2000, 3000 — and the Academic size. The

expectation was that CEMs would know all the words at the 1000 size. The bilingual version

was used to make it easier to process. However, the results showed that CEMs did not fully

know all the words at the 1000 size (see Appendix 6). The same pattern was observed in all

three vocabulary sizes and the Academic size. The trend observed in CEMs’ vocabulary size

was that word knowledge declined from the 1000 size to the 3000 size; however, an

interesting observation at the Academic size was that more students knew most of the words

at each size, even though word knowledge declined in the first three sizes. So, even though

fewer students in grade 1 knew most of the words at the Academic size, more students tended

to know most of the Academic words by grade 4, which was the opposite for the VST from

1000 to 3000.

Schmitt (2010, pp. 28–40) listed at least five indicators that EFL learners were consistently

learning vocabulary. The first suggested was ‘signs of a large vocabulary’ required to

negotiate conversational English (e.g., Australian), which was roughly 2000 to 3000 word

283

families. The present research did not show that CEMs possessed a large range of vocabulary,

particularly at the 2000 to 3000 word family range (see Appendix 6). The second indicator

suggested was ‘signs of a variety of word knowledge’ needed to negotiate not only spoken

discourse but certain kinds of texts. The research did not affirm that CEMs possessed a wide

variety of word knowledge because it did not really explore the extent of CEMs’ word

knowledge; all that was done was observe whether CEMs knew a word and its general

meaning at a particular size — receptive vocabulary knowledge. The third indicator

suggested was ‘signs of incremental learning’ gained through a large range of exposure (e.g.,

number of times a learner is exposed to a single item, type of exposure, level of engagement

and congruity between L2 and L1 form) (Schmitt, 2010). The present research did not

explore this issue, but assumes that a certain number of exposures must have transpired,

given the average 9 to 12 years of English language education. Some researchers (e.g. Ming

Wei, 2007) have argued that China is an ‘input-poor environment’, which may account for

the perceived lack of repeated exposure suggested in CEMs’ low EVS. The fourth indicator

suggested was ‘signs of consolidation’, observed in how vocabulary is revised, expanding

revision, and signs of connectionism. Connectionism means here that students showed signs

of a developing English lexicology. Revision was not observed to be a strong point among

CEMs (see Chapter 5, Table 5.1, Table 5.2 and section 5.1.2.2, Table 5.9). There was no

indication of expanded revision, though there were signs of connectionism. The fifth

indicator suggested was a ‘sign of enhancement of partial word knowledge’ gained over time

to become fully mastered. The research did not explore this issue in depth, but there were

signs that partial knowledge was not really being enhanced over time. There were signs that

learning was only geared toward achieving immediate academic goals but not moving beyond

this point. This is not viewed as controversial, given the learning context. CEMs must

negotiate a great deal within the learning context to achieve what they do. However, this

result also may have teaching implications and there may be recommendations to improve

learning in the context.

8.3 Theoretical and practical implications and contribution

The discussion now turns to the implications of the research for its contribution to theory and

practice, which could be applicable not simply for English vocabulary learning but to EFL

learners in similar contexts.

284

Theory

The research contributes to the development of vocabulary learning theory in several ways.

Initially, it extends previous research. It not only confirms some of the previous research

regarding VLS use (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996) and BALLL (e.g. Horwitz, 1987; Shi, 2006),

but demonstrates that frequency of use can reveal deeper aspects of the issue, when explored

cross-sectionally, and even pseudo-longitudinally, which is only hinted at in previous

research (e.g. Gu & Johnson, 1996), and that VLSs and BALLL strongly correlate. The

research extends the range of VLSs through interviews not found in previous research (e.g.

Schmitt, 1997), highlighting more complexity in vocabulary learning. It also reveals some

details of the PVL, albeit in a FLL context, not examined before.

One group of VLSs not found in previous research concerns practice strategies. Previous

research highlights consolidation-review and consolidation-remember strategies (e.g.

Schmitt, 1997). Practice strategies can be viewed as a necessary aspect of FLL, particularly in

contexts with fewer opportunities to consolidate learning. They are similar to consolidation-

review strategies, in that vocabulary is reviewed by how it has been organised or reviewed for

memorisation, but the aim of practice strategies can be quite different. They can be viewed as

a way to automatise vocabulary knowledge and contribute to language development.

A range of discovery-place and determination initial response strategies was shown.

Discovery-place strategies have been portrayed as strategic action. Their goal is not the same

as other action-oriented strategies, which they can be if the learner is determined to find new

vocabulary in a specific place (e.g., a newspaper), rather than stumble upon it in due course.

An interesting set of discovery-place strategies was those for finding new vocabulary in the

public sphere (outside the classroom) — for example, on trains, in. Determination-response

strategies, on the other hand, concern either an initial response to finding a new word or

determining what to do with it. An initial response for some students, according to the

questionnaire/interview data, was to do nothing. Some interesting determination initial

response strategies from the interview were: look up pc/phone dictionary; note its history;

separate short from long words; learn how to read it. Only 8 per cent of interview participants

said they ignore a new word. An important question to ask is does ignoring a new word help

the student to learn it? The logical answer is ‘no’.

285

Finding strong correlation between VLSs and BALLL contributes to theory concerning the

important aspects of vocabulary learning. Gu & Johnson (1996) list three general BALLL,

arguing they are strategies. But beliefs are not strategies, though action oriented, they are

statements about the relations between two things that do not define each other (e.g.

Richardson, 1996). A strategy is procedural knowledge, concerned with what is to be done,

whereas beliefs are concerned with relations between, in this case, language, the thing to be

learned, and how to learn it. Language is not defined by how it is to be learned. Strategies and

beliefs strongly correlating is convincing support for the argument that the two interact and

work together in the vocabulary learning endeavour.

Two categories of beliefs were offered in the interview and concerned what makes a good

teacher of English and what is involved in learning another language. The importance of

beliefs concerning what makes a good teacher of English is in their ability to affect teaching

pedagogy. A very wide range of beliefs came out of the interview which were not based on

either Horwitz’s (1985) BALLI or Shi’s (2006) CCL beliefs. There were two interesting

categories, one concerned personality traits generally and the other specific traits — the

former concerning the teacher as a person, the latter concerning the person as a teacher. Some

specific attributes emerged too: teacher qualities, teaching tools and syllabus subjects. The

first contained preferred teacher qualities, such as should have knowledge of English, should

have good teaching skill and knows grammar. Under teaching tools came skills, such as

ability to use multimedia, movies and easy words. Some interesting topics emerged under

syllabus subjects: teaches culture, teaches students how to learn, teaches useful skills, teaches

real-life English, teaches socio-pragmatics and teaches for communication. This suggests

CEMs desire less traditional types of teacher and prefer communicative activities and

learning of the culture.

Showing that there is PVL in the relationship between strategy use and beliefs develops the

field beyond simply highlighting which strategies students use and which beliefs they

possess. These are a functional basis for vocabulary learning. Students either deliberately go

in search of new words or they stumble upon them in the course of formal study. Students

then decide what to do with them; either find their meaning of ignore them. They then go

further, studying specific aspects of the new vocabulary. These actions, up till this point,

might be viewed as a kind of surface learning (e.g. Biggs, 1996; Ramsden, 1992; Prosser &

Trigwell, 1999), whereas using consolidation-organisation strategies, consolidation-

286

memorisation strategies, consolidation-review strategies and consolidation-remember

strategies might be viewed as a kind of deep learning.

Practical implications

The practical implications of this research are for students, teachers, curriculum design and

researchers. Based on the data, the main issues are 1) the practical implications for CEMs, 2)

opportunities to consolidate learning, 3) the impact of increased opportunities to consolidate

learning and the English curriculum of Chinese universities. A fourth concerns problems

researching VLSs.

1) Practical implications for Chinese English Majors

There are practical implications for CEMs when learning English vocabulary in their host

cultural context. Firstly, they may be constrained in their learning, and not satisfactorily

achieve their personal learning goals – other than pass English exams, if they manage it on

the first attempt. Secondly, while they may satisfy a culturally preferred way of learning they

may fail to achieve the level of proficiency expected for negotiating higher education in a

non-Chinese institute in an English speaking country, if that is their aim. Thirdly, if they fail

to achieve the expected proficiency level (they are personally aiming for) they will be

required to undertake additional English language education until they reach a level of

proficiency sufficient for self-regulating learning in the new cultural context. Chinese English

majors in this context need to focus on developing a variety of strategies for autonomous

learning. In this way, they can regulate and achieve their learning goals and needs.

2) Opportunities to consolidate learning

The research findings suggest there was a weighted imposition on CEMs to engage in

learning activities rather than engage in consolidation of learning activities (indirectly

English language teaching), which is not easy when there is pressure to conform to a

culturally preferred way of thinking about language and language learning (e.g. Gao, 2006;

Horwitz, 1999; Phuong-Mai et al., 2005; Yang, 1999). The pressure to conform would,

therefore, maintain the pattern of outcomes of learning observed of CEMs in the present

research. A change could not be expected in English vocabulary learning outcomes, for

CEMs specifically, if the preferred ways of thinking and behaving are expected to be

287

maintained in the foreseeable future (e.g. Elbaum et al., 1993; Gao, 2006).

Teaching must meet the needs of diverse learners though they belong to a collectivist culture,

and not expect learners to use the same approaches to learning just because the teacher uses

an approach to teaching that views all learners as homogenous – e.g. Chinese. Expecting

learners to conform to a teaching pedagogy that does not try to meet the needs of learners

who use individually different approaches to learning will not achieve its educational goals

equitably for all. The evidence gathered in this research shows that while students are

expected to learn from the same textbooks, the same vocabulary lists, the same approach to

learning, in the same amount of time, under the same generalised teaching pedagogy, the

learning outcome was not the same for all students. The learning outcome was variable for

each student and less than desirable for many. In order for students to achieve their individual

educational goals, teachers should attempt to expose students to a variety of learning

strategies, vocabulary consolidation and discovery strategies which will enhance their learner

autonomy. Another suggestion would be to supplement teaching materials with authentic

resources, gleaned from the internet or radio to offer students realistic learning opportunities.

Teachers could also attempt to develop activities for a variety of learning styles and

personalities to address students learning needs. Cohen (2010) provides a useful step by step

process for assisting teachers in integrating strategy training:

1. Determine learners’ needs and the resources available for training.

2. Select the strategies to be taught.

3. Consider the benefits of integrated strategy training.

4. Consider motivational issues.

5. Prepare the materials and activities.

6. Conduct explicit strategy training.

7. Evaluate and revise the strategy training.

This will empower students with problem solving skills and enable them to self evaluate their

performance.

3) Impact on syllabuses and curriculums: finding the right balance

In order to increase CEMs’ opportunities to consolidate learning, syllabuses and curriculums

would need to be redesigned to accommodate increased opportunities (e.g. Gao, 2006;

Schmitt, 2008), by including strategy training (e.g. Griffiths, 2013). Interview participants

showed interest in strategy training and given the benefit of strategy training, it would be best

that Chinese teachers and institutional administrators undertake such changes. CEMs’

288

educational experience seems to be overly managed and much of their out-of-class time is

consumed by extracurricular activities organised by either their teachers or the institute’s

administrators who have nothing to do with FLL. Whether adjustments will include strategy

training, for instance, requires further research. But the research result showed students’

desire for strategy training and that it should be included in future in the higher education

English curriculum. Teachers need to include strategy training to raise students’ awareness of

strategies. Curriculum should incorporate where possible all skill training to produce

opportunities for learning.

The best way to increase students’ opportunities to consolidate their learning is by offering a

range of opportunities to learn the foreign language and combine a variety of teaching

resources. This will require teachers and curriculum designers to pay great attention to

individual approaches to learning. This means that teachers must design syllabuses that

address individual learning styles, not syllabuses that view learners as the same. Teachers

must incorporate learning activities – those that will facilitate learning from students’

particular approach – into the syllabus that will placate individual approaches to learning.

This can be done by surveying student approaches to learning and then designing learning

activities that will meet and enhance each student’s approach to learning. This requires a

learner centred approach to learning and a negotiated syllabus which is advocated by

Kumaravadivelu (2003).

4) Some problems with researching VLS use

Although the research contributed to the field of English vocabulary learning in FLL

contexts, this was only possible because it delved deeper into the issue. Ten years ago, Ellis

(1994, in Griffiths, 2013) said longitudinal studies were sorely needed — this is still true

today. Doing pseudo-longitudinal research has shown how much this approach can reveal

about the PVL at least, which cannot be revealed by one-shot studies, or restricting research

to simply listing strategies used and claiming they represent the whole process. But the

research has not found support for earlier postulations that strategy use is amenable to change

(Griffiths, 2013) — CEMs did not change their ‘base’ or ‘core’ strategies (Griffiths, 2013)

across four years of a Bachelor degree, but the result does support Griffiths’ idea that there is

such a thing as a core set of strategies. My findings also support Griffiths’ postulation that it

perhaps reflects students’ level of ‘proficiency’, because most CEMs had variable and non-

289

consistent test size.

According to Griffiths (2013), individual strategy use is likely to be affected by ‘a range of

personal variables’. Therefore, more research time must be placed on individual use and

contextual and situational factors. If culture affects strategy use, and the research

demonstrates that it does, then this has implications for teaching pedagogy and strategy

training. Digging deeper is the only answer. Students respond individually to learning

activities and tasks in a variety of ways, therefore students need to be assessed individually

with respect to language education and training and not be limited to ‘one-size-fits-all’

programs.

The other problem with researching strategy use is its very nature: what is a VLS? The best

theory so far is that strategies are procedural knowledge (e.g. Phye & Andre, 1986; Anderson

et al, 2001), along with beliefs they are action orientation, and they exist in long-term

memory, have histories, and can be drawn on and used as a cognitive resource in times of

specific learning — for example, vocabulary learning (Rubin, 1975; Macaro, 2006).

Strategies are what students do to learn vocabulary. Strategy training has some effect, but it

must be tailored to meet specific individual needs, exacerbated by a range of personal

variables (Griffiths, 2013). While our understanding of strategies is still in its infancy, more

research would reveal their hidden virtues and aspects. These aspects include their

relationship to specific learning activities and tasks, the context and situation of learning and

asking questions like which activities and tasks trigger which strategies, in which classrooms

and in which year of English language education. Under what teaching methods? And, what

is the precise gain from using specific strategies? And, what are the sub-aspects of a VLS

beyond its surface definition?

8.4 Research limitations and recommendations

There are limitations in the present research. The scope is one limitation. The focus of this

research was on the PVL. LLSs generally are not included, and nor are other speculated

factors involved in the PVL (e.g., supposed unconscious learning mechanisms). The age of

respondents is another limitation: this study looked at university age students who were

between 19 and 25. Gender is another limitation. There was at least a 20 : 1 ratio of females

290

to males. The range of CEMs was limited to the grade a student was enrolled in a four-year

Bachelor degree and to the second semester of each grade.

The number of factors researched could also be seen as another limitation. The research

focused on two main factors: VLSs and BALLL. The research explored range and frequency

of use of VLSs. The range of VLSs was limited to Ma’s (2009) selection of 62 VLSs listed in

her VLSQ. Two types of BALLL were examined: general BALLL, those listed by Horwitz

(1987), and specific CCL beliefs, those listed by Shi (2006).

Finally, a larger sample would have provided more confidence to generalise about the CEM

population in China. Due to time limitations and students’ busy schedules, it was not possible

to collect more data. A possible direction for future research would be to repeat the study with

a larger sample and possibly a number of universities in China. It could also be worthwhile to

do a longitudinal study when researching VLSs and beliefs across different grades to

investigate their development and relationship. Last but not least a different combination of

methods studying the same phenomenon would offer another insight/angle to the topic.

291

List of References

Abraham, R. G, and Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of Two Language Learners: A Case Study.

In A. L. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 85-102).

London: Prentice-Hall International.

Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond Words (pp.

3-14). London: CILT.

Aitchison, J. (2003). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford, New

York: Basil Blackwell.

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E.,

Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., and Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching,

and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Objectives (Abridged Ed.). New York:

Longman.

Anderson, N. J. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and

resting. Modern Language Journal, (75), 460-472.

Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and Memory: An Integrated Approach. Ontario, Canada:

John Wiley & Sons.

Andre, T., and Phye, G. D. (1986). Cognition, learning, and education. Cognitive classroom

learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving, 1-19.

Beglar, D. (2010). A Rasch-based validation of the vocabulary size test. Language Testing,

27(1), 101-118.

Benson, P., and Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27,

459-472.

Bernat, E., and Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current Knowledge,

Pedagogical Implications, and new Research Directions. TESL-EJ, 9(1). Retrieved from

http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume9/ej33/ej33a1/

Best, J. W., and Khan, J. V. (1993). Research in Education (7th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Best, J. W., and Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to

cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 210-

223.

Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education

Research and Development, 18(1), 57-75.

Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL

Quarterly, 20, 463-493.

292

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (Eds). (2000). How people learn: brain,

mind, experience, and school. Washington D. C.: National Academy Press.

Britton, J. (1971). Language and Learning. USA: University of Miami.

Brown, J. S, Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of

Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(32), 32-42.

Bursuck, W. D., and Damer, M. (2010). Teaching Reading to Students Who Are At-Risk or

Have Disabilities: A Multi-Tier Approach (2nd Ed.). Australia: Pearson.

Carrell, P. L. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern

Language Journal, 73, 121-130.

Chacón-Beltrán, R., Abello-Contesse, C., and Torreblanca-López, M. (Eds) (2010). Insights

into Non-native Vocabulary Teaching. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An

update. In P. A. Richard-Amato and M. A. Snow (Eds), Academic Success for English

language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp. 87-101). White Plains, New

York: Longman.

Chamot, A. U., and Rubin, J. (1994). Comments on Janie Rees-Miller’s ‘A critical appraisal

of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications’. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4),

771-781.

Chan, S. (1999). The Chinese learner - a question of style. Education & Training, 41(6-7),

294-304.

Chan, I. L. (2000). An investigation of the effectiveness of the mnemonic technique in the

acquisition and retrieval of vocabulary by Chinese-speaking Form-One students. MA Thesis,

University of Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Library. Retrieved from

http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/30100/1/FullText.pdf

Chand, R. K. (2007). Listening Needs of Distance Learners: A Case Study of EAP Learners

at the University of the South Pacific, unpublished Thesis, Dunedin, New Zealand: University

of Otago.

Chen, H. S. (Ed.). (2005). TEM 4: A new guide to TEM 4. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign

Language Education Press.

Cheung, C-Y. (2004). The effectiveness of vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese low

achievers. Master’s thesis, Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.

Christianson, K. (1997). Dictionary use by EFL writers: What really happens? Journal of

Second Language Writing, 6, 23-43.

293

Chun, C. F. S., and Quaddus, M. (2012). A pseudo-longitudinal study of intranet use in

hospitals. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 20(2), 189-216.

Churchill, E. (2007). A Dynamic Systems Account of Learning a Word: From Ecology to

Form Relations. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 339-358.

Coady, J., and Huckin, T. (Eds). (1997). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cocroft, B., and Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(4), 469-506.

Cohen, A. D. (1987). Studying Learner Strategies: How We Get the Information. In A. L.

Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 31-40). London:

Prentice/Hall International.

Cohen, A. D. and Chi, J.C. (2003). Language Strategy Use Inventory and Index. Retrieved

from http://www.carla.umn.edu/maxsa/samples/SG_LanguageSurvey.pdf

Cohen, A. D. (2010). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd Ed.). Harlow:

Longman.

Cohen, A.D., and Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 3(2), 221-236.

Commission of the European Communities (2004). Communication from the Commission to

the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An

Action Plan 2004 – 2006, PDF. Retrieved from

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0449:FIN:EN:PDF

Cortazzi, M., and Jin, L. X. (1996a). English teaching and learning in China. Language

Teaching, 29, 61-80.

Cortazzi, M., and Jin, L. X. (1996b). Cultures of learning: language classrooms in China. In

H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2006/2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed

Methods Research. London: Sage.

Dart, B. C., Burnett, P. C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis, G., Campbell, J., and Smith, D. (2000).

Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom, and approaches to learning. The Journal of

Educational Research, 93(4), 262-270.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2008). Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences. In J. W.

Osbourne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, (pp. 125-136). Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

294

De Jong, T., von Gog, T. Jenks, K., Manlove, S., van Hell, J. G., van Merriënboer, van

Leeuwen, T., and Boschloo, A. (2008). Explorations in Learning and the Brain: On the

Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Educational Science. Netherlands Organisation for

Scientific Research, The Hague: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.

Retrieved from

http://users.edte.utwente.nl/jong/Explorations%20in%20Learning%20and%20the%20Brain%

20FR%20final.pdf

De Larios, J. C., Murphy, L., and Manchon, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in

EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 8, 13-44.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,

Administration, and Processing. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in

Second Language Acquisition. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousand

Oaks, California: Sage.

Elbaum, B. E., Berg, C. A., and Dodd, D. H. (1993). Previous learning experience, strategy

beliefs, and task definition in self-regulated foreign language learning. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 18, 318-336.

Ellis, N. C. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: word structure, collocation, word-class, and

meaning. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and

Pedagogy (pp. 122-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, Chunking, Connectionism: The Emergence of Second

Language Structure. In C. J. Doughty (Ed.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition

(pp. 63-103). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Evans, S. (2000). Hong Kong’s New English Language Policy in Education. World Englishes,

19(2), 185-204.

Everett, D. (2012). Language: A cultural tool. London: Profile Books.

Field, J. (2005), Intelligibility and the Listener: The Role of Lexical Stress. TESOL

Quarterly, 39, 399–423.

Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., and Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Flohr, S. (2008). Presenting and Teaching Vocabulary in the EFL Classroom (Seminar paper).

Norderstedt, Germany: GRIN Verlag.

295

Flowerdew, L. (1998). A cultural perspective on group work. ELT Journal, 52(4), 323-329.

Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/4/323.abstract

Fontana, A., and Frey, J. H. (2005). The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political

Involvement. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative

Research (3rd Ed.) (pp. 721-722). London, UK: Sage.

Fowle, C. (2002). Vocabulary notebooks: implementation and outcomes. ELT Journal, 56,

380-388. Retrieved from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org

Franceschini, R. (2003). Unfocused language acquisition? The presentation of linguistic

situations in Biological Narration. Forum: Qualitative Social Research Journal, 4(3), Art. 19.

Retrieved from 20/02/2013

http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/667/1442

Gaiser, T. J., and Schreiner, A. E. (2009). Researching using instant messaging and chat. A

Guide to Conducting Online Research. In Research Methods, (pp. 61-68). Sage Publications.

Retrieved from http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/a-guide-to-conducting-online-research/d6.xml

Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., and Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and

unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 229–

244.

Gao, A. X. (2006). Understanding changes in Chinese students’ uses of learning strategies in

China and Britain: A socio-cultural re-interpretation. System, 34, 55-67.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P., and J.L. Morgan (Eds), Speech Acts

(pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Griffiths, C. (2013). The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning. Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters.

Grotjahn, R. (1987). Introspection in second language research. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper

(Eds), Multilingual Matters, 30, (pp. 54-81). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Gu, Y. (2002). Gender, academic major, and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL

learners. RELC Journal, 33(1), 35-54.

Gu, Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: person, task, context and strategies.

TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a4.html

Gu, Y. (2010). Learning Strategies for Vocabulary Development. Reflections on English

Language Teaching, 9(2), 105-118.

Gu, Y., and Johnson, R.K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning

outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.

Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., and Dimroth, C. (2012). What word-level knowledge can adult

learners acquire after minimal exposure to a new language? IRAL, 50, 239-276.

296

Hansen, M. H. (1999). Lessons in Being Chinese: Minority Education and Ethnic Identity in

Southwest China. Washington, USA: University of Washington Press.

Harrington, M. (2001). Sentence processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second

Language Instruction (pp. 91-124). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., and Wamplod, B. E. (1999). Research design in

counselling (2nd Ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole.

Hird, B. (1995). How communicative can English language teaching be in China? Prospect,

10(3), 21-27.

Hofstede, G. H. (2003). Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviours, institutions

and organizations across nations. California: Sage.

Horst, M., Cobb, T., and Meara, P. (1998). Beyond a Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second

language vocabulary through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–223.

Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Surveying students beliefs about language learning and teaching in the

foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-340.

Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying students beliefs about language teaching. In A. L. Wenden

and J. Rubin (Eds), Learner strategies in Language learning (pp. 119-132).

Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign

language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’

beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557-576.

Huang, J. (n.d.). A study of difficulties and constraints in EFL learning. Pre-published version

of Thesis, Hong Kong, English Centre: University of Hong Kong.

Huitt, W. (2009). Why study educational psychology?

Retrieved from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/intro/whyedpsy.html

Hulstijn, J. H. (2001). Intentional and incidental second language vocabulary learning: a

reappraisal of elaboration, rehearsal and automaticity. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and

second language instruction (pp. 258-286). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University

Press.

Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of

Communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-

105.

Hwang, G-J., Tsai, C-C., and Yang J. H. (2008). Criteria, Strategies and Research Issues of

Context-Aware Ubiquitous Learning. Education Technology and Society, 11(2), 81-91.

Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: learning and non-learning in school and beyond, English

edition, London: Routledge.

297

James, N., and Busher, H. (2009). Constructing Credibility and Authenticity. ONLINE

Interviewing. In Research Methods (pp. 71-83). California: Sage. Retrieved from

http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/online-interviewing/d9.xml

Jarvis, S., and Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition, New

York: Routledge.

Jiang, N. (2000). Lexical Representation and Development in a Second Language. Applied

Linguistics, 21(1), 47-77.

Jiang, N. (2002). Form-Meaning Mapping in Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second Language.

Second Language Acquisition, 24(4), 617-637.

Jin, L. and Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese Cultures of Learning.

Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 19(1), 5-20.

Jones, E.E. and Gerard, H.B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York Wiley.

Kelen, C. (2002). Language and learning orthodoxy in the English classroom in China.

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(2), 223-237.

Kember, D., and Gow, L. (1994). An examination of the interactive model of ESL reading

from the perspective approaches to studying. RELC Journal, 25, 1-25.

Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/content/25/1/1.full.pdf+html

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research (3rd Ed.). Fort Worth, USA:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kim, D. (1999). An exploration of listening comprehension linked to authentic input and

language learning strategies in a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Austin: University of Texas.

Kirby, J. R., (1988). Style, strategy, and skill in reading. In R. R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning

strategies and learning styles (pp. 3-19). New York: Plenum.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and

vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. Modern Language Journal,

78, 285-299.

Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1 orthographic

structures on L2 phonological recording strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

12, 393-410.

Kök, I, and Canbay, O. (2011). An experimental study of vocabulary level and vocabulary

consolidation strategies. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 891-894. Retrieved

from http://www.sciencedirect.com

Krashen, S. (1988). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning, New

Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.

298

Krashen, S. (2002). Language Acquisition Not Just Child's Play Unconscious Learning

Crucial for Adult Competence, Says Stephen Krashen. ESL MiniConference Online.

Retrieved from http://www.eslminiconf.net/april/krashenreply.html

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Post method pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kuntz, P. S. (1996). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz Model. ERIC. Retrieved

from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/

Kurzban, R. (2010). Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite, New Jersey, USA: Princeton

University Press.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews, reprinted 2008, London: Sage.

Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know,

words you think you know and words you can’t guess. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (Eds),

Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 20-34). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Laufer, B. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: the construct of

task-induced involvement. ELT Journal, 22(1), 1-16.

Law, B-Y (2003). Vocabulary learning strategies: a case study of form four students in a

Chinese-medium secondary school. The Hong Kong University Scholars Hub. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/31030

Lee, J.-W., and Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency

and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an

EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-739.

LeFrançois, G. (2000). Theories of Human Learning: What the old man said. Australia:

CENGAGE Learning.

Levin, J. R., and Pressley, M. (1985). Mnemonic Vocabulary Instruction: What’s Fact, What’s

Fiction. In R. F. Dillon (Ed.), Individual Differences in Cognition, (2) (pp. 145-172). London:

Academic Press.

Levine, A., Reves, T, and Leaver, B. L. (1996). Relationship between language learning

strategies and Israeli versus Russian cultural-educational factors. In R. Oxford (Ed.),

Language learning strategies around the world: Cross cultural perspectives (Tech. Rep. No.

1) (pp. 157-166). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University

of Hawai‘i.

Li, X. J. (1984). In defence of the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 38, 2-13.

Liu, M (2007). Chinese students’ motivation to learn English at the tertiary level. Asian EFL

Journal, 9(1), 126-146.

299

LoCastro, V. (1994). Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly, 28,

409-414.

Ma, Q. (2009). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang AG,

International Academic Publishers.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learner strategies in foreign language learning. London: Continuum.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: revising the

theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320-37.

Malim, T. (1994). Cognitive processes: attention, perception, memory, thinking and

language. London: Macmillan.

Mao, F., and Cai, J. M. (Eds). (2008). TEM 4 EasyTest (5th Ed.). Shanghai: Shanghai Word

Library Education Press.

MacWhinney, B. (2001). Emergentist approaches to language. In J. Bybee and P. Hooper

(Eds), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 449-470). Amsterdam,

Netherlands: John Benjamins.

McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McDonough, J., and McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language

Teachers (Reprinted 2000). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press and

Edward Arnold.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

Mohamed, N. (2006). An exploratory study of the interplay between teachers’ beliefs,

instructional practices and professional development. Doctoral thesis, New Zealand: the

University of Auckland.

Nation, I. S. P. (1994). Teaching Vocabulary. Asian EFL Journal.

Retrieved from asian-efl-journal.com/sept_05_pn.pdf

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

University Press.

Nation, I. S. P. (2009). Guide to VLT: Measuring learners’ present level of vocabulary

knowledge. Personal communication, 2009.

Nation, I. S. P., and Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, JALT

2007 Pre-Conference Special issue, 31(7), 9-12.

Nation, I. S. P., and Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text and coverage and word lists. In

N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, Pedagogy (pp. 6-

19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

300

Noels, K. A, Clément, R, and Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Integrative

Orientations of French Canadian Learners of English. The Canadian Modern Language

Review, 57(3), 424-442.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Teaching (10th printing 2001). Cambridge:


Nunan, D. (2003). Vocabulary. Practical English Language Teaching. Hong Kong: McGraw-

Hill Education (Asia) Co.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., and Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategies used by

beginning and intermediate level ESL students. Language Learning, 35(1), 21-46.

O’Malley, J. M., and Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Open University. (1975). Attitudes and Beliefs, Social Sciences, a foundation course, Making

sense of society, Units 21-22, D101 Block 7 (21-22 and 24) (Reprinted 1977). Great Britain:

Open University Educational Press Limited.

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

strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291-300.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: what every teacher should know.

Singapore and Beijing: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Cengage Learning and Beijing World

Publishing Corporation.

Peacock, M. (2009). The evaluation of foreign-language-teacher education programmes.

Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 259-278.

Paltridge, B, and A. Phakiti. (Eds). (2010). Companion to Research Methods in Applied

Linguistics. London: Continuum.

Pan, T. T. (2005). Strategic considerations for improving ESL (English as a second language)

learning outcomes among college students in Taiwan: a case study. PhD Thesis, University of

Canberra.

Paribakht, T. S., and Wesche, M. (1998). Incidental and instructed L2 vocabulary acquisition:

Different contexts, common processes. In D. Albrechtsen, B. Henriksen, I. M. Mees and E.

Poulsen (Eds), Perspectives on Foreign and Second Language Pedagogy (pp. 174-200).

Odense: Odense University Press.

Phuong-Mai, N., Turlow, C., and Pilot, A. (2005). Cooperative learning vs Confucian

Heritage culture’s collectivism: confrontation to reveal some cultural conflicts and mismatch.

AEJ, 3, 403-419.

Pitt, D. (2008). Mental Representation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/mental-representation

301

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

their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly,

19, 103-123.

Poon, A. Y. K. (2004). Language Policy of Hong Kong: Its impact on language education and

language use in post-handover Hong Kong. Journal of Taiwan Normal University:

Humanities & Social Sciences, 4(1), 53-74.

Porte, G. K. (1995). Writing wrongs: Copying as a strategy for underachieving EFL writers.

ELT Journal, 49, 144-151.

Porte, G. K. (1997). The etiology of poor second language writing: The influence of

perceived teacher preferences on second language revision strategies. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 6, 61-78.

Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., and Delaney, H. D. (1982). The Mnemonic Keyword Method.

Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 61-91.

Proctor, P. (Ed.) (1996). Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Cambridge:


Prosser, M., and Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding learning and teaching. In Understanding

Learning and Teaching: The experience in higher education (pp. 164-175). Philadelphia,

USA: Open University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Ramsden, P. (2003). Approaches to learning. In Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd

Ed.) (pp. 39-61). London and New York: Routledge and Falmer.

Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students’ perceptions of communicative and non-communicative

activities in EFL classroom. System, 30, 85-105.

Reber, A. S., Wakenfield, F. F., and Hernstadt, R. (1991). Implicit and Explicit Learning:

individual differences and IQ. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and

Cognition, 17, 888-896.

Richards J. C., Schmidt, R. W., Kendricks, H., and Youngkyu, K. (Eds) (2002). Longman

Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd Ed.). Beijing: Pearson

Education Limited and Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Richards, K., Ross, S. J., Seedhouse, P. (2012). Research Methods for Applied Language

Studies: An advanced resource book for students. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor

& Francis Group.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. Handbook of

research on teacher education, 2, 102-119.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A theory of organization and change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

302

Rosenthal, T. L. (1978). Social Learning and Cognition (1st Ed.). New York: Academic Press

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),

41–51.

Rubin, J. (Ed.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. New York: Prentice/Hall

International.

Rubin, J. (2003). Diary writing as a process: simple, useful, powerful. Guidelines, 25(2), 10-

14.

Samuelowicz, K. (1987). Learning problems of overseas students: two sides of a story.

Higher Education Research and Development, 6, 121-134.

Sarantakos, S. (1998). Social Research. Hong Kong: MacMillan Education Australia.

Schmeck, R. R., (Ed.) (1988). An introduction to strategies and styles of learning. In

Learning strategies and learning styles (pp. 3-19). New York: Plenum.

Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary Learning Strategies. In N. Schmitt and M. McCarthy (Eds),

Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy (pp. 199-227). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Schmitt, N. (2007). Current Perspectives on Vocabulary Teaching and Learning. In J.

Cummins and C. Davison (Eds), International Handbook of English Language Teaching

(Part 1) (pp. 827-42). New York: Springer.

Schmitt, N. (2010). Key issues in teaching and learning vocabulary. In Chacon-Beltran,

Abello-Contesse and Torreblanc-Lopez (Eds), Insights into Non-Native Vocabulary Teaching

and Learning (pp. 28-40). UK: Multilingual Matters.

Schmitt, N., and McCarthy, M. (Eds) (1997). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and

Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, N. and Meara, P. (1997). Researching vocabulary through a word knowledge

framework. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 17-36.

Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., and Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of

two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Tests. Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88.

Schram, T. (2003). Conceptualising qualitative inquiry. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Seedhouse, P., Walsh, S., and Jenks, C. (2010). Conceptualizing ‘Learning’ in Applied

Linguistics. Newcastle University, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

303

Seligar, H. W., and Shohamy, E. (1989). Second Language Research Methods (4th impression

1997). Oxford and Shanghai: Oxford University Press and Foreign Language Education

Press.

Shi, L. (2006). The successors to Confucianism or a New Generation? A questionnaire study

of Chinese students’ culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19(1),

122-147.

SIL International (1999). ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, American Council for the Teaching

of Foreign Languages. Accessed 31/1/12 from

http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/languagelearning/otherresources/actflproficiencyguidelines/co

ntents.htm

StatSoft Inc., (2003). NonParametric Statistics. Electronic Textbook, Statistics. Retrieved

from http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/textbooks/statistics/

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern

Language Review, 31(4), 304-318.

Subekti, N. B., and Lawson, M. J. (2007). Vocabulary acquisition strategies of Indonesian

postgraduate students through reading. International Education Journal, 8(2), 485-496.

Sun, Y-C. (2003. Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: a case study.

British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 601-613.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim. & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds)

Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-238). California, USA: SAGE.

Tomasello, M. (2000). The Social-Pragmatic Theory of Word Learning. In Pragmatics, 10(4),

401-413.

Tsai, C-C., and Chang, I-C. (2009). An Examination of EFL vocabulary Learning Strategies

of Students at the University of Technology of Taiwan. International Forum of Teaching and

Studies, 5(2).

Retrieved from http://www.americanscholarspress.com/content/IFOTS-Two-

2009.pdf#page=32

Tweed, R. G, and Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context:

Confucian and Socratic Approaches. American Psychologist, 57(2), 89-99.

Ungerer, F., and Schmid, H. J. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Boston,

USA: Addison Wesley.

Van Hell, J. G., and Mahn, C. A. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning

concrete and abstract foreign words by experience and inexperienced learners. Language

Learning, 47, 507-546.

Vann, J. R., and Abraham, R. G. (1997). Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: Learning

concrete and abstract foreign words by experience and inexperienced learners. Language

Learning, 47, 507-546.

304

Wahyuni, S. (2013). L2 speaking strategies employed by Indonesian EFL Tertiary students

across proficiency and gender, Doctoral thesis, Canberra, Australia: University of Canberra.

Wei, M. (2007). An examination of vocabulary learning of College-level learners of English

in China. The Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 93-114.

Weinstein, C. E., Husman, J., and Dierking, D. R. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a

focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook

of Self-regulation (pp. 727-747). USA: Academic Press.

Wenden, A. L., (1987). How to be a successful language learner: insights and prescriptions

from L2 learners. In A. L. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds), Learner Strategies in Language

Learning (pp. 103-117). London: Prentice/Hall International.

Willingham, D. T. (2004). Cognition: The Thinking Animal (2nd Ed.). New Jersey, USA:

Pearson Education Inc.

Wong, J. K-K. (2004). Are learning styles of Asian International students culturally or

contextually based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166.

Wu, M. M. (2008). Language Learning Strategy Use of Chinese ESL Learners of Hong Kong

– Findings form a Qualitative Study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1),

68-83.

Xie, X. (2009). Why are students quiet? Looking at the Chinese context and beyond. ELT

Journal, 64(1), 10-20.

Xing, P. (2009). Chinese Learners and the Lexis Learning Rainbow. Bern, Switzerland: Peter

Lang AG, International Academic Publishers.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy use.

System, 27(4), 515-535.

Yin, R. K. (2005). Case study research: design and methods. California: SAGE.

Zhang, J. (2006). Certification Programs in China. Translation Journal. Retrieved from

http://www.accurapid.com/Journal/38certific.htm

Zhang, J. L. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, Findings, and

Instructional issues. RELC Journal, 34(3).

Retrieved from http://rel.sagepub.com/content/34/3/284.full.pdf+html

Zhang, D. Zhao, J. L., Zhou, L., and Nunamaker, Jr., J. F. (2004). Can e-learning replace

classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75-79.

305

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

Part 1: GDLB Start time:

This section of the survey / questionnaire collects information about you of a general nature, including

some personal information and general language education information.

1. Name (pinyin):

2. Age:

3. Gender / Sex:

4. Ethnicity (i.e. Han):

5. Native language:

(e.g. Chinese Cantonese / Chinese Mandarin)

6. Years of English language education:

7. Name of Bachelor Degree (i.e. English):

8. Year / Grade of Enrolment (i.e. Grade 1): / (year/month i.e. 2/5)

9. College Entrance Test (CET 2) score (if known):

10. Today’s Date: / / (dd/mm/yyyy e.g. 03/04/2009)

11. If you would like to participate in an interview later, after you have completed your

end-of-term exams, please leave your cell phone number and/or email address.

Cell phone number:____________________________________________

Email address:________________________________________________

Finish time:

306

307

APPENDIX 2

Part 2: VLQ

Start time:

This section of the survey / questionnaire collects information about your vocabulary learning strategies

and how often you use them to learn English vocabulary (e.g. words and phrases), and is adopted from

Schmitt’s VLS taxonomy (2001, pp. 207-08; Cohen & Chi 2003).

Instructions: Please show which strategy you use and how often you actually use the strategy by drawing a

circle around the number that shows how often you actually use the strategy following this key / scale:

1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=often; 5=always

Example: Where do you eat your breakfast during semester?

In the dining hall 1 2 3 4 5

10. Where do you meet new words?

In textbooks and from classroom learning activities 1 2 3 4 5

In vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical order 1 2 3 4 5

In vocabulary lists arranged by meaning 1 2 3 4 5

During English conversations with others

(e.g. teachers, classmates, foreigners) 1 2 3 4 5

When reading English materials

(e.g. books, newspapers, magazines) 1 2 3 4 5

When singing English songs or watching English movies / TV

shows 1 2 3 4 5

When using / surfing the Internet (e.g. English websites, e-chatting

[e.g. writing: QQ, MSN; speaking: Skype]) 1 2 3 4 5


11. Where do you often learn English vocabulary during the semester?

In my classroom 1 2 3 4 5

In the library 1 2 3 4 5

In my dormitory room 1 2 3 4 5

Other (explain here):


12. What do you do when you meet a new vocabulary item?

Pay no attention to it and never go back to it 1 2 3 4 5

Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later 1 2 3 4 5

I try to guess the meaning from the context i.e. in a sentence or

where it was said 1 2 3 4 5

Study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and root-word for the meaning 1 2 3 4 5

Ask a classmate or the teacher for the meaning 1 2 3 4 5

Read a Chinese-English / English-Chinese dictionary 1 2 3 4 5

Read an English-only dictionary 1 2 3 4 5


308

13. When learning a new vocabulary item, what aspects do you study?

I study its pronunciation 1 2 3 4 5

I study the spelling 1 2 3 4 5

I study the prefixes, suffixes and root-words 1 2 3 4 5

I study the Chinese translations 1 2 3 4 5

I study the English explanations 1 2 3 4 5

I study the example sentences 1 2 3 4 5

I study the way the word is used (e.g. prevent sb from doing sth) 1 2 3 4 5

I study the word’s relationship with other words (e.g. make money /

a profit) 1 2 3 4 5

I study the word’s part of speech (i.e. noun, verb, adjective) 1 2 3 4 5


14. How do you put in order the information about the new vocabulary item?

I write down the information on a piece of paper 1 2 3 4 5

I put in order the information about the vocabulary in a vocabulary

notebook 1 2 3 4 5

I make vocabulary cards 1 2 3 4 5

I use the vocabulary lists in the textbook 1 2 3 4 5

I use a vocabulary list like the vocabulary list in the vocabulary

books Vocabulary 5000 and TEM 4 EasyTest 1 2 3 4 5


15. How do you memorize vocabulary?

I say the word aloud several times 1 2 3 4 5

I write the word several times 1 2 3 4 5

I look at the word several times 1 2 3 4 5

I memorize Chinese-English / English-Chinese lists 1 2 3 4 5

I do vocabulary exercises 1 2 3 4 5

I link the word to its similar meaning words and its opposite

meaning words 1 2 3 4 5

I link the word with words I already know and have similar pieces

(e.g. dam / damage) 1 2 3 4 5

I compare words that are similar in meaning and study them

together 1 2 3 4 5

I group words in order (e.g. according to their meaning, part of

speech, topic) 1 2 3 4 5

I place the word in a context (a meaningful sentence, conversation,

or story to remember) 1 2 3 4 5

I make up a phrase or a sentence containing the word 1 2 3 4 5

I listen to a tape-recording / CD of the words 1 2 3 4 5

I make up rhymes to link words together 1 2 3 4 5

I practice words (e.g. verbs) by acting them out 1 2 3 4 5

I try to imagine what the new word looks like (or the sentence with

the word) 1 2 3 4 5

I draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of new words 1 2 3 4 5

I try to imagine what the new word looks in my head / mind 1 2 3 4 5

I remember the prefix, suffix and root-word of new words 1 2 3 4 5


309

16. How do you review vocabulary?

Say the new words two or three times the first day 1 2 3 4 5

Say the new words as I read them the next day, and after that 1 2 3 4 5

Read the new words the first day, but not after that 1 2 3 4 5

Read the new words two or three times the first day, then do it

again a few days after that, a week after that, a month after that 1 2 3 4 5

Test new words on my own 1 2 3 4 5

Test new words with classmates 1 2 3 4 5


17. How do you remember words you have memorized?

I remember a new word the way that I learned it 1 2 3 4 5

I remember the word by its meaning (when I hear it again) 1 2 3 4 5

I remember the word by its meaning (when I read it again) 1 2 3 4 5

I remember the words meaning first, then I think about its

meaningful parts (prefixes, suffixes and root-words) 1 2 3 4 5

I try to remember where I first met the words 1 2 3 4 5


18. How do you make use of new vocabulary?

I try to use words in speaking and writing 1 2 3 4 5

I try to use idioms when I speak 1 2 3 4 5

I try to think with English using the new vocabulary 1 2 3 4 5

I try to have conversations using the new words, with people who

speak English, e.g. teachers, classmates 1 2 3 4 5

I try to e-chat with people on the internet, using QQ, MSN

Messenger 1 2 3 4 5


19. Do you remember who taught you how to learn English vocabulary?

My Chinese English teachers 1 2 3 4 5

My classmates 1 2 3 4 5

My textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

I taught myself / seemed natural to learn words this way 1 2 3 4 5

Other (explain here):

Finish time:

310

311

APPENDIX 3

Part 3: BALLI Start time:

This section of the survey / questionnaire collects information about your beliefs (e.g. what you believe is

true) about language and language learning, and is adopted from Horwitz’s (1988) BALLI.

Instructions: Read each of the statements and show how much you agree with it. Show your level of

agreement or disagreement by circling one of the capital letters to the right of each statement following this

key / scale:

Strength of agreement =

(1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neither agree or disagree (4) Agree (5) Strongly agree

Example:

a. It’s not necessary to use a dictionary when learning English S: 1 2 3 4 5

1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language S: 1 2 3 4 5

2. Some people are born with a special ability which helps them

learn a foreign language S: 1 2 3 4 5

3. Some languages are easier to learn than others S: 1 2 3 4 5

4. The English I am trying to learn is: 1=Very difficult

2=Difficult 3=Medium difficulty 4=Easy 5=Very easy S: 1 2 3 4 5

5. English is formed in the same way as Chinese S: 1 2 3 4 5

6. I believe I will at last speak English very well S: 1 2 3 4 5

7. It is important to speak English without an accent S: 1 2 3 4 5

8. Chinese students should know English culture in order to speak

English well S: 1 2 3 4 5

9. You should not speak English until you can speak it correctly S: 1 2 3 4 5

10. It is easier to learn another foreign language if you already

know one foreign language S: 1 2 3 4 5

11. It is better to learn English in an English speaking country like

the US S: 1 2 3 4 5

12. If I heard someone speaking English, the language I am trying

to learn, I would try to speak with them in order to practice my

English

S: 1 2 3 4 5

13. It is okay to guess the meaning of an English word if you don’t

know it S: 1 2 3 4 5

14. If you spent one hour a day speaking / learning English, how

long would it take for you to become fluent?

1 = less than a year

2 = 1 to 2 years

3 = 3 to 5 years

4 = 5 to 10 years

5 = you can’t learn English in one hour a day

S:

1

2

3

4

5

15. I have foreign language aptitude S: 1 2 3 4 5

16. Learning English is mostly a matter of learning many new

English vocabulary items S: 1 2 3 4 5


17. It is important to repeat English words and practice often S: 1 2 3 4 5

18. I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of others S: 1 2 3 4 5

19. If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will be hard to get rid

of them later S: 1 2 3 4 5

20. Learning English is mostly a matter of its many grammar rules S: 1 2 3 4 5

21. It is important to practice in a language lab S: 1 2 3 4 5

312

22. Males are better than females at learning English S: 1 2 3 4 5

23. If I speak English very well, I will have many opportunities to

use it S: 1 2 3 4 5

24. It is easier to speak English than it is to understand it S: 1 2 3 4 5

25. Learning English is different from learning other university

subjects S: 1 2 3 4 5

26. Learning English is mostly a matter of translating English into

Chinese S: 1 2 3 4 5

27. If I learn to speak English very well it will help me get a good

job S: 1 2 3 4 5

28. It is easier to read and write English than it is to speak it / listen

to it and understand it S: 1 2 3 4 5

29. People who are good at math and science are good at learning

English S: 1 2 3 4 5

30. Chinese think it is important to speak English S: 1 2 3 4 5

31. I would like to speak English so I can learn more about English

people S: 1 2 3 4 5

32. People who can speak more than one foreign language are

intelligent people S: 1 2 3 4 5

33. Chinese are good at learning foreign languages S: 1 2 3 4 5

34. Everyone can learn to speak English S: 1 2 3 4 5


Finish time:

313

APPENDIX 4

Part 4: CLQ

Start time:

This section of the survey / questionnaire collects information about your Chinese way of learning, and

your Chinese way of learning English vocabulary. The CLQ is adopted from Shi’s (2006) Chinese Culture

of Learning survey.

Instructions: Please show your agreement with each statement by drawing a circle around the number that

shows your feeling about it following this key / scale:

1=Strongly disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neither disagree or agree; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly agree

Example:

a. I learn English from watching English movies 1 2 3 4 5

1. I enjoy learning English 1 2 3 4 5


2. I learn English…

a) To improve myself / for self-development 1 2 3 4 5

b) To find a good job in the future 1 2 3 4 5

c) For the honor of my family 1 2 3 4 5

d) To pass exams 1 2 3 4 5

e) For daily communication 1 2 3 4 5

f) Because it is compulsory 1 2 3 4 5



3. A good teacher of English should…

h) Be knowledgeable about his / her area 1 2 3 4 5

i) Often use games / activities when s/he teaches 1 2 3 4 5

j) Be light-hearted 1 2 3 4 5

k) Be serious 1 2 3 4 5

l) Provide clear and comprehensive notes 1 2 3 4 5

m) Help me pass exams 1 2 3 4 5

n) Improve my English skills (reading, writing, listening,

speaking) 1 2 3 4 5



4. I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like…

a) A parent-child relationship 1 2 3 4 5

b) A friend-friend relationship 1 2 3 4 5


314


5. How much do you agree with the following statements:

a) Being a teacher for one day entitles him/her to lifelong

respect from the student in the same way the students respect

his/her father

1 2 3 4 5

b) I love my teacher, but I love the truth more 1 2 3 4 5



6. If you do not agree with what the teacher teaches in the classroom, what do you do?

a) Still follow the teachers idea 1 2 3 4 5

b) Ask the teacher after class 1 2 3 4 5

c) Ask the teacher immediately in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5


7. My English teacher likes me asking questions in the classroom 1 2 3 4 5


8. My English teacher likes me asking question after class 1 2 3 4 5

9. I prefer the teacher to…

a) Tell me everything I should learn 1 2 3 4 5

b) Encourage me to learn 1 2 3 4 5

c) Use different activities to help me learn 1 2 3 4 5



10. I think the contents of textbooks are…

a) Totally correct 1 2 3 4 5

b) Not totally correct 1 2 3 4 5

11. I think the knowledge from textbooks is…

a) Useful in real life 1 2 3 4 5

b) Not useful in real life 1 2 3 4 5


12. I memorize vocabulary by…

a) Rehearsal strategies (e.g. using word lists, oral repetition,

visual repetition) 1 2 3 4 5

b) Using other methods 1 2 3 4 5



13. I practice reading in English by reading…

a) The materials in the textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

b) The materials in other textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

c) Newspapers 1 2 3 4 5

d) Nothing 1 2 3 4 5


315


14. I practice speaking in English by…

a) Reading aloud or reciting the texts in the textbook 1 2 3 4 5

b) Talking with my classmates or friends in English 1 2 3 4 5

c) Talking with native English speakers 1 2 3 4 5

d) Doing nothing 1 2 3 4 5



15. I practice listening to English by…

a) Listening to the tapes which accompany the textbook 1 2 3 4 5

b) Watching English language movies / TV shows 1 2 3 4 5

c) Listening to English language radio 1 2 3 4 5




16. I practice writing in English by…

a) Exchanging letters with my pen pal in English 1 2 3 4 5

b) Finishing the writing tasks assigned by my teacher of English 1 2 3 4 5

c) Writing in my diary in English 1 2 3 4 5




17. I think the main barrier to improving my English skills is because…

a) I do not work hard enough 1 2 3 4 5

b) My teacher of English does not teach well 1 2 3 4 5

c) I do not have a good English learning environment 1 2 3 4 5

d) Our learning materials are already out-of-date 1 2 3 4 5



18. In my opinion, a good learner of English should…

a) Word hard 1 2 3 4 5

b) Respect teachers_ 1 2 3 4 5

c) Practice using English all the time 1 2 3 4 5

d) Never give up learning English 1 2 3 4 5

e) Have his / her own opinion 1 2 3 4 5


Finish time:

316

317

APPENDIX 5

Part 5: VST Start time:

This section of the survey / questionnaire collects information about your English vocabulary size, e.g.

your understanding of the first 1000 English words in the English language (size 1000), the second 1000

English words (size 2000), the third 1000 (size 3000), and your understanding of the first 1000 Academic

English words (Academic size). The VST is adopted from Nation (2001).

Instructions: Please show your understanding of the meaning of a word (in bold) by drawing a circle

around one of the letters before each of the choices shown in this example:

Example:

a. dog: My pet dog.

a. 脸 (face)

b. 狗 (an animal with four legs)

c. 快乐的猫 (a happy cat)

d. 人类 (human)

[1000] 1 to 10

1. see: They saw it.

a. 切 (cut)

b. 等待 (waited for)

c. 看 (looked at)

d. 开始 (started)

2. time: They have a lot of time.

a. 钱 (money)

b. 食物 (food)

c. 时间 (hours)

d. 朋友 (friends)

3. period: It was a difficult period.

a. 问题 (question)

b. 时间 (time)

c. 要做的事情 (thing to do)

d. 书 (book)

4. figure: Is this the right figure?

a. 答案 (answer)

b. 地方 (place)

c. 时间 (time)

d. 号码 (number)

5. poor: We are poor.

a. 贫穷的 (have no money)

b. 感到幸福的 (feel happy)

c. 很感兴趣的 (are very interested)

d. 不喜欢努力工作的 (do not like to work hard)

318

6. drives: He drives fast.

a. 游泳 (swims)

b. 学习 (learns)

c. 扔球 (throws balls)

d. 开车 (uses a car)

7. jump: She tried to jump.

a. 漂浮 (lie on top of the water)

b. 跳 (get off the ground suddenly)

c. 停车 (step the car at the edge of the road)

d. 跑 (move very fast)

8. shoe: Where is your shoe?

a. 父或母 (the person who looks after you)

b. 钱包 (the thing you keep your money in)

c. 钢笔 (the thing you use for writing)

d. 鞋子 (the thing you were on your foot)

9. standard: Her standards are very high.

a. 后跟 (the bits under the back of her shoe)

b. 分数 (the marks she gets in school)

c. 要价 (the money she asks for)

d. 标准 (the levels she reaches in everything)

10. basis: I don’t understand the basis.

a. 原因 (reason)

b. 话 (words)

c. 路标 (road signs)

d. 中心议题 (main part)

[2000] 1 to 10

1. maintain: Can they maintain it?

a. keep it as it is

b. make it bigger

c. get a better one than it

d. get it

2. stone: He sat on a stone.

a. hard thing

b. kind of chair

c. soft thing on the floor

d. part of a tree

3. upset: I am upset.

a. tired

b. famous

c. rich

d. unhappy

319

4. drawer: The drawer was empty.

a. sliding box

b. place where cars are kept

c. cupboard to keep things cold

d. animal house

5. patience: He has no patience.

a. will not wait happily

b. has no free time

c. has no faith

d. does not know what is fair

6. nil: His mark for that question was nil.

a. very bad

b. nothing

c. very good

d. in the middle

7. pub: They went to the pub.

a. place where people drink and talk

b. place that looks after money

c. large building with many shops

d. building for swimming

8. circle: Make a circle.

a. rough picture

b. space with nothing in it

c. round shape

d. large hole

9. microphone: Please use the microphone.

a. machine for making food hot

b. machine that makes sounds louder

c. machine that makes things look bigger

d. small telephone that can be carried around

10. pro: He’s a pro.

a. someone who is employed to find out important secrets

b. a stupid person

c. someone who writes for a newspaper

d. someone who paid for playing sport etc

[3000] 1 to 10

1. soldier: He’s a soldier.

a. person in a business

b. student

c. person who uses metal

d. person in the army

2. restore: It has been restored.

a. said again

b. given to a different person

c. given a lower price

d. made like new again

320

3. jug: He was holding a jug.

a. a container for pouring liquids

b. an informal discussion

c. a soft cap

d. a weapon that explodes

4. scrub: He is scrubbing it.

a. cutting shallow lines into it

b. repairing it

c. rubbing it hard to clean it

d. drawing simple pictures of it

5. dinosaur: The children were pretending to be dinosaurs.

a. robbers who work at sea

b. very small creatures with human bodies but with wings

c. large creatures with wings that breathe fire

d. animals that lived an extremely long time ago

6. strap: He broke the strap.

a. promise

b. top cover

c. shallow dish for food

d. strip of material for holding things together

7. paved: It was paved.

a. prevented from going through

b. divided

c. given gold edges

d. covered with a hard surface

8. dash: They dashed over it.

a. moved quickly

b. moved slowly

c. fought

d. looked quickly

9. rove: He couldn’t stop roving.

a. getting drunk

b. traveling around

c. making a musical sound through closed lips

d. working hard

10. lonesome: He felt lonesome.

a. ungrateful

b. very tired

c. lonely

d. full of energy

321

ACADEMIC VOCABULARY

This test is designed to explore the academic vocabulary level of Chinese English Majors.

Instruction: Please indicate your understanding of the meaning of a word by placing the number of the

word in the left-hand column next to its meaning in the right-hand column. Only three words can be

matched with the three meanings not all of the words.

Example:

x. 1. concrete

2. era 4 circular shape

3. fiber 6 top of a mountain

4. loop 2 a long period of time

5. plank

6. summit

a. 1. area

2. contract written agreement

3. definition way of doing something

4. evidence reason for believing something is or is not true

5. method

6. role

b. 1. construction

2. feature safety

3. impact noticeable part of something

4. institute organization which has a special purpose

5. region

6. security

c. 1. debate

2. exposure plan

3. integration choice

4. option joining something into a whole

5. scheme

6. stability

d. 1. access

2. gender male or female

3. implementation study of the mind

4. license entrance or way in

5. orientation

6. psychology

e. 1. accumulation

2. edition collecting things over time

3. guarantee promise to repair a broken product

4. media feeling a strong reason or need to do something

5. motivation

6. phenomenon

f. 1. adult

2. exploitation end

3. infrastructure machine used to move people or goods

4. schedule list of things to do at certain times

5. termination

6. vehicle

322

g. 1. alter

2. coincide change

3. deny say something is not true

4. devote describe clearly and exactly

5. release

6. specify

h. 1. convert

2. design keep out

3. exclude stay alive

4. facilitate change from one thing into another

5. indicate

6. survive

i. 1. bond

2. channel make smaller

3. estimate guess the number or size of something

4. identify recognizing and naming a person or thing

5. mediate

6. minimize

j. 1. explicit

2. final last

3. negative stiff

4. professional meaning ‘no’ or ‘not’

5. rigid

6. sole

k. 1. analogous

2. objective happening after

3. potential most important

4. predominant not influenced by personal opinions

5. reluctant

6. subsequent

l. 1. abstract

2. adjacent next to

3. controversial added to

4. global concerning the whole world

5. neutral

6. supplementary

Finish time:

323

APPENDIX 6

English Vocabulary Size – Research question No. 4:

What is the general English vocabulary size of CEMs in each of the four grades

(years) of a four-year Bachelor degree?

To answer the question of CEMs’ general EVS in each grade of a four-year Bachelor degree,

Nation’s (2001) vocabulary size test was used. The first three size tests (1000, 2000, and

3000) and the first academic size (1000) were measured. The English–Mandarin bilingual

version was used for the 1000 level. The other size tests were the English-only versions.

There was a range of 10 words for each of the first three sizes, where one word represents

100 words at that size. There was a range of 36 words for the academic size, representing

3600 words. A total of 36 words were presented in 12 groups of three words. The general idea

was that if a student correctly chose the meaning of each word then he/she generally knew the

1000 words for that size; likewise for the 36 words for the academic size. The assumption

was the CEMs would know all the words at the 1000 size but not all the words in other sizes.

Method of analysis

Tables A.1, A.2, A.3 and A.4 below show students’ scores on the first three vocabulary size

tests (VST 1000 to 3000) and the Academic vocabulary size test. Each table, for instance,

shows the results for a grade. The raw data was first summed and descriptive statistics

generated — i.e. minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation. The maximum was

converted into ‘crude’ percentage (e.g. rounded up to a whole number: 21/22*100 = 95%).

‘No. K’ in column 2 means the number of students who knew the particular word at the 1000

size, and that number is converted to a ‘crude’ percentage. ‘No. NK’ in column 4 means the

number of students who did not know the particular word at the 1000 size, and that total is

converted to a ‘crude’ percentage. The final column details the total number of participants

(students) that answered the question out of the total number of participants who completed

the test.

Vocabulary size is calculated by multiplying the score, for each individual score per word

(not shown in Table A.1 – grade score is shown), by 100. In Table A.1 below shows the grade

score for each word presented in the test – vocabulary size cannot be calculated on this score

because it only lets us see the number of students who knew each word. The individual score

324

can be found in Table A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 below.

Section 1.1 shows the results of the VST 1000 for all grades, section 1.2 shows the results of

VST 2000 for all grades, and section 1.3 shows the results for the VST 3000 for all grades.

Section 1.4 shows the results of the Academic size test for all grades. Section 1.5 shows

individual English vocabulary sizes at all VSTs and Academic. Section 1.6 shows grade

vocabulary size per VSTs and Academic.

1.1 grade 1 to grade 4 CEMs known words at the 1000 size by grade

Key to reading tables A.1 to A.4: below, beginning with Table A.1, is grade 1 CEMs’ score

on the vocabulary size test 1000; the left-hand column lists the words tested, 10 in all; the

second column lists the number of students who knew the word, on each word; the third

column has the score converted to a percentage, e.g. the percentage of students who knew the

word ‘saw’ was 95%; the last column lists the number of students who answered the question

– the total number of grade 1 students is 22.

Table A.1: known words at the 1000 size by grade 1 students

Words: No. K % Total:

1. saw 21 95 22

2. time 21 95 22

3. period 16 73 22

4. figure 10 45 22

5. poor 21 95 22

6. drives 19 86 22

7. jump 21 95 22

8. shoe 21 95 22


10. basis 3 14 22

325



1. saw 22 100 22

2. time 21 95 22

3. period 20 91 22

4. figure 13 59 22

5. poor 22 100 22

6. drives 22 100 22

7. jump 21 95 22

8. shoe 22 100 22


10. basis 5 23 22



1. saw 23 96 24

2. time 23 96 24

3. period 16 67 24

4. figure 12 50 24

5. poor 24 100 24

6. drives 24 100 24

7. jump 24 100 24

8. shoe 23 96 24


10. basis 9 37 24



1. saw 11 92 12

2. time 12 100 12

3. period 11 92 12

4. figure 7 58 12

5. poor 12 100 12

6. drives 11 92 12

7. jump 11 92 12

8. shoe 12 100 12


10. basis 5 42 12

1.2 grade 1 to grade 2 CEMs known words at the 2000 size by grade

Key to reading tables A.5 to A.8: below, beginning with Table A.5, is grade 1 CEMs’ score

on the vocabulary size test 2000; the left-hand column lists the words tested, 10 in all; the


326


word ‘saw’ was 95%; the last column lists the number of students who answered the question

– the total number of grade 1 students is 22; in the bottom row is average number of student

who knew all the words, e.g. 17, and an average percentage of students in grade 1 knowing

all the words, e.g. 78%.



1. maintain 15 68 22

2. stone 21 95 22

3. upset 20 9 22

4. drawer 15 68 22

5. patience 18 82 22

6. nil 1 4 21

7. pub 17 77 20

8. circle 20 91 21

9. microphone 7 32 22

10. pro 1 4 20




2. stone 20 91 22

3. upset 21 95 22

4. drawer 17 77 22

5. patience 22 100 22

6. nil 18 82 22

7. pub 21 95 22

8. circle 20 91 22


10. pro 1 4 22




2. stone 24 100 24

3. upset 23 96 24

4. drawer 14 58 24

5. patience 18 75 24

6. nil 4 17 24

7. pub 21 87 24

8. circle 22 92 24


10. pro 3 12 24

327




2. stone 10 83 12

3. upset 12 100 12

4. drawer 7 58 12

5. patience 9 75 12

6. nil 4 33 12

7. pub 12 100 12

8. circle 9 75 12


10. pro 1 8 12

1.3 grade 1 to grade 4 CEMs known words at the 3000 size

Key to reading the tables A.9 to A.12: below in Table 8.9 is grade 1 CEMs’ score on the

vocabulary size test 3000; the left-hand column lists the words tested, 10 in all; the second

column lists the number of students who knew the word, on each word; the third column has

the score converted to a percentage, e.g. the percentage of students who knew the word

‘restored’ was 77%; the last column lists the number of students who answered the question –

the total number of grade 1 students is 22; in the bottom row is average number of student

who knew all the words, e.g. 12, and an average percentage of students in grade 1 knowing

all the words, e.g. 56%.



1. soldier 21 95 21

2. restored 17 77 21

3. jug 6 27 21

4. scrubbing 6 27 21

5. dinosaurs 15 68 22

6. strap 10 45 22

7. paved 9 41 21

8. dashed 18 82 22

9. roving 6 27 21

10. lonesome 16 73 22

328



1. soldier 22 100 22


3. jug 13 59 22



6. strap 12 54 22

7. paved 14 64 22

8. dashed 16 73 22

9. roving 8 36 22

10. lonesome 19 86 22



1. soldier 21 87 24


3. jug 13 54 24



6. strap 10 42 24

7. paved 14 58 24

8. dashed 15 63 24

9. roving 5 21 24

10. lonesome 19 79 24



1. soldier 12 100 12

2. restored 8 67 12

3. jug 7 58 12



6. strap 7 58 12

7. paved 5 42 12

8. dashed 8 67 12

9. roving 4 33 12

10. lonesome 10 83 12

1.4 grade 1 to grade 4 CEMs known words at the Academic size

Key to reading the tables A.13 to A.16: below in Table A.13 is grade 1 CEMs’ score on the

Academic size test; the left-hand column lists the words tested, 36 words in 12 groupings; the


329


word ‘method’ was 91%; the last column lists the number of students who answered the

question – the total number of grade 1 students is 22; in the bottom row is average number of

student who knew all the words, e.g. 13, and an average percentage of students in grade 1

knowing all the words, e.g. 59%.

Table A.13: known words at the Academic vocabulary size by grade 1 students


a1. contract 13 59 22

a2. method 20 91 22

a3. evidence 17 77 22

b4. Security 15 68 22

b5. feature 6 27 22

b6. institute 3 14 22

c7. scheme 16 73 22

c8. option 9 41 22

c9. integration 6 27 22

d10. gender 14 64 22

d11. psychology 6 27 22

d12. access 18 82 22

e13. accumulation 13 59 21

e14. guarantee 8 36 21

e15. motivation 17 77 21

f16. termination 9 41 22

f17. vehicle 17 77 22

f18. schedule 20 91 22

g19. alter 20 91 22

g20. deny 19 86 22

g21. specify 16 73 22

h22. exclude 7 32 22

h23. survive 17 77 22

h24. convert 4 18 22

i25. minimize 20 91 22

i26. estimate 13 59 22

i27. identify 15 68 22

j28. final 20 91 22

j29. rigid 13 59 22

j30. negative 16 73 22

k31. subsequent 15 68 21

k32. predominant 4 18 21

k33. objective 8 36 21

l34. adjacent 11 50 22

l35. supplementary 9 41 22

l36. global 17 77 22

330




a2. method 21 95 22



b5. feature 17 77 22


c7. scheme 16 73 22

c8. option 20 91 22


d10. gender 21 95 22


d12. access 20 91 22





f17. vehicle 20 91 22


g19. alter 19 86 22

g20. deny 22 100 22

g21. specify 18 86 22

h22. exclude 17 77 22

h23. survive 22 100 22

h24. convert 20 91 22

i25. minimize 22 100 22



j28. final 20 91 22

j29. rigid 14 64 22







l36. global 19 86 22

331




a2. method 23 95 24



b5. feature 19 79 24


c7. scheme 20 83 24

c8. option 20 83 24


d10. gender 21 87 24


d12. access 17 71 24





f17. vehicle 18 75 24


g19. alter 19 79 24

g20. deny 21 87 24

g21. specify 16 67 24

h22. exclude 20 83 24

h23. survive 21 87 24

h24. convert 19 79 24

i25. minimize 22 92 24



j28. final 24 100 24

j29. rigid 14 58 24







l36. global 19 79 24

332




a2. method 12 100 12



b5. feature 4 33 12


c7. scheme 10 83 12

c8. option 10 83 12


d10. gender 12 100 12


d12. access 9 75 12





f17. vehicle 10 83 12

f18. schedule 12 100 12

g19. alter 11 92 12

g20. deny 11 92 12

g21. specify 10 83 12

h22. exclude 10 83 12

h23. survive 12 100 12

h24. convert 11 92 12

i25. minimize 12 100 12


i27. identify 12 100 12

j28. final 12 100 12

j29. rigid 9 75 12







l36. global 11 92 12

1.5 Individual vocabulary size

Tables A.17 to A.20 below shows grades 1 to 4 individual student’s vocabulary size based on

scores in the 1000, 2000, 3000 and Academic vocabulary size tests, as well as an overall

English vocabulary size (EVS) (e.g. X out of an ideal 9600).

Key to reading the tables: below in Tables A.17 to A.20, for instance, is grade 1 CEMs’

333

individual scores on the vocabulary size test 1000, 2000, 3000 and Academic grade 2 in Table

A.18, grade 3 in Table A.19, grade 4 in Table A.20); the left-hand column lists the tests, 4 in

all; the remaining columns list the students’ code in the top row, e.g. S1 to S11, S12 to S22,

and beneath the individual score on each test; in the bottom row, headed by EVS, the

individuals English vocabulary size, based on the four tests.

Table A.17: EVS for individuals within grade 1 per student per test

Test: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11

1000 900 800 800 700 100 800 700 800 800 900 900

2000 700 300 600 500 800 700 700 700 600 600 700

3000 600 500 600 400 400 500 600 500 600 400 800

Aca 3000 1800 2300 1700 1600 2000 2200 1800 2000 2300 2700

EVS: 5200 3400 4300 3300 2900 4000 4200 3800 4000 4200 5100

S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22

1000 900 700 800 800 900 900 900 800 800 700 800

2000 700 400 500 800 500 600 400 700 900 400 700

3000 800 400 800 700 400 500 700 600 500 600 500

Aca 2400 1600 2900 2400 1900 2900 2000 1900 2700 700 2300

EVS: 4800 3100 5000 4700 3700 4900 4000 4000 4900 2400 4300


Test: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11

1000 900 800 900 900 1000 900 900 1000 700 800 800

2000 800 800 900 800 800 700 600 600 900 700 600

3000 600 500 600 800 800 900 800 600 1000 500 800

Aca 2100 2900 3300 3400 3600 3300 2800 3200 3300 3400 1700

EVS: 4400 5000 5700 5900 6200 5800 5100 5400 5900 5400 3900

S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20 S21 S22

1000 900 100 800 700 800 900 900 900 900 800 900

2000 800 900 800 700 800 900 800 800 900 700 500

3000 500 700 500 700 1000 1000 400 1000 900 400 400

Aca 3300 3200 3200 2700 3500 3500 3100 3200 2800 2200 2200

EVS: 5500 4900 5300 4800 6100 6300 5200 5900 5500 4100 4000

334


Test: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10

1000 900 900 700 900 700 1000 700 900 700 900

2000 600 300 300 700 700 700 400 600 600 800

3000 500 900 100 600 800 500 400 700 700 700

Aca 3100 3300 800 2900 3600 3600 1000 3400 1700 3300

EVS: 5100 5400 1900 5100 5800 5800 2500 5600 3700 5700

S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18 S19 S20

1000 900 600 800 700 800 900 900 800 800 800

2000 600 700 600 400 900 700 800 800 500 700

3000 700 700 500 400 700 600 700 500 700 400

Aca 2500 3500 3500 600 3400 3300 3400 1600 3000 3400

EVS: 4700 5500 5400 2100 5800 5500 5800 3700 5000 5300

S21 S22 S23 S24

1000 700 900 900 700

2000 500 800 700 600

3000 200 800 400 600

Aca 3000 3400 2300 3600

EVS: 4400 5900 4300 5500


Test: S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12

1000 800 900 800 1000 900 700 900 900 1000 900 700 800

2000 800 500 500 800 600 1000 600 800 700 700 800 400

3000 600 500 400 700 900 800 400 700 500 500 900 600

Aca 3300 3400 2200 3200 3600 3600 3200 3600 3300 3300 2700 1700

EVS: 5500 5300 3900 5700 6000 6100 5100 6000 5500 5400 5100 3500

The result of the vocabulary size tests suggests that CEMs individual vocabulary size is

dependent on the vocabulary size tested at; that is, a size somewhere between 0 and 1000 for

a particular test, e.g. 800 from 1000. The vocabulary size is calculated by multiplying the test

score by 100, e.g. 8 x 100 = 800. It is not an exact size, but the score provides a general range

of vocabulary known at that particular vocabulary size – e.g. 800 at the 1000 most frequent

English words. Here I have calculated a general English vocabulary size based on 4 tests, for

instance, student 1 in grade 4 (above in Table A.20) has a general vocabulary size of 800 at

the 1000 size, but increases with each size test – e.g. 800 + 800 = 1600, 800 + 800 + 600 =

2200 (at the first 3 vocabulary sizes), though vocabulary size dips in the VST 3000. However,

335

if I only calculate the first 3 vocabulary sizes, this would mean students vocabulary size is

less than that estimated to be in the literature (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). The literature

suggests vocabulary size of 3000 at entry to university, but the results do not support this. The

claim is that vocabulary is much higher than the scores of the individuals in my research.

When the score for the Academic vocabulary size is added to the score from the three

frequency size tests, the final vocabulary size score becomes much higher, e.g. 2200 + 3300 =

5500. The scores then seem to satisfy the claims in the literature. However, without the

Academic vocabulary size, they do not – Academic vocabulary is viewed as being gained in

university, not prior to it, though some of it could have been gained in Middle school prior to

entry to university.

As an aside, if I divide an individual’s vocabulary size by their years of English language

education I can see the average number of words learned per year of language education. For

instance, student S1 in grade 1 (Table A.17) has a vocabulary size of 5200, and 7 years of

English language education. If I divide 5200 by 7, I get 743. On average then, student No. 1

in grade 1 learned 743 words a year before grade 1 semester 2 – at least the words that have

been remembered. The literature (e.g. Cortazzi & Jin, 1996) claims students learn thousands

of words per year before entering university, if this student remembered every word learned,

her vocabulary size would be around 7000 words at merely one thousand words learned (and

remembered) each year, yet the result does not support such a claim. If the claim is accurate,

this particular student has experienced large scale forgetting. Further research is needed to

ascertain the precise number of words actually learned and the precise reasons for forgetting.

1.6 grade vocabulary size

For reader convenience, all grade scores on all tests are shown in Table A.21 below. Key to

reading the Table A.21 below: it presents the overall grade scores on the four vocabulary size

tests; the left-hand column lists the tests, 4 in all; the top row indicates grade and beneath is

listed the grade score for each test; in the bottom row, headed by EVS, the grades’ English

vocabulary size, based on the four tests.

336

Table A.21: EVS per grade per test

Test: grade 1 grade 2 grade 3 grade 4

1000 782 868 788 858

2000 614 764 608 683

3000 564 700 575 625

Aca 2141 2995 2667 3092

EVS: 4101 5327 4638 5258

In Table A.21 above we can see the scores and vocabulary size per VST (e.g. a score

somewhere between 100 and 1000), and over all vocabulary size for each grade (e.g. a score

somewhere between 1000 and 9600). What is of interest here is the fluctuation in vocabulary

size for each grade for VST 1000 to VST 3000. For the VST 1000 to 3000 we can see that

there was a general trend downward in vocabulary size between VST 1000 and VST 3000;

however, it was the opposite for Academic size, in which the general trend in Academic

vocabulary size steadily increased from grade 1 to grade 4. At the grade level, the average

score for each VST test was somewhere between 100 and 1000, and a score calculated for

each VST resulting in a vocabulary size for the grade being 782 (of 1000). For the VST 2000,

the average score was 6 (out of 10), and the average vocabulary size for the grade was 614

(of 1000). For the VST 3000, the average score was 6 (out of 10), and the average vocabulary

size for the grade was 564 (of 1000). For the AST, the average score was 21 (out of 36), and

the average vocabulary size was 2141 (of 3600).

337

APPENDIX 7

The statistical formula the Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 6.10) and for the Spearman’s’ rho

to observe correlations between VLS use and vocabulary size test scores

The making and meaning of Table 6.10 in Chapter 6 & Spearman’s rho analysis

1/ VLS, BALLL and CCL data and Academic data are divided into 3 scores

Upper, middle and lower

1B/ To observe the 3 score groups [the data is in the large SPSS data table: Total Data]:

In SPSS, go to Descriptive statistics

=> Frequencies

Enter Academic data

=> Statistics

Cut point for 3 equal groups

=> Continue

Press OK [see print out]

The data table by question and student (‘variable’)

1/ CCL @ 57; BALLL @ 34; VLS @ 62; Academic @ 36; VST 1000 to 3000 @ 30

Variables 1 to 255 (in data table) [see print out]

2/ ‘total’ means of all scores per factor (3) and total scores for VST & Academic

1C/ Age & years of English language education – repeat same as above

2/ In SPSS:

Go to Transform

=> Recode into Different Variables

Enter Academic data

Chose Old and New Variables

- Range: Lowest through value: 6 to 22

Enter 3

338

- Range: Middle through value: 23 to 32

Enter 2

- Range: Highest through value: 33 to 36

Enter 1

Output Variable

=> Name: Group_ACA - or any name, really

=> Change


The logic: to see if scores are the same or different because the Dependent variable

(Academic vocabulary size) depends on the Independent Variable (VLS, BALLL,

CCL)

Next, to transform data to create new data column in preparation for Correlation analysis

Got to Transform

=> Compute variables

Numeric expression:

Type in: mean and in brackets the variables 128 to 134 i.e. Questions 1a to 1g

on the vocabulary learning questionnaire, separated by a comma [repeat for all

questions and question subparts]

Target Variable (means renamed e.g. DISCOVERY_VLS)

=> DISCOVERY_VLS

Press OK [go to data table and see new table titled e.g. DISCOVERY_place]

To correlate individual tables, input variable tables e.g. VST_new & ACA and VST_1

[VST_new is the first 3 vocabulary tests incorporated into one table because the three

tests are the same type, unlike the Academic test which is structured differently and

has 3 subparts per question]

3/ Spearman’s rho analysis:

Go to Data

=> Split file

Organize output by groups

Enter grade 1 [do each grade separately]

339

Press OK

Go to Correlate

=> Bivariate

Enter variables:

DISCOVERY_place

Determination_initial response

Determination_study

Consolidation_organizatino

Consolidation_memorization

Consolidation_review

Consolidation_remember

Consolidation_production

Academic data

VST_new data


4/ The Table:

First column is factor, e.g. CCL, BALLL & VLS;

Second column is Aca, e.g. Upper, Middle & Lower;

Third column is Number of students in each group e.g.

CCL – Upper 29; Middle 28; Lower 23 [it is the same for all factors]

Fourth column is Mean Rank of each groups means for each factor e.g. CCL, etc

- The means mean the students’ scores (e.g. 1 to 5) of range in each

factor e.g. Upper, Middle & Lower (see print out)

The logic: because no correlations were observed between scores and factors in Spearman’s

rho analysis, I looked deeper using an alternative approach. If students have strong beliefs,

for example, they will get a high score on the questionnaire; likewise, if students have strong

regular strategy use, it will be seen in their scores on the questionnaire. So if we look at 3

groups of score-means, we will see whether there is a difference, depending on the 3 groups

Upper, Middle & Lower. And we see a no difference between CCL & Aca, between BALLL

& Aca, but a difference between VLS use & Aca.

Among the 3 groups, there is no significant difference for two factors and Academic

340

vocabulary scores, but a difference for VLS use and Academic vocabulary scores (Aca).

Interestingly, of the 3 groups, the Middle shows the highest range of strong beliefs (see print

out) with respect to Aca, e.g. the middle score-mean range being minimum 23 to 33. The

Mean Rank refers to the Academic vocabulary size test, and reflects the Wilcoxon W value.

However, because I used Non-parametric tests, I cannot generalise about the findings.

341

APPENDIX 8

Table 1: grade mean for 62 strategies

grade M SD N

1 3.17 1.02 22

2 3.16 1.05 22

3 3.17 0.99 24

4 3.17 0.98 12

average: 3.17 1.01

Table 2: Percentages for all grades on all strategy questions

item never % rarely % sometimes % often % always %

1. In textbooks and classroom learning activities

grade 1 0 9.1 27.1 50.0 13.6

grade 2 0 0 22.7 54.5 22.7

grade 3 0 0 16.7 62.5 20.8

grade 4 0 0 33.3 50.0 16.7

2. In vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical order

grade 1 0 4.5 45.4 40.9 4.5

grade 2 0 13.6 31.8 36.4 18.2

grade 3 4.2 12.5 54.2 29.2 0

grade 4 8.3 16.7 33.3 25.0 16.7

3. In vocabulary lists arranged by meaning

grade 1 0 22.7 50.0 18.2 9.1

grade 2 0 22.7 40.9 31.8 4.5

grade 3 0 29.2 33.3 29.2 8.3

grade 4 8.3 25.0 16.7 50.0 0

4. During English conversation with others

grade 1 0 45.4 31.8 13.6 9.1

grade 2 4.5 50.0 45.4 0 0

grade 3 0 41.7 20.8 37.5 0

grade 4 0 33.3 66.7 0 0

5. When reading English materials

grade 1 0 13.6 31.8 45.4 9.1

grade 2 0 4.5 18.2 59.1 18.2

grade 3 0 8.3 25.0 41.7 25.0

grade 4 0 0 33.3 58.3 8.3

6. When singing English songs and watching English movies / TV

grade 1 4.5 9.1 36.4 40.9 9.1

grade 2 0 4.5 45.4 36.4 13.6

grade 3 0 8.3 33.3 40.9 20.8

grade 4 0 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7

7. When using/surfing the Internet

grade 1 4.5 18.2 50.0 9.1 18.2

grade 2 9.1 13.6 54.5 22.7 0

grade 3 4.2 12.5 41.7 25.0 16.7

grade 4 0 8.3 16.7 58.3 16.7

342

8. Pay no attention to and never go back to it

grade 1 18.2 59.1 22.7 0 0

grade 2 27.3 68.2 4.5 0 0

grade 3 20.8 50.0 25.0 4.2 0

grade 4 50.0 33.3 8.3 8.3 0

9. Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later

grade 1 4.5 9.1 31.8 40.9 13.6

grade 2 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1 0

grade 3 16.7 29.2 29.2 20.8 0

grade 4 8.3 16.7 41.7 25.0 8.3

10. I try to guess the word’s meaning from the context

grade 1 0 9.1 22.7 40.9 27.3

grade 2 0 9.1 27.3 59.1 4.5

grade 3 0 0 37.5 54.2 8.3

grade 4 0 8.3 50.0 25.0 16.7

11. Study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and root-word for meaning

grade 1 0 13.6 50.0 27.3 9.1

grade 2 0 22.7 45.4 27.3 4.5

grade 3 0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0

grade 4 0 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7

12. Ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning

grade 1 4.5 45.4 13.6 27.3 9.1

grade 2 13.6 40.9 40.9 4.5 0

grade 3 4.2 41.7 37.5 16.7 0

grade 4 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7 0

13. Read a Chinese-English or an English-Chinese dictionary

grade 1 4.5 4.5 18.2 40.9 31.8

grade 2 0 0 4.5 45.4 50.0

grade 3 0 9.1 25.0 50.0 33.3

grade 4 0 0 41.7 41.7 16.7

14. Read an English-only dictionary

grade 1 18.2 45.4 13.6 9.1 13.6

grade 2 4.5 45.4 36.4 9.1 4.5

grade 3 12.5 29.2 29.2 25.0 4.2

grade 4 0 25.0 50.0 16.7 8.3

15. Its pronunciation

grade 1 0 4.5 18.2 40.9 36.4

grade 2 0 0 9.1 45.4 45.4

grade 3 0 0 12.5 37.5 50.0

grade 4 0 0 25.0 25.0 50.0

16. The spelling

grade 1 0 0 13.6 45.4 40.9

grade 2 0 0 9.1 45.4 45.4

grade 3 4.2 0 8.3 25.0 62.5

grade 4 0 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3

17. The prefixes, suffixes and root-word

grade 1 0 18.2 45.4 22.7 13.6

grade 2 0 18.2 54.5 22.7 4.5

343

grade 3 0 25.0 45.8 20.8 8.3

grade 4 8.3 8.3 66.7 8.3 8.3

18. The Chinese translation

grade 1 0 4.5 9.1 50.0 36.4

grade 2 0 0 4.5 40.9 54.5

grade 3 0 0 12.5 29.2 58.3

grade 4 0 0 25.0 50.0 25.0

19. The English explanations

grade 1 0 27.3 31.8 22.7 18.2

grade 2 0 4.5 50.0 27.3 18.2

grade 3 0 20.8 41.7 25.0 12.5

grade 4 16.7 8.3 33.3 41.7 0

20. The example sentences

grade 1 0 27.3 22.7 27.3 22.7

grade 2 0 13.6 50.0 31.8 4.5

grade 3 0 20.8 58.3 20.8 0

grade 4 0 16.7 16.7 58.3 0

21. The way the new word is used

grade 1 0 4.5 40.9 36.4 18.2

grade 2 0 0 18.2 63.6 18.2

grade 3 0 20.8 20.8 41.7 16.7

grade 4 0 8.3 33.3 50.0 8.3

22. The new word's relationship with other words

grade 1 0 22.7 63.6 4.5 9.1

grade 2 0 22.7 40.9 36.4 0

grade 3 0 33.3 45.8 16.7 4.2

grade 4 8.3 16.7 41.7 25.0 8.3

23. The new word's part of speech

grade 1 9.1 0 45.4 31.8 13.6

grade 2 4.5 4.5 18.2 40.9 31.8

grade 3 0 12.5 37.5 33.3 16.7

grade 4 8.3 8.3 25.0 33.3 25.0

24. Write it down

grade 1 4.5 18.2 45.4 31.8 0

grade 2 0 36.4 45.4 9.1 9.1

grade 3 8.3 20.8 37.5 25.0 8.3

grade 4 0 33.3 41.7 25.0 0

25. Order the information in a vocabulary notebook

grade 1 9.1 13.6 27.3 31.8 18.2

grade 2 4.5 4.5 40.9 27.3 22.7

grade 3 0 16.7 33.3 33.3 12.5

grade 4 0 16.7 41.7 25.0 16.7

26. Make vocabulary cards

grade 1 22.7 54.5 9.1 13.6 0

grade 2 22.7 59.1 9.1 9.1 0

grade 3 29.2 50.0 4.2 8.3 4.2

grade 4 0 41.7 25.0 25.0 0

27. Use the vocabulary lists in the textbooks

grade 1 4.5 13.6 18.2 40.9 22.7

grade 2 0 13.6 45.4 31.8 9.1

grade 3 0 16.7 29.2 41.7 12.5

344

grade 4 0 41.7 25.0 25.0 8.3

28. Use a vocabulary list like those in the VOCABULARY 5000 / TEM4EasyTEST

grade 1 9.1 18.2 22.7 31.8 18.2

grade 2 18.2 22.7 36.4 18.2 4.5

grade 3 0 4.2 41.7 29.2 25.0

grade 4 0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0

29. Say the word aloud several times

grade 1 13.6 13.6 18.2 31.8 22.7

grade 2 0 22.7 45.4 18.2 13.6

grade 3 0 16.7 58.3 25.0 0

grade 4 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 0

30. Write the word several times

grade 1 4.5 22.7 4.5 50.0 18.2

grade 2 0 4.5 13.6 45.4 36.4

grade 3 0 4.2 25.0 41.7 29.2

grade 4 0 8.3 33.3 50.0 8.3

31. Look at the word several times

grade 1 0 13.6 31.8 36.4 18.2

grade 2 0 13.6 22.7 36.4 27.3

grade 3 8.3 20.8 16.7 50.0 4.2

grade 4 0 25.0 33.3 33.3 8.3

32. Memorize Chinese-English/English-Chinese lists

grade 1 9.1 9.1 22.7 45.4 13.6

grade 2 0 13.6 22.7 36.4 27.3

grade 3 0 12.5 37.5 29.2 20.8

grade 4 0 16.7 50.0 25.0 8.3

33. Do vocabulary exercises

grade 1 0 40.9 40.9 18.2 0

grade 2 4.5 18.2 45.4 22.7 9.1

grade 3 0 37.5 33.3 29.2 0

grade 4 0 33.3 25.0 33.3 8.3

34. Link the word to similar meaning words or opposite meaning words

grade 1 4.5 27.3 50.0 18.2 0

grade 2 4.5 27.3 36.4 18.2 13.6

grade 3 8.3 16.7 45.8 25.0 4.2

grade 4 0 8.3 66.7 16.7 8.3

35. Link the word with already known words and have similarities

grade 1 0 13.6 59.1 27.3 0

grade 2 0 22.7 22.7 45.4 9.1

grade 3 4.2 12.5 54.2 25.0 4.2

grade 4 0 16.7 50.0 33.3 0

36. Compare words with similar meaning and study together

grade 1 9.1 22.7 54.5 13.6 0

grade 2 4.5 13.6 54.5 13.6 13.6

grade 3 4.2 20.8 33.3 29.2 12.5

grade 4 0 33.3 41.7 25.0 0

37. Group words in order e.g. meaning, part of speech, etc

grade 1 0 54.5 18.2 27.3 0

345

grade 2 9.1 45.4 36.4 4.5 4.5

grade 3 8.3 29.2 41.7 16.7 4.2

grade 4 0 41.7 25.0 33.3 0

38. Place word in a context e.g. sentence, conversation, etc

grade 1 0 22.7 36.4 36.4 4.5

grade 2 9.1 9.1 40.9 36.4 4.5

grade 3 0 12.5 54.2 29.2 4.2

grade 4 0 0 41.7 41.7 16.7

39. Use the new word to make up a sentence

grade 1 4.5 31.8 27.3 31.8 4.5

grade 2 9.1 31.8 50.0 0 9.1

grade 3 8.3 33.3 29.2 25.0 4.2

grade 4 8.3 25.0 25.0 33.3 8.3

40. Listen to tape- / CD recordings of words

grade 1 18.2 45.4 27.3 9.1 0

grade 2 13.6 45.4 31.8 9.1 0

grade 3 8.3 37.5 41.7 8.3 4.2

grade 4 8.3 16.7 33.3 25.0 16.7

41. Make up rhymes to link new words together

grade 1 4.5 31.8 36.4 27.3 0

grade 2 18.2 45.4 31.8 4.5 0

grade 3 12.5 50.0 29.2 8.3 0

grade 4 25.0 33.3 33.3 0 8.3

42. Practice new words by acting them out e.g. verbs

grade 1 13.6 22.7 40.9 18.2 4.5

grade 2 27.3 40.9 22.7 4.5 0

grade 3 16.7 20.8 50.0 12.5 0

grade 4 25.0 16.7 41.7 16.7 0

43. Try to imagine what the new word looks like (in a sentence)

grade 1 9.1 22.7 22.7 40.9 4.5

grade 2 4.5 22.7 36.4 31.8 4.5

grade 3 8.3 12.5 45.8 29.2 4.2

grade 4 8.3 25.0 33.3 33.3 0

44. Draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of new words

grade 1 36.4 63.6 0 0 0

grade 2 40.9 40.9 13.6 4.5 0

grade 3 29.2 58.3 8.3 4.2 0

grade 4 33.3 8.3 41.7 8.3 0

45. Try to imagine in my head what the new word looks like

grade 1 18.2 27.3 40.9 9.1 4.5

grade 2 13.6 31.8 31.8 18.2 4.5

grade 3 12.5 12.5 50.0 20.8 4.2

grade 4 33.3 16.7 25.0 25.0 0

46. Remember the prefix, suffix and root-word of the new word

346

grade 1 4.5 27.3 45.4 18.2 4.5

grade 2 4.5 4.5 59.1 22.7 9.1

grade 3 0 25.0 45.8 25.0 4.2

grade 4 8.3 25.0 25.0 33.3 8.3

47. Say the new word 2 or 3 times the first day

grade 1 4.5 40.9 22.7 22.7 9.1

grade 2 0 18.2 40.9 27.3 13.6

grade 3 8.3 12.5 58.3 20.8 0

grade 4 0 25.0 33.3 41.7 0

48. Say the new words the next time I read them, and again after that

grade 1 0 18.2 59.1 22.7 0

grade 2 4.5 27.3 40.9 18.2 9.1

grade 3 4.2 8.3 41.7 45.8 0

grade 4 0 25.0 33.3 41.7 0

49. Read the new words the first day, but not after that

grade 1 13.6 45.4 18.2 18.2 4.5

grade 2 27.3 27.3 22.7 22.7 0

grade 3 0 54.2 29.2 12.5 4.2

grade 4 25.0 33.3 8.3 25.0 8.3

50. Read the new words 2 or 3 times first, then again a few days later, a week later, a month later

grade 1 18.2 18.2 36.4 18.2 9.1

grade 2 4.5 27.3 36.4 18.2 13.6

grade 3 12.5 29.2 25.0 29.2 4.2

grade 4 8.3 8.3 50.0 33.3 0

51. Test the new words on my own

grade 1 0 27.3 27.3 27.3 18.2

grade 2 4.5 18.2 40.9 27.3 9.1

grade 3 4.2 33.3 33.3 20.8 8.3

grade 4 8.3 33.3 25.0 8.3 25.0

52. Test the new words with classmates

grade 1 4.5 36.4 31.8 22.7 4.5

grade 2 13.6 50.0 18.2 13.6 4.5

grade 3 8.3 50.0 33.3 4.2 4.2

grade 4 8.3 50.0 16.7 25.0 0

53. Remember the new word the way I learned it

grade 1 4.5 18.2 31.8 31.8 13.6

grade 2 0 9.1 50.0 40.9 0

grade 3 0 0 50.0 41.7 8.3

grade 4 0 0 58.3 41.7 0

54. Remember the new word by its meaning (when heard again)

grade 1 0 4.5 40.9 22.7 31.8

grade 2 0 4.5 22.7 50.0 18.2

grade 3 0 4.2 20.8 70.8 4.2

grade 4 8.3 0 41.7 41.7 0

55. Remember the new word by its meaning (when read again)

grade 1 0 0 13.6 54.5 31.8

347

grade 2 0 4.5 18.2 50.0 27.3

grade 3 0 0 12.5 87.5 0

grade 4 0 8.3 41.7 50.0 0

56. Remember the new word’s meaning first, then think about its meaningful parts e.g. prefixes, etc

grade 1 0 18.2 54.5 22.7 4.5

grade 2 0 27.3 36.4 27.3 9.1

grade 3 0 8.3 58.3 25.0 8.3

grade 4 0 16.7 41.7 41.7 0

57. Try to remember where I first met the word

grade 1 4.5 40.9 22.7 18.2 13.6

grade 2 0 18.2 36.4 36.4 9.1

grade 3 8.3 25.0 16.7 37.5 12.5

grade 4 8.3 16.7 25.0 50.0 0

58. Try to use words in speaking and writing

grade 1 0 13.6 36.4 22.7 27.3

grade 2 0 9.1 36.4 50.0 4.5

grade 3 0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0

grade 4 0 0 33.3 58.3 8.3

59. Try to use idioms when I speak

grade 1 0 36.4 27.3 36.4 0

grade 2 0 45.4 50.0 0 4.5

grade 3 4.2 37.5 33.3 20.8 4.2

grade 4 8.3 33.3 33.3 16.7 8.3

60. Try to think in English with the new vocabulary

grade 1 0 27.3 22.7 40.9 9.1

grade 2 0 9.1 50.0 31.8 4.5

grade 3 8.3 12.5 41.7 33.3 4.2

grade 4 8.3 8.3 58.3 16.7 8.3

61. Try having conversations using the new words with English speakers e.g. teachers, etc

grade 1 4.5 36.4 36.4 13.6 9.1

grade 2 4.5 45.4 45.4 4.5 0

grade 3 4.2 41.7 29.2 25.0 0

grade 4 8.3 16.7 58.3 8.3 8.3

62. Try to e-chat on the Internet using QQ, MSN, etc

grade 1 27.3 54.5 13.6 4.5 0

grade 2 31.8 40.9 22.7 0 4.5

grade 3 16.7 50.0 20.8 4.2 8.3

grade 4 0 50.0 16.7 33.3 0

348

Table 3: VLSs and strategy use by grade, largest percentage of students using it and frequency

of use

Vocabulary Learning Strategy % of students who use a

strategy

Q1 Discovery strategies: where do you meet new

words? g1 g2 g3 g4

Frequency of

use

1/1a In textbooks and classroom learning activities 50 55 63 50 often

2/1b In vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical

order 45 36* 54 33

sometimes/

often

3/1c In vocabulary lists arranged by meaning 50 41 33 50* sometimes/

often

4/1d During English conversation with others 45˜ 50˜ 42^˜* 67"

rarely/

sometimes/

often

5/1e When reading English materials 45 59 42 58 often

6/1f When singing English songs and watching

English movies / TV 41* 45 38* 33*

sometimes/

often

7/1g When using/surfing the Internet 50 55 42 58* sometimes/

often

Q3 Determination strategies: What do you do

when you meet new vocabulary items? g1 g2 g3 g4

8/3a Pay no attention to and never go back to it 59˜ 68˜ 50˜ 50° never/rarely

9/3b Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later 41* 64^˜ 29 42

rarely/

sometimes/

often

10/3c I try to guess the word’s meaning from the

context 41* 59* 54* 50

sometimes/

often

11/3d Study the word’s prefixes, suffixes and root-

word for meaning 50 45 50 42*

sometimes/

often

12/3e Ask a classmate or teacher for the meaning 45˜ 41^˜ 42˜ 42 rarely/

sometimes

13/3f Read a Chinese-English or an English-Chinese

dictionary 41* 50ˇ 50* 42^ *

sometimes/

often/always

14/3g Read an English-only dictionary 45˜ 45˜ 29^˜ 50 rarely/

sometimes

Q4 Determination strategies: When learning

new vocabulary, what aspects do you study? g1 g2 g3 g4

15/4a Its pronunciation 41* 45^*ˇ 50ˇ 50ˇ often/always

16/4b The spelling 45* 45^*ˇ 63ˇ 33^*ˇ often/always

17/4c The prefixes, suffixes and root-word 45 55 46 67 sometimes

18/4d The Chinese translation 50* 55ˇ 58ˇ 50* often/always

19/4e The English explanations 32 50 42 42* sometimes/

often

20/4f The example sentences 27*^ 50 58 58*

rarely/

sometimes/

often

21/4g The way the new word is used 41 64* 42* 50* sometimes/

often

22/4h The new word's relationship with other words 64 41 46 42 sometimes

23/4i The new word's part of speech 45 41* 38 33* sometimes/

often

Q5 Consolidation strategies: How do you put in

order the info about the new vocabulary? g1 g2 g3 g4

24/5a Write it down 45 45 38 42 sometimes

349

25/5b Order the information in a vocabulary

notebook 32* 41 33* 42

sometimes/

often

26/5c Make vocabulary cards 55 59 50 42 rarely

27/5d Use the vocabulary lists in the textbooks 41* 45 42* 42˜

rarely/

sometimes/

often

28/5e Use a vocabulary list like those in the

VOCABULARY 5000 / TEM4EasyTEST 32* 36 42 50

sometimes/

often

Q6 Consolidation strategies: How do you

memorize new vocabulary? g1 g2 g3 g4

Frequency of

use

29/6a Say the word aloud several times 32* 45 58 58 sometimes/

often

30/6b Write the word several times 50 45 42 50 often

31/6c Look at the word several times 36* 36* 50* 33^ * sometimes/

often

32/6d Memorize Chinese-English/English-Chinese

lists 45* 36* 38 50

sometimes/

often

33/6e Do vocabulary exercises 41^˜ 45 38˜ 33^˜*

rarely/

sometimes/

often

34/6f Link the word to similar meaning words or

opposite meaning words 50 36 46 67 sometimes

35/6g Link the word with already known words and

have similarities 59 45* 54 50

sometimes/

often

36/6h Compare words with similar meaning and

study together 55 55 33 42 sometimes

37/6i Group words in order e.g. meaning, part of

speech, etc 55˜ 45˜ 42 42˜

rarely/

sometimes

38/6j Place word in a context e.g. sentence,

conversation, etc 36^* 41 54 42^*

sometimes/

often

39/6k Use the new word to make up a sentence 32^˜* 50" 33˜ 33*

rarely/

sometimes/

often

40/6l Listen to tape- / CD recordings of words 45˜ 45˜ 42 33 rarely/

sometimes

41/6m Make up rhymes to link new words together 36 45˜ 50˜ 33^˜ rarely/

sometimes

42/6n Practice new words by acting them out e.g.

verbs 41 41˜ 50 42

rarely/

sometimes

43/6o

Try to imagine what the new word looks like

(in a sentence)

41* 36 46 33^* sometimes/

often

44/6p Draw pictures to illustrate the meaning of new

words 64˜ 41^˜° 58˜ 42

never/

rarely/

sometimes

45/6q Try to imagine in my head what the new word

looks like 41 32^˜ 50 33°

never/

rarely/

sometimes

46/6r Remember the prefix, suffix and root-word of

the new word 45 59 46 33*

sometimes/

often

Q7 Consolidation strategies: How do you review

vocabulary? g1 g2 g3 g4

Frequency of

use

47/7a Say the new word 2 or 3 times the first day 41˜ 41 58 42*

rarely/

sometimes/

often

48/7b Say the new words the next time I read them,

and again after that 59 41 46* 42*

sometimes/

often

49/7c Read the new words the first day, but not after 45˜ 27^°˜ 54˜ 33˜ never/

350

that rarely

50/7d

Read the new words 2 or 3 times first, then


later

36 36 29^˜* 50

rarely/

sometimes/

often

51/7e Test the new words on my own 27^˜* 41 33^˜ 33˜

rarely/

sometimes/

often

52/7f Test the new words with classmates 36 50 50 50 rarely

Q8 Consolidation strategies: How do you

remember words you have memorized?

53/8a Remember the new word the way I learned it 32^* 50 50 58 sometimes/

often

54/8b Remember the new word by its meaning

(when heard again) 41 55* 71* 42^*

sometimes/

often

55/8c Remember the new word by its meaning

(when read again) 55 50 88 50 Often

56/8d

Remember the new word’s meaning first, then

think about its meaningful parts e.g. prefixes,

etc

55 36 58 42^* sometimes/

often

57/8e Try to remember where I first met the word 41˜ 36^* 38* 50*

rarely/

sometimes/

often

Q9 Consolidation strategies: How do you make

use of new vocabulary? g1 g2 g3 g4

Frequency of

use

58/9a Try to use words in speaking and writing 36 50* 25^˜

*ˇ 58*

rarely/

sometimes/

often/always

59/9b Try to use idioms when I speak 36^˜* 50 38˜ 33^˜

rarely/

sometimes/

often/always

60/9c Try to think in English with the new

vocabulary 41* 50 42 58

sometimes/

often

61/9d Try having conversations using the new words

with English speakers e.g. teachers, etc 36^˜ 45^˜ 42˜ 58

rarely/

sometimes

62/9e Try to e-chat on the Internet using QQ, MSN,

etc 55 41 50 50 rarely

351

Table 4: VLSs never or rarely used in each grade

VLS#: grade grade grade grade N

1d 1 2 3

3

3a 1 2 3 4 4

3b

3

1

3e 1 2 3

3

3g 1 2 3

3

4f 1

1

5c 1 2 3 4 4

5d

4 1

6e 1

3 4 3

6i 1 2

4 3

6k 1

3

2

6l 1 2

3

6m

2 3 4 3

6n

2

1

6p 1 2 3

3

6q

2

4 2

7a 1

2

7c 1 2 3 4 4

7d

3

1

7e 1

3 4 3

7f 1 2 3 4 4

8e 1

1

9a

3

1

9b 1

3 4 3

9d 1 2 3

3

9e 1 2 3 4 4

Total: 19 15 18 12

33

38

45

41

Strategy 6/1f When singing Englishsongs and watching English movies

Increase then decrease


sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

352

50

54

59

41

Strategy 10/3c I try to guess the word'smeaing from the context



sometimes

often

often

often

50

58

55

50

Strategy 18/4d the Chinese translation

Increas then decrease


often

often

sometimes

sometimes

353

42

50

59

55

Strategy 26/5c make vocabulary cards



rarely

rarely

rarely

rarely

33

38

45

41

Strategy 33/6e do vocabulary exercises



rarely/sometimes

sometimes

rarely

sometimes/often

354

42

54

41

36

Strategy 38/6j place the new word in acontext e.g. sentence



sometimes/often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes/often

33

50

45

36

Strategy 41/6m make up rhymes to linkwords together



sometimes

rarely

rarely

sometimes/rarely

355

33

46

59

45

Strategy 46/6r try to remember theprefix



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

often

42

71

55

41

Strategy 54/8b



sometimes

often

often

sometimes/often

356

33

38

50

36

Strategy 59/9b try to use idioms when Ispeak

Increase then descrease


sometimes

rarely

rarely/sometimes

58

42

55

41

Strategy 7/1g when using/surfing theinternet

Increase, decrease then increase


sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

often

357

42

29

64

41

Strategy 9/3b pay no attention to it andnever go back to it



often

rarely/sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

67

46

55

45

Strategy 17/4c the prefixes



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

358

50

42

64

41

Strategy 21/4g the way the new word isused



sometimes

often

often

often

42

33

41

32

Strategy 25/5b order the info about anew word in a notebook



often

sometimes

often

sometimes

359

58

25

50

36

Strategy 58/9a try to use words inspeaking and writing



sometimes

often

rarely/often/always

often

58

42

50

41

Strategy 60/9c try to think in Englishwith new vocabulary



often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

360

58

42

45

36

Strategy 61/9d try having conversationsusing new words with English speakers

e.g. teachers



rarely/sometimes

rarely/sometimes

rarely

sometimes

42

42

50

32

Strategy 19/4e the English explanations

Increase, decrease then unchanged


sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

often

361

42

42

45

41

Strategy 27/5d use the vocab lists in thetextbook



often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

33

33

50

32

Strategy 39/6k use the new word tomake up a sentence



rarely/often

sometimes

rarely

often

362

33

33

41

27

Strategy 51/7e test the new words onmy own



rarely/often

sometimes

rarely/sometimes

rarely

58

58

50

27

Strategy 20/4f the example sentences

Increase then unchanged


sometimes/often

sometimes

sometimes

often

363

58

58

45

32

Strategy 29/6a say the word aloudseveral times



often

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

50

50

50

36

Strategy 52/7f test the new words withclassmates



rarely

rarely

rarely

rarely

364

50

38

36

45

Strategy 32/6d memorizeChineseEnglish and EnglishChinese lists

Decrease then increase


often

often

sometimes

sometimes

67

46

36

50

Strategy 34/6f link new word to similarmeaning words or opposite meaning

words



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

365

50

38

36

41

Strategy 57/8e try to remember where Ifirst met the word



rarely

rarely/often

often

often

67

42

50

45

Strategy 4/1d During Englishconversations with others

Decrease, increase then decrease


rarely

rarely/often

sometimes

sometimes

366

42

50

45

50

Strategy 11/3d study the word's prefixessuffixes and root word for meaning



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

often

42

46

41

64

Strategy 22/4h the new word'srelationship with other words



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

367

42

58

41

64

Strategy 44/6p draw pictures toillustrate the meaning of new words



rarely

never/rarely

rarely

sometimes

33

50

32

41

Strategy 45/6q try to imagine in myhead what the new word looks like



sometimes

rarely/sometimes

sometimes

never

368

42

46

41

59

Strategy 48/7b say the new words nexttime I read them and again after that



sometimes

sometimes

often

often

50

88

50

55

Strategy 55/8c remember the new wordby its meaning when read again



often

often

often

often

369

42

58

36

55

Strategy 56/8d remember the newword's meaning first then think about

its meaningful parts prefixes suffixes etc



sometimes

sometimes

sometimes

sometimes/often

42

42

41

45

Strategy 12/3e ask a classmate orteacher for the meaning

Decrease, increase then unchanged


rarely

rarely/sometimes

rarely

sometimes

370

33

50

36

36

Strategy 31/6c look at the word severaltimes

Unchanged, increase then decrease


often

often

often

sometimes/often

42

50

41

41

Strategy 42/6n practice new words byacting them out eg verbs



sometimes

rarely

sometimes

sometimes

371

42

58

41

41

Strategy 47/7a say the new word 2 or 3times the first day



rarely

sometimes

sometimes

often

50

29

36

36

Strategy 50/7d read the new words 2 or3 times first then a gain a few days later

a week later a month later

Unchanged, decrease then increase


sometimes

sometimes

rarely/often

sometimes

372

Table 3: Discovery strategies in interview data

#: Discovery strategies: where do you meet new

words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Reading material:

1 In books 12 -

2 In textbooks 64 55

3 In newspapers 32 -

4 In magazines 32 -

5 In extensive readers 4 -

6 In passages 4 -

7 In novels 16 -

8 In educational books 4 -

9 In vocabulary books 4 -

10 In other books 4 -

Listening material:

11 In listening resources 4 -

Exam material:

12 In tests 8 -

13 In exams 8 -

Learning context:

14 In school 4 -

15 In class 4 55

Productive context:

16 In conversation 4 15

Electronic and library resources:

17 On computer 4 -

18 Computer games 4 -

19 In libraries 4 -

20 On the internet 16 25

21 News websites 4 -

Media resources:

22 On TV 40 38

23 On radio 4 -

Public space:

24 In public 4 -

25 On trains 4 -

26 In hotels 4 -

Advertising and other media:

27 Restaurant menu 4 -

28 In advertising 16 -

29 In posters 4 -

Entertainment context:

373

30 In movies 36 38

31 In music 4 -

32 In songs 4 38

Universal context:

33 everywhere 4 -

Table 4: Determination strategies in interview data

#: Determination strategies: response to new

words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Cognitive:

1 Guess its meaning 32 48

2 Find its meaning 4 16

3 Find its Chinese meaning 12 41

4 Find its English meaning 4 28

5 Look up dictionary 72 -

6 Look up English dictionary 20 15

7 Look up Chinese dictionary 4 45

8 Look up internet dictionary 20 -

9 Look up English-Chinese dictionary 16 45

10 Look up Chinese-English dictionary 4 45

11 Look up pc/phone dictionary 4 -

12 Search the internet for it 4 -

Metacognitive:

13 Note its meaning 4 -

14 Note its background information 4 -

15 Note its history 4 -

16 Find its function 4 -

17 Know its usage 16 48

18 Notice its suffixes 4 15

Organizing information:

19 Write it in a vocabulary notebook 4 -

20 Separate short from long words 4 -

Reading:

21 Read it 12 -

22 Try to read it 4 -

23 Learn how to read it 4 -

Rehearsal or practice:

24 Read it aloud 4 -

25 Say it aloud 4 25

26 Knows it pronunciation 20 39

27 Recite it 24 -

28 Recite its syllables 4 -

374

29 Recite it when meet again 4 -

Social strategies:

30 Use in it conversation 4 14

31 Ask a teacher about it 8 16

32 Ask classmates about it 8 16

33 Ask friends about it 4 -

34 Use it in daily life 4 -

Writing:

35 Write it down 20 23

36 Make a sentence with it 8 21

37 Connect sentences with it in 4 -

38 Make phrase with it 4 -

Cognitive II:

39 Use the context to learn it 4 34

40 Try to remember it 12 39

41 Memorize it 12 -

42 Translate it 4 41

43 Memorize new word’s context 4 35

44 Remember it through its context 4 -

45 Try to recognize it next time 4 63

46 Use imagery to learn it 4 18

Consolidation strategy:

47 Do exercises about it 4 25

Determination strategy:

48 Ignore it 8 3

Table 5: Practice strategies in interview data

#:

Consolidation strategies: How do you

practice new words? What strategies do you

use?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Writing:

1 Writing it down 20 23

2 Write it many times 4 46

3 Write for many days 4 -

4 Making phrases 4 -

5 Making sentence 12 21

6 Write composition 4 -

Metacognitive:

7 Knowing usage 4 48


8 Vocabulary notebook 4 30

375

9 Diary 4 -


10 Doing exercises 12 25

11 Using examples 4 31

12 With spelling 16 38

Reading:

13 Reading it 8 -

14 Reading them again 4 24

15 Reading paragraph with new word 4 -

16 Read it while I write it 4 -

17 Reading books 4 -

18 Reading English books 4 -

19 Repeat read word lists 8 -

20 Vocabulary book 20 26

Determination strategy II:

21 Look for root word 4 15

22 Looking at it 4 40



25 Know its meaning (first) 4 -

26 Know its Chinese meaning 4 41

27 Remember English/Chinese meanings 4 35

28 Guessing meaning 4 48

Strategic:

29 Reviewing for exams 8 -

Metacognitive II:

30 Noting sentence context 4 -

31 Noting usage 4 48

32 Noticing synonyms & comparing 4 20

33 With grammar 4 35

34 Studying 4 -

Cognitive III:

35 Trying to remember 4 39

36 Memorizing words 20 -

37 Learning high frequency words 4 -

38 Memorizing suffixes 4 24

39 Memorizing sentences 4 -

40 Using imagery (in the mind) 4 18

41 Drawing pictures 4 4

42 Repeating new words 12 25

43 Knowing its phonetic symbols 4 -

376

44 Its pronunciation 8 39

45 By reciting 28 -

46 Saying aloud 8 25

47 Reciting sentences 4 -

48 Remember it by its pronunciation 4 -

Listening:

49 Listening to new words 20 11

50 Listen to pronunciation 4 11

51 Imitating audio 4 -

52 Through dictation 8 -

Social strategies:

53 Practicing with classmates 16 15

54 Talk about it 4 -

Productive strategies:

55 Sing along to a song 4 38

56 Watch and recite lyrics 4 -

57 Using in essays 12 -

58 Using in class 4 -

59 Using in dialogues 4 -

60 Using in life 4 -

Non-practice:

61 By not using 4 -

62 Leaving it alone 4 3

Table 6: Memorization strategies in interview data

#: Consolidation strategies: How do you

memorize new words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Memorization strategy:

1 By looking at the word many times 4 40

Memorization:

2 By following the rules of memorization 4 -

3 By memorizing 8 -

4 By memorizing frequently 4 -

5 By remembering it 4 -

6 By memorizing high frequency words 4 -

7 By memorizing sentences 8 -

Cognitive:

8 By knowing phonetics 4 -

9 By pronunciation 28 -

10 By reciting 24 25

11 By reciting many times 4 -

377

12 By reciting in my head 4 -

13 By reciting in class 4 -

14 By reciting sentences 8 -

15 By imaging new word 4 18

16 By connecting with Chinese meaning 4 41

17 By linking known words 4 33

18 By constructing meronyms 4 -

19 By memorizing large chunks of textbooks 4 -

20 By using flash cards 4 13

21 By using a vocabulary book 4 35

Determination strategies:

22 By guessing meaning 4 48

23 By look up dictionary 12 -

24 By look up internet dictionary 4 -

Cognitive II:

25 By thinking about meaning 4 -

26 By learning its spelling 8 38

27 By knowing its part of speech 4 35

28 By learning its suffixes 8 20

29 By learning synonyms 4 20

30 By noticing similarity 4 33

31 By knowing how to read it 4 -

Reading:

32 By reading it while I write it 4 -

33 By reading 12 -

34 By reading aloud 4 -

35 By reading many times 16 -

36 By reading books 4 -

Cognitive III:

37 By learning roots 4 24

38 By learning affixes 4 24

39 By learning antonyms 8 20

Writing:

40 By writing down 52 -

41 By writing down many times 4 46

42 By making sentences 16 21

43 By remembering through grammar 4 -

Cognitive IV:

44 By learning usage 8 48

45 By studying example sentences 4 31

46 By doing exercises 8 25

378

47 By repetition 20 -

48 By reviewing for exams 8 -

49 By answering questions 8 -

Rehearsal:

50 By using it immediately 4 -

Discovery strategy:

51 By finding new words in newspapers 4 -

Listening strategies:

52 By listening to new words 4 11

53 By dictation 4 -

Social strategy:

54 By asking others 4 16

55 By practicing with classmates 4 15

Strategic:

56 By thinking in English 4 33

57 By paying more attention next time 4 -

Table 7: strategies ranked by percentage of students using them

Rank: S#: Ranked vocabulary learning strategies over all: %






6 3c I try to guess the word's meaning from the context 48%





11 8a Remember the new word the way I learned it 39%

12 4a Its pronunciation 39%

13 4b The spelling 38%

14 1f When singing English songs and watching English movies / TV 38%

15 9a Try to use new words in speaking and writing 36%

16 5d Use the vocabulary lists in a textbook 36%

17 6j Place word in a context e.g. sentence, conversation, etc 35%

18 6d Memorize Chinese-English/English-Chinese lists 35%

19 4i The new word's part of speech 35%

20 1b In vocabulary lists arranged in alphabetical order 34%

21 8e Try to remember where I first met the word 34%

22 6o Try to imagine what the new word looks like (in a sentence) 34%

23 6g Link the word with already known and have similarities 33%

379

24 9c Try to think in English with the new vocabulary 33%

25 7b Say the new words the next time I read them, and again after that 31%

26 4f The example sentences 31%

27 1c In vocabulary lists arranged by meaning 30%

28 5b Order the info in a vocabulary notebook 30%

29 8d Remember the new word's meaning first, then think its meaningful

parts e.g. prefixes, etc 28%

30 4e The English explanations 28%

31 7a Use word to make up a sentence/phrase 26%

32 5e Use a vocabulary list like those in the VOCABULARY 5000 /

TEM4EasyTEST 26%

33 1g When using / surfing the Internet 25%

34 6a Say the word aloud several times 25%

35 6e Do vocabulary exercises 25%

36 3b Pay no attention to it, but go back to it later 24%

37 6r Remember the prefix, suffix and root-word of new word 24%

38 7d Read the new words 2 or 3 times first, again a few days later, a week

later, a month later 24%

39 5a Write it down 23%

40 7e Test the new words on my own 23%

41 6k Use the new word to make up a sentence 21%

42 4c The prefixes, suffixes and root-words 20%

43 6f Link the word to similar meaning words or opposite meaning words 20%

44 4h The new word's relationship with other words 20%

45 6h Compare words with similar meaning / study together 20%

46 6i Group words in order e.g. meaning, part of speech, etc 19%

47 7c Read the new words the first day, but not after that 19%

48 9b Try to use idioms when I speak 19%

49 6q Try to imagine in my head what the new word looks like 18%

50 3e Ask a classmate or a teacher for the meaning 16%

51 1d During English conversations with others 15%

52 3d Study the word's prefixes, suffixes and root-word for meaning 15%

53 3g Read an English-only dictionary 15%

54 7f Test the new words with a classmates 15%

55 9d Try having conversations using the new words with English speakers

e.g. teachers, etc 14%

56 5c Make vocabulary cards 13%

57 6n Practice new words by acting them out i.e. verbs 13%

58 6m Make up rhymes to link new words together 11%

59 6l Listen to tape- / CD recordings of words 11%

60 9e Try to e-chat on the Internet using QQ, MSN, etc 8%

61 6p Draw pictures to illustrate meaning of new words 4%

62 3a Pay no attention to it, and never go back to it 3%

380

381

APPENDIX 9

Table 1: general BALLL by categories & beliefs for each grade

Beliefs statements by categories/beliefs grade M grade SD n

The difficulty of language

3 Some languages are easier to learn than

others

4 The English I am trying to learn is medium

difficulty

6 I believe I will ultimately speak English

very well

14 1 to 2 years is sufficient time to become

fluent in English if 1 hour a day is spent

speaking/learning English

24 It’s easier to speak English than it is to

understand it

28 It’s easier to read and write English than it

is to speak it/listen to it and understand it

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

3.64

3.55

3.46

3.42

3.18

3.09

3.00

3.25

3.68

4.09

3.67

3.33

2.27

2.55

2.21

2.50

2.45

2.73

2.63

2.75

3.32

3.32

3.17

3.67

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

0.73

0.91

0.88

1.16

0.50

0.75

0.51

0.62

1.04

0.61

1.05

1.23

0.83

1.18

1.02

0.90

1.01

1.08

1.10

1.06

1.09

1.09

1.17

0.65

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

Foreign language aptitude

1 It’s easier to for children than adults to learn

a foreign language

2 Some people are born with a special ability

which helps them learn a foreign language

10 It’s easier to learn another language if you

already know one foreign language

15 I have foreign language aptitude

22 Males are better than females at learning

English

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

M

4.05

4.05

3.92

3.58

3.59

3.95

3.50

3.33

3.14

3.32

2.92

3.33

2.77

3.14

3.42

3.08

1.73

1.77

1.92

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

SD

0.72

1.00

1.02

1.16

0.96

0.95

1.22

1.44

0.83

0.95

0.97

1.15

1.07

0.71

0.72

0.79

0.94

0.87

0.88

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

382

29 People who are good at math and science

are good at learning English

32 People who speak more than one language

well are very intelligent

33 Chinese are good at learning foreign

languages

34 Everyone can learn to speak English

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

2.00

2.09

2.36

2.25

2.17

3.05

3.14

2.96

3.08

3.32

3.18

3.25

3.58

3.59

4.00

4.08

4.00

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1.13

0.81

0.95

0.74

1.03

1.17

0.94

1.16

0.90

0.99

0.59

0.74

1.00

0.80

0.76

0.78

0.85

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

The nature of language learning

8 It’s necessary to know English culture in

order to speak English

11 It’s better to learn English in an English

speaking country like the United States

16 Learning English is mostly a matter of

learning many new English vocabulary items

20 Learning English is mostly a matter of its

many grammar rules

25 Learning English is different from learning

other university subjects

26 Learning English is mostly a matter of

translating English into Chinese

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

M

4.23

4.00

4.17

4.00

4.41

4.50

4.54

4.42

3.00

2.86

3.29

3.08

3.05

3.00

3.17

2.83

3.41

3.45

3.63

3.42

2.32

2.45

2.96

2.58

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

SD

0.75

0.69

0.87

0.85

0.59

0.80

0.72

0.67

0.98

0.94

0.75

1.08

1.09

1.07

1.01

0.83

0.73

1.06

0.88

1.00

0.84

0.86

1.00

0.90

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

Learning and communication strategies

7 It’s important to speak English with an

excellent accent

9 You should not speak English until you can

grade

1

2

3

4

1

M

4.41

4.50

4.21

3.50

1.45

grade

1

2

3

4

1

SD

1.05

0.51

0.59

1.09

0.67

n

22

22

24

12

22

383

speak it correctly

12 If I heard someone speaking English, the

language I am trying to learn, I would try to

speak with them in order to practice my

English

13 It’s ok to guess the meaning of an English

word if you don’t know it

17 It’s important to repeat English words and

practice often

18 I feel self-conscious speaking English in

front of others

19 If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will

be hard to get rid of them later

21 It’s important to practice in a language lab

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1.64

2.04

2.08

3.73

3.68

3.88

3.83

4.00

4.00

3.92

3.92

4.05

4.50

4.21

4.00

2.82

3.41

3.50

3.58

2.59

3.23

3.17

2.58

3.59

3.73

3.67

3.25

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

0.73

1.08

0.90

0.88

0.65

0.80

0.72

0.53

0.69

0.97

0.67

0.84

0.51

0.59

0.85

1.50

0.67

0.88

0.90

1.22

1.11

0.92

1.08

1.10

0.83

1.13

1.14

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

Motivation and expectations

23 If I speak English very well, I will have

many opportunities to use it

27 If I learn to speak English very well, it will

help me get a good job

30 Chinese think it is important to speak

English

31 I would like to speak English so I can learn

more about English people

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

M

4.23

4.00

3.96

4.25

4.05

4.09

4.25

3.75

4.05

4.05

3.58

4.00

3.18

3.55

3.54

3.67

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

SD

0.92

0.69

0.95

0.62

0.90

0.61

0.68

1.14

0.58

0.72

0.93

0.74

0.96

0.60

0.72

0.78

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

384

Table 2: Ranked general beliefs about language and language learning

Rank: B#: Name of belief: % freq.:

1 B#11 It's better to learn English in an English speaking

country like United States 58% S.Agree

2 B#13 It's ok to guess the meaning of an English word if you

don't know it 68% Agree

3 B#30 Chinese think it is important to speak English 65% Agree

4 B#17 It's important to repeat English words and practice often 60% Agree

5 B#34 Everyone can learn to speak English 59% Agree

6 B#8 It's necessary to know English culture in order to speak

English 58% Agree

7 B#27 If I learn to speak English very well, it will help me get

a good job 56% Agree

8 B#3 Some languages are easier to learn than others 54% Agree

9 B#21 It's important to practice in a language lab 54% Agree

10 B#23 If I speak English very well, I will have many

opportunities to use it 53% Agree

11 B#12

If I heard someone speaking English, the language I am

trying to learn, I would try to speak with them in order

to practice my English 51% Agree

12 B#25 Learning English is different from learning other

university subjects 49% Agree

13 B#31 I would like to speak English so I can learn more about

English people 49% Agree

14 B#1 It's easier for children than adults to learn a foreign

language 48% Agree

15 B#18 I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of others 46% Agree

16 B#2 Some people are born with a special ability which helps

them learn a foreign language 45% Agree

17 B#7 It's important to speak English with an excellent accent 45% Agree

18 B#6 I believe I will ultimately speak English very well 40% Agree

19 B#10 It's easier to learn another foreign language if you

already know one foreign language 40% Agree

20 B#28 It's easy to read and write English than it is to speak

it/listen it and understand it 39% Agree

21 B#32 People who can speak more than one foreign language

are intelligent people 38% Agree

22 B#16 Learning English is mostly a matter of learning many

new English vocabulary items 36% Agree

23 B#20 Learning English is mostly a matter of its many

grammar rules 34% Agree

24 B#9 You should not speak English until you can speak it

correctly 43% S.Disag.

25 B#22 Males are better than females at learning English 39% S.Disag.

26 B#5 English is structured in the same way as Chinese 66% Disag.

27 B#29 People who are good at math and science are good at

learning English 50% Disag.

28 B#24 It's easier to speak English than it is to understand it 49% Disag.

29 B#14

If you spent 1 hr a day speaking/learning English, how

long would it take for you to become fluent? 1/1 year;

2/1-2 years; 3/3-5 years; 4/5-10 years; 5/you can't 46% Disag.

30 B#26 Learning English is mostly a matter of translating

English into Chinese 44% Disag.

31 B#19 If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will be hard to

get rid of them later 31% Disag.

32 B#15 I have foreign language aptitude 48% NDoA

33 B#33 Chinese are good at learning foreign languages 51% NDoA

385

34 B#4 The English I'm trying to learn is: 1/very difficult;

2/difficult; 3/medium difficulty; 4/easy; 5/very easy 63% med. diff

Table 3: general BALLL by grade, by percentage of students by

agreement/disagreement

General Beliefs % of students who

agree/disagree

#: Belief statement: SD D ND

oA A SA

1 It’s easier for children than adults to learn a foreign

language 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 27 45 27

grade 2 0 14 4 45 36

grade 3 0 17 4 50 29

grade 4 8 8 17 50 17

2 Some people are born with a special ability which helps

them learn a foreign language 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 18 18 50 14

grade 2 0 9 18 41 32

grade 3 0 17 17 46 17

grade 4 0 17 17 42 17

3 Some languages are easier to learn than others 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 23 64 4

grade 2 0 18 18 54 9

grade 3 4 8 29 54 4

grade 4 8 8 33 33 17

4 The English I am trying to learn is: 1=very difficult,

2=difficult, 3=medium difficulty, 4=easy, 5=very easy 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 68 27 0

grade 2 0 23 45 32 0

grade 3 0 12 75 12 0

grade 4 0 8 58 33 0

5 English is structured in the same way as Chinese 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 54 14 27 0

grade 2 9 82 9 0 0

grade 3 4 71 25 0 0

grade 4 25 50 25 0 0

6 I believe I will ultimately speak English very well 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 32 27 27

grade 2 0 0 14 64 23

grade 3 0 17 25 33 25

grade 4 8 17 25 33 17

7 It's important to speak English with an excellent accent 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 4 0 27 64

386

grade 2 0 0 0 50 50

grade 3 0 0 8 58 29

grade 4 0 25 17 42 17

SD D ND

oA A SA

8 It's necessary to know English culture in order to speak

English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 4 54 36

grade 2 0 4 9 68 18

grade 3 0 8 4 50 37

grade 4 0 8 8 58 25

9 You should not speak English until you can speak it

correctly 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 64 27 9 0 0

grade 2 45 50 0 4 0

grade 3 29 37 17 12 0

grade 4 25 50 17 8 0

10 It's easier to learn another foreign language if you

already know one foreign language 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 27 41 27 4

grade 2 0 27 18 50 4

grade 3 4 37 21 37 0

grade 4 8 17 17 50 8

11 It's better to learn English in an English speaking country

like the United States 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 4 50 45

grade 2 0 4 4 27 64

grade 3 0 0 12 21 67

grade 4 0 0 8 42 50

12

If I heard someone speaking English, the language I am

trying to learn, I would try to speak with them in order to

practice my English

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 0 27 54 14

grade 2 0 0 41 50 9

grade 3 0 4 25 50 21

grade 4 0 0 33 50 17

13 It's ok to guess the meaning of an English word if you

don't know it 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 14 73 14

grade 2 0 4 9 68 18

grade 3 4 4 12 54 25

grade 4 0 8 0 83 8

14

If you spent 1 hour a day speaking / learning English,

how long would it take for you to become fluent? 1 =

less than 1 year, 2 = 1 to 2 years, 3 = 3 to 5 years, 4 = 5

to 10 years, 5 = you can't learn English in 1 hour a day

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 64 23 0 4

387

grade 2 18 41 14 23 4

grade 3 27 46 12 17 0

grade 4 17 25 50 8 0

SD D ND

oA A SA

15 I have foreign language aptitude 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 23 50 14 4

grade 2 0 18 50 32 0

grade 3 0 8 46 42 4

grade 4 0 25 42 33 0

16 Learning English is mostly a matter of learning many

new English vocabulary items 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 32 23 41 0

grade 2 0 50 14 36 0

grade 3 0 12 50 33 4

grade 4 0 42 17 33 8

17 It's important to repeat English words and practice often 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 0 4 68 23

grade 2 0 0 0 50 50

grade 3 0 0 8 63 29

grade 4 0 8 8 58 25

18 I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of others 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 27 9 36 9

grade 2 0 9 41 50 0

grade 3 0 12 37 37 12

grade 4 8 0 17 75 0

19 If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will hard to get

rid of them later 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 14 32 23 27 0

grade 2 4 27 18 41 9

grade 3 0 25 42 25 8

grade 4 8 50 25 8 8

20 learning English is mostly a matter of its many grammar

rules 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 23 27 36 4

grade 2 9 27 18 45 0

grade 3 4 21 37 29 8

grade 4 8 17 58 17 0

21 It's important to practice in a language lab 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 27 50 14

grade 2 4 14 9 64 9

grade 3 0 8 17 54 17

grade 4 8 17 25 42 8

22 Males are better than females at learning English 1 2 3 4 5

388

grade 1 41 41 9 4 0

grade 2 45 36 14 4 0

grade 3 29 37 29 0 0

grade 4 42 33 8 17 0

23 If I speak English very well, I will have many

opportunities to use it 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 0 4 50 41

grade 2 0 4 9 68 18

grade 3 0 8 21 37 33

grade 4 0 0 8 58 33

SD D ND

oA A SA

24 It's easier to speak English than it is to understand it 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 32 54 0

grade 2 4 54 9 27 4

grade 3 4 37 42 4 8

grade 4 0 58 17 17 8

25 Learning English is different from learning other

university subjects 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 32 54 0

grade 2 0 27 14 45 14

grade 3 0 12 25 50 12

grade 4 8 0 42 42 8

26 Learning English is mostly a matter of translating

English into Chinese 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 14 50 27 9 0

grade 2 9 50 27 14 0

grade 3 4 33 29 29 4

grade 4 8 42 33 17 0

27 If I learn to speak English very well, it will help me get a

good job 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 9 59 32

grade 2 0 0 14 64 23

grade 3 0 0 12 50 37

grade 4 0 25 0 50 25

28 It's easy to read and write English than it is to speak it /

listen to it and understand it 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 9 32 41 9

grade 2 0 32 18 36 14

grade 3 0 25 25 37 8

grade 4 0 8 42 42 8

SD D ND

oA A SA

29 People who are good at math and science are good at

learning English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 23 50 23 4 0

389

grade 2 18 41 27 14 0

grade 3 12 50 29 8 0

grade 4 17 67 8 0 8

30 Chinese think it is important speak English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 14 68 18

grade 2 0 4 9 64 23

grade 3 4 8 21 58 8

grade 4 0 8 0 75 17

31 I would like to speak English so I can learn more about

English people 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 32 23 41 4

grade 2 0 0 50 45 4

grade 3 0 8 33 54 4

grade 4 0 8 25 58 8

32 People who can speak more than one foreign language

are intelligent people 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 14 18 23 41 4

grade 2 0 27 41 23 9

grade 3 4 29 17 46 0

grade 4 0 33 25 42 0

33 Chinese are good at learning foreign languages 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 14 36 36 9

grade 2 0 4 77 14 4

grade 3 0 12 54 29 4

grade 4 0 17 25 42 17

34 everyone can learn to speak English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 18 64 4

grade 2 0 4 14 59 23

grade 3 0 4 12 54 29

grade 4 0 8 8 58 25

390

42

46

41

50

B#2 some people are born with a specialability which helps them learn a foreign

language

Agree


33

54

54

64

B#3 some languages are easier to learnthan others

Agree


neither disagree or agree/agree

391

33

33

64

32

B#6 I believe I will ultimately speakEnglish very well

Agree


NDoA

agree

agree

agree

42

58

50

64

B#7 it’s important to speak English with an excellent accent

Agree/strongly agree


s.agree

agree/s.agree

agree

agree

392

58

50

68

54

B#8 English culture should be known tospeak English very well

Agree


50

67

64

50

B#11 it’s better to learn English in an English speaking country like the United

States

Agree/strongly agree


s.agree

s.agree

s.agree

agree

393

50

50

50

54

B#12 if I heard someone speakingEnglish

Agree


83

54

68

73

B#13 it’s ok to guess the meaning of an English word if you don’t know it

Agree


394

58

63

50

68

B#17 it's important to repeat Englishwords and practice often

Agree


agree/s.agree

75

37

50

36

B#18 I feel self-conscious speakingEnglish in front of others

Agree


395

42

54

64

50

B#21 it’s important to practice in a language lab

Agree


58

37

68

50

B#23 if I speak English very well I willhave many opportunities to use it

Agree


396

42

50

45

54

B#25 learning English is different fromlearning other university subjects

Agree



50

50

64

59

B#27 if I learn to speak English very wellit will help me get a good job

Agree


397

42

37

36

41

B#28 it’s easier to read and write English than it is to speak it / listen to it and

understand it

Agree


neither disagreeor agree/agree

75

58

64

68

B#30 Chinese think it is important tospeak English

Agree


398

58

54

59

64

B#34 everyone can learn to speakEnglish

Agree


50

37

50

64

B#9 you should not speak English untilyou can speak it correctly

disagree/strongly disagree


s.disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree

399

42

33

50

50

B#26 learning English is mostly a matterof translating English into Chinese

Disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree

67

50

41

50

B#29 people who are good at math andscience are good at learning English

Disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree

400

42

46

41

41

B#32 people who can speak more thanone foreign language are intelligent

people



agree

NDoA

agree

agree

42

37

45

41

B#22 males are better than females atlearning English



agree

agree

NDoA/agree

agree

401

58

54

50

41

B#31 I would like to speak English so Ican learn more about English people



agree

NDoA

agree

agree

42

54

77

36

B#33 Chinese are good at learningforeign languages



NDoA/agree

NDoA

NDoA

agree

402

42

46

50

50

B#15 I have foreign language aptitude

neither disagree or agree


NDoA

NDoA

NDoA

NDoA

42

50

50

41

B#16 learning English is mostly a matterof learning many new English

vocabulary items

disagree/neither disagree or agree/agree


agree

disagree

NDoA

disagree

403

Table 4: The difficulty of language

Belief statement: Horwitz %: CEMs: %:

3: Some languages are easier to learn than others A ? A 54

4: The English I am trying to learn is medium difficulty NDoA ? NDoA 63

6: I believe I will ultimately speak English very well A ? A 40

14: 1 to 2 years is sufficient time to become fluent in English if 1 hour a day is pent speaking/learning English

^D(2)/ NDoA(3)

40 D(2) 46

24: It’s easier to speak English than it is to understand it

D ? D 49

28: It’s easier to read and write English than it is to speak it/listen to it and understand it

A ? A 39

Table 5: Foreign language aptitude


1: It’s easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language

A ? A 48

50

42

41

32

B#19 if you are allowed to makemistakes they will be hard to get rid of

later



disagree

agree

NDoA

disagree

58

42

54

54

B#24 it's easier to speak English than itis to understand it



agree

disagree

NDoA

disagree

404

2: Some people are born with a special ability which helps them learn a foreign language

A 48 A 45

10: It’s easier to learn another language if you already know one foreign language

A ? A 40

15: I have foreign language aptitude NDoA ? NDoA 48

22: Males are better than females at learning English NDoA ? SD 39

29: People who are good at math and science are good at learning English

^SD/D/ NDoA

? D 50

32: People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent

NDoA ? A 38

33: Chinese are good at learning foreign languages NDoA ? NDoA 51

34: Everyone can learn to speak English A ? A 59

Table 6: The nature of language learning


8: It’s necessary to know English culture in order to speak English

NDoA ? A 58

11: It’s better to learn English in an English speaking country like the United States

SD ? SA 58

16: learning English is mostly a matter of learning many new English vocabulary items

D ? A/D 36/33

20: Learning English is mostly a matter of its many grammar rules

D/NDoA ? A 34

25: Learning English is different from learning other university subjects

A ? A 49

26: Learning English is mostly a matter of translating English into Chinese

D/SA ? D 44

Table 7: Learning and communication strategies


7: It’s important to speak English with an excellent accent

A ? A 45

9: You should not speak English until you can speak it correctly

SD ? SD 43

12: If I heard someone speaking English, the language I am trying to learn, I would try to speak with them in order to practice my English

D/NDoA/A ? A 51

13: It’s ok to guess the meaning of an English word if you don’t know it

NDoA /A ? A 68

17: It’s important to repeat English words and practice often

SA ? A 60

18: I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of others

A ? A 46

19: If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will be heard to get rid of them later

D ? D 31

21: It’s important to practice in a language lab A ? A 54

Table 8: Motivation and expectations


23: If I speak English very well, I will have many opportunities to use it

NDoA/ A ? A 53

27: If I learn to speak English very well, it will help me get a good job

NDoA ? A 56

30: Chinese think it is important to speak English D ? A 65

31: I would like to speak English so I can learn more about English people

D/ NDoA/ A

? A 49

405

APPENDIX 10

Table 1: CCL Beliefs statements by categories & beliefs for each grade

Beliefs statements by categories/beliefs grade M grade SD n

Attitude to learning English (1)

1 I enjoy learning English

Leaner’s aims for learning English (2a-2e)

2a I learn English to improve myself/ for self-

development

2b I learn English to find a good job in the

future

2c I learn English for the honour of my family

2d I learn English to pass exams

2e I learn English for daily communication

2f I learn English because it is compulsory

Criteria for being a good teacher (3a-3g)

3a should be knowledgeable about his/her

area

3b should often use games/activities when she

teaches

3c should be light-hearted

3d should be serious

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3.64

3.27

3.04

3.67

4.32

4.14

4.08

4.17

4.32

4.09

4.13

4.17

3.05

3.23

3.21

3.33

3.18

3.55

3.42

3.83

3.64

3.50

3.54

4.08

3.41

2.82

3.25

3.00

M

4.45

4.45

4.38

4.33

3.77

3.41

3.71

3.83

3.77

3.55

3.67

3.42

3.27

3.18

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

1.43

1.20

1.71

1.37

0.65

0.35

1.02

0.58

0.78

1.02

0.54

0.58

1.05

0.97

0.93

1.15

1.22

1.10

0.93

0.83

1.05

0.80

0.93

0.67

0.85

0.91

0.94

0.85

SD

0.74

0.51

0.49

0.65

1.02

0.67

0.55

1.03

1.07

0.96

0.76

1.08

0.94

1.05

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

406

3e should provide clear / comprehensible

notes

3f should help me pass exams

3g should improve my English skills (e.g.

reading, writing, etc)

Teacher-student relationship (4a-4b)

4a should be like parent-child relationship

4b should be like friend-friend relationship

Perceptions of teachers’ attitudes towards

students’ question in the classroom (5a-5b;

6a-6c; 7-8)

5a being a teacher for a day entitles him/her to

lifelong respect from students in the same way

students respect his/her father

5b I love my teacher, but I love the truth more

6a If you do not agree with what the teacher

teaches in the classroom, what do you do?

Still follow the teacher’s idea

6b If you do not agree with what the teacher

teaches in the classroom, what do you do? Ask

the teacher after class

6c If you do not agree with what the teacher

teaches in the classroom, what do you do? Ask

the teacher immediately in the classroom

7 My teacher likes me asking questions in the

classroom

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

3.46

3.25

3.86

4.14

4.00

3.92

3.09

3.50

3.17

3.17

4.68

4.59

4.46

4.58

2.73

2.41

2.96

2.67

4.45

4.32

4.29

4.25

M

3.41

3.50

3.46

3.58

4.09

3.86

3.46

3.58

2.50

2.32

2.50

2.58

3.91

3.95

3.83

4.00

2.50

3.00

2.56

2.75

3.77

3.82

3.79

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

0.88

1.14

0.99

0.64

0.83

0.79

1.02

0.91

0.87

0.58

0.57

0.50

0.51

0.51

1.28

0.85

1.04

1.15

0.51

0.65

0.55

0.87

SD

0.85

0.86

0.88

0.90

0.75

0.64

0.72

1.24

1.10

0.72

1.02

1.08

0.87

0.49

0.56

0.60

1.01

0.93

1.10

0.97

0.87

0.39

1.06

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

407

8 My teacher likes me asking questions after

class

Favoured teaching method (9a-9c)

9a I prefer the teacher to tell me everything

9b I prefer the teacher to encourage me learn

9c I prefer the teacher to use different

activities to help me learn

Attitudes to the content of textbooks (10a-

10b)

10a I think the contents of the textbooks are

totally correct

10b I think the contents of the textbooks are

not totally correct

11a I think the knowledge from textbooks is

useful in real life

11b I think the knowledge from textbooks is

not useful in real life

Memorizing vocabulary (12a-12b)

12a using rehearsal strategies (e.g. using word

lists, oral repetition, visual repetition, etc)

12b using other mnemonic techniques

Practicing reading skills (13a-13d)

13a use the materials in the textbooks

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

3.67

3.45

4.18

3.71

3.58

3.23

3.64

3.17

3.33

4.14

4.36

4.21

4.33

4.00

4.22

4.00

4.25

M

2.82

2.50

2.54

2.17

3.50

3.68

3.63

3.75

3.41

3.09

3.17

3.25

2.77

3.09

2.75

2.83

3.59

3.82

3.58

3.58

3.55

3.50

3.67

3.33

3.82

3.59

3.75

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

0.98

1.10

0.59

0.81

0.79

1.07

1.09

1.17

1.07

0.89

0.58

0.51

0.65

1.02

0.65

1.06

0.75

SD

1.01

0.91

1.02

1.11

0.74

0.95

0.71

1.14

1.14

0.92

0.87

1.22

0.87

0.97

0.99

1.27

0.96

0.50

1.02

0.90

0.67

0.67

0.56

0.89

0.80

0.73

0.85

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

408

13b use the materials in other textbooks

13c use newspapers

13d doing nothing

Practicing speaking skills (14a-14d)

14a reading aloud or reciting the texts in

books

14b talking to classmates or friends in English

14c talking to native English speakers

14d doing nothing

Practicing listening skills (15a-15d)

15a listen to tapes- /CD that comes with the

textbook

15b watch English movies/TV shows

15c listen to English radio

15d doing nothing

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

3.50

3.86

3.41

3.79

3.75

3.27

3.55

3.88

3.83

1.82

1.64

1.67

2.00

M

3.68

3.82

3.67

3.92

3.91

3.50

3.67

3.25

3.50

3.41

3.42

4.08

1.64

1.64

1.63

1.83

3.82

3.68

3.54

3.50

4.05

4.09

4.25

4.17

3.86

3.91

3.88

3.75

1.59

1.36

1.46

1.92

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1.00

0.47

0.73

1.02

0.97

0.83

0.80

0.45

0.83

0.85

0.85

0.87

1.04

SD

0.99

0.50

1.01

1.24

0.68

0.67

1.05

1.06

1.10

1.10

1.44

0.90

0.73

0.90

1.06

0.72

1.01

0.78

0.98

1.00

0.79

0.43

0.53

0.58

0.83

0.68

1.19

1.06

0.67

0.49

0.93

0.67

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

409

Practicing writing skills (16a-16d)

16a exchange letters with pen pals in English

16b finish writing tasks from teacher

16c write in my dairy in English

16d doing nothing

Barriers to learning English (17a-17d)

17a I don’t work hard enough

17b my teacher doesn’t teach well

17c I don’t have a good English learning

environment

17d the learning materials are out of date

What makes a good learner? (18a-18e)

18a hard working

18b respects teachers

18c practices using English all the time

18d never gives up learning English

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

M

3.18

3.09

2.63

3.42

3.95

4.05

3.79

3.58

3.91

3.59

3.38

3.33

1.45

1.45

1.38

1.83

3.36

3.59

3.46

3.67

2.00

2.36

2.33

2.83

3.32

3.41

3.71

3.83

2.45

2.95

2.88

3.08

4.18

4.18

4.17

3.83

4.00

3.77

3.88

3.83

3.82

3.95

4.38

4.17

4.14

4.50

grade

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

2

SD

1.10

0.87

1.50

1.16

0.84

0.38

0.72

0.79

0.75

0.85

1.10

1.15

0.51

0.51

0.92

0.58

1.05

1.26

1.10

0.89

0.82

0.73

0.92

1.11

0.99

1.01

0.95

1.19

0.91

0.95

1.03

1.38

0.80

0.66

1.05

1.19

0.62

0.53

1.08

0.94

0.80

0.95

0.65

0.94

0.89

0.51

n

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

24

12

22

22

410

18e has his/her own opinion

3

4

1

2

3

4

4.21

4.17

4.14

4.05

4.27

4.33

3

4

1

2

3

4

1.10

0.94

0.83

0.90

0.55

0.89

24

12

22

22

24

12

Table 2: CCL beliefs by grade, by percentage of students in agreement/disagreement

Chinese culture of learning beliefs % of students who

agree/disagree

Beliefs statements: SD D ND

oA A SA

1 I enjoy learning English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 18 41 27

grade 2 0 4 27 59 0

grade 3 0 0 25 42 12

grade 4 0 8 0 67 17

2/2a I learn English...

To improve myself / for self-development 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 9 50 41

grade 2 0 0 0 86 14

grade 3 0 0 4 62 29

grade 4 0 0 8 67 25

3/2b I learn English...

To find a good job in the future 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 4 45 45

grade 2 0 0 0 68 27

grade 3 0 0 8 71 21

grade 4 0 0 8 67 25

4/2c I learn English...

For the honour of my family 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 27 36 23 9

grade 2 0 32 18 45 4

grade 3 0 29 25 42 4

grade 4 0 33 25 25 17

5/2d I learn English...

To pass exams 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 14 14 23 41 9

grade 2 4 14 23 41 18

grade 3 0 17 37 33 12

grade 4 0 8 25 50 17

6/2e I learn English...

For daily communication 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 18 23 36 23

411

grade 2 0 9 41 41 9

grade 3 0 17 25 46 12

grade 4 0 0 17 58 25

7/2f I learn English...

Because it is compulsory 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 41 36 9

grade 2 4 32 45 14 4

grade 3 4 12 46 29 8

grade 4 0 33 33 33 0

8/3a A good teacher of English should...

Be knowledgeable about his / her area 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 0 41 54

grade 2 0 0 0 54 45

grade 3 0 0 0 62 37

grade 4 0 0 8 50 42

SD D ND

oA A SA

9/3b A good teacher of English should...

Often use games / activities s/he teaches 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 23 36 27

grade 2 0 4 54 36 4

grade 3 0 0 29 67 4

grade 4 0 8 33 25 33

10/3c A good teacher of English should...

Be light-hearted 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 27 27 32

grade 2 0 18 23 45 14

grade 3 0 4 33 50 12

grade 4 0 25 25 33 17

11/3d A good teacher of English should...

Be serious 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 23 36 32 9

grade 2 4 27 18 45 4

grade 3 0 17 25 50 8

grade 4 0 33 25 25 17

12/3e A good teacher of English should...

Provide clear and comprehensive notes 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 14 45 27

grade 2 0 0 14 59 27

grade 3 0 4 12 58 25

grade 4 0 0 33 42 25

13/3f A good teacher of English should...

Help me pass exams 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 23 41 23 9

grade 2 0 14 36 36 14

grade 3 0 21 50 21 8

412

grade 4 0 8 67 25 0

14/3g A good teacher of English should...

Improve my English skills (reading, writing, etc) 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 4 23 73

grade 2 0 0 0 45 54

grade 3 0 0 0 54 46

grade 4 0 0 0 42 58

15/4a I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like...

A parent-child relationship 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 32 27 18 9

grade 2 9 54 23 14 0

grade 3 4 46 8 37 4

grade 4 17 33 17 33 0

SD D ND

oA A SA

16/4b I prefer the teacher-student relationship to be like…

A friend-friend relationship 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 0 50 50

grade 2 0 0 9 50 41

grade 3 0 0 4 67 29

grade 4 0 8 0 50 42

17/5a

How much do you agree with the following statement:

Being a teacher for one day entitles him/her to lifelong

respect from the students in the same way students

respect his/her father

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 41 36 9

grade 2 0 14 36 41 9

grade 3 0 0 37 58 0

grade 4 0 8 42 33 17

18/5b How much do you agree with the following statement:

I love my teacher, but I love the truth more 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 23 45 32

grade 2 0 4 18 68 9

grade 3 0 8 42 42 8

grade 4 8 8 25 33 25

19/6a

If you do not agree with what the teacher teaches in the

classroom, what do you do?

Still follow the teacher's idea

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 41 23 23 0

grade 2 9 54 32 4 0

grade 3 4 46 33 8 4

grade 4 17 33 25 25 0

20/6b



Ask the teacher after class

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 0 68 18

grade 2 0 0 14 77 9

413

grade 3 0 0 25 67 8

grade 4 0 0 17 67 17

21/6c



Ask the teacher immediately in the classroom

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 45 32 18 0

grade 2 4 23 45 23 4

grade 3 8 46 25 12 4

grade 4 8 33 33 25 0

22/7a My English teacher likes me asking questions in the

classroom 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 9 64 14

grade 2 0 0 18 82 0

grade 3 0 4 12 62 17

grade 4 0 17 17 50 17

23/8a My English teacher likes me asking questions after class 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 41 36 14

grade 2 0 0 9 64 27

grade 3 0 8 25 54 12

grade 4 0 8 33 50 8

24/9a I prefer the teacher to...

Tell me everything I should learn 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 23 41 14 18

grade 2 0 18 23 32 27

grade 3 0 21 37 25 12

grade 4 0 25 33 25 17

SD D ND

oA A SA

25/9b I prefer the teacher to...

Encourage me to learn 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 4 50 36

grade 2 0 0 4 54 41

grade 3 0 0 4 71 25

grade 4 0 0 8 50 42

26/9c I prefer the teacher to...

Use different activities to help me learn 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 14 9 41 36

grade 2 0 0 9 50 41

grade 3 0 4 0 67 25

grade 4 0 0 17 42 42

27/10a I think the contents of textbooks are...

Totally correct 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 41 27 23 4

grade 2 4 59 23 9 4

grade 3 4 42 37 8 4

grade 4 17 33 33 8 0

414

28/10b I think the contents of textbooks are...

Not totally correct 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 36 50 4

grade 2 4 9 9 68 9

grade 3 0 8 25 62 4

grade 4 8 8 0 67 17

29/11a I think the knowledge from textbooks is...

Useful in real life 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 23 14 45 14

grade 2 0 32 23 45 0

grade 3 0 25 37 33 4

grade 4 8 17 33 25 17

SD D ND

oA A SA

30/11b I think the knowledge from textbooks is...

Not useful in real life 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 36 41 18 0

grade 2 0 32 36 23 9

grade 3 0 37 33 29 0

grade 4 17 25 25 25 8

31/12a

I memorize vocabulary by...

Rehearsal strategies (e.g. using word lists, oral repetition,

visual repetition)

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 9 18 59 9

grade 2 0 0 23 73 4

grade 3 0 4 25 58 8

grade 4 0 17 17 58 8

32/12b I memorize vocabulary by...

Using other mnemonic techniques 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 41 50 4

grade 2 0 4 45 45 4

grade 3 0 0 37 58 4

grade 4 0 17 42 33 8

33/13a I practice reading in English by reading...

The materials in the textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 18 59 14

grade 2 0 9 27 59 4

grade 3 0 0 8 87 0

grade 4 8 8 8 75 0

34/13b I practice reading in English by reading...

The materials in other textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 23 73 4

grade 2 0 14 32 54 0

grade 3 0 4 8 71 12

grade 4 8 0 8 75 8

35/13c I practice reading in English by reading... 1 2 3 4 5

415

Newspapers

grade 1 0 23 32 45 0

grade 2 0 14 23 59 4

grade 3 0 0 17 79 4

grade 4 0 8 17 58 17

36/13d I practice reading in English by reading...

nothing 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 27 54 9 4 0

grade 2 41 45 4 4 0

grade 3 42 46 4 4 0

grade 4 33 50 0 17 0

37/14a I practice speaking in English by...

Reading aloud or reciting the texts in books 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 18 18 45 18

grade 2 0 0 23 73 4

grade 3 0 4 17 71 4

grade 4 8 8 0 50 33

38/14b I practice speaking in English by...

Talking with my classmates or friends in English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 32 50 18

grade 2 0 4 45 45 4

grade 3 0 4 21 62 8

grade 4 8 17 17 58 0

39/14c I practice speaking in English by...

Talking with native English speakers 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 23 23 32 23

grade 2 0 9 32 45 9

grade 3 8 17 4 46 21

grade 4 0 8 8 50 33

40/14d I practice speaking in English by...

doing nothing 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 45 50 0 4 0

grade 2 54 36 0 9 0

grade 3 62 25 4 4 4

grade 4 25 58 17 0 0

41/15a I practice listening to English by...

Listening to the tapes that accompany the textbook 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 9 4 64 18

grade 2 0 14 9 73 4

grade 3 0 4 25 62 4

grade 4 8 0 33 50 8

42/15b I practice listening to English by...

Watching English language movies / TV shows 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 9 4 64 18

grade 2 0 0 4 82 14

416

grade 3 0 0 4 67 29

grade 4 0 0 8 67 25

43/15c I practice listening to English by...

Listening to English language radio 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 14 59 18

grade 2 0 0 27 54 18

grade 3 0 8 8 50 29

grade 4 8 0 17 58 17

44/15d I practice listening to English by...


grade 1 50 41 9 0 0

grade 2 64 36 0 0 0

grade 3 58 33 0 0 4

grade 4 25 58 17 0 0

45/16a I practice writing in English by...

Exchanging letters with my pen pals in English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 27 23 36 9

grade 2 4 14 54 23 4

grade 3 29 12 17 29 8

grade 4 0 25 33 17 25

46/16b

I practice writing in English by...

Finishing the writing tasks assigned by my teacher of

English

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 9 9 59 23

grade 2 0 0 4 86 9

grade 3 0 8 12 71 8

grade 4 0 8 33 50 4

47/16c I practice writing in English by...

Writing in my diary in English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 18 59 18

grade 2 4 4 23 64 4

grade 3 0 17 17 58 4

grade 4 0 33 17 33 17

SD D ND

oA A SA

48/16d I practice writing in English by...


grade 1 54 45 0 0 0

grade 2 54 45 0 0 0

grade 3 67 25 0 0 4

grade 4 25 67 8 0 0

49/17a

I think the main barrier to improving my English is

because...

I do not work hard enough

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 23 9 59 4

grade 2 9 14 9 45 23

grade 3 0 17 8 67 4

417

grade 4 0 17 25 42 17

50/17b


because...

My teacher of English does not teach well

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 27 50 18 4 0

grade 2 9 59 23 9 0

grade 3 4 58 21 12 0

grade 4 8 42 25 17 8

51/17c


because...

I do not have a good English learning environment

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 4 14 32 41 9

grade 2 4 18 27 36 14

grade 3 0 12 25 42 21

grade 4 8 8 0 58 25

52/17d


because...

our learning materials are already out of date

1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 9 50 32 5 5

grade 2 0 32 41 23 5

grade 3 0 33 29 33 0

grade 4 17 17 25 25 17

53/18a In my opinion, a good learner of English should...

Work hard 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 9 50 36

grade 2 0 4 0 68 27

grade 3 0 0 4 54 37

grade 4 0 17 0 58 25

SD D ND

oA A SA

54/18b In my opinion, a good learner of English should...

Respect teachers 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 18 64 18

grade 2 0 4 14 82 0

grade 3 0 4 8 62 21

grade 4 0 8 25 50 17

55/18c In my opinion, a good learner of English should...

Practice using English all the time 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 41 36 23

grade 2 0 9 14 45 32

grade 3 0 0 8 46 46

grade 4 0 8 8 50 33

56/18d In my opinion, a good learner of English should...

Never give up learning English 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 4 4 54 36

grade 2 0 0 0 50 50

grade 3 0 0 8 42 46

grade 4 0 8 8 50 33

418

57/18e In my opinion, a good learner of English should...

Have his / her own opinion 1 2 3 4 5

grade 1 0 0 14 50 36

grade 2 0 0 4 68 27

grade 3 0 0 4 58 33

grade 4 0 8 0 50 42

67

62

86

50

B#2/2a I learn English to find a good jobin the future

Agree


50

37

41

41

B#5/2d I learn English to pass exams

Agree


agree

agree

NDoA

agree

419

50

62

54

54

B#8/3a a good teacher of English shouldbe knowledgeable about their area

Agree


s.agree

agree

agree

agree

33

50

45

32

B#10/3c a good teacher of Englishshould be light hearted

Agree


s.agree

agree

agree

agree

420

42

58

59

45

B#12/3e a good teacher of Englishshould provide clear and comprehensive

notes

Agree


agree

agree

agree

agree

58

54

54

73

B#14/3g a good teacher of Englishshould improve my English skills

Agree


s.agree

s.agree

agree

s.agree

421

50

67

50

50

B#16/4b I prefer the teacher studentrelationship to be like a friend friend

relationship

Agree


agree/s.agree

agree

agree

agree

33

42

68

45

B#18/5b How much do you agree with Ilove my teacher but love the truth more

Agree


agree

agree

NDoA/agree

agree

422

67

67

77

68

B#20/6b If you do not agree with theteacher's teaching do ask the teacher

after class

Agree


50

62

82

64

B#22/7a my English teacher likes measking questions in the classroom

Agree


423

50

54

64

41

B#23/8a my English teacher likes measking questions after class

Agree


NDoA

agree

agree

agree

50

71

54

50

B#25/9b I prefer the teacher toencourage me to learn

Agree


424

42

67

50

41

B#26/9c I prefer the teacher to usedifferent activities to help me learn

Agree


67

62

68

50

B#28/10b I think the contents oftextbooks are not totally correct

Agree


425

58

58

73

59

B#31/12a I memorize vocabulary byrehearsal strategies like using word lists

and oral and visual repetition

Agree


75

87

59

59

B#33/13a I practice reading English byreading the materials in the textbooks

Agree


426

75

71

54

73

B#34/13b I practice reading in English byreading the materials in other textbooks

Agree


58

79

59

45

B#35/13c I practice reading in English byreading newspapers

Agree


427

50

71

73

45

B#37/14a I practice speaking in Englishby reading aloud or reciting the texts in

books

Agree


50

46

45

32

B#39/14c I practice speaking in Englishby talking with native English speakers

Agree


428

50

62

73

64

B#41/15a I practice listening to Englishby listening to the tapes that accompany

the textbook

Agree


67

67

82

64

B#42/15b I practice listening to Englishby watching English movies and TV

shows

Agree


429

58

50

54

59

B#43/15c I practice listening to Englishby listening to English radio

Agree


50

71

86

59

B#46/16b I practice writing in English byfinishing the writing tasks assigned by

my teachers of English

Agree


430

33

58

64

59

B#47/16c I practice writing in English bywriting in my diary in English

Agree


42

67

45

59

B#49/17a the main barrier to improvingmy English is I do not work hard enough

Agree


431

58

42

36

41

B#51/17c the main barrier to improvingmy English is I do not have a good

English learning environment

Agree


58

54

68

50

B#53/18a a good learner of Englishshould work hard

Agree


432

50

62

82

64

B#54/18b a good learner of Englishshould respect teachers

Agree


50

46

45

41

B#55/18c a good learner of Englishshould practice using English all the time

Agree


NDoA

agree

agree/s.agree

agree

433

50

46

50

54

B#56/18d a good learner of Englishshould never give up learning English

Agree


agree

agree/s.agree

s.agree

agree

50

58

68

50

B#57/18e a good learner of Englishshould have their own opinion

Agree


434

33

46

54

41

B#19/6a if you do not agree with theteacher's teaching do you still follow the

teacher's idea

Disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree

33

42

59

41

B#27/10a I think the contents oftextbooks are totally correct

disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree/NDoA

435

50

46

45

54

B#36/13d I practice reading in English byreading nothing

disagree


disagree

disagree

disagree

disagree

58

62

54

50

B#40/14d I practice speaking English bydoing nothing

disagree


disagree

s.disagree

s.disagree

disagree

436

58

58

64

50

B#44/15d I practice listening to Englishby listening to nothing

disagree


s.disagree

s.disagree

s.disagree

disagree

67

67

54

54

B#48/16d I practice writing in English bydoing nothing

disagree


s.disagree

s.disagree

s.disagree

disagree

437

42

58

59

50

B#50/17b the main barrier to improvingmy English is my teacher of English does

not teach well

Disagree


disaagree

disaagree

disaagree

disaagree

33

42

45

36

B#4/2c I learn English for the honour ofmy family

disagree/NDoA/agree


NDoA

agree

agree

disagree

438

33

46

45

41

B#7/2f I learn English because it iscompulsory

NDoA/agree/disagree


agree

NDoA

NDoA

disagree/NDoA/agree

25

37

36

41

B#30/11b the knowledge fromtextbooks is not useful in real life

disagree/NDoA/agree


NDoA

NDoA

disagree

disagree/NDoA/agree

439

25

29

54

36

B#45/16a I practice writing in English byexchanging letters with my pen pals in

English

disagree/NDoA/agree


agree

NDoA

s.disagree/agree

NDoA

25

33

41

50

B#52/17d the main barrier to improvingmy English is our learning materials are

already out of date

disagree/NDoA/agree


disagree

NDoA

disagree/agree

NDoA/agree

440

33

67

54

36

B#9/3b a good teacher of English shouldoften use games and other activities

when teaching

NDoA, agree


agree

NDoA

agree

NDoA/s.agree

42

58

41

41

B#17/5a being a teacher for a dayentitles them to lifelong respect from

students in the same way studentsrespect their father

agree/NDoA


NDoA

agree

agree

NDoA

441

33

37

32

41

B#24/9a I prefer the teacher to tell meeverything I should learn

NDoA/agree


NDoA

agree

NDoA

NDoA

33

37

45

45

B#29/11a I think the knowledge fromtextbooks is useful in real life

agree/NDoA


agree

agree

NDoA

NDoA

442

Table 3: Self-efficacy and expectation about learning English

Belief Statement #: Yang: %: CEMs: %:

16 (15): I have foreign language aptitude NDoA 43 NDoA 48

5 (6): I believe I will ultimately speak English very well

A 58 A 40

21 (18): I feel self-conscious speaking English in front of others

A 32 A 46

4 (16): Learning English is mostly a matter of learning many new English vocabulary items

NDoA 45 A 36

13 (-): I enjoy practicing English with Americans A 42 - -

6 (33): Chinese are good at learning foreign languages

NDoA 56 NDoA 51

42

58

45

50

B#32/12b I memorize vocabulary byusing other mnemonic techniques

agree/NDoA


agree

NDoA/agree

agree

NDoA

58

62

45

50

B#38/14b I practice speaking in Englishby talking with my classmates and

friends in English

agree/NDoA


agree

NDoA/agree

agree

agree

443

Table 4: Perceived valued and nature of learning English


31 (-): I want to learn to speak English well SA 71 - -

18 (17): It’s important to repeat English words and practice often

SA 59 A 60

20 (30): Chinese think it is important to speak English

A 50 A 65

12 (11): It’s better to learn English in an English speaking country like the United States

SA 47 SA 58

32 (-): I would like to have American friends A 49 - -

7 (7): It’s important to speak English with an excellent accent

SA 63 A 45

33 (34): Everyone can learn to speak English A 56 A 59

29 (27): If I learn to speak English very well, it will help me get a good job

A 56 A 56

9 (9): You should not speak English until you can speak it correctly

SD 55 SD 43

Table 5: Beliefs about foreign language aptitude


30 (32): People who can speak more than one foreign language are intelligent people

NDoA 41 A 38

2 (2): Some people are born with a special ability which helps them learn a foreign language

A 61 A 45

19 (22): Males are better than females at learning English

NDoA 34 SD 39

11 (29): People who are good at math and science are good at learning English

D 50 D 50

10 (10): It’s easier to learn another foreign language if you already know one foreign language

A 44 A 40

8 (8): It’s necessary to know English culture in order to speak English

A 39 A 58

24 (31): I would like to speak English so I can learn more about English people

D 39 A 49

Table 6: Beliefs in formal structural studies


23 (20): Learning English is mostly a matter of its many grammar rules

D 38 A 34

17 (16): Learning English is mostly a matter of learning many new English vocabulary items

A 42 A 36

28 (26): Learning English is mostly a matter of translating English into Chinese

D 54 D 44

35 (-): Language learning involves a lot of memorization

A 59 - -

34 (28): It’s easy to read and write English than it is to speak it/listen to it and understand it

A 45 A 39

22 (19): If you are allowed to make mistakes, it will be hard to get rid of them later

A 57 D 31

25 (24): It’s easier to speak English than it is to understand it

A^˜* 35 D 49

444

Table 7: Other

Belief Statement #: Yang: %: Me: %:

1 (1): It’s easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language

A 56 A 48

3 (3): Some languages are easier to learn than others

A 59 A 54

14 (13): It’s ok to guess the meaning of an English word if you don’t know it

A 67 A 68

15 (14): If you spent 1 hour a day speaking/ learning English, how long would it take for you to become fluent? 1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1 to 2 years, 3 = 3 to 5 years, 4 = 5 to 10 years, 5 = you can’t learn English in 1 hour a day

D 39 D 46

26 (21): It’s important to practice in a language lab

A 59 A 54

27 (25): Learning English is different from learning other university subjects

A 55 A 49

445

APPENDIX 11

Table 1: Discovery strategies in interview data

#: Discovery strategies: where do you meet new

words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Reading material:

1 In books 12 -

2 In textbooks 64 55

3 In newspapers 32 -

4 In magazines 32 -

5 In extensive readers 4 -

6 In passages 4 -

7 In novels 16 -

8 In educational books 4 -

9 In vocabulary books 4 -

10 In other books 4 -

Listening material:

11 In listening resources 4 -

Exam material:

12 In tests 8 -

13 In exams 8 -

Learning context:

14 In school 4 -

15 In class 4 55

Productive context:

16 In conversation 4 15

Electronic and library resources:

17 On computer 4 -

18 Computer games 4 -

19 In libraries 4 -

20 On the internet 16 25

21 News websites 4 -

Media resources:

22 On TV 40 38

23 On radio 4 -

Public space:

24 In public 4 -

25 On trains 4 -

26 In hotels 4 -

Advertising and other media:

27 Restaurant menu 4 -

28 In advertising 16 -

29 In posters 4 -

446

Entertainment context:

30 In movies 36 38

31 In music 4 -

32 In songs 4 38

Universal context:

33 everywhere 4 -

Table 2: Determination strategies in interview data

#: Determination strategies: response to new

words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Cognitive:

1 Guess its meaning 32 48

2 Find its meaning 4 16

3 Find its Chinese meaning 12 41

4 Find its English meaning 4 28


6 Look up English dictionary 20 15

7 Look up Chinese dictionary 4 45


9 Look up English-Chinese dictionary 16 45

10 Look up Chinese-English dictionary 4 45

11 Look up pc/phone dictionary 4 -

12 Search the internet for it 4 -

Metacognitive:

13 Note its meaning 4 -

14 Note its background information 4 -

15 Note its history 4 -

16 Find its function 4 -

17 Know its usage 16 48

18 Notice its suffixes 4 15


19 Write it in a vocabulary notebook 4 -

20 Separate short from long words 4 -

Reading:

21 Read it 12 -

22 Try to read it 4 -

23 Learn how to read it 4 -

Rehearsal or practice:

24 Read it aloud 4 -

25 Say it aloud 4 25

26 Knows it pronunciation 20 39

27 Recite it 24 -

447

28 Recite its syllables 4 -

29 Recite it when meet again 4 -

Social strategies:

30 Use in it conversation 4 14

31 Ask a teacher about it 8 16

32 Ask classmates about it 8 16

33 Ask friends about it 4 -

34 Use it in daily life 4 -

Writing:

35 Write it down 20 23

36 Make a sentence with it 8 21

37 Connect sentences with it in 4 -

38 Make phrase with it 4 -

Cognitive II:

39 Use the context to learn it 4 34

40 Try to remember it 12 39

41 Memorize it 12 -

42 Translate it 4 41

43 Memorize new word’s context 4 35

44 Remember it through its context 4 -

45 Try to recognize it next time 4 63

46 Use imagery to learn it 4 18


47 Do exercises about it 4 25

Determination strategy:

48 Ignore it 8 3

Table 3: Practice strategies in interview data

#:

Consolidation strategies: How do you

practice new words? What strategies do you

use?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Writing:

1 Writing it down 20 23

2 Write it many times 4 46

3 Write for many days 4 -

4 Making phrases 4 -

5 Making sentence 12 21

6 Write composition 4 -

Metacognitive:

7 Knowing usage 4 48


448

8 Vocabulary notebook 4 30

9 Diary 4 -


10 Doing exercises 12 25

11 Using examples 4 31

12 With spelling 16 38

Reading:

13 Reading it 8 -

14 Reading them again 4 24

15 Reading paragraph with new word 4 -

16 Read it while I write it 4 -

17 Reading books 4 -

18 Reading English books 4 -

19 Repeat read word lists 8 -

20 Vocabulary book 20 26

Determination strategy II:

21 Look for root word 4 15

22 Looking at it 4 40



25 Know its meaning (first) 4 -

26 Know its Chinese meaning 4 41

27 Remember English/Chinese meanings 4 35

28 Guessing meaning 4 48

Strategic:

29 Reviewing for exams 8 -

Metacognitive II:

30 Noting sentence context 4 -

31 Noting usage 4 48

32 Noticing synonyms & comparing 4 20

33 With grammar 4 35

34 Studying 4 -

Cognitive III:

35 Trying to remember 4 39

36 Memorizing words 20 -

37 Learning high frequency words 4 -

38 Memorizing suffixes 4 24

39 Memorizing sentences 4 -

40 Using imagery (in the mind) 4 18

41 Drawing pictures 4 4

42 Repeating new words 12 25

449

43 Knowing its phonetic symbols 4 -

44 Its pronunciation 8 39

45 By reciting 28 -

46 Saying aloud 8 25

47 Reciting sentences 4 -

48 Remember it by its pronunciation 4 -

Listening:

49 Listening to new words 20 11

50 Listen to pronunciation 4 11

51 Imitating audio 4 -

52 Through dictation 8 -

Social strategies:

53 Practicing with classmates 16 15

54 Talk about it 4 -

Productive strategies:

55 Sing along to a song 4 38

56 Watch and recite lyrics 4 -

57 Using in essays 12 -

58 Using in class 4 -

59 Using in dialogues 4 -

60 Using in life 4 -

Non-practice:

61 By not using 4 -

62 Leaving it alone 4 3

Table 4: Memorization strategies in interview data

#: Consolidation strategies: How do you

memorize new words?

Interview

percentages

Questionnaire

percentages

Memorization strategy:

1 By looking at the word many times 4 40

Memorization:

2 By following the rules of memorization 4 -

3 By memorizing 8 -

4 By memorizing frequently 4 -

5 By remembering it 4 -

6 By memorizing high frequency words 4 -

7 By memorizing sentences 8 -

Cognitive:

8 By knowing phonetics 4 -

9 By pronunciation 28 -

10 By reciting 24 25

450

11 By reciting many times 4 -

12 By reciting in my head 4 -

13 By reciting in class 4 -

14 By reciting sentences 8 -

15 By imaging new word 4 18

16 By connecting with Chinese meaning 4 41

17 By linking known words 4 33

18 By constructing meronyms 4 -

19 By memorizing large chunks of textbooks 4 -

20 By using flash cards 4 13

21 By using a vocabulary book 4 35

Determination strategies:

22 By guessing meaning 4 48

23 By look up dictionary 12 -

24 By look up internet dictionary 4 -

Cognitive II:

25 By thinking about meaning 4 -

26 By learning its spelling 8 38

27 By knowing its part of speech 4 35

28 By learning its suffixes 8 20

29 By learning synonyms 4 20

30 By noticing similarity 4 33

31 By knowing how to read it 4 -

Reading:

32 By reading it while I write it 4 -

33 By reading 12 -

34 By reading aloud 4 -

35 By reading many times 16 -

36 By reading books 4 -

Cognitive III:

37 By learning roots 4 24

38 By learning affixes 4 24

39 By learning antonyms 8 20

Writing:

40 By writing down 52 -

41 By writing down many times 4 46

42 By making sentences 16 21

43 By remembering through grammar 4 -

Cognitive IV:

44 By learning usage 8 48

45 By studying example sentences 4 31

451

46 By doing exercises 8 25

47 By repetition 20 -

48 By reviewing for exams 8 -

49 By answering questions 8 -

Rehearsal:

50 By using it immediately 4 -

Discovery strategy:

51 By finding new words in newspapers 4 -

Listening strategies:

52 By listening to new words 4 11

53 By dictation 4 -

Social strategy:

54 By asking others 4 16

55 By practicing with classmates 4 15

Strategic:

56 By thinking in English 4 33

57 By paying more attention next time 4 -

Table 5: How would you rate your English competence?

#: Belief statements: Interview

percentages

BALLL

percentages

CCL

percentages

1 just so so 4 - -

2 medium 52 (60) 61

3 average 4 - -

4 poor 28 - -

5 bad 4 - -

6 not sure 4 - -

7 through exams 4 - -

Table 6: What makes a good teacher of English?


percentages

BALLL

percentages

CCL

percentages

Personality traits:

1 apologizes when makes a mistake 4 - -

2 isn't serious 4 - 39

3 interested in his/her job 4 - -

4 a friend of students 4 - 54

5 often chats with students 4 - -

6 loves students 8 - -

7 passionate about teaching English 4 - -

452

8 loves his job 4 - -

9 careful 4 - -

10 open 4 - -

11 considerate 4 - -

12 should love English 4 - -

13 has good relationships with students 4 - -

14 friendly 8 - -

15 patient 16 - -

16 hard-working 4 - -

17 responsible 20 - -

18 humorous 16 - -

19 encourages enthusiasm for English 4 - -

20 inspires students 4 - -

21 passionate about English 4 - -

22 cares for students 8 - -

23 has nice/good personality 8 - -

24 has a nice character 4 - -

25 responsible for students’ lives 4 - -

26 devoted to teaching English 4 - -

27 enthusiastic about English 4 - -

28 good at English 4 - -

29 a leader 4 - -

Other traits:

30 knows much 4 - -

31 knows the international situation 4 - -

32 allows cool down time 4 - -

33 helps shy students 4 - -

34 helps students pass tests 12 - 26

35 helps students remember words 4 - -

36 helps students enjoy English 8 - -

37 helps students with their English 4 - 41

38 teaches English less rigidly 4 - -

39 teaches English less seriously 4 - -

40 teaches how to be a person 4 - -

41 gets students to like English 4 - -

42 gets students to learn English 4 - -

43 gets students to learn more knowledge 4 - -

44 enlightens students 4 - -

45 meets students’ needs 4 - -

46 understands students 12 - -

47 is logical 4 - -

453

48 good at managing classroom 4 - -

49 makes students interested in English 4 - -

50 makes English interesting 4 - -

51 makes English sound beautiful 12 - -

52 makes English attractive 4 - -

53 makes classes interesting 8 - -

54 makes students good at English 4 - -

55 makes students love the class 4 - -

56 doesn't teach only for exams 4 - -

57 shares English learning experience 4 - -

Teacher qualities: -

58 tries to answers students questions 4 - -

59 understands textbooks 8 - -

60 has standard English 4 - -

61 has good English pronunciation 12 - -

62 speaks fluent English 4 - -

63 has no accent 4 - -

64 has competence in the 4 skills 4 - -

65 has good English skills 8 - -

66 has high level of English 12 - -

67 has English competence 4 - -

68 has knowledge of English 32 - -

69 knows English culture 12 - -

70 knows English habits 4 - -

71 knows a lot about English 4 - -

72 knows much vocabulary 4 - -

73 is knowledgeable 4 - 52

74 is a skilful teacher 4 - -

75 uses professional skills 8 - -

76 uses efficient teaching methods 4 - -

77 has good teaching skill 12 - -

78 has good teaching method 8 - -

79 has good teaching technique 8 - -

80 knows grammar 4 - -

Teaching tools:

81 uses multimedia 4 - -

82 uses movies 4 - -

83 uses dialogue 8 - -

84 uses songs 4 - -

85 uses easy words 4 - -

What the teacher should teach:

454

86 teaches culture 12 - -

87 teaches students how to learn 4 - -

88 teach useful skills 4 - -

89 teaches student to learn fast 4 - -

90 teaches more vocabulary 4 - -

91 teaches useful knowledge 4 - -

92 teaches real life English 4 - -

93 teaches news 4 - -

94 teaches history 4 - -

95 teaches sentences 4 - -

96 teaches grammar 12 - -

97 teaches listening skill 4 - -

98 teaches the four skills 4 - -

99 teaches comparative English/Chinese 4 - -

100 teaches how to use English 4 - -

101 teaches socio-pragmatic English 4 - -

102 teaches for communication 4 - -

Table 7: What is involved in learning another language?


percentages

BALLL

percentages

CCL

percentages

1 the same as learning Chinese 4 - -

2 alphabet 16 - -

3 phonetic symbols 12 - -

4 words 44 - -

5 phrases 4 - -

6 sentences 16 - -

7 grammar 44 - -

8 language structure 4 - -

9 passages 8 - -

10 writing English 24 - -

11 speaking English 28 - -

12 pronunciation 32 - -

13 culture 56 - -

14 the four skills 4 - -

15 reading English 16 - -

16 usage 8 - -

17 rhetorical devices 4 - -

18 pure linguistics 8 - -

19 listening in English 12 - -

20 thinking style 4 - -

455

21 history 16 - -

22 learning dialogues 4 - -

23 learning to communicate 8 - -

24 the same as learning Japanese 4 - -

25 the same as learning French 8 - -

26 not sure 12 - -

27 different from learning Chinese 4 - -

456

457

APPENDIX 12

Participant information sheets for Chinese English Majors [for the multi-questionnaire]

Project title: Vocabulary learning strategies: one of the ways Chinese English Majors cognitively orient

themselves to the task of learning English vocabulary

To: Chinese English Majors

Phase: one

My name is Robert Easterbrook. I am a student at the University of Canberra, Australia, enrolled in a

higher degree by research program (doctorate) in the Faculty of Arts and Design. I am conducting research

for my doctoral thesis. My research focuses on vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language

and language learning. It is not my intention to evaluate your learning and beliefs, as in a test. My intention

is to understand what you do when you learn English vocabulary, and understand what you believe about

language and how to learn it. The information you give me will help me understand your way of learning

English vocabulary, as well as understand your beliefs about language and language learning.

You are a student of English, so I am inviting you to help me with my research. I will ask you to complete

a long questionnaire, which will take you about between 30 and 50 minutes to complete. I will also ask you

to complete a think-aloud, a written diary, and an interview. You are free to choose to participate in any or

all of these parts, the choice is yours. However, I really would like you to do the questionnaire first then

choose one or all the other parts to do. Each activity you do will be talked about in detail in a moment but

separately as part of this information briefing session. However, your help is voluntary. And that means

you can stop helping me at any time during the research activity before 31st July 2010. You need not give

me a reason nor will I question you about your decision to stop helping me.

All your names and information will be kept confidential. No one except myself will have access to the

information you give me. Neither your name nor the name of your school / college / university will be

mentioned when I write about your responses in my doctoral thesis. The head of your school / college /

university has been informed of my research and has agreed to let me ask you to help me and agreed to let

you help me.

Participant Information Sheet continued…

Project title: Vocabulary learning strategies: one of the ways Chinese English Majors cognitively orient

themselves to the task of learning English vocabulary


Phase: two

1. To better understand what you do when you learn vocabulary, as well as understand what you believe

about language and how to learn it, I would like you to complete a survey / questionnaire. The survey /

questionnaire has five parts: Part A will ask you for some personal information; Part B will ask you about

your English vocabulary learning and how you do it; Part C will ask you about your general beliefs about

language and language learning; Part D will ask you about your beliefs about language and language

learning because you are Chinese and may have different beliefs about this subject compared to people

from other cultures; Part E will ask you about your knowledge of English vocabulary. The purpose of this

vocabulary test is simply to know how much English vocabulary you actually know, but not to evaluate

you.

458

2. To better understand what you really do when you learn vocabulary, I would like you to do two activities

when you actually learn English vocabulary during the semester. The first activity I will ask you to do a

think-aloud and the second activity I will ask you to do is write a diary. A think-aloud is to speak aloud

what you are doing in your head when you learn a new word, either when you first meet it (see it or hear it)

or what you do with it after you have met it. You will complete a short training session on how to do the

think-aloud and diary, and will be take you about 15 to 20 minutes. You can do it immediately after the

information briefing session or at a time that is good for you. I will give you some questions to help you as

you do this activity. However, I would like you to record yourself speak aloud. If you have a cell phone it

will be very easy for you to record yourself speak aloud. A brief explanation is provided next. Please

remember that your help is voluntary and you can stop helping me at any time during the think-aloud and

written diary activity if you feel uncomfortable doing them.

I will briefly explain what you do when you do the think-aloud activity. When you do the think-aloud I

would like you to say what you are doing in your head when you meet a new word. I want you to tell me

how you learn the new word. I want you to answer these questions as you do the activity: How long do you

look at the word when you meet it? What is the first thing you notice about it? Do you think about its

‘sound’ first or think about its spelling? Do you think about its parts, how the word is made? Do you try to

connect it in your mind to something else you know or just try to memorize it? If this isn’t completely clear

now it will be after the after you have had some training, which I’ll explain more about in a moment.

Writing a diary is the second activity. Getting you to write a vocabulary-learning diary will help me learn

even more about what you do when you learn English vocabulary. It will help you too. It will help you say

more about what you do when you met a new word and how you learn it. So what you will do is, after you

record yourself speak aloud, write about it in a diary. Writing about it will help you say more about it since

you will have taken some time to think about what you did.

Lastly, to help me to better understand what you do when you learn English vocabulary, I would like you

to email me your think-aloud recordings and written diary entries. Using your cell phone you can easily

record yourself speaking aloud; just speak as if you are speaking to me. For example, before you start

speaking, tell me the date and then speak about the vocabulary you will begin learning at that moment. I

will give you an email address to send your audio recordings and written diary entries to once you have

decided you want to do these activities. I would like you to send me your recordings and written diary

entries as regularly as possible, say every few days. I would like you to do this until the day before your

exam.

3. In order to better understand your responses on the survey / questionnaire and what you say in your

recordings and your written diary, I would like to interview you at the end of the semester (before you rush

off home for the summer holiday). The time for the interview will depend on you, of course. When you

feel the best time to do the interview has arrived (after your exam), please email me and tell me the best

time for the interview and we will arrange a time together. The interview will not last longer than an hour,

but it will be recorded, with your permission.

In short, all the information you give me (i.e. personal information, survey / questionnaire responses,

think-aloud recordings and written diary entries, will be summarized and presented to you (when

summarization is complete) so that you can review it for any errors and make corrections to it before it is

presented in my thesis. You don’t have to if you don’t want to; it is just a suggestion. Please express your

interest in doing this by leaving your email address in the space provided at the bottom of the Informed

Consent Form you will sign before beginning your participation the research project.

All the information you give me will be stored in a locked cupboard, or on a password protected computer

or data storage disk, during the time the research project is being conducted. Neither your name nor the

name of your school / college / university will be mentioned in my doctoral thesis. The head of your school

/ college / university has been informed of the research and has given permission for it to be conducted.

However, your help is voluntary. And that means you can stop helping me at any time during the research

activity before 31st July 2010. You need not give me a reason nor will I question you about your decision to

stop helping me.

459

Thank you very much for your time and help with my research project. If you have any questions or wish

to know more, please contact me or my supervisor:

Robert Easterbrook

Faculty of Arts and Design

University of Canberra

Canberra, Australia

Ph: +61 02 6201 5656

Cell: +61 0404770023

Email:

[email protected]

My chair of the supervisory committee:

Dr. Elke Stracke

Faculty of Art and Design


Canberra, Australia

Phone: +61 02 6201 2492

Email: [email protected]

This research activity was approved by the University of Canberra Human Research Ethics

Committee on (Date) for a period of three years from (date). Reference: (number)

460

461

APPENDIX 13

Participant information sheets for Chinese English Majors [for the interviews]

Project title: The process of English vocabulary learning in China


Phase: Interview

My name is Robert Easterbrook. I am a student at the University of Canberra, Australia, enrolled in a higher

degree by research program (doctorate) in the Faculty of Arts and Design. I am conducting research for my

doctoral thesis. My research focuses on the process of English vocabulary learning in China. I will gather

information on vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language and language learning. It is not my

intention to evaluate your learning and beliefs, as in a test. My intention is to understand what you do when you

learn English vocabulary, and understand what you believe about language and how to learn it. The information

you give me will help me understand your way of learning English vocabulary, as well as understand your

beliefs about language and language learning.

You are a student of English, so I am inviting you to help me with my research. I will ask you to answer some

questions which will take you about one to two hours to complete. However, your help is voluntary. And that

means you can stop helping me at any time during the research activity before 31st July 2013. You need not give

me a reason nor will I question you about your decision to stop helping me.

Your name and information will be kept confidential. No one except myself will have access to the information

you give me. Neither your name nor the name of your school / college / university will be mentioned when I

write about your responses in my doctoral thesis.

The time for the interview will depend on you, of course. When you feel the best time to do the interview has

arrived (after your exam), please email me and tell me the best time for the interview and we will arrange a time

together. The interview will not last longer than two hours, but it will be recorded, with your permission.

In short, all the information you give me in the interview will be summarized and presented to you (when

summarization is complete) so that you can review it for any errors and make corrections to it before it is

presented in my thesis. You don’t have to if you don’t want to; it is just a suggestion.

All the information you give me will be stored in a locked cupboard, or on a password protected computer or

data storage disk, during the time the research project is being conducted

Thank you very much for your time and help with my research project. If you have any questions or wish to

know more, please contact me or my supervisor:

Robert Easterbrook

Faculty of Arts and Design

Room: 19 Building 20


Canberra, Australia

Cell: +61 0404770023


My chair of the supervisory committee:

Dr. Eleni Petraki

Faculty of Art and Design


Canberra, Australia

Phone: +61 02 6201 5219


This research activity was approved by the University of Canberra Human Research Ethics Committee on

(Date) for a period of three years from (date). Reference: (number)

462

463

APPENDIX 14

Informed Consent for Chinese English Majors [for the multi-questionnaire]

I _______________________ have read the Information Sheet concerning the research project and

understand what it is about. All my questions have been satisfactorily answered. I understand I can get

more information about the project if I wish.

I know that:

1. my participation in the research project is voluntary

2. I can stop helping at any time without a reason or be questioned about my decision to stop helping

3. the information obtained about me (i.e. the personal information, survey / questionnaire responses,

think-aloud recordings, diary entries, and interview recordings) will be stored in a lockable cupboard or on

password secure data storage disk.

4. this research involves me completing a long survey / questionnaire, completing two activities (i.e. think-

aloud and written diary), and participating in an interview. And that if the information being obtained

makes me feel hesitant or uncomfortable, I can refuse to give information or participate in the research

project.

5. my responses on the survey / questionnaire, the think-aloud recordings and the diary entries, and the

interview responses will be summarized and presented in a doctoral thesis, and a copy of it will be

available in Harbin University library but that my name and the name of my school / college / university

will not be mentioned in the doctoral thesis.

I therefore agree to take part in this research project.

Signature: _______________________ [Chinese characters]

________________________ [Chinese pinyin]

Date:__________________

If you are interested in receiving a brief summary of my research report, which I will email to you, please

leave your email address in the space below:

Email:

464

465

APPENDIX 15

Informed Consent for Chinese English Majors [for the interviews]

I _______________________ have read the Information Sheet concerning the research project and

understand what it is about. All my questions have been satisfactorily answered. I understand I can get

more information about the project if I wish.

I know that:

1. my participation in the research project is voluntary

2. I can stop helping at any time without a reason or be questioned about my decision to stop helping

3. the information obtained about me in the interview will be stored in a lockable cupboard or on password

secure data storage disk.

4. this research involves me completing a one to two hour interview. And that if the information being

obtained makes me feel hesitant or uncomfortable, I can refuse to give information or participate in the

research project.

5. my responses in the interview responses will be summarized and presented in a doctoral thesis, but that

my name and the name of my school / college / university will not be mentioned in the doctoral thesis.

I therefore agree to take part in this research project.

Signature: _______________________ [Chinese characters]

________________________ [Chinese pinyin]

Date:__________________

If you are interested in receiving a brief summary of my research report, which I will email to you, please

leave your email address in the space below:

Email:

466

467

APPENDIX 16 Permission to Conduct Research

Documents

The process of vocabulary learning: Vocabulary learning ... · PDF fileThe process of vocabulary learning: Vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language and language learning