Tran Thi Hong Phuc
Inspection and Legal Department, Vietnam Aviation Academy (VAA), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Email: [email protected]
Abstract: This study aims to clarify the understanding and preferred use of vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) among undergraduate non-English majors at Vietnam Aviation Academy (VAA) within the context of ESP reading. Data is collected through two questionnaires: the first (based on Gu and Johnson's VLSQ, 1996) surveys 90 students on their application of VLSs when learning ESP reading materials, and the second explores students' attitudes towards VLSs. In-depth interviews with 10 students selected via convenience sampling will provide qualitative data to clarify and enrich the quantitative findings. This study approaches VLSs according to Gu and Johnson's definition (1996, p. 669): 'a wide spectrum of strategies used as part of an ongoing process of vocabulary learning'.
Keywords: Undergraduate Non-English majors, ESP reading vocabulary learning, Vocabulary learning strategies, Vietnam Aviation Academy
1. Introduction
In the context of globalization, English has become the predominant language for international communication, playing a crucial role in various domains such as business, education, tourism, and science and technology. Consequently, universities are increasingly emphasizing the enhancement of English proficiency, particularly in English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Dudley-Evans (1998) defines ESP as methodologies and activities tailored to meet the learning needs of students in specialized fields. ESP courses equip students with the necessary knowledge and professional skills for future success. However, mastering ESP vocabulary remains a challenge for many students, necessitating targeted investment in specialized areas after acquiring a basic vocabulary of 2000-3000 words.
Research on vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) is pivotal in enhancing students' learning effectiveness. The selection and application of appropriate VLS enable learners to be more proactive in vocabulary acquisition, while also developing other language skills such as reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Additionally, identifying key vocabulary types and effective learning methods is a critical factor.
At the Vietnam Aviation Academy (VAA), English plays a vital role in training high-quality human resources for the transportation industry. ESP courses such as English for Translation and Interpretation, English for Teaching, and English for Transportation (TET) cater to the diverse needs of students. Among these, TET is considered one of the most important courses, equipping students with the knowledge and skills to use English in the field of transportation. However, the use of ESP vocabulary in the TET course still has limitations, requiring further research and improvement.
This study focuses on surveying the ESP vocabulary learning strategies of non-English major students at VAA, based on the model of Gu and Johnson (1996). The aim of the study is to identify the most and least commonly used VLS by students, and to assess students' attitudes towards the use of these VLS in ESP classes. The main research questions include:
1) What vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) do non-English major students at VAA employ?
2) What are the attitudes of students towards the use of these vocabulary learning strategies in ESP classes at VAA?"
2. Research methodology
2.1. Research site and Participants
Research site: The English Language Program at the university level at Vietnam Aviation Academy (VAA).
Research Participants: Fortunately, 90 undergraduate Vietnam Aviation Academy (VAA) students were chosen to participate in this study. Ninety-one students, ranging in age from eighteen to twenty-four, were involved in the study; 57 (63.3%) were female students and 33 (36.7%) were male. They had Studied English as a second language for at least five years
2.2. Research instruments
This study employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data through two sets of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to collect data. Mixed methods enable the collection of deep and comprehensive insights while overcoming the limitations of individual methods. The questionnaires use both closed-ended and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions assess the level of use of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS), with some studies using a 5-point Likert scale to gather more detailed information. Open-ended questions investigate students' perceptions of English language vocabulary learning strategies. Some studies use the VLSQ (Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire) adapted from Schmitt (1997) or Bennett (2006), and questions may be adapted to fit specific contexts. Reliability is assessed using Cronbach's alpha, with values typically above 0.80, indicating high internal consistency. The validity of pre- and post-tests, questionnaires, and interviews is confirmed by experts. The questionnaires may be conducted directly in the classroom or sent to students online, with completion time varying depending on the type of question. Semi-structured interviews are conducted one-on-one to gather detailed information about students' strategy use and motivation, as well as detailed information about their answers in the questionnaire. Other tools include pre- and post-tests to assess changes in vocabulary knowledge before and after the application of vocabulary learning strategies, and classroom observations to gather information about students' use of VLS.
In summary, the study uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools to gain a comprehensive view of students' use of vocabulary learning strategies, while ensuring the reliability and validity of the data collected.
2.3. Procedures for data collection and analysis
2.3.1. Procedures for data collection
2.3.2. Data analysis procedures
Quantitative Data: SPSS version 27.0 was used to analyze questionnaire data collected via a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, standard deviation) were used . Mean scores were interpreted to determine agreement levels .
Qualitative Data: Interview recordings and notes were analyzed. Data was transcribed, translated (if necessary, like from Vietnamese to English), and classified. Content analysis was conducted in three stages: coding interviewees, selecting categories/subcategories, and ensuring reliability/validity by returning transcripts for verification and using external raters .
Mixed-Methods Integration: Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to answer research questions .
Instruments & Analysis by Research Question:
(a) VLS used by non-English majors: Questionnaire 1 and semi-structured interviews were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis .
(b) Student attitudes toward VLS in ESP class: Questionnaire 2 and semi-structured interviews were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis .
Some studies also used Cronbach's alpha to test reliability.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Results
Studies often integrate quantitative data from surveys and questionnaires with qualitative data from interviews to comprehensively answer research questions. Typically, quantitative data is presented first, followed by qualitative data to further elaborate on the findings.
Quantitative data utilizes descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, and when a Likert scale is employed, results are presented as average values for each option. Statistical tests, including t-tests, ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Spearman correlation, are used to identify differences or relationships between variables, with test results like p-values and degrees of freedom being reported. Tables are used to summarize statistical results, including means, standard deviations, and p-values.
Qualitative data involves content/thematic analysis, where interview data is analyzed to identify key themes and subthemes. Direct quotations from interviews illustrate and support these themes, often translated into English if necessary. Interview participants are often coded to ensure anonymity. Results are presented by research question, with quantitative results presented first, supplemented by qualitative findings from interviews.
Research question 1: ABOUT STUDENTS’ USE OF VLSs
3.1.1. Beliefs about vocabulary learning
According to Gu’s questionnaire, the first section is about the “beliefs about vocabulary learning”. In the current study, this section includes 11 items, and the student's responses. The results are listed by the means of the items in the section from high to low.
“Beliefs about vocabulary learning” that were presented in Gu’s original VLS questionnaire and were adopted in the current survey of the VLSs used by VAA students. It is obvious that among the items in this section, “going over the new words” (M = 4.71, SD = 0.456) had the highest mean score, followed by “Memorizing specific words” (M = 4.64, SD = 0.481). The other mean score was “Reading to understand the meaning of the words” (M = 4.64, SD = 0.481). Then came “Reading extensively to improve vocabulary” (M = 4.62, SD = 0.728), followed by “using the words” (M = 4.60, SD = 0.493) and “knowing dictionary definition” (M = 4.39, SD = 0.490). “Focusing new usage and meaning” (M = 4.36, SD = 0.692), followed by “Recalling definition to understand the situation” (M = 4.22, SD = 0.715). “Repetition is the most efficient way to remember words” (M = 4.12, SD = 0.819). “Memorizing word lists” is the most effective way to recall words (M = 4.09, SD = 0.843) and the lowest mean score was “Repetition” (M = 4.04, SD = 0.806). These are generally good methods for learning new lexical elements.
3.1.2 Vocabulary learning strategies
As presented in the literature review and particularly in the conceptual framework, Gu’s questionnaire of VLSs is classified into four main categories, namely metacognitive, cognitive, memory, and activation strategies. In each category, there are sub-categories. The following section presents the results of the descriptive statistics which cover the Mean (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) of each sub-category of each group.
Metacognitive Strategies
Based on the descriptive statistical results, the metacognitive strategies used by participants are ranked from highest to lowest mean score as follows: "Concentrating on things related to exams" (M = 4.66, SD = 0.478), "Taking note of words that seem important" (M = 4.64, SD = 0.481), "Searching for words that I am interested in" (M = 4.61, SD = 0.490), "Understanding which terms are crucial for me to learn" (M = 4.42, SD = 0.497), "Understanding what indications I should use to guess the meaning of a particular word" (M = 4.38, SD = 0.488), "Considering my progress in vocabulary learning" (M = 4.28, SD = 0.671), and "Trying to find out everything I can about the new words I learn" (M = 4.24, SD = 0.632). Overall, these strategies suggest effective methods for learning new lexical items.
Cognitive Strategies
Based on the descriptive statistical results, cognitive strategies are categorized into three groups: guessing strategies, dictionary strategies, and note-taking strategies.
Guessing Strategies: Within this group, "Determining the meaning of a word by assessing its word structure (prefix, root, and suffix)" (M = 4.74, SD = 0.439) is the most frequently used. This is followed by "Guessing the meaning and then looking it up in the dictionary" (M = 4.63, SD = 0.485) and "Considering the part of speech of the new word" (M = 4.43, SD = 0.780). Less frequently used strategies include "Avoiding words that I don't understand" (M = 4.30, SD = 0.726), "Using my understanding of the topic to guess the meaning of the word," and "Looking for alternatives and trying again" (both with M = 4.29, SD = 0.797 and 0.658, respectively). The least used strategy is "Guessing based on experience and common sense" (M = 4.14, SD = 0.758).
Dictionary Strategies: "Using a bilingual dictionary" (M = 4.62, SD = 0.488) is the most popular strategy, followed by "Using an English dictionary" (M = 4.60, SD = 0.493). "Using the dictionary to look up the meaning of a word" has a lower mean score (M = 4.21, SD = 0.800). The least used is "Using the dictionary to determine the word's grammatical patterns" (M = 3.99, SD = 0.742).
Note-taking Strategies: "Using a vocabulary notebook to write down new words" (M = 4.46, SD = 0.551) is the most favored strategy. Other popular strategies include "Just taking notes on the meaning of the word" (M = 4.41, SD = 0.495) and "Recording the synonym or antonym of the word" (M = 4.28, SD = 0.450). The least used strategy is "Writing down an English word and its English/Vietnamese equivalent" (M = 3.46, SD = 0.501).
Memory Strategies: "Creating a picture in my mind to help me remember a new word" (M = 4.81, SD = 0.394) and "Putting words that sound similar together to remember them" (M = 4.79, SD = 0.410) are the most frequently employed strategies. Other common strategies include "Repeating the word to remember it" (M = 4.67, SD = 0.474), "Remembering a new word" (M = 4.67, SD = 0.474), and "Memorizing commonly used roots and prefixes" (M = 4.64, SD = 0.481). Less used strategies are "Remembering new words" (M = 4.43, SD = 0.720), "Repeating the sound of a new word" (M = 4.39, SD = 0.698), "Analyzing it down into many sections (prefix, root, suffix)" (M = 3.47, SD = 0.502), and "Writing it down to remember the word" (M = 2.74, SD = 0.680). "Recording the word's synonyms or antonyms" is the least used (M = 2.61, SD = 0.648).
Activation Strategies: "Using the words I learned in everyday situations" (M = 4.71, SD = 0.456) and "Trying to use newly learned words in real situations" (M = 4.71, SD = 0.456) are the most preferred strategies. Other common strategies include "Using the words to remember the sentence" (M = 4.61, SD = 0.490) and "Using the words when speaking and writing" (M = 4.51, SD = 0.503). "I make up my sentences using the words I just learned" is the least used (M = 4.26, SD = 0.728).
Overall, the data suggests that metacognitive strategies are used the most, followed by cognitive, memory, and activation strategies.
Additionally, in-depth interviews with students revealed that they use a variety of learning strategies, including note-taking, metacognition, activation, and rehearsal. Students tend to use meaning-based methods, such as grouping, contextual clues, and keywords.
The questionnaire data reveals insights into students' attitudes toward Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLSs). The questionnaire was divided into three components: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral.
Cognitive Component: The students generally held positive attitudes, with strong agreement that VLSs assist in predicting word meanings (M = 4.64) and acquiring vocabulary (M = 4.64). They also agreed that VLSs aid in memorization (M = 4.39). The average mean for this component was 4.32.
Affective Component: Students showed positive attitudes, particularly enjoying VLS use during reading (M = 4.71) and finding it helpful to know VLS (M = 4.60). The average mean for this component was 4.41.
Behavioral Component: The data indicates strong agreement that students use VLSs when reading (M = 4.66) and to understand difficult texts (M = 4.64). They also encourage themselves to use a variety of VLSs (M = 4.61). The average mean for this component was 4.49.
Qualitative data supported the quantitative findings, revealing that students generally had positive attitudes towards the behavioral component. They used VLSs regularly when reading and encouraged themselves to utilize a variety of strategies. Students also found VLSs necessary for improving reading skills and acquiring new vocabulary. The affective component, such as enjoying using VLS during reading, was particularly favored.
3.2. Discussion
Based on the qualitative data, most students showed a strong understanding of VLSs, with 'guessing the meaning' and 'taking notes' being the most popular, and 'using acronyms' the least. Students preferred metacognitive strategies, possibly because they were more aware of them and could navigate their learning better with them. The emphasis on testing and assessments in Vietnamese universities may also contribute to the frequent use of metacognitive strategies related to testing understanding. Students also frequently adopted guessing strategies, indicating an ability to control their learning independently. However, students were unwilling to use ESP lexical elements in real-life conversations, limiting their practice outside the classroom.
4. Conclusion
Research Question 1: Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Students strongly agreed that "Cognitive strategies" (M = 4.42), "Metacognitive strategies" (M = 4.31), "Memory strategies" (M = 4.27), and "Activation strategies" (M = 3.71) assisted them in learning vocabulary.
Qualitative data indicated students used "cognitive strategies" the most, particularly for guessing meanings, acquiring a broad vocabulary, and memorizing new words. They found VLSs helpful for inferring meanings from context. Students also believed VLSs improved their performance in reading lessons and were useful for vocabulary acquisition, leading to immediate application of VLSs when encountering new vocabulary.
Students have a strong appreciation for cognitive strategies within VLSs. They reported that these strategies significantly support their ability to guess meanings, acquire extensive vocabulary, and memorize new words effectively. The overall sentiment is that VLSs are essential and highly beneficial for enhancing their vocabulary learning and reading comprehension.
Research Question 2: Attitudes toward the Use of VLS
Quantitative data from Questionnaire 2 revealed the highest positive response for the behavioral component (M = 4.49), followed by the affective component (M = 4.41) and the cognitive component (M = 4.32).
Qualitative data highlighted a strong positive response to the Cognitive Component of VLSs, aiding in guessing meanings, acquiring vocabulary, and memorization. Students emphasized the overall necessity and effectiveness of VLSs for better performance in reading lessons and vocabulary acquisition. They also reported consistently practicing VLSs.
Students showed a strong positive attitude towards using VLSs, with particular value placed on the behavioral and affective components.
Students’ responses showed that students had a strong positive response to the Cognitive Component of VLSs. Their feedback included: Guessing Meanings “VLSs assist me in guessing the meaning of new words in English texts” (S2). Acquiring Vocabulary “VLSs assist me in acquiring a broad vocabulary in the English reading class” (S4). Memorization “VLSs make it easier for me to memorize new English vocabulary” (S1). Students also emphasized the overall necessity and effectiveness of VLSs: “I believe VLSs enable me to do better in Reading lessons” (S3). “VLSs are extremely useful for acquiring new English vocabulary” (S2). “Using VLSs to guess new vocabulary in English reading materials helps me enhance my reading skills” (S7). “I always practice VLSs to learn new vocabulary in my English reading class” (S8). Students showed a strong positive attitude towards using VLSs, with particular value placed on the behavioral and affective components.
In summary, the first research question focuses on the cognitive component and its importance. The second research question includes insights into behavioral and affective components and cognitive aspects.
References
[1]. Baskin, S., Işcan, A., Karagöz, B., & Birol, G. (2017). The use of vocabulary learning strategies in teaching Turkish as a second language. Journal of education and practice, 8(9), 126-134.
[2]. Baskin, S., İscan, A., Karagoz, B., Birol, G. (2017). The use of vocabulary learning strategies in teaching Turkish as a second language. Journal of education and practice 8(9),126-134, available at www.iiste.org.pp
[3]. Duong, My Tham (2022). Insights into ESP vocabulary learning strategies used by Vietnamese tertiary students. Journal of language and education, 8(1), 38- 49. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.10924
[4]. Ghalebi, R., Sadighi, F., & Bagheri, M. (2020). Vocabulary learning strategies: A comparative study of EFL learners. Cogent Psychology, 7, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306.
[5]. Ghazal. L. (2007). Learning vocabulary in EFL contexts through vocabulary learning strategies. Novitas royal, 1(2), 84-91.
[6]. Gu, Y. (2013). Vocabulary learning strategies. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Blackwell publishing. https://doi. org/10.1002/ 9781405198431.wbeal1329
[7]. Gu, Y. (2018). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies for ESL learners. Studies in second language learning and teaching, 8(2), 325- 350. https://doi.org/10.14746/ ssllt.2018.8.2.7
[8]. Gou, Y. (2008). The role of vocabulary knowledge, syntactic awareness and meta-cognitive awareness in reading comprehension of adult English language learners.University of Florida.
[9]. Hu, M., & Nation, I. (2000). Vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a foreign language, 13(1), 403-430.
[10]. Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
…………………………………………………………………..
VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÁC CHIẾN LƯỢC TRONG HỌC TỪ VỰNG ESP
CỦA SINH VIÊN KHÔNG CHUYÊN ANH NGỮ Ở CẤP ĐỘ ĐẠI HỌC TẠI THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH.
Tran Thi Hong Phuc
Bộ phạn Thanh tra-Pháp chế Học viện Hàng không Việt Nam, Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, Việt Nam
Email: [email protected]
Tóm tắt: Nghiên cứu này hướng đến việc làm rõ mức độ hiểu biết và ưu tiên sử dụng các chiến lược học từ vựng (VLS) của sinh viên đại học không chuyên ngữ tại Học viện Hàng không Việt Nam (VAA) trong bối cảnh học đọc ESP. Dữ liệu được thu thập thông qua hai bảng hỏi, trong đó bảng hỏi thứ nhất (dựa trên VLSQ của Gu và Johnson, 1996) khảo sát 90 sinh viên về việc áp dụng VLS khi học giáo trình đọc ESP, và bảng hỏi thứ hai thăm dò thái độ của sinh viên đối với VLS. Phỏng vấn sâu với 10 sinh viên được chọn theo phương pháp thuận tiện sẽ cung cấp thông tin định tính, giúp làm rõ và sâu sắc hơn các kết quả định lượng. Nghiên cứu này tiếp cận VLS theo định nghĩa của Gu và Johnson (1996, tr. 669): “một loạt các chiến lược được sử dụng như một phần của quá trình học từ vựng liên tục”
Từ khóa: Sinh viên đại học không chuyên ngữ; Học từ vựng tiếng Anh chuyên ngành; Các chiến lược học từ vựng; Học viện Hàng không Việt Nam
