Extraversion and the Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies among

University EFL students in Mexico

Alfredo Marin-Marin

A Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

English Language Teaching
Department of Language and Linguistics
University of Essex

2005

Abstract

Several factors (e.g. age, sex, L1/L2, motivation, etc) inherent in the learner have been found to
account for the use or choice of language learning strategies. However, little research has been
done on the possible relationship between personality variables and the use of language learning
strategies. As a primary objective, this study purports to investigate extraversion (E) as a
personality variable and its relationship with the use of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS).
Similarly, the contribution of not only E, but also vocabulary proficiency (VP), university year of
study (Y) and gender (G) to the use of VLS was examined. Further explorations involved the
relationship between E and English academic achievement and E and VP. Last but not least, this
study aims to provide a picture of the frequency with which L2 learners use VLS regardless of E,
VP, Y, and G. The subjects were 150 EFL learners enrolled in a five-year English major at the
University of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Personality data were collected via the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire. The strategy data were gathered through a VLS questionnaire
emanating from a preliminary study and through semi-structured interviews. Language outcomes
were obtained via the Vocabulary Levels Tests (VLT) and end-of-semester English grades. Data
analysis included mean frequency ratings, simple correlations and stepwise multiple regression
analysis (MR). The results showed that E emerged as a positive predictor of social-discovery,
association, and some further-consolidation strategies, suggesting that more extraverted learners
tend to use such strategies more frequently than less extraverted learners. Nevertheless, no
relationship was found between E and guessing, dictionary use, note-taking, and repetition
strategies. The stepwise MR analysis of separate VLS showed that VP emerged as the most
frequent predictor of separate VLS (twenty-five items), followed by Y (thirteen items). E and G
were the least frequent predictors of VLS with only eleven items each. Interestingly, MR
analysis revealed that E remained as a better predictor of the three afore-mentioned strategy
categories. Furthermore, a negative relationship was observed between E and English academic
achievement, but no relationship was found between E and VP. All in all, using the dictionary to
check meaning(s) was the most frequently used VLS across the whole sample. A similar trend
was observed regarding guessing meaning from textual context, looking for opportunities to
meet new words, repeating words silently, associating L2 words with L1 words, and writing
English definitions. The least frequently used VLS included recording words on audiotapes,
keeping notes on electronic devices and using electronic dictionaries. In terms of VLS
categories, guessing and dictionary-use strategies were ranked with high frequency, whereas
note-taking was the least used category. In sum, although E did not emerge as a strong predictor
of VLS use, some pedagogical implications can be drawn. Nonetheless, further research needs to
be conducted in this realm.

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Mr. Philip J. Scholfield whose
unconditional guidance, teaching, and support made this dissertation possible. Also, I would like
to thank Dr. Jean-Marc Dewaele (external examiner) and Dr. Nigel Harwood (internal examiner)
for their useful comments and suggestions during the viva voce examination. I am grateful to Mr.
Steven McDonough for reading some earlier chapters.
Furthermore, I wish to extend my appreciation to my friends and colleagues for their
encouragement all through my studies at Essex University.
Last, but definitely not least, I am indebted to my sons Alfredo and Gabriel to whom this
dissertation is dedicated.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ i
Acknowledgments----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ii
Table of Contents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
List of Figures--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vi
List of Tables----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vii
List of Abbreviations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------viii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1

1.1 Background and relevance of the study ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

1.2 The context of the investigation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
1.3 Purpose and scope of the investigation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
1.4 An overview of the thesis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND ON PERSONALITY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

EXTRAVERSION -----------------------------------------------------------------------------14

2.1 Defining the construct of personality-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14

2.2 Overview of Personality Theories. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
2.2.1 Type and Trait Theories ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17
2.2.2 Situationist and interactionist views: criticisms of the trait theory. -----------------------------------------------25
2.3 The work of H. J. Eysenck.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
2.3.1 The dimensions of personality -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29
2.3.2 Eysencks biological view of extraversion. --------------------------------------------------------------------------33
2.3.2.1 Experimental evidence for Eysencks view of extraversion--------------------------------------------------36
2.3.3 Development of Eysencks personality tests. ------------------------------------------------------------------------44
2.4 Extraversion and education. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------46
2.4.1 Extraversion and general academic attainment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------47
2.4.2 Extraversion and second/foreign language learning-----------------------------------------------------------------50
2.4.2.1 Extraversion and language achievement/proficiency focus on product.----------------------------------52
2.4.2.2 Extraversion and language learning strategies focus on process.------------------------------------------63
2.5 Summary of the chapter ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69

CHAPTER 3

BACKGROUND ON LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES WITH SPECIAL

REFERENCE TO VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES-------------------71

3.1 Language learning strategies: definitions and taxonomies.----------------------------------------------------------71

3.1.1 Defining language learning strategies---------------------------------------------------------------------------------72
3.1.2 Main Language learning strategies classification systems ---------------------------------------------------------75
3.1.2.1 Naiman et als (1978) list of strategies and techniques -------------------------------------------------------75
3.1.2.2 Rubins (1981) strategy classification system------------------------------------------------------------------77
3.1.2.3 OMalley and Chamots (1990) strategy classification system ----------------------------------------------79
3.1.2.4 Oxfords (1990) strategy classification system ----------------------------------------------------------------83

iv
3.2 Factors related to language learning strategy use ---------------------------------------------------------------------86
3.2.1 Situational variables controlled in the study -------------------------------------------------------------------------87
3.2.2 Learner variables considered in the study ----------------------------------------------------------------------------91
3.3 Research on Vocabulary Learning Strategies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 102
3.3.1 Discovery strategies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103
3.3.1.1 Guessing strategies ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103
3.3.1.2 Skipping strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109
3.3.1.3 Dictionary use strategies. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111
3.3.1.4 Social-discovery strategies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 118
3.3.2 Note-taking strategies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 121
3.3.3 Memorisation strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125
3.3.2.1 Repetition strategies --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 125
3.3.2.2 Association strategies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 130
3.3.4 Further-consolidation strategies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 135
3.4 Summary of the chapter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 138

CHAPTER 4

THE PRELIMINARY STUDY ON VLS ----------------------------------------------- 139

4.1 Objectives----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 139

4.2 Participants --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 140
4.3 Instruments and procedure---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 141
4.4 Data analyses and development of the VLS-Q. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 144
4.4.1 The analysis of the questionnaire -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 144
4.4.2 The analysis of the interviews ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 149
4.5 Results and discussion of the research questions -------------------------------------------------------------------- 152
4.6 Summary of research questions and hypotheses of the main study------------------------------------------------ 160

CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY OF THE MAIN STUDY------------------------------------------- 167

5.1 Participants------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 167

5.2 Instruments------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 170
5.2.1 The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Revised Version (EPQ-R)-------------------------------------------- 170
5.2.2 The Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 173
5.2.3 Methods of strategy data collection used in the study.------------------------------------------------------------ 176
5.2.3.1 The learner interviews. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 178
5.2.3.2 The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLS-Q) --------------------------------------------- 179
5.3 Data collection procedures ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 181
5.4 Data analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 183

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION --------------------------------------------------------- 188

6.1 Vocabulary learning strategies: Frequencies ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 188

6.1.1 The most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies. -------------------------------------------- 189
6.1.2 Frequency of use of VLS by categories----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 194
6.1.3 Frequency of use within VLS categories --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 196
6.2 Extraversion and L2 outcomes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 214
6.2.1 Extraversion and English academic achievement ----------------------------------------------------------------- 216
6.2.2 Extraversion and English receptive vocabulary proficiency ----------------------------------------------------- 218
6.3 Extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies ------------------------------------------------------- 221
6.3.1 Extraversion and vocabulary learning strategies: overall and in categories------------------------------------ 222
6.3.2 Extraversion and separate vocabulary learning strategies -------------------------------------------------------- 227

v
6.4 Extraversion (E), vocabulary proficiency (VP), university year of study (Y), and gender (G) as predictors
of the use of vocabulary learning strategies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 231
6.4.1 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of guessing strategies ----------------------------------------- 233
6.4.2 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of skipping strategies------------------------------------------ 236
6.4.3 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of dictionary strategies---------------------------------------- 239
6.4.4 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of social-discovery strategies -------------------------------- 244
6.4.5 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of note-taking strategies -------------------------------------- 250
6.4.6 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of repetition strategies ---------------------------------------- 257
6.4.7 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of association strategies--------------------------------------- 260
6.4.8 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of further consolidation strategies --------------------------- 266
6.5 Qualitative differences between introverted and extraverted learners in the use of VLS. ------------------ 270
6.5.1 Case studies of selected language learners ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 272
6.5.1.1 The typical introverted L2 learner ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 273
6.5.1.2 The typical extraverted L2 learner----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 278
6.5.1.3 Discussion of case studies -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 285
6.6. Summary of the chapter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 289

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 290

7.1 Summary of major findings---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 290

7.2 General conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 305
7.3 Limitations of the study--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 310
7.4 Suggestions for further research ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 315
7.5 Pedagogical implications-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 317
References------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 322
Appendix A ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 339
Appendix B ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 341
Appendix C ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 342
Appendix D ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 343
Appendix E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 344
Appendix F----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 349
Appendix G ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 356
Appendix H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 357
Appendix I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 365
Appendix J ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 371
Appendix K ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 373
Appendix L ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 377
Appendix M---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 381

vi

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 The Predictor Variable Model for the use of VLS
Figure 2.1 The hierarchical nature of extraversion
Figure 5.1 English learning experience of all learners
Figure 6.1 The use of dictionaries among all learners
Figure 6.2 Frequency with which learners ask for Spanish translation and English definition
Figure 6.3 Frequency with which learners repeatedly handle information about new words
Figure 6.4 Distribution of Extraversion in the total sample
Figure 6.5 Extraversion and English academic achievement
Figure 6.6 Extraversion and receptive vocabulary proficiency
Figure 6.7 Extraversion and overall use of VLS
Figure 6.8 The use of bilingual dictionary across university years of study
Figure 6.9 Asking for L2 information across university year of study
Figure 6.10 Writing down new words on wall charts across university year of study
Figure 6.11 Recording and listening to words from tapes across university years of study

10
31
169
199
203
210
215
217
219
222
240
248
256
259

vii

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Differences in excitation, inhibition and arousal level of Is and Es
Table 2.2 Eysencks Personality Tests
Table 2.3 Characteristics of introversion and extraversion types
Table 3.1 Definitions of learning strategies
Table 4.1 Distribution of questionnaires and interviews across university year of study
Table 4.2 Sample notes taken from learner interviews.
Table 4.3 The most-reported VLS
Table 4.4 The least-reported VLS
Table 4.5 The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Categories
Table 4.6 Percentage of strategy use by categories
Table 5.1 Distribution of participants by university year of study and gender
Table 5.2 Results of the VLT for all learners
Table 5.3 Overall results of the VLT across years of study
Table 6.1 The ten most-frequently used VLS
Table 6.2 The ten least-frequently used VLS
Table 6.3 Frequency of strategy use in categories
Table 6.4 Summary of the use of guessing strategies by all subjects
Table 6.5 Summary of the use of dictionary strategies by all subjects
Table 6.6 Summary of the use of social-discovery strategies by all subjects
Table 6.7 Summary of the use of note-taking strategies by all subjects
Table 6.8 Summary of the use of repetition strategies by all subjects
Table 6.9 Summary of the use of association strategies by all subjects
Table 6.10 Summary of the use of further-consolidation strategies by all subjects
Table 6.11 Extraversion and VLS: overall and in categories
Table 6.12 Extraversion and the use of individual VLS
Table 6.13 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to VLS overall use
Table 6.14 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to guessing strategies
Table 6.15 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to skipping strategies
Table 6.16 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to dictionary use strategies
Table 6.17 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to social-discovery strategies
Table 6.18 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to note-taking strategies
Table 6.19 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to repetition strategies
Table 6.20 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to association strategies
Table 6.21 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to further consolidation strategies
Table 6.22 Distribution of interviewed learners and their performance

35
45
64
72
143
150
153
155
157
158
167
175
176
190
192
195
197
198
201
206
209
211
212
225
228
232
234
238
241
246
252
258
262
267
271

viii

List of Abbreviations
ACT
ADT
ANOVA
ANUIES
AR
ARAS
AR
BD
BICS
BLD
CALP
CBF
CC
DRAS
E
EEG
EFL
ELT
EPI
EPQ
EPQ-R
ES
Es
ESL
ESLAT
ESPQ
FCS
FD
FI
FL
G
GLL
GPA
GRS
IEA
IELTS
IN
IQ
Is
IT
KM
LLS
LTM
MBTI
MCHE
MD
MLAT
MLU

Adaptive Control of Thought

Action Decrement Theory
Analysis of Variance
National Association of Mexican Universities
Arithmetic Quotient
Ascending Reticular Activating System
Arousal Theory
Bilingual Dictionary
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
Bilingualised Dictionary
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
Cerebral Blood Flow
Classical Conditioning
Descending Reticular Activating System
Extraversion
Electroencephalograph
English as a Foreign Language
English Language Teaching
Eysenck Personality Inventory
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised
Express Scribe
Extraverts
English as a Second Language
English as a Second Language Achievement Test
Early School Personality Questionnaire
Further-Consolidation Strategies
Field-Dependence
Field Independence
Foreign Language
Gender
Good Language Learner
Grade Point Average
Galvanic Skin Response
International Evaluation of Achievement
International English Language Testing System
Introversion
Intelligence Quotient
Introverts
Inhibition Theory
Keyword Method
Language Learning Strategies
Long-Term Memory
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Ministry of Culture and Higher Education in Iran
Monolingual Dictionary
Modern Language Aptitude Test
Mean Length of Utterance

ix
MMQ
MPI
MR
OP
OQ
PET
RQ
SILL
SL
SMT
SPSS
TOEFL
UCLES
UQROO
VLS
VLS-Q
VLT
VP
WAV
Y

Maudsley Medical Questionnaire

Maudsley Personality Inventory
Multiple Regression
Operant Conditioning
Open Questionnaire
Positron Emission Tomography
Reading Quotient
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
Second Language
Short-Term Memory
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Test of English as a Foreign Language
University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate
University of Quintana Roo
Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
Vocabulary Levels Test
Vocabulary Proficiency
Windows Audio File (WAVe form audio format)
Year of Study in University

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter includes four brief sections designed to provide an overview of the present
study. The first section provides the background of the investigation (e.g. personality and
language learning strategies with emphasis on vocabulary learning strategies VLS) as well as
the relevance of the study. Section two touches on the setting of the investigation, especially the
nature of BA programmes in English Language Teaching (ELT) and other English majors in
Mexican universities, e.g. the curriculum, the teaching methods and the EFL environment. In
section three, the purpose and scope of the investigation are stated by considering its possible
teaching implications. Finally, section four describes the organisation of the six chapters that
comprise this thesis.
1.1 Background and relevance of the study
Research into the field of language learning strategies (LLS) has resulted in several
strategy classification systems (Naiman et al, 1978; Rubin, 1981; OMalley and Chamot, 1990;
Oxford, 1990). Concurrently, studies on more specific learning strategies for developing the socalled language skills have also increased in number, i.e., speaking (or communication), writing,
listening, and reading strategies (see McDonough, 1995, for a review on these strategies). One
important area that has received increasing attention is that of VLS, which has generated a series
of studies aimed at either describing learners strategic behaviour or training them on how to use
VLS more effectively (see 3.3). Furthermore, the attention given to VLS in applied linguistics
has been consistent with the increased importance ascribed to vocabulary in the last thirty years.
Notably, VLS have been explicitly and implicitly present in accounts both of general LLS and of
the strategies required for the different language skills (see 3.1.2). Interestingly, vocabulary-

2
related strategies have emerged as the most frequently used by ESL/EFL learners (Chamot,
1987).
Nonetheless, despite the importance of VLS, it seems that this area is still in an evolving
stage as compared with other aspects of applied linguistics. First of all, VLS classification
systems are scarce in the literature. In view of a lack of a VLS taxonomy, Schmitt (1997)
proposed his own developed on the basis of existing LLS taxonomies, especially that of Oxford
(1990). Other researchers have also come up with some sort of specific VLS inventories, for
example Ahmed (1988), Stoffer (1995), Gu and Johnson (1996), Nakamura (2000), Fan (2003),
and Gu (2003). However, it appears that Schmitts taxonomy has remained as a cornerstone of
later VLS inventories since it has been used by other researchers such as Jimenez-Catalan (2003)
who adopted it for her study on sex and VLS.

Personality and vocabulary learning strategies

Several learner factors have been found to be related to second language acquisition
(Oxford, 1989; Ellis, 1994). Among them, some personality characteristics have captured
researchers attention when attempting to explain variability in learners use of LLS (see 3.2).
One of the first attempts to examine personality characteristics in relation to second language
learning was made by Naiman et al (1978) in their good language learner study (see 2.4.2.1). It
was precisely extraversion, among others, that they considered as a personality characteristic
which might account for their criterion measures, i.e. language outcomes and class participation.
These researchers refer to three earlier studies in which sociability seemed to explain the extent
to which learners engaged in spoken activities in a French-as-a-second-language setting
(Pritchard, 1952). Similarly, Naiman et al briefly mentioned the study by Pimsleur et al (1966)
who used a scale of outgoingness, which can be considered as an extraversion trait; however, no

3
results were reported. Another researcher referred to by Naiman et al was Rubin (1975) who
published the characteristics of the good language learner.
Rubin (1975) initially identified seven characteristics of the good language learner (GLL).
Later on, Rubin and Thompson (1982) published what they considered the strategies to become a
more successful language learner, which are summarised as follows:

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

GLLs find their own way to learn. They pay attention to their own learning successes and those of others.
They experiment to see if some tasks are better accomplished through the eye, while others through the ear.
They choose the strategies that best work for them.
GLLs organise information about the language (e.g. pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar). They also
organise their own programme of study by establishing a regular schedule.
GLLs are creative as they know that language is creative too. They experiment with grammar rules, with
ways of using words, and with recurring patterns.
GLLs make their own opportunities to practise the language inside and outside the classroom. For example,
they perform every classroom activity, ask questions in the target language, and interact with native and
skilled speakers. They also listen to the language regularly, read, write, and rehearse in the foreign
language regularly.
GLLs learn to live with uncertainty. They avoid heavy reliance on a dictionary. They do not get flustered
when they do not understand what another person is saying to them.
GLLs use a variety of mnemonic devices such as rhyming, alliterations, associations of words with the
physical world, words with their functions, words with their opposites. They also learn classes of words,
group words by grammatical class, and associate words with context.
GLLs make errors work by considering them as potential sources of information and as ways of improving
their learning.
GLLs use their linguistic knowledge in L1 or knowledge of any other languages they have studied.
GLLs let context help them to comprehend the language. They pay attention to relationships between
individual words. They use phrase or sentence context as well as conversational context to derive meaning.
GLLs learn to make intelligent guesses.
GLLs learn some lines as wholes, e.g. idioms, proverbs, folk saying, parts of songs, poems, commercials,
etc. They also learn expressions from textbook dialogues.
GLLs learn formalised routines, e.g. phrases for beginning and ending conversations, phrases for
expressing attention and following conversations.
GLLs learn production techniques by using what they know, by paraphrasing. They use synonyms,
cognates, and gestures.
GLLs use different styles of speech, e.g. different forms of address and variation in general.

From the above characteristics, one might be tempted to associate such learners with some
personality traits, especially extraversion. For instance, in (4) and (12) learners may possess
certain extraversion traits that encourage them to look for opportunities to practise the language
in many social contexts and to develop L2 conversational skills. More importantly, in her 1975
study, Rubin succinctly states that good language learners are not often inhibited, are willing to
make mistakes and willing to appear foolish for the sake of communication. These observations

4
reinforce the idea that personality might related to use of LLS and by extension, to the use of
VLS (see 2.4.2.2). Furthermore, it is no coincidence that in some of the characteristics of the
GLL, strategic behaviour for learning vocabulary comes into play, e.g. (6) using mnemonics and
other memory strategies and (9) guessing via contextual clues. In sum, with these premises in
mind, we would hypothetically expect either a positive or negative relationship between
extraversion and VLS. More interestingly, to the best of our knowledge, this possible
relationship has not been examined. Therefore, our investigation should be considered essentially
exploratory in nature.
However, one may ask about the relevance of exploring the extent to which extraversion
can explain the use of VLS. The answer to this question seems to be simple and applicable to
language teaching. If it turned out to be substantially true that personality traits accounted for
VLS, then the following teaching implications would follow. First, by psychometrically
determining the personality traits of L2 learners, e.g. extraversion, teachers could predict the
frequency with which they might use certain learning strategies. Second, by knowing the
personality traits of L2 learners, teachers could implement strategy instruction programmes that
would best suit them in real life situations. In sum, personality should be taken into consideration
not only for strategy instruction but also for everyday classroom activities such as role-plays and
simulations in which individual differences in personality may play a part. Thus, in this study we
look forward to providing a full account of the relationship between extraversion and the use of
VLS. As a caveat, however, it should be admitted hitherto that extraversion has not been found
strongly related to second language acquisition and has been considered to be the unloved
variable in applied linguistic research (Dewaele and Furnham, 1999). Hence, we may obtain
similar results; that is, weak correlations as in the case of the research on personality conducted
by trait theorists (see 2.2 and 2.3).

5
In summarising this section, we can suggest that the relevance of our study is grounded in
its possible teaching implications as well as in the theoretical background it may contribute to.
Although no studies have specifically examined the relationship between learners degree of
extraversion and their VLS use, we think that research done on extraversion and language
learning may serve as a solid framework for the interpretation of our results. Even more
importantly, it can be suggested that the applicability of our research topic to the field of
language teaching seems to be consistent with what language teachers would expect from an
investigation of this nature. In the next section, we describe the context of the investigation,
which should be taken into account in any future research replication and for comparison with
other related studies.
1.2 The context of the investigation
Although in Mexico English is considered as foreign language, it has been officially
integrated into the educational system in Mexico, specifically at secondary and high-school
levels. The Ministry of Education1 (MoEd) has increasingly taken actions over the last ten years
to strengthen the role of English at higher educational levels by incorporating it into the
curriculum of undergraduate programmes (non-English majors) either as an optional or a
compulsory course. The MoEd has also launched undergraduate programmes intended for those
in-service teachers of English who have teaching experience but lack the corresponding
qualification. While completing such programmes teachers receive the necessary training to
implement innovative teaching methods. In 1996, President Zedillo, through the MoEd,
established the Faculty Development Programme (Promep) 2 whose main objective was to
provide university teachers with postgraduate studies offered in Mexico or abroad. This is a tenyear project whose main goal is to ensure that university teachers hold at least masters degrees.
1
2

http://www.sep.gob.mx last accessed 15.05.2004

http://sesic.sep.gob.mx/cgi-bin/index.pl - last accessed 15.05.2004

6
In the case of university teachers of English, many of them have been given full-time
scholarships to undertake MA and PhD studies in English-speaking countries. As a matter of
fact, the researcher has been sponsored by this governmental programme.
As our investigation was conducted with English-major learners, we will briefly present
some important aspects concerning the situation of these English-related programmes not only at
the University of Quintana Roo3 (UQROO), but also in others all over Mexico. The demand for
qualified teachers of English in Mexico is somewhat reflected in the fact that English-majors are
offered in 23 state universities in Mexico 4 (see Appendix A). However, the nature of these
English-majors varies in the sense that only ten programmes are devoted entirely to ELT. The
others are a mixture of translation and literature studies or simply a combination of these three
areas. Thus such programmes are given different degree names; for example BA in ELT, BA in
Applied Linguistics, BA in English Language, BA in Modern Languages, and the like.

The BA in English at the UQROO

The UQROO, located in the Peninsula of Yucatan, was founded in 1991. At that time its
main motto was the new Mexican university for its learner-centredness methodology, which
was an innovative approach in state universities across the country. The flexibility of the
curriculum was supposed to allow learners to move freely through their studies by completing
course credits. However, problems arose in the BA in English programme in that many learners
had limited English proficiency when entering university. Therefore, if they failed, for example,
English I, they were not entitled to move on to English II. Nowadays, this problem is still an
issue that has not been sorted out as it is necessary to tackle this at earlier educational levels. The
effects can be observed as the number of learners dramatically decreases in higher years of study
(see 5.1).
3

http://www.uqroo.mx - last accessed 15.05.2004

According to the catalogue of the National Association of State Universities (ANUIES), http://www.anuies.mx last accessed 15.05.2004

7
The BA programme in English consists of forty-seven courses that are taken over five
years of study (see Appendix B). The courses are divided into three main blocks; (1) commoncore courses for all majors at the UQROO, (2) common-core courses for majors in the
Humanities, and (3) specific courses for the English-majors. As can be seen from the curriculum,
this programme is mostly oriented to prepare teachers of English. Learners can take several
optional courses such as French or English-Spanish-English translation and psycholinguistics or
morphology. In fact, eighty per percent of graduate students are currently teaching English,
whereas ten per cent are employed in tourism services and another ten per cent in translation.5
The teaching methodology employed in this English major mostly seems to be framed
within the so-called communicative approach (see Littlewood, 1981; Richards and Rodgers,
1986), which is also the main approach adopted at secondary and high-school educational levels
and approved by the MoEd. Broadly speaking, other methods and techniques include task-based
learning (see Willis, 1996), which is usually incorporated into the coursebooks themselves such
as the Tapestry of Language Learning Series by Scarcella and Oxford (1992), which is
theoretically framed within Vygotsky's Zone of Proximate Development. More importantly,
instruction in the area of LLS appears to be of great importance for both teachers and learners.
Implementation of learning strategy training has taken several forms in this English major.
Through informal conversations with the researcher, teachers reported implementing separate or
integrated, direct or embedded strategy instruction (see OMalley and Chamot, 1990), especially
for first- and second-year learners. In this respect, we found via a questionnaire that fifty-three
per cent of our participants claimed to have received strategy training. In fact, this percentage is
representative of those first- and second-year learners (see 5.1 for further details). Then, if these
learners are provided with general LLS training, they might be expected to deal with a wide
range of VLS too, though these strategies are not called as such.

According to the last survey conducted by the Department of Humanities in 2002.

8
Finally, indispensable actors in this investigation are the ten full-time teachers in charge
of this undergraduate programme as far as English-related subjects are concerned. Most of them
hold an MA in Applied Linguistics, ELT or Translation studies, which is the maximum academic
degree in the department. In addition, assistant teachers are normally hired to cover the general
English courses specified in the curriculum while more experienced teachers focus on ELTrelated courses. Interestingly, assistant teachers are those students who satisfactorily completed
their BA studies in English. To sum up, the nature of this English major leads us to expect that
learners will report a high use of VLS (see 6.1) and relatively good results on the Vocabulary
Levels Test, especially experienced language learners (see 5.2.2). Certainly, the programme has
not always been free from drawbacks. One of these problems has to do with the EFL sociallearning environment, which is touched on in what follows.

The EFL environment in Quintana Roo State

As pointed out above, English is not considered as a second language in Mexico, even
though it is compulsory in middle educational levels. Interestingly, Quintana Roo State is
supposed to be in a more privileged EFL position than the rest of the states in Mexico. Cancun
and Cozumel towns are international resort centres in which English seems to be the lingua
franca. Also, Mexico shares its south-east border with Belize, a former British colony. The
UQROO is located near this border in Chetumal, the capital city of Quintana Roo State.
Notwithstanding, this privileged environment seems to be a resource that learners do find
difficult to use for English practice outside the language classroom, perhaps constrained by the
socio-cultural context and other attitudinal factors, which are beyond the scope of this
investigation. For example, it has been the case in which learners may not be willing to practise
their English with Belizean visitors due to the misbelief that they can only speak Creole, which
these learners find difficult to understand. Another example of attitudinal factors is that very few

9
UQROO students apply for the three-week immersion course offered every summer by the
University College of Belize at Belmopan. In short, we believe that the EFL environment in
Quintana Roo is somewhat similar to other regions throughout Mexico where English-majors are
also offered. The benefit of this situation is that our sample can be used to make some
generalisations about the use of VLS across university EFL learners in Mexico.
1.3 Purpose and scope of the investigation
The present study mainly aims to explore the relationship between the L2 learners
personality factor of extraversion and their use of vocabulary learning strategies both in
quantitative and qualitative terms, though more emphasis is paid to the former. The two
connected dark-gray boxes in Figure 1.1 represent this possible relationship. As stated above,
little research has been done on LLS in relation to personality type (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989,
1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Oxford and Anderson, 1995; Wakamoto, 2000). Indeed, to the
best of our knowledge the relationship between E and VLS has not been studied before, that is
why our study is more exploratory in nature than hypothesis-testing. Nevertheless, this
investigation is primarily based on what has been done on personality and LLS use (processoriented studies) and on personality and L2 achievement (product-oriented studies).
Furthermore, the personality traits embraced within the extraversion construct are also
considered in this study for the formulation of some research questions.
Most importantly, this study sets out to investigate the contribution of not only learners
extraversion (E), but also vocabulary proficiency (VP), university year of study (Y), and gender
(G) to the frequency with which they claim to use VLS. The rationale for including learner
variables other than extraversion lies in the assumption that these kinds of variables may occur in
combination rather than in isolation as depicted in Figure 1.1.

10
Figure 1.1 The Predictor Variable Model for the use of VLS

Extraversion

Vocabulary

Vocabulary
Learning

Year of Study

Strategies

Gender

English
Achievement

Similarly, this study looks into the relationship between extraversion and some L2 outcomes
such as learners receptive vocabulary proficiency and English academic achievement as
graphically noted in Figure 1.1. Also, it can be stated that certain VLS may be predictors of
vocabulary proficiency as represented by a two-headed arrow. However, as will be repeatedly
discussed in our study (see 6.4), the nature of the VLS

VP relationship is often unclear, and

hence needs experimental designs to arrive at more accurate interpretations (see 7.3, 7.4).
Vocabulary proficiency may be in turn predicted by university year of study since they were
highly correlated to the extent that they hardly ever appeared together as a predictor model of
VLS via stepwise multiple regression. Furthermore, although not pursued in our study, Figure
1.1 shows with a two-headed arrow that English academic achievement may also be a predictor
of VLS use, but again the nature of this relationship might be similar to that of VP and VLS use.
Another secondary but relevant objective of the investigation is to describe the strategy
patterns of university learners regardless of their degree of extraversion, vocabulary proficiency,
university year of study, and gender. In other words, the purpose of this is to explore what VLS

11
are used most and least frequently across the entire sample and to what extent L2 learners differ
regarding some types of VLS, for example, using bilingual dictionaries and using monolingual
dictionaries, among other interesting comparisons also offered in the literature.
The objectives of the study have now been briefly stated. However, it seems advisable to
point out what this study does not cover. In terms of personality factors, it should be noted that
although the focus of the investigation is on extraversion and its relationship with VLS use, there
are other personality factors such as neuroticism and psychoticism, which were included in
Eysencks biological view of personality (see 2.3.1).

The reasons for considering the

extraversion factor only were: (1) more research has been done on extraversion than the other
two factors, (2) a vast number of studies have explored the relationship between extraversion and
general academic achievement, and (3) extraversion has been found to be associated with second
language learning more than any other personality variable. Furthermore, this study necessarily
only concentrated on a few learner factors, though it must be admitted that there exists a broader
array of them, along with situational variables (see 3.2). However, as explained above, this
investigation is limited to four subject variables, leaving situational factors for further research.
As far as VLS use is concerned, this study is limited to exploring the frequency with which L2
learners use VLS either as a whole sample or as possible function of E, VP, Y, and G. This study
is not intended to evaluate the effectiveness or success of VLS, rather, it just describes the use of
strategies as they are reported by L2 learners. Likewise, the real effect of VP on VLS use is not
directly pursued, though some discussion will be provided when the nature of this relationship
allows it.
1.4 An overview of the thesis
As pointed out throughout this introductory chapter, this thesis aims to cover two general
theoretical domains: personality and language learning strategies. More specifically, it is

12
intended to look into the personality factor of extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning
strategies in an EFL environment. This thesis comprises seven chapters. The first chapter - the
present one, introduces the background and relevance of the study followed by the purpose and
scope of the investigation. Also in this chapter the organisation of the thesis is presented.
Chapter two is designed to provide the background in the personality literature for our
extraversion variable. It begins with some definitions of the personality construct proposed by
well-known personality psychologists, especially by trait theorists. Then, a brief review of the
main personality theories is provided with emphasis on trait theories, which are the main
theoretical framework of this thesis as far as personality is concerned, i.e. the work of H. J.
Eysenck and his associates. Finally, further attention is paid to the relevant literature on
extraversion in relation to general education and to the relatively few studies on extraversion and
second language learning.
Chapter three is concerned with the relevant literature on LLS. It starts with some
definitions and main strategy classification systems (Naiman et al, 1978; Rubin, 1981; OMalley
and Chamot, 1990; and Oxford, 1990) and continues with an overview of the situational learner
factors affecting LLS use (our controlled variables in the study) along with those inherent in the
L2 learner (our main variables of interest). Also in this chapter a review of the literature on VLS
studies is provided.
Chapter four reports on a preliminary study on VLS conducted by the researcher in order
to validate the contents of the main data gathering instrument of the study: the VLS
questionnaire (VLS-Q). This report includes (1) a description of the design of the VLS-Q
emanating from an open VLS-Q and semi-structured interviews with EFL university students
and (2) the results and discussion of the types of VLS that learners claimed to use. More
importantly, at the end of this chapter, the research questions and hypotheses of the main study,

13
which have been introduced in chapters 2, 3 and in the preliminary study report, are
recapitulated.
Chapter five is devoted to the methodology of the main study. It begins with a brief
account of the participants background information and the data gathering instruments
employed. In addition to this, a description of the procedures for data collection is provided. This
chapter ends with an explanation of the statistical methods used to analyse the quantitative data
followed by an account of the qualitative data analysis.
Chapter six presents the results and discussion of the main study. It is divided into five
main sections of which the first four sections are devoted to the quantitative analysis whereas the
fifth section is concerned with the brief qualitative description of the differences between
introverts and extraverts in their use of VLS. The first section offers an overall picture of VLS
use among the entire sample. Section two presents the results and discussion of the relationship
between extraversion and language outcomes (English academic achievement and receptive
vocabulary proficiency). Section three, in turn, covers the findings regarding the relationship
between (a) E and the use of separate VLS, (b) E and the use of VLS in categories and (c) E and
overall use of VLS. In section four, the contribution of the learners extraversion, in the presence
of vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender to their use of VLS is thoroughly
discussed.
Finally, in chapter seven, the concluding remarks are concisely presented. It provides the
summary of major findings and the general conclusions of the study. In addition, this chapter
states the limitations of the study along with some recommendations for further research and
ends with some pedagogical implications.

14

Chapter 2

Background on personality with special reference to

extraversion

This chapter is an account of selected aspects of personality relevant to our research and
it is divided into four main sections. As a point of departure, it begins with some definitions of
personality proposed by well-known personality psychologists, especially by trait theorists. The
second section provides an overview of personality theories in order for the reader to have a
general picture of the nature and contribution of these theories; special attention is paid to trait
and type theories (their research methods and personality inventories) as well as the situationist
and interactionist views of personality which offer criticisms of trait theories. Section three is
focused on Eysencks theory of personality, which in fact provides the theoretical framework of
this thesis as far as personality is concerned. Hence, several components of his theory are
touched on such as the three personality dimensions, the biological view of personality and its
empirical evidence. Also in this section, the personality questionnaires proposed by H. J.
Eysenck are chronologically described. Finally, section four concentrates on the role of
extraversion in general education (as reflected in academic attainment) and extraversion in
second language learning. In the realm of L2 learning several studies are selected for review on
the basis of two criteria: extraversion and language-related measures as forms of language
achievement and extraversion and language learning strategies. Finally, a summary of the
present chapter is provided.
2.1 Defining the construct of personality
As one of the core theoretical components of this thesis is the construct of personality, it
is sensible to begin with the most influential definitions that have been offered through the years
in the realm of modern psychology. It should be noted that to date, many definitions are
available; however, none has been widely accepted as personality is too elusive a concept.

15
Allport (1961:28), who made a thorough review of fifty interdisciplinary concepts of
personality, defines it as the dynamic organization within the individual of those
psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behaviour and thought. Based upon his
definition we can state that Allport regards personality not as a single system but as a set of
systems which function as determinants of how people behave, think, and react in their daily life.
This definition also implies that behaviour and thought, as manifestations of personality, are
unique in each individual (i.e. individual differences in personality) and that each person has a
structure, which is rooted inside the individual and can be both mental and physical. In his earlier
definition, Allport (1937:48) also talks about peoples unique adjustments to their environment,
suggesting that the situation holds a primary role in shaping personality. Later on, he seems to
reconsider his position as he states that [behaviour and thought] are modes of adjustment and
outreach elicited by the environmental situation we are in, always selected and directed by the
psychophysical systems that comprise our personality (Allport, 1961:29).
Cattell (1946:566; 1965:25) puts this simply by stating that personality may be defined
as that which tells what a [person] will do when placed in a given situation. He even formulates
his definition as follows: R = f(S.P) and explains that R, the nature and magnitude of a persons
behavioural response, i.e. what he says, thinks, or does, is some function of the S, the stimulus
situation in which he is placed and of P, the nature of his personality. As can be seen, Cattells
definition implies that predictions might be made of how people will respond to a specific
situation as long as the traits of their personality (e.g. degree of extraversion) are known in
advance. Like Allport, Cattell puts some value on the situation in that traits cannot be manifested
in a vacuum. Nevertheless, the importance they give to the situation does not necessarily mean
that they should be considered as advocates of situationist or interactionist approaches to
personality, which are discussed later in this chapter.

16
A third influential definition of personality is that of H. J. Eysenck (1970:2), a leading
trait and factor theorist. He defines personality as a more or less stable and enduring
organization of a persons character, temperament, intellect, and physique, which determines his
unique adjustment to the environment. Eysenck continues to explain these four systems:
Character denotes a persons more or less stable and enduring system of conative behavior
(will); temperament, his more or less stable system of affective behavior (emotion); intellect, his
more or less stable and enduring system of cognitive behavior, (intelligence); physique, his more
or less stable and enduring system of bodily configuration and neuroendocrine endowment. As
can be noted, such a definition implies that personality is to some extent stable and consistent
throughout the individuals life, that is, across time and across situations. Also, Eysencks
definition suggests that personality originates within the person in four systems, which may
determine peoples behaviour and attitudes towards the environment. In other words, we are born
with predetermined personological systems, which are activated (not controlled) by the
environment. This conceptualises what is considered as the biological view of personality
advocated by Eysenck and his associates. Finally, the inclusion of the persons unique
adjustment to the environment reflects the idea of individual differences in personality in that
people behave or react differently to the same situation, e.g. an anxious person and a nonanxious person during a job interview.
2.2 Overview of Personality Theories.
As Stagner (1961) points out, since many definitions of personality have been provided,
there must be many theories as well. This is true, since the formal study of personality has
resulted in several theories postulated in the 20th century. Also many books have been written to
review the different theories of personality. Interestingly, some authors deal with approaches to
personality (Burger, 1993); others divide theories into perspectives (Carver and Scheier, 1992)

17
and even into strategies (Liebert and Spiegler, 1994). Cook (1993) integrates theories into lines
and levels so as to avoid the usual way of presenting such theories. For example, he includes
the work of Eysenck in the biological line, which is also below the surface in terms of levels of
scientific depth. However, regardless of the labels for these theories, we shall briefly review the
type and trait theories, which are concerned more with uncovering the personality dimensions
within the individual such as extraversion, the situationist approach, which generally argues
that behaviour is determined by the situation and not simply by the internal personality traits, and
the interactionist approach, which postulates that observed behaviour is the function of the
interaction between traits and the environment or situation.
2.2.1 Type and Trait Theories
Historically speaking, the notion of categorising humans into a limited number of
personality types has been credited to Hippocrates and Galen, the former the well-known father
of medicine and the latter a Roman physician of the second century A.D. Their system
comprised the four temperaments which include phlegmatic (apathetic, calm), sanguine (happy,
optimistic), choleric (temperamental, irritable), and melancholic (unhappy, depressed). These
types were associated with the amount of fluids in the body such as the black bile, the blood, the
yellow bile, and the phlegm; for example, the strength of the blood was related to the persons
enthusiasm. By the end of the 18th century Kant published his book Anthropologie, which H. J.
Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:43-44) acknowledge as a textbook of psychology in which
the four temperaments are fully described. They also claim that two of their proposed personality
dimensions extraversion and neuroticism, were first described by Hippocrates, Galen and Kant.
Trait theories generally assume that people possess broad predispositions called traits,
to behave, react and think in a particular way (Pervin and John, 1997:227). As can be noted, the
trait is the key concept in this theory. Thus a trait can be defined as a dimension of personality
used to categorise people according to the degree to which they manifest a particular

18
characteristic (Burger, 1993:192). Broad examples of traits include when we describe a person
as being sociable, lively, dominant, and the like. Another commonly agreed assumption among
trait theorists is that traits are more or less stable over time and across situations; however, this
premise has been widely criticised by social psychologists. Due, in part, to this criticism, trait
theorists make a useful distinction between traits and moods or states. As H. J. Eysenck and M.
W. Eysenck (1985) put it, states and moods are singular occurrences mainly influenced by the
situation. They argue that a generally sociable person may sometimes be unsociable depending
on the situation. Matthews and Deary (1998) have observed that even extraverts may
occasionally wish to be alone and introverts, on the other hand, may be in a party-mood. Another
example is the distinction between trait and state anxiety proposed as a theory by Spielberger
(1972).6
More importantly, it should be noted that type theories differ from trait theories in key
ways. Furnham and Heaven (1999) state that types (e.g. gender) are considered categories of
membership, which are distinct and discontinuous. That is, people are one type or the other.
They explain that in trait theories, people differ in amounts on a continuum. In other words, the
difference between people is seen quantitatively rather than qualitatively. They also argue that
trait theorists often talk in typological terms, but think of traits as continuously (often normally)
distributed (p. 29). As H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:44) suggest, there are no
compound temperaments, for example, a sanguine-choleric. However, this does not mean that
from a trait perspective, people cannot be divided into groups. As in the case of extraversion, for
example, researchers typically compare extreme extraverts with extreme introverts. Hence,
extreme scores are necessary for discrimination whereas midpoint scores are essential in type
theory (Burger, 1993; Carver and Scheier, 1992: 61). Overall, however, more research on
personality has been done within the framework of trait theories than of type theories.
6

In the realm of language learning, Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. and Cope (1986) have developed the Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. They frame their instrument within Spielbergers state-trait anxiety theory.

19
The most representative work of more recent type theory is that of Carl Jung, though
some authors do not regard him merely as a type theorist, rather as Neo-Freudian theorist. In
essence, as reviewed by Ewen (1993) and Burger (1993), Jungian theory mainly hypothesises
two processes: (1) the way people cope with both internal and external stimuli and (2) the
orientation of the libido movement (inward or outward). The former process is accounted for by
four basic psychological functions (i.e., thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition), the latter by
two basic attitudes or orientations (i.e., introversion and extroversion). As far as the basic
functions are concerned, Jung considers thinking and feeling as rational functions and sensing
and intuition as irrational ones. The members of each pair are in turn opposed to each other, e.g.
thinking vs. feeling. Interestingly, people are supposed to develop all the four functions, but
there is always a tendency to possess one to a greater extent. With regard to the basic attitudes,
introversion and extraversion are also antagonistic to some extent and there is a dominant one
as well. That is, people can have orientations towards the external world or the internal one. In
fact, in the literature of modern psychology, Jung is widely credited for proposing the concepts
of extraversion-introversion, though H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) argue that this
term was introduced in Europe centuries before he used them. Focusing more on extraversion
and introversion, Jung (1998) maintains that the dominant attitude resides in the conscious
whereas the subordinate attitude dwells in the unconscious. For example, if the ego (conscious
perceptions, memories, thoughts, and feelings) is predominantly extraverted, the personal
unconscious will be introverted. Interestingly, Jung admits that the categorization of people into
extraverts and introverts is not the only possible method, but he argues that no typology has had
as practical a significance as this one.
The work of Jung is reflected in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) designed by
Myers and McCauley (1985). This personality questionnaire aims to categorise people into eight
types based on the extraversion-introversion polarity combined with the four functions

20
mentioned above, e.g. extraverted thinking and introverted thinking. The MBTI is divided into
two sections, one containing forced-choice items and, in the other, pairs of words are presented
and the subjects have to choose the more appealing, (Kline, 1993, 2000). Moreover, the
constructors of the MBTI have added one more component called the Judgement-Perception
division, which makes it possible to categorise 16 personality types (Burger, 1993). This
questionnaire has been widely used in personnel selection as well as in education.
Turning now to trait theories in more detail, it can be stated that extensive research has
been done from this perspective of personality. Many trait theorists such as Allport, Cattell,
Eysenck, McCrae and Costa, and others have attempted to describe the structure of human
personality. With the exception of Allport, the other leading researchers have come up with what
they claim to be the dimensions of personality; however, there is no agreement on the number of
them. Before embarking upon a brief review of these authors models of personality, it seems
necessary to point out the conceptions widely accepted by trait psychologists, as summarised by
M. W. Eysenck and H. J. Eysenck (1980:191). Broadly speaking, they maintain that:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Individuals differ with respect to their location on important semi-permanent personality dispositions
known as traits.
Personality traits can be identified by means of correlational (factor analytic) studies.
Personality traits are importantly determined by hereditary factors.
Personality traits are measurable by means of questionnaire data, ratings, objective laboratory tests, and
psychophysiological measures.
The interactive influence of traits and situations produces transient internal conditions known as states.
Personality states are measurable by means of questionnaire data, ratings, objective laboratory tests, and
psychophysiological measures.
Traits and states are intervening variables or mediating variables that are useful in explaining individual
differences in behaviour to the extent that they are incorporated into an appropriate theoretical framework.
The relationship between traits or states and behaviour is typically indirect, being affected or moderated by
the interactions that exist among traits, states, and other salient factors.

From the principles listed above, three aspects are worth emphasising here. Firstly, factor
analysis has become the most relied upon method for analysing and uncovering personality
structure. Secondly, a variety of data gathering methods are used, namely, questionnaires,
ratings,

objective

laboratory

tests,

and

even

physiological

tests

(e.g.

EGG

electroencephalogram measures, GRS galvanic skin response measures). Finally, traits or

21
dispositions and states or moods are key concepts, whose nature accounts for issues such as the
secondary role of the situation and the primary role of heredity in determining personality.
It is well-known that Allport (1937) pioneered the first attempts to describe personality in
terms of traits or dispositions, which, he maintains, originate mainly within the individual.
Moreover, he established a distinction between traits, states and activities. Unlike traits, states
and activities are temporary, brief and caused by external circumstances. Thus, according to
Chaplin et al (1988), examples of traits include gentle, domineering, and trustful; states include
infatuated, pleased, and angry; and examples of activities may be carousing, ranting, and
snooping. More importantly, Allport (1961) suggests a classification of traits into cardinal,
central, and secondary traits. The criteria for dividing traits in this way arise from the intensity
of their influence and dominance on a persons behaviour. Cardinal traits have a strong influence
and dominance on behaviour; central traits have a strong influence, but not a total dominance on
behaviour; and secondary traits typically have little influence on behaviour.
Another useful distinction proposed by Allport (1937) is that of individual versus
common traits. He claims that no two persons ever have precisely the same trait (p. 297), i.e.
traits are individual. This is known as the idiographic approach to personality. Common traits,
on the other hand, are those aspects of personality in respect to which most mature people
within a given culture can be compared (p. 300). This view is regarded as the nomothetic
approach. However, according to H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985), most of Allports
empirical investigations are nomothetic in nature. Furthermore, it is important to point out that
Allport (1937:316) suggests that statistical operations should be used to help in the discovery of
common traits. As he straightforwardly puts it, a demonstration of the persistence of association
is always the first step in inferring the existence of a common trait. Thus, Allports work paved
the way for factor analysis as a technique for personality research, though he did not provide a
model of personality as such.

22
Following Allports trait theory tradition, Cattell (1946; 1965) also investigated the
different characteristics that account for personality. Cattell (1965:55) argues that the dimensions
of personality can be extracted from data by using factor analysis. As he succinctly points out,
through factor analysis we depart from the premise that there are natural, unitary structures in
personality, and that it is these traits, rather than the endless labels in the dictionary on which we
should concentrate. In a nutshell, Cattell relied on three main sources of data for psychometric
purposes. The first source is called L-data (life data), which focuses on behaviour in real-life
and everyday situations. Such data are usually recorded through ratings made by observers on
the basis of frequency and intensity of peoples behaviour. The second source is referred to as Qdata, whose information is obtained by questionnaires and completed by the subject per se. The
third type of source lies in objective tests T-data, which are like miniature situations set up
for a person to react to (1965:61). Interestingly, for Cattell, the objectivity of tests lies in the
fact that the person is not aware of what aspects of his or her behaviour are being measured. It
must be noted that the same traits should ideally be extracted from the above sources of data;
however, as Pervin and John (1997:247) point out, the results have been disappointing as no
direct one-to-one mapping of factors was possible.
Despite this apparent drawback, Cattell, relying greatly on factor analysis, concluded that
16 factors or dimensions can account for human personality, though he initially identified 12
factors (Cook, 1993). The factors consist of bipolar traits such as reserved vs. outgoing, shy vs.
venturesome, relaxed vs. tensed, etc. Kline (2000) reviews the 16 Personality Factor Test or
questionnaire (16PF), and points out that these 16 primary factors, when correlated, yield a
number of second order factors such as introversion vs. extraversion, low anxiety vs. high
anxiety, etc. The items of the 16PF Test are trichotomous, but respondents are asked to avoid
sitting on the fence. As regards reliability of the test, Kline claims that it is too low for many of

23
the 16 PF scales when used in individuals in comparison with groups. Notwithstanding, the test
has been widely used for research and occupational purposes, especially in America.
Another well-known trait theory is that of H. J. Eysenck (H. J. Eysenck and S. B.
Eysenck, 1969; H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, 1985, H. J. Eysenck, 1990), which is the
main theoretical framework of this thesis, as far as personality is concerned. Therefore, a
complete section on Eysencks work is presented later in this chapter (see 2.3). For the time
being, we can briefly point out that Eysenck and his associates made extensive use of factor
analysis to uncover the underlying dimensions of personality. These dimensions or supertraits, in
Eysencks terms, are extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism, and have emerged
consistently in many studies conducted in different countries (demonstrating the universality of
personality dimensions). It must be noted that he initially identified two dimensions and then he
added the one related to psychoticism. The three dimensions are bipolar in nature, extraversionintroversion, neuroticism-emotional stability and psychoticism-ego control. Extraversion and
neuroticism when combining their bipolarity reflect the four humour types described by Galen.
Hence, introverts and extraverts can be neurotic as well as emotionally stable. More importantly,
H. J. Eysenck went one step further in personality research in that he attempted to provide
empirical evidence that there are biological aspects which may account for the causes of
individual differences in personality.
As mentioned before, the main trait theorists have not agreed on the basic number of
personality factors or dimensions. Cattell uncovered sixteen factors whereas Eysenck reduced
them to three. As a result, the Five Factor Model or Big Five Model emerged as an alternative.
However, Matthews and Deary (1998) suggest that it would be better to talk about the big fives
as researchers within this model have not come up with the same five personality dimensions.
For instance, originally W. Norman (1963) analysed data from peer nomination personality
ratings among adults and extracted five factors such as surgency Cattells neologism,

24
agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture. On the other hand, Costa and
McCrae (1992) ended up with extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
openness, whereas Goldberg (1990) identified surgency, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and intellect. It must be pointed out that the five essential dimensions were
extracted through factor analytic techniques and that the labelling of the factors is somewhat
subjective. Interestingly, Carver and Scheier (1992) claim that the five-factor model is not as
new as it seems to be, that evidence of the five dimensions has been available for over 40 years
and that the problem was that trait theorists were not really interested in alternative approaches to
personality.
As regards personality inventories framed within the big five model, Kline (2000)
reviews Costa and McCraes NEO-PI-R, which is the newest version of the NEO neuroticism,
extraversion, and openness. This test measures the five factors mentioned above and consists of
240 questions, 48 for each dimension. The questions are answered on a five-point scale from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. Each factor or domain is divided into 6 facets, e.g.
extraversion is accounted for by questionnaire items that reflect warmth, gregariousness,
assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotions. Kline points out that this new
version includes items phrased in third person; thus the tests can be used either as a self-report or
researcher rating. He claims that the test is the best one developed within the five-factor model,
but he warns that the five dimensions may not be the best description of individual differences in
personality.
Importantly for us, in most models and theories briefly described above, extraversion,
though with different labels, has emerged as a dimension of personality, even across
nationalities. However, just within the five factor model, as summarised by Matthews and Deary
(1998:29), extraversion has been given alternative names as confident self-expression (Fiske,
1949), assertiveness (Borgatta, 1964), and surgency (Goldberg, 1990). Also, in Cattells 16 PF,

25
extraversion is labelled as the bipolar trait reserved vs. outgoing, i.e. Factor A; or as his original
factor surgency. Therefore, there is no doubt that extraversion can be regarded as one of the
major and well-confirmed dimensions of personality, not only in the work of Eysenck.
2.2.2 Situationist and interactionist views: criticisms of the trait theory.
Although trait theory has generated a considerable amount of research and empirical
evidence, it has been the object of strong criticism, especially from social psychologists and
sociologists. These reactions to the so-called traditional personality assessment are
encompassed in what has been labelled the situation versus trait controversy. That is, against the
shared assumption held by trait theorists that despite the existence of moods and states, peoples
behaviour is more or less consistent across situations and more or less stable over time. In
chronological order, one criticism is known as situationism or situationalism. This approach,
whose main proponent is the social learning theorist Walter Mischel (1968), considers that the
environmental or situational variables are primarily responsible for the way people behave rather
than the traits within the individual. Interestingly, the weakness of the situationist approach to
personality paved the way for the outgrowth of interactionism, which holds that the
determinants of peoples behaviour are neither the traits nor the situation. Rather, both of them
influence peoples conduct (Bowers, 1973). In other words, it is the interaction between
personality traits and the situation that mainly determines how people behave.
As reviewed by Burger (1993:213), situationists argue that trait measures do not predict
behaviour and/or performance satisfactorily. This argument lies in the fact that most correlations
between personality trait scores and measures of observed behaviour are low (0.30 to 0.40),
which represents only 10 per cent of the variance in behaviour. However, trait theorists reply by
claiming that the difference between obtaining low and high correlations depends on the number
of occasions when individuals are measured. Hampson (1988) reviews the work of Epstein
(1979) who demonstrates the principle of aggregating data. This principle involves summing up

26
the scores of (behavioural and test) data obtained on several occasions; thus the correlations
reach high levels (e.g., 0.80) as compared to correlations obtained from single measures (e.g.,
0.30). However, Hampson (1988) also warns that the aggregation principle in fact helps increase
reliability but it should be treated with caution as it is just a method of analysis not a theoretical
advance.
A more radical version of pure situationism holds that personality does not exist as such
in that the person behaves differently according to social forces, past experiences, and even his
or her interlocutor. In this respect, H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:35) argue that it is
obvious that people may choose the situation in which they want to find themselves (e.g. noisy
or quiet environments). Thus they point out that an interest in books and reading can take people
to visit libraries. However, situation in these cases is not primary; it is a consequence of already
existing systems of likes and dislikes, values, attitudes, personality traits, and the like, many of
them genetically determined.

Furthermore, H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985)

criticise situationism by stating that it fails to account for peoples individual differences in
identical situations. In other words, if the situational variables solely are hypothesised to predict
behaviour, why do people not react or behave in a similar manner in a given situation. It is
precisely in this aspect that traits or dispositions play a relevant part in determining behaviour.
Interactionism, on the other hand, takes a more moderate and eclectic stance. According
to Carver and Scheier (1992) the term interactionism is related to the term used in analysis of
variance to label how two variables influence an outcome or in this case how situations and
dispositions interact to determine behaviour. A good example of interaction has to do with
extraversion and performance in which the effects of extraversion on performance depend on the
situational factors. In some conditions extraverts outperform introverts and in others introverts
do better, depending on task and contextual variables, e.g. stimulating vs. non-stimulating
environment (Matthews and Deary, 1998; H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, 1985). Bowers

27
(1973), in a meta-analysis, concluded that both situational factors and trait factors play a role in
predicting human behaviour. As Bowers (1973:327) puts it straightforwardly, situations are as
much a function of the person as the persons behaviour is a function of the situation.
Nevertheless, interactionism has also been criticised on the grounds that most studies have been
carried out in laboratory settings, conditions which sometimes do not reflect the way individuals
behave in everyday situations. Moreover, in more general criticism, Cook (1993:49) argues that
interactionism sounds profound, but really says very little; behaviour cant be a function of
much else besides person and situation.
In sum, both situationist and interactionist views have attempted to provide a theoretical
account of observed human behaviour giving greater weight to situational factors than do trait
theorists, that is, the former giving priority to the situation and the latter emphasising the
interaction between the traits of the individual and the specific characteristics of the situation
(person X situation). To date, according to Matthews and Deary (1998), many trait psychologists
seem to be reconsidering the interactionist view, even though traits are paramount in their
approach to personality. Situationism, on the other hand, appears to have lost strength, but this
does not mean that it has been theoretically discarded. Sociologists and social psychologists still
share the view that it is the environment, and not the traits within the individual, that influences
observed behaviour. However, the question whether human behaviour is determined by
processes inside the person or by external events remains as a current issue in personality
psychology (Pervin and John, 1997). In connection with our study, as pointed out by Scholfield
(personal communication), we have bypassed the situation aspect by keeping it constant for all
our participants. That is to say, they were not assigned any tasks (situations) for learning L2
vocabulary. They were simply asked to complete the VLS questionnaire having in mind the
generalised situation in which they had to imagine having to learn vocabulary (see 5.2.3.2).

28
2.3 The work of H. J. Eysenck.
Before proceeding to review the work of Hans J. Eysenck (1916-1997), we think it is
necessary to provide a justification for adopting his theory as the main theoretical framework of
this thesis as far as personality is concerned. First of all, Eysenck developed a sophisticated
theory that has generated a large number of empirical studies for several decades. This fact
makes him one of the leading and most remarkable researchers in modern psychology. More
importantly, Eysencks theory involves two levels of personality research. One such level, like in
most trait theories, concentrates on describing the structure of personality in terms of traits and
dimensions, i.e., the descriptive level. The other level, which is the strongest aspect in Eysencks
work, attempts to provide a theoretical account of what causes individual differences in
personality: that is, the explanatory level or what Eysenck has labelled as the biological basis of
personality. In this respect, H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck (1969) remark that description
should precede explanation and that description without explanation suffers from excessive
subjectivity. In fact, nowadays Eysencks views of biological aspects of individual differences
are compatible to a great extent with the growing recognition of biologys role in personality
(Burger, 1993).
Another valid reason for adopting Eysencks theory is the fact that he has worked
extensively in the personality dimension of extraversion at the two levels described above as
compared to other theorists such as Jung, Cattell, among others. Moreover, in terms of
psychometric assessment, Eysencks personality inventories and questionnaires have been
widely used in many countries around the world, which somewhat proves the universality of the
basic personality dimensions hypothesised from his theory. This universality has also made his
inventories valid and reliable instruments for personality measurement. That is why the latest
version of Eysencks personality questionnaire was used in the present study. However, it may
be argued that other inventories have been used worldwide as well e.g. the Myers-Briggs Type

29
Indicator or the Cattells 16PF Test. This is true to some extent, but, as said before, Eysenck
went beyond the mere descriptive level of personality. Last but not least, the strength of his
theory can also be stated on the basis of its wide range of applications, especially in the realm of
education, psychiatry and occupational/industrial work. Therefore, without doubt, Eysencks
model provides a solid theoretical framework for this thesis, which is educational in nature.
2.3.1 The dimensions of personality
At the so-called descriptive level of research mentioned above, H. J. Eysenck identified
three major dimensions of personality on which people may differ. In his early factor-analytic
studies, he hypothesised that human personality consisted of two dimensions, extraversion (E)
and neuroticism (N). Then, based on further research he suggested a third dimension, which he
called psychoticism, (P). In general terms, these three dimensions make up what has been
labelled as the PEN Model, which is a better acronym to remember than NEP if described
chronologically. Three key points can be made about such dimensions. First, H. J. Eysenck and
M. W. Eysenck (1985) maintain that P, E, and N are continuous and more or less normally
distributed dimensions as compared to the concept of types in which people are pigeon-holed,
i.e. people are one type or the other, but not both. Thus, extreme people on both sides of the
continuum are paramount for discrimination (Furnham and Heaven, 1999). Second, each
dimension encompasses a pair of extremes; for example, P versus impulse control, E versus
Introversion (I), and N versus emotional stability. Third, P, E, and N are viewed as independent
dimensions from one another, which can describe both normal and abnormal personality
(Wilson, 1978).
It is well-known that H. J. Eysenck used the statistical method of (orthogonal) factor
analysis, yielding three superfactors P, E, and N. H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:19)
regard factor analysis as the best method for studying the association of individual test variables
into traits and the association of traits into types. They explain that factor analysis is used for

30
studying tables of intercorrelations, checking for regularities (e.g. sets of high and low
correlations) and boiling down the sometimes large number of intercorrelations into a few
meaningful factors. Therefore, it can be suggested that the repeated use of factor analysis on data
at different levels has definitely given Eysencks model of personality a hierarchical structure as
if they were three separate pyramids with four main levels, each pyramid representing each
personality dimension. As pointed out by H. J. Eysenck (1991), some form of a hierarchical
model was necessary to provide a description of personality dimensions.
H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck (1969:40-41) succinctly explain the four levels of
behaviour organisation. The lowest level consists of specific responses, which are observed
responses to an experimental test or to everyday experiences. These acts may or may not be
characteristic of the individual as in the case of states. The second level of organisation
comprises habitual responses, which are more consistent and stable responses in each individual.
It is here where the amount of organisation can be measured in terms of reliability coefficients.
The third level consists of traits (e.g. sociability), which are nothing else but theoretical
constructs based on observed intercorrelations between a number of different habitual
responses. Finally, the fourth level encompasses the organisation of traits into a more general
dimension or supertraits extracted from the correlations among the various traits.
Now, let us take the case of the extraversion dimension, which has been illustrated by H.
J. Eysenck (1947, 1967, 1990), Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck (1969) and adapted by several
authors (Matthews and Deary, 1998; Liebert and Spiegler, 1994; Burger, 1993; Hampson, 1988;
Wilson, 1978).

31
Figure 2.1 The hierarchical nature of extraversion
Supertrait
Level

Trait
Level

EXTRAVERSION

Sociability

Impulsiveness

Activity

Liveliness

Excitability

Habitual
Response
Level
Specific
Response
Level

As can be seen in Figure 2.1, the E dimension has five subcomponents in trait-like form
that have emerged from intercorrelations of habitual responses. The original data consisted of
psychiatrists ratings on 39 rating scales of 700 patients who suffered from neurotic disorders.
The scales were factor analysed yielding two supertraits or factors; E and N (Hampson, 1988).
H. J. Eysenck has been criticised for using data taken from abnormal patients rather than
normal individuals. However, it has been shown that the same dimensions emerge in both
types of populations. Another controversy has been the heavy reliance on factor analysis in that
deciding on the number of factors to be extracted is somewhat arbitrary and subjective (e.g. the
16 factors extracted by Cattell). However, H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:23) argue
that the researcher must start with some hypotheses about what is being researched and not
choose to extract a number of factors which mean that the factors that emerge are quite unlike
those he thought he had actually included. As an example they argue that if they observe that

32
some people are sociable, and other people are not, and they want to explain that phenomenon,
they choose an analysis which includes a factor which seems to represent a trait of sociability.
Coming back to the E dimension, which is the personality variable of interest in our
study, we shall review the definitions of the two extremes of this variable. Thus, according to H.
J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck (1969:118):
The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk
to. He [or she] craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his [or her] neck out, acts on the
spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He [or she] is fond of practical
jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change; he [or she] is carefree,
easygoing, optimistic, and likes to laugh and be merry. He [or she] prefers to keep moving
and doing things, tends to be aggressive and lose his [or her] temper quickly; altogether his [or
her] feelings are not kept under tight control, and he [or she] is not always a reliable person.

In contrast,
The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than
people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. He [or she] tends to plan ahead,
looks before he leaps, and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He [or she] does not like
excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered
mode of life. He [or she] keeps his [or her] feelings under close control, seldom behaves in an
aggressive manner, and does not lose his [or her] temper easily. He [or she] is reliable,
somewhat pessimistic, and places great value on ethical standards.

The definitions of both introverts (Is) and extraverts (Es) are derived from the five main
traits extracted with the help of factor analysis. As Kline (1993) advocates, the extraversion
dimension is a valid concept or construct of high precision, defined by its factor loadings rather
than by verbal descriptions. Interestingly, Wilson (1978) states that H. J. Eysencks descriptions
of Is and Es differ to some extent from Jungian definitions for the simple reason that C. Jung
based such descriptions on uncontrolled observation and intuitive theorising; in other words, the
research method made the difference. In sum, the E dimension places people along a continuum:
low end for Is and high end for Es. As a matter of fact, most people are located around the
middle, leaving some few cases at the extremes (Wilson, 1978). However, it should be noted that
personality studies framed within the trait tradition often isolate subjects at both extremes to
make groups of Is and Es for research on performance differences.

33
The second dimension in importance, neuroticism (N), refers to the extent that an
individual may be emotionally stable or unstable. According to H. J. Eysenck and M. W.
Eysenck (1985) high scorers on N (also called instability or emotionality) are generally anxious
and tense, moody, depressed, irrational, shy and emotional; they have guilty feelings and low
self-esteem, whereas the low scorers on N are all those individuals who are not easily
predisposed to a nervous breakdown. Hence, it can be said that the continuum ranges from
normality to neuroticism and, like the E dimension, the extreme cases are few in comparison
with the cases placed around the middle point. Furthermore, the E and N dimensions, as
originally uncovered by H.J. Eysenck, share some commonalities with the four Greek types of
personality (phlegmatic, sanguine, melancholic, choleric), with the basic difference that the
dimensions are continuous and combinable whilst the types are not. For example, neurotic
introverts and neurotic extraverts can be commonly identified.
Briefly, the third and less researched dimension is psychoticism (P) or tough-mindedness,
which was added in 1976. To H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985), individuals scoring high
on P are inclined towards being socially indifferent, cruel, hostile, aggressive, cold, intolerant,
not considerate of danger, insular, egocentric, impulsive, and creative. Like N, the P dimension
manages to discriminate between those low scorers on P (so-called normal individuals) and high
scorers on P (psychiatric individuals). However, H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) warn
that high scorers on P in a normal group should not necessarily be considered psychotic; rather,
these individual should be described as having some tendency towards tough-mindedness, which
is, in fact, a more euphemistic term.
2.3.2 Eysencks biological view of extraversion.
At the explanatory level mentioned above, H. J. Eysenck straightforwardly proposed two
theories of personality the inhibition theory (IT) and the arousal theory (AT). The former was
put forward in 1957 and the latter in 1967. H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:193) provide

34
an excellent review of both IT and AT, which they consider as two related but conceptually
distinct explanatory theories. Also, it should be recalled that such theories focus more on E than
on N and P due to the increasing progress made on such a dimension.
The IT aimed to explain the behavioural differences between Is and Es from a
physiological point of view. In this theory, two other constructs were suggested, excitation and
inhibition, though they were dealt with as a unitary concept (i.e. excitation-inhibition balance).
Thus excitation is used to describe the state in which the brain is awake and alert, whereas
inhibition is referred to as the state in which the brain is calm and relaxed. Moreover, H. J.
Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) point out that inhibition (i.e. the central process of unknown
physiological origin) should not be confused with inhibition of behaviour.
H. J. Eysenck theorised that the excitation-inhibition balance may account for the
differences between Is and Es. Hence, he concluded that:
1.
2.

Extraverted patterns of behaviour are seen in individuals in whom excitatory potential is generated slowly
and in whom excitatory potentials so generated are relatively weak.
Introverted patterns of behaviour are seen in individuals in whom excitatory potential is generated quickly
and whose excitatory potentials so generated are relatively strong.

As regards inhibition, H. J. Eysenck hypothesised that:

3.
4.

Extraverted patterns of behaviour are seen in individuals in whom reactive inhibition is developed quickly,
in whom strong reactive inhibitions are generated, and in whom reactive inhibition is dissipated slowly.
Introverted patterns of behaviour are seen in individuals in whom reactive inhibition is developed slowly,
in whom weak reactive inhibitions are generated, and in whom reactive inhibition is dissipated quickly.

The above typological postulate seems to fit accordingly with the bipolar nature of the E
dimension (i.e. I-E) since both excitation and inhibition are in fact the endpoints of a continuum.
Being either introverted or extraverted means having differences in terms of excitation and
inhibition and performance differences could be predicted from this. A well-known example of a
laboratory task in which inhibition can be a factor is the reminiscence effect on the pursuit-rotor
task. As H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) explain, in this task Is and Es are asked to
hold a metal stylus and try to keep it in contact with a rotating metal disc. The subjects are told to

35
do the task for several minutes, rest for a few minutes, and then continue with the task. The
performance after the break is supposed to be better than before the break and this phenomenon
is called reminiscence effect. The theory states that performance is poor where inhibition hinders
it, but improves when such inhibition dissipates during the break interval. Based on the
typological postulates mentioned above, one would expect Is to have more reminiscence effect
than Es in that reactive inhibition dissipates more quickly in Is than Es. However, H. J. Eysenck
has found that it is Es that show more reminiscence than Is, who in turn show better performance
on the pursuit-rotor task (i.e. massed practice) than Es. This apparent inconsistency of the IT led
H. J. Eysenck to propose some modifications encapsulated in the AT. In a nutshell, H. J.
Eysenck predicted that Es develop more reactive inhibition than Is. He stated that Es need more
frequent rest periods as they get tired and bored more easily than Is.
No doubt, the AT represents H. J. Eysencks major step in attempting to find a
physiological basis for extraversion. H. J. Eysenck (1967) concluded that ascending reticular
activating system (ARAS),7 which activates higher parts of the brain, determines the differences
between Es and Is. In other words, the differences in E are closely associated with the
differences in cortical arousal, which is led by the amount of activity of the ARAS. H. J. Eysenck
and M. W. Eysenck (1985) suggest that Is may appear to have higher levels of such activity than
Es; hence, Is are more cortically aroused than Es. Table 2.1 shows how Is and Es are viewed by
both IT and AT.

Table 2.1 Differences in excitation, inhibition and arousal level of Is and Es

Introverts
Extraverts

Excitation
high
low

Inhibition
low
high

Arousal Level
high
low

The Reticular Activating System is a structure in the brain stem that is responsible for arousal and sleep. The
reticular activation system is responsible for getting you up in the morning and putting you to sleep at night. There
are two types of systems: the ARAS and the descending reticular activating system (DRAS).

36
Differences in arousal level seem to be clear-cut because they are physiologically
indentifiable; however, one pertinent question concerns how the arousal level, through the
ARAS, can be related to the E dimension. Broadly speaking, high level of arousal means that
excessive stimulation may arise. It occurs that Is, commonly over-aroused, may tend to avoid
situations with high levels of stimulation, namely, excessive social interaction. Es, on the other
hand, usually under-aroused, are inclined to seek situations in which they can get the stimulation
they need to reach an optimal level of arousal. In other words, as H. J. Eysenck (1967) points
out, Is are more sensitive to stimulation than Es because of the levels of cortical arousal; that is
why, Is are characterised by stimulus aversion, but Es by stimulus hunger.
2.3.2.1 Experimental evidence for Eysencks view of extraversion
The other relevant question has to do with the empirical evidence that supports Eysencks
biological view of personality, especially as regards the extraversion dimension (see Eysenck,
1990). Such evidence has been partially provided by psycho-physiological studies in which brain
activity of both Is and Es is measured through the electroencephalogram (EEG). Also, studies of
pupillometry (e.g. Holmes, 1967), and sedation threshold have supported the biological basis of
extraversion. A more recent technique involves recording the cerebral blood flow (CBF) of Is
and Es by means of positron emission tomography (PET). Some other relevant experimental
studies looked into the performance of Is and Es while completing some tasks presumably
related to the E dimension, namely classical conditioning, operant conditioning, sensitivity to
stimulation, vigilance, verbal learning and memory, psychomotor performance, and perceptual
phenomena.
What follows is a relatively brief review of some key research areas in which
extraversion has experimentally been found to be a factor since it is beyond the scope of this
thesis to encompass the large number of investigations done in this realm. For a thorough
account of extraversion studies, see H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985), and Wilson

37
(1978). More importantly, the experimental evidence generated by some, but not all these studies
on extraversion will certainly inform the preliminary research questions and hypotheses for our
study, which will be reconsidered in the next section of this chapter (see 2.4.) and in chapters
three (see 3.3) and four (see 4.6). However, it should be noted that the questions and hypotheses
formulated in this section are merely suggestive for our study as there are no previous studies on
the relationship between extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies.

Extraversion and brain activity

As mentioned above, EEG measures have partially supported the hypothesis that Is are
more cortically aroused than Es. The EEG is a medical test that measures the electrical activity
of the brain, via electrodes applied to the skull. The EEG records three types of frequencies:
alpha (the person is awake but resting), beta (the person is more alert), delta (the person is in a
state of deep sleep). In some studies, Is were found to be more aroused as measured in the alpha
frequency; but in others, no differences were obtained (Gale, 1969). In view of such
inconsistencies, H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985:224) conclude that Is have higher
levels of cortical activity as measured by the EEG only under certain conditions.
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) studies (e.g. Stenberg, et al, 1990; 1993), on the
other hand, have provided more reliable evidence of Eysencks view of personality. Johnson, et
al (1999) carried out an investigation to describe brain regions associated with E. They found
that introversion was related to increased blood flow in the frontal lobes of the brain and the
anterior thalamus, whereas extraversion was associated with the temporal lobes and the posterior
thalamus. More specifically, the researchers suggest that the activity in frontal brain regions is
linked to memory retrieval, planning, and problem solving, which in turn, reflect the
introspective nature of Is. On the other hand, the activity in the temporal lobes, which is tied to
sensation seeking, explains Es need for sensory and emotional stimulation. Interestingly,

38
introversion was found to be statistically related to the blood flow in Brocas area (r = 0.75),
leading the authors to conclude that the subjects might have been engaged in self-talking due
to the absence of external stimulation. Thus, these findings seem to support the physiological
nature of introverts. As far as language strategies are concerned, we may predict that introverts
may be characterised by using strategies related to planning learning, i.e. metacognitive
strategies (see 2.4.2.2) and strategies involving memory.

Extraversion and conditioning

Research on this area generally suggests that extraversion may function as a determinant
conditioning performance. In other words, greater conditioning effect has been found in Is, (e.g.
H. J. Eysenck, 1962; 1965). As H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) explain, conditioning
has two forms: classical conditioning (CC) and operant conditioning (OC). In the former type,
the subject is relatively passive and a simple autonomic response (e.g. dogs salivation) is
conditioned (e.g. Pavlovs experiments). In the latter type the subject is more active and several
responses can be conditioned (e.g. the Skinner box, in which rats or pigeons press a lever to get
food). Good examples of how the effects of E on CC have been investigated are the eye-blink
conditioning model and the galvanic skin response (GRS). Thus, in terms of CC Is show better
conditioning performance than Es, but such difference depends on the task conditions, either
arousing or relatively non-arousing conditions. Similarly, Gupta and Shukla (1989), in a verbal
operant conditioning task, found that Is were conditioned better than Es with punishing verbal
reinforcement, whereas, Es were conditioned more than Is with rewarding verbal reinforcement.
Thus, it has been suggested by Gray (1972) that Is are more susceptible to punishment, whereas
Es are more susceptible to reward, which in turn, may indicate that Es have greater paintolerance than Is (Gupta, 1976). In sum, the notion of differences in conditioning may not be of
relevance for our study, but at least, it partially supports Eysencks view of extraversion. As

39
pointed out by Scholfield (personal communication) conditioning differences would be more
relevant to a study of motivation.

Extraversion and sensitivity of stimulation

Following the assumed differences in the levels of cortical arousal, it has been proposed
that Is are more sensitive to stimulation than are Es because Is are more cortically aroused (H. J.
Eysenck, 1967). Under this prediction several investigations have been conducted (Power and
Thompson, 1970; Shigehisa and Symons, 1973; Ludvigh and Happ, 1974; Corcoran and
Houston, 1977; Geen, 1984). Findings suggest that Is are generally more sensitive than Es to
both visual and auditory stimulation. Such a conclusion is in line with the notion of stronger
conditioning effects in Is. Wilson (1978) also points out that differences in sensitiveness are
closely related to the preferred levels of stimulation. That is, the preferred level of stimulation (or
the optimal level) is, to some extent, determined by the condition of being more or less extravert.
Typical ways of finding out preferred stimulation levels include a variety of measures such as
noise, light, and pain tolerance, levels of positive and hedonic tone, amount of salivation due to
lemon juice, sensory deprivation, and the like. Other research methods comprise structured
questionnaires and observations upon completion of a given task. In the literature, an individual
is described as being either a stimulus reducer (i.e. relatively less sensitive to environmental
stimulus) or a stimulus augmentor (i.e. relatively more sensitive to stimulation) or somewhere in
the middle of the dimension.8 As regards our research topic, it can be predicted that if introverts
and extraverts differ in terms of preferred levels of stimulation, this may lead them to prefer
different learning environments (e.g. quiet vs. noisy; highly-interactive vs. low interactive) and,
by extension, they may use different vocabulary learning strategies. However, this prediction
must be taken with care due to the lack of studies related to this specific area.
8

An interesting stimulation sensitivity test can be found at http://www.pdq4.com/stimtest.html (accessed

03.03.2003.

40
Extraversion and vigilance
Differences have been generally found in vigilance, which can be defined as the ability
to sustain a high level of attention during lengthy task sessions (Koelega, 1992:239). A typical
example of a vigilance task, the radar simulation, requires the subject to detect and report
irregularities on a screen, e.g. sudden jump signals. As Wilson (1978:238) shows in a review of
some studies, outcomes of vigilance performance tasks indicate that Is do better than Es, but only
under certain conditions. He explains that increasing the rate of signal presentation, increasing
the background noise (e.g., turning on a radio) or providing social stimulation is likely to
improve the performance of the extrovert, thus reducing his progressive disadvantage relative to
the introvert. These factors support the notion mentioned above that Is are more sensitive to
sensory stimulation than Es. In sum, Koelega also (1992) meta-analysed 53 studies on
extraversion and vigilance performance and concluded that Is were superior in overall sustained
attention and that the inconsistencies were, in part, due to the inappropriate use of statistical
analyses. The natural speculation concerning language learning may be that, as introverts are
hypothesised to be more vigilant and attentive, it might be the case that they use more notetaking strategies in the classroom, writing down information about more vocabulary items. That
is to say, Is might notice new words in both instructed and incidental input as a result of their
sustained vigilant characteristic, though this needs empirical evidence.

Extraversion and memory

The general conclusion that Is are better at long-term memory (LTM) and that Es are
better at short-term memory (STM) has been widely accepted by cognitive psychologists.
Certainly, one of the most important theories about arousal and memory is Walkers (1958)
action decrement theory (ADT), which generally states that high arousal enhances consolidation
in LTM, but impairs STM during such process of consolidation i.e. the arousal-retention

41
hypothesis. Moreover, the so-called Yerkes-Dodson Law provides another account of the
relationship between arousal and memory (Wilson, 1978). This law maintains that when
individuals become aroused, their performance on a task changes (D. Norman, 1976). That is, at
the beginning of a task, increase in arousal leads to improved performance, but as arousal builds
up to its highest level, performance decays. This is known as the curvilinear (inverted U)
relationship between cortical arousal and performance. In this vein, H. J. Eysenck and M. W.
Eysenck (1985:252) predict that extraversion should interact with task difficulty and also that
extraverts should perform relatively better than introverts on complex learning tasks. In other
words, as Matthews and Deary (1998:221) conclude, performance of easy tasks is best when
arousal is relatively high, whereas a moderately low level of arousal is most favourable for
difficult tasks.
Another theoretical account involving human memory research is the depth or levels of
processing proposed by Craik and Lockhart (1972). In a nutshell, they argue that information, in
the form of input, passes through several processing levels or stages, which may be hierarchical.
It is suggested that the greater the level of depth of processing, the greater the semantic or
cognitive analysis, which in turn, may result in better retention or memory improvement. Craik
and Lockhart equate the so-called shallow processes with STM and the deep processes with the
notion of LTM. Then, it might follow that, as Es and Is are thought to differ in both forms of
memory, there may be some differences in depth of processing as well. From this point of view,
two implications with different directions could be drawn for second language learning.

Low arousal is associated with less elaborative encoding than is high arousal. Hence, it can be suggested
that less aroused subjects would use shallow, maintenance rehearsal while more aroused subjects would
tend to use more elaborative encoding (Revelle and Loftus, 1992). Then, applying this notion to language
learning, it may be that extraverted learners (typically low-aroused) would tend to engage more with
shallow strategies while introverted learners (typically highly-aroused) would tend to use deep strategies.9

As an aside, M. W. Eysenck (1982:185) while reviewing the literature on memory points out that the available
evidence suggests that long-term retention is better in the afternoon than in the morning because high arousal leads
to deeper or more semantic processing. Obviously, one would generally expect better long-term retention in the
morning, but the empirical evidence has shown the opposite.

42
However, the other side of the coin can be stated as follows:

If extraverts are naturally low-aroused and low arousal may be equated with poor LTM, then it may be
suggested that extraverts would tend consciously or unconsciously to compensate for their poor LTM
capacity by employing more deep memory strategies. Introverts, on the other hand, naturally highlyaroused and with good LTM would use less deep memory strategies, and perhaps, more shallow
strategies.'10

Typical studies on extraversion and memory involve paired-associate recall tasks (e.g.
learning pairs of synonyms) and recall of prose (e.g. after listening to a passage), which are
associated with verbal learning. Thus, the memory performance of a group of Is and Es is
compared at different retention intervals (Kleinsmith and Kaplan, 1963; McLaughlin and H. J.
Eysenck, 1967; Howarth and H. J. Eysenck, 1968; Lavach, 1973; Allsopp and H. J. Eysenck,
1975; Tanwar and Malhotra, 1992; Lieberman, 2000). As stated earlier, the general finding is
that Es show better short-term recall than Is, but Is are superior to Es on long-term recall. Hence,
the differences in the levels of cortical arousal appear to provide an explanation for memory
performance. Another possible account for the differences in both STM and LTM is that Is are
more susceptible than Es to the effects of distraction on learning and memory (H. J. Eysenck and
M. W. Eysenck, 1985) because Is are usually found to be more sensitive to stimulation than Es,
but exhibit more vigilant and wider sustained attention.

Extraversion and field dependence

Field dependence (FD) is a construct framed within the so-called cognitive learning
styles, which accounts for the degree to which an individual focuses on some aspect of
experience and separates it from its background (Ehrman, 1996:78). By experience she means
the different types of perceptions, namely, auditory, visual and kinaesthetic, olfactory, and the
like. As can be seen, FD is another dimension with two endpoints; field independence (FI) and
10

M. W. Eysenck (1975) found that Es produce faster associations than Is particularly on tasks that demanded a
great deal of memory search, e.g. those requiring very remote associates, though no large difference was observed
when the subjects were involved in relatively short processes (cited in Wilson, 1978).

43
field-dependence (FD). That is, people can be placed at any point along such a continuum
depending on the degree to which they are able to distinguish details from the surrounding
perceptual context. A general finding regarding extraversion suggests that Es seem to be more
field dependent than Is when making perceptual judgments, which is consistent with the outer
directedness on the part of Es (Wilson, 1978:240). Likewise, field independent people have
some introverted orientation, while field-dependent individuals tend to have extraverted
behaviour (Goodenough, 1976; Witkin and Goodenough, 1977). In other words, FD people are
keen on working in groups (high stimulation or person-oriented), whereas FI individuals prefer
to work independently (low stimulation or object-oriented).
Furthermore, FD has been widely researched in the realm of second language learning
(Naiman et al., 1978; Hansen and Stansfield, 1981; Abraham, 1985; Chapelle and Roberts, 1986;
Nagi, 1987; Chapelle and Green, 1992). This research is mainly based on correlations of FD
measures (e.g. the Group Embedded Figures Test) and language outcomes (e.g. language
proficiency) and sometimes other cognitive styles (e.g. tolerance of ambiguity). This research
suggests that FD learners tendency towards socialising may lead to greater communicative
competence, while FI learners internal orientation may result in greater analytic and cognitive
restructuring capabilities (Skehan, 1989:112). Hence, it is no coincidence that FI has been
closely associated with analytical learning style and FD with global style. In a nutshell, FI
learners are better than FD learners in classroom activities that involve deeper analysis or
language discrimination (e.g. grammar tests and drills). On the other hand, FD learners are more
successful than their counterparts in activities that require oral abilities and social interaction
such as role-play, simulation, discussion, etc. In sum, it seems sensible, then, to predict some
differences in vocabulary learning strategy use, namely, those related to analysing words into
parts to guess the meaning of unknown words when reading, or even guessing by analysing the
grammatical category of the word in a sentence. Bearing this in mind, field dependence-

44
independence will be taken into account in the next chapter devoted to vocabulary learning
strategies (see 3.3.1.1).

2.3.3 Development of Eysencks personality tests.

The contribution of Eysenck to modern psychology cannot only be seen in his thoughtprovoking theory but also in the series of psychometric tests that he developed. What follows is a
chronological description of his personality scales in order for the reader to see how Eysenck has
improved them over the years as he incorporated further dimensions into his personality theory.
It should be recalled that H. J. Eysenck also made extensive use of factor analysis to see if the
questions of his inventories supposedly measuring the same personality dimension emerged as
loaded on the same factor.
The Maudsley Medical Questionnaire (MMQ), the first inventory of five, aimed to
measure the personality dimension of neuroticism. H. J. Eysenck (1952) worked extensively with
data obtained from neurotic male soldiers that mainly consisted of ratings, self-ratings, and other
objective tests. He also administered the same instruments to a group of normal individuals to
establish some normative data. The MMQ consisted of 40 yes/no questions, for example, Do you
ever suffer from severe headaches?, which successfully discriminated neurotics from normals.
An 18-item lie scale was also included in order to check to what extent the subjects showed
social desirability in their responses. This questionnaire was never published in its English
form, but was mostly used in German-speaking countries (H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck,
1969).
The later revision of the MMQ led Eysenck to design the Maudsley Personality Inventory
(MPI) in 1959. The MPI included a total of 48 yes/no questions that measured both the E and N
dimensions, but no Lie scale was incorporated. A short form of 24 items was also produced, 12
items each dimension. A typical question measuring N is Are you inclined to be moody?, and for

45
E is Do you prefer action to planning for action?. As regards the scoring method, any yes for N
or for E is counted 2 points and any no answer is counted 0 points. Hence the maximum score is
48 and minimum is 0 (H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck, 1969). Likewise, the MPI was in turn
subjected to revision and paved the way for the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) proposed in
1964. The EPI, still in use, comprises 57 items; 24 for E, 24 for N, and 9 for the Lie scale. This
inventory comes in two adult forms A and B and also for adolescents (junior version). In
comparison with earlier versions, the EPI has been widely used in educational areas, including
foreign language learning (see 2.4.2.1).
Further use of factor analysis to uncover the dimensions of personality gave rise to a third
super-factor that Eysenck labelled as psychoticism (P) or tough-mindedness. Accordingly, the
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), a revised version of the EPI, was developed in 1975.
The EPQ consists of 90 items distributed into four scales; E (21 items), N (23 items), P (25
points, and L (21 items). The mean scores for normal adults are 12 out of 21 points for E, 10 out
of 23 for N, and 3 out of 25 for P. Like the EPI, the EPQ has versions for adolescents and adults
as well as long and short forms. The revised version of the EPQ, the EPQ-R (1991), is composed
of 106 items measuring the same dimensions; E = 23, N = 24, P = 32, and L = 27. The 48-item
short form equally covers the four scales with 12 items each. Table 2.2 summarises the
chronological development of Eysencks personality tests.11

Table 2.2 Eysencks Personality Tests

Name
Maudsley Medical Questionnaire
Maudsley Personality Inventory
Eysenck Personality Inventory
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised

11

Acronym
(MMQ)
(MPI)
(EPI)
(EPQ)
(EPQ-R)

Year of introduction
1952
1959
1964
1975
1991

Scales
N&L
E&N
E, N, & L
E, N, P, & L
E, N, P, & L

There is a newer version of these tests known as the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP), which measures 21 traits
and contains 440 items for the long form and 200 items for the short form. The EPP was developed by H. J. Eysenck
and G. Wilson. More information is available at http://www.psi-press.co.uk/epp_info.htm, though with some
restrictions for single users.

46
Finally, it should be noted that Eysencks personality tests have been used worldwide, in
over 50 countries. Although factor analytic studies have extracted the same dimensions, the
number of items measuring each one has changed relatively due to subtle cross-cultural
differences, i.e. not all items of the original version are effective. For example, trials of the EPQ
in Persian showed only 20 items loaded on factor E, 21 on N, 10 on P, and 12 on L, compared to
the English version above (Hojat, 1987). Similarly, the Spanish version of the EPQ-R comprised
only 83 items, 19 measuring extraversion (Ortet et al, 2001) (see 5.2.1).
2.4 Extraversion and education.
H. J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) suggest that individual differences in E, N, and
P play a relevant role in everyday life, i.e. social behaviour, though other factors may also be
determinants. By social behaviour they mean the performance of individuals in social,
educational and occupational contexts. The literature on personality and its relationship to socalled social behaviour is abundant for a thorough review, see Furnham and Heaven (1999)
and for personality and occupational areas see Furnham (1992a). In this thesis, it is the
educational setting that interests us, namely extraversion in relation to general academic
achievement and extraversion and foreign/second language learning. As a word of warning, H. J.
Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck (1985) point out that it has been relatively difficult to find a strong
relationship between personality and educational achievement as other factors may have a role to
play, e.g. the subject studied, the teaching methods, the learners age, motivation, parental
influences, and the like. Also, it is true that the most relevant findings about personality and
performance have been obtained from laboratory settings: thus the potential problem here is that
such outcomes cannot always be extrapolated to real-life situations.

47
2.4.1 Extraversion and general academic attainment.
In this area, researchers have concentrated on the personality characteristics of, say,
successful students at the different educational levels. This common sense approach has led
researchers to identify the personality traits related to academic success in different disciplines
and educational levels. Typical studies involve correlations between personality test scores and
some sort of school grades achieved by students. In other studies, teachers ratings about their
learners observable behaviour and performance in the classroom are also used. Some other
investigations require the combination of personality variables, e.g. testing the performance of
homogeneous and heterogeneous personality groups, Es with Es and Is with Es, etc., which is
more experimental in nature (see Lemke et al 1974).
Research in this field generally suggests that at elementary and junior high school
(children aged below 13) the relationship between E and academic achievement is more or less
consistently positive (i.e. Es are better achievers than Is), whereas at higher levels of education
the relationship appears to be negative (Entwistle, 1972; Anthony, 1973, 1977), (i.e. Is are better
achievers than Es). A possible explanation for this peculiarity is that the more able children
become more introverted over time, whereas the less able children become more extraverted (H.
J. Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, 1985:321). Another explanation is that extraverted childrens
performance may go down as academic skills become more important at higher educational
levels, whereas the introverted children advance more rapidly. As to the university level, good
educational achievers are those whose score in neuroticism is high while in extraversion is low,
i.e. introverts are found to exceed extraverts academically. In this respect, H. J. Eysenck and M.
W. Eysenck (1985) explain that extraverts, generally low in arousal level, may find it difficult to
sustain long periods of concentration, which is usually necessary for successful academic study.
Wilson (1978) also explains that the memory differences between Es and Is may be a factor as

48
long-term verbal memory is useful for examination purposes, hence Is appear to be better
academic achievers.
In a study consistent with the above, Child (1964), among other objectives, set out to
investigate the relationship between E and N and performance in school examinations of 138
pupils from an urban comprehensive school (i.e. secondary schools). The Junior version of the
MPI was used to assess the personality variables, whereas for the attainment measures the
terminal examination marks in English, Mathematics, History and Geography were computed.
The results showed a positive relationship between introversion and attainment, i.e. a negative
relationship between E and attainment. Child explained that during revision the extraverted child
may have problems in concentrating on such as a boring task. Also, the nature of the
examinations themselves may involve an inhibition-producing and monotonous situation which
is a disadvantage for extraverts.
In another study, Savage (1966) studied the relationship between extraversion and the
intellectual level and school achievement of 93 school children, aged about 8 years. The Junior
version of the EPI was administered as well as other cognitive tests such as intelligence (IQ),
arithmetic (AR), and reading quotient (RQ). It should be noted that this EPI version required an
adult to read the statement aloud and the children just circled either yes or no. Savage found a
positive relationship between E and IQ (r= .267), E and AR (r= .235), but a non-significant
positive relationship between E and RQ (r= .191). These results support the superiority of
extraverted children to more introverted ones at this age. More importantly, Savages study
provides more support for the finding that extraversion is positively related to forms of academic
achievement at elementary levels of education.
As far as university level is concerned, Lynn (1959) studied both E and N and their
relationship with academic achievement in first-year university students, whose personality was
measured by means of the MPI. The first-year university students (115 men and 96 women) were

49
compared with so-called high-school control groups composed of 67 female occupational
therapy students differing in academic motivation and 100 male apprentices. The male and
female controls scored significantly higher in extraversion than the male and female university
group, mean scores 29.3 vs. 22.4 and 28.5 vs. 22.9 respectively. Such large differences led Lynn
to conclude that as university entrance is mostly gained on performance in A levels,
educational achievement at school may be determined by the extraversion dimension. In a
follow-up study Bendig (1960) also looked into E and N (MPI scores) as related to student
achievement (mean performance on four course examinations). Bendig found a negative and
significant though low relationship between extraversion and course achievement of 202
undergraduate male students in introductory psychology (r= - 0.17). Moreover, Savage (1962)
investigated the personality determinants of academic performance in first-year students from
New England University. Based on the Eysenckian theory and the relevant literature at that time,
Savage predicted and found a significantly negative relationship between E and academic
success; in other words, the higher the E score, as measured by the MPI, the lower the academic
success of the learner as determined by end-of-year examination scores. Further research was
carried out by Kline (1966), whose subjects were first-year university Ghanaian students. This
time, the EPI provided a reliable measure of E and N and an intermediate examination was used
for the academic aspect. The results indicated that E was related significantly and negatively
with academic attainment, thus supporting the above hypothesis. Furthermore, Klines study
seems to confirm the universality of the E dimension across cultures.
In sum, the relationship studied above seems to be fairly consistent: Es are more
successful than Is at elementary and junior high school, but Is outperform Es at high school and
university level. In our study we will investigate whether extraversion is also related to academic
achievement in English as a foreign language in Mexico. Hence, provisionally, the following
hypothesis can be formulated:

50

There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English academic achievement

at university level in Mexico.

In our case, English academic achievement will be determined by end-of-semester grades in a

general English course. The final grades obtained by first-to-fourth university students are
typically composed of several standardised criteria for evaluation such as written homework,
classroom participation, attendance, and written and oral exams. As to the measure of
extraversion, the Spanish version of the EPQ-R will be utilised (see 5.2.1). This hypothesis will
be reformulated more precisely in section 2.4.2.1 (see also 4.6).
2.4.2 Extraversion and second/foreign language learning
Interest in looking into the relationship between personality factors (specifically
extraversion) and second/foreign language learning can be traced back to the early seventies.
Interest arose initially from the findings in educational psychology about the relationship
between personality of the learner and general academic achievement as seen in 2.4.1. Hence,
researchers became tempted to make extrapolations into the realm of second language learning in
schools, which can be sensibly considered as some form of academic achievement and learning;
for example, Guiora et al (1972) studied empathy as related to pronunciation. Originally, the
learners personality characteristics were viewed as components of what is known as the
affective domain in language learning, which consists of several affective variables. By affective
variables is meant those emotionally relevant characteristics of the individual that influence
how she/he will respond to any situation (Gardner and MacIntyre, 1993:1). H. D. Brown (1973)
was one of the first researchers to point out that affective variables had not received enough
attention as compared to cognitive variables (e.g. aptitude and intelligence). Thus, he argues that
while all the optimal cognitive factors may be operating in the attempted solution of a given
task, the learner can fail because of an affective block (p. 232). Brown also suggests that three
general affective areas should be explored: egocentric factors, social factors, and cognitive

51
style,12 following Guiora et al.s research design. It is within the so-called social factors that the
introversion-extraversion dimension began to be taken into account in the area of second
language learning. Similarly, Krashen (1982) proposes his affective filter hypothesis, which
states that L2 learners feelings may influence successful second language acquisition. The
affective filter includes three other constructs: motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Krashen
claims that lack of motivation or confidence and high degree of anxiety (i.e. high affective filter)
are not optimal for language acquisition.
What follows, then, is a brief account of the literature on extraversion and its relationship
with second language learning, that is, to what extent the degree of extraversion in language
learners may determine their achievement or success and their learning strategies choice or use.
It should be noted that not all studies are precisely concerned with the extraversion construct as
such; rather, they deal with personality and/or affective variables in which some related
components of extraversion are included, for example, sociability, impulsivity, self-confidence,
outgoingness, etc. In addition, consistent with the focus of this thesis, we separate this review
into the focus-on product approach and the focus-on-process approach.13 The former will cover
studies in which some sort of language achievement or proficiency measures (e.g. written and
oral tests, final grades) or classroom performance (e.g. participation) measures have been used.
The latter will focus on language learning strategies as related to extraversion. This section will
pave the way for subsequent hypotheses on the relationship between extraversion and use of
vocabulary learning strategies since no previous studies have been conducted in this area.

12

Current research has shown that the boundaries between the affective and the cognitive domain overlap to such an
extent that cognitive styles have been considered as a subset of personality (Furnham, 1992b; Jackson and LawtyJones, 1996). Even H. D. Brown (1973) suggests that cognitive style can be a combination of both affect and
cognition.
13
We are not entering here into the argument about the difference between learning strategies and learning processes
as reviewed by Bialystok (1985).

52
2.4.2.1 Extraversion and language achievement/proficiency focus on product.
It has already been hypothesised that extraversion, among other personality variables,
may have some influence on second language achievement. It should be recalled that
extraversion is generally viewed as a continuum ranging from introversion to extraversion. In
this respect, as pointed out by Skehan (1989:101), in applied linguistics, extraversion has been
expected to be the desirable end of such a cline, which is more likely to be operative in a
second language than a foreign language situation since foreign languages are usually learnt
exclusively in school/university, so should follow the pattern of 2.4.1 (Scholfield, personal
communication). This prediction has also been considered by Ellis (1994:520) who states that
there are two hypotheses regarding the relationship between extraversion and L2 learning. The
first hypothesis is that Es may be more successful in acquiring basic interpersonal
communication skills (BICS) because their degree of sociability may prompt them to look for
more opportunities to practise, more input, and more success in communicating in the L2. The
second hypothesis states that Is may be better at developing cognitive academic language
proficiency (CALP) because they tend to prefer reading and writing skills. Ellis also points out
that evidence for the relationship between extraversion and acquisition of BICS has been more or
less consistent, but not in the case of introversion and the development of CALP. Bearing these
two hypotheses in mind, in what follows we will briefly review some studies on extraversion as
related to language achievement/proficiency outcomes, though the authors did not explicitly
refer them as BICS or CALP measures.14 Hence, we speculate whether the language measures
use in the following studies are more representative of BICS or of CALP.
One of the first attempts to relate personality traits of the foreign language learner to
academic success was made by Smart, Elton and Burnett (1970) in the United States. They
administered the Omnibus Personality Inventory, which measures among other personality

14

Some of these studies were published before Cummins (1979) introduced the BICS/CALP distinction.

53
factors, thinking introversion and social extraversion. The participants were 84 female
university learners of intermediate French who were categorised into underachievers (n = 13,
average achievers (n = 58) and overachievers (n = 13) according to their high school grades and
academic aptitude written test scores, which may considered as measures of CALP. Smart et al.
also found that the learners with the highest predicted grades in French (i.e. overachievers) were
those with a high degree of introversion, that is, they do not enjoy social activities, prefer not to
be in crowds, do not spend their free time at social functions, seldom take the initiative at social
gatherings, work better by themselves, and prefer to work alone (p. 419). As can be noted, this
finding seems to be consistent with the hypothesis among educational and personality
researchers that introverts may outperform extraverts at university level, though in applied
linguistic research the opposite direction has been generally expected.
By contrast, Chastain (1975) investigated the influence of affective and ability factors on
second language acquisition. Three variables were operationalised using the Marlowe-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale, which may be considered as a valid and reliable psychometric test, to
account for affective factors: anxiety, reserved vs. outgoing personality, and creativity. These
variables were correlated with final grades obtained by 229 American university learners of
French, German, and Spanish enrolled in beginning courses. The results for the
reserved/outgoing scale were not consistent across the different languages as he only found a
significant and positive relationship in the Spanish (r = 0.34) and German (r = 0.30) courses, but
not in the French class (r = 0.14). However, he did find a significantly positive relationship when
all the groups were gathered together for analysis (r = 0.28). Regarding such apparent
inconsistency, Chastain points out that course grades are not generally a good measure of
language achievement. This may be true in that the criteria for assessment might not have been
homogenous or balanced in each class, that is, classroom participation, types of examination, and
even the percentage assigned to each component comprising the final grades. In sum, this finding

54
conflicts with Smart, Elton and Burnett (1970) and goes in line with the general prediction in
applied linguistics that extraversion may be a positive predictor of second language achievement,
even in settings like university where Is usually do better.
In one of the most influential empirical studies in second language learning, extraversion,
among other cognitive and affective variables, was also investigated by Naiman et al (1978) who
aimed to uncover the strategies and techniques used by the good language learners as well their
personality traits, cognitive styles, and attitudes towards learning French. The participants were
72 Canadian high school students selected from three levels of a programme in French as a
second language (grades 8, 10, and 12). Naiman et al claimed that these three levels were
representative of three levels of language proficiency (beginners, intermediate, and advanced
students). In order to identify good and poor learners the researchers used proficiency tests for
both receptive and productive competence, i.e. the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
(IEA) listening comprehension French test and an imitation task. They also considered the
teachers opinions for the identification of the good language learners, which were compared
with IEA results. As far as personality is concerned, Naiman et al., used the IntroversionExtraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) as they suggested that certain
personality characteristics, such as empathy, or extroversion-introversion, could affect language
learning strategies and outcomes (p.7). Surprisingly, neither extraversion nor empathy was
found to be significantly related to the language-related measures the IEA and the imitation
tests. However, a positive relationship was found between what they called student overall
classroom personality and the above tests, r = 0.361 and 0.380 respectively. This seems to
suggest that outgoing and less inhibited students may be better second language achievers. This
personality variable was quantified on the basis of (1) student certainty in hand raising, (2)
student reaction to being called upon without hand-raising, (3) student embarrassment in

55
speaking French, and (4) student affective remarks, which might not be a reliable measure of E15
(Scholfield, personal communication). To sum up, as pointed out by Dewaele and Furnham
(1999), the absence of correlation between extraversion and the test outcomes in Naiman et als
study appeared to have been due to their research design (i.e. the dependent variable), and not
due to the lack of the construct validity of the EPI. They suggest that Naiman et al should have
used not only written tests but also tests of natural spoken language. In this respect, we could add
that the language measures used in this study were a mixture of BICS and CALP, which may
explain the absence of a clear correlation with extraversion.
In another study Busch (1982) also examined the relationship between introversionextraversion and the EFL proficiency of 80 junior college and 105 adult school students in Japan.
A translated version of the EPI was used to measure extraversion. As regards language measures,
a nationally standardised English test was utilised, which consisted of four components:
grammar/vocabulary, reading, aural comprehension, and dictation. In addition, some learners
were interviewed for measures of spoken English. The interviews were then rated on the basis of
comprehension, pronunciation, fluency, and grammar. In general, the results showed no
significant relationships between extraversion and language measures. Only, pronunciation, a
subcomponent of the oral test, was found to be significantly correlated, but negatively, with
extraversion (r= -.38). In other words, introverts can be more accurate when pronouncing in
English. Further, it is interesting to note that there was an almost significant, but negative
relationship between extraversion and the components of grammar/vocabulary, and reading. This
may suggest that introverts may be relatively better than extraverts in receptive written tests.
Also, gender seemed to make a difference in that males having higher levels of extraversion
tended to have higher oral proficiency scores (p. 124). However, this result should be treated

15

There may be some subjectivity in considering student affective remarks because the most popular learners in the
classroom may receive better comments on their personality from other peers than those who are less popular. Also,
if learners are asked to describe themselves in terms of their personality, they may tend to show some social
desirability.

56
with caution as the sample size was too small (n = 17) and no differences were found with regard
to the proficiency test. In sum, these partial results are in line with the assumption in general
education that introverts tend to outperform extraverts enrolled in high school and university.
Similarly, Strong (1983) explored the relationship between what he labelled social styles
and three language measures obtained from 13 Spanish-speaking kindergarteners living in the
United States. The seven social styles were quantified by direct observation for talkativeness,
responsiveness, and gregariousness; by the Early School Personality Questionnaire (ESPQ) for
assertiveness and extraversion; by the California Preschool Social Competence Scale for social
competence and by peer-nomination for popularity. As to the linguistic variables, these included
(1) productive structural knowledge assessed by examining interviews and playroom language
transcripts, (2) play vocabulary assessed by transcripts of playroom sessions, and (3)
pronunciation assessed by three independent judges who listened to tape-recorded interviews.
Again, extraversion was not significantly associated with any of the language measures, but a
negative tendency was found in vocabulary, r = - 0.21. Strong explained that the lack of
significance may lie in the nature of the ESPQ and its appropriateness as an instrument to assess
social styles. He went on to say that such an instrument measures more how children would
like to be than how they actually are (p. 252). This is not the case for Eysencks personality
questionnaires. However, some points can be highlighted from Strongs study. Responsiveness,
talkativeness, and gregariousness, which may be considered as manifestations of extraversion,
positively predicted performance in some of the language measures (e.g. talkativeness and
productive structural knowledge, r = 0.72). Interestingly, these three social styles were obtained
from direct observation. It seems, then, that very young learners with extraverted tendencies may
have more opportunities to acquire the target language because of their high degree of
sociability. More importantly, this statistically significant result supports the hypothesis that

57
extraversion is a positive predictor of L2 as well as of general academic achievement (2.4.1) in
childhood.
In another relatively different, but relevant investigation, Ely (1986) studied the
psychological determinants of classroom participation, which, among other factors, may lead to
second language proficiency. Based on previous literature, he operationalised three main
questionnaire-based constructs: language class risk-taking, language class sociability, and
language class discomfort. The first two constructs are closely associated with extraversion and
the third one with anxiety. It should be noted that other predictors were conceptualised such as
strength of motivation, attitudes towards the language class, concern for grade, language learning
aptitude, among others. For language proficiency measures, Ely employed tests of oral fluency,
oral correctness, and written correctness. The participants were six classes of university learners
of Spanish in their first year of studies. The results showed that language class risktaking was a
significant positive and only predictor of classroom participation. Contrary to Strongs finding,
sociability did not positively determine classroom participation, which was found to account for
oral correctness in one level of proficiency. Strangely, Ely did not explore the direct relationship
between classroom risktaking and sociability and the three language-related measures. Certainly,
this exploration would have shed more light of the role of extraversion in language learning.
Nagi (1987) looked into the relationship of field dependence-independence, extraversionintroversion and attitude/motivation with foreign language proficiency of 117 advanced Algerian
learners of English at secondary level. The participants were grouped according to their subject
of study: Sciences Bilingues and Lettres Arabisees. As a measure of extraversion, the EPI was
administered. With respect to the language-related measures of proficiency, Nagi conceptualised
three types of competence: linguistic, communicative, and pragmatic (or contextual). The
analyses yielded no relationship between extraversion-introversion and language proficiency
when the whole sample was explored. However, extraversion did positively correlate with

58
performance in communicative and pragmatic competence of Lettres Arabisees learners, (r
= 0.30 and r = 0.43 respectively); but there was a non-significant (and negative) relationship in
linguistic competence aspects (in accord with the CALP prediction). These results partially
suggest that, at least in this group and following the prediction about BICS, extraverts tend to
outdo introverts in oral skills and pragmatic knowledge. Nevertheless, the non-significant results
in the Sciences Bilingues group and in the whole sample may raise some questions, that is,
some extraneous variables might have had an effect or even differences in the teaching methods
used in both groups and their years of study might have been responsible for such inconsistency.
In this respect, Scholfield (personal communication) points out that in many studies of this
nature the validity of the language measures and the control (or not) of the amount and kind of
prior teaching and exposure to L2 of subjects may be an issue. He argues that sometimes it has to
be assumed that such aspects have been considered.
Despite the ostensible lack of a clear relationship in one direction between extraversion
and second language learning, other researchers felt motivated to further investigate it. Robinson,
Gabriel, and Katchan (1994) aimed to determine whether extraversion and neuroticism
accounted for the performance of 41 tertiary level students of French in both written and oral
tests. The written tests were focused on grammar and vocabulary whereas oral performance was
obtained from marks awarded for classroom participation and a final exam done in groups of 2
or 4. This time, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), a more recent version of the EPI,
was employed. The findings show that learners who scored highly on extraversion and
neuroticism performed better in the oral examinations; learners scoring highly on neuroticism
and low in extraversion did better in the written test. Again, these results seem to support the
BICS/CALP prediction suggested by Ellis (1994). All in all, neuroticism was observed to be a
better predictor than extraversion as far as oral examination is concerned. Based on these
outcomes, Robinson, et al., explain that people high on both extraversion and neuroticism have

59
a special aptitude for language learning and are therefore more likely to become participants in
tertiary level language learning courses (p. 52). However, this explanation should be treated
with care as the characteristics of the good language learning also include introverted-related
traits (see Rubin, 1975).
Further research on the relationship between extraversion and language-related measures
was conducted by Ehrman and Oxford (1995). They used the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI) to measure the personality variables of 855 participants from the U.S. Department of
State. Peculiarly, it was found that the sample as a whole tended to be introverted, fairly
intuitive and thinking-oriented, and quite clearly judging16 (p.75). Language learning success
was assessed by means of end-of-training proficiency scores in speaking and reading in
languages other than English. It should be noted that other cognitive affective variables were also
investigated, e.g. tolerance of ambiguity, language learning strategies and styles, language
aptitude, motivation, self-esteem, and anxiety. Ehrman and Oxford found that extraversionintroversion did not correlate with language learning; but they noticed an unsurprising slight
advantage for visual (introversion) over auditory 17 (extraversion) for reading (p. 80). This
advantage was also observed by Kiany (1997), whose study is reviewed later on in this section.
In more general language learning terms, Ehrman and Oxford (1995) suggest that extraverts
might be more comfortable learning outside the classroom, in the field, but this remains to be
investigated.
In the same vein, Carrell, Prince, and Astika (1996) report on a study they carried out in
Indonesia. The subjects were 76 Indonesian university learners, who were administered the
MBTI. Measures of academic performance included English reading comprehension,

16

It should be recalled that the MBTI measures four bipolar dimensions: introversion-extraversion, sensingintuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving.
17
The bipolar visual-auditory subscale is part of the Type Differentiation Indicator (TDI), which provides data on
the subscales for each of the four MTBI dimensions, e.g. extraversion-introversion. Other bipolar subscales of
extraversion include expressive-contained, gregarious-intimate, enthusiastic-quiet, initiator-receptor. Thus visual
(introverts) are opposed to auditory (extraverts).

60
vocabulary, grammar, and writing assessed on a monthly basis and end-of-semester grades. As
regards results, introversion, in particular, only correlated significantly and positively with
vocabulary (r = 0.21, p < 0.07), though the level of significance was set at p < 0.10 rather than at
p < 0.05. The researchers argued that the exploratory nature of their investigation was a criterion
for setting such a level of significance. Regardless of this lack of robustness, it seems that
introversion may be a positive predictor of performance on the vocabulary test, which may be a
more CALP-oriented measure. Also, in a further analysis of the data, Carrell et al., found that
on the vocabulary tests, students categorized as introverts outperformed extraverts (p. 91).
Another important finding was also observed when the end-of-semester marks of both types of
learners were compared: introverts obtained significantly higher grades than extraverts.
Interestingly, the top-performing learners had introverted tendencies (cf. Smart, et al., 1970). As
can be noted, the results appear to support the assumption held in educational psychology that
introverts do better than extraverts at university level (cf. 2.4.1).
Kiany (1997) analysed the relationship between extraversion and English proficiency of
237 Iranian students undertaking postgraduate studies in English-speaking countries, namely,
UK, USA, Australia, and Canada. Extraversion was measured by means of the Persian
standardised version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), which was mailed to the
participants along with a return self-stamped envelope. The language-related measures
incorporated scores on the TOEFL, the IELTS, and on an institutionalised English test adopted
in Iran (MCHE). Other linguistic instruments were also administered to some learners studying
in the UK, e.g. a cloze test and an oral interview. The participants were grouped into English
Major, Non-English Major, and Immersion Group learners for the purpose of statistical
comparisons. Interestingly, Kiany found that most correlations between extraversion and scores
on the TOEFL, the IELTS, the MCHE test, and the cloze test for both English and non-English
major students were negative, though not all of them were significant. More importantly,

61
extraversion correlated significantly and negatively with the TOEFL subcomponent of reading
comprehension and vocabulary, which is more CALP-like (r = - 0.31, p < 0.05; - 0.33, p <
0.001). In fact, it was the non-English major group that showed more statistically significant
relationships. Contrary to the expected result, the relationship between extraversion and the oral
interview (more BICS-like), though positive, did not reach the acceptable significance level.
Furthermore, in a preliminary study, Kiany observed a negatively significant relationship
between extraversion and academic achievement as measured by Grade Point Average scores
(GPA), supporting the findings described in 6.2.1. In sum, this study shows that introverts tend
to outperform extraverts, at least in receptive proficiency tests. The same tendency seems to
occur as far as general academic achievement is concerned.
More recently, in response to the relatively inconsistent results, Dewaele and Furnham
(2000) concentrated on the relationship between extraversion and speech production in second
language learning. The participants were 25 Flemish university students who had enrolled in
French courses at high school level. The Eysenck Personality Inventory was utilised to measure
extraversion. Seven linguistic variables were considered for analysis such as implicit speech
style, speech rates, proportion of er (i.e., hesitation), lexical richness, accuracy rates, proportion
of semantic errors, and length of utterances (MLU). In addition, two situational variables were
incorporated: a stressful condition (e.g. oral exam) and a neutral condition (e.g. relaxed
conversation with the researchers). All the conversations were recorded, transcribed, and coded
at the word level. All in all, Dewaele and Furnham found a positive relationship between
extraversion and speech rates in both conditions, suggesting more fluency in extraverts and
supporting the prediction about BICS. A similar pattern was observed with the implicit speech
style variable. However, it seems that the two types of conditions played a part in the study
since a negative relationship between extraversion and lexical richness as well as proportion of
hesitation in the stressful condition arose, though a non-significant association was observed in

62
the neutral condition. Thus, the researchers conclude that introverts may be predicted to
hesitate more and show more lexical richness at least under stressful situations. It should be
noted that the same phenomenon has been observed in studies of vigilance performance, in
which the situation had an effect on performance (see Wilson, 1978).
As can be seen, the studies outlined above have provided a confused picture of the role of
extraversion in determining foreign language outcomes. In some studies the relationship between
extraversion and some forms of language achievement or proficiency has been negative; in
others a positive relationship has been found; and in some others, no relationship has been
reported.

As

pointed

out

by

Scholfield,

this

could

depend

on

how

far

the

achievement/proficiency measures were of BICS, CALP or a mixture of both. In addition, the

significant correlations reported have characteristically been from weak to moderate, suggesting
that extraversion may be one more predictor of success in language achievement amongst many
others. Interestingly, similar low/weak correlations have also been found in studies of personality
and general education as well as studies of personality traits as determinants of behaviour and
attitudes. Likewise, academic performance differences between introverts and extraverts have
been found statistically significant in some investigations, but non-significant in others. To
conclude, despite the relatively contradictory findings concerning extraversion and components
of language achievement, some preliminary research hypotheses can be formulated about
extraversion as a predictor of performance on a vocabulary test and as a predictor of academic
achievement in English at a university level. Finally, it must be pointed out that although the
main focus of this thesis is the relationship between extraversion and the use of vocabulary
learning strategies, looking into vocabulary and English achievement falls in the wider scope of
this investigation. Thus two hypotheses are formulated (see also 4.6 for a summary of all
hypotheses and research questions of this study).

63

Hypotheses on extraversion and CALP-oriented language outcomes

1. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English receptive vocabulary
as measured by the Vocabulary Levels Test.
2. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English academic achievement
as measured by end-of-semester grades.

2.4.2.2 Extraversion and language learning strategies focus on process.

The extraversion dimension has been assumed to be associated with language outcomes
(i.e. L2 achievement or proficiency) and with the learning process in the form of language
learning strategies (LLS). If Naiman et als (1978) model of the second language learner and
language learning is considered, it can be seen that learner variables (e.g. personality) as well as
teaching variables and L2 environment variables may influence the learning process18, which in
turn, may account for differences in the learning outcome. However, very few studies have been
conducted in personality as compared with other individual differences such as motivation,
language aptitude, attitude, cognitive style, etc. In the following section, the relatively few
studies on the relationship between personality and LLS will be outlined. Certainly, these
investigations will provide some theoretical background in order to formulate some provisional
hypotheses about the relationship between extraversion and the use of VLS and suggest that VLS
are an important component of general LLS research. In other words, due to the lack of research
on the extraversion-VLS relationship, a common sense approach leads us to find partial support
for hypotheses at least from the wider area of LLS.
Much of the research on learner characteristics associated with LLS has been conducted
by Ehrman and Oxford (1989; 1990) and Oxford and Ehrman (1995). They have made extensive
use of the MBTI as a reliable psychometric test of personality preferences, including

18

To Naiman et al (1978:8) the learning process consists of consciously employed strategies and techniques, and
unconscious mental processes.

64
introversion-extraversion. It should be recalled that the theoretical basis of the MBTI is the work
of Carl Jung (see 2.2.1). Thus, Oxford and Anderson (1995:208) conceptualise the traits of
introversion and extraversion types as follows:
Extroverted learners gain their energy and focus from events and people outside of
themselves. They enjoy a breadth of interest and many friends, and they like group work.
Extroverted students enjoy English conversation, role-plays, and other highly interactive
activities.

On the other hand,

Introverted learners are stimulated most by their own inner world of ideas and feelings. Their
interests are deep, and they have fewer friendships than extroverted students (but often strong
ones). They prefer to work alone or else in a pair with someone they know well; they dislike
lots of continuous group work in the language classroom.

In the same vein, Ehrman (1996:99) also lists the typical characteristics of introverted
and extraverted second language learners as shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3 Characteristics of introversion and extraversion types

Introversion
Internal world
Introspection
Concentration
A few people at a time
Seeks to manage or reduce stimulation
Paralysis by analysis (at extreme)
Visual
Reflective and contained
Likes to work alone

Extraversion
Outside world
Action
Interaction
Gregarious
Seeks to find stimulation
Impulsivity (at extreme)
Auditory
Talkative and expressive
Likes study groups

With these personality traits in mind, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) set out to investigate if
personality type, among other variables (sex and career choice), determine the use of LLS. Their
study involved 78 adult students, language teachers and professional language trainers, who were
administered the MBTI and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). The SILL
was factor-analysed giving rise to the following ten factors:

65
1.
2.

Searching for and communicating meaning (e.g. guessing when incomplete information is not available).
General strategies for reading and study (e.g. previewing lessons, skimming the reading passage before
reading in detail).
3. Affective strategies (overcoming fear, frustration and anxiety by various methods).
4. Formal model building (e.g. constructing and testing hypotheses about the language, analyzing words into
component parts).
5. Authentic language use (e.g. seeking native speakers with whom to talk).
6. Memory strategies (mnemonics) (e.g. making associations, using flashcards).
7. Social strategies (e.g. asking for examples, working with peers).
8. Self-management (e.g. planning for future language tasks, identifying goals).
9. Visualization (e.g. using mental images, drawing pictures of new words).
10. Independent strategies (e.g. reading aloud to self, practicing new words mentally, listing related words).

Ehrman and Oxford (1989) had hypothesised that extraverts would use more affective
strategies, authentic language use, and social strategies than introverts. Introverts, on the other
hand, were predicted to use more independent and self-management strategies than extraverts.
The researchers only found a significant difference in terms of affective strategies, which were
used more by extraverts. Also, extraverts significantly reported more use of visual strategies than
introverts. Contrary to Ehrman and Oxfords expectations, introverts were found to use more
searching for and communicating meaning strategies than extraverts. This finding suggests that
introverts tend to look for meaning and context before acting (p. 9), a finding which is closely
associated with their personality traits.
Regarding the non-significant strategy use differences between the personality types, two
comments can be made. First, the MBTI itself forced the categorization of the participants into
either introverts or extraverts, leaving no category for individuals who could have been placed in
between (i.e. ambiverts) who, in a normally distributed sample, are more in number. That is, if
ambiverts had been identified and omitted, then more group differences in LLS use might have
been found. Alternatively, the personality variable could have been treated as a continuous one
in order not to lose individual score information and see if there some relationships with the use
of LLS, especially in terms of social and independent strategies. Also a more detailed picture
could have been obtained if all the strategies had been analysed separately or in the
predetermined sets of the SILL, e.g. cognitive strategies.

66
In further studies, Ehrman and Oxford (1990) and Oxford and Ehrman (1995) also
investigated whether the use of language learning strategies is related to personality type. The
1990 study is purely qualitative in nature with interviews obtained from 20 adult learners. These
subjects were part of the quantitative investigation outlined above, and had already answered the
SILL and the MBTI. This time, the authors did not factor analyse the strategy data; rather, they
adopted the SILL categorisation system, e.g. memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective, and social strategies. The variables considered in this study were sex, occupation, age,
and psychological type. As regards introversion-extraversion types, some mostly expected
differences were found, which are summarised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

There is a clear difference between introverts and extraverts in the use of social and metacognitive
strategies. Introverts showed preference for metacognitive strategies whereas extraverts preferred social
strategies.
Extraverts reported more use of indirect strategies than direct strategies, namely social strategies such as
asking the teacher for clarification.
Atypical strategies reported by extraverts were some metacognitive strategies (e.g. paying attention to
allow for longer concentration spans); cognitive strategies (e.g. reasoning deductively and analysing
contrastively); and using resources such as dictionaries.
Introverts preferred to study alone and avoid social contact, which goes in line with preferences for reading
and writing to speaking and listening.
Introverts showed preference for the cognitive strategy of using formal, structured materials.

Nevertheless, no differences were detected as in memory and compensation strategies. In

fact, one would have expected some differences in terms of memory strategies because, as stated
earlier (see 2.3.2.1), introverts have been found to be good at long term memory, whereas
extraverts do well in short term memory. Likewise, affective strategies were somewhat preferred
by introverts, and not reported by extraverts. Overall, however, the clear tendencies are seen with
regard to metacognitive and social strategies. This clear pattern seems to be accounted for by the
personality traits of both introverts and extraverts. As a matter of fact, Oxford and Ehrman
(1995), with a larger sample (n = 520), confirmed that extraverts are characterised by using more
social strategies than introverts. Thus, the authors point out that users of social strategies for

67
language learning tend to be open about their thoughts and feelings and they are realistic and
down-to-earth in their learning (p.375).
Finally, a study that exclusively set out to investigate the relationship of introversionextraversion and the use of LLS was conducted by Wakamoto (2000). Motivated by the work of
Oxford and her associates, Wakamoto administered both the MBTI and the SILL to 254
university students in Japan. The results from the SILL were factor-analysed and six factors were
extracted and labelled as follows:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Functional practice strategies (i.e., focus of practice on actual language, not on the forms of language).
Strategies for maintaining communication (i.e., ways of avoiding breakdown of communication).
Metacognitive strategies (i.e., control of cognitive processes by planning, evaluating, monitoring).
Memory strategies (i.e., ways of helping memorise words or information).
Social-affective strategies (i.e., forms of mediating the relationship between people or controlling ones
affectivity).
General study strategies, (i.e. ways of helping general learning in schools).

Unlike Ehrman and Oxford (1989), Wakamoto opted for using the personality scale as a
continuous variable and then in categories as dictated by the nature of the MBTI. The results
showed factors 1 and 5 had a positive and significant relationship with extraversion. A t-test also
confirmed a significant difference between introverts and extraverts in the use of functional
practice strategies and social-affective strategies. Wakamoto also examined the SILL items
separately in terms of relationships and differences. He found that 8 strategies were significantly
and positively related to extraversion, showing that extraverts use such strategies more
frequently than introverts. Obviously most of the strategies belong to factors 1 and 5
respectively, e.g., I practise English with other students and I ask for help from English speakers.
However, it must be observed that contrary to the previous findings, metacognitive strategies
(factor 3) did not correlate with extraversion. Memory strategies did not show any positive
relationship with extraversion, though putatively short- and long-term memory are related to this
personality dimension.

68
In sum, the relatively small amount of research on extraversion and the choice of LLS
may lead us to make some extrapolations into the area of VLS. What follows, then, are some
preliminary research questions and hypotheses, which will certainly be reformulated in the
following chapter devoted to vocabulary learning strategies (see 4.6 for a summary of the
research questions and hypotheses of our study).

Preliminary research questions and hypotheses on E and use of VLS

1. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and overall use of vocabulary
learning strategies?
2. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of separate
vocabulary learning strategies?
3. There is a positive relationship between extraversion and the use of social-discovery
strategies
4. Is there a relationship between extraversion and the use of further-consolidation
strategies?
5. Is there a relationship between extraversion and the use of memorisation strategies?

As can be seen, research questions 1 and 2 aim to explore whether extraversion may
predict overall use of VLS and use of specific VLS. The only hypothesis (3) formulated here is,
to some extent, supported by the findings above that the high degree of sociability in Es may
prompt them to use social-related strategies more frequently than Is. Research question 4 looks
into the possible relationship between extraversion and the use of further-consolidation
strategies, especially when learners plan actions to consolidate L2 vocabulary, which may reflect
some kind of metacognitive strategies. However, it must be admitted that the term
metacognitive may be applicable to other VLS as long as learners plan to take actions for
learning L2 vocabulary (see 3.3.4 for a discussion of further-consolidation strategies). Last but

69
not least, research question 5 arises from the findings from studies about memory and
extraversion mentioned in 2.3.2.
2.5 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter the three definitions of the personality construct were cited and discussed.
Also, three main approaches to personality description and explanation were reviewed: trait and
type theories, situationism, and interactionism. The main issue among these three views has to do
with the determinants of personality, that is, whether personality is determined more by specific
traits within the individual or by the situation, or by the interaction between the individuals
characteristics and the situation. Proponents of such views have presented their own arguments;
however, it seems that trait theorists have provided more empirical evidence, though they do not
deny the existence of the environment to which each individual reacts more or less consistently.
It must be noted that even among trait and type theorists there is still no agreement on the
specific number of personality dimensions, let alone the labels of the dimensions. Situationists
and interactionists have widely criticised trait theorists arguing that traits within the individual
are poor predictors of human behaviour (correlations between .30 and .40). Trait theorists, on
their part, reply by asking why, if personality is mainly determined by the situation, people
behave differently in a given situation? Nevertheless, the main question of the determinants of
personality remains unanswered due to the complexity of such a psychological construct.
We paid most attention to both type and trait theories because it is there that extraversion
or something similar has been discussed. More importantly, the work of H. J. Eysenck and his
associates has been adopted as a theoretical framework of this thesis, that is, his definition of
personality and of introversion-extraversion, his biological view of personality, and his
personality inventories. In addition, the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between

70
extraversion and general performance (e.g. memory, vigilance, cognitive styles) has informed the
preliminary hypotheses which have been drawn up for the purposes of our investigation.
In the last section of this chapter, studies of extraversion in educational performance were
briefly reviewed. The review started from general academic achievement, and was followed by
extraversion and language related measures and also covered extraversion and language learning
strategies. In general, extraversion has been found to be associated with educational
performance. In particular, extraversion is considered as a negative predictor of general
academic achievement at university and high school levels, but a positive predictor at lower
levels of education. However, this finding has not been so consistent in relation to language
achievement. In some studies, no relationship was found between extraversion and languagerelated measures, whereas in others, the relationship was either positive or negative, especially
when a differentiation was made between written and oral tests. Finally, the very few studies
concerning extraversion and language learning strategies did show some differences between
introverted and extraverted learners as far as social strategies are concerned. Certainly, some
extrapolations can be made into the area of vocabulary learning strategies, which are the main
focus of this thesis.

71

Chapter 3

Background on language learning strategies with

special reference to vocabulary learning strategies

To date, research on language learning strategies (LLS) is considered extensive in its own
right. Interest in this realm started to grow in the 1970s with exploratory studies on what
successful students systematically did to learn a second or foreign language. As this thesis is
mainly concerned with the use of vocabulary learning strategies (VLS), which are generally
viewed as a subset of general LLS, it seems sensible to provide an account of several aspects
relevant to this wide research area. Broadly speaking, this chapter consists of three main
sections. The first section is concerned with an overview of LLS covering such aspects as
definitions of LLS and main existing taxonomies with special attention to VLS. Section two will
concentrate on both situational and learner factors that have been found to influence the use or
choice of LLS, though more emphasis will be given to learner variables, for example, L2
proficiency or achievement, gender, learning styles, and personality the main factor of our
study. In section three, the focus will be entirely on reviewing key studies done on VLS, namely,
on guessing strategies, skipping strategies, dictionary use strategies, social strategies, note-taking
strategies, and memorisation strategies (including repetition and self-generated practice), and
further consolidation strategies.
3.1 Language learning strategies: definitions and taxonomies.
In reality, there are many aspects to deal with when providing an overview of LLS, which
are definitely beyond the scope of this thesis. Therefore, what follows is a brief description of
two essential issues for our study: the plethora of definitions of LLS and four language learning
strategy taxonomies. It should be noted that special attention will be paid to the second issue in
relation to vocabulary learning strategies.

72
3.1.1 Defining language learning strategies
Like the construct of personality dealt with in the previous chapter, the concept of
learning strategy is elusive to a great extent. Although many definitions of LLS exist in the
literature, the most influential ones are examined here more or less in a chronological order, as
seen in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Definitions of learning strategies

Author(s)
Rubin (1975:43)
Stern (1983:405)

Chamot (1987:71)
Rubin (1987:23)
Wenden (1987:6)
Cohen (1990:5)

O'Malley and Chamot (1990:1)

Oxford (1990:8)
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991:212)
Cohen (1998:4)

Definition
By strategies, I mean the techniques or devices which a
learner may use to acquire knowledge.
In our view strategy is best reserved for general tendencies
or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the
language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to
particular forms of observable learning behaviour.
Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or deliberate
actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning,
recall of both linguistic and content area information.
Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the
development of the language system which the learner
constructs and affect learning directly.
the term learner strategies refers to language learning
behaviours learners actually engaged in to learn and regulate
the learning of a second language.
learning strategies are viewed as learning processes which
are consciously selected by the learner. The element of
choice is important here because this is what gives a strategy
its special character.
"the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to
comprehend, learn, or retain new information"
learning strategies are specific actions taken by the learner
to make learning easier, faster, enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situation.
We turn now to implications of research on learning
strategies, those unconscious and conscious activities
undertaken by learners that promote learning.
language learning and language use strategies can be
defined as those processes which are consciously selected by
learners and which may result in action taken to enhance the
learning or use of a second or foreign language, through the
storage, retention, recall, and application of information
about that language.

It is typical that when examining definitions of any concept or construct, agreements and
discrepancies naturally arise. First of all, different synonymous terms are given to strategies
such as techniques, devices, approaches, actions, behaviours, processes, thoughts, and activities,

73
which may reflect different views of the authors. For example, Rubin (1975) originally referred
to strategies as techniques, whereas Stern (1983) made a distinction between them. That is, to
Stern, strategies are more general approaches to learning while techniques are more specific
observable behaviours. 19 Sterns view is reflected in the Good Language Learner Study
(1978:33) when he and his associates report that [i]n addition to the general strategies, the
interviews yielded a large number of more specific techniques. More importantly, they point out
that the greatest number of techniques appeared in the area of vocabulary acquisition. Like
Rubin, Chamot (1987) seems not to establish any differences as she embraces techniques,
approaches, and deliberate actions indiscriminately as forms of strategies, which later on, are
simply referred to as special thoughts or behaviours (OMalley and Chamot, 1990). Similarly,
Wenden (1987) merely subsumes them into language learning behaviours. Furthermore,
Oxford (1990) describes strategies as specific actions, which for Cohen (1990, 1998) are
learning processes consciously selected by the learner. In sum, all these labels for strategies
lead us to another issue, which has to do with the nature of what is considered as a strategy.
The issue whether, in order to be so-called, strategies should be conscious has been
discussed by Ellis (1994) and Cohen (1998). They argue that strategies should be conscious;
otherwise these would be regarded as mere processes. This prerequisite for strategies to be
conscious is supported by Chamots (1987) description of strategies as deliberate actions,
which may be associated with being aware of what one is doing. Stern (1992:261), in a more
recent book, also emphasises that strategy, as used in this book, expresses the intentionality of
language learning. However, some authors do not explicitly emphasise the aspect of
consciousness or intentionality, for instance, Rubin (1987) who starts defining learning strategies
simply as strategies that contribute to learning (see Table 3.1). Other writers in the field, like
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), take a more eclectic position by regarding strategies as both
19

Cohen (1998) deals with this issue and suggests that all the terms strategy, technique, tactic, and move should be
referred to as strategies but bearing in mind that there is a continuum ranging from general to specific strategies.

74
conscious and unconscious activities. Thus, closely related to this issue, as pointed out by Ellis
(1994), is whether strategies should be seen as behavioural or mental or both to qualify as
strategies. When examining Oxfords (1989) previous definition of strategy, Ellis suggests that
she seems to prioritise observable behaviour. Likewise, we can say that Wenden (1987) appears
to acknowledge this basic characteristic. Again, more eclectically, OMalley and Chamot (1990)
apparently consider both behavioural and mental as aspects of learning strategies. As far as this
thesis is concerned, we advocate an eclectic view in that some strategies can be conscious and
unconscious or observable and mental as long as they are able to be reported by learners or
elicited by other methods such as the think-aloud technique.
By contrast, more or less general consensus seems to exist among these definitions with
regard to the purpose of strategies. In other words, what are strategies used for? Thus, most of
the sample definitions state in one way or another that strategies are used to promote, facilitate,
enhance and regulate learning, to acquire knowledge, to comprehend, recall, and retain
information

and strategies can contribute to better learning both directly and indirectly.

However, a strategy may actually have the opposite effect (Scholfield, personal communication).
It should be noted that not all the issues regarding the definitions of learning strategies are
touched on here. For a thorough account the reader is referred to Cohen (1990) and Ellis (1994).
Taking into account the above definitions of LLS and for the purpose of this thesis we propose
the following working definitions of VLS: Vocabulary learning strategies are those conscious
and unconscious, planned and unplanned steps and actions that L2 learners take to discover and
consolidate the form, meaning and usage of words. As can be noted from our definition, we
suggest that VLS can be either conscious or unconscious if we adopt the premise that vocabulary
can be learned deliberately or incidentally. Likewise, we agree with Schmitt (1997) that
vocabulary learning may start from initial discovery of new words and progress to their
consolidation, though learners do not necessarily follow this sequence. Finally, we emphasise

75
that vocabulary learning may involve learning several aspects other than meaning such as
spelling and pronunciation, grammatical functions and collocations (Nation, 1990, 2001).
3.1.2 Main Language learning strategies classification systems
Just as many definitions of LLS have been proposed, a similar number of classification
systems are expected to be found in the literature. In fact, Oxford (1994) points out that there are
about two dozen classification systems, which she has attempted to classify as follows:
(1) systems related to successful language learners (Rubin, 1975)
(2) systems based on psychological functions (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990)
(3) linguistically based systems dealing with guessing, language monitoring, formal
and functional practice (Bialystok, 1981) or with communication strategies like
paraphrasing or borrowing (Tarone, 1983)
(4) systems related to separate language skills (Cohen, 1990)
(5) systems based on different styles or types of learners (Sutter, 1989).

In this respect, Oxford argues that having several taxonomies may lead to a potential problem in
the realm of LLS, which is the lack of a uniform classification system. She also suggests that a
social-affective domain should be added to the intellectual side of learning in that the L2 learner
is not just a cognitive and metacognitive machine, but rather, a whole person. Certainly, her
suggestion is reflected in her strategy categorisation, which will be described in 3.1.2.4 and her
definition of learning strategy examined above. For the purpose of this thesis, we will briefly and
chronologically review the most relevant classification systems, placing emphasis on the
strategies for learning vocabulary, which are our main concern.
3.1.2.1 Naiman et als (1978) list of strategies and techniques
Based on what they called the adult interview and on the previous work of Stern (1975),
Naiman et al (1978) identified five major strategies describing the overall approach to language
learning. Apart from these general strategies, they ended up with a considerable number of
techniques aimed at acquiring the sound system, the grammar, the vocabulary, and oral/aural,

76
reading, and writing skills (p. 33). Thus, the strategies of 34 good language learners (GLLs) are
summarised as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Active task approach. GLLs actively involve themselves in the language learning task.
Realization of language as a system. GLLs develop and exploit an awareness of language as a system.
Realization of a language as a means of communication and interaction. GLLs develop and exploit an
awareness of language as a means of communication (i.e. conveying and receiving messages) and
interaction (i.e. behaving in a culturally appropriate manner).
Management of affective demands. GLLs realise initially or with time that they must cope with affective
demands made upon them by language learning and succeed in doing so.
Monitoring of L2 performance. GLLs constantly revise their L2 systems. They monitor the language they
are acquiring by testing their inferences (guesses); by looking for needed adjustments as they learn new
material or by asking native informants when they think corrections are needed.
Naiman et al (1978) pp. 30-33.

Naiman et al attempted to generally depict the characteristics of the so-called GLL through a
reduced number of strategies, which reflect learners high motivation and involvement and
language and strategy awareness. However, they did not state what specific strategies or
techniques are subsumed in each macro-strategy, as we might call it, since they just presented
samples from the interviews. In other words, it seems that no stratification of strategies and
techniques was pursued.
Most importantly, as regards techniques, which will be treated here simply as strategies,
Naiman et al found 13 strategies related to vocabulary learning. Some of these strategies include
very specific strategic behaviours, whereas others are more general such as reading a dictionary
or repeating words.
1.

Making up vocabulary charts in L2/L1 and memorizing them; writing vocabulary down in different
situations, e.g. when watching TV; making index cards; going over vocabulary lists at regular intervals;
making new lists of words one doesnt know yet.
2. Learning words in context (textual, situational).
3. Putting words into different structures and drilling oneself.
4. Learning words that are associated in a field (same subject area, the same lexical and semantic fields)
5. Reading aloud and/or silently (looking up words either after one has finished reading or when one is
reading, putting a number over the word one doesnt know, making a list at the top of the page of the words
unknown and then reading the paragraph to check if one remembers the words).
6. Using a dictionary when necessary (underlining the words one has looked up so that one can check later if
one remembers them).
7. Reading a dictionary.
8. Listening to conversations or the radio (e.g. songs trying to break the sound stream into words).
9. Carrying a notebook around and writing down items, if possible in context; writing down words in phonetic
transcriptions.
10. Using new words in phrases or in a practical context.

77
11. Games trying to think of words which have the same ending, even with the help of the dictionary; giving
a French (L2) word and four choices for translations (only one is correct); French baseball.
12. Repeating words.
13. Switching on tape-recorder with vocabulary when one feels relaxed.
Naiman et al (1978) pp.34-35.

No doubt, this non-stratified compilation of vocabulary learning strategies is of great value for
our study in that it served as one reference framework for our preliminary study. Thus, at a
glance, one can see that we may impose some logical categories and place the 13 strategies into
some note-taking, dictionary use, memorisation, repetition, and practice strategies. Curiously, it
should be noted that Naiman et als study has not been widely cited in VLS studies, especially
those based on questionnaires.
3.1.2.2 Rubins (1981) strategy classification system
Rubins earlier attempts to arrive at a classification of strategies can be traced back to the
1970s. Like Naiman et al, Rubin (1975) concentrated on the strategies reported by successful
language learners. Years later, based on classroom observations and daily self-reports, Rubin
(1981:118) first identified strategies that contribute directly to the learning process, that is,
cognitive strategies. However, she also found that some strategies were conducive to enhancing
learning, but not in a direct manner. Thus, she made an important distinction between direct
strategies and indirect strategies. 20 What follows is a brief description of Rubins strategy
system. The numbers in brackets indicate the number of strategies subsumed under each
category. Also, examples related to vocabulary learning are provided for each category whenever
possible.
Direct strategies
1. Clarification/Verification (18). Strategies that learners use to verify or clarify their understanding of the
new language, e.g.,
- asking for an example of how to use a particular word/expression,
- putting word in sentence to check understanding,
- asking for translation, repetition, meaning, difference between two words/phrases,
- looking up words in dictionary.
20

Rubin (1987:23) also suggests a broader classification of direct and indirect strategies: learning strategies,
communication strategies, and social strategies, but they will not be dealt with here.

78
2.

Monitoring (3). Strategies in which learners notice errors (both linguistic and communicative), observe
how a message is received and interpreted by the addressee, and then decide what to do about it, e.g., correcting errors in own/others pronunciation, vocabulary, spelling, etc.

3.

Memorisation (4). Strategies that focus on the storage and retrieval of language, e.g.,
- taking notes of new items with or without examples, with or without context, with or without
definitions,
- pronouncing out loud,
- finding some sort of association (semantic, visual, auditory, kinesic).

4.

Guessing/inductive inferencing (4) Strategies that use previously obtained linguistic or conceptual
knowledge to derive explicit hypotheses about the linguistic form, semantic meaning or speakers intention,
e.g. using clues such as keywords in the sentence, syntactic structure, context of discourse, topic of
discourse, etc. e.g.,
- using clues to guess the meaning (other items in the sentence/phrase, key words in a sentence,
syntactic structure, pictures, context of discourse, topic of discourse, gestures,
- correlating with action,
- distinguishing relevant from irrelevant clues in deducing meaning,
- ignoring difficult words; trying to get an overall picture.

5.

Deductive reasoning (10). A problem-solving strategy in which the learner looks for and uses general rules
in approaching the foreign or second language, e.g.,
- finding meaning of item/word by breaking it down into its parts,
- grouping words according to similarity of endings,
- inferring vocabulary by analogy.

6.

Practice (9). Strategies that contribute to the storage and retrieval of language while focusing on accuracy
of usage, e.g.
- drilling oneself on words in different forms.

Indirect strategies
1. Creating opportunities for practice (6). Strategies used by learners to generate conversations or be expose
to the target language, e.g.,
- listening to the radio and initiating conversations with fellow student/teacher/native speaker.
2.

Production tricks (12). Strategies related to communication focus/drive, probably related to motivation and
opportunity for exposure, e.g.,
- using cognate whether right or wrong.

Unlike Naiman et al (1978), Rubin provided a more organised list of learning strategies,
which includes six broad categories of direct strategies and two categories of indirect strategies.
Each category in turn comprises some more specific strategies, making a total of sixty-six (48
direct and 18 indirect). Moreover, it is interesting to note that many of the direct strategies are
closely related to vocabulary learning (22 out 48). In fact, under memorisation and
guessing/inductive inferencing categories, all the strategies are concerned with vocabulary.
Hence, it can be suggested that Rubins strategy system may be helpful for our study as it
provides a variety of examples of validated VLS, which may be asked about in our
questionnaire, even though there is an apparent overlapping between the direct/indirect

79
dichotomy and the specific categories of strategies, e.g. the strategy finding meaning by
breaking the word down into its parts appears to belong to guessing/inferencing as well. Also,
creating opportunities for practice may be regarded as a direct strategy as far as vocabulary
learning is concerned because learners may read or watch TV and note down new vocabulary.
However, the issue of overlapping is beyond the scope of this section of the chapter.
3.1.2.3 OMalley and Chamots (1990) strategy classification system
Before embarking on the brief description of this strategy system, it should be pointed out
that OMalley and Chamot (1990), unlike other researchers, have based their work on the
theoretical grounds of cognitive information processing, i.e. a cognitive theory of learning. In so
doing, they adopted Andersons ACT* model (Adaptive Control of Thought), which generally
suggested that human cognition arose as an interaction between declarative and procedural
knowledge structures. 21 The former is the static information we know about something,
whereas the latter is the dynamic information we know to actually carry out something
(Anderson, 1985). Anderson also proposed three stages of skill acquisition, which are the
product of the interaction between declarative and procedural knowledge. These are the
cognitive stage (i.e. learning begins by consciously knowing a set of facts); the associative stage
(i.e. learning is still in transition between factual and procedural knowledge, but less monitoring
is required and few errors are made); and the autonomous stage (i.e. procedural knowledge takes
less time as it becomes more automated). The reader is referred to OMalley and Chamot (1990)
for a thorough account of how they adopted this cognitive theory. Now let us focus on their
classification system.
In trying to identify the range of learning strategies used by 70 high-school students
enrolled in ESL classes, OMalley et al (1985a) also aimed to determine if the strategies

21

J. R. Anderson models most recent version is the ACT-R (Atomic Components of Thought).
http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/people/ja/. Last accessed: 16/10/03

80
identified could be classified within existing general learning strategy frameworks. As they put it
the basic classification scheme proposed by Brown (1982) that was comprised of metacognitive
and cognitive strategies proved useful for the 26 strategies identified in this study (p.32).
OMalley et al also added a third strategy type, social/affective, (formerly labelled as social
mediation). Thus, metacognitive strategies involve thinking about the learning process,
planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how well one has learned,
whereas cognitive strategies involve interacting with the material to be learned, manipulating
the material mentally or physically, or applying a specific technique to a learning task. In
addition, social and affective strategies involve interacting with another person to assist learning
or using affective control to assist a learning task (OMalley and Chamot, 1990:137-139). The
three major types and their subcategories are shown below.

Metacognitive strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Advance organizers. Making a general but comprehensive preview of the organizing concept or principle
in an anticipated learning activity.
Directed attention. Deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and to ignore irrelevant
distractors.
Selective attention. Deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of language input or situational details
that will cue the retention of language input.
Self-management. Understanding the conditions that help one learn and arranging for the presence of those
conditions.
Advance preparation. Planning for and rehearsing linguistic components necessary to carry out an
upcoming language task. (a.k.a. functional planning).
Self-monitoring. Correcting ones speech for accuracy in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, or for
appropriateness related to the setting or to the people who are present.
Delayed production. Consciously deciding to postpone speaking to learn initially through listening
comprehension.
Self-evaluation. Checking the outcomes of ones own language learning against an internal measure of
completeness and accuracy.
Self-reinforcement. Arranging rewards for oneself when a language activity has been accomplished
successfully.

Cognitive strategies
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Repetition. Imitating a language model including overt practice and silent rehearsal.
Resourcing. Using target language reference materials.
Directed physical response. Relating new information to physical actions, as with directives.
Translation. Using the first language as a base for understanding and/or producing the second language.
Grouping. Reordering or reclassifying and perhaps labelling the material to be learned based on common
attributes.
Note-taking. Writing down the main idea, important points, outlines, or summary of information presented
orally or in writing.
Deduction. Consciously applying rules to produce or understand the second language.

81
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

Recombination. Constructing a meaningful sentence or larger language sequence by combining known

elements in a new way.
Imagery. Relating new information to visual concepts in memory via familiar, easily retrievable
visualizations, phrases, or locations.
Auditory representation. Retention of the sound or similar sound for a word, phrase, or longer language
sequence.
Key word. Remembering a new word in the second language by (1) identifying unfamiliar words; and (2)
generating easily recalled images of some relationship between the new word.
Contextualization. Placing a word or phrase in a meaningful language sequence.
Elaboration. Relating new information to other concepts in memory.
Transfer. Using previously acquired linguistic and/or conceptual knowledge to facilitate a new language
learning task.
Inferencing. Using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes, or fill in
missing information.
Question for clarification. Asking a teacher or other native speaker for repetition, paraphrasing,
explanation and/or examples.

Social mediation
1. Cooperation. Working with one or more peers to obtain feedback, pool information, or model language
activity.
OMalley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper and Russo (1985a).

As can be seen above, the twenty-six strategies were classified into nine metacognitive
strategies, sixteen cognitive strategies and one social strategy; however, this taxonomy has been
modified leaving seven, fourteen, and two strategies respectively, as they appear in OMalley
and Chamot (1990). Thus question for clarification, which had been initially subsumed under
the metacognitive category, was then considered as belonging to social mediation or
social/affective strategies. Metacognitive strategies were in turn subdivided into planning,
monitoring, and evaluation, which are the three basic ways for metacognition to take place. As to
cognitive strategies, no further subcategorisation was presented.
Furthermore, it is worth pointing out that several of the 26 initially-identified strategies
may be applicable to the learning of vocabulary. OMalley et al (1985a) also looked into the
interaction of strategies with learning activities and found that strategies for learning
vocabulary were the most reported in comparison with other language tasks such as oral drills,
pronunciation, listening comprehension, etc. In a longitudinal study, reported in OMalley and
Chamot (1990:133-143), they aimed to identify the specific strategies used in a given language
task by effective and ineffective language learners. The language tasks included vocabulary,
listening, cloze, and writing. Again, the authors found four strategies which were preferred

82
mostly in a vocabulary learning task, though not restricted to it: self-monitoring, selfevaluation, resourcing, and elaboration. Thus, learners use of dictionaries and other
vocabulary-related reference materials may be a representative example of resourcing, whereas
associations may be instances of elaboration, which is in turn closely related to imagery.
Apart from the strategies concerned with vocabulary learning explicitly pointed out by
OMalley et al, there are some other metacognitive, cognitive, and social strategies which may
contribute to this aspect of language. For example, within the metacognitive category one could
argue that directed attention and selective attention can also contribute to vocabulary
learning, especially in the case of more advanced learners who have been found to use
proportionately more metacognitive strategies than beginning learners (OMalley et al,
1985b:37). It seems that attention is a relevant condition for the learner to be aware of and plan
in advance what aspects of language to concentrate on (e.g. vocabulary, grammar) and thus what
aspects of, in this case, vocabulary knowledge to work on (e.g. meaning, pronunciation,
collocations, etc) or what words to commit to memory. L2 learners with these two kinds of
strategic attention may look for opportunities to meet new words and practise their vocabulary.
They may also evaluate themselves to see how much progress they have made in terms of
vocabulary or any discrete aspect of the target language (self-monitoring and self-evaluation).
Other cognitive strategies somewhat associated with vocabulary learning may include
repetition,

translation,

note-taking,

deduction,

key

word,

contextualisation,

inferencing, and question for clarification, which was later subsumed under social
strategies. Therefore, L2 learners may resort to a variety of strategies when meeting new words,
when keeping a note of vocabulary items and when committing words to memory, though their
range of use and effectiveness may differ considerably. In fact, the most frequently used
strategies in OMalley et als (1985b) study were repetition, note taking, and question for

83
clarification whereas the least frequently used ones were key word, deduction, grouping, and
elaboration.
In sum, OMalley et als strategy classification system appears to be theoretically robust,
even though the differences between metacognitive and cognitive strategies are sometimes
difficult to establish. As they admit, what is metacognitive to one analyst is sometimes
cognitive to another (OMalley and Chamot, 1990:144). What is true is that both metacognitive
and cognitive strategies are dependent upon each other as they can co-occur while learners are
engaged in a given task such as learning vocabulary. Despite these limitations, their system can
provide us with some criteria for the classification of the vocabulary learning strategies in our
study. Also, the examples of strategies related to L2 learning can be used as reference for the
design of the items for the VLS questionnaire, which is the main data collection instrument of
our study.
3.1.2.4 Oxfords (1990) strategy classification system
There is no doubt that R. Oxford (1990) has developed the most widely-used strategy
classification system, which is reflected in her Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).
Oxfords first attempts to arrive at this classification system began in the mid 1980s when she
proposed what she called a new taxonomy for second language learning strategies, which was
nothing else but a compilation of strategies suggested in previous classification schemes. As
OMalley and Chamot (1990:103) critically stated, what Oxford apparently tried to do was to
subsume within her classification virtually every strategy that had been previously cited in the
literature on learning strategies. They also objected that there is no underlying cognitive theory
supporting such a classification system and that several subcategories seem to overlap. However,
the extensive use of factor-analytic studies carried out by Oxford as a tool to validate the
organisation of strategies into hierarchical levels appears to compensate for this apparent

84
atheoretical framework. It should be remembered that H. J. Eysenck and his associates also
relied heavily on factor analysis to uncover the underlying structures of personality (see 2.3).
Hierarchically speaking, two major categories of strategies are distinguished in Oxfords
classification system: 35 direct strategies that directly involve the target language, and 27
indirect strategies that support and manage language learning (in many instances) involving
directly the target language (Oxford, 1990:37,135). This dichotomy resembles that of Rubin
(1981); however, some discrepancies are evident in both systems when subsuming more specific
strategies under such major types. For example, clarification/verification is a direct strategy in
Rubins, but an indirect strategy in Oxfords. The next lower level of the taxonomy includes
memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies subsumed under direct
strategies. Indirect strategies, on the other hand, are subdivided into metacognitive strategies,
affective strategies, and social strategies. All these six subcategories of strategies also comprise
sets of strategies, which are in turn composed of more specific strategic behaviours. For
example, memory strategies consist of four subsets of strategies. One of these subsets is creating
mental images, which is realised as three specific strategies resembling the specific response
level as seen in Eysencks hierarchical account of extraversion (see 2.3.1).

DIRECT STRATEGIES (35)

I. Memory Strategies (10) help learners to store and retrieve new information.
A. Creating mental linkages (3), e.g. associating/elaborating.
B. Applying images and sounds (4), e.g. using imagery.
C. Reviewing well (1), e.g. structured reviewing.
D. Employing action (2), e.g. using physical response or sensation.
II. Cognitive Strategies (15) enable learners to understand and produce new language.
A. Practising (5), e.g. repeating.
B. Receiving and sending messages strategies (2) e.g. getting the idea quickly.
C. Analysing and reasoning (5) e.g. translating.
D. Creating structure for input and output (3) e.g. taking notes.
III. Compensation Strategies (10) allow learners to use the language despite their language gaps in
knowledge.
A. Guessing intelligently (2) e.g. using linguistic clues.
B. Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing (8) e.g. coining words.

85
INDIRECT STRATEGIES (27)
I. Metacognitive Strategies (11) help learners to coordinate their own learning process.
A. Centering your learning (3) e.g. paying attention.
B. Arranging and planning your learning (6) e.g. setting goals and objectives.
C. Evaluating your learning (2) e.g. self-monitoring
II. Affective Strategies (10) help learners to regulate emotions, motivations, and attitudes.
A. Lowering your anxiety (3) e.g. using music.
B. Encouraging yourself (3) e.g. rewarding yourself.
C. Taking your emotional temperature (4) e.g. discussing your feelings with somebody else.
III. Social Strategies (6) help students learn through interaction with others.
A. Asking questions (2) e.g. asking for clarification or verification.
B. Cooperating with others (2) e.g. cooperating with peers.
C. Empathizing with others (2) e.g. developing cultural understanding.
Adapted from Oxford (1990).

Like in OMalley et als three-type strategy system, Oxfords six-category strategy

system may also be considered as a robust organisational framework for our study on vocabulary
learning strategies. In fact, Schmitt (1997) organised his VLS taxonomy on the basis of Oxfords
system, though he did not adopt either the compensation or affective strategy categories. 22
Likewise, several strategies at the specific response level in Oxfords taxonomy may help in
the development of our VLS questionnaire. Examples of strategies applicable to L2 vocabulary
learning might include seeking practice opportunities, asking for clarification/verification,
grouping, associating/elaborating, semantic mapping, repeating, among others.
In sum, the four strategy classification systems briefly described in this section are
representative of the work done on the area of language learning strategies so far. Most
importantly, these systems may contribute to the organisation of more specific taxonomies,
especially for vocabulary learning strategies. It should be noted that other classification systems
have been suggested in the literature (e.g. Wenden, 1987; Cohen, 1998), but they are beyond the
scope of this thesis. For a more recent review of Rubins, OMalley/Chamots, and Oxfords
taxonomies the reader is referred to Hsiao and Oxford (2002), who compared them through
confirmatory factor analysis.

22

Instead, Schmitt (1997) added the category of determination strategies to include guessing and dictionary-use
strategies, which are in turn discovery strategies.

86
3.2 Factors related to language learning strategy use
Many factors have been found to account for the use of language learning strategies in
terms of type and frequency of use. Oxford (1989) reviews a list of fourteen factors, which
include (1) language being learned; (2) level of language learning, proficiency or course; (3)
degree of metacognitive awareness; (4) sex; (5) affective variables such as attitudes, motivation,
and language learning goals; (6) specific personality traits; (7) overall personality type; (8)
learning style; (9) career orientation or field of specialisation; (10) national origin; (11) aptitude;
(12) language teaching methods; (13) task requirement; and (14) type of strategy training. From
a broader perspective, Ellis (1994) looks at the relationships between individual learner
differences, situational factors, learning strategies, and learning outcomes. He explains that
individual learner differences (e.g. beliefs, affective states, learner factors, and learning
experience) and situational and social factors (e.g. target language, setting, task performed, and
sex) may influence the learners choice of learning strategies in terms of quantity and type.
Learning strategies, in turn, may determine learning outcomes in terms of rate and level of
achievement.23 Interestingly, learning outcomes are also expected to influence the choice or use
of learning strategies. A similar relationship is conceptualised in Biggs (1993:4) 3Ps model in
which presage variables (e.g. cognitive style, personality, and values) are hypothesised to
generate variation in the learning process manifested in strategies, which successively may
determine learning outcomes. In what follows, based on Ellis and Biggs frameworks and the
variables pointed out by Oxford (1989), we will briefly review some, but not all the factors
external to the learner (e.g. learning environment) and more in detail, those factors inherent in
the learner (e.g. personality traits), which are the focus of this thesis.

23

An earlier framework was proposed by Naiman et al (1978) in which teaching, the learner, and L2
environment influence learning, seen as unconscious processes and conscious strategies and techniques, which in
turn have an effect on L1 competence/L2 performance. However, the relationship between learning and outcome is
considered unidirectional. Most importantly, intelligence, language aptitude, past language experience, age,
personality, motivation and attitudes are viewed as learner variables affecting the use of learning strategies.

87
3.2.1 Situational variables controlled in the study
It has been suggested that the nature of the target language may affect the choice of
learning strategies. This lies in the commonly held belief that some foreign languages are more
difficult to learn than others, but that would depend on the learners L1 as well (Scholfield,
personal communication). Politzer (1983) explored the relationship between learning strategies
and achievement via a comparison of the strategies used by 19 American learners of foreign
languages such as French, Spanish, and German at Stanford University. Politzer found that
learners of Spanish reported using fewer strategies than learners of the other languages.
Likewise, Chamot et al (1987), cited in OMalley and Chamot (1990:123) were interested,
among other things, in determining whether high-school students of Spanish and college students
of Russian used similar strategies, which were elicited in groups through the General Guide
Interview. The guide described nine types of learning tasks and included follow-up questions for
each task description. The questions were concerned with the special tricks the students usually
apply to each task. All in all, learners of Russian appeared to have a wider range of strategy use
than those learning Spanish, maybe because Spanish seems to be easier than Russian for learners
whose L1 is English. However, the authors suggest treating that result with caution in that
learners of Russian had more interview time to report their strategic behaviour than Spanish
learners. Another word of caution is given by Oxford (1989) who states that the language of
study is likely to interact with other variables such as the teaching methods (see e.g. Oxford and
Nyikos, 1989) and the language learning purpose. In our study, both L1 (Spanish) and L2
(English) will be controlled to avoid interference with our results.
Another external factor that may affect strategy use is the learning environment. Ellis
(1994) distinguishes two types of environment: classroom vs. natural setting and second
language vs. foreign language setting. He refers to Chamot et als (1988) study that showed
infrequent use of strategies in the classroom, especially social and affective strategies, except for

88
those typically used in class such as asking for clarification. Ellis also mentions the study of
Wong-Fillmore (1976; 1979) to point out that young learners in a more natural setting (a
playground) were observed to use a wider range of social strategies than in a classroom setting.
Moreover, the role of the second type of setting (FL vs. SL) in strategy use has also received
attention. Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown (1999) set out to investigate the variability of vocabulary
learning strategy use between EFL and ESL university learners with similar levels of English
proficiency (in Canada and former Yugoslavia). The results showed that the ESL learners scored
significantly higher than EFL ones in terms of self-initiated efforts to encounter and practise
new lexical items as well as preference for outside-classroom activities as sources of
vocabulary. Significant differences were shown with regard to reviewing techniques: EFL
learners reported using more traditional methods for reviewing vocabulary than ESL students.
However, no differences were found concerning the time devoted to vocabulary learning, notetaking and dictionary use. Nakamura (2000) also found significant differences in strategy use
between Japanese high-school learners studying in the UK and those studying in Japan. As he
reports, the EFL/ESL variable was found to have a stronger effect on VLS use than other learner
variables such as gender, achievement level, and university year of study. In our study, the
learning environment will be kept as constant for all our learners.
One more situational variable pointed out by Oxford (1989) and Ellis (1994) is the type
of task or the requirements of the task. That is, the nature of the language task may lead learners
to resort to different strategies. In a pioneering study, Bialystok (1979) investigated the
relationship between conscious strategies (e.g. practicing, monitoring, and inferencing) and L2
proficiency among adolescent learners of French. She described the three strategies in terms of
purpose (formal/functional) and modality (oral/written) and designed a questionnaire to collect
the strategy data. She also used a standardised test of achievement, which included reading,
listening, writing, and grammar. The relevant finding here, regardless of the effect of strategies

89
on L2 achievement, is that the different tasks as measured with the achievement test required
different strategies (type and/or frequency). For example, the listening task significantly
depended more on oral strategies. Thus, Bialystok suggested that the language task involved
determines which of these strategies would be most beneficial (p.390). Another study which
indirectly explored the task type-strategy relationship is OMalley et als (1985b). They found
that strategies for vocabulary tasks outnumbered to a great extent those required for oral drills
and listening comprehension tasks. However, some strategies were found to be important for all
the language tasks analysed by these authors, e.g. self-monitoring and elaboration (OMalley and
Chamot, 1990). Furthermore, implicit in the task is the purpose of the task itself, which may
determine the use of certain strategies: for example, reading for fun and reading for a
comprehension

test

may

demand

different

learning

strategies

(Scholfield,

personal

communication). Nevertheless, Ellis (1994:544) states that it may not always be possible to
predict the kinds of strategies that an individual will employ in performing a particular task in
that learners may adapt a specific strategy for a different purpose. As regards our study, the type
of task will be kept a constant for all the participants since the only task imposed on them will be
to think about and report via a questionnaire the way they usually deal with new English
vocabulary and how they consolidate it.
Closely related to the type of task is the effect of explicit strategy training, whose
ultimate goal is to facilitate language learning. Many studies have been carried out to promote or
improve the use of learning strategies, though not all of them have been successful or conclusive
in that training has been effective in some skill areas, but not in others, even within the same
study (Oxford, 1994). Similarly, Oxford and Crookall (1989) and McDonough (1995, 1999) also
review strategy training studies and point out their mixed results. In addition to these limitations,
some instructional issues have been raised by OMalley and Chamot (1990) in relation to
whether strategy training should be integrated into the language course or taught separately, and

90
of course, the characteristics of the learners, which are the main focus of this thesis. Attempts to
incorporate strategy training in classrooms have focused on integrative language tasks (reading,
listening, speaking, and writing) as well as on discrete language tasks (vocabulary). Likewise,
strategy training studies have not only concentrated on teaching one or two strategies, but also on
a group of strategies (Oxford and Crookall, 1989). A single strategy that has received
considerable attention in instruction is the so-called Keyword Method. The keyword studies have
involved experimentally comparing groups of trained and non-trained learners or contrasting the
keyword method with rote learning and context (Atkinson and Raugh, 1975; Levin et al, 1979;
Pressley et al, 1982; Pressley et al, 1987; Beaton et al, 1996; Van Hell and Mahn, 1997;
Rodriguez and Sadoski, 2000). Other representative studies of strategy instruction were carried
out by Cohen and Aphek (1980), Wenden (1987), OMalley (1987), those reported by OMalley
and Chamot (1990), and more recently Cohen et al (1998). Interestingly, as pointed by Scholfield
(personal communication), indirect strategy training may have an effect on learning when
teachers implicitly or unconsciously encourage learners to use certain strategies: for instance, if
teachers do a lot of repetition (say after me), then learners might be encouraged to use repetition
strategies to memorise words. From a broader perspective, it can be suggested that teaching
methods and approaches may also affect the choice of learning strategies (Oxford, 1989). In our
study, the participants have had similar characteristics in terms of VLS/LLS direct instruction,
L1, and teaching/learning environment (see 1.2 and 5.1).
Overall, many situational variables have been shown to have an effect on LLS/VLS use
and choice. However, we are not including any of these variables in our study as our main
concern is within the scope of learner variables. Instead, we are attempting to control these
situational variables so that they do not interfere with our results.

91
3.2.2 Learner variables considered in the study
As has been emphasised all through this thesis, our main interest is to look into the
relationship between extraversion (a personality variable) and the use of vocabulary learning
strategies. However, we cannot ignore other learner variables that have also been found to be
related to language learning strategies, three of which are also the focus of our study, vocabulary
proficiency, gender, and university year of study. What follows then is a brief review of these
learner factors along with others, which are not directly considered in our study (e.g. cultural
background and learning/cognitive styles), but we think are worthy of attention.

Learners L2 proficiency/achievement and duration/level

Very many studies have concentrated on the relationship between learning strategy use
and L2 proficiency or related sorts of language outcomes. The most cited study concerned with
the relationship between learning strategies and language proficiency measures is that of Politzer
and McGroarty (1985). They administered a questionnaire on what they called learning
behaviours to thirty-seven ESL Asian and Hispanic learners. As to language proficiency, they
considered four language proficiency measures obtained from the learners during an eight-week
intensive course. These were a linguistic competence test, a listening test, an oral test, and a
communicative competence test. The questionnaire was divided into three behaviour scales
based on the setting where they occur: classroom study, individual study, and social interaction
outside the classroom. The results were not straightforward, but a positive relationship was found
between social interactive behaviours and global communicative competence. No significant
correlations were observed with the other two behaviour scales. However, when examining the
learning behaviours separately, Politzer and McGroarty found that ten of these correlated with
the linguistic measures, for example, keeping track of vocabulary learned by vocabulary cards
or lists was positively related to grammatical knowledge, whereas saying words or phrases

92
aloud to oneself was negatively associated with global oral proficiency. In sum, these authors
suggest that the proficiency level may affect the use of learning strategies
In a larger scale study, Green and Oxford (1995) also explored the relationship between
strategy use and L2 proficiency as well as gender among 374 ESL learners across three course
levels of proficiency (University of Puerto Rico). Such differences and relationships were
examined on the basis of overall strategy use, strategy use by the SILL categories, and individual
strategy use. L2 proficiency was measured by the English as a Second Language Achievement
Test (ESLAT), a standardised multiple-choice English test that included two sections: grammar
and reading comprehension. The ESLAT test highly correlates with the TOEFL (r = 0.91) as
reported by Alderman (1981, cited in Green and Oxford, 1995). Regarding the results, in terms
of overall strategy use, statistically significant differences were observed across proficiency
levels. However, no differences were shown via post hoc tests between the two top proficiency
levels (equivalent to intermediate and advanced levels). Significant differences were observed
between these two levels and the most basic one. Moreover, some positive relationships were
found between proficiency level and the six categories of the SILL as detected with ANOVA.
That is, more advanced learners showed greater use of cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
and social strategy groups. Again, post hoc tests showed a similar pattern to those in overall
strategy use. In addition, chi square tests helped indicate a significant variation by course level in
22 of the 50 strategies of the SILL. For instance, read without looking up all new words and
seek opportunities to read in English followed the prediction that more advanced learners
would report greater use of those strategies. Interestingly, Green and Oxford used the term
bedrock strategies to refer to those strategies which are invariably used by learners at all levels
as in the case of some vocabulary-related strategies such as say or write new words several
times. In other published studies Oxford and Ehrman (1995) and Ehrman and Oxford (1995)
reported that cognitive strategies correlated significantly with end-of-training language

93
proficiency ratings, especially speaking proficiency. Furthermore, Bremner (1999) replicated the
study of Green and Oxford, but with university learners in Hong Kong. In general, he found
similar variation patterns in strategy use as well as a relationship between eleven strategies and
proficiency level. Eight of the eleven strategies were common in both studies. In a more recent
study, Peacock and Ho (2003) found a positive association between 27 strategies and the
proficiency level of over 1000 students in Hong Kong.
Thus, it can be suggested that L2 proficiency and language achievement may be related
to the use or choice of learning strategies. Nevertheless, the results should be treated with some
caution as the nature of such relationship appears to be complex. Some authors talk about a
causal relationship when presenting their results by stating that language proficiency affects
strategy use, e.g. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) who claim that causality is determined by the
statistical analysis used such as ANOVA. Skehan (1989), on the other hand, argues that
statistical relationships between two variables do not necessarily imply causation. As he puts it,
a correlation coefficient simply reflects the degree of association between two variables,
capturing the extent to which high scores on one are matched by high scores on the other. He
goes on to say that the researcher may well think that one variable is influencing the other, but
this conclusion can only be an inference and has to be justified on other, probably theoretical
grounds (p. 15). It then seems that attention should be paid to this issue when exploring the
relationship between extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies.
A closely related factor to L2 proficiency is what Oxford (1989) refers to as duration.
Duration is linked with course level and number of years of language study, which may not
necessarily exactly follow L2 proficiency (Scholfield, personal communication). Oxford reviews
the study of Politzer (1983) to state that course level influences foreign language learning
behaviours (p. 237). That is, the higher the course level of the learners the more positive the
strategies they use. Similarly, Oxford mentions Cohen and Apheks (1981) study to suggest that

94
the more advanced the student, the better the strategies they use. Hence, in this thesis we
consider the university year of study variable (from 1 to 5 years) as well as the vocabulary
proficiency measure, both of which may determine the use of vocabulary learning strategies. In
fact, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) found that students who had been studying the language for at
least four or five years used strategies here far more often than did less experienced language
learners (p.295). Similarly, Ahmed (1988), Stoffer (1995) and Nakamura found that proficiency
and course level accounted for VLS (see 3.3).

Gender
The general finding regarding gender differences in strategy use suggests that female
learners use more learning strategies than male learners. This difference favours females in
reported overall strategy use, but sometimes males showed greater use of individual strategies
(Oxford, 1994). More specifically, women have been found to use social strategies more
frequently than men (Politzer, 1983), perhaps because of womens stronger social nature
(Oxford, 1989). Nyikos (1990:273) also looked into sex-related differences in the performance
of verbal (memory) tasks among American university learners under four conditions (colour
cues, picture cues, rote-learning, and a combination of colour plus picture treatments). Nyikos
found that women outperformed men on colour and picture mediators to recall words, but no
significant differences were detected in rote-learning. Males, on the other hand, did better than
females when in the colour plus picture condition. Interestingly, it was suggested that women
may have given greater importance to spelling as the criterion for success than men who did
better on the combined condition. Also, Nyikos (1990:285) suggests that these results should be
taken into account when implementing learning strategy instruction.
Oxford and Nyikos (1989) also investigated the effects of gender on the use of learning
strategies among 1200 undergraduate students enrolled in five different foreign languages in the

95
USA and almost all of them were native English speakers (95 %). The responses of the SILL
(121 items) were factor analysed. Five factors emerged from the exploratory analysis: (1) formal
rule-related practice strategies, (2) functional practice strategies, (3) resourceful, independent
strategies, (4) general study strategies, and (5) conversational input elicitation strategies. The
results showed that women reported greater use of strategies in three of five factors (1, 4, and 5).
No significant sex differences were detected in functional practice and resourceful, independent
strategies. In the USA, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) carried out a preliminary factor analysis of
the SILL from which ten factors emerged. As they had hypothesised, women showed greater use
of strategies in four SILL factors (general strategies, authentic language use, searching for and
communicating meaning, and self-management strategies). Kimura (1992) reviews gender
differences in problem-solving tasks that reflect those cognitive functions. Females exceeded
males on some cognitive tasks such as perceptual speed, whereas males outperformed females on
spatial tasks (see 6.4.6).
Further studies looking into gender differences in strategy use were conducted by Green
and Oxford (1995) and Oxford and Ehrman (1995). In the former study, carried out in Puerto
Rico, no differences were found in overall strategy use, nor a significant proficiency-gender
effect. In strategy categories women used memory, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies
more frequently than men. In terms of differences in individual strategy use, Green and Oxford
found significant variation in 15 of the 50 SILL items. Women showed greater use in 14
individual strategies, for instance, seek L1 words similar to L2 words. Men, on the other hand,
reported superiority in a single strategy: watch TV or movies in English. In the other 1995
study carried out in the USA, Oxford and Ehrman found a few significant differences: females
reported using compensation strategies more often than males. Similarly, women scored higher
than men in terms of overall strategy use; however, the difference was not as large as in previous
studies. In a later study, Oxford et al (1996) found from learner diaries that women were more

96
willing than men to try out new VLS, an aspect which should also be considered in strategy
instruction. Young and Oxford (1997) carried out a gender-related analysis of strategies used in
L2 and L1 reading among 49 university learners in the United States. They used think aloud to
uncover data about local and global strategies. The results showed that females and males used
similar strategies to process written input. They both used more local clues than global ones.
However, some differences were found in some specific strategies. For example, females more
often than males use vocabulary problem strategies. Males reported monitoring reading pace and
reading behaviour and paraphrasing more often than females.
Gu (2002) examined gender and academic major differences in VLS use, vocabulary
proficiency, and English proficiency. The participants were 648 second-year Chinese EFL
learners enrolled in non-English majors. Strategy data were collected via a VLS questionnaire
adapted from Gu and Johnson (1996). As far as gender differences are concerned, Gu found that
female learners made use of almost all the VLS that were significantly related to the successful
scores in both a validated version of the vocabulary levels test and a college English test.
Likewise, females significantly outperformed males on both tests. In terms of strategy categories,
Gu found that female learners reported using metacognitive strategies more frequently than male
learners. A similar tendency was reported regarding 10 out of 18 cognitive strategies, guessing,
dictionary use and note-taking strategies, which in turn were found to be related to success in
EFL learning. However, no significant differences were shown in terms of immediate context
guessing, visual repetition, and other association-related strategies such as elaboration, imagery
use, visual, auditory, and semantic encoding (i.e. what he categorised as encoding strategies).
Interestingly, females reported spending more time on learning English outside the classroom
than males, a result that is consistent with more use of reading and guessing, dictionary use and
note-taking. Like Gu, Peacock and Ho (2003) studied learning strategy differences across eight
academic majors in Hong Kong (n =1006). The results of interest here showed that females

97
reported more use of metacognitive strategies, a finding that is consistent with Gus study.
Nevertheless, Peacock and Ho did find gender differences in memory strategies, again females
exceeding males.
In another relatively recent study, Jimenez-Catalan (2003) looked into sex differences in
vocabulary learning strategies in terms of range and number. The subjects were 581 Spanish
university students learning English and Basque in Spain (279 males and 302 females). The main
data collection instrument was a translated version of Schmitts (1997) questionnaire, with the
addition of two strategies making a total of sixty items. The results indicated that women
reported a significantly greater number of strategies than men, though this difference was small
(22 vs. 20.7 mean scores). However, women did not differ significantly from men in the choice
of strategies to use as no large rank-order variation was observed in the ten most and least
frequently used strategies. In the analysis of individual strategies on the basis of percentage of
use, women generally showed a higher pattern of use than men, but no significant differences
were reported. For example, in a list of ten consolidation strategies, women reported higher
percentages of use than men in nine, whereas men reported higher percentages of use than
women only in associating the word with its coordinates. Also, within the top-ten strategies,
more women reported using a bilingual dictionary, taking notes about the word in class and
guessing from textual context than men.
Gender seems to be a marked factor in the use or choice of VLS, as also found by
Nakamura (2000) who reported strategy variation in dictionary use strategies, repetition
strategies, and memory strategies. Therefore, it appears justifiable to consider this learner factor
in our study in addition to extraversion and other learner-related variables.

98
Cultural background24
Undoubtedly, cultural background (or ethnicity) appears to play a role in learners use of
learning strategies. Oxford (1989, 1994) points out that rote memorisation was more commonly
found among Asian learners than students from other cultural backgrounds. This finding was
somewhat corroborated by Schmitt (1997) who surveyed Japanese learners to find out the most
helpful and least useful vocabulary learning strategies for consolidating meaning. Written
repetition and verbal repetition were rated among the most helpful strategies, whereas the least
helpful strategies were the Keyword Method and visualising the word form. However, Grainger
(1997) found that rote learning emerged among the least used learning strategies employed by
learners from Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan. This conflicting result may be explained by the
target language, which has been found to influence strategy use. In Schmitts study English was
the language being learned by his subjects, while in Graingers study Japanese was. More
importantly, learners cultural background may also be a factor in strategy training, which in turn
may change students strategic behaviour. OMalley and Chamot (1990) point out that learners
characteristics such as motivation, age, sex, cultural background, and learning style should not be
ignored as they may play an important role in the receptiveness of students to strategy training
and in their ability to acquire new learning strategies (p. 160).
Cultural background, like many other learner factors, has been found to be related to
language learning styles, e.g. visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, group, and individual learning. Reid
(1987), who has extensively studied learning styles preferences, reported some learning style
variation among learners from nine different language backgrounds. For instance, she found that
Koreans were the most visual in terms of learning styles and Japanese speakers were the least
auditory of all learners. If it is argued that learning styles may influence strategy use, then it can
be suggested that cultural background or ethnicity may also determine use of learning strategies
24

Although learners cultural background is not directly considered in our study, we think it will help us explain
some VLS behaviour across cultures.

99
either directly or indirectly. As Oxford and Anderson (1995:204) put it when describing the
cultural influences on the development of learning styles, [h]ispanics often develop a global
learning style, which behaviourally translates into their choice of global learning strategies such
as predicting, [and] inferring (guessing from context). In our study, the cultural background
variable is controlled in that all the participants belong to the same linguistic and ethnic group.

Learning and cognitive styles25

As pointed out above, Reid (1987) pioneered the work on learning styles in second
language learning. She developed the Learning Styles Questionnaire which probes six learning
modality preferences: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, tactile, group, and individual. However,
Oxford (1989) indicates that there are many other dimensions of learning style such as field
independence vs. field dependence, reflection vs. impulsivity, right vs. left brain dominance, etc.
Oxford also states that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is also used to measure some
aspects of learning styles and some personality types (see e.g. Ehrman and Oxford, 1990). In
their cross-cultural view of learning styles, Oxford and Anderson (1995) review eight
dimensions that they consider among the most significant in language learning, e.g. global vs.
analytic, which is not studied by Reid. It should be noted that learning styles and cognitive styles
are generally used interchangeably as they are cognitive, affective, and psychological traits that
are relatively stable indicators of how learners perceive, interact with, and respond to the
learning environment (Keefe, 1979:4 cited in Reid, 1987). Thus, some overlapping can be seen
between learning/cognitive styles and personality traits, e.g. field dependence/independence and
introversion/extraversion (see 2.3.2.1). Another learning/cognitive style that has been widely
considered in language learning is tolerance for ambiguity, which was studied by Chapelle and
Roberts (1986). In this realm, research suggests that learners with a high degree of tolerance of
25

Due to their connection with personality factors, we think that learning/cognitive styles are worthy of attention in
this section, though they are not directly considered in our study.

100
ambiguity used significantly different learning strategies in some situations from learners who
showed a lower degree of tolerance (Ely 1989, Oxford 1994).
Oxford and Ehrman (1995) correlated the scores obtained by 520 adult language learners
in the SILL with those from the Learning Style Profile by Keefe and Monk, a 125-item
instrument that measures cognitive skills, perceptual response, orientations, and environmental
context for learning. The results showed that metacognitive, social, affective, and memory
strategies were significantly related to persistence, which is in turn linked to motivation. This
means that persistent learners tend to use a variety of learning strategies in order to achieve a
learning goal (p. 375). Also, a relationship between cognitive, metacognitive, and social
strategies and afternoon and evening study was observed in that morning study time was
negative related to strategy use. In this respect, Oxford and Ehrman (1995) suggest that such
preferences may be connected with personality type, especially with social strategies.
Furthermore, in a review of criterion-related and construct validity of the SILL in relation to
learning styles, Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) advocate a strong relationship between learning
strategy choice and sensory preferences. In so doing, the authors reviewed the study of Rossi-Le
(1989) which involved regression analyses of scores from the SILL and those from a learning
style questionnaire. The results indicated that visual learning style positively predicted the use of
visual strategies, but negatively predicted the use of independent and affective strategies as well
as strategies for searching for and communicating meaning. Auditory learning positively
predicted use of memory strategies and metacognitive strategies, but negatively predicted
employing authentic language use strategies, which was positively related to tactile learning.
Tactile learning style also accounted positively for strategies for meaning, but negatively for
memory strategies (Oxford and Burry-Stock 1995:11). To sum up, learning and cognitive styles
are generally hypothesised to influence learning strategy use; however, this relationship has not

101
encouraged a great deal of empirical research (Oxford, 1989), any more than that between
personality variables and learning strategy use.

Personality
We saw in chapter two of this thesis that personality comprises a myriad of aspects
identified to describe and explain human behaviour. In second language learning research,
personality variables such as anxiety, inhibition and extraversion are viewed as factors
influencing both the learning process and language outcomes. However, more research has been
done on personality factors in relation to L2 proficiency or achievement than on personality
factors in relation to language learning strategies (see 2.4.2.1 and 2.4.2.2). Cohen (1998)
suggests that learning strategies should be linked to learning styles and other personality-related
variables. Citing H. D. Brown (1991), Cohen argues that learning strategies do not operate by
themselves, but rather are directly tied to the learners underlying learning styles [italics in
original] (i.e. their general approaches to learning) and other personality-related variables (such
as anxiety and self-concept) in the learner (p.15). Interestingly, Cohen (1998) refers to Schmeck
(1988) who also proposed to look into learning styles and learning strategies on the basis of
general personality factors such as reflectiveness/impulsiveness, field dependence/independence,
self-confidence, self-efficacy, creativity, anxiety, and motivation. This implies that there may be
a very strong, but confusing relationship between learning styles or personality variables and
learning strategies. In our study, however, we consider extraversion as a personality trait and not
as a learning style as it is seen by Oxford and Anderson (1995).
Since we have already reviewed the relationship between extraversion and the use of
learning strategies in chapter two, what follows is a recapitulation of major findings obtained in
the relatively few studies found in the literature. Extraversion in general seems to be a predictor
of learning strategies, especially those within the affective domain. Ehrman and Oxford (1989)

102
found that extraverts reported using more affective strategies than introverts. Also Ehrman and
Oxford (1990) found further differences in terms of social strategies with which extraverts
reported affinity. Introverts, on the other hand, showed preference for metacognitive strategies.
Wakamoto (2000), who focused precisely on introversion-extraversion as related to learning
strategy use, found that extraversion positively correlated with functional practice strategies and
social affective strategies. He also found significant relationships between extraversion and the
use of 8 strategies. A conflicting result was the non-significant difference in metacognitive
strategy use. Other so-called personality types related to strategy use have been found in the
literature. For example, thinkers showed preference for cognitive strategies whereas judgers
for metacognitive strategies. Likewise, feelers seemed to be comfortable with social strategies,
while sensing types with memory strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990). In sum, personality
variables, especially extraversion, have been associated with the use of certain strategies.
However, the correlations are generally weak as pointed out by Oxford and Ehrman (1995).
Finally, despite these apparently discouraging results, it seems sensible to explore the
relationship between extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies.
3.3 Research on Vocabulary Learning Strategies.
To date, a number of studies have been conducted to identify vocabulary learning
strategies by considering both situational and learner variables, which were touched on in 3.2.1
and 3.2.2. Certainly, vocabulary learning strategy research has gradually moved from an
embryonic state to a more developed and extensive area of L2 vocabulary acquisition. Thus, our
literature review on VLS is organised according to the types or categories of VLS identified in
previous studies, especially by Ahmed (1988), Stoffer (1995), Gu and Johnson (1996), Schmitt
(1997), Kudo (1999); Nakamura (2000), and more recently Fan (2003). It should be pointed out
that our review more or less follows the logical sequence of the steps and actions that learners

103
have been empirically found to take from first coming across new vocabulary items to
consolidating word meanings.
3.3.1 Discovery strategies
What do L2 learners do when they encounter unfamiliar words through reading or
listening? In attempting to answer this question, several researchers have come up with such
labels as word attack skills (Nuttall, 1982), word identification strategies (Walker, 1983), word
recognition strategies (Williams, 1985), lexical inferencing procedures (Haastrup, 1987), wordsolving strategies (Chern, 1993), word-guessing strategies (Huckin and Bloch, 1993), word
decoding strategies (Zuckernick, 1996), and discovery strategies (Schmitt, 1997). In our study
we will adopt Schmitts (1997) discovery strategies category, which seems to include guessing
or inferencing and skipping strategies, using dictionaries, and appealing for assistance. The other
terms appear to be more restrictive as they focus more on guessing or inferring meaning without
resorting to dictionaries or any other kind of help. Also, it can be noted that discovery strategies
can also be considered a subcomponent of L2 reading and listening strategies, though more
research has been done on them as reading strategies.
3.3.1.1 Guessing strategies
It is generally found that L2 learners may attempt to guess or infer the meaning of
unfamiliar words when there are no other resources at their disposal such as a dictionary or other
learners and the teacher. Also learners may skip the word after some inferencing attempts or
simply because the unknown word is not noticed as such. With particular reference to reading,
Nation and Coady (1988:102) distinguish between context within the text and general context.
The former refers to the morphological, syntactic, and discourse information in a given text
whereas the latter refers to the learners background knowledge (schemata) of the subject matter
of a given text. Read (2000) succinctly posited five questions about lexical inferencing. One

104
question that seems of relevance here is about the kind contextual information available to
learners to help them guess the meaning of unfamiliar words. This contextual information is
given to the learner through a variety of cues (Carton, 1971; Sternberg and Powell, 1983) or
clues (Ffrench, 1983).
Carton (1971), who pioneered the work on lexical inferencing, described three types of
cues which may help the learner infer meaning: intra-lingual, inter-lingual, and extra-lingual.
Intra-lingual cues are provided by the target language itself and can help identify the form class
of the unknown item as long as the learner has some L2 knowledge. Carton points out that intralingual cues are not only given at sentence level but also at word level, e.g. derivational affixes.
Inter-lingual cues, on the other hand, are supplied by the learners L1 on the basis of loans
between both L1 and L2 and the occurrence of cognates, e.g. German and English. Carton also
suggests that provision of such clues depends on the historical relations and contact between
both L1 and L2 and other languages known by the learner. The third type, extra-lingual or
contextual cues, are the product of the learners knowledge of the objects and events in the real
world. He argues that regularities in the objective world we talk about make it possible for us to
expect many occurrences in it (p.55). He also claims that if such occurrences are sometimes
predictable, then it is possible to predict the words or the meanings of the words in a given topic.
In sum, Carton points out that learners rely more on extra-lingual cues when completing cloze
and word-context tests and on intra- and inter-lingual cues when reading passages.
Unlike Carton, Sternberg and Powell (1983), in their theory of learning words from
context in L1, consider only two types of contexts: external and internal. Both contexts are
provided in form of cues in a way available to the learner. Thus, external context is composed of
all the available cues surrounding the unknown word for instance, the other words within the
sentence in which the unknown word appears. Internal context, on the other hand, can be
provided by the morphological cues within the word itself for example, prefix, stem and suffix

105
cues. Most importantly, Sternberg (1987:92-94) points out that there are some moderating
variables which may determine the readers success in inferring the meaning by using the
available contextual cues. He explains that the number of occurrences of the unknown word may
increase the number of available cues in the sense that the unknown word may appear in
different contextual sentences within the text. Other moderating variables involved in the
inferencing process are the variability of contexts in which multiple occurrences of the unknown
word appear, the importance of the unknown word to understanding the context in which it is
embedded, the helpfulness of the surrounding context in understanding the meaning of the
unknown word, the density of unknown words in the text, and the usefulness of previously
known information in cue utilization.
Ffrench (1983:12) provides a more specific typology of linguistic clues that may assist in
inferring the meaning of unknown words, but he warns that his study assumes that the reader
does not find structural difficulties in the text. Thus, Ffrench identifies five main linguistic
clues: (1) clues within the word, (2) deictic clues, (3) clues within the clause, (4) clues between
propositions, and (5) clues between propositions with no connective. Clues within the word
include the morphological aspects of derivation (e.g. employ-ee) and compounding (e.g.
pickpocket). However, he warns that compounds are not always transparent in meaning (e.g.
stronghold. A related aspect has been researched by Laufer (1997), who points outs instances
where the learner thinks he or she knows or can infer the meaning by breaking the word or
compound into parts as in the case of infallible and shortcomings. Deictic clues have more to do
with the relationship of the unknown word to other referential words in the discourse. Ffrench
provides examples of co-referential words linked by anaphora as in It was a labour of love, but
the work exhausted him in which there is a clear relation of synonymy (p.18). Clues within the
clause appear to overlap with deictic clues; in fact, Ffrench focuses more on the syntactic
structure of the sentence which others simply label context. That is, in this case the learner may

106
figure out the meaning of the word by analysing its syntactic behaviour in the sentence, e.g.
whether the word is a noun, a verb or adverb. Furthermore, there are clues between propositions
logically expressed in the text. Here connectors may play an important part in such relationships,
e.g. I fell off my bike and grazed my knee in which the causal relationship may assist inferencing
utilising real world extralingual knowledge as well (see Carton, 1971). Finally, Ffrench suggests
that even without connectives (e.g. although, and, etc) clues between propositions may
encourage the inferencing process as a reader brings to a text the assumption that it will be
coherent (p.26). However, he admits that it may not be clear whether such an assumption alone
can allow the inferencing of specific words. It can be suggested therefore that text coherence
may be an aspect to be considered in lexical inferencing, but further research needs to be carried
out.
As can be seen above, these authors have come up with apparently different
categorisations of cues for lexical inferencing. However, they all recognise that such cues can be
obtained from the linguistic context (i.e. within the word and surrounding textual context) and
from the non-linguistic context (i.e. learners background knowledge). In general terms, it can be
suggested that these cues can be placed along a continuum of degrees of proximity to the
unknown vocabulary item ranging from the lexical item itself to a wider linguistic and nonlinguistic context. To sum up, the research done on lexical inferencing has been extensive and
varied. Some studies have focused on identifying learners guessing strategies (e.g. Van Parreren
and Schouten-Van Parreren, 1981; Haastrup, 1991; Chern, 1993; Huckin and Bloch, 1993;
Daalen-Kapteijns et al, 2001; and Laufer and Yano, 2001). Other studies have focused on the
training of strategies for inferring meaning from context (e.g. Clarke and Nation, 1980; Nuttall,
1982; Williams, 1985; and Alseweed, 2000). Other studies aimed to demonstrate that guessing
from context may lead to vocabulary acquisition (e.g. Nagy and Herman, 1987; Paribakht and

107
Wesche, 1999; Laufer, 2003). However, not all the studies will be thoroughly reviewed due to
lack of space (for a thorough review see Coady, 1993; Huckin and Coady, 1999)
Perhaps the most influential study on guessing strategies has been conducted by Haastrup
(1991), who framed her taxonomy of cues or knowledge sources within Cartons (1971) three
main cue types. Haastrup investigated the lexical inferencing procedures of 124 Danish
secondary-school learners of English who were divided into two groups: high- and lowproficiency (H vs. L group). The main focus of the study was to look into the effects of L2
proficiency on the use of cue types or knowledge sources: intra-lingual, inter-lingual and
contextual sources. The research methods included both think aloud and retrospection in which
learners worked in pairs in the guessing of 25 unknown English words placed in comprehensible
written context, e.g. sewage, waver, insatiable, etc. The use of retrospection allowed the
researcher to corroborate the interpretations from the protocol analysis. Broadly speaking,
Haastrup looked at the differences between the H and L group in terms of all the items and item
types. The use of cues is quantified on the basis of what she called valid attempts to guess the
meaning of the target words. Thus, the results showed that the two groups made use of the three
main cue types, which was one of the hypotheses posited in this study. Contextual (or extralingual cues) were the most frequently used knowledge source, followed by intra-lingual and
inter-lingual cues. More specifically, the H group used intra-lingual clues much more than the L
group. A similar pattern was observed in terms of inter-lingual sources, but the difference was
small. The L group, on the other hand, resorted more to contextual sources than the H group, but
again the difference was not large. These general results may confirm the hypothesis that L2
proficiency influences learners use of knowledge sources for guessing meaning, as reported in
Nakamura (2000). However, it should be noted that no inferential statistics were reported in
Haastrups study. Other interesting results reported in Haastrup (1991:94-95) showed differences
in that the H group made more valid attempts at the word level than the L group. That is to say,

108
highly proficient learners made use of their L2 knowledge of phonology, orthography,
morphology, lexis, word class, collocations, and semantics in order to guess meaning. This result
indicates that the higher the L2 proficiency of the learner the more the attempts made on the
target word itself. Hence, in our study, we expect university year of study and vocabulary
proficiency to influence the use of VLS, especially guessing strategies. More importantly, it has
been suggested that the main learner factor in our study, extraversion, affects the use of guessing
strategies. As described by Hatch (1983), the characteristics of the successful guesser include
risk-taking, extraversion, and field-independence, and the analytic cognitive style. However, this
must be treated with caution in that it is extraverts, not introverts, who appear to be more fielddependent. Although the direction is not clear, we think it will be worth seeing whether
extraversion as such plays a part in the use of guessing strategies (see extraversion and field
dependence in 2.3.2.1).
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that guessing meaning with the help of the pictures
and/or diagrams that sometimes accompany texts can be considered another type of guessing.
Although this strategy has been widely emphasised in language textbooks as a reading skill, it
has received little attention in the literature on guessing unknown vocabulary items.26 Typical
tasks in language textbooks aim to make learners aware of how pictures can help them
understand or predict the content of a text rather than figure out specific word meaning (see
Nuttall (1982) for examples of this strategy). Similarly, this non-linguistic strategy has not been
included in existing VLS questionnaires (see e.g. Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer, 1995; Schmitt, 1997;
Nakamura, 2000). Alseweed (2000), on the other hand, appeared to consider this strategy in his
literature review of word-solving strategies as well as in his think-aloud tasks. However, in his
results chapter he focused only on contextual and morphological guessing and use of background
knowledge. A look at excerpts of the teaching session he appended showed that he attempted to
26

Clarke and Nation (1980:212) do not seem to pay attention to looking at pictures to assist guessing in their fourstep model for inferring meaning from textual context, overlooking background knowledge too.

109
train his subjects not only to guess with the help of pictures accompanying the text, but also to
guess by the sound of the word. In this case, learners can say the new word aloud to check if he
or she has heard it before or simply to check if the sound provides some clues of word meaning.
It is worth noting that in our preliminary study (see 4.5), learners reported looking at the pictures
and attending to the sound of the word when attempting to guess word meaning, findings that led
us to consider them for inclusion in our main study (6.1.3).
3.3.1.2 Skipping strategies27
It has been generally suggested that learners not always attempt to guess the meaning, or
use the dictionary or ask for help, but also consciously or unconsciously skip unfamiliar words.
However, skipping strategies have not been extensively researched in L2 reading, where more
attention has been paid to guessing strategies and studies like Haastrups have often in effect
disallowed the use of skipping. Ahmed (1988), who used think aloud and observation, briefly
reported on situations in which some Sudanese learners of English appeared to overlook some
vocabulary items. The main evidence for considering overlooking strategies as such was that
learners sometimes did not use any sources of information when facing difficult words, e.g.
guessing from context, using dictionaries or asking classmates. By using cluster analysis, Ahmed
found that many good learners were characterised by using a wide range of sources of
information, which means less use of skipping strategies. Many underachieving learners, on
the other hand, were found to overlook difficult words. This general finding may suggest that L2
proficiency/achievement plays a role in the use of skipping strategies; however, no further
discussion is given by Ahmed in this respect.
Furthermore, Alseweed (2000) looked into the word-solving strategies employed by
nineteen Arabic-speaking university learners of English who were probed through four data

27

Although our main concern is to explore the frequency with which learners skip words, we think reviewing the
reasons why learners overlook words will help us interpret our results.

110
gathering methods: individual/pair think aloud and immediate/later interviews. Following
Ahmeds criterion to identify this type of strategy, though not acknowledged, Alseweed found
that learners skipped unfamiliar words while reading a text. Interestingly, the protocols allowed
him to make a distinction between good and bad skipping. The former describes the skipping of
words which are not essential to understanding the general meaning of the text, whereas the
latter describes the opposite situation. However, Alseweed admitted that this dichotomy could
not be free from subjectivity about what words were important and what were not. Hence, two
native speakers of English were assigned to judge the relevance of the target items. In sum, the
qualitative results showed that high-proficient learners seemed to be consistent in the use of good
skipping, whereas low-proficient learners were characterised by using bad skipping. Again, it
can be suggested that a low level of L2 proficiency may result in less successful word skipping.
Interestingly, the possible effect of L2 proficiency level on skipping has been partially supported
by Nakamura (2000), though he admitted that such a result was difficult to interpret.
In a more recent study, He (2001) indirectly touched on skipping strategies when
investigating the influence of goal orientation on strategy use pattern and reading comprehension
among Taiwanese EFL learners. The data was obtained through think aloud and stimulated
protocols. He managed to identify 28 reading strategies grouped into 6 categories. Among other
things, the relevant findings for our study here are that:
1.
2.
3.
4.

EFL participants intentionally skip unknown words because the remaining portion of the sentence has been
well comprehended,
EFL participants intentionally skip unknown words because the remaining portions of a paragraph has been
comprehended,
EFL participants intentionally skip unknown words because the remaining information across different
paragraphs has been comprehended satisfactorily, and, finally,
EFL participants are forced to skip unknown words when there have not been any clues, background
knowledge, or information, based on which an intelligent guess could be made.
From He (2001:13)

With these results in mind, it can be argued that importance of the unknown word in the sentence
and in the paragraph(s) may determine whether the word is overlooked or not. Also, even if the

111
word is essential to understanding the meaning of the sentences, the lack of sources of
information to guess and find the meaning may encourage the reader to skip it.
In short, what can be suggested here is that skipping strategies may be the result of the
learners awareness that the word is not relevant to understand the overall message, but it may be
the case that the learner does not take notice of the importance of the unknown word, resulting in
unnecessary word skipping. Apart from the influence of L2 proficiency level on the use of
skipping strategies, other learner factors related to personality traits may have a role to play. It
would be interesting then to explore whether extraversion may influence word skipping, if we
depart from the premise that extraverted learners are more impulsive and then may tend to skip
words more often than introverts, who are more persistent and analytical. However, it should be
noted that this is just a prediction based only on the learners personality traits, rather than on the
existing literature.
3.3.1.3 Dictionary use strategies.
It is common knowledge that L2 learners generally make use of vocabulary reference
works such as dictionaries for both receptive (reading and listening) and productive (writing and
speaking) purposes (Scholfield, 1997) 28 . In a pioneering study, Tomaszczyk (1979:108)
suggested that dictionary use depended not only on the learners L2 proficiency level but also on
the nature of the language skill (or task) practised. He found that learners reported using
dictionaries mostly for reading and writing purposes and to a lesser extent for translation,
speaking and listening. In addition to the use of dictionaries when doing any four-skills tasks, L2
learners can use them as aids to learning vocabulary (Summers, 1988; Nation 2001). However, in
this section we will only concentrate on what type of dictionaries L2 learners regularly use and

28

Some researchers have conducted studies on the contribution of dictionaries while learners are engaged in
language tasks such as reading (see e.g. Luppescu and Day, 1993; Knight, 1994), writing (see e.g. Ard, 1982), and
reading comprehension tests (see e.g. Bensoussan, 1983; Bensousan and Laufer, 1984).

112
how they use them mostly in reception, i.e. the strategic choice to use a dictionary (Scholfield,
1997:283).

Types of dictionaries
Foreign learners dictionaries are broadly classified into monolingual (MD) and bilingual
(BD) dictionaries. However, there is another type of dictionary that has received little attention
in L2 vocabulary acquisition: the so-called bilingualised dictionary (BLD) (Laufer and Hadar,
1997; Laufer and Kimmel, 1997; Cowie, 2002). In simple terms, a bilingualised dictionary is
nothing else but a combination of a learners monolingual dictionary (same number of entries
and meanings for each entry) with a translation of the entry (Laufer and Hadar, 1997:190). In
other words, a BLD is mainly based on the contents of an existing MD (Cowie, 2002). To the
best of my knowledge, BLDs are not commonly used in Mexico.
From a wider perspective, Underhill (1985) distinguishes three kinds of dictionaries: the
monolingual learners dictionary, the bilingual or translating dictionary, and the native speakers
dictionary. In his study of MDs Battenburg (1991) also makes a distinction between monolingual
learners dictionary and general monolingual dictionary; this latter is intended for native
speakers. Apart from traditional paper-based dictionaries, electronic dictionaries have recently
come into play in second language learning. Nesi (1998) describes three types of electronic
dictionaries: hand-held dictionaries (which are very popular in South-east Asia), dictionaries on
CD-ROM, and dictionaries on the internet. In short, a range of dictionary types have been made
available to L2 learners; however, their effectiveness is still an issue in that there are conflicting
views among language teachers and researchers. However, our interest at this point is to find out
our subjects dictionary preferences and dictionary use strategies, which might be determined by
several learner factors, especially those within the personality domain.

113
L2 learners preferences for dictionaries
As pointed out above, we are concerned about L2 learners preferences for dictionaries
and the possible learner factors which may determine their choice. Tomaszczyk (1979)
administered a 57-item questionnaire to 284 foreign language learners and 165 foreign language
speakers to examine how they used dictionaries and their attitudes to and expectations of
dictionaries. The subjects included American college students, university Polish learners,
language instructors, and translators, involving sixteen different languages. The results of the
survey indicated that most of the learners, regardless of their high proficiency level, continue
using BDs as well as MDs. This may imply that the use of BDs is not exclusive to less proficient
learners, which will be interesting to explore in our study. However, this finding should be
treated with caution in that many of the respondents were translators. Tomaszczyk also
suggested that there is a relationship between L2 proficiency and dictionary use that is, the
dependence on dictionaries decreases as their command of the language increases (p. 116). As
mentioned above, the choice of dictionary type appeared to be dependent on the language task.
Thus, a subsample of the learners reported using BDs more frequently than MDs when engaged
in such activities as reading, writing, and of course, translation. Curiously, the same pattern of
use was also reported for listening and speaking. It should be noted that in Schmitts (1997)
survey BDs were very popular among Japanese learners of English.
Another early study on dictionary use and preferences was conducted by Baxter (1980)
who in fact advocated the choice of monolingual English learners dictionary. He administered a
questionnaire to 342 Japanese English majors and non-English majors enrolled in three national
universities. Among other aspects, the learners were asked what type of dictionary they used
most: bilingual Japanese-English, bilingual English-Japanese or monolingual. Again, EnglishJapanese BDs were more frequently used than MDs and Japanese-English BDs, regardless of the
major or non-major situation. Similarly, BDs were considered as the most important type of

114
book the learners used, followed by MDs and grammar books in English and Japanese. All in all,
learners preference for a BD was apparently due to the difficulty in understanding the
definitions offered by the MD. This issue was also emphasised by Amritavalli (1999) who argues
that definition in EFL dictionaries should not be more difficult than the words they define.
Battenburg (1991) reported on a study he carried out as part of his doctoral dissertation.
He surveyed 60 ESL learners at Ohio University to explore, among other things, their dictionary
habits. Based on scores from a standard English test, he selected the learners to make three levels
of L2 proficiency: elementary, intermediate, and advanced. As expected, BDs were more often
used by beginning learners than intermediate and advanced learners. Regarding the use of MDs,
more use of them was found among elementary learners than at the other levels, which appeared
to be a surprising result. Battenburg argues that it may be the case that the learners who consult
MDs do not feel that they benefit from them; then, they resort to BDs, which apparently suit
them better. However, the expected trend of more advanced learners using the general
monolingual English dictionary was in fact observed. It should be recalled that this type of
dictionary is more or less equivalent to dictionaries intended for native speakers of the target
language.
We may note that the commonly held assumption that choice of type of dictionary may
be determined by L2 proficiency has not been thoroughly supported. It seems that other factors
may be relevant such as gender, teaching method, and perhaps some personality factors. For
example, it may be that extraverted learners, who are thought to be risk-takers and more selfconfident, challenge themselves to use more monolingual dictionaries. Introverted learners, on
the other hand, may feel more comfortable using BDs. Likewise, it might be that introverts may
report more use of dictionaries as opposed to asking others for meaning. To date, no studies have
examined the relationship between extraversion and the use of VLS in general and dictionary use

115
in particular. Hence, we will explore whether extraversion along with other learner variables
(e.g. gender) predicts dictionary preferences and use.

Information looked up in dictionaries

The types of dictionaries are closely linked to the information that learners want to obtain
from them as well as the purpose for using them. Hartmann (1983) describes four interactive
factors of general dictionary use: information (e.g. meanings/synonyms); operations (e.g. finding
meanings/words); type of users; and purposes (e.g. decoding/encoding FL texts). Furthermore,
comparisons of BDs and MDs have shown that they provide L2 learners with a variety of
information about a target word. Atkins (1985), who made a comparison of both types of
dictionaries, listed 13 components generally found in either BD or MD entries:
(1) the headword, and any variant spellings;
(2) pronunciation;
(3) details of word classes (parts of speech) to which the headword belong;
(4) morphology: inflection(s) which may cause difficulties;
(5) syntax: the syntactic potential of the headword and any syntactic restrictions it may carry;
(6) an explanation of the various senses of the headword;
(7) exemplification of usage, including collocating words and fixed or semi-fixed phrases;
(8) a listing of derived forms of the headword, with or without further explanation;
(9) cross-reference(s) to related entries;
(10) semantic (including selectional restrictions).
(11) stylistic: indication of style and register, where relevant;
(12) usage material for the purpose of further clarification, e.g. differentiation from near-synonyms, or
warning of hidden hazards;
(13) etymological: a diachronic view of the headword.
(From Atkins, 1985:16)

She explains that BDs and MDs do not show variation in terms of pronunciation, part of speech,
inflections and cross-referential information. She also states that etymological information is
rarely provided in synchronic dictionaries (see e.g. Websters dictionary). Broadly speaking,
MDs seem to provide more detailed information about the headword. However, this does not
mean that MDs can be more effective than BDs. In any case, what matters for us is (1) what type
of information L2 learners look up in dictionaries, especially when they meet a new word while

116
reading and perhaps listening, and (2) whether some learner factors such as gender, L2
proficiency, and personality play a role in determining the type and amount of information
looked up.
Tomaszczyk (1979) also concentrated on the main types of information that learners
regularly looked up, which obviously varied from dictionary to dictionary. The findings reported
in his study are a little difficult to summarise here due to reasons of space, however. In a
nutshell, the subjects reported interest in information about established meanings of content
words in the first place, followed by information about word division and spelling; status, usage
and currency of words; and receptive and productive grammar (p.113). It should be noted that
such interest was paralleled by actual information types checked in the dictionary, which may
not be necessarily the case as some learners may show interest in some aspects of the word, but
may not pay attention to them in actual look-ups.
Similarly, Bejoint (1981) looked into the use of MDs among 122 French university
learners of English in an EFL environment. Like Tomaszczyk (1979) and Baxter (1980), Bejoint
employed a 21-item questionnaire. One of the questions (No. 8) addressed the types of
information the would-be teachers more frequently looked up in monolingual dictionaries. The
learners were presented with eight types of information in the questionnaire. The most frequent
type of information reportedly looked up was meaning, followed by syntactic information,
synonyms, spelling, and pronunciation. The least frequent information type was etymology along
with language variety.
In the study described above, Battenburg (1991) dealt with eleven types of information in
a MD entry, which included spelling, pronunciation, parts of speech, definitions, etymology,
illustrative sentences, derived forms, synonyms, cross-references, usage labels, and pictures and
diagrams. In addition, he compared the type of information looked up across the three L2
proficiency levels described above. All in all, looking up pronunciation information was reported

117
less by more proficient learners. This finding seems logical because more proficient learners can
apply some pronunciation rules to new words they encounter. Similarly, advanced learners
reported looking up definitions and synonyms less frequently than elementary and intermediate
learners. Interestingly, elementary level students showed more look-up of derived forms than
more advanced learners. However, no differences in looking up spelling were found among the
three types of learners. In terms of frequency of look-up by all learners, etymology was least
sought in dictionaries along with cross-references. The surprising result was that students
reported they did not use illustrative sentences more commonly (Battenburg, 1991:97).
As briefly reviewed in this subsection, it seems that L2 proficiency level is a strong
predictor of dictionary use (e.g. look-up behaviour). Ahmed (1988:236), who also included
dictionary use in his study, observed that a group of underachieving learners indicated not using
a dictionary very frequently whereas good learners at school used BDs more; good learners at
university used MDs more (poor learners at university used BDs). Gu and Johnson (1996) found
that skilful dictionary use positively correlated with some measures of L2 proficiency of Chinese
learners of English. This means that more proficient learners appeared to be more expert in
knowing what relevant information to look up in dictionaries, though this finding contradicts
some of those reported by Battenburg (1991). In a follow-up study on L2 learner variables (e.g.
VLS) and English achievement, Wen and Johnson (1997) noted differences in dictionary use
between high and low achievers. High achievers reported during their interviews that they
usually considered when to use a dictionary and what information to look up and copy down.
Low achievers, on the other hand, tended to follow a relatively inflexible set of procedures
rather than a decision-making process (p. 36). In addition to L2 proficiency and achievement,
other learner factors (e.g. gender) have been considered as predictors of dictionary use.
Nakamura (2000), for example, found that gender and L2 proficiency may have an interactive
effect on dictionary use: high-proficient female learners checked more information provided by

118
dictionaries than male learners. Finally, as stated above, it will be worth exploring whether
extraversion as a personality dimension might have something to do with dictionary habits,
specifically with the information consulted in dictionary entries.
3.3.1.4 Social-discovery strategies
Following the series of steps that L2 learners take to uncover meaning of unfamiliar
words, it has been generally pointed out that they may also ask somebody else for assistance. In
this section I will adopt Schmitts label of social strategies, which are part of a wider category:
discovery strategies. However, social strategies not only can be used to discover, but also to
consolidate new words meaning(s). As Schmitt (1997:211) straightforwardly points out,
besides the initial discovery of a word, group work can be used to learn or practise vocabulary.
Hence, as suggested by Scholfield (personal communication), social-consolidation strategies will
be briefly reviewed under the category of further-consolidation strategies in 3.3.4, leaving space
here for those social strategies used for discovering a words meaning.
General social strategies have been often considered in the main learning strategy
classification systems (see 3.1.2.2; 3.1.2.3; 3.1.2.4). More specifically, social strategies have
been considered in some studies of vocabulary learning strategies both directly and indirectly.
Ahmed (1988) appears to be concerned with social-discovery strategies since he subsumed five
of them under sources used to get information about difficult words on first encounter. In order
of higher frequency, these were (1) asking classmates, (2) asking the teacher, (3) asking about
meaning by demanding English, (4) asking for Arabic translation, and (5) asking for a sentence
demonstrating word usage. Based on these sample strategies, one could argue that Ahmeds aim
here was to know what information was asked about and to whom the learners asked, but not
from whom the specific information was requested (cf. Nakamura 2000, later on in this section).
In what Ahmed labelled the overall cluster diagnostics, it was found that a group of good
learners (37 in university, 58 in private-school and 1 in secondary-school) were positively

119
characterised by (2), (3), (4) and (5), but negatively characterised by (1). In another cluster of
good language learners (at different educational levels, except for university and private schools)
reported high use of (1) (2), but low use of (4). The other cluster of good learners (dominated by
intermediate and secondary schools) was positively characterised by (1), (2), and (5) but
negatively by (3) and (4). As to underachieving students, a group dominated by university
students were found to use (1) and (4), but not (3), (5) and (2). Another group of poor learners
(secondary and intermediate levels) only reported high use of (1) but an absence of the rest of
social-discovery strategies. From this summary it can be suggested that good learners tend to use
more social-discovery strategies than poor learners, especially those demanding L2 information
as seen with good university and private school learners. Thus, in our study we will explore
whether vocabulary proficiency (as a discriminator between good and poor learners) and perhaps
university year of study can predict the use of these strategies, e.g. those strategies demanding
information in English rather than a Spanish translation.
More specifically, Schmitt (1997) included five social-discovery strategies in his
taxonomy: asking the teacher (1) for an L1 translation, (2) for paraphrase or synonym of new
word, (3) for a sentence including the word; (4) asking classmates for meaning, and (5)
discovering new meaning through group work activity. In his survey with Japanese learners at
different school levels, Schmitt found that strategy 4 was one of the ten most frequently used
VLS. Similarly, strategy 2 emerged among the ten most helpful VLS. Another most-helpful
social-discovery strategy was strategy 3. Interestingly, Schmitt analysed the trend of vocabulary
strategy use across different groups (junior high school, high school, university, and adult),
which resulted in the selection of 13 strategies. Thus, asking the teacher for paraphrase or
synonym showed a clear trend of greater use in more experienced learners, suggesting a positive
relationship between the use of this strategy and L2 proficiency. A similar trend was found
regarding learners perception of helpfulness of strategy 3 (also rated as very helpful). In sum, it

120
seems that some social-discovery strategies are associated with learners L2 proficiency,
especially those in which information about the new words goes beyond simple L1 translation.
However, it should be noted that a high rating of perception of helpfulness does not necessarily
mean that L2 learners use such strategies with similar high frequency.
Like Schmitt, Nakamura (2000) seemed to pay attention to social-discovery strategies in
vocabulary learning. He developed a 62-item VLS questionnaire, which may be treated as a
taxonomy, though he did not intend that. In this, eight social-discovery strategies were grouped
together under the category of word attack skills. These were:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

I ask classmates for its Japanese translation;

I ask classmates for its English synonyms/paraphrases;
I ask classmates for other examples of the item used in a sentence/phrase;
I ask Japanese teachers of English for its Japanese translation;
I ask Japanese teachers of English for its English synonyms/paraphrases;
I ask Japanese teachers of English for other examples of the item used in a sentence/phrase;
I ask native teacher(s) of English for English synonyms/paraphrases;
I ask native teacher(s) of English for other examples of the items used in a sentence/phrase.

From the contents of the above items, it can be noticed that what interested Nakamura was to
find out how frequently Japanese learners asked classmates, Japanese teachers, and English
native speakers for translation, synonyms/paraphrases and example sentences. 29 Again, L2
achievement level (lower, moderate, and upper) accounted for the use of some, but not all these
social-discovery

strategies

(e.g.

asking

for

Japanese

translation

and

English

synonyms/paraphrases). Unfortunately, the effects of gender and/or university year of study,

which are of relevant interest in our study, were not explored with respect to social-discovery
strategies.

29

The nature of social-discovery strategies resembles that of dictionary use strategies. In our review of dictionary
use we focused on two main aspects: what type of dictionaries L2 learners consult and what kinds of information
they look up in them. Likewise, regarding social strategies for initial discovery of meaning, we concentrate on
whom L2 learners ask for meaning and what kind of information they ask for about the new word.

121
Turning now to the possible relationship between extraversion and VLS use, the
following prediction can be readily made. As reviewed in 2.4.2.2, extraversion was found to be a
good predictor of some language learning strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Oxford and
Ehrman, 1995; Wakamoto, 2000). Hence, it can be hypothesised that there will be a positive
relationship between extraversion and the use of certain social-discovery strategies. That is to
say, extraverted learners, characterised by their high degree of socialisation and interaction may
tend to use more social-discovery strategies for vocabulary learning than introverted learners. In
a nutshell, we would like to predict that extraversion will be more closely related to socialdiscovery strategies than any other VLS categories of our study, even though no studies have
been done on the relationship between extraversion and VLS use. Anyhow, it will be relevant to
look into such a relationship on an exploratory basis.
3.3.2 Note-taking strategies
Once learners have discovered the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary items via guessing,
using dictionaries or asking others, they may decide to keep a note of those items with the
purpose of consolidating their meanings. 30 In this section we are concerned with (1) the
information L2 learners note down about new words; (2) the places in which they keep those
notes; and (3) the way they organise their vocabulary notes. In addition to these, we will look at
some factors that may account for the use of note-taking strategies. Generally speaking, notetaking strategies for vocabulary learning vary in nature as they range from simple wordlists
along with L1 equivalents to more elaborate vocabulary records in which more aspects of the
target word are usually written down.

30

However, it may be the case that L2 learners write down and highlight unfamiliar words while reading and
possibly while listening before attempting to uncover word meaning. That is, the writing of vocabulary notes may
precede discovery of a words meaning. Also, learners may keep a note of items written on the board or introduced
by the teacher.

122
Note-taking strategies have been included in several taxonomies of general language
learning strategies. For example, Naiman et al (1978) (see 3.1.2.1) found that good language
learners made up vocabulary charts in L2-L1 and wrote down vocabulary items in different
situations, e.g. when watching TV, and made index cards. Likewise, Rubins (1981) (see 3.1.2.2)
strategy classification included taking notes of new items with or without examples, with or
without definitions. OMalley and Chamot (1990:138) (see 3.1.2.3) even defined note taking as
writing down key words and concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form to
assist performance of a language task. Last, but not least, Oxford (1990:19) (see 3.1.2.4)
incorporated cognitive strategies for creating structure for input and output such as taking notes,
summarising, and highlighting. In short, note-taking strategies for vocabulary learning have been
always explicitly or implicitly present in these main classification systems.
More specifically, White (1996) investigated the use and type of note-taking strategies of
29 university language learners of French and Japanese. The data was elicited through verbal
reports (the yoked subject technique) by asking the learners to imagine a situation in which they
had to tell prospective learners about better ways of learning out of class. White (1996) pointed
out that the subjects were allowed to talk not only about note-taking but also about any other
learning strategies in order to see how note-taking was combined with other strategies. The
results showed that note-taking was the most frequently reported cognitive strategy along with
repetition, elaboration, resourcing and translation (see OMalley and Chamots taxonomy in
3.1.2.3). White also identified five subtypes of note-taking strategies which emerged from the
interpretation of the verbal protocols: note-taking, writing out, listing, noting down, and
highlighting/underlining. Like in OMalley and Chamot (1990), note-taking is used to assist L2
performance in the form of abbreviated concepts. Writing out is similar to written repetition as
learners copy down items to help retention. Listing is writing lists of words along with their
translation or synonyms. Noting down involves keeping a note of key language items while

123
reading or listening. Finally, highlighting/underlining is used to emphasise key words or points
in the written discourse (e.g. textbooks) as well as to select information for later review. As can
be noted, it seems that these types of strategies may be used in combination rather than in
isolation. For example, while reading L2 learners may decide to underline key words and then
put them in a list and perhaps commit them to memory by writing them down several times. In
sum, Whites (1996) subtypes of note-taking appeared to be of relevance to our study, especially
in the design of our VLS questionnaire.
As regards vocabulary-related note-taking strategies, Cohen and Aphek (1979), cited in
Cohen (1990:128-130), carried out a mini-survey of notebook organisation, especially the
organisation of vocabulary entries. The participants were 19 American college students enrolled
in a six-week intensive Hebrew language course. Cohen and Aphek found that some learners
kept some sort of vocabulary notes either in some sections of their general notebooks or in
specific vocabulary notebooks. Others kept word lists organised by topic group and by
grammatical categories. Ahmed (1988) also dealt with note-taking strategies in his study of good
and underachieving learners of English. He found that both types of learners took notes in the
margins of the text or kept a separate notebook for difficult words. In particular, learners wrote
down the target word in list form along with information about spelling, pronunciation, L1
equivalents, English definition, word derivation, grammatical category, example sentences. In
terms of organisation, most learners reported writing down words in the order they encountered
them, but sometimes they established a semantic link among them. Surprisingly, writing down
words in alphabetical order seemed to be not very popular among these Sudanese learners.
Gu and Johnson (1996) also paid attention to note-taking strategies for vocabulary
learning. They distinguished between meaning-oriented and usage-oriented note-taking
strategies. The former strategies seem to cover ways of noting down the meaning of the target
word through L1 equivalents, synonyms, antonyms, and L2 definitions. The latter group of

124
strategies appear to include the notes learners write about how and when words can be used, e.g.
grammatical and collocational information. Unlike Ahmed (1988), the authors found via multiple
regression analysis that note-taking strategies positively correlated with measures of English L2
proficiency and vocabulary proficiency. Similarly, Nakamura (2000) observed significant
differences explained by a university year of study variable, which may reflect either some sort
of L2 proficiency or learning experience.
In a study devoted exclusively to note-taking, Leeke and Shaw (2000) set out to
investigate how 121 overseas university learners enrolled in a British university kept
independent records of vocabulary and their relationship to learners beliefs, personal
characteristics, and learning situations. However, it seems that vocabulary records were mostly
restricted to lists of words written down in notebooks and pieces of paper stapled together. Based
on the interviews, Leeke and Shaw identified 19 current list makers out of 54 learners, whereas
81 of the questionnaire subjects claimed that they had recently kept vocabulary records. All in
all, learners reported organising their records (1) at random, (2) by location of example, (3) in
alphabetical order, (4) by meaning, and (5) by chapter or date, obviously with more learners
using (1). Regarding the contents of their notes, the results showed that most learners attached
L1 equivalents to the target words. Less frequently, learners wrote English synonyms and
example sentences. Most importantly, it can be suggested that personal learning styles and
motivation might determine whether learners give up or continue keeping independent
vocabulary notes as well as the nature of their notes. Therefore, if learning styles are strongly
related to personality traits and even overlap each other (see Furnham, 1992b; Jackson and
Lawty-Jones, 1996), then we can predict that extraversion would play a role in the use of notetaking strategies for learning vocabulary (see also 3.2.2).
In this brief review we have noticed that the three main aspects concerned with
vocabulary note-taking strategies have been more or less covered both directly and indirectly in

125
previous studies. First, L2 learners have been found to keep vocabulary notes in different places
such as special notebooks, word cards, wall charts, and even in the margins of texts (see Schmitt
and Schmitt, 1995; and Fowle, 2002, for descriptions of vocabulary notebooks). Second, they
write down a variety of information about the target word ranging from simple word plus
translation to dictionary-like entries. Third, L2 learners organise their notes either systematically
or in a disorganised manner. For example, Sanaoui (1995) found that some learners kept
extensive and systematic records of lexical items, whereas others kept those to a minimum and
even ad hoc. Again, as stated above, we may posit some research questions to find out whether
extraversion, along with other learner factors may be a predictor of note-taking strategies in
terms of location of notes, content, and organisation.
3.3.3 Memorisation strategies
If we ask L2 learners how they commit vocabulary items to memory, they will probably
answer that (1) they say the word aloud or silently several times; (2) that they write down the
word several times; and that (3) they associate the word with something that helps them
remember it. In terms of frequency, most language learners appear to rely more heavily on some
sort of repetition strategies than on associations (see e.g. Schmitt, 1997). In this section, we will
look at what has been researched regarding repetition and association strategies for vocabulary
memorisation the former framed within rote-learning (or rote-rehearsal) and the latter within
the so-called mnemonic techniques.
3.3.2.1 Repetition strategies
The extensive use of repetition strategies among L2 learners has been widely
documented. As a matter of fact, vocabulary repetition strategies are considered in the main
strategy classification systems outlined earlier in this chapter (Naiman, et al, 1978; Rubin, 1981;
OMalley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990), as well as in VLS studies (Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer,

126
1995; Gu and Johnson, 1996; Lawson and Hogben 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Jimenez-Catalan, 2003,
among many others). In general, two aspects seem to be of interest here: how repetition is done
(i.e. verbal, written, visual, or aural) and what information is repeated by the learner (e.g. target
word only or word plus L1 equivalent, word plus L2 synonym, etc); and most importantly
whether the use or choice of repetition strategies is related to L2 proficiency level or
achievement and gender. At this point, we will also explore whether extraversion might be
associated with repetition.
In an early classification of fifty vocabulary learning strategies, Ahmed (1988)
considered the memorisation of words as a macro-strategy, which comprised six microstrategies. Most of them were some forms of repetition combined in terms of mode and type of
information repeated, rather than mnemonic devices to aid memory. In order of frequency
reported by his Sudanese learners these were: saying a word repeatedly, writing and saying a
word repeatedly, writing and saying word plus L1 translation, writing and saying English
synonym repeatedly and then writing the word in question once, then repeating the process, and
saying and writing word plus English synonym repeatedly. As has been pointed out earlier,
Ahmed compared the use of VLS between good and underachieving learners at several levels
(secondary, intermediate and university students). In general, both types of learners reported
using repetition strategies (at the macro level); however, differences were observed regarding the
information being repeated, and of course the use of L2. In a cluster of underachieving secondary
and intermediate learners, the absence of L1 in the information repeated was made manifest as
most of the learners repeated the target word aloud only. The other cluster of underachieving
learners indicated that they either repeated aloud the word only or said the word along with its
L1 translation, but they did not include any English synonyms. Good university learners, on the
other hand, reported including English synonyms or paraphrases in their verbal and written

127
repetition. From these results, it can be suggested that the precise type of use of repetition
strategies may be a function of learners L2 proficiency or achievement.
Gu and Johnson (1996) also gave importance to what they called memory strategies,
which were classified into rehearsal and encoding strategies. Rehearsal, in this case, can be seen
as roughly equivalent to repetition strategies, whereas encoding appears to be concerned with
the use of mnemonic devices. In this section, attention is paid to rehearsal, which comprises the
use of word lists, oral and visual repetition. Using word lists involves writing the words either on
sheets of paper or on cards and reviewing them systematically. Curiously, oral repetition not
only includes some form of verbal repetition but also silent repetition. Visual repetition, on the
other hand, seems to focus on writing the word several times, which is a way of looking at the
spelling of the target word (written repetition in our terms). As a matter of fact, the results
obtained via questionnaire showed that visual repetition of new words was the strongest negative
predictor of vocabulary proficiency and L2 proficiency; that is, the more L2 Chinese learners
relied on writing the word several times, the lower their score in their vocabulary and general
proficiency scores. It may also suggest that low proficient learners tend to use more visual
strategies than high proficient ones; however, this was not reported by the authors. Furthermore,
oral repetition and use of wordlists correlated positively with vocabulary proficiency scores. In
sum, what is apparent here is that vocabulary proficiency is statistically related to the use of
repetition strategies; hence in our study we can predict a similar pattern of strategy use. Another
important finding was that the participants generally did not dwell on memorization, and
reported using more meaning-oriented strategies than rote strategies in vocabulary learning (Gu
and Johnson, 1996:668). Therefore, it would be interesting to explore this strategy pattern in our
study as well.
In a study involving actual use of strategies, Lawson and Hogben (1996) set out to
investigate how 15 experienced university students in Australia managed to learn 12 Italian

128
vocabulary items (nouns). The main data-gathering methods were individual think aloud and
interviews. For the deliberate vocabulary learning task, the learners were provided with index
cards containing the target words along with an example sentence in one side; clues within the
sentences were given for only 6 words, the other six sentences did not contain clues. On the
reverse side of the card, the target word appeared with synonyms and other related words. Thus,
the learners were asked to verbalise their thoughts when attempting to learn the words by using
ad libitum the information provided in the cards. After completing the think-aloud task, the
learners were tested on the 12 words by simply asking them to write the words meaning(s).
While analysing the think-aloud protocols, Lawson and Hogben categorised the strategic
behaviours into (1) repetition, (2) word feature analysis, (3) simple elaboration, and (4) complex
elaboration, which together comprised 15 strategies. As regards repetition strategies (which were
the most frequently used procedures), the learners were observed to resort to the following
strategies: (1) reading of related words, (2) simple rehearsal, (3) writing of word and meaning,
(4) cumulative rehearsal, and (5) testing - for further description of strategies see Lawson and
Hogben, (1996:114-115). All in all, simple rehearsal (repeating the word with or without its
meaning) positively correlated with the recall of words, which means greater use of simple
rehearsal results in more target words being recalled. In a closer look at learner profiles, Lawson
and Hogben selected four high-scorers and four low-scorers in the recall of words. The highscoring group showed more use of repetition strategies than the low-scoring group, especially in
simple rehearsal, reading of related words, and writing of word plus meaning. A similar pattern
was observed regarding simple and complex elaboration (see 3.3.2.2). Once again, this result
may suggest that L2 lexical level might be related to the use of repetition strategies; hence this
will be examined in our study as stated above.
The use of repetition strategies has also been investigated by some other researchers.
Stoffer (1995) in ranking VLS by mean frequency of use found in her pilot study that verbal

129
repetition was within the group of high-frequently used strategies, whereas in the main study it
was ranked within the medium-frequency strategies (though mean scores were not so different,
3.60 and 3.34 respectively). Like Stoffer, Schmitt (1997) also reports that Japanese learners
relied heavily on verbal repetition and saying the new word aloud (presumably just once) to
consolidate meaning. Actually, Schmitt distinguishes between memory and cognitive strategies;
thus verbal and written repetition belonging to cognitive strategies, whereas saying the new
word aloud to memory strategies. In our study, however, these strategies are subsumed under
memorisation strategies. In a more recent study, Jimenez-Catalan (2003) adapted Schmitts
questionnaire to explore gender differences in VLS among Spanish-speaking learners (see 3.2.2).
As regards the use of repetition strategies, she observed a similar pattern: saying the word aloud
when studying was one of the ten most frequently used strategies for both males and females.
More importantly, Jimenez-Catalan observed gender differences in that females claimed to use
this strategy more often than males. Obviously she reported other differences, but at this point
our interest is in gender, lexical level, and degree of extraversion.
Turning now to the possible relationship between extraversion and repetition strategies,
again it should be pointed out that the lack of studies in this area may leave us to explore it by
considering the personality characteristics or traits of both introverts and extraverts (see 2.3.1
and 2.4.2.2). Extraversion has been found to be related to memory span (see 2.3.2.1). The
general finding suggests that introverts are better at long-term memory, but not at short-term
memory. By contrast, extraverts are good at short-term memory, but not at long-term memory.
Hence, it might be the case that extraversion could be related to the use of memorisation
strategies, both in the form of repetition and association strategies. What follows, now, is a brief
look at the use of associations and other mnemonic devices to consolidate meaning.

130
3.3.2.2 Association strategies
It has been already pointed out above that L2 learners also make use of other
memorisation strategies that go beyond simple oral and written repetition of the target word with
or without L1 translation or with any other forms of attached meaning: mnemonic associations
(in Cohens (1990) terms). These strategies generally require deeper levels of mental processing
leading to better retention (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). In fact several authors have referred them
as memory strategies differentiating them from repetition strategies (Oxford, 1990; Schmitt
1997; Nakamura, 2000). However, in our study both repetition and association strategies are
subsumed under memorisation strategies in that their ultimate goal is the consolidation of
vocabulary items.
Cohen and Aphek (1981) set out to investigate how 19 American students of Hebrew
learned new vocabulary over time; especial attention was paid to mnemonic associations. The
learners were given seven different vocabulary-related tasks distributed over one hundred days
that is , task 1 and 2 on the first and second day, task 3 on the fifth day, task 7 on the last day.
For example, on the first day, students were instructed to read a passage in Hebrew and underline
unfamiliar words. The teacher read aloud and provided English glosses for each unfamiliar item.
Then learners were asked to learn the words and write in the margin the learning aid they used.
Cohen and Aphek reported that 13 learners reported using mnemonic associations, which are
summarised by Cohen (1990) as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Linking the word to the sound of a word in the native language, to the sound of a word in the language
being learned, or to the sound of a word in another language.
Attending to the meaning of a part or several parts of the word.
Noting the structure of part or all of the word.
Placing the word in the topic group to which it belongs.
Visualising the word in isolation or in a written context.
Linking the word to the situation in which it appeared.
Creating a mental image of the word
Associating some physical sensation to the word
Associating the word to a keyword

131
Cohen and Aphek (1981) suggested that there may be other types of associations employed in
more naturalistic contexts than the classroom where the study was conducted. Anyhow, this early
list seems to include a variety of associations, which have been identified by other researchers
who focused on general language learning strategies. For example, Naiman et al (1978) found
that good language learners reported making associations between words sharing the same
subject area and semantic field (see 3.1.2.1). Rubin (1981) identified strategies in which learners
create some sort of semantic, visual, auditory, and kinesic associations (see 3.1.2.2). Likewise,
OMalley and Chamot (1990) identified several cognitive strategies that denote some sort of
associations such as grouping, imagery, auditory representation, key word, and elaboration (see
3.1.2.3). Also, Oxfords (1990) memory strategies category includes creating mental linkages,
applying images and sounds, and employing action (see 3.1.2.4). In a qualitative study, Sanaoui
(1995) also identified some mnemonic procedures reported by four second-language learners of
French, e.g. contextual and linguistic associations, imagery, and talking about the lexical item
with someone. In sum, mnemonic associations appear to be of relevant importance in L2
vocabulary learning research, especially the keyword method. However, to what extent are they
widely used by L2 learners? and most importantly, are mnemonic associations related to typical
learner factors such as L2 proficiency or achievement, gender and, perhaps, personality? What
follows, then, is a look at some VLS studies which have touched on association strategies.
Despite the apparent effectiveness of strategies involving mnemonic associations, they
appear to be among the least frequently used strategies in VLS studies. Ahmed (1988:186-187)
did uncover some instances of mnemonic associations through learner interviews. He quotes an
example in which a Sudanese learner linked the target word tilt to the fraction []
(pronounced in Arabic as /tilit/) to facilitate retention, which is in fact association (1) in Cohen
and Apheks (1981) study. Other associations identified by Ahmed included connecting the
target word to a cognate (strategy strateegiya), exploiting hyponymy relations (carrots

132
potatoes), and creating mental pictures. Nevertheless, Ahmed decided not to consider mnemonic
associations for his cluster analytic study as he stated that the number of cases of using
mnemonic devices is small across the sample. Consequently, they were not included in the
study. Thus, no results regarding L2 proficiency as related to associations were reported in
Ahmed (1988). In fact, learners in this study, reported more use of repetition strategies as seen in
3.3.2.1. A similar pattern was observed by Schmitt (1997) who found low percentages in the use
of semantic maps (9 %) and the keyword method (13 %) as compared with verbal and written
repetition. However, the keyword method was rated by learners as one of the least helpful
strategies. This was maybe because the Japanese learners were not acquainted with the use of
such a method. Interestingly, no ratings were given to the Peg Method and the Loci Method (see
Thompson, 1987:43-56, for a detailed account of memory methods in language learning).
However, other forms of associations were considered very useful such as connecting the word
with synonyms/antonyms or were reported as frequently used, e.g. studying the sound of a word.
Furthermore, Jimenez-Catalan (2003), reported more or less similar results in that Spanish
learners of English made little use of mnemonic-related strategies, e.g. semantic mapping, Loci
Method, and Peg Method. In terms of gender differences, she found, for instance, that males
associate the word with its coordinates (e.g. apple with peach) more often than females, but no
significant test results were reported.
The importance of mnemonic associations is reflected in Gu and Johnsons (1996) study
as

well.

They

divided

twenty-four

encoding

strategies

into such

categories

as

association/elaboration, imagery, word structure, and visual, auditory, semantic and contextual
encoding, though these categories are not mutually exclusive. Encoding strategies are supposed
to require more mental manipulation as contrasted with rehearsal strategies i.e. repetition.
Generally, the results showed that some encoding strategies were found to be related to both
vocabulary proficiency and English proficiency. For instance, association/elaboration, word

133
formation, and contextual encoding correlated positively with both language measures. However,
semantic encoding was positively related to vocabulary proficiency, but not to L2 proficiency.
Interestingly, imagery, visual and auditory encoding were not significantly related to either
vocabulary or L2 proficiency. In sum, it can be suggested that encoding strategies appeared to be
more associated with vocabulary proficiency than with English proficiency. Hence, in our study
we will also look into the relationship between mnemonic associations and vocabulary level.
Lawson and Hogben (1996) found that their subjects used some kinds of mnemonic
associations, which were placed under simple elaboration (e.g. appearance similarity and sound
link) and complex elaboration (e.g. paraphrase and mnemonics). Although Lawson and Hogben
already identified one strategy as mnemonic, it appears that the others can also be regarded as
some sort of mnemonic associations. The results indicated that sound link, appearance similarity,
and mnemonic strategies positively correlated with word recall test measures, even more than
simple rehearsal strategies. This may support the hypothesis that the more the mental
manipulation, the better the retention of vocabulary items (Craik and Lockhart, 1972). The
comparisons between a high- and a low-scoring group on the word recall test yielded some
differences in the use of associations. It was observed that high scorers seemed to employ more
simple and complex elaboration strategies than low scorers, though no significance testing was
used. However, it can still be suggested that L2 proficiency or vocabulary level may be related to
the use of mnemonic associations, that is, some associations may require higher proficiency for
the learner to be able to make them. In fact, Wen and Johnson (1997) found a positive
relationship between VLS use and English achievement (r = 0.23), though the set of seven
strategies not only comprised associations in L2 but also other ways of memorising words.
Stoffer (1995) was also interested in mnemonic associations and their relationship to
course level, gender, age, learning experience, target language, and VLS instruction. The
subjects were 707 university learners of Spanish, Russian, Japanese, French, and German who

134
completed a VLS questionnaire. She factor-analysed the questionnaire data and ended up with
the following sets of strategies:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Strategies involving authentic language use (12 items)

Strategies involving creative activities ( 13 items)
Strategies used for self-motivation (10 items)
Strategies used to create mental linkages (8 items)
Memory strategies (9 items)
Visual/Auditory strategies (8 items)
Strategies involving physical action (8 items)
Strategies used to overcome anxiety (6 items)
Strategies used to organise words (6 items)

Of interest in this subsection is factor four that comprised most of the mnemonic association
strategies described above, for example, linking the target word to an L2 word (sound or
spelling), linking the L2 words to other L2 words already known by the learner, learning words
from related topics, and using natural associations (opposites). Factor five, on the other hand,
included mostly verbal and written repetition, use of flashcards, rhymes, testing, among others
(see repetition strategies in 3.3.2.1). However, two aspects arise from a careful look at the items
clustered into the nine factors: (1) the items are not mutually exclusive as some of them are
included under two factors, e.g. use rhymes to remember new words appears in factors five,
six, and seven; (2) some items describing some forms of associations seem to be scattered among
other factors rather than in, possibly, factor four, e.g. associate with preceding/following word
(in factor six) and physically act out new words (in factors two and seven).
Turning now to course level and VLS use, Stoffer found differences on six of the nine
factors. Interestingly, the results of interest for us here showed that learners enrolled in more
advanced courses reported using mental linkages strategies more frequently than those at
beginning levels. Similar outcomes were observed regarding use of visual/auditory strategies,
which can involve some form of associations. In terms of gender and VLS use, Stoffer found
gender differences on three factors: mental linkages, memory, and organisation of words. Female
learners claimed to use mental linkages strategies more often than male learners. In short,

135
Stoffers results concerned with differences in use of association strategies according to course
level and gender are more or less consistent with those reported by Nakamura (2002).
In sum, the use of association strategies appeared to be determined by several learner
factors, especially, L2 proficiency level and gender. Obviously, external factors may have a role
to play as well. Turning our attention to the learner variable of interest in our study, it can be
speculated whether extraversion might predict the use of mnemonic association strategies. It
should be recalled that extraverts have been found to produce faster associations than introverts
(M. W. Eysenck 1982). Furthermore, one of the implications pointed out in the section on
extraversion and memory (see 2.3.2.1) suggests that extraverts would tend consciously or
unconsciously to compensate for their poor LTM capacity by using deeper memory strategies
such as mnemonic associations. However, the opposite argument states that less aroused subjects
(extraverts) would use less elaborative encoding in terms of memory while more aroused
subjects (introverts) would engage in deeper levels of mental processing. Hence, regardless of
these opposing predictions, extraversion may still emerge one way or another as determinant of
the use of memorisation strategies, which comprise both repetition strategies and mnemonic
associations.
3.3.4 Further-consolidation strategies
It has been found that L2 learners not only attempt to consolidate new words once they
have been encountered, but also look for opportunities to meet new words and practise words
they already know. In our study, we will refer to them as further-consolidation strategies (FCS).
More important is the fact that some social strategies can also be used to consolidate a words
meaning, that is, social-consolidation strategies (Schmitt, 1997). What follows is a brief
description of how these VLS have been considered directly or indirectly in the literature.
In his cluster analytic study, Ahmed (1988:181) also identified a set of six VLS that he
labelled practice (a macro-strategy), whose strategies may be regarded as FCS. In order of

136
higher frequency, these were: (1) asking other people to verify knowledge, (2) making use of
newly-learned words in real situations, (3) testing oneself by going through lists of words, (4)
checking written sources (e.g. dictionary) to confirm knowledge, (5) asking somebody to test
oneself about particular lexical items, and (6) making use of newly-learned lexical items in
imaginary situations. Ahmed found that a group of good learners dominated by university and
private school learners were positively characterised by frequently using these six practice
strategies, whereas a group of underachieving learners (mostly at university) were negatively
characterised by these strategies. From this finding, it can be suggested that L2 achievement or
proficiency may be related to FCS strategies for learning vocabulary. As to social-consolidation
strategies, it can be argued that strategies 1, 2, and 5 involve some sort of interaction presumably
with classmates, teachers, and L2 speakers, which may be then positively explained by
extraversion.
In the same vein, Stoffer (1995) included several FCS distributed across her nine factors
(see 3.3.2.2). Factor 1, which accounted for 9.41 % of the total scale variance, involves
authentic language use. As Stoffer describes, learners who scored high on this factor create
their own practice opportunities by reading newspapers, magazines, literature, and poetry in the
foreign language, watching foreign language movies, listening to L2 radio programs, and
practicing the language in real and imagined conversations with a native speaker (p. 121).
Interestingly, some significant differences were found in this factor across four course levels,
though not as a marked trend (mean scores from lowest to higher course levels: 1.88, 1.70, 1.59,
and 1.91). It seems that more experienced learners showed the greatest use of FCS, but less
experienced learners appear to look for opportunities to practise L2 vocabulary more frequently
than learners enrolled in higher level courses. Hence, it can be suggested that L2 proficiency as
reflected in course level may be a factor of some FCS. In addition, some of strategies in factor 1
can be categorised as social-consolidation strategies as well (e.g. practise in conversation with

137
L2 speakers, which may be explained by extraversion). Another relevant result regarding socialconsolidation strategies in this study is that strategy quiz myself or have others quiz me was the
eighth most frequently used by ESL learners in an American university. Surprisingly, no social
strategies concerned with discovering a new words meaning were considered in Stoffers VLS
questionnaire.
Schmitt (1997) also included in his taxonomy some of our FCS both as socialconsolidation strategies (1) study and practise meaning in a group, (2) teacher check
students flash cards or word lists for accuracy, and (3) interact with native speakers and
metacognitive-consolidation strategies 31 (4) use English-language media, (5) test oneself
with word tests, (6) use spaced word practice, and (7) continue to study word over time.
Unfortunately, four of these strategies were not included in the initial list in his survey with
Japanese learners (3, 4, 5, and 6). Thus, although highly considered helpful (87 %), strategy 7
was used by only 45 % of the learners. Strategy 1 was relatively frequently used (30 %) and
considered helpful (51 %). Also, no marked trend of strategy use could be reported by Schmitt.
However, we could speculate that some of these strategies would have been reported with high
frequency if they had been included in the survey (e.g. 3 and 4).
In sum, FCS appear to be considered in some VLS studies both directly and indirectly,
though with different labels. Also, these strategies seem to be related to L2 proficiency and
course level, and presumably, to L2 lexical proficiency (see Gu and Johnson, 1996). As stated
above, in our main study we will pay close attention to FCS since the social aspect is involved in
some of these strategies, which may be in turn related to extraversion. More importantly, if some
FCS may be labelled metacognitive in Schmitts terms and if Ehrman and Oxford (1990)
qualitatively found that introverts prefer them, then we think it is worth exploring a possible
31

It has been argued that the term metacognitive is an elusive concept. However, Schmitt (1997:216) justifies the
inclusion of these in his taxonomy explaining that [T]he strategy of interacting with native speakers whenever
possible also increases input, and could be considered a metacognitive strategy if it is used as a controlling principle
of language learning. Testing oneself gives input into the effectiveness of ones choice of learning strategies,
providing positive reinforcement if progress if being made or as signal to switch strategies if it is not.

138
relationship, though extraverts atypically reported using the metacognitive strategy of paying
attention to allow for longer concentration spans (see 2.4.2.2). Hence the direction of the
relationship seems to be inconsistent, but worthy of research.
3.4 Summary of the chapter
Chapter three focused on the realm of both general language learning strategies and
vocabulary learning strategies. Thus, we started by presenting the different definitions of LLS
offered by well-known researchers. Like the construct of personality, LLS appears to be an
elusive concept too in that there is still no consensus on what is meant by language learning
strategy. Furthermore, through the review of the main strategy classification systems offered by
Naiman et al (1978), Rubin (1981), OMalley and Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990) we
highlighted the importance of VLS as they have been directly or indirectly integrated into
general LLS. We also reviewed the factors that have been found to influence the use and choice
of LLS, especially the so-called learner variables such as L2 proficiency and achievement,
gender, learning and cognitive and styles, and of course, personality.
In this chapter we also attempted to provide an account of studies devoted entirely to
vocabulary learning strategies (e.g. Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer, 1995; Gu and Johnson, 1996; Schmitt,
1997, Nakamura, 2000; Jimenez-Catalan, 2003) and studies that partially dealt with VLS,
especially in the realm of word-solving strategies (e.g. Haastrup, 1987; Alseweed, 2000) and
dictionary use (e.g. Tomaszczyk, 1979). More importantly, our account of VLS more or less
followed the logical sequence generally taken by L2 learners from initial discovery to
consolidation of vocabulary items.

139

Chapter 4

The preliminary study on VLS

As can be seen in the previous chapter, considerable research has been done in the realm
of vocabulary learning strategies across several countries. To the best of my knowledge, to date
no published empirical studies on VLS have been conducted in Mexico, where English is
considered as a foreign language. Hence, as suggested by Scholfield (personal communication,
2001), it was felt necessary to start by looking into the EFL situation in Mexico. The rationale
behind this suggestion lies in the fact that sometimes it is taken for granted that research
instruments (e.g. language learning strategies questionnaires) may be administered to any kind of
student populations without considering other factors such as culture, learning environment, the
mother tongue, and the like. What follows then is an account of a preliminary study that I carried
out in September 2001. Also, this chapter ends with a summary of the research questions and
hypotheses formulated all through chapters two, three, and four.
4.1 Objectives
Basically, the preliminary study had a two-fold purpose. As a primary objective, it aimed
to validate the contents and organisation of the Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
(VLS-Q) that was going to be used in the main study. It was felt that the preliminary study would
result in a more valid instrument that reflected the actual situation in Mexico than just adapting
existing questionnaires from the literature (e.g. Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer, 1995; Schmitt, 1997;
Nakamura, 2000). 32 Likewise, as a secondary, but important, objective, this study set out to
provide a preliminary descriptive picture of how Mexican university students learn English
vocabulary both inside and outside the classroom. More specifically, the following research
questions were stated as follows:

32

More recent VLS questionnaires have been designed by Fan (2003) and Gu (2003) both intended for Chinese
learners of English.

140
RQ1. What are the most and least frequently reported vocabulary learning strategies?
RQ2. What are the most and least frequently reported vocabulary learning strategy categories?
It should be noted that these research questions are asked in the main study as well. Thus, it will
be possible to see to what extent the participants of both universities report similar use of VLS.
4.2 Participants
The participants were 185 EFL learners enrolled in an English major at the University of
Veracruz, Mexico. This is a five-year undergraduate programme that consists of three main areas
of study: English language teaching, English-Spanish-English translation, and English literature.
During the first three years of enrolment all the students are lumped together in a common core
curriculum and take subjects such as general English, English workshop on the four skills,
Western culture, Spanish, among others. It is during the last two years of their studies that the
students have the three optional components mentioned above. It should be pointed out that
most of the learners start learning English formally at university level, though they are supposed
to have acquired the basic communicative skills at earlier levels of education, i.e. three years in
secondary school and one year in high school. Anyhow, at university the participants of the
preliminary study were exposed, at least in the classroom, to English in that most of the courses
of this programme are given in the target language. As a matter of fact, compulsory general
English courses are taught throughout the programme. Finally, a valid reason for choosing this
university for the preliminary study lies in the fact that the participants share some common
characteristics with those in the main study in terms of previous educational background, English
major, EFL environment, years of studies, and age. Thus, it can be said that a parallel group of
participants was available without any risk of contaminating the data of the main study as the
distance between the two universities is about 1000 kilometres.

141
4.3 Instruments and procedure
Two instruments were used for collecting the data: an open questionnaire and a semistructured interview. Initially, it had been planned to include a classroom activity, similar to a
focus group. This activity would encourage the learners to talk about those special tricks they
used to learn English vocabulary. Unfortunately, no other classes were available for this due to
several constraints such as timetable clashes, exam periods, and lack of classrooms.

The open questionnaire

As suggested by Scholfield (personal communication, 2001), the open questionnaire
(OQ) should reflect the logical sequence that learners may follow when meeting unfamiliar
vocabulary items, from initial discovery to consolidation whenever the learner decides to do
something about it. Thus, the OQ was divided into three main sections: dealing with unfamiliar
vocabulary items, note taking, and memorising/retaining new words (see Appendix C). Each
section included a general stem sentence with two sample sentences of how to complete them,
(i.e. VLS). For example:
Section I - Dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary items.
When I meet a new word, which is not directly explained by the teacher or the book and I want to know what it
means
I check if the word looks similar to Spanish.
I ask the teacher/classmate for a translation.

The OQ also included a brief introduction about the main purpose of the instrument
followed by detailed instructions to complete it. Regarding the learners background information,
they were required to provide just the university year of study and the class/group number. No
other personal information (e.g. English learning experience) was requested as the researcher
formerly worked at the university and was generally acquainted with that. More importantly, the
OQ was translated into Spanish to ensure that the learners understood the contents of the

142
instrument. In addition to this, the researcher personally administered the OQ to all groups in
class time and was attentive to any queries from the participants. It should be noted that no time
limit was set to complete the OQ and that a space was given so that the participants could add
any other relevant information concerned with VLS.
All in all, the open questionnaire was administered to 185 EFL learners. In advance, the
researcher asked the Head of the Department of Languages for permission to collect the data.
Once permission was granted, scheduled visits to ten classrooms were made at the very
beginning of the English lesson to avoid disruption. In the classroom, the researcher introduced
himself to the learners, talked about the purpose of the study, and explained the procedures for
the completion of the questionnaire. It must be pointed out that the term learning strategy was
carefully defined with examples of language learning strategies. In general, the learners seemed
to be familiar with learning strategies, maybe because they were enrolled in an English major.

The semi-structured interview

The interview basically followed the same sections covered in the open questionnaire
(see Appendix D). Obviously, this retrospective instrument allowed the learners to describe more
in detail what they claimed to do when meeting new words and their subsequent strategic
behaviours. Each section included a main question and some follow-up questions, which served
as prompts in case the interviewees remained silent. For example:
Section I - Dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary items.
When you meet a new word, if it is not directly explained by the teacher or the book, how do you figure out its
meaning?
Follow-ups:
Do you ever guess? How?
Do you ever use a dictionary? Monolingual or bilingual? What do you look up in the dictionary?
Do you ever skip new words and not bother with them?
Do you ask other people? Who? What information do you ask about?

143
Thirty-three students (21 females and 12 males) volunteered for individual interviews,
which lasted between 8 and 21 minutes and were done either in English or Spanish by the
researcher alone. From each of the ten classes, at least two students were invited to participate; in
other classes, three or more volunteered. During the interview, the learners were encouraged to
talk about what they actually did currently to learn vocabulary on their own, not what they did at
early stages of their studies or what they would like to do. More importantly, as suggested by
Kvale (1996), the interview generally started with a briefing and finished with a debriefing.
Thus, in the briefing the researcher somewhat broke the ice, stated the purpose of the interview
and clarified any doubts. Regarding the debriefing, the researcher commented on some interview
outcomes as a way of creating a sense of relevance to the interviewees contributions.
Finally, it should be noted that the students who completed the questionnaire were also
invited to the interview. Initially and ideally, it was best thought to interview students who had
not completed the questionnaire; however, this was not achieved due to the reasons stated
previously such as timetable clashes, exam periods, and lack of classrooms. Anyhow, for the
purpose of this preliminary study, this fact cannot be considered as a drawback; rather, it was
taken as an opportunity to find out more about the interviewees vocabulary learning strategies.
Table 4.1 shows the distribution of both instruments across university year of study and levels of
proficiency.

Table 4.1 Distribution of questionnaires and interviews across university year of study
University
year of study
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Total

Open
Questionnaires
29
38
55
30
33
185

Interviews
6
8
7
6
6
33

144
4.4 Data analyses and development of the VLS-Q.
A few weeks after collecting the data via the open questionnaire and the semi-structure
interview, the researcher went back to the University of Essex to start the analyses, whose final
product would be a validated vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire. What follows is a
detailed account of how this was done.
4.4.1 The analysis of the questionnaire
The data analysis of the open questionnaire involved three main stages, i.e. data
extraction, data classification, data reduction. In general, the learners differed in the amount
of information they provided in the OQ. That is to say, some students provided considerable
information about the strategies they use whereas others just reported using one or two strategies
in each section or even wrote about something else. As the example below illustrates,
Only one point: If you believe you can know all the existent vocabulary, youre probably
mistaken; only with dedication youll have all the necessary things. I have always tried to
learn the words in a different way from other people with imagination. [Extracts from a
third-year learners questionnaire]

This learner not only provided information about his strategic behaviour, but also expressed his
feelings about learning vocabulary. Therefore, great attention had to be paid as not all that they
reported really qualified as report of a strategy, especially through an open questionnaire like this
one.
Another aspect that is worth pointing out here is the fact that some learners wrote entire
paragraphs in each section of the OQ showing that many strategies are sequentially employed
rather than in isolation. For instance,
Sometimes it is very easy to guess the meaning from the context; however, if I dont succeed,
I look up the word in a dictionary. I dont rely that much on the similarity of the word with one
in Spanish because it can be a false cognate and the teacher is not always available. [Extracts
from a third-year learners questionnaire]

145
Thus from the extract above, at least three strategies can be both explicitly noticed and it may be
implied that the learner sometimes asks the teacher for help. Again, for the purpose of the
preliminary study this kind of information was worth taking into account. In sum, the data
collected through the OQ fulfilled the main goal of this exploratory study.

Data extraction
The questionnaires were grouped according to the students academic year, from first to
fifth year, (see Table 3.2 above). Next, most of the sentences reflecting vocabulary learning
strategies provided by the students were initially put into the three main sections of the
questionnaire: (1) dealing with unknown vocabulary, (2) vocabulary note-taking and (3)
memorising vocabulary. That is, no attention was paid to whether several strategies, as worded
by the students, referred in fact to a single strategy. Obviously, sentences such as I look up the
word in a bilingual dictionary, if reported repeatedly in a single group were noted down only
once for that group. Below is just an actual sample of what first-year learners generally reported
when meeting new vocabulary items:

I look it up in the dictionary

I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary (I check its pronunciation).
I ask my teacher for its meaning.
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary (I check its meaning).
I underline the work and look it up in a bilingual dictionary.
I try to relate the word to the whole text.
I ask my friend if he or she knows the word.
I ask the teacher for meaning and use.
I check that the meaning of the word fits the context.
I underline the word and then look it up in a bilingual dictionary.
I look it up in the dictionary and check for its different meanings.
I ask my father for meaning.
I look up information in other books in which the word is used.
I try to remember if I have seen or heard the word.
I check if the word has a synonym.
I ask the teacher for an example.
I look for other texts where the word it is used.
I guess the meaning by context.
I write down the new word and look it up in the dictionary.
I keep on reading and try to guess according to the context.
I check for cognates.
I keep on reading to get an idea of what the word means.

146
A week later, for reliability the same procedure was followed as if it were the first time the
researcher was analysing the data following the same broad identification. Then, both sets of
almost raw data were compared and the most noticeable redundancies were cleared up giving
rise to a more compact set of statements about strategies after analysing the questionnaires twice.
However, it should be pointed out that the second list at this stage still contained several
redundancies, which were left as they were in that the purpose at this stage was to end up with a
more or less consistent set of statements about strategies only.

Data Classification
For classification purposes, the second list resulting from the previous stage was analysed
by bearing in mind other more specific categories suggested in the literature (see 3.3.1, 3.3.2 &
3.3.3) and by Scholfield (personal communication, 2001). Likewise, the very nature of the data
collected in the form of statements about strategies from each section led the researcher to come
up with further subcategorisations. For example, for dealing with unknown vocabulary (i.e. the
first section of the OQ), strategies were tentatively grouped into guessing, using dictionaries and
asking others. Again below is just a sample of the strategies that first-year learners reported
using.

Guessing
I check that the meaning of the word fits the context.
I try to relate the word to the whole text.
I check if I have seen or heard the word before.
I guess the meaning by context.
I keep on reading to get an idea of what the word means.
I keep on reading and try to guess according to the context.
I check if the word is a cognate (looks similar to Spanish).

Using dictionaries
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary (I check its pronunciation).
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary (I check its meaning).
I underline the work and look it up in a bilingual dictionary.
I write down the new word and look it up in the dictionary.
I look it up in the dictionary and check for its different meanings.
I look up information in other books in which the word is used.

147

Asking others or social-discovery strategies.

I ask my friend if he or she knows the word.
I ask the teacher for meaning and use.
I ask my father for meaning.
I ask the teacher for an example.

Note-taking strategies, on the other hand, were stratified into location (i.e. places where the
information about new words were recorded such as vocabulary notebooks, wall charts, word
cards, etc.) and type of information noted down (i.e. Spanish translation, English definitions,
synonyms, etc), and organisation of notes (i.e. alphabetical order, part of speech, etc).
Memorising strategies were in turn split into repetition, associations, and further consolidation.
This preliminary classification was then subjected to further analysis and validation by
considering more specific criteria in some categories as suggested by a second expert, Scholfield.
He also pointed out that some strategies could have been put into a logical order (personal
communication, 2001). Thus, guessing strategies included checking all types of context,
analysing the lexical item itself, and keeping on reading for later guessing. As for further subcategorisation, in Asking others attention was paid to who the learner asks for information
namely, classmates, friends, teachers, and the kind of information requested apart from
meaning. Using dictionaries, on the other hand, was ordered into type of dictionary (e.g.
monolingual, bilingual, on-line) and the type of information looked up.

Data condensation33
By data condensation is meant boiling down the number of VLS as much as possible by
getting rid of all redundancies and combining strategies that can sensibly go together in a single
one. In the end, this reduced number of strategies would take the form of the questionnaire that
was going to be used in the main study of this thesis. The data reduction procedure was carried
33

We did not use factor analysis because of the nature of the data collection instrument employed (see 4.3). The
open questionnaire yielded a variety of responses, whose content sometimes reflected learners beliefs about
vocabulary learning rather than examples of vocabulary learning strategies. Instead we used the common-sense
approach to arrive at a condensed number of VLS. It should be recalled that the primary purpose of the preliminary
study was to empirically validate the contents of the VLS questionnaire for the main study.

148
out manually by analysing each category along with its subcategories separately and by the year
variable. Also, in an unsophisticated way, a colour code (word processor highlighting) was used
to put common strategies together. Ultimately this recursive process ended up with a more or
less condensed list of 112 vocabulary learning strategies. Below is a sample set of 15 strategies
related to places where learners keep vocabulary notes.
Vocabulary Note-taking Strategies
Location
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

I write down new words in the margins of the textbook.

I write down information about new words on the text itself.
I write down new words on my English notebook.
I write down new words meaning and examples on my English notebook.
I keep a vocabulary section at the end of my English notebook.
I keep a vocabulary section at the top of my English notebook.
I write down new words on my vocabulary notebook.
I write down new words on cards.
I write down the new word on an accordion* which I can check all the time. (* a small piece of paper
or card containing a lot of information).
I write down new words on Post-It.
I write down new words on wall charts or posters.
I write down new words in my wordlist.
I keep a vocabulary list either in my notebook or separate sheets.
I write down new words on something handy, e.g. textbook, notebook, and sheets of paper.
I just highlight the word on the text itself.

Afterwards, the list of 112 potential vocabulary learning strategies was turned in to
Scholfield for expert comment. In general, he pointed out that further condensation of strategies
and some more subcategorisation were required (personal communication, 2001). Most
importantly, Scholfield suggested further attention to repetition strategies, which I had left as a
single category. Hence, repetition strategies were in turn broken into mode of repetitions (e.g.
just reading silently, saying aloud, and writing down) and what is repeated (e.g. word alone,
letter by letter, word in sentence).
As regards condensation of two or more strategies into one, he made several suggestions.
For instance, I check for compounds, I guess the meaning by looking at the words stem, and
I check for prefixes and suffixes were put together as I guess the meaning by analysing the
words parts (e.g. prefixes and suffixes, and compounds). Moreover, within note-taking
strategies, I keep a vocabulary section at the end or top of my English notebook was a

149
combination of I keep a vocabulary section at the end of my English notebook and I keep a
vocabulary section at the top of my English notebook. Other strategies were just eliminated
because they were not clear enough and no further evidence was available (e.g. I check if I have
seen or heard the word before) or because they were implicit in others, (e.g. I write down new
words I see or hear every day). In sum, all the recommendations were followed and the 112
VLS were sensibly reduced to 75. Appendix E illustrates how 112 statements were boiled down
to make up a compact set of 75 strategies along with their preliminary categories.
4.4.2 The analysis of the interviews
The analysis of the interviews was done more or less in parallel fashion with the OQ
analysis. Most importantly, the interviews played a crucial part in the preliminary study in that
they helped to

validate what learners stated in the OQ by triangulation,

clarify some vague statements reported in OQ,

incorporate other strategies not stated in the OQ.

The analysis of the interviews was entirely guided by the three main sections of the open
questionnaire meeting new words, note taking. and memorising words. On the basis of
these criteria, notes were taken from each of the 33 taped interviews. For example, Ana Luz
(pseudonym), a first-year learner, reported the following:

150
Table 4.2 Sample notes taken from learner interviews.
No.
ID
Year/Group
1
Ana Luz
I - 101
MEETING NEW WORDS
I look it up in the dictionary: meaning (bilingual, sometimes monolingual).
I guess the meaning (sometimes), difficult to guess.
I relate the word to the text when I know most of the words in the sentence.
I write down and look it up at home (I retain better).
I don't like asking others, I prefer the dictionary

Length - Sex
10:24 F

NOTE TAKING
The teachers gives us phrases that I write down - word and translation, I translate phrases.
I keep a section on vocabulary in my notebook
I divide my notebook into two parts, in the first part I have general English and in the second part I keep
vocabulary
[no grouping of words]
MEMORISING WORDS
I repeat silently (mentally). I look up the word and I commit it to memory (30 times each word)
I repeat word and translation.
I practise vocabulary in my free time alone, especially for exams I review my notes.
Sometimes I practise with my girl friend we're beginners.
Sometimes I use the vocabulary list given in the textbook.
I practise with songs.

As can be noted from the interview notes above, Ana Luz reported using a variety of strategies
when dealing with English vocabulary, though it is not stated how frequently she resorts to them.
She attempts to guess the meaning of new words by the written context. Interestingly, it seems
that she prefers to look up words in the dictionary to asking others, which may denote some
degree of introversion as far as personality is concerned. Moreover, she uses a bilingual
dictionary more frequently than a monolingual one, which is congruent with the kinds of notes
she keeps about vocabulary (i.e. mostly word plus translation type). Also, she appears to separate
her English notes from vocabulary-related ones because she divides her notebook into two
sections. In terms of memorisation strategies, she relies heavily on silent rote learning again
word plus translation. It should be noted that although she is aware that saying the item
repeatedly does not help much, she does not report using any association strategies that could
result in better retention. In sum, her strategies seem to be consistent with those of as typical
false beginning learner, especially in terms of bilingual dictionary use, few attempts to guess,
and somewhat shallow memorisation strategies.

151
In general, the interviews corroborated the different strategies reported in the open
questionnaire across the year of studies (i.e. 1-5). Moreover, the contents of the interviews
provided some more specific information about some VLS. For instance, in the OQ, many
learners reported using a dictionary but did not state what kind of dictionary they used or what
kind of information they looked up. Another example of vagueness had to do with guessing
meaning by context, which was frequently reported in the OQ. Thus, through the interviews it
could be realised that learners were referring mostly to the written context, either immediate or
wider context. Other learners meant by context the topic of the text or the conversation they were
involved in.
Scholfield collaborated in the revision of the 75-item version (personal communication,
2001) and suggested searching for evidence either from the interviews or the OQ of three other
important strategies reported in the literature (Schmitt, 1997). These three strategies were the socalled keyword method, association of word by word families, e.g. happy happinessunhappy, and skipping new word. No evidence found for the use of the Keyword Method
maybe because the learners have not been explicitly taught such a technique or maybe the data
collection instruments were not sensitive enough as they relied on retrospection. As to the
association by word families, the researcher went back to the interviews without any success.
Then, he checked in the OQ and found a little evidence in the account of a five-year learner who
reported establishing a relationship between words through prefixes and suffixes. However, this
account should be treated with caution as it is not clear whether the learner was referring to that
specific strategy or only to the strategy related to word structure when guessing. Finally, for
skipping new words evidence was found in one of the interviews in which the learners states
that when reading he does not stop at every new word that he meets. Also it was noticed that
some learners skip over new words momentarily with the hope of getting the meaning later on
through the context (textual or situational), which can considered as a skipping strategy as well.

152
In summary, the VLS-Q ended up with 78 items, which still may be considered as a long
research instrument. It is comparable with Stoffers (1995) 53, Kudos (1999) 44 items,
Nakamuras (2000) 70 items, Fans (2003) 60 items, and Gus (2003) 78 items). However,
it can be argued that the VLS-Q aimed to be as inclusive as possible. It should be recalled that
initially the preliminary versions consisted of 112 items, which were extracted from a large
number of reported strategies. The 78-item questionnaire along with an account of what learners
reported can be found in Appendix F. Such accounts were taken from both the open
questionnaires and the interviews. Each item is given an endnote number in which the original
learners utterances are included for the sake of validity. Thus, the main objective of the
preliminary study was achieved: the design of a VLS-Q representative of the learning context in
Mexico (for further details of the VLS-Q see 6.2.3.2).
4.5 Results and discussion of the research questions
In this section, the second objective of the preliminary study is briefly reported. Once the
VLS-Q was thoroughly revised in collaboration with Scholfield, an attempt was made to use it to
provide a picture of the vocabulary learning situation in the University of Veracruz, Mexico. It
was decided to re-analyse only the contents of the interviews to answer the research questions
stated above in that they provided more specific information about learning strategies. For
example, when the interviewees reported guessing meaning from context, the researcher had the
opportunity to find out how exactly they guessed. The open questionnaire, on the other hand,
because of its nature, elicited vague, and less detailed information than the interviews, e.g. I
look up the word in the dictionary. Therefore, it would have been less sensible to consider the
OQ for this kind of analysis as the instrument in itself was not intended for such a purpose.
However, it must be admitted that even during the interviews the learners could have omitted
important information about other vocabulary learning strategies they use. In sum, 33 learners
(12 males and 21 females) were surveyed with the VLS-Q. Thus, the researcher reviewed the

153
interviews, noted down the reported strategies from the list of 78 and fed them into SPSS for
descriptive statistics.

RQ1. What are the most and least frequently reported vocabulary learning strategies?
To answer this question the occurrences of each strategy among the 33 learners were
counted. The percentage was, then, calculated on the basis of the number of learners who
reported using each strategy. Table 4.3 shows the 10 most frequently reported vocabulary
learning strategies regardless of such variables as proficiency level and gender (and of course
with no consideration given to how frequently each person used them).

Table 4.3 The most-reported VLS

No.
6
14
78
12
75
38
18
10
19
54

Strategy number and name

Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.*
Use dictionary to check meaning(s).
Look for opportunities to meet new words.
Look up word in monolingual dictionary.
Test myself or have others test me.
Write down Spanish translation.
Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
Ask classmates/friends/relatives for translation.
Say word aloud repeatedly.

Count/33
32
30
30
25
25
22
21
20
20
20

%
97
91
91
76
76
67
64
61
61
61

* It should be noted that the items are worded in short sentences for the purpose of presentation of results. The actual items of
VLS-Q include longer sentences and examples.
As can be seen, guessing meaning by written context was the most used strategy, at 97
per cent. That is, almost all the learners said during the interview that they used such a strategy.
This trend may be attributed to three possible factors: (1) positive strategic transfer from L1,
especially in reading, (2) strategies explicitly or implicitly encouraged by the teachers and (3) the
tasks the learners do in class. Moreover, 91 percent of the respondents reported that they used a
dictionary, either bilingual or monolingual. In fact, four of the most used strategies have to do
with the use of dictionary to check meanings, example sentences and fixed expressions.
Interestingly, a monolingual dictionary (76 %) was reported more often than a bilingual one (61

154
%) maybe because the learners were enrolled in an English-major and they were encouraged to
use this type of dictionary. Another of the most commonly used strategies is that of finding
opportunities to meet new words, at 91 per cent, which indicates that the learners seemed to be
motivated to find different sources of input even in an EFL environment where there are few
opportunities to practise the target language. The sources of input for these learners typically
consist of books, magazines, satellite TV, internet, and a little contact with native speakers of
English. Similarly, testing on vocabulary either alone or with a classmate was reported by 76 %
of the learners. In the interviews some learners said that they used to gather together days before
the mid-term and final exams, which included a vocabulary section. More importantly, the use of
translation when writing down information about new words and when appealing for assistance
was frequently reported, at 67 and 61 per cent respectively. This finding appears to contradict the
idea that the nature of the major the learners were enrolled in may be a factor in greater use of
monolingual dictionaries. However, the learners also reported writing down (51 %) an English
definition and asking the teacher for one as well (48 %). Finally, repeating the word aloud was a
common strategy in that 60 percent of the learners maintain that they used such a strategy,
though some admitted that it was not a good strategy.
Overall, if the ten most used strategies in this preliminary study are compared with those
in Schmitts (1997), some similarities can be pointed out, especially in what he labelled as
discovery strategies. Thus bilingual dictionary, guess from textual context, and ask
classmates for meaning were also found in the preliminary study, though with slightly different
names. Likewise, Nakamura (2000) obtained consistent results with those of Schmitts. The
similarities are striking since it should be remembered that their studies were conducted with
Japanese learners of English. Regarding consolidation strategies, other common strategies were
found in the three studies, that is, say the word aloud combined with verbal repetition and
take notes in class. Therefore, it seems that some vocabulary learning strategies appear to be

155
universal, though this conclusion should be treated with caution as this preliminary study
analysis relied on only 33 interviews.
As to the least reported vocabulary learning strategies, Table 4.4 shows that 14 strategies
were reported by only 3 per cent of the interviewees (that is, by only one learner). It should be
noted that as all of these strategies had the same percentage, they were arranged in the order they
appear in the actual VLS-Q (see strategy number). More importantly, if close attention is paid to
the table below, it can be noticed that four strategies about making associations are among the
least used strategies, which supports the above finding that for consolidation learners prefer to
say the words aloud several times. This finding may also indicate that learners have not been
trained in these kinds of deeper strategies. It should be remembered that neither the keyword
method nor relating the new word to word families to consolidate meaning was reported in the
interviews, consistent with the low use of the other strategies for making associations.

Table 4.4 The least-reported VLS

No.
2
4
5
11
29
36
45
46
48
61
63
65
68
69

Strategy number and name

Analyse word structure when guessing.
Guess meaning by sound.
Guess meaning by pictures in text.
Look up word in electronic dictionary.
Ask teacher for grammar of the word.
Record words on audio-cassettes.
Write down grammar of the word.
Write down contextual/situation use.
Organise words by unit/lesson.
Repeat word and L2 definition.
Relate word to L2 word with similar sound.
Relate word to word in L3/L4.
Relate word to collocations.
Associate word with semantically related words.

Count/33
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

%
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Similarly, four note-taking strategies were not highly reported, which may be an unsurprising
result in that, for example, recording words on audiocassettes might be a boring task for the
learner. Also, writing grammatical information about new words, and writing the
contextual/situational use of the word, organising them into units or lessons of the textbook are

156
not commonplace among the learners as they seem to prefer to write down other aspects of the
words such as pronunciation (24 %), English definition (52 %), Spanish translation (67 %) and to
write down words in the order they appear (46 %). Interestingly, the low report of writing down
grammatical information about a new word is supported by the finding that learners do not ask
the teacher for that either, because they are more concerned with meaning and pronunciation as
shown above. A common trend of low use can be observed in three guessing strategies which
involve looking at the pictures in the text, the morphological features of the word, and the way
the word sounds. In this respect, Scholfield (personal communication) points that pictures may
not be available with many texts the learners read and that guessing from sound is an unreliable
beginner VLS, which they might rightly not use. Thus, the learners seem to opt to guess meaning
from textual context, which was the most frequently used strategy. Finally, two other leastreported strategies are look up the word in an electronic dictionary and repeat the word along
with its English definition. In fact, the use of electronic dictionaries (e.g. pocket and
computerised) is not as popular as in Japan, for example (Yonnaly and Gilfert, 1995), despite the
apparent advantages over paperback dictionaries in terms of ease and time. However, the
situation in Mexico is more a matter of economic resources, especially in state schools where
some learners cannot even afford to buy a hard-copy dictionary. As to repeating the new word
and its L2 definition, it can be argued that although the learners write down the word in such a
fashion (52 %), they may tend to repeat the word alone (42 %), an outcome that may be
supported by the finding that learners say the word aloud several times (61 %) or even silently
(52 %). Also in the interviews, some learners emphasised that they said the word several times,
but without extra information such as definition and translation.

157
RQ2. What are the most and least frequently reported vocabulary learning strategy categories?
In order to answer this question, the 78 items of the VLS-Q were logically grouped into
eight main categories. It must be noted that other VLS taxonomies were used as criteria for this
categorisation (Ahmed, 1988; Schmitt, 1997; Nakamura, 2000). Also, the categorisation follows
the sequence of the questionnaire as presented to the respondents. Table 4.5 provides a brief
description of each category.

Table 4.5 The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Categories

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Guessing strategies. This category includes seven strategies concerning the manner in which
learners attempt to figure out the meaning of unfamiliar words, e.g. looking at the word itself, the
textual context, and the topic.
Skipping strategies. This category accounts for two situations in which the learner skips the
unfamiliar word hoping to guess the meaning later on and when the learner simply ignores the
word even after attempting to guess it.
Dictionary use strategies. Nine strategies are concerned with the use of monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries, both hard-copy and electronic ones. These strategies cover the kind of
information that is looked up, e.g. meanings, pronunciation, example sentences, etc.
Social-discovery strategies. Eleven strategies concern what learners do when appealing people
for assistance: whom they ask (e.g. classmates, friends, relatives, teachers, etc.) and the kind of
information they request about the new word (e.g. Spanish translation, English definitions,
pronunciation, etc).
Note-taking strategies. In fact, this category has the largest number of strategies (24) in that three
main aspects of note-taking strategies are covered here. That is, where learners keep a note on
vocabulary (e.g. a specific vocabulary notebook, on the textbook, in electronic devices, etc); what
information about the word is written down (e.g. word plus translation, word plus English
definition, etc) and how the notes are organised, (e.g. in alphabetical order, by unit or lesson, by
grammatical category, by topics, etc).
Repetition strategies. In this category nine strategies concern two aspects of memorisation of
words, which involve handling information repeatedly: (1) how repetition is done by the learner
(e.g. verbal, written and visual repetition) and (2) what information is handled repeatedly (e.g. the
word alone, the word with translation, etc). Interestingly, Schmitt (1997) does not consider
repetition as memory strategies; rather he puts them under the category of cognitive strategies as
he follows Oxfords taxonomy. Ahmed (1988) clustered both repetition and association into
memorization strategies.
Association strategies. This is what other authors have labelled as memory strategies (Schmitt,
1997) or memorization strategies (Nakamura, 2000). However, in this thesis it was decided to split
memorisation strategies into repetition and association strategies to emphasise the difference
between traditional rote-learning and mnemonic-based strategies. Hence, the twelve association
strategies include the so-called keyword method, associations rooted in L1 and in L2, and even
another foreign language, etc.
Further consolidation strategies. These four strategies cover information about any other further
things learners do to encounter new words, to consolidate and practise the vocabulary they are
supposed to already know. This is what Ahmed (1988) categorised as practice strategies,
whereas Schmitt viewed them as part of metacognitive strategies. Gu and Johnson (1996) subsume
some of these under activation strategies. Also in this category, some social-consolidation
strategies are included.

158
Table 4.6 shows in rank order the proportion of strategy use according to the eight
categories described above. It should be noted that the low percentages in strategy use may be
due to the fact some individual strategies were not reported so frequently in the interviews,
affecting the percentage of the category of strategies as a whole. Another factor is the nature of
the categorisation itself: categories containing some high use strategies (e.g. the use of BD in
category three) may have their percentage use brought down by the fact that they contain rather
more low use strategies (e.g. types of information sought). Other examples can be noted in the
strategies use keyword method and think of prefixes/suffixes of the word, which were not
reported at all in the interviews and which bring down the percentage for category seven
(association strategies). Anyhow, having this caveat in mind, it is felt that the strategies
presented in categories still may reflect some interesting and distinctive patterns as seen below.

Table 4.6 Percentage of strategy use by categories

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Strategy Category
Further consolidation (4) *
Dictionary use (9)
Repetition (9)
Guessing (7)
Note-taking (24)
Social-discovery (11)
Association (12)
Skipping (2)

N
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33

Sum/max
74/132
128/297
83/297
57/231
195/792
78/363
60/396
7/66

%
56
43
28
25
24
21
15
11

* The number in brackets indicates the number of strategies classified in each category. The percentage was calculated as
follows: the total number of subjects multiplied by the total number of strategies in each category as the maximum score, then the
actual score for reported strategies used in that category was multiplied by 100 and divided by the maximum score: e.g. 74 X 100
132 = 56.06 for category 8.

The results show that further consolidation strategies are used by 56 per cent of the
learners, which makes it the most-used strategy category. This outcome may be accounted for by
the learners awareness and motivation to increase their English vocabulary even in an EFL
environment where there are few opportunities to practise the target language in real-life
situations. In fact, only 12 % of the respondents reported asking native speakers for meaning.
Other factors may also explain this result such as the English-major curriculum itself that states

159
that learners should pass a series of in-house English tests which necessarily include a
vocabulary section. Furthermore, the second most-used strategy category is that of dictionary
use, at 43 per cent. It seems that these learners see the conventional (non-electronic) dictionary
as a good source of vocabulary knowledge as they not only look up the meaning of new word,
but also look at pronunciation, grammatical category and example sentences. Interestingly, the
learners appear to be using the dictionary more often than asking others for meaning (21 %),
which may suggest that they have received some training on dictionary use or that they ask
others for an approximate definition in Spanish or English and resort to the dictionary for more
detailed information about unknown words. This can be seen from the low percentages in asking
someone for spelling/pronunciation (3 %) grammatical information about the word (3 %),
example sentences (9 %), etc.
The third most used strategy category is that of repetition strategies, at 28 per cent. It
seems that the learners rely to a great extent upon this traditional approach to committing words
to memory as compared with the use of association strategies (15 %), which may not receive
enough attention on the part of the teacher and learners. A similar pattern can be noted in the
guessing category (25 %) if it is contrasted with that of skipping (11 %). That is, when learners
meet a new word they try to figure out its meaning, look up the word in the dictionary or ask for
assistance before they skip the new word. If the learners do not skip over words very often, then,
it can be suggested that they do not give up easily or that they may have a high level of
noticing as noted in the literature (Nation, 2001). More importantly, the percentage of notetaking use (24 %) may corroborate the extent to which learners notice new words as they appear
to be motivated and interested in writing down vocabulary items. Finally, in terms of socialdiscovery strategies the results show that 21 % of the learners reported using them. Again if
social-discovery strategies are contrasted with dictionary use a large difference can be noticed

160
(21 vs. 43 %). As pointed out above, many learners seem to work on their own when meeting
unknown words by looking them up in the dictionary or attempting to figure out their meaning.
In conclusion, it can be suggested that regardless of the limitations of the preliminary
study, a general picture was provided about the use of vocabulary learning strategies among EFL
university learners in Mexico, which shows that there is considerable use of strategies in most
categories a prerequisite for the main study in that had VLS use turned out to be universally
low, there would have been doubt over the usefulness of a study pursuing a study of factors
affecting such use (Scholfield, personal communication). Also most importantly, the primary
objective was attained, the validation of the contents and organisation of the VLS-Q that was
going to be administered for the main study.
4.6 Summary of research questions and hypotheses of the main study
Now that we have reviewed the relevant literature on personality and academic
achievement and on vocabulary learning strategies, along with the preliminary study, it is time to
reformulate some of the research questions and hypotheses suggested along the way in chapters
two, three, and four. It should be noted that due to the exploratory nature of our investigation
more research questions than hypotheses have been formulated and organised into the following
five sections.
1. Use of Vocabulary learning strategies by the whole sample
Most- and least-frequently used VLS
RQ-1A. What are the most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies?
Frequency of use in VLS categories
RQ-1B. What are the most and least frequently used VLS categories?
RH-1A. Repetition strategies are more frequently used than association strategies.

161
Frequency of use within VLS categories
Category 1. Guessing strategies
RQ-1C. What type of guessing is most and least frequently used?
Category 2. Skipping strategies
RQ-1D. Are there any differences between skipping new words only and skipping new words
with subsequent guessing attempts?
Category 3. Dictionary use strategies
RH-1B. Bilingual dictionaries are more frequently used by all learners than monolingual
dictionaries.
RH-1C. Electronic dictionaries and internet-based dictionaries are the least frequently used
vocabulary reference works.
RQ-1E. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information are looked up
in the dictionary?
Category 4. Social discovery strategies
RQ-1F. What type of person is the most and least frequently asked for information about new
words?
RQ-1G. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners ask the teacher for
translation and English definition?
RQ-1H. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners ask other classmates for
translation and English definition?
RQ-1I. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information about new
words are requested?
Category 5. Note-taking strategies
RQ-1J. What is the most and least frequent place for keeping a note of new words?
RQ-1K. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information about new
words are written down?
RQ-1L. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners write down words with
Spanish translation and with English definition?
RQ-1M. What is the most and least frequent way of organising notes about new words?

162
Category 6. Repetition strategies
RQ-1N. What type of repetition is most and least frequently used?
RQ-1O. What information about new words is most and least handled repeatedly?
Category 7. Association strategies
RQ-1P. What type of association is most frequently used?
RH-1D. The Keyword Method is the least-frequently used association strategy.
Category 8. Further-consolidation strategies
RQ-1Q. What type of further-consolidation strategies are most and least frequently used?
2. Extraversion and English academic achievement and vocabulary proficiency (CALP).
RH-2A. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English academic
achievement as measured by end-of-semester grades.
RH-2B. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English receptive vocabulary
proficiency as measured by the Vocabulary Levels Test.
3. Extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies (overall, in categories, and
separately).
Extraversion and overall use of VLS
RQ-3A. Is there is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and overall use of
vocabulary learning strategies?
Extraversion and VLS: in categories and separately
Guessing strategies
RQ-3B. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of guessing
strategies as a category?
RQ-3C. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the frequency with which
learners analyse words into parts to guess meaning?
RQ-3D. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the frequency with which
learners analyse the grammatical category of the word to guess meaning?
RQ-3E. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the frequency with which
learners guess the meaning of a word by its sound?

163
RQ-3F. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the frequency with which
learners guess the meaning with the help of the words they know in the sentence/paragraph?
Skipping strategies
RQ-3G. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of skipping
strategies as a category?
Dictionary-use strategies
RQ-3H. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of dictionary
strategies as a category?
RQ-3I. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the frequency with which
learners use monolingual and bilingual dictionaries?
RQ-3J. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the different kinds of
information that learners look up in dictionaries?
Social-discovery strategies
RH-3A. There is a positive relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of socialdiscovery strategies as a category.
RH-3B. There is a positive relationship between the degree of extraversion and frequency with
which learners ask classmates for the L1 translation, L2 definition, spelling/pronunciation of a
new word.
RH-3C. There is a positive relationship between the degree of extraversion and frequency with
which learners ask teachers for the L1 translation, L2 definition, example,
spelling/pronunciation, grammar, and use a new word.
RH-3D. There is a positive relationship between the degree of extraversion and frequency with
which learners ask native speakers for the L1 definition and spelling/pronunciation of a new
word.
Note-taking strategies
RQ-3K. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of note-taking
strategies as a category?
RQ-3L. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the different places where
learners keep a note of new words?
RQ-3M. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and different kinds of
information learners write down about new words?
RQ-3N. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the way learners organise
the information they write down about new words?

164
Repetition strategies
RQ-3O. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of repetition
strategies as a category?
RQ-3P. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the ways learners do
repetition of new words?
RQ-3Q. Is there a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the different kinds of
information about new words that learners handle repeatedly?
Association strategies
RH-3E. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of association
strategies as a category.
RH-3F. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and association strategies
involving L1 and L2 cues.
RH-3G. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and association strategies
involving non-linguistic cues.
Further-consolidation strategies
RH-3H. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the use of furtherconsolidation strategies as a category.
RH-3I. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and the metacognitive strategy
of looking for opportunities to meet new words.
RH-3J. There is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and frequency with which
learners practise newly-learned words both in real and imaginary situations.
4. Extraversion, university year of study, gender, and vocabulary proficiency as predictors
of the frequency with which L2 learners use vocabulary learning strategies (individually
and as categories).
RQ-4. What is the relative contribution of extraversion, university year of study, gender and
vocabulary proficiency to the use of vocabulary learning strategies?
5. Qualitative differences between introverted and extraverted learners in the use of VLS
RQ-5. Are there any qualitative differences in VLS use between introverted and extraverted
learners of English?

165
As can be seen, the research questions and hypotheses in section 1 are concerned with the
frequency with which EFL university learners use VLS, that is, the most and the least frequently
used VLS individually and as categories as well as the frequency of VLS use within the eight
categories. Thus, our results will be compared to those found in the relevant literature (e.g.
Tomaszczyk, 1979; Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer, 1993; Schmitt, 1997; Nakamura, 2000; JimenezCatalan, 2003) and in our preliminary study. However, it should be noted that some of these
authors focused on strategy types rather than frequency ratings.
The two hypotheses in section two were formulated on the findings that extraversion has
been statistically associated with general and L2 achievement (see 2.4.1 and 2.4.2.1). Hence, it
will be interesting to see whether the findings in general achievement at university level may be
observed in relation to English achievement (i.e. end-of-semester grades) and receptive
vocabulary proficiency (i.e. VLT scores), which are more oriented to CALP than to BICs.
Section three presents the research questions and hypotheses regarding extraversion and
use of VLS. Thus we aim to see whether learners degree of extraversion is statistically related to
(1) the overall use of VLS, (2) to VLS use in categories, and (3) to individual VLS. The
hypotheses here were formulated by considering the findings on social strategies and certain
metacognitive strategies reflected in further-consolidation strategies in our study (Ehrman and
Oxford, 1989; Ehrman and Oxford, 1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; and Wakamoto, 2000). The
hypotheses of there being a relationship between extraversion and association/memorisation
strategies emerged from the literature on extraversion and memory span (M. W. Eysenck, 1982;
Revelle and Loftus, 1992 shallow and deep processes). Other research questions were also
posed on the basis of the personality traits of introverts and extraverts and their performance on
general tasks. For example, if introverts are more vigilant and attentive it might be the case that
they take more notes on vocabulary (see section on vigilance in 2.3.2.1), if extraverts are more
impulsive it might tend to skip over words more frequently, or if extraverts are considered field-

166
dependent, they might do guessing involving more global clues (see section on extraversion and
field-dependence in 2.3.2.1).
In section four, RQ-4 attempts to find out the predictive power and contribution not only
of extraversion, but also of university year of study, gender and vocabulary proficiency to the use
of VLS (see 3.2. for the review of learner variables and LLS/VLS use). Thus, it will be
interesting to see what combinations of learner variables may predict strategy use and what
learner variables may hierarchically emerge as stronger predictors of VLS use. Finally, RQ-5
prompts us to qualitatively describe the possible differences between introverts and extraverts in
terms of VLS use.

167

Chapter 5

Methodology of the main study

This chapter is concerned with the methodological aspects of the main study. It begins
with a brief account of the participants background information and the data gathering
instruments employed. After that, the procedures for data collection are reported (e.g. sequence
and time allocated for each instrument). Finally, it provides an explanation of the statistical
methods used to analyse the quantitative data as well as a description of the qualitative data
analysis.
5.1 Participants
The participants in this study were 150 EFL university learners enrolled in a five-year
English Language Teaching undergraduate programme at the University of Quintana Roo, 34
Mexico (south-east region of the country). As can be seen in Table 5.1, the sample comprised 47
males and 103 females, whose gender ratio is, to some extent, common in English majors all
over Mexico.35 In addition to this fact, it is normal in this programme that the number of learners
decreases across years of study.36 The age of the participants varied between 18 and 25 years,
but most of learners were within the ordinary age of university level (between 18 and 22). All of
them were native speakers of Spanish, though some are of Mayan descent.
Table 5.1 Distribution of participants by university year of study and gender
Gender
Male
First
University
year of
study

Total
34

Total

Female
27

39

66

Second

29

38

Third

10

15

Fourth

14

17

Fifth

11

14

47

103

150

http://www.uqroo.mx
According to the ANUIES (the National Association of Mexican Universities), there are 23 state universities
offering English majors (http://www.anuies.mx).
36
As there is no English entrance examination, many learners enrol the major and fail their first compulsory English
course and cannot continue the subsequent course. In addition, the rate of drop-outs is considered high.
35

168
L2 Background of the participants
The learners are expected to take seven general English courses during their studies, from
the second semester of the first year to the first semester of the fifth year of studies. Two 15week semesters are offered per academic year: the Autumn period (August-December) and the
Spring period (January-May). The English courses vary in terms of hours per week. The number
of hours depends on the level of the course offered: normally 8 hours for beginning, 6 hours for
intermediate, and 4 hours for advanced courses. 37 Other English-related subjects include
Listening and Speaking, Reading and Writing, English Grammar, and English
Pronunciation. In addition to this, some subject-matter courses are given in English: for
example, introductory courses to linguistics, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics, Life and
Culture of US and UK, Methodology of ELT, Materials Design, English Literature, and
Teaching Practice (see Appendix B). Therefore, it can be stated that the participants are
generally exposed to English at least in the classroom all through their studies. That is, when
learning English and when using English as a medium of instruction.
Most of the learners took compulsory English courses in state secondary schools for three
years and in high schools for at least one year (see also 1.2). Curiously, many learners reported
having studied English for one or two years as shown in Figure 5.1. An explanation for this
apparent contradiction is that these learners perceive they did not actually learn English at these
educational levels. This is in line with the fact that many learners fail English I and Listening
and Speaking in their first year of studies in university because they do not have the expected
L2 proficiency level. Figure 5.1 shows that in the eyes of many of the learners, they only truly
start learning English at university. The positively skewed distribution of the sample in terms of
years of English learning experience also supports this finding: most first- and second-year
students are clustered on the left of the histogram, meaning less learning experience (see also

37

English I and II 8 hours/week; English III-V 6 hours/week; English VI and VII 4 hours/week.

169
Table 5.1 above). On the right of the histogram, a small number of learners reported more years
of experience as had they attended private English schools before enrolling in the ELT
programme. Some even started learning English at primary level or took private extracurricular
English courses. This constitutes a good advantage for them in that they can move more easily
from one English course to another due to the flexibility of the curriculum.

Figure 5.1 English learning experience of all learners

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Std. Dev = 2.20

Mean = 3.2
N = 150.00

0
1.0

3.0
2.0

5.0
4.0

7.0
6.0

9.0
8.0

11.0
10.0

13.0
12.0

Years learning English

More importantly, one of the graduation requirements, apart from writing and defending
a dissertation in English, is that learners are expected to reach an advanced level. That is to say,
they are required to obtain the minimum passing grade in the Cambridge Advanced Exam, which
is the level between the First Certificate and the Proficiency exams. This may represent a great
effort for those who have to start learning English at university level, but may in turn
encourage learners to find any means to achieve such a goal, especially in an EFL environment.
In sum, it can be suggested that the participants vary in terms of L2 proficiency from beginning
to advanced level. Unfortunately, it was not possible to assess the learners level of English
proficiency except insofar as the vocabulary proficiency measure may be an indicator of this,
nor did we have access to their previous L2 test records (see 5.2.2 for the vocabulary measures).

170
In addition, we considered university year of study as some estimate of their proficiency level.
That is, first-year learners are supposed to be less proficient than second-year learners, and so
forth. To support this, we looked at the average years of learning English of students in each year
of study at university separately. The results showed an increasing pattern of English learning
experience across university years of study (first year/1.8, second year/3, third year/3.7, fourth
year/5.1, and fifth year/6.8). Finally, as regards acquaintance with language learning strategies, it
can be pointed out that most of the learners were somewhat familiar with them. In fact, fiftythree percent of them reported in the VLS questionnaire that they had received some kind of
strategy training, whereas twenty percent said they had not. The rest of the learners (27 %) did
not provide any information about strategy instruction.
5.2 Instruments
Four data gathering instruments were used in the study: the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire Revised Version (EPQ-R), the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT), the learner
interview, and the Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLS-Q). It should be noted
that the instruments were administered in the order they are described in the following
subsections.
5.2.1 The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, Revised Version (EPQ-R)
As will be recalled, chapter two was entirely devoted to the personality component of this
thesis. H. J. Eysenck appeared to provide both a theoretical description and explanation of the
biological view of personality. In so doing, he and his associates suggested three dimensions of
personality that emerged from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. These resulted in
the development of a series of psychometric measures of personality. Hence, one of these
inventories was used in our study, though it must be admitted that there are other existing

171
questionnaires (e.g. Cattells 16 Personality Factors, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, and the
Myer-Briggs Type Indicator).
The EPQ-R is one of the most recent versions of the personality tests devised by H. J.
Eysenck and his associates (see section 2.3.3). This version of the test, which was developed by
H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck (1991), measures three dimensions of personality: P
Psychoticism or Tough-Mindedness, E Extraversion, N Neuroticism or Emotionality. It also
includes a fourth scale known as L Lie, which aims to determine if the respondent has honestly
completed the questionnaire, i.e. their degree of social desirability. The EPQ-R consists of yesno questions in which the scales are mingled so that the respondent cannot easily detect what
aspects of personality are being measured. Further, the respondents are told not to think too long
about the meaning of each question and that there is no right/wrong answer or trick questions
(Eysenck and Eysenck, 1991). No time limit is set, but it usually takes between 10 to 15 minutes
to complete the test.
In the present study, we used an Iberian Spanish version of the EPQ-R, which has been
empirically validated by Ortet, Rogla and Ibanes (2001). However, this version comprises only
83 questions, of which, 19 questions aim to measure the degree of extraversion. Thus, the
minimum score is 0 and the maximum 19; that is, the higher the score on this scale the more
extraverted the individual may be. For copyright reasons we are not allowed to attach the whole
instrument. We only present below the extraversion scale and the instructions, which are given at
the start of the test. Also, the 19 items for the E scale are mixed with the other items for N, P,
and L. At the end of the test, the respondents are encouraged to check that they have answered
all the questions. In addition, we asked them to write their registration number, sex, age, and email address if applicable.

172
INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question by putting a circle around the YES or NO following the
question. There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Work quickly and do not think tot long about
the exact meaning of the questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Are you a talkative person?

Are you rather lively?
Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions?
Do you like going out a lot?
Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends?
Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people?
Can you easily get some life into a rather dull party?
Do you like telling jokes or funny stories to your friends?
Do you like mixing with people?
Can you get a party going?
Do you like plenty of bustle and excitement around you?
Do other people think of you as being very lively?
Do you have many different hobbies?
Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at a lively party?
Do you prefer reading to meeting people?
Do you have many friends?
Do you nearly always have a "ready answer" when people talk to you?
Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly?
Do you often make decisions on the spur of the moment?

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO

It should be pointed out that the inclusion of only 83 questions for the Spanish version was
mainly determined by a confirmatory factor analysis that Ortet et al carried out with 527 males
and 583 females who initially completed an experimental version of 116 questions (i.e. only
items with saturations equal to or over 0.30 in one factor). Moreover, the re-test reliability of the
Spanish version was performed within a one-month interval giving 0.86 for E, 0.82 for N, 0.72
for P, and 0.86 for L (Cronbach alpha).
Unlike other researchers (e.g. Naiman et al, 1978; Nagi, 1987) who used only the
questions concerned with extraversion, we administered the entire questionnaire. Thus, we
attempted to keep the reliability of the questionnaire as the questions had been carefully mixed
for a given purpose. Finally, we obtained the assistance of four Mexican students at Essex
University to take the test to find out any confusing wording in the questions, especially those
measuring extraversion. This was done because of the subtle cultural and even linguistic
differences between Mexican and Iberian Spanish language and people. No such difficulties
were spotted by either the volunteers or the researcher himself, except for some apparent
mistranslation of some words in the questions, which were not part of the extraversion scales

173
(e.g. worrier was translated into sufridora, which means a person who suffers a lot instead of a
person who often worries about things). In sum, the Spanish version of the EPQ-R was used as
it was bought from the publishers in Spain (see Appendix G for the extraversion scale only).
5.2.2 The Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT)
The VLT was originally designed by Nation (1983, 1990) as an attempt to provide
guidance for teachers to find out where ESL/EFL learners needed help, though it has been
recently used as a measure of vocabulary size. As Read (2000:118) points out, in the absence of
any more sophisticated measure, it has been used by researchers who needed an estimate of the
vocabulary size of their non-native speaking subjects. The VLT consists of five levels: the
2,000-word level and the 3,000-word level that sample high-frequency words; the university
word level that comprises specialised vocabulary; the 5,000-word level that is on the boundary
of high- and low-frequency words; and the 10,000-word level that includes low-frequency
words (Nation, 1990:261).
The VLT has a peculiar format in that it involves matching words to definitions, but the
test items are the definitions. In each section of the five levels, there are six words and only three
definitions, so three words are tested. Nation (1990) stated that this type of item reduced the
chances of making correct guesses. Also the definitions were kept short and were arranged
according to their length, from shorter to longer definitions as seen in the sample section below.
Overall, each level of the test contained six sections, making a maximum of eighteen words
tested plus definitions at each level.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

business
clock
horse
pencil
shoe
wall

_____
_____
_____

part of a house
animal with four legs
something used from writing

174
The validation of the VLT was first conducted by Read (1998) who administered the test twice
to 81 learners, at the beginning and at the end of a three-month course. He corroborated the
expected assumption that learners would do better at the initial levels of the test than at the final
levels. That is, more high-frequency words are more likely to be known by learners than lowfrequency words (Read, 2000). However, as pointed out by Scholfield (personal
communication), due to use of strange textbooks this is not always found.
For our study, we used a more recent version of the VLT, which was designed and
empirically validated by Schmitt, Schmitt and Clapham (2001). It should be noted that N.
Schmitt had already devised other versions of the Nations original test (Read, 2000). The two
new versions of the VLT now have thirty test items for each of the five levels, that is, ten
sections each compared to Nations original test which has only six sections. All in all, the two
versions of the VLT have been proven to be highly reliable vocabulary assessment instruments;
however, as suggested by the authors, the VLT may still require further development.38 In order
to calculate the time for the completion of the VLT Version 2 before applying it in the main
study, we asked an advanced Mexican learner to take it. It took her only thirty minutes to do so.
It is worth mentioning also that the original titles for the different levels were replaced by simple
letters (Section A, B, C, etc) to avoid the learners discouragement when they saw, for example,
the 10,000-word level title (see Appendix H).
As a matter of fact, Schmitts VLT Version Two appeared to be a valid instrument for
estimating English receptive vocabulary. Table 5.2 shows the results of the test across five levels.

38

Scholfield (personal communication) argues that these VLT versions are still based on rather old frequency lists,
not on the British National Corpus, for example.

175
Table 5.2 Results of the VLT for all learners
Level
2000 Word Level

N
150

Minimum
4.00

Maximum
30.00

Mean
20.1733

Std. Deviation
6.73840

3000 Word Level

150

3.00

30.00

16.5333

6.25270

Academic Word Level

150

4.00

30.00

21.0467

6.37459

5000 Word Level

150

2.00

30.00

16.3067

6.71365

10000 Word Level

150

.00

24.00

6.8133

4.77323

Total

150

4.00

28.60

16.1747

5.68409

An overall look at the mean scores for the five vocabulary levels allows us to see a more or less
consistent pattern of declining scores from the most- to the least-frequent English words. That is,
learners did better in the 2000-word level (mean = 20.17) than on the other levels, except for the
Academic Word level (mean = 21.04). However, high scores in this level were expected from
Spanish-speaking learners as many Latin-based words are included in it. Nation (1990) warns
about this situation in which speakers of Romance languages generally score higher on the
Academic word level. If we omit this level, we will see that the declining score pattern is more
consistent across four levels. Interestingly, no large difference is observed between the 3000word level and the 5000-word level, but the standard deviation is large in the latter and the
minimum score is two compared with three in the former.
Similarly, Table 5.3 shows a more or less consistent pattern between the overall VLT
scores and the university year of study. That is, less experienced learners generally were
outperformed by more experienced ones, except for fifth-year learners who appear to be the
outliers of the sample. A closer look at mean scores of fourth- and fifth-year learners across the
five levels of the test showed better performance of fourth-year learners, especially on the 5K
and 10K word levels. It seems that final year learners could have obtained lower mean scores
than four-year ones (21.7 vs. 23.5) because some of them did not complete the whole VLT,
especially at the 10K level where a student scored 2 out of 30 and two more learners scored 6 out
30. In fact, the maximum score for this group was 17 whereas for fourth-year learners was 23.

176
Table 5.3 Overall results of the VLT across years of study
Year of Study
First Year

N
66

Minimum
4.00

Maximum
23.80

Mean
12.1121

Std. Deviation
4.57675

Second Year

38

5.80

23.80

16.4737

3.44263

Third Year

15

14.60

28.60

19.8267

3.67685

Fourth Year

17

19.40

27.40

23.5059

2.50212

Fifth Year

14

15.20

25.40

21.7000

2.64139

Total

150

4.00

28.60

16.1747

5.68409

To sum up, Schmitts revised and expanded version of the VLT proved to be a valid and reliable
instrument as it showed a declining pattern across four of the five vocabulary levels and an
improving pattern across university year of study. Perhaps it would have been interesting to
explore the behaviour of the other version of the VLT, but it would have involved overwhelming
our participants with yet another instrument as well as arranging more disruptive visits to
classrooms.
5.2.3 Methods of strategy data collection used in the study.
Certainly, interest in what students do to learn a foreign or second language has generated
a large number of studies on language learning strategies, both experimental and descriptive. At
the same time, researchers have made use of a variety of methods and techniques for
investigating learning strategies, which include classroom and naturalistic observations,
interviews, think-aloud procedures, note-taking, diaries or journals, and self-report surveys
(Oxford, 1990). Although not applicable to VLS, researchers have recently begun to use
computer tracking to collect strategic information with or without the students awareness, but
presumably with his/her consent (Cohen, 1998:44). Such methods also may vary in terms of their
degree of structure, i.e. the influence of the instrument used on the informants report (OMalley
and Chamot, 1990:93), and the degree of explicitness with which the procedure focuses on the
data which are sought (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989:39). Similarly, data-gathering methods can
also be direct (e.g. questionnaires and check inventories) or indirect ones (e.g. protocol analysis,

177
diaries, interview) (McDonough, 1995). Closely associated to their degrees of structure and
explicitness is the fact that research methods have their own advantages and disadvantages in
capturing strategic behaviour. Perhaps observation has been considered as the least useful
technique in this field of research as many language learning strategies are mentalistic in nature,
for example, making associations. Yet, through observation some motor activities can be
captured such as using dictionaries and asking others for meaning.
In discussing the criteria for selecting a particular data collection procedure, Seliger and
Shohamy (1989:156) state that the choice of appropriate methods often depends on whether the
research is synthetic or heuristic, analytic or deductive in that the type of data is usually related
to the design of the investigation and the nature of the research problem. Bearing this in mind,
we decided to use a written questionnaire as the main instrument along with a semi-structured
learner interview. The former is expected to provide the quantitative account of our study,
whereas the latter is aimed at exploring the qualitative differences among extreme introverts and
extreme extraverts in terms of strategy use, though the data obtained via the semi-structured
interviews can also be analysed numerically through statistics. Regarding the limitations of these
research instruments, it is generally argued that questionnaires and interviews might fail to
capture what learners actually do as they often tend to report on what they would like to do to
learn a foreign/second language. In interviews, for example, it may be the case that learners try
to please the researcher with the information he/she would like to obtain from them. While
completing Likert-type questionnaires, learners may choose any option without really thinking
about the content of the statement. In addition, learners may simply not be able to recall the sum
total of what they generally do on a type of task and report it adequately (Scholfield, personal
communication). In sum, regardless of their limitations, both questionnaires and semi-structured
interviews seem to be feasible instruments for our study as they can complement each other in
order to provide a better picture of strategy use. More importantly, the data produced by the

178
questionnaire will certainly provide strategy data, which will be more practical to be statistically
analysed together with numerical and continuous measures obtained from the VLT and the EPQR, i.e. the correlational and multivariate analyses.
5.2.3.1 The learner interviews.
The semi-structured interview had basically the same methodology as the one used in the
preliminary study described in the previous chapter (see 4.3). That is to say, the interviewees
were asked general questions and were prompted in the case of their remaining silent, e.g. if they
said I look up the word up in the dictionary, they were prompted to specify the type of
dictionary and the information looked up. As will be recalled, the interview guide was divided
into three main sections: what learners do when meeting unfamiliar words, what notes learners
keep about vocabulary, and what learners do to memorise or retain vocabulary (see Appendix
D). However, this time selected students were asked to participate in the interview. Such
selection was made on the basis of the participants score on the personality test. Thus, learners
scoring high and those scoring low on the Extraversion scale of the EPQ-R were potential
candidates for the interview.
As pointed out above, the purpose of the interview was generally to describe in
qualitative terms the possible differences in strategy use between those considered introverts and
extraverts. At the end of the interview the participants were debriefed with some general
questions about their personality, especially whether they considered themselves as introverts or
extraverts. In addition, they were asked if they had honestly completed the questionnaire. It
should be noted that students scoring in the middle of the scale were not invited for the interview
as in the literature of personality studies most researchers opt for taking the extreme scorers in
order to explore possible performance differences (see 2.2.1).
Moreover, the focus of the interview changed a little compared to that of the preliminary
study. As subjects personality profiles were known in advance, they were also asked some

179
specific questions regarding the relationship between introverted-extraverted behaviour and
vocabulary learning strategies. This procedure was followed as long as the interviewees had
mentioned the use of a given strategy. For example, if they said they asked the teacher for
meaning and looked up the word in a dictionary, the potential questions would be Do you prefer
asking somebody for meaning to looking up the word in a dictionary? Other related questions
were Do you feel embarrassed when asking the teacher for the meaning of a word? Do you
prefer working alone or in groups? Thus, the personality-VLS related questions were mingled
with those referring to strategies whenever possible.
5.2.3.2 The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLS-Q)
As described in the previous chapter, the VLS-Q was the final product of the preliminary
study carried out with a parallel group of learners from another state university. Therefore, the
contents of the VLS-Q were validated by the data collected through both open questionnaires
and semi-structured interviews administered to EFL learners. Content validity was ensured by
consultation with a second expert, Scholfield who evaluated the questionnaire. Moreover, careful
attention was paid to other existing vocabulary learning questionnaires (Ahmed, 1988; Stoffer,
1995; Gu and Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Kudo, 1999; Nakamura, 2000) and other learning
strategies studies and questionnaires in which vocabulary played a relevant role (Naiman et al,
1978; Rubin, 1981; Politzer and McGroarty (1985); OMalley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990).
In sum, we did not follow the common practice of designing a questionnaire evolved only from
other questionnaires in the literature since we thought it was more valid to ground the contents of
our questionnaire on what a parallel group of learners would report on their VLS use in an open
elicitation. As concerns the reliability of the VLS-Q, it should be stated that no attempt was
made to pursue it since this was beyond the scope of the study. Nevertheless, this does not mean
that reliability is not as important as validity. As suggested by Scholfield (personal

180
communication, 2001), for the purpose of our study the way the VLS-Q was validated was
enough, leaving its reliability for further research.
The VLS-Q consists of seventy-eight Likert-type items arranged into three main sections
(see Appendix I) and eight subsections (see Table 4.5). Section one is concerned with discovery
strategies (guessing, skipping, dictionary use, and social strategies); section two covers notetaking strategies; and section three comprises memorisation strategies (repetition strategies and
making associations) and further consolidation strategies. Regarding the instructions for
completing the questionnaire, students were asked to read each statement and choose the number
that best described their strategic behaviour. The scale ranges from one to six in which 1 means
never or almost never true of me, 2 represents rarely or seldom true of me, 3 means
sometimes not true of me, 4 equals sometimes true of me, 5 represents generally true of me,
and 6 means always or nearly always true of me. A sample statement is given below:
12. I look up the word in an English-English dictionary. 1

The questionnaire also aimed to collect background information about the participants, but the
items of this section were presented at the end of the instrument to avoid distraction if provided
at the beginning. Such information included English course, English learning experience,
attendance at private English lessons, learning of other foreign languages, relatives who speak
English, being in an English-speaking country, access to internet, TV and radio in English,
training on language learning strategies. Other relevant background information such as gender
and age was elicited through the personality test.
Most importantly, the VLS-Q was originally written in English and carefully translated
into Spanish. Once translated, the questionnaire was piloted with ten EFL beginning and
intermediate learners who did not take part in the main study as they were enrolled in other
undergraduate programmes. They were asked to complete the questionnaire and encouraged to

181
ask the researcher for clarification if the statements were not clearly worded. In general, most of
the statements were well-defined, except for minor problems regarding the examples given,
which the learners considered confusing. Thus, we changed some examples in items 2, 64, 67,
and 69 of the questionnaire. In this last item, for instance, we had originally written,
69. I associate new words with semantically related words or group of words.
(e.g. flood & water, sink & parts of the kitchen).

and we changed it to:

(e.g. flood and water, armchair and living room)

The learners pointed out that they did not understand the example because they were not familiar
with the word sink, which they found unrelated to kitchen. They were asked if they knew the
word armchair 39 and its connection with living room; and they say they did. Finally, after
making these minor changes, the VLS-Q was ready to be administered in the main study.
5.3 Data collection procedures
The data were collected in the spring of 2001 by the researcher alone, who had
previously obtained permission from the head of the Department of Humanities. In general, all
the learners from eleven classrooms were willing to participate even though no payment was
offered. In fact, they showed much interest in knowing their results about their personality
profile and vocabulary proficiency. Hence, they were encouraged to write their e-mail addresses
so that their results could be sent to them electronically. They were also told that it was optional
to write down their university registration number, but fortunately all of them provided that
information. Thus it was very easy to track them as we had access to the official lists. In addition,
the teachers in charge of the groups provided their current lists of registered students. Regarding
the pseudonyms used for the participants in our study, we decided to choose them according to
39

The word sink has more occurrences in the British National Corpus than armchair, 1807 vs. 693, but sink has
more meanings as a verb, noun, and adjective. Maybe these learners knew sink as a verb, but not sink as a noun.

182
their initial letter of their names and thus protect their identity. It is worth pointing out that all the
written instruments were administered at the beginning of a two-hour lesson. Typically learners
may find it tiring and boring to work during the second hour of the lesson. Thus, we tried to
probe them at a more relaxed stage of the lesson.
The complete version of the EPQ-R and the VLT were administered on a single visit the
third week of March 2001, one week before Easter vacation. The researcher went into all the
classrooms and introduced himself and sometimes his colleagues introduced him to the class.
The first instrument to be applied was the EPQ-R as it required less time and effort than the
VLT. When completing the EPQ-R the participants were told to make sure they had answered all
the questions and provided the background information such as age and sex. Instructions for the
completion of the VLT included reading all together the sample items on the first page of the test
as well as asking the learners not to guess and just answer what they really knew. As a matter of
fact, many learners did notice the degree of difficulty when jumping from one section (level) to
another. Both instruments were completed in approximately 50 minutes (15 for the EPQ-R and
35 for the VLT).
After scoring the results of the EPQ-R, we had already identified the potential candidates
for the semi-structured interview: extreme introverts and extraverts. In order to carry out the
interviews, we visited the classrooms several times encouraging the candidates to volunteer.
None of them was reluctant to being interviewed. Sometimes, other candidates were absent from
class at the time of our visit, so we arranged later visits. In the end, twelve introverted and
thirteen extraverted learners were interviewed and most of them were first-year learners (12).
The interviews were done either in L1 or L2 and varied in length, between eight and thirty-three
minutes. Compared to the setting of the preliminary study carried out in another university, this
time an air-conditioned office was provided for the interviews.

183
Two weeks after the interviews had been carried out, the Spanish version of the VLS-Q
was administered to all learners, including those who had not completed the first two written
instruments. At that moment, we did not know what learners had been present in our previous
visits. Even if we had known that in advance we would not have excluded those learners as this
action may have discouraged the others from completing the questionnaire. On average, it took
the learners 45 minutes to finish the questionnaire along with the background information, which
was attached at the end of it. The participants were encouraged to report what they actually did at
that time and not what they would like to do. Also, the researcher did some monitoring around
the classrooms to answer queries from the participants. Finally, the researcher thanked both
learners and teachers for their cooperation and told them that it was his last visit.
The spring term at the University of Quintana Roo ended the second week of May 2001.
As a member of the teaching staff, the researcher had access to the end-of-semester English
grades of the participants, which were treated with strict confidentiality according to the
university regulations. Broadly speaking, the English assessment was based on two home-made
exams covering the four language skills plus scores for active participation and mini-assignments
(CALP-oriented measures). Unfortunately, the fourteen fifth-year learners provided no end-ofsemester English grades as they no longer took any general English courses during the last term
of the programme, and hence were not able to be included in the correlational analysis between
those grades and extraversion scores.
5.4 Data analysis
The quantitative data collected through the VLT, the EPQ-R, and the VLS-Q were
entered into SPSS 11.5 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). Similarly, background
information about the participants was numerically incorporated into SPSS. This kind of

184
information included gender, English learning experience, university year of study, learning
strategy training received, and end-of-semester grades.
The five levels of the VLT were entered both separately and as a total mean score so as to
be able to see if there was an implication scale across years of study. Another derived score was
a total score calculated with the omission of Academic Level from the set of five levels so as to
see if there were any remarkable differences across university year of study when Latinate
vocabulary was excluded. Regarding the data from the EPQ-R, the scores for extraversion along
with the scores for neuroticism (with close attention to reverse polarity items) were entered into
SPSS, which were the personality dimensions to be related to general academic achievement,
though attention was paid only to the extraversion scale. As an aside, we correlated the two
scales (extraversion and neuroticism) to see if they were unrelated as reported by H. J. Eysenck
and his associates, which in fact they were in our analysis. This suggests that being extraverted is
not a function of being neurotic as introverted individuals can also be neurotic. Likewise both
extraverted and introverted individuals can be emotionally stable (not neurotic).
The VLS-Q data were initially entered in seventy-eight columns, which were the
dependent variables of the study. Later on, the rating of the 78 variables were also averaged to
produce scores for the eight categories suggested in the preliminary study (see Table 4.5) and
were grouped as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Guessing strategies (Strategies 1-7).

Skipping strategies (Strategies 8 & 9).
Dictionary use strategies (Strategies 10-18).
Social-discovery strategies (Strategies 19-29).
Note-taking strategies (Strategies 31-53).
Repetition strategies (Strategies 54-62).
Association strategies (Strategies 63-74).
Further consolidation strategies (Strategies 75-78).

Further exploratory groupings were made from the eight categories by considering the nature of
the strategies themselves. That is to say, the strategies were put into other sets that also logically

185
belong together. For example, within the category of social-discovery strategies two
subcategorisations arose. One concerned who was asked: asking classmates, friends, and
relatives, asking native speakers, asking the teacher. The other covered what types of
information was asked about the vocabulary item: asking for translation, asking for English
definition, asking for spelling and pronunciation, asking for example sentence and context of
use, and asking for example sentences and grammar. As can be seen, several logical
combinations of strategies were possible, but only those most relevant to our study were taken
into account. It should be remembered that the mostly exploratory nature of our investigation led
us to group together the seventy-eight strategy variables in several ways as described above.
The main descriptive and inferential statistical methods used for the analyses of the data
included Person r correlation and multiple regression analysis. As pointed out by Hatch and
Lazaraton (1991), Pearson correlation aims to establish the strength of relationships among
continuous variables. In our study, we set out to investigate the possible relationship between the
degree of extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies among EFL university
learners. In addition, it was of interest to look into the relationship between extraversion and the
English academic achievement of EFL learners as measured by the end-of-semester English
grades and by the VLT scores.
Multiple regression (MR), on the other hand, aims to investigate linear relationships
between three or more variables (Brace et al, 2000; Miles and Shevlin, 2001). MR allows us to
indicate the extent to which one variable (i.e. the criterion or dependent variable) can be
accounted for or predicted by one or more of the other variables (i.e. the predictor or exploratory
variables). More importantly, MR helps us to identify the predictor variables that together
predominantly account for a criterion variable. In our case, the predictor variables were, of
course, extraversion, vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender, whereas the
criterion variables were the different VLS separately and as scores for sets of strategies grouped

186
together. Thus, we were able to see to what extent extraversion alone or in combination with the
other predictor variables could determine the use of vocabulary learning strategies. Also, we
were able to observe the contribution of extraversion within the combinations of predictors or
models, that is, whether extraversion was ranked at the top of the predictors or in second or
third place, or whether extraversion was totally excluded from the model because of its low
contribution to the model. In sum, MR as such appears to provide a more realistic picture than
simple Pearson r correlation. As pointed out by Seliger and Shohamy (1989:223), L2 learning is
known to involve social, personal, situational, contextual, and cognitive variables, all operating
simultaneously.
It is also important to note that sometimes one-way between-subjects ANOVA and oneway within-subjects ANOVA were used in our analysis. The former helped us further explore
and explain if there were differences in VLS use across university years of study, especially
when no significant results were obtained via stepwise MR. The latter was used for the analysis
of VLS use irrespective of the four explanatory variables of our study. For example when
analysing the mean frequency ratings for four types of dictionaries one-way ANOVA repeated
measures was run to detect any significant differences. Most importantly, when making multiple
comparisons we adopted the Bonferroni adjustment method to validate the significance levels
(Bryman and Cramer, 2001). Similarly, we made use of paired-sample t-tests when comparing
two VLS across the whole sample as well as independent-samples t-test when exploring
significant differences between males and females in extraversion, English achievement and
vocabulary proficiency.
As regards the interviews, they were originally recorded on conventional audio tapes and
then transformed into WAV format (Windows Audio File) in order to be used with a free
computer programme called Express Scribe (ES). The ES is nothing else but a computerised
transcriber that allows the researcher to use the F-keys of the keyboard to stop, rewind or

187
forward the recording. The ES also includes a typing pad, which makes it practical to listen and
type out at the same time because there is no need to open a word document. Another advantage
of digital recordings over the conventional ones is that forwarding and rewinding the tape is
easily done in seconds just by moving a slide indicator. Like conventional transcribers, the ES
can be set up at different speeds as necessary.
In general, notes were taken from the twenty-five interviews as done in the preliminary
study. Attention was paid to the distinctive strategy patterns of both introverts and extraverts
regardless of the university year of study or gender variables. Then, out of the 25 interviews,
two cases were selected to provide a qualitative description of a typical introvert and extravert as
far as vocabulary learning strategies were concerned. For that purpose, the interviews of two
learners in fourth and fifth year were thoroughly transcribed and analysed (one of them was
translated into English). Finally, it should be noted that the interview data were not analysed for
frequencies of strategy use or any other forms of quantification since the same interviewed
learners completed the VLS-Q two weeks later. All in all, the interview data served as supporting
evidence for the interpretation of the questionnaire data, especially when some strategies were
reported to be employed together rather than in isolation.
Overall, our analysis aims to look mostly into the relationship between the degree of
extraversion of L2 learners and their use of vocabulary learning strategies, though we sometimes
resorted to ANOVA and t-tests to further explore some differences, which could not be detected
via correlations. As suggested by Scholfield (personal communication, 2002), correlational and
multivariate analyses may tell us how strongly the learner variables are statistically related to the
use of vocabulary learning strategies more fairly than comparisons made by arbitrarily splitting
continuous variables such as that of extraversion. In fact, positive or negative relationships may
reflect some sort of differences. For example, a negative relationship between extraversion and
end-of-semester grades, implies that introverts may often outperform extraverts.

188

Chapter 6

Results and Discussion

Having summarised our research questions and hypotheses at the end of chapter four and
described both data collection and data analysis procedures in chapter five, we now intend to
report and discuss the results obtained in our main study. This chapter is organised into five main
sections, which correspond to the specific research questions and hypotheses posited at the end
of chapter four (see 4.6). Section one is generally concerned with descriptive statistics of the use
of vocabulary learning strategies both separately and in categories for all subjects together.
Section two focuses on the relationship between extraversion and English academic achievement
as well as extraversion and vocabulary proficiency. Then, section three presents the results
regarding the relationship between extraversion and VLS, again both separately and in
categories, i.e. the correlational analysis. Most importantly, section four provides the result about
the contribution of extraversion along with gender, university year of study and vocabulary
proficiency to the use of VLS, i.e. the multiple regression analysis. Finally, in section five the
lexical strategic behaviours of a typical introverted and extraverted learner are qualitatively
described.
6.1 Vocabulary learning strategies: Frequencies
What follows is an overall description of how frequently our learners reported using the
seventy-eight VLS included in the questionnaire, whose scale runs from one to six. Like Ahmed
(1988), Schmitt (1997), Jimenez-Catalan (2003) and in our preliminary study, we will present
the ten most- and ten least-used reported strategies (i.e. RQ-1A), except that here we will use
mean frequency ratings rather than type data (like Stoffer, 1995 and Nakamura, 2000). Then, we
will describe the frequency of use VLS arranged into the eight categories (i.e. RQ-1B and RH1A). At the same time, we will provide an account of some relevant differences in strategy use
within each VLS category in order to report the most- and least frequently used individual

189
strategies (RQ-1C to RQ-Q, RH-1B to RH-1D). It should be noted that most of the differences
we investigate are prompted by the findings in the literature, though pursuing these is not the
main purpose of the thesis.
6.1.1 The most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies.
Generally speaking, learners appear to have a moderate rate of claimed use of vocabulary
learning strategies (overall mean = 3.69), just above the middle of the 1-6 scale. Thirty-five
strategies had a mean score above four, which means that learners use them more or less
frequently. The rest of the strategies obtained a mean score below four, but only a few with
relatively low rates (see Appendix J for the overall use of VLS in frequency order). The
relatively high use of VLS can be explained by the fact that learners were enrolled in an Englishmajor with an emphasis on teaching, which demanded a great deal of effort in an EFL
environment. Also, it may be that the lack of opportunities to practise the target language outside
university encourages learners to use a variety of strategies.
Table 6.1 shows the ten most frequently VLS used by all the learners, regardless of their
degree of extraversion, vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender. The results
indicate that learners make extensive use of dictionary-related strategies as three of them are
ranked among the top five strategies. These findings corroborate the results from the preliminary
study (n=33) in which four dictionary strategies are also ranked among the top ten (see 4.5). In
both studies bilingual dictionaries are extensively used by all learners. Similarly, Schmitt (1997)
found that Japanese learners had this tendency, which was confirmed by Nakamura (2000). In a
more recent study, Jimenez-Catalan (2003) also discovered a similar pattern among Spanish
learners of English in Spain (further discussion is presented later on, see 5.1.3).

190
Table 6.1 The ten most-frequently used VLS
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

No. and name of VLS

14. Use dictionary to check meaning(s).
38. Write down Spanish translation.
30. Write down information of the word on textbook.
10. Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
18. Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
6. Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.
78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.
55. Repeat word silently.
66. Associate word with similar L1 word.
39. Write down English definition.

N
150
150
150
150
148
148
150
150
150
150

Mean
5.1000
4.9467
4.9067
4.9067
4.9054
4.8919
4.8733
4.7333
4.7133
4.7000

Std.
Deviation
1.17439
1.32496
1.33787
1.30228
1.30586
1.13770
1.22774
1.38383
1.36759
1.32478

Other most-frequently used strategies are concerned with keeping notes about vocabulary
items. Again, compared with the preliminary study, learners often write down the English word
along with an equivalent in Spanish. However, they also report writing the English definition of
new words, even though a large number of learners were in their first year of studies (n =
66/150). A possible reason for this pattern may be because of the nature of the programme along
with the teaching methods, which might encourage L2 use, though learners also rely heavily on
the use of L1 to convey meaning. The reliance on L1 is reflected in the associations they make,
which is also among the most-used strategies. Interestingly, learners write down information
about new English words on the textbook itself. This is very popular among L2 learners as they
consider it helpful when reviewing the book, which in a way may provide learners with some
sort of context.40 Note-taking strategies appear to be frequently used also in Schmitt (1997) and
Jimenez-Catalan (2003). Similarly, OMalley and Chamot (1990) also found this tendency in
their general strategy studies carried out in the late eighties.
Furthermore, guessing meaning from written context emerged among the top-ten
strategies, which in our preliminary study was ranked first. Again, this finding is consistent with
Ahmed (1988), Schmitt (1997), Nakamura (2000), and Jimenez-Catalan (2003). Thus, this may
40

During the interview, Marilia (her pseudonym) said I feel it helps when I come back to read that part again I will
find the notes there, next to the unfamiliar words, and the notes are handy when asked why she wrote notes on her
own textbook.

191
suggest that guessing from context (as a single strategy) is more or less universally reported as
widely used. However, the effectiveness with which this strategy is used is a matter of further
research. In a similar vein, repeating the word silently (as a mode of repetition only) was ranked
eighth in the list: it appears, then, that learners attempt to consolidate meaning by relying heavily
on some sort of rote-repetition. Although not among the top ten, other modes of repetition were
reported as used quite frequently, for example, saying the word aloud several times or writing it
down several times. Last but not least, finding opportunities to meet new words also emerged as
a relatively frequently used strategy. It may be suggested that these English-major learners are
aware of the limitations characteristic of EFL environments in which little communicative
practice naturally occurs. Hence, they seem to look for any sources of L2 input such as reading
magazines, listening to the radio, watching TV and using the internet. This confirmed the result
from our preliminary study where 91 % of the learners showed this strategic pattern. By
comparison, learners from the main study reported (in the VLS-Q) seeking more chances for
receptive than for productive purposes (3.90 vs. 3.53). To sum up, it is worth noting that most of
the eight categories are reflected in the most frequently reported VLS: three dictionary use
strategies, three note-taking strategies, and one for each type of guessing, repetition, association,
and further-consolidation strategies.
As regards the ten least-used strategies, Table 6.2 shows that several of these strategies
are concerned with note-taking (seven out of ten). Similarly, in the preliminary study four notetaking strategies were reported by only one learner. However, we believe that the nature of the
note-taking strategies rated relatively low by our learners can account for that ranking. We found
that recording words on tapes and keeping notes on computer or electronic devices are the most
infrequently used strategies among learners. The same tendency can be observed in the use of
wall-charts, drawing and pictures accompanying the English words. Some strategies related to
the organisation of vocabulary notes are also included here such as writing words in alphabetical

192
order or by grammatical category. Further, learners do not normally write the contextual
reference where they meet new word, e.g. page number, unit of the book, a film, or the
situational context. In fact, these low ratings of note-taking strategies clearly had their effect on
the analysis of the VLS in categories, i.e. they were the least used category (see 6.1.2).

Table 6.2 The ten least-frequently used VLS

Rank
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69

No. and name of VLS

36. Record words on audio-cassettes.
37. Keep vocabulary records in computer/electronic devices.
11. Look up word in electronic dictionary.
35. Write down words on charts.
13. Look up word in www.
47. Write down contextual reference.
41. Accompany words with drawings/pictures.
49. Classify words by part of speech.
51. Organise words in alphabetical order/sections.
62. Repeat spelling of word.

N
150
149
150
149
149
150
150
149
150
150

Mean
1.3667
1.5369
1.6600
1.7987
2.1745
2.2200
2.2467
2.2483
2.2933
2.4667

Std.
Deviation
0.83880
1.13020
1.15758
1.37044
1.43664
1.44645
1.47433
1.42329
1.59507
1.50911

The other least-used strategies are two of dictionary use and one of repetition. The results
show that electronic pocket and internet-based dictionaries are not widely used by the learners.
As pointed out in the preliminary study, the infrequent use of these kinds of dictionaries is due to
economic reasons rather than lack of interest. Also the access to internet at the university labs is
limited as compared with European and Asian institutions. Hence, the small number of
computers may prevent learners from spending time using internet-based dictionaries.41 Also, it
can be said that few learners have the privilege of using the internet at home.
Moreover, although silent or mental repetition is extensively practised by learners, it
seems that saying the spelling of the vocabulary item several times letter by letter does not
receive such attention. However, the low use of this strategy may not mean that the consolidation
of spelling is not important to the learners. This conclusion can be corroborated by the high
rating for the visualisation of the written form of the word (VLS no. 70), which was ranked
41

Actually learners have to sign up in advance to use the university computer labs as there are not enough for
everyone.

193
seventeenth (mean = 4.49). Also if we look at the mean for writing down the word several times
(mean = 2.86), we may suggest that learners may attempt to consolidate the written form of
words and that they may prefer to learn spelling by the whole word approach. Hence, as we
have pointed out, the nature of the strategy might have made it infrequent among our learners.
More importantly, some of these least-frequently used strategies also emerged in other
studies, except for Schmitt (1997). For example, Nakamura (2000) reported three least-used
strategies: (1) listing items alphabetically, (2) listing items by grammatical category, and (3)
keeping notes on vocabulary cards. Jimenez- Catalan (2003) reported low percentage of use of
(3), which was ranked 68th in our study. Stoffer (1995) found low use in recording words on
tapes, keeping words on the computer, and drawing pictures of new words. Ahmed (1988), who
also found no use of (1), detected low percentages in the use of strategies related to repeating the
spelling of the word as a way of learning it. In addition, the use of two strategies was consistent
with our findings in the preliminary study: recording words on tapes and using an electronic
dictionary.
In sum, the ten most used vocabulary strategies are to do with dictionary use, vocabulary
notes, followed by single instances of guessing, repetition, association, and further consolidation
strategies. Interestingly, the mean score for these strategies ranged between 4.7 and 5.1. This
suggests that no large differences were observed among them in terms of frequency of use. In
fact, four top-ten VLS had similar scores (4.9); three obtained 4.7 and two more 4.8, which were
not too far from the most-frequently used VLS: using dictionary to check meaning(s). However,
several note-taking strategies are found within the ten least used strategies as well, especially
those concerned with ways of organising notes. The mean scores for the least-frequently used
strategies ranged between 1.3 and 2.4.

194
6.1.2 Frequency of use of VLS by categories
When analysing the frequency of use of strategies arranged into the eight categories the
picture appears to be slightly different as compared with the analysis of separate strategies
discussed above. All in all, the mean frequency rating of the VLS categories ranges from 3.22 to
4.15, which indicates that most of them were rated above the middle of the scale used in the
questionnaire. Table 6.3 shows that guessing strategies (mean = 4.15) were reported to be the
most frequently used VLS category among all learners. This result is in line with the literature on
general language learning strategies, especially in the studies conducted by OMalley and
Chamot (1990). By contrast, note-taking turned out to be the least-used strategy category with a
mean frequency rating of 3.22, which is not consistent with the finding reported by OMalley et
al (1985). Furthermore, the second most-used VLS category was dictionary use (mean = 3.97)
just as seen in our preliminary study (see 4.5). Interestingly, social-discovery, further
consolidation, and skipping strategies showed almost the same mean frequency rating. A similar
pattern can be observed regarding memorisation strategies that comprise both association and
repetition (mean = 3.79). Based on the preliminary study, we had predicted that learners would
use significantly more repetition than association strategies because learners may tend to prefer
shallow strategies, which do not require specific training. Hence hypothesis 1A is not supported
in our study (t = 0.142, p = n.s. (without the Bonferroni adjustment). A possible explanation for
this result may be due to the learners enrolment in an English-major aimed at preparing
language teachers. Perhaps in a non-English major group of learners the strategy pattern of use
would have resulted in more frequent use of repetition strategies than associations.

195
Table 6.3 Frequency of strategy use in categories

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

VLS CATEGORY
GUESSING STRATEGIES (1-7)

Sig. Differences
among categories
1 > 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.

DICTIONARY USE STRATEGIES

(10-18)
SOCIAL-DISCOVERY
STRATEGIES (19-29)
FURTHER-CONSOLIDATION
STRATEGIES (75-78)
SKIPPING STRATEGIES (8-9)

2>8

ASSOCIATION STRATEGIES (6374)

REPETITION STRATEGIES (5462)
NOTE-TAKING STRATEGIES (3053)

6>8

3>8
4>8
5>8

7>8
8 < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Mean

Std.
Deviation

147

4.1594

0.74710

145

3.9785

0.73193

147

3.8893

0.99464

149

3.8708

1.06646

148

3.8007

1.03303

147

3.7988

1.01064

148

3.7965

0.88333

144

3.2251

0.73645

More importantly, in order to explore further statistically significant differences among

the eight VLS categories, one-way within-subjects ANOVA was performed with SPSS (F

(7, 875)

= 15.628, p < 0.001). The second column of Table 5.3 shows such significant differences in
strategy use with the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. In sum, learners used
significantly more guessing strategies than most of the rest of the VLS categories, except for
dictionary use and further-consolidation strategies. Note-taking strategies (the least-frequently
used strategy) significantly differed from the rest of VLS categories. Obviously, the largest
significant difference was observed between the guessing and note-taking strategy categories (p
< 0.001). As pointed out above, dictionary use strategies only differed significantly from notetaking strategies (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is worth noting that no significant differences arose
among dictionary, social-discovery, further-consolidation, skipping, association, and repetition
strategies as their means ranged from 3.7 to 3.9. As pointed out in 6.1.1 the low mean frequency
rating of the note-taking strategies category may be explained by the fact that seven of the
strategies in this category emerged among the ten-least frequently used strategies and three more
with a rating below the middle of the scale.

196
However, it can be argued that the overall mean frequency rating of VLS by categories
provides a rather crude description of VLS used by the whole sample. Therefore, it seems
sensible to briefly explore the frequency with which learners use the separate VLS comprising
each category, i.e. frequency differences in strategy use within categories. Thus, we will able to
provide support for the questions and hypotheses summarised in chapter four (see 4.6).
6.1.3 Frequency of use within VLS categories
For the purpose of describing differences in strategy use within each VLS category, we
arranged in order of frequency the strategies belonging to each category. Thus, for each category
we will be able to spot the most- and the least-used VLS. It should be noted that we will
concentrate on the most relevant differences in this section since it is beyond the scope of the
investigation to deal with all of them. For ease of description, the results will be presented in the
category order of the VLS questionnaire. Hence, let us start with the guessing strategy category.

Category 1. Guessing strategies (mean = 4.15, SD = 0 .747)

Our interest in this category was to find out the type of guessing that Mexican university
learners most and least frequently reported using (RQ-1C). Table 6.4 provides the seven
strategies arranged in ranking order (mean frequency ratings range from 2.8 to 4.8, which place
guessing as the most-used VLS category). Also, it is interesting to note that most of these VLS
obtained a rating above 4 (sometimes true of me) and that none of them appeared listed within
the 10 least-used VLS. Overall, a significant difference was observed among the VLS in this
category (F (6, 876) = 39.408, p < 0.001).

197
Table 6.4 Summary of the use of guessing strategies by all subjects
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Guessing strategies
6. Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.
7. Guess meaning by topic.
5. Guess meaning by pictures in text.
3. Analyse part of speech.
1. Check for similar L1 word.
2. Analyse word structure when guessing.
4. Guess meaning by sound.

N
148
150
149
150
150
150
150

Mean
4.8919
4.5400
4.2819
4.2200
4.1667
4.1667
2.8733

Std.
Deviation
1.13770
1.24043
1.30011
1.51001
1.30264
1.46739
1.42507

Guessing meaning by written context emerged as the most-frequently used guessing

strategy, which significantly differed from guessing meaning by the topic (p < 0.002). In fact,
this VLS was ranked 6th in the ten most-used VLS by all learners (see 6.1.1), 1st in the
preliminary study and 2nd in the summary of word attack strategies reported by Nakamura
(2000). It appears then that learners may attempt to guess meaning from written context before
using dictionaries or asking someone. During the interviews of both preliminary and main study,
many learners reported inferring a words meaning,42 though using dictionaries to check meaning
was placed first in the general VLS ranking. By contrast, guessing meaning by the words sound
was the least-frequently used strategy, which is not surprising since learners may focus more on
other aspects or more elements at their disposal as seen in the case of guessing by looking at the
topic, pictures in the text, the words structure and part of speech, and checking for similar word
in L1.
Category 2. Skipping strategies (mean = 3.80, SD = 1.033)
As only two strategies are included in the skipping strategy category we will not provide
a table showing ranks and means in order to answer RQ-1D. In a nutshell, we wanted to find out
if there were any differences in the frequency with which learners skipped new words and the
frequency with which learners skipped them looking forward to guessing later on in the text,
42

Usually I visualise the context in which the word appears to try to guess its meaning, and then I go and check
it in the dictionary (Cristina, second year learner)

198
provided there were more clues available. A paired-sample t-test revealed a significant difference
between these two types of skipping (t = 8.61, df = 147, p < 0.001): learners reported skipping
and guessing by delayed context more frequently than skipping only (means = 4.49 vs. 3.10).
Hence, it seems that learners may consciously overlook new words but they sometimes try to
bear that new item in mind for later guessing attempts. Also, it may happen that learners skip
new words because they consider them not important or because simply they failed to notice
them. Interestingly, skipping only was also reported by Nakamura (2000) with a mean frequency
rating of 3.44/6, which is not that far from our result. Schmitt (1997) found that 41 % of his
Japanese subjects reported skipping words. From the study of Jimenez-Catalan (2003), who
replicated Schmitts (1997), we averaged the reported percentages of both females and females
regarding skipping and found that only 11.6 % claimed to pass words.

Category 3. Dictionary use strategies (mean = 3.97, SD = 0 .731)

Our concern in this VLS category is to find out whether there are differences in the use of
four types of dictionaries: bilingual, monolingual, electronic, and internet-based (RH-1B and
RH-1C). Likewise, we look into the order of frequency with which different kinds of information
are generally looked up by the whole sample (RQ-1E). Table 6.5 shows the frequency mean
rating for each of the nine strategies included in this category.

Table 6.5 Summary of the use of dictionary strategies by all subjects

Dictionary Use Strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

14. Use dictionary to check meaning(s).

10. Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
18. Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
16. Use dictionary to check spelling.
15. Use dictionary to check pronunciation.
17. Use dictionary to check part of speech.
12. Look up word in monolingual dictionary.
13. Look up word in www.
11. Look up word in electronic dictionary.

N
150
150
148
150
150
150
148
149
150

Mean
5.1000
4.9067
4.9054
4.6333
4.4333
4.0600
3.9257
2.1745
1.6600

Std.
Deviation
1.17439
1.30228
1.30586
1.38746
1.40668
1.59374
1.77699
1.43664
1.15758

199
From Table 6.5, some relevant differences in dictionary preferences can be readily
observed. These differences were corroborated via one-way within-subjects ANOVA, which
showed significant differences in type of dictionaries (F(3,

438)

= 169.076, p < 0.001). The

Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed to check for valid significant
differences. The results showed that bilingual dictionaries are used significantly more often than
monolingual dictionaries (p < 0.001). This result appears to be consistent with what Schmitt
(1997) found among Japanese learners of English and with Tomaszczyk (1979). More
importantly, such a result allows us to support hypothesis RH-1B that predicted more use of
bilingual dictionaries. Monolingual dictionaries, in turn, are used significantly more often than
electronic dictionaries (p < 0.001), but internet-based dictionaries are used more often than
electronic ones (p < 0.002), which are in turn the least-frequently used reference works in the
study (RH-1C). Figure 6.1 illustrates better the differences in dictionary use among learners
regardless of their university year of study, gender, and/or vocabulary proficiency.
Figure 6.1 The use of dictionaries among all learners
6

Mean frequency rating

1
10. Bilingual
dictionary.

12. Monolingual
dictionary.

13. Internet-based
dictionary

11. Electronic
dictionary.

200
These findings confirm that learners rely heavily on bilingual dictionaries, which may be
a bit surprising for English majors. However, this may also be due to the fact that many learners
(n = 66) were in their first year of studies, which may be taken as synonymous for low levels of
language proficiency. We further explored this possibility and found that first-year learners
reported using more bilingual than monolingual dictionaries, but the direction changed slightly
across subsequent years of study. Notwithstanding, the mean frequency rating of monolingual
dictionary use seems to be also quite high on the scale (mean = 3.92), which was expected from
English-major learners. Moreover, the low frequency rating of electronic and internet-based
dictionaries was also expected as we know from experience that they are not very popular among
Mexican university learners. Both in the preliminary and this main study, electronic and internetbased dictionaries emerged among the least-frequently used VLS. In a nutshell, it can be
suggested that this finding is characteristic of these learners, but not in Asian learners, as
reported by Yonnaly and Gilfert (1995).
Of interest in dictionary studies is to find out the kind of information that L2 learners
most look up in dictionaries in addition to the frequency with which they use different types of
dictionaries (RQ-1E). The results of our study indicate that, in order of frequency, learners use
dictionaries to check (1) meaning(s), (2) examples and fixed expressions, (3) spelling, (4)
pronunciation, and (5) part of speech (see Table 6.4). This finding is more or less consistent with
Tomaszczyk (1979), Baxter (1980), Bejoint (1981), Battenburg (1991), and Nakamura (2000).
Through one-way within-subjects ANOVA we found a significant difference in the frequency
with which these kinds of information are looked up (F(4, 588) = 24.593, p < 0.001). However, The
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons showed no significant differences between (1)
and (2); (2) and (3); (3) and (4); and (4) and (5). Obviously, significant differences were detected
between (1) and (3), (4), (5); (2) and (4, p < 0.003), (5); (3) and (5): (p < 0.001 for the other
pairs). In sum, apart from a words meaning, the learners of our study appear to pay a great deal

201
of attention to the example sentences and fixed expressions maybe because they would like to
know how the word is used in context. It is also worthy of note that these five strategies obtained
mean frequency ratings above 4, which place them in the second most frequently used VLS
category.

Category 4. Social discovery strategies (mean = 3.88, SD = 0 .994)

Four research questions were formulated concerning social-discovery strategies: the type
of person most and least asked (RQ-1F), differences in asking the teacher for L1 translation and
English definition (RQ-1G), differences in asking peers for L1 translation and English definition
(RQ-1H), and the order of frequency with which learners request different kinds of information
(RQ-1I). Table 6.6 summarises the relevant information about the 11 social-discovery strategies.

Table 6.6 Summary of the use of social-discovery strategies by all subjects

Social-Discovery Strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

28. Ask teacher for word's use.

27. Ask teacher for spelling/pronunciation.
25. Ask teacher for English definition.
26. Ask teacher for example sentence.
24. Ask teacher for translation.
19. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for translation.
29. Ask teacher for grammar of word.
21. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for spelling/pronunciation.
20. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for English definition.
23. Ask native speakers for spelling/pronunciation.
22. Ask native speakers for English definition.

N
150
149
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
149
149

Mean
4.4733
4.4497
4.2000
4.0933
4.0067
3.9667
3.8533
3.5533
3.4497
3.3758
3.3557

Std.
Deviation
1.52692
1.47243
1.48369
1.53416
1.46318
1.45361
1.56036
1.52622
1.57014
1.71825
1.79742

At a glance we can report that the teacher seems to be the most frequently asked person,
followed by classmates/friends/relatives and leaving the L2 native speaker as the least frequently
asked person. In order to statistically compare the three types of people being asked, we
averaged the different strategies into three variables. Thus we had frequency mean ratings for
each person type: 4.18 for teachers, 3.64 for learners 3.37 for L2 natives. These were compared

202
via one-way within-subjects ANOVA, which detected a significant difference (F (2, 292) = 21.920,
p < 0.001). We found significant differences between asking teachers and asking learners 43 ,
asking teachers and asking L2 natives (p < 0.001), but no significant differences were observed
between asking learners and asking L2 natives (adjustment for multiple comparisons:
Bonferroni). The greater reliance on the teacher than on the learner has also been found in
Jimenez-Catalan (2003), though not directly reported. However, this is not in line with Ahmed
(1988), Schmitt (1997) and Nakamura (2000) since learners appear to ask other learners more
often than teachers. This inconsistency may be linked with cultural aspects and perhaps with
personality since it is generally known that at least Japanese learners may consider interrupting
teachers during the lesson as disrespectful. Spanish learners, on the other hand, seem to freely
ask teachers for a words meaning. Furthermore, asking native speakers emerged as the least
frequently asked person about new words (mean = 3.37), though not far from the frequency with
which learners ask classmates, friends or relatives (mean = 3.64). This finding may be partially
true since learners appear to have little direct contact with L2 natives, at least in the south region
of the state of Quintana Roo.
Now we focus on the frequency with which learners ask teachers and learners for L1
translation and L2 definition, which is somewhat parallel to the use of monolingual and bilingual
dictionaries. Figure 6.2 shows the different mean frequency rating for each of these four
variables.

43

It is worth noting that the first five social-discovery strategies in Table 6.5 involve asking the teacher for help.

203
Figure 6.2 Frequency with which learners ask for Spanish translation and English definition
6

Mean frequency rating

1
Ask peers for
translation.

Ask peers for

English definition.

Ask teacher for

translation.

Ask teacher for

English definition.

One-way within-subjects ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences

among the claimed uses of these VLS (F(3,

444)

= 9.584, p < 0.001). After the Bonferroni

adjustment for multiple comparisons was employed, it was found that learners asked other
learners for L1 translation significantly more often than L2 definition (p < 0.001, with the
Bonferroni test). This result may be explained in terms of learner-learner interaction in which
they naturally resort to Spanish translation as the quickest way to convey meaning, especially
when meeting new words. However, learners did not differ significantly (p = n.s.) when asking
the teacher for L1 translation and L2 definition, which means that learners claimed to use both
types of strategy with similar frequency. Similarly, no differences were found between asking
learners for L1 translation and asking the teacher for the similar information (p = n.s.) a result
consistent with Nakamura (2000). Yet, learners reported asking the teacher for L2 definition
more frequently than asking other learner for the similar information (p < 0.001, with the
Bonferroni test). This result is not surprising since it might be that learners rely more on the

204
teacher than on other classmates or that simply teachers might prefer to be addressed in L2 in the
classroom as reflected in the fact that this VLS was ranked 3rd in this category. Unfortunately, it
is difficult to fully compare our results with the relevant literature because they did not explore
these differences in detail.
Regarding the order of frequency of the information being requested irrespective of
which party is asked for help, the results showed that learners ask for (1) the words use, mean =
4.47; (2) example sentences, mean = 4.08; (3) Spanish translation, mean = 3.98; (4), the
grammatical behaviour of the word, mean = 3.85; (5) spelling and pronunciation, mean = 3.79;
and (6) English definition, mean = 3.67. General significant differences were observed via oneway within-subjects ANOVA (F(5, 730) = 11.392, p < 0.001) and specific differences were found
after performing the Bonferroni multiple comparisons adjustment. Learners seemed to be much
more concerned with how the word is appropriately used than with example sentences (p <
0.010), than with L1 translation (p < 0.008), and than with the words grammar,
spelling/pronunciation, and L2 definition (p < 0.001). In addition, the written form of the word
along with its pronunciation appeared to be important to learners as well as English definitions
and translations since they were rated above the midpoint of the VLS-Q scale. A closer look at
Table 6.6 above reveals that the first five strategies are concerned with asking the teacher.
Hence, as previously suggested, the teacher, at least in this context, is seen as reliable source of
knowledge of English vocabulary. Further, it is worth noting that asking for L2 definition
emerged as the least frequent type of information being asked by the whole sample. This might
be because we averaged the ratings of three VLS, including asking native speakers for L2
definition, which was the least frequently asked social-discovery strategy (see Table 6.6). This
is expected in an EFL environment where there are few opportunities to meet L2 native speakers.
Finally, it appears that some of our results are more or less consistent with Nakamura (2000) in
that asking for L1 translation was found to be requested more often than asking for synonyms or

205
paraphrases in L2. As pointed out above, our results here are difficult to compare with those
from the literature.

Category 5. Note-taking strategies (mean = 3.22, SD = 0.736)

In 6.1.2, we found that note-taking was the least frequently used VLS category.
Nevertheless, we will see here that some individual note-taking strategies are in fact widely used.
Table 6.7 presents 24 note-taking strategies arranged in ranking order, in fact, the largest VLS
category. In this category we look into three aspects of note-taking: (1) the place where
vocabulary notes are kept (i.e. RQ-1J), the different kinds of information that learners write
down (i.e. RQ-1K and RQ-1L), and (3) how vocabulary notes are organised (i.e. RQ-1M). For
ease of comprehension, in Table 6.7, beside each strategy name we have put in brackets the
nature of each note-taking strategy. For example, the most often used strategy is writing down
L1 translation (information type) and the least frequently used strategy is recording words on
tapes (place type). Thus we have 8 strategies about place type, 10 strategies about information
types, and 6 strategies about organisation.

206
Table 6.7 Summary of the use of note-taking strategies by all subjects
Note-Taking Strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

38. Write down Spanish translation. (information type)

30. Write down information of the word on textbook. (place)
39. Write down English definition. (information type)
53. Highlight new words. (organisation)
52. Write down words in chronological order. (organisation)
31. Write down words on English notebook. (place)
42. Write down example sentences. (information type)
43. Write down pronunciation. (information type)
46. Write down contextual/situation use. (information type)
32. Write down words on specific section of English notebook. (place)
40. Write down antonyms/synonyms. (information type)
45. Write down grammar of the word. (information type)
33. Write down words on vocabulary notebook. (place)
48. Organise words by unit/lesson. (organisation)
44. Write down part of speech. (information type)
50. Classify words by semantic fields. (organisation)
34. Write down words on cards/paper slips. (place)
51. Organise words in alphabetical order/sections. (organisation)
49. Classify words by part of speech. (organisation)
41. Accompany words with drawings/pictures. (information type)
47. Write down contextual reference. (information type)
35. Write down words on charts. (place)
37. Keep vocabulary records in computer/electronic devices. (place)
36. Record words on audio-cassettes. (place)

N
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
150
150
150
148
150
150
150
149
150
149
150
150
149
149
150

Mean
4.9467
4.9067
4.7000
4.6600
4.6467
4.4600
4.0533
3.8733
3.6510
3.4667
3.4400
3.1800
3.0676
3.0400
2.9667
2.6667
2.4832
2.2933
2.2483
2.2467
2.2200
1.7987
1.5369
1.3667

Std.
Deviation
1.32496
1.33787
1.32478
1.68623
1.58913
1.59542
1.55346
1.74285
1.49289
1.66151
1.56076
1.59727
1.87958
1.74894
1.59031
1.58714
1.66280
1.59507
1.42329
1.47433
1.44645
1.37044
1.13020
0.83880

A look at Table 6.7 reveals that apparently the textbook emerged as the most frequent
place to write down new words (consistent with Ahmed, 1988; Nakamura 2000), whereas the
least frequent place was putting words on tapes. Further we analysed the mean scores for the
eight note-taking strategies for place as repeated measures and found a significant difference (F(7,
1015)

= 144.638, p < 0.001). After performing the Bonferroni adjustment, however, no significant

difference was observed between writing down words on the textbook and on the English
notebook (p = n.s.), so these two places are the most frequently used by the whole sample.
Similarly, no significant differences were detected between keeping electronic vocabulary
records and recording words on tapes (p = n.s.). Hence we can conclude that these are the least
frequent places where vocabulary notes are kept, which actually appeared within the ten least
used VLS (see 6.1.1). Also it is relevant to note that keeping a vocabulary notebook and writing

207
down new vocabulary on a separate section of the English notebook are widely used, a result that
is in line with Nakamura (2000) and Jimenez Catalan (2003). Unfortunately, Schmitt (1997) did
not include the use of vocabulary notebooks in his survey, though he did so in his taxonomy.
As to the order of frequency with which the different kinds of information about new
words are kept, the results showed that L2 learners write down (1) L1 translation, (2) L2
definition, (3) example sentences, (4) pronunciation, (5) contextual/situational use, (6)
antonyms/synonyms, (7) grammar of the word, (8) part of speech, (9) words plus
pictures/drawings, and (10) contextual reference (see Table 6.6). Again, we found a significant
difference among these 10 VLS (F(9,

1332)

= 74.634, p < 0.001). Through the Bonferroni

adjustment for multiple comparisons we found no significant difference between writing words
plus L1 translation and plus L2 definition (p = n.s.) two top-ten VLS. A possible explanation
for this may be due to the nature of the learners university programme (an English major),
which may encourage learners to incorporate L2 definitions in their notes in addition to L1
translation. Thus, we can confirm that the kinds of information most frequently written down are
(1) and (2) together (p = n.s.). The least frequent information types, on the other hand, are (9)
and (10) as no significant differences were observed (p = n.s.). Perhaps incorporating drawing
and pictures appear to be laborious and may be characteristic of less proficient learners. As a
manner of comparison, Nakamura (2000) also found that writing down new words plus L1
translation was the most frequent type of information written down, though apparently this was
more often used than writing down information in L2. All in all, learners also appeared to be
concerned with lexical aspects beyond meaning such as knowing how the word is used in both
linguistic and situational contexts (Nation, 1990), plus its pronunciation and syntactic behaviour.
In terms of ways of organising notes and in ranking order, we found that learners (1)
highlight new words presumably where they appear, (2) write down words as they appear,
organise words (3) by unit or lesson, (4) by semantic fields, (5) in alphabetical order or sections,

208
and (6) by part of speech. As expected, a significant difference was observed within these modes
of organising vocabulary notes (F(5, 740) = 98.028, p < 0.001). A look at Table 6.6 shows that (1)
and (2) obtained a similar mean frequency rating, which makes them the most frequent ways of
organising notes (4.66 vs. 4.64, p = n.s.). Also (1) and (2) differ significantly from the rest of the
strategies in this subcategory (p < 0.001, Bonferroni adjustment). It is relevant to note that the
high frequency of writing words as they appear seems to be consistent with the high frequency of
writing down items on the textbook, which in fact correlated moderately but significantly (r =
0.23, p < 0.004). As to the least frequent ways of organising vocabulary notes, we can confirm
that (5) and (6) emerged as the least popular since they obtained similar mean frequency ratings
(2.29 vs. 2.24, p = n.s.). In sum, some of our results here are more or less in line with Nakamura
(2000), who included four strategies about ways of organising notes: listing items in the order
they appear was the most frequent, listing items in alphabetical order was the least frequent. Also
by looking at the percentages VLS use shown by Ahmed (1988), we could observed a similar
trend in the organisation of vocabulary notes.

Category 6. Repetition strategies (mean = 3.79, SD = 0.883)

Like in the note-taking strategy category, here we are concerned with two aspects of
repetition strategies: (a) modes of repetition (RQ-1N) and (b) the information handled repeatedly
(RQ-1O). In terms of (a), Table 6.8 indicates that learners (1) repeat the word silently, (2) say the
word aloud and repeatedly, (3) write down the words several times, and (4) listen to taperecorded words repeatedly. We ran one-way within-subjects ANOVA to check for a significant
difference among these modes of repetition, which in fact was detected (F3, 444) = 73.911, p <
0.001).

209
Table 6.8 Summary of the use of repetition strategies by all subjects
Repetition Strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

55. Repeat word silently. (mode)

58. Repeat word alone. (information type)
54. Say word aloud repeatedly. (mode)
60. Repeat word and examples. (information type)
61. Repeat word and L2 definition. (information type)
59. Repeat word and translation. (information type)
56. Write down word repeatedly. (mode)
57. Listen to tape-recorded words. (mode
62. Repeat spelling of word. (information type)

N
150
150
149
149
150
150
150
150
150

Mean
4.7333
4.5733
4.3154
3.9195
3.8933
3.8800
3.8600
2.4933
2.4667

Std.
Deviation
1.38383
1.44402
1.58578
1.60875
1.67551
1.67861
1.80614
1.65374
1.50911

After using the Bonferroni adjustment, we found that the mean for repeating the word
silently was significantly different to that of saying the word repeatedly (p < 0.043), allowing us
to state that (1) is the most frequent mode of repetition (also in the top-ten group). Likewise, we
observed significant differences between (3) and (4) (p < 0.001), which led us to report that
listening to tape-recorded words is the least used mode of repetition by the whole sample.
Interestingly, these two findings follow the same pattern reported in Nakamura (2000) repeat
the item in ones mind and listen to the item. In Ahmed (1988), Schmitt (1997), and JimenezCatalan (2003) verbal and written repetition emerged as frequently-used VLS because they did
not appear to include silent repetition.
Regarding RQ-1O, it was discovered that learners most prefer to say the word alone,
presumably silently or aloud. By contrast, repeating the spelling of the word (silently or aloud)
appears to be the least frequently used repetition strategy of this type. Interestingly, a look at
Figure 6.3 shows an interesting pattern of use since learners reported repeating word plus
examples, word plus L1 translation, and word plus L2 definition with similar frequency. This
may suggest that learners not only say the word alone but also try to include other useful
information about the word to facilitate retention. This trend of use can be observed in Nakamura
(2000:129), though not reported explicitly.

210
Figure 6.3 Frequency with which learners repeatedly handle information about new words
6

Mean frequency rating

1
58. Repeat
word alone.

60. Repeat
word and
examples.

61. Repeat
word and L2
definition.

59. Repeat
word and
translation.

62. Repeat
spelling of
word.

Again, via the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons, we can confirm that the
repeating the word alone differed significantly from the other strategies and also repeating the
spelling of new words (p < 0.001). To sum up, learners seem to handle a variety of information
that they include when doing repetition. It should be recalled that we found no differences
between repetition and association strategy categories. Hence, it would be interesting to see the
strategy pattern regarding differences within the association strategy category.

Category 7. Association strategies (mean = 3.79, SD = 1.010)

Our interest here is to find the most frequently used association strategy (RQ-1P) and see
if the keyword method (KM) is infrequently used by the whole sample (RH-1D). Table 6.9
presents the 12 association strategies in ranking order of mean frequency ratings, which range
from 2.68 to 4.71 and therefore an overall significant difference was observed (F(11,

1606)

211
43.725, p < 0.001). As we did not find any significant differences among the first four strategies,
it is difficult to claim what the most-used strategy is within this category. Hence, we isolated
these four strategies and ran one-way within-subjects ANOVA along with the Bonferroni
adjustment for multiple comparisons, and found non-significant variation between the first three
strategies. Thus, we can state that associating words (1) with similar L1 words and (2) with the
contextual/situational use, and (3) visualising the words written form or meaning were the most
frequently used association strategies. On the other hand, using the KM along with strategy no.
65 emerged as the least frequently used association strategy, a finding that supports our
hypothesis 1D and also the observed absence of use in our preliminary study.44 In addition, a low
claimed use of the KM was reported by Jimenez-Catalan (2003). It seems, then, that the KM has
not been widely promoted not only in our learners teaching context, but also in other EFL/ESL
situations. The relevance of this finding is that it provides evidence for the need of KM training.

Table 6.9 Summary of the use of association strategies by all subjects

Association Strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

66. Associate word with similar L1 word.

72. Associate word with contextual/situational use.
70. Visualise written form or meaning.
73. Associate word with physical action.
71. Associate word with personal experience.
64. Relate word to antonyms/synonyms.
69. Associate word with semantically related words.
63. Relate word to L2 word with similar sound.
68. Relate word to collocations.
74. Think of prefixes/suffixes for the word.
65. Relate word to word in L3/L4.
67. Use keyword method.

N
150
150
150
149
150
150
150
150
148
150
150
150

Mean
4.7133
4.5933
4.4933
4.2148
4.2067
3.8000
3.7467
3.6467
3.5878
3.0467
2.7867
2.6800

Std.
Deviation
1.36759
1.32146
1.36469
1.65857
1.55997
1.58855
1.54653
1.89005
1.42823
1.60677
1.71682
1.68817

More importantly, our findings about the most-often used associations support those in
Nakamura (2000:150) who reported that visualising the written form of the item in my mind
and associating the item with the situation in which appeared were the most frequently used
44

Schmitt (1997) reported that Japanese learners of English considered the KM among the least helpful strategies,
reflecting a low frequency of use.

212
memorisation strategies (associations in our study). Similarly, in Ahmed (1988) pairing a
word with some aide memoire (e.g. cognates) was widely reported, which is consistent with (1).
Hence, it can be suggested that learners pay much attention to the written form of words and the
context where they meet them as a strategy to facilitate retention. Other association strategies
rated above the midpoint of the scale also include linking new words with familiar words in L2
and connecting words with personal experience, and physical actions. Another low-rated strategy
of this kind was relating words to words in other foreign languages (e.g. French) maybe because
of a lack of interest in learning other languages. In fact, very few learners enrol in French courses
as they prefer to take English-Spanish translation they have to choose either one as stated in the
curriculum (see Appendix B).

Category 8. Further-consolidation strategies (mean = 3.87, SD = 1.066)

As previously described, further-consolidation strategies cover all those actions or
activities that learners engaged in to consolidate new vocabulary items. Again, our concern here
is to find out the most and least popular strategy reported by the whole sample (RQ-1Q). Table
6.10 shows that this category included four strategies whose mean frequency ratings range
between 2.94 and 4.87. One-way within subjects ANOVA yielded a significant difference
somewhere within this category (F(3, 444) = 66.286, p < 0.001). Further, the Bonferroni adjustment
for multiple comparisons confirmed valid significant differences among the four strategies.

Table 6.10 Summary of the use of further-consolidation strategies by all subjects

Further-consolidation strategies
Rank
1
2
3
4

78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.

76. Use new words in conversations and writing.
77. Make up imagined conversations.
75. Test myself or have others test me.

N
150
149
150
150

Mean
4.8733
4.0805
3.6133
2.9400

Std.
Deviation
1.22774
1.37308
1.71760
1.62708

213
Hence, it was discovered that looking for chances to meet new words was the most
frequently used further-consolidation strategy, which differed significantly from the other three
strategies (p < 0.001). Needless to say, this high frequency strategy is ranked 7th within the 78
VLS of the study and ranked 3rd in our preliminary study. It can be then suggested that learners
read magazines, watch movies, use internet, and listen to the radio bearing in mind that these
resources can provide them with plenty of L2 vocabulary. Furthermore, learners seem to try to
incorporate new words into their everyday life (in conversations and writing). These actions may
also indicate that learners plan and organise their vocabulary learning as seen in these sort of
metacognitive strategies (see Schmitts VLS taxonomy, 1997:208). It is worth noting that
Ahmed (1988:181), within his practice strategy category, found that 50 % of his subjects
reported making use of newly-learned words in real situations, a highly used VLS within that
category. In Jimenez-Catalan (2003), 62 % of the learners claimed to use English-language
media as a source of new vocabulary. Similarly, Stoffer (1995:122) reported high use of
strategies involving reading L2 newspapers and magazines, watching L2 movies, writing letters
using new words, and the like (i.e. in her factor strategies involving authentic language use).
Unfortunately, Nakamura (2003) did not include any practice strategies, so it is not possible to
compare our findings.
In contrast, the strategy of testing themselves or asking others to test them was the leastused further-consolidation strategy (actually below the midpoint of the scale). It appears that
learners are not very fond of doing this kind of practice maybe because they associate testing
with taking vocabulary tests in the strict sense. Another reason could be that they do that when
preparing for an exam or quiz, which might not occur very often. Perhaps the lack of materials
for L2 vocabulary self-study might also be a factor for the low rating of this strategy. Regarding
what has been found in the relevant literature, it must be admitted that the results are diverse.
Ahmed (1988) found that 49 % of his subjects claimed to quiz themselves; Stoffer (1995:116)

214
considered this strategy of medium use (mean = 3.25/5). Schmitt (1997) did not report any
figure, though he included it in his metacognitive category. Jimenez-Catalan (2003) reported that
39 % of his subjects used self-testing.
In summary, these English-major learners of the main study seem to use a variety of VLS
as reflected across six different levels of the scale of the questionnaire. Only four strategies
obtained mean frequency ratings below 2, which is more or less equivalent to never or almost
never true of me. By contrast, 34 VLS were rated between 4 and 5, which means sometimes or
generally true of me. Another interesting finding is that 50 out of the 78 VLS were giving a score
above the midpoint of the scale (i.e. 64.1 %). It may be suggested that the nature of the
undergraduate programme the learners are enrolled in as well as the EFL environment might be a
factor for the extensive use of VLS. However, this aspect needs to be further researched, for
example, comparing English majors with non-English majors in an EFL environment.
6.2 Extraversion and L2 outcomes
In the realm of general education, a relationship has been found between extraversion and
academic achievement (see 2.4.1). Interestingly, this relationship may be either positive or
negative depending on the level of education and perhaps age. That is, the learners degree of
extraversion correlates positively with their measures of academic achievement at primary and
secondary levels, but negatively at university level. In this section, then, we will provide the
results of two hypotheses that we formulated on the basis of previous studies reviewed in 2.4.1
and 2.4.2. However, before embarking on the results, we will deal with our learners degree of
extraversion, which is the main explanatory variable of the study.
Figure 6.4 shows the extraversion scores for the total sample of 150 learners. It can be
observed that the central tendency point is slightly pulled to the right side of the histogram. The
skewness may be accounted for by the fact that a high percentage of learners scored highly on

215
extraversion (e.g. 46 % scored between 14 and 17 points). It should be remembered that the
extraversion scale of the EPQ-R ran from 0 to 19 (midpoint = 9.5). In this sample the minimum
score was 1 (one case) and the maximum 19 (2 cases). Interestingly, we compared our histogram
with those from the manual of the EPQ-R for Spanish speakers and with those in Kiany (1997)
and we found a similar pattern (i.e. more extraverted learners than introverted ones).

Figure 6.4 Distribution of Extraversion in the total sample

25

Number of learners

20

15

10

Mean = 12.38
Std. Dev. = 4.0028
N = 150
0
5.00

10.00

15.00

Extraversion Score

More importantly, we found no significant extraversion differences between male

(mean= 12.23) and female learners (mean = 12.44) (t = 0.301, df = 148, p = n.s.). This result
agrees with those reported by H. J. Eysenck and his associates. In the validation study of the
Spanish version of the EPQ-R, Ortet et al (2001) also reported no significant gender differences
in extraversion (12.74 mean score for men and 12.61 for women. As expected, we did not find a
relationship between learners extraversion and university year of study (r = 0.08, p = n.s.).

216
Thus, these expected findings appear to be helpful for our multiple regression analysis in
that extraversion, gender, and university year of study are three of the predictor variables of the
study. As pointed out by Brace et al (2000:209), when choosing a predictor variable you should
select one that might be correlated with the criterion variable, but that is not strongly correlated
with the other predictor variables because when criterion variables highly correlate with each
other there is a problem known as collinearity. Stepwise multiple regression automatically
excludes one of the predictor variables when there is a collinearity situation.
All in all, most learners from the sample appear to be on the extraverted side of the
continuum. This finding is not surprising in that it is generally agreed that Latin American
learners are characterised by a relatively high degree of socialisation, outgoingness, and
impulsivity compared to, for example, Asian learners (Oxford and Lavine, 1992). Furthermore,
as found by Oxford and Anderson (1995:208), Hispanic learners tend to be highly extraverted,
cooperative, sensitive to the needs of others and prone to touch.
6.2.1 Extraversion and English academic achievement
In order to explore the relationship between extraversion and English academic
achievement, we correlated the scores learners obtained in the EPQ-R with those attained as endof-semester grades. As explained in 1.2 and 5.1, English grades are a composite of a partial and a
final standardised test developed on the basis of the content of the syllabus, which is generally
dictated by the English coursebooks being used (from semesters 2 to 9). In addition to this,
homework and participation in class are normally considered for assessment purposes. The
home-made English tests typically follow the format found in those developed by the University
of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES). The rationale for this is that learners
have to pass the Cambridge Advanced exam to graduate as teachers of English. Also, it can be
suggested that the end-of-semester grades can be seen as a measure of who is a good/poor
student rather than of proficiency.

217
Figure 6.5 depicts the extraversion scores along with those of end-of-semester grades.
However, it should be noted that fifth-year learners (n = 14) were excluded from this analysis in
that they were no longer taking general English courses. Hence, only 136 learners were
considered for the correlational analysis, that is, first to fourth year students. The minimum
English grade was 4.50 and the maximum 10. The minimum passing grade is 7, which means
that 14.7 per cent of the learners failed their English courses.

Figure 6.5 Extraversion and English academic achievement

11.00

End-of-semester English Grade

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Extraversion Score

As can be observed from Figure 6.5, there appears to be a moderate negative relationship
between extraversion and end-of term grades. Looking at the scatterplot, we notice the gap (of
cases) on the left (introverted) side of the extraversion scale (below 9) and below 7 on the
English grade scale. This means that no introverted learner failed the English course. On the
other side of the extraversion scale, we can find the learners who did fail the course. However,
more extraverted learners obtained good grades than more introverted learners. Hence, it can be

218
suggested that successful learners can be either introverts or extraverts, but it is not the case for
unsuccessful learners who seemed to be more extraverted.
Pearson r correlation supported this finding in that a negative and significant correlation
was obtained between both learner variables (r = - 0.22, n = 136, p < 0.01, two-tailed). This may
suggest that the higher the learners degree of extraversion the lower their English academic
achievement, which can be considered more CALP-oriented measures (see 2.4.2.1). Moreover,
although the correlation can be considered modest, it goes in line with those found elsewhere
between extraversion and academic achievement at university level (H. J. Eysenck, 1971; H. J.
Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, 1985). Similarly, Kiany (1997) found a negative relationship
between extraversion and TOEFL scores, though it was moderate as well (see 2.4.2.1). To sum
up, the predicted (RH-2A) relationship between extraversion and academic English achievement
appears to be supported in our study.45 As a matter of fact, it was found that the top five most
successful achievers were characterised by a high degree of introversion, whereas the four least
successful ones were extraverted learners. Nonetheless, several ambiverts, those learners
clustered in the midpoint of the extraversion scale, appeared to be both successful and
unsuccessful achievers.
6.2.2 Extraversion and English receptive vocabulary proficiency
Like in 6.2.1, we explored the relationship between learners degree of extraversion and
their receptive vocabulary proficiency, which was measured by the Vocabulary Levels Test (see
5.2.2). We obtained the mean scores for each level and for the five levels together. Figure 6.6
reveals no distinctive pattern as the cases are scattered all over the scatterplot. Thus, it may
lead us to suggest that there is no relationship between extraversion and vocabulary proficiency.
This was tested via the Pearson r correlation, which found almost zero correlation (r = 0.022, n =

45

A similar correlation was found between learners extraversion and their general academic achievement, which
was measured by their GPAs, r = - 0.239, n = 110, p < 0.012, two-tailed.

219
150, p = n.s., two-tailed). Hence, our hypothesis (2B) that there is a relationship between
extraversion and vocabulary proficiency is not supported, meaning that the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected. We had predicted that introverts would perform better than extraverts on the
VLT as reported by Kiany (1997) who found a negative relationship between extraversion and
TOEFL subcomponents, especially in reading comprehension and vocabulary. Other English
measures also included the IELTS and the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education English test
(see 2.4.2.1).

Figure 6.6 Extraversion and receptive vocabulary proficiency

30.00

25.00

Total VLT score

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Extraversion Score

In view of this inconsistent result we further explored this relationship across the
university year of study variable. That is, we ran simple Pearson r correlations for extraversion
and vocabulary proficiency for the five-year subsamples separately. The results showed mixed
relationships in that three correlations between extraversion and vocabulary were negative (year
2, 4, and 5) and the other two were positive (year 1 and 3), though not all of them reach the

220
significance level. In fact, the only barely significant correlation was found among second-year
learners (r = - 0.324, n = 38, p < 0.047, two-tailed). This may suggest that the direction of the
relationship is mostly negative, which may be interpreted that introverts performed slightly better
than extraverts on the test of receptive vocabulary. However, it should be noted that there may be
other reasons for these inconsistent results.
First, the zero correlation between extraversion and vocabulary proficiency may be
accounted for by the fact that more experienced learners could have obtained better results in the
VLT than less experienced learners regardless of their degree of extraversion or any other learner
variable (e.g. gender). Actually, university year of study correlated highly and positively with
VLT scores (r = 0.704, n = 150, p < 0.01), meaning that the higher their university year of study
the higher their vocabulary proficiency as would be expected46. Second, it seems that first- and
second-year learners might have functioned as outliers in the analysis. Third, perhaps the type of
vocabulary test was not sensitive enough to yield a significant correlation in that receptive
vocabulary was being measured. This might lead us to think that a productive vocabulary test
could have yielded a statistically significant relationship. Furthermore, it can be pointed out that
vocabulary is only a subset of L2 proficiency and that other subsets could have shown a
relationship such as grammar, which seems to be more related to the analytical learning style and
field-dependence (see 2.3.2.1 and 3.2.2). These have been found to be, in turn, associated with
extraversion. Kiany (1998) found a negative and significant correlation between extraversion and
scores on structure and written expression from the TOEFL (r = - 0.28, n = 156 non-English
majors, p < 0.001). Last but not least, it appears that introverts and extraverts may possess
similar receptive vocabulary proficiency levels, but they may use vocabulary learning strategies
with different frequency of use. That is to say, students may engage in different strategic
behaviours when attempting to reach similar goals, e.g. vocabulary learning but arrive at the

46

Differences were found in VLT scores across university year of study (F(4,145) = 43.793, p < 0.001).

221
same level of vocabulary proficiency equally well by different routes. It should be recalled that
end-of-semester grades, for example, not only involved a product, but also some other process
such as homework, participation, and attendance. Also, it may be that though VLS (as we shall
see) to some extent relate to extraversion, this does not carry through to the outcome vocabulary
proficiency. One might reach a given level of vocabulary proficiency equally well via one type
of VLS or another (Scholfield, personal communication).
Nonetheless, the apparent zero correlation between extraversion and vocabulary
proficiency will allow us to proceed with multiple regression analyses. Thus, we will see
whether both learner variables in combination explain the use of vocabulary learning strategies.
As stated above, it is recommended that the predictor variables (e.g. extraversion, vocabulary
proficiency, university year of study, and gender) should not correlate highly with one another
(i.e. multicollinearity). This is one reason why stepwise multiple regression was used rather than
the enter method (see 6.4). In the meantime, we will look at the possible relationship between
extraversion and use of vocabulary learning strategies, which is the main focus of our study.
6.3 Extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies
In our literature review of personality and general language learning strategies, it was
found that some personality traits and types correlated with the use of LLS (see 2.4.2.2 and
3.2.2). These findings lead us to explore such relationships with VLS whose research questions
and hypotheses are summarised in 4.6. In what follows then, we present the results and
discussion concerning the relationship between extraversion and overall use of VLS (RQ-3A);
extraversion and use of VLS in categories (RQ-3B, RQ-3G, RQ-3H, RH-3A, RQ-3K, RQ-3O,
RH-3E, and RH-3H); and extraversion and use of individual VLS (RQ-3C to RQ-3F, RQ-3I,
RQ-3J, RH-3B to RH-3D, RQ-3L to RQ-3N, RQ-3P, RQ-3Q, RH-3F, RH-3G, RH-3I, and RH3J) . For reasons of space and to avoid repeating the results, we will present and discuss only the

222
significant relationships when presenting the results for separate VLS. In 6.4, we will touch on
those VLS showing zero correlations with extraversion alone, but possibly associated with the
other learner variables of the study.
6.3.1 Extraversion and vocabulary learning strategies: overall and in categories
In order to explore the relationship between extraversion and the overall use of VLS (i.e.
RQ-3A), we correlated the learners degree of extraversion scores with their mean scores for
VLS use over the seventy-eight separate strategies. It should be recalled that the VLS scale runs
from one to six. Figure 6.7 depicts a weakly positive relationship between extraversion and
overall strategy use. It seems that more extraverted learners tend to use VLS more frequently
than introverted ones.
Figure 6.7 Extraversion and overall use of VLS
6.00

Overall VLS Mean

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

Extraversion Score

The Pearson r correlation shows a significant and positive relationship between learners degree
of extraversion and their overall use of VLS (r = 0.174, n = 150, p < 0.033, two tailed). As can

223
be seen, the correlation appears to be weak, but reflects the pattern suggested on the scatterplot.
Of course, since we took the overall VLS mean scores of each student, a lot of detailed
information is lost. Nevertheless, possible interpretations of this low correlation can be given.
All in all, it seems that more extraverted learners claim to use VLS more frequently than
introverted learners. Hence, it will be interesting to explore whether this pattern is also seen
among VLS categories and separate variables. In the meantime, we will concentrate on the
question why extraversion positively correlates with overall VLS use. More importantly, it must
be emphasised that the differences between extraverts and introverts in their use of VLS may be
reflected in their frequency, not in the number of strategies used. The Pearson r correlation
showed a non-significant relationship between extraversion and number of VLS types used (r =
0.137, n = 150, p = n.s.). This allows to suggest that VLS are not exclusive to either introverts or
extraverts; rather they may use similar strategies but with different frequency. But why does this
appear to be so? Based on the traits describing the typical extraverted and introverted person, we
had initially thought that introverts would engage more often in using strategies. It should be
recalled that introverts are characterised by introspection, reflection, and concentration (see 2.3.1
and 2.4.2.2). However, it seems that there may be both cognitive and social aspects within the
construct of extraversion that may account for the use VLS as a whole. Thus, if we depart from
the findings in the literature that introverts are naturally good at long-term memory, but
extraverts are not, it may be that extraverts would tend consciously or unconsciously to
compensate for their poor long-term memory. In so doing, more extraverted learners may tend to
use of VLS more frequently than less extraverted learners (i.e. introverts) just as long as we take
for granted that most VLS are aimed at word retention, which is not entirely true of discovery
strategies. Nonetheless, so far, we have analysed solely the role of extraversion in overall VLS
use. This may explain very little in the sense that other learner variables can interact with each
other and thus account for the use of VLS (see 6.4).

224
Next, we arranged the strategies into the categories that emerged from the preliminary
study and from the literature and ran simple correlations with extraversion (i.e. RQ-3B, RQ-3G,
RQ-3H, RH-3A, RQ-3K, RQ-3O, RH-3E, and RH-3H). Table 6.11 shows that extraversion
correlated positively and significantly with social-discovery strategies (r = 0.25), association
strategies (r = 0.23), and further consolidation strategies (r = 0.29). However, extraversion was
not statistically related to the use of guessing, skipping, dictionary use, note-taking, and
repetition strategies. Certainly, based on the little research done on personality and learning
strategies, we had expected some kind of relationship between extraversion and the use of those
strategy categories. For example, guessing lexical items may require paying attention,
concentration, and analysis. These aspects might be more characteristic of introverts than
extraverts; then less extraverted learners would have shown more use of guessing strategies.
Similarly, skipping new words might be associated with impulsivity, which is more
characteristic of extraverts than introverts. By the same token, we expected more extraverted
learners to skip over more new words than less extraverted ones. In addition, dictionary use and
note-taking strategies were supposed to be used more often by introverts in that they are
putatively more oriented to reflection, introspection, and analysis. Finally, repetition strategies,
which are considered as shallow strategies compared with deep strategies such as
associations, were predicted to correlate with extraversion in either direction (see extraversion
and memory in 2.3.2.1). This will be discussed later on in this section. Now let us turn to the
strategy categories that were statistically related to extraversion.

225
Table 6.11 Extraversion and VLS: overall and in categories
Pearson r

Sig.

N@

Overall use of VLS

0.174*

< 0.033

150

GUESSING STRATEGIES (1-7)

0.038

n.s.

147

SKIPPING STRATEGIES (8-9)

- 0.070

n.s.

148

0.059

n.s.

145

0.251**

< 0.002

147

NOTE-TAKING STRATEGIES (30-53)

0.033

n.s.

144

REPETITION STRATEGIES (54-62)

0.070

n.s.

148

0.232**

< 0.005

147

Vocabulary learning strategies

DICTIONARY USE STRATEGIES (10-18)

SOCIAL-DISCOVERY STRATEGIES (10-29)

ASSOCIATION STRATEGIES (63-74)

FURTHER CONSOLIDATION (75-78)

< 0.001

149
0.296**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
@ The number of learners varies due to missing responses in the VLS-Q.

As expected, social-discovery strategies were positively associated with extraversion (see

Table 6.11). This result suggests that extraverted learners seem to use social-discovery strategies
more frequently than introverted learners. More importantly, this is in line with the findings
reported by Ehrman and Oxford (1989; 1990) and Oxford and Ehrman (1995), and more recently
by Wakamoto (2000), though they use a different psychometric test from our study (see 2.4.2.2).
Also, it should be remembered that extraverts are generally characterised by a higher degree of
sociability, excitability and liveliness as described by H. J. Eysenck and his associates. Hence, it
may be suggested that knowing learners degree of extraversion we can more or less predict their
frequency of use of social-discovery strategies, in other words, to what extent both extraverts and
introverts appeal to others for assistance when meeting new words.
Association strategies, which are here part of memorisation strategies, were also related
to extraversion. All in all, extraversion was expected to predict the ways learners commit lexical
items to memory, but this was found only with associations. Unfortunately, there are no previous
studies with which we could compare our results, so we can only derive some explanation from
the broader literature. By considering Craik and Lockharts (1972) levels of processing, it can be
suggested that association strategies require deeper levels of mental processing than simple
repetition or rote-learning. From this premise, two possible interpretations can be offered: (1)

226
extraverted learners tend to use associations more frequently than introverted learners because
they may need deeper strategies to compensate for their poor long-term memory; (2) introverted
learners, on the other hand, tend to use fewer associations because they may not need them or
just because they feel comfortable with less deep strategies, which they may also find
particularly effective. As pointed out by Scholfield (personal communication) if introverts are
characterised by being naturally inclined to over stimulation, maybe associations overwhelm
them by involving even more stimulation (because all sorts of areas of the mind have to be
aroused to make images, connect with other words, experiences, etc), so they avoid associations.
Nonetheless, these interpretations must be treated with caution in that the use of association
strategies may not only be determined by extraversion, but also by other learner factors described
in 3.2.2. That is why it is necessary to see how these personality factors may interact with others
when accounting for VLS use.
The other strategy category that positively correlated with extraversion was furtherconsolidation strategies. This category comprises four strategies which reflect some sort of social
strategies and metacognitive strategies as well for example practising new words in
conversation and in writing and looking for opportunities to meet new lexical items, which may
convey planning and regulating learning (see 3.34). As a matter of fact, the highest correlation
was observed between extraversion and further-consolidation strategies. Again, it seems that the
psychological condition of extraverted learners may encourage them to use a variety of strategies
for consolidating a words meaning that involve communication with others. Introverted
learners, on the other hand, appear to use these strategies less frequently, meaning that further
consolidation strategies are not exclusive to more extraverted learners. From the social point of
view, it is more or less understandable that extraverts prefer strategies that require social
interaction so that they can practise L2 vocabulary items. From a cognitive point of view, it

227
might be that the natural differences in both short-term and long-term memory determine the
kind of strategies learners use.
So far, we have presented the relationship between extraversion and overall use of VLS
and extraversion and VLS in categories. In sum, all the significant correlations in this respect
were positive, meaning that extraverts tend to use VLS more frequently than introverts.
Nevertheless, as pointed out above, these analyses do not provide the whole picture of the
relationship between extraversion and use of VLS. What follows in the next subsection is a more
detailed analysis as it will be interesting to explore the strength and behaviour of this
relationship, especially when dealing with specific strategies.
6.3.2 Extraversion and separate vocabulary learning strategies
In order to examine the relationship between extraversion and the use of individual VLS
we ran Pearson r correlations between learners extraversion scores and mean frequency ratings
for each of the 78 VLS. The results appear a bit discouraging as only eleven VLS were found to
be significantly related to extraversion. These are shown in Table 6.12. However, if we have a
look at the non-significant correlations at the 0.05 level, we can notice that fourteen correlations
were close to that level (actually below the 0.10 significance level). Four of these almost
significant correlations were observed within the category of note-taking strategies, e.g. use of
vocabulary notebooks which was negative as expected. Statistically speaking, these nonsignificant correlations could have reached the p < 0.05 level if a larger sample had been used in
the study. Besides the nearly significant correlations, it is likely that other significant results
could have emerged from a larger sample. More importantly, if extraversion appears to account
for the use of a small number of VLS, then it can be suggested that other learner factors may
determine VLS use or may even combine with extraversion when predicting VLS use (see 6.4).
In the meantime, we will proceed to discuss the results of these eleven significant correlations,
all of which fall within the three VLS categories discussed above.

228
Table 6.12 Extraversion and the use of individual VLS
No. and Name of VLS
SOCIAL-DISCOVERY STRATEGIES (10-29)
20. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for English definition.
25. Ask teacher for English definition.
28. Ask teacher for word's use.
29. Ask teacher for grammar of word.
ASSOCIATION STRATEGIES (63-74)
63. Relate word to L2 word with similar sound.
64. Relate word to antonyms/synonyms.
69. Associate word with semantically related words.
74. Think of prefixes/suffixes for the word.
FURTHER CONSOLIDATION (75-78)
76. Use new words in conversations and writing.
77. Make up imagined conversations.
78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Sig.

0.167*
0.278**
0.188*
0.169*

< 0.042
< 0.001
< 0.021
< 0.039

149
150
150
150

0.167*
0.224**
0.223**
0.203*

< 0.041
< 0.006
< 0.006
< 0.013

150
150
150
150

0.181*
0.306**
0.216**

< 0.027
< 0.001
< 0.008

149
150
150

As can be seen from Table 6.12, extraversion correlated positively with four socialdiscovery strategies. Three of these relationships are concerned with asking the teacher for
information about lexical items. In the language classroom extraverted learners are likely to ask
the teacher for help more frequently than introverted ones. This may be the case as extraverts
seem to feel more confident to ask for lexical clarification as extraverts are supposed to play a
more active role in the classroom. Such confidence can also be reflected in the near significant
relationship observed between extraversion and asking native speakers for assistance (r = 0.14, p
< 0.07). This means that introverted learners may find it difficult to ask and interact with native
speakers, maybe because they do not want to appear foolish or disruptive. However, in the case
of asking for an English definition, it seems that other learner factors may have a role to play; for
example, learners university year of study and vocabulary proficiency. In fact, this was the
reason why we aim to further explore extraversion in combination with other learner variables
(see 6.4). In sum, it can be pointed out that eight of the twelve strategies clustered in the socialdiscovery category showed a similar pattern of relationship with extraversion; that is, more
extraversion means more use of social-discovery strategies.

229
Interestingly, a closer look at the twelve association strategies indicates that four of them
significantly correlate with extraversion, whereas four other strategies almost reach a significant
level. The analysis of separate VLS showed that more extraverted learners tend to link new
words to the sound of L2 words already consolidated in their lexicon. A possible interpretation
of this finding can be offered on the basis of the characteristics of extraverts who have been
described as auditory learners rather than visual (Ehrman, 1996:99).
Furthermore, more extraverted learners are inclined to relate new words to synonyms or
antonyms. However, this strategic behaviour is difficult to interpret or compare in the literature.
The closest interpretation lies in the study reported by M. W. Eysenck (1975) who found that
extraverts produce L1 associations more quickly than introverts. It often happens that when
making L1 associations speakers can resort to synonyms or antonyms, e.g. for begin an English
native speaker could think of start or finish. Unfortunately, we did not have full access to this
study so that we could look at the nature of these associations. Also, it is likely that learners
vocabulary proficiency combined with extraversion explain the use of association; but this will
be discussed later (see 5.4). Another association strategy statistically related to extraversion is
concerned with linking words by semantic fields. For example, paddle may be associated with an
easy word like bat, which belongs to the same semantic field. In this respect, extraverted learners
appear to use semantic associations more often than introverted learners. Similarly, it was
observed that extraversion positively correlated with associating new word to prefixes and
suffixes. This means that more extraverted learners commonly think of known affixes that can be
attached to the new word to retain it better (e.g. soft soften softener). Once again, there are a
number of possible reasons for this relationship between extraversion and these two association
strategies. It might be suggested that vocabulary proficiency interacts with extraversion in that
learners need to have reached a certain lexical level in order to make associations of these types,
especially with synonyms, antonyms and other semantically related words. As a matter of fact,

230
other nearly significant correlations involved either L2 associations (e.g. relating the new word
to collocations, r = 0.15, p < 0.057) or even other foreign languages (e.g. relating the new word
to words to L3/L4 words, r = 0.15, p < 0.061). Admittedly, other external or situational variables
may come into play such as teaching methods, the teaching/learning environment, and strategy
training, but these are beyond the scope of this study.
Regarding further-consolidation strategies, three out of four strategies positively
correlated with extraversion: (1) practising new words in conversation and writing, (2) making
up imagined conversations, and (3) finding opportunities to meet new words. The atypical
finding here is (2) in that it was expected that introverts would tend to make up conversations
more often than extraverts, perhaps as part of planning in advance what to say or because of
their low degree of social interaction (stimulus shy). However, this result will be further analysed
with multiple regression to see whether extraversion alone accounts for this strategy or in
combination with the other learner variables of this study. Turning now to (1) and (3), it can be
suggested that such relationships are in line with the personality traits of more extraverted
learners (see 6.3.1). Extraverts may take natural advantage of their high degree of sociability to
practise new L2 words in their daily conversation and perhaps in their written communication.
Similarly, more extraverted learners may be considered as input seekers in that they are
inclined to look for opportunities to meet new words. In other words, it can be suggested that
extraverts may receive more comprehensible input than introverts as a result of interacting with
speakers of the target language, though introverts may also take advantage of comprehensible
input when reading or listening to the radio (Seliger, 47 1977, Krashen, 1981, Dewaele and
Furnham, 1999). Finally, the relationship between extraversion and the frequency with which
learners test themselves on vocabulary or have others test them is worth mentioning here as it
reached the .10 significance level (r = 0.14, p < 0.07). Again, extraverts reported using this
47

Seliger (1977) introduced the terms high input generator and low input generator to distinguish those language
learners who take advantage of their willingness to interact with others in the target language from those learners
who play a more passive role in communicative situations.

231
strategy more frequently than introverts, which means that extraverts may prefer to study in
groups, but work alone to a lesser extent as well. However, it must be pointed out that introverts
could have rated this strategy highly if the extraversion aspects of testing alone and testing in
groups had been asked about separately.
In summary, we have presented and discussed the relatively few significant relationships
between extraversion and use of separate VLS. Interestingly, the nature of the relationship has
been observed in terms of overall use of VLS, in VLS categories, and in separate strategies:
more extraverted learners tend to use more vocabulary strategies. In this respect, both social and
cognitive aspects of extraversion may account for this strategy pattern. The former can be clearly
explained as extraverted learners are described as more social and impulsive and less anxious;
the latter can be explained on the basis of short- and long-term memory differences between
extraverts and introverts. Nevertheless, the research question whether extraversion may
determine the use of some VLS has not been completely answered as other learner variables can
also be relevant factors. What follows then is the analysis of the contribution of extraversion
along with vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender to the use of vocabulary
strategies. Thus, we will be able to provide a more realistic picture of how such variables may
influence VLS use, especially whether extraversion still remains as a strong predictor of VLS.
6.4 Extraversion (E), vocabulary proficiency (VP), university year of study (Y), and gender
(G) as predictors of the use of vocabulary learning strategies.
In this section we will describe and discuss the results concerning the extent to which
extraversion (E), vocabulary proficiency (VP), university year of study (Y), and gender (G) may
determine the use of VLS. In section 3.2 we reviewed how both situational and learner factors
may influence learning strategy use and although in our study we focus mainly on the personality
variable of extraversion we also aim to look into the three variables described above (RQ-4). We
use stepwise multiple regression (MR) to achieve this because MR allows us to explore the

232
contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to VLS use as well as the strength of such contribution.
Interestingly, stepwise MR can indicate in terms of models what combination of predictor
variables better explains VLS use. What is more, MR can show in models the hierarchical
order in which predictor variables determine VLS use, just as long there is more than one
predictor variable in each model.
Before embarking on the analyses, we will first explain the contents and values presented
in the subsequent MR tables. Let us take Table 6.13 as an example. In the first column (from left
to right) we can see the predictor variables, which are Y and E. Column two shows the Multiple
Pearson R correlation values, first for Y alone (R = 0.210) and then multiple R for Y and E
combined (R = 0.263). Column three indicates the R squared (R2), which is the amount of
variance (%) in the criterion/dependent variable that is accounted for by the predictors in each
model. This variance is adjusted in column four (e.g. adjusted R2 = 0.056 for model 2); that is, a
more conservative estimate than the ordinary R2 (Bryman and Crammer, 2001). In column five,
we notice how R2 changes from one model to another. For instance, Y alone explains 0.044 % of
variance whereas E adds only 0.025 %, which together sum up 0.069 %. Column six and seven
provide the standardised Beta coefficients and their significance level for each model (e.g. Beta
for Y = 0.197, p < 0.015 and Beta for E = 0.158, p < 0.049). Beta also importantly tells us
whether the relationship is positive or negative, which none of the other figures do. Last but not
least, column eight provides the ANOVA result that assesses the overall significance of the final
model, i.e., the F value for Y and E together = 5.455.

Table 6.13 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to VLS overall use

Predictor
Variables

R
squared

Adjusted R
squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Overall use of VLS

1. Year of study
0.210
0.044
0.038
0.044
0.197
< 0.015
5.455
2. Extraversion
0.263
0.069
0.056
0.025
0.158
< 0.049
Model 1 = University year of study alone
Model 2 = University year of study and extraversion together.

233
In sum, it can be reported here that Y and E significantly predict the overall use of VLS
and that Y is a stronger determinant of VLS use than extraversion while G and VP play no
significance role. The statistics of the final model is given as follows: Adjusted R2 = 0.069; F2, 147
= 5.455, p < 0.005; beta for Y = 0.197, p < 0.015, beta for E = 0.158, p < 0.049. This means that
both Y and E significantly account for strategy use and the contribution of both is positive. In
other words, learners enrolled in higher years of study tend to use VLS more frequently than
learners in lower years of study. A similar pattern is observed regarding extraversion in which
more extraverted learners may use VLS more often than less extraverted learners. Interestingly,
it should be noted that VP and G were not significant predictors in the stepwise analysis, hence
they were excluded from the final model. Both female and male learners seem to use VLS with
similar frequencies. Also, higher vocabulary proficiency does not necessarily imply that learners
make higher overall use of VLS. However, this non-significant result should not overly concern
us at this point as it will be further discussed later in the following subsections.
6.4.1 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of guessing strategies
As can be seen in Table 6.14, extraversion, the variable of interest to us, was not included
in any of the predictor models of guessing strategies, which comprised seven strategies. Hence, it
can be concluded that E is not a determinant of guessing strategies.48 We had expected to find
some kind of association between the personality traits of extraversion (e.g. impulsivity) and the
extent to which learners report using guessing strategies. The significant predictor variables were
Y for guessing strategies as a category and VP and G for separate strategies. Interestingly, VP
statistically joined with G when explaining two strategies. However, there were three strategies
that were not accounted for by any of the predictor variables. These were checking for L1
cognate, guessing meaning by the sound of the word, and guessing meaning by looking at the

48

It should be noted that we did not expect E to be a predictor of the VLS with which E did not statistically correlate
in 6.3. Our concern is to see to what extent E remains as a predictor of VLS in the presence of G, VP, and Y.

234
pictures in the text. Thus, it can be stated that learners may use these strategies regardless of E,
VP, Y and G differences. We can understand easily here why VP and Y are not involved these
strategies do not require training or L2 knowledge.
Table 6.14 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to guessing strategies
Predictor
Variables
Year of study
none
Vocabulary
Vocabulary
none
none
Vocabulary
Gender
Vocabulary
Gender

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Guessing strategies

0.121
0.115
0.121
0.347
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 1. Check for similar L1 word.
Criterion Variable: 2. Analyse word structure when guessing.
0.260
0.068
0.061
0.068
0.260
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 3. Analyse part of speech.
0.310
0.096
0.090
0.096
0.310
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 4. Guess meaning by sound.
Criterion Variable: 5. Guess meaning by pictures in text.
Criterion Variable: 6. Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.
0.328
0.107
0.101
0.107
0.303
< .001
0.364
0.133
0.121
0.025
0.161
< 0.042
Criterion Variable: 7. Guess meaning by topic.
0.330
0.109
0.103
0.109
0.306
< .001
0.371
0.138
0.126
0.029
.171
< 0028
0.347

19.887
10.724
15.786
-

11.082

11.725

By looking at Table 6.14 again, it can be seen that learners attempt to guess meaning
from all kinds of contexts more frequently as they move to higher years of study. It seems that
learning experience (in the form of experience of using strategies, training, and higher English
proficiency) over these five years of study enables English-major learners to guess meaning. But
why was Y the only predictor of guessing strategies? Although VP did not emerged as a
predictor of guessing strategies in the MR analysis, it did correlate positively with them (r =
0.326, n = 147, p < 0.01, two tailed). The reason why VP was excluded from the predictor model
was that it correlated highly with Y. Stepwise MR statistically picks the predictor that is more
strongly connected with the criterion variable. In this case, VP was a weaker predictor variable
than Y and both correlated highly with each other (r = 0.70). Thus, whenever both VP and Y
correlated with the criterion variables only one would remain in the model. Nonetheless, this

235
issue of collinearity between VP and Y is not much of a problem in our study provided we
recognise it and realise that, when either Y or VP emerges as a predictor in a model, the presence
of the other may be inferred and used in order to provide a better explanation of the result.
Hence, if Y is more or less equivalent to VP, then finding that Y explains use of guessing
strategies makes sense. According to Laufer (1997), in order for L2 readers to make successful
guesses they should know about ninety-eight per cent of the written text. A similar suggestion
was made by Liu and Nation (1985) in that ninety-five per cent of the words should be known by
the L2 reader.
As we can see in Table 6.14, it was found that VP explains the frequency with which
learners (1) analyse the structure of the word which requires knowledge of other words, (2) pay
attention to the grammatical category of the word, (3) guess meaning from context in sentence or
paragraph which may involve decoding the context, and (4) guess meaning by the topic of the
text both of which definitely involve knowing words in the context. This means that learners
with higher receptive vocabulary proficiency may tend to guess meaning more frequently where
the guessing requires L2 knowledge (not with guessing no. 1, 4, and 5, see Table 6.14), though
this does not mean that they are successful of course (as that is beyond the scope of our study).
Likewise, having higher VP may provide learners with enough confidence to attempt intelligent
guesses. As pointed out above, gender also emerged as a predictor of (3) and (4), alongside VP.
This may imply that female learners reported guessing from sentence/paragraph and from the
topic of the text more often than male learners. This result is in line with Jimenez-Catalan (2003)
who also found greater use of guessing from textual context in women than in men. Similarly,
Gu (2002) found that female learners did more guessing than male learners, but conversely to us,
it was males that paid attention to the wider context more than females. However, it must be
admitted that gender differences in guessing strategies are somewhat difficult to explain.49 In an
49

As recapitulated by Scholfield (personal communication), females are more global or integrative in guessing (3)
and (4), but on more word-centred, local and analytic no gender differences are observed.

236
attempt to do this, we further explored gender differences in receptive vocabulary proficiency, as
it has been considered that guessing attempts from context may lead to incidental vocabulary
acquisition. Yet, no significant gender differences were observed through t-test (t = 1.696, df =
148, p = n.s.), though women performed slightly better than men on the VLT, especially on the
5,000-word level (t = 1.970, df = 148, p < 0.051). In fact, this tells us very little as we would
now need to explain why women tend to outperform men in receptive vocabulary. In more
general terms, we could say that women seem to be eager to search for and communicate
meaning, which may be related to the finding reported by Ehrman and Oxford (1989). These
authors also suggested that greater use of strategies could be associated with psychological type
since females showed (via the MBTI) more intuition patterns than men (e.g. sensing vs.
intuition). Nonetheless, in our sample, we did not find any gender differences in extraversion as
measured by the EPQ-R (see 6.2).
To sum up, receptive VP appeared to be the stronger predictor of separate VLS that
clearly involved L2 knowledge, slightly ahead of Y, which therefore gets excluded, and in two
instances together with gender. Thus, the higher the vocabulary proficiency the more frequent
the use of guessing strategies. This makes sense because some guessing strategies require
learners to have a certain level of L2 vocabulary proficiency in order to be able to use them.
University year of study, on the other hand, accounted for guessing strategies as a category. As
previously stated, Y correlates highly with VP, so it may be suggested that VP would have been
a predictor of the guessing strategy category if Y had been omitted from the MR analyses and the
reverse on guessing no. 2, 3, 6, 7 (see Table 6.14). Finally, extraversion was the personality
variable that did not predict guessing strategies either as a category or in separate strategies.
6.4.2 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of skipping strategies
The skipping strategy category included only two strategies. Once again, extraversion
was not a predictor of the frequency with which L2 learners skip over a new vocabulary item. As

237
pointed out in 3.3.1.2 and 6.3.1, the personality traits of extraversion led us to think of a possible
relationship with skipping strategies. Furthermore, introversion/extraversion has been related to
field-independence/field-dependence and impulsivity/reflectivity in terms of learning/cognitive
styles (see 2.3.2.1). Hence, it was tentatively expected that extraverted, field-dependent, and
impulsive learners would tend to skip new words more often than introverted, field-independent,
and reflective learners. Like extraversion, gender did not emerge as a predictor of skipping
strategies once Y and/or VP were considered. However, a t-test for G on its own showed that
females skip words, but try to guess by delayed context more frequently than males (t = 2.22, df
= 148, p < 0.028), 50 a finding which supports the gender difference observed in relation to
womens reliance on global meaning of text (see 6.4.1). This unexpected result is not consistent
with Jimenez-Catalan (2003) who found that males showed more word skipping than females
(14.3 vs. 9.6), but no significant results were reported.
University year of study and vocabulary proficiency, on the other hand, did explain the
use of skipping strategies. Table 6.15 shows that Y positively accounted for skipping as a
category (strategy 8 and 9 combined) 51 and for the frequency with which learners skip over
words with no intention of discovering meaning by later context (strategy 9). VP narrowly beat
Y to predict the frequency with which learners skip words, but may attempt to guess by later
context (r = 0.31 vs. 0.29). All in all, it appears that learners enrolled in higher years of study
skip over words more frequently than learners in lower years. A possible interpretation of this
result may be that university year of study is somewhat synonymous with English learning
experience. Hence, experienced learners may be much more aware that sometimes it is worth
skipping words and not trying to understand every new word they meet (see 3.3.1.2). However,

50

A look at the excluded variables in MR shows us that, in fact, G nearly gets included (p < 0.076) in the predictor
model, whose threshold for inclusion is the 0.05 level.
51
In fact, VP correlates with the skipping strategy category (r = 0.264), but was beaten by Y that correlates more
highly than VP, which was therefore excluded from the model.

238
skipping can also be the result of learners poor reading skills in that they can skip over
important key words while reading (see Ahmed, 1988).
Table 6.15 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to skipping strategies
Predictor
Variables
Year of study
Vocabulary
Year of study

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Skipping Strategies

0.312
0.097
0.091
0.097
0.312
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 8. Skip word, guess by delayed written context.
0.305
0.093
0.087
0.093
0.305
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 9. Skip word.
0.170
0.029
0.022
0.029
0.170
< 0.038

15.691
15.227
4.365

Regarding VP as a predictor of skipping words and later guessing attempts, it can be

suggested that this result makes sense to a certain extent. Learners with higher vocabulary
proficiency may tend to skip unknown words because they think they can figure out their
meaning by later context for the understanding of which VP is crucial. It may be that such
learners would feel comfortable and confident about guessing meaning by later context.
Interestingly, if we compare this with skipping only, we can see that vocabulary is not a
predictor in the model, and is not even a close but excluded second to Y as the simple correlation
between vocabulary and skipping only in fact was close to zero. Hence, VP was excluded from
the stepwise MR analysis not because of multicollinearity, but simply because VP and skipping
only are not statistically related.
In summary, we have seen that neither extraversion nor gender accounted for the use of
skipping strategies. Gender differences were observed in terms of skipping words, but keeping
them in mind for later guessing (strategy no. 8). Furthermore, no combinations of predictor
variables were observed in any MR model, which means that a single predictor remained in each
model. These single determinants were either Y or VP, Y explained skipping strategies both as a
category and as a separate strategy (skipping only), whereas VP only predicted skipping plus
guessing attempts.

239
6.4.3 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of dictionary strategies
A quick look at Table 6.16 indicates that E did not predict any of the dictionary-use
strategies. This result confirms the finding outlined in 6.3 in which E did not correlate
significantly with dictionary-use strategies either separately or as a single category. In our review
of extraversion as a personality dimension, we had stated that E would be likely to account for
the use of dictionaries. The lack of research on this area led us to base our assumptions on the
personality traits of more introverted individuals who are generally fond of books rather than
people see (2.3.1). Hence, we tentatively expected introverts to show more preferences for the
use of the dictionary, not only because they like reading, but also because of their low level of
sociability, i.e. asking others for meaning. More extraverted learners, on the other hand, were
expected to show a greater use of social-discovery strategies because of their high level of
sociability (see 6.4.4). Nevertheless, it seems that E does not play a role in the use of
dictionaries, at least, reported via a written questionnaire. Hence, it would relevant to look into
this relationship by using other data gathering instruments such as think-aloud techniques or
observation in order to corroborate or reject this major finding.
As can be seen in Table 6.16, VP, Y, and G did emerge as predictors of dictionary-use
strategies. However, MR analyses did not provide any model for three criterion variables; that
is, (10) using bilingual dictionary, (13) looking up new words in web-based dictionaries, and
(15) using dictionary to check pronunciation. We further explored these three strategies in
relation to VP, Y, and G through Pearson r correlation, ANOVA, and t-tests. Obviously, VP did
not correlate with any of them as shown with MR. One-way ANOVA showed significant Y
differences only for strategy 10 (F

(4,145)

= 3.121, p < 0.017). A look at Figure 6.8 depicts

apparent differences in the use of bilingual dictionaries, whose nature was not detected via MR.
As Scholfield points out (personal communication), one of the differences between ANOVA and
MR/correlation is that ANOVA looks for differences between groups (which are not necessarily

240
due to a steady increase or decrease over years) while MR/correlation is linear only (see 5.4). In
the case of this VLS ANOVA detected a marked pattern which to MR/correlation is no
relationship because it is not linear. Thus, from Figure 6.8 we can see an interesting pattern. It
seems that learners may rely on the bilingual dictionary in their first year at university, but this
use may decrease in subsequent years of study (2nd and 3rd), perhaps encouraged by their
teachers who may advocate the use of a monolingual dictionary. Yet, bilingual dictionary use
appears to increase in the fourth and fifth year at university, a bit higher than in second and third
years.

Figure 6.8 The use of bilingual dictionary across university years of study
6

Mean frequency rating

1
First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

University year of study

However, a Scheffe test for post-hoc multiple comparisons did not show any significant
differences among learners grouped in the five years of study. This means that bilingual
dictionaries are used by learners regardless of their university year of study and their vocabulary
proficiency, which may reflect this strategys lack of need of L2 proficiency. In this vein, this

241
result confirms the finding of Tomaszczyk (1979) who stated that bilingual dictionaries are not
exclusive to less proficient learners. Similarly, no gender differences for the use of these three
strategies were observed via independent-samples t-test just as Jimenez-Catalan (2003) reported
in her gender study, especially with reference to use of bilingual dictionaries. Thus, these results
confirm those reported via MR analyses in that VP, Y, and G do not explain the use of 10, 13,
and 15.

Table 6.16 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to dictionary use strategies

Predictor
Variables

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Dictionary Use Strategies

0.343
0.118
0.112
0.118
0.321
< 0.005
0.388
0.150
0.138
0.033
0.182
< 0.021
Criterion Variable: 10. Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
none
Criterion Variable: 11. Look up word in electronic dictionary.
Gender
0.175
0.031
0.024
0.031
0.175
< 0.033
Criterion Variable: 12. Look up word in monolingual dictionary.
Vocabulary
0.497
0.247
0.242
0.247
0.497
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 13. Look up word in www.
none
Criterion Variable: 14. Use dictionary to check meaning(s).
Year of Study
0.214
0.046
0.039
0.046
0.214
< 0.009
Criterion Variable: 15. Use dictionary to check pronunciation.
none
Criterion Variable: 16. Use dictionary to check spelling.
Vocabulary
0.225
0.051
0.044
0.051
0.225
< 0.006
Criterion Variable: 17. Use dictionary to check part of speech.
Year of Study
0.389
0.151
0.145
0.151
0.389
< .001
Criterion Variable: 18. Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
Gender
0.274
0.075
0.069
0.075
0.239
< 0.003
Year of Study
0.350
0.123
0.111
0.048
0.221
< 0.006
Vocabulary
Gender

12.571
4.657
47.968
7.107
7.918
26.368
10.131

Turning now to the significant predictor models of dictionary-use strategies, it can be

reported that a model including VP and G accounted for the use of this category as a whole. It
should be noted that VP turned out to be a stronger predictor than G (11 % vs. 3 % of explained
variance). As a matter of fact, VP provided the highest percentage of variance among the nine
strategies clustered in this category (see for example the contribution of VP to the use of

242
monolingual dictionary, which is 25 %, Beta = 0.497). All in all, VP as a main predictor of
dictionary-use strategies as a category suggests that the higher the learners vocabulary
proficiency the more frequent the use of such strategies.52 However, it may be conversely that
the use of dictionary strategies contributes to vocabulary learning if we look at this relationship
from another perspective. The important finding here is that VP and dictionary use strategies are
positively correlated and that predictions can be made in this realm. Further, it should be noted
that the negative relationship between L2 proficiency and dictionary use reported by
Tomaszczyk (1979) is not supported here in our study (see 3.3.1.3). This inconsistent result can
be observed in relation to the use of any type of dictionary to check meaning(s) as in our study Y
and VP turned out to be positive predictors, that is, dictionary use increases in parallel with years
of study. As to G, it appears that female learners tend to make more use of dictionaries than male
learners. Speculatively, two possible explanations may be offered: (1) women might tend to
corroborate their guessing attempts as they were also found to guess meaning from written
context (see 6.4.1); and (2) women simply might find dictionaries reliable reference works for
checking example sentences and fixed expressions as shown in Table 6.16. It would have been
interesting to know whether women really owned a dictionary or consulted it as they reported in
the VLS-Q, but that would have required a different study. The only evidence we have concerns
use of electronic dictionaries, which women reported using more frequently than men. This
finding is a bit surprising since often new technology is found to be gender different in favour of
males who also reported keeping vocabulary notes in computer/electronic devices more
frequently than females (see 6.4.5).
Use of monolingual dictionaries, on the other hand, was apparently explained by VP
alone, but in fact, Y also had a role to play here (r = 0.442, p < 0.001). Again, Y was statistically
excluded from the predictor model because it was narrowly beaten by VP. Hence, the results
52

University year of study also correlated with dictionary-use strategies as a category (r = 0.34), but was excluded
from the model by stepwise MR narrowly beaten by VP at .343.

243
suggest that learners enrolled in lower years of study are also characterised by less use of
monolingual dictionaries. Similarly, learners with smaller VP may tend to use monolingual
dictionaries less frequently than learners with higher VP. This finding makes sense in that
learners need to possess a certain level of lexical proficiency so that they can understand the
information provided by monolingual dictionaries (Scholfield, 1982; Thompson, 1987; Nesi and
Meara, 1994; Amritavalli, 1999). By contrast, none of the learner variables emerged as
predictors of use of bilingual dictionaries where learners with lower lexical proficiency and
lower university year of study were expected to use bilingual dictionaries more often than more
experienced learners. Regarding extraversion and use of monolingual dictionaries, we had
predicted that extraverts would take risks and challenge themselves to confidently use them more
often than introverts, but this prediction was not supported (see 3.3.1.3).
More importantly, some of the strategies concerned with the information that L2 learners
look up in dictionaries were predicted by VP/Y while G predicted one strategy. Specifically, Y
and VP determined the use of dictionaries to check meaning(s), spelling, and part of speech,
though VP does not appear in the model. G along with Y/VP accounted for the extent to which
learners check for example sentences and fixed expressions, but the former was a stronger
predictor as pointed out above. Interestingly, it seems that women benefit from greater use of
dictionaries to confirm their context guessing (see 6.4.1). All in all, it can be suggested that Y
more or less equivalent to VP, might encourage language learners to go beyond the simple
search for meaning either in L2 or L1. In other words, this finding may reflect the degree of
awareness on the part of the more advanced learner in that knowing a word involves learning
several aspects of the item such as form, meaning and use both receptively and productively
(Nation, 1990:31, 2001:27). As previously pointed out, using a dictionary to check pronunciation
was not predicted by any learner variables; hence it may be considered as a universal strategy
since it seems to be used by all learners regardless of E, VP, Y, and G.

244
In summary, we have seen that both VP and Y, and G significantly predicted the use of
dictionary strategies either in a category or separate variables. Further, combined effects of
variables were observed for VP and G, and G and Y models when explaining the category and
the single strategy of using a dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions. Nonetheless,
extraversion, our learner variable of interest, did not account for dictionary-use strategies.
Likewise, three strategies were not determined by any of the four learner variables, suggesting
similarities across groups of learners (i.e. male and females, introverts and extraverts, more and
less experienced learners, and learners with low and high vocabulary proficiency levels). What
follows then are the results of the contribution of these learner variables to the use of socialdiscovery strategies.
6.4.4 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of social-discovery strategies
In 6.3.1 we found that extraversion was positively related to the use of social-discovery
strategies as a whole category. Naturally, extraversion also accounted for five separate socialdiscovery strategies (see 6.3.2). However, in this section we aimed to explore the strength of
extraversion as a predictor when put together with VP, Y, and G via stepwise MR analysis. In
other words, in natural settings it seems unrealistic to expect that E alone could explain use of
strategies; that is why it is important to look into such rival effects among predictor variables,
though obviously, these four learner variables are not the only factors of LLS use in general and
VLS use in particular.
Table 6.17 shows that E is accompanied by Y, which narrowly beats VP for inclusion,
when predicting the category of social-discovery strategies, which included eleven separate
strategies. The relevant aspect here is that E remained as the main predictor of the model (beta =
.237) as compared with Y (beta = .163). With this result, then, we can suggest that E is the
dominant predictor of social-discovery strategies, confirming the finding obtained with simple
correlations (see 6.3.1). The predictor model (E and Y) for social-discovery strategies appears to

245
be grounded on the personality traits of extraverts who generally show a high degree of
sociability, activity, liveliness, impulsivity, and excitability (see 2.3.1). All these traits seem to
encourage more extraverted learners to ask others for a words meaning more frequently than
less extraverted ones. Y, in turn, also appears to contribute to the use of these strategies. This
implies that the higher the years of enrolment in this five-year undergraduate programme the
greater the use of social-discovery strategies as well. A possible explanation for this finding may
be that learners may feel more confident to request information about new vocabulary items.
This may sound a bit odd as we might think that less proficient learners would tend to ask for a
words meaning more often because linguistically they may need it more, i.e., a negative
correlation. Nevertheless, VP did not significantly correlate overall with the use of such
strategies, but it did with individual VLS. Anyhow, this finding seems to support our previous
assumption that the extent to which learners tend to ask for help may depend not only on a
vocabulary gap/problem but also on their degree of extraversion and other variables inherent in
learners. It should be noted that VP was left outside the predictor model, not because it highly
correlated with Y (r = 0.70), but simply because VP did not emerge as a significant predictor of
social-discovery strategies, at least as a category. Yet, VP did predict negatively the extent to
which learners ask classmates for translation (beta = - 0.171). That is, more lexically-proficient
learners tend to ask classmates, friends, and relatives for Spanish equivalent less frequently than
their fellows. This could also be interpreted either way round: more lexically proficient learners
may ask for an English definition not a Spanish translation or those who ask these people for an
L1 translation end up less lexically proficient (Scholfield, personal communication). Likewise, Y
negatively predicted the frequency with which learners ask teachers for translation (beta = 0.171), but VP was not a factor.53 Although a bit contradictory to what we had found for the
category of social-discovery strategies, the interesting finding here is that more advanced and

53

Conversely, Y did not correlate with asking classmates/friends/relatives for translation, but VP did.

246
proficient learners seem to be interested in other kinds of information about new words rather
than simple translation itself. This can be observed in the predictor model for asking teachers for
an English definition and a words use in which VP positively accounts for these two strategies,
though E accompanies VP. Hence, let us explore the nature of the combined effect in terms of
which one is a stronger predictor of social-discovery strategies.

Table 6.17 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to social-discovery strategies

Predictor
Variables

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Social-Discovery Strategies

Extraversion
0.251
0.063
0.056
0.063
0.237
< 0.003
Year of study
0.299
0.089
0.077
0.026
0.163
< 0.043
Criterion Variable: 19. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for translation.
Vocabulary
0.171
0.029
0.023
0.029
- 0.171
< 0.037
Criterion Variable: 20. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for English definition.
Extraversion
0.167
0.028
0.021
0.028
.167
< 0.042
Criterion Variable: 21. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for spelling/pronunciation.
none
Criterion Variable: 22. Ask native speakers for English definition.
Year of Study
0.305
0.093
0.087
0.093
0.305
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 23. Ask native speakers for spelling/pronunciation.
Year of Study
0.283
0.080
0.074
0.080
0.283
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 24. Ask teacher for translation.
Year of Study
0.171
0.029
0.023
0.029
- 0.171
< 0.037
Criterion Variable: 25. Ask teacher for English definition.
Vocabulary
0.387
0.150
0.144
0.150
0.382
< 0.001
Extraversion
0.472
0.223
0.212
0.073
0.269
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 26. Ask teacher for example sentence.
Year of Study
0.301
0.090
0.084
0.090
0.301
< 0.005
Criterion Variable: 27. Ask teacher for spelling/pronunciation.
Gender
0.185
0.034
0.028
0.034
0.185
< 0.024
Criterion Variable: 28. Ask teacher for word's use.
Extraversion
0.188
0.035
0.029
0.035
0.184
< 0.022
Vocabulary
0.255
0.065
0.052
0.030
0.172
< 0.033
Criterion Variable: 29. Ask teacher for grammar of word.
Extraversion
0.169
0.029
0.022
0.029
0.169
< 0.039

7.051
4.441
4.224
15.098
12.833
4.441

21.041
14.711
5.208
5.092

4.356

As briefly reported above, in Table 5.10, E and VP significantly predicted the frequency
with which learners ask the teacher for an English definition (strategy no. 25) and the words use
(no. 28). In the model for (25) with Y excluded, VP arose as a stronger predictor than E,
whereas in the model for (28) E predicted more strongly than VP. The combination of VP and E

247
makes sense when explaining (25) and (28) in that learners with higher VP may be expected to
ask for an English definition and a words use more often than those with smaller VP. In other
words, the interest of having the teacher provide English definitions and a words use may reflect
learners conscious attempts to deal with vocabulary queries in the target language.
Pedagogically speaking, it might also be the case that the teacher encourages more advanced
learners to use L2 in the classroom. From the point of view of the extraversion dimension, it can
be suggested that more extraverted learners tend to ask the teacher for an English definition more
frequently because their sociability and activity conditions allow them to do so. This
interpretation appears to be partially supported if we consider the finding that E was the only
significant predictor of the frequency with which extraverted learners ask classmates, friends,
and relatives for an English definition (beta = 0.167). In the same vein, E alone positively
accounted for the extent to which learners ask the teacher for syntactic behaviour of new words
(beta = 0.169), though E remained as a weak predictor. Nonetheless, it should be admitted that
the lack of research on this specific area makes it difficult to find a non-speculative interpretation
for these findings.
Turning now to the contribution of Y to the use of individual social-discovery strategies,
we found that Y alone (i.e. as a single predictor model) predicted the frequency with which
learners ask native speakers for an English definition (strategy no. 22), spelling and
pronunciation (no. 23) and the teacher for translation (no. 24) and example sentences (no. 26)
though VP also correlated with 22, 23, and 26, but was excluded from the predictor model. As
pointed out in 6.3.2, E almost significantly correlated with strategy no. 27 (asking the teacher for
spelling/pronunciation) (p < 0.057), but it was excluded from the predictor model. At the
descriptive level, it can be reported that the use of strategies 22, 23, and 26 tends to increase
across years of study and perhaps in learners with higher VP; conversely, use of strategy 24
tends to decrease as predicted by Y, suggesting a negative relationship. Figure 6.9 depicts this

248
interesting trend regarding Y and the use of these strategies. Although the general trend of 22,
23, and 26 is upward, the common pattern is actually often with a decrease of VLS use in year
three, the same group of learners who showed a decrease in the use of bilingual dictionaries (see
6.4.3). This suggests that the use of some VLS does not necessarily increase/decrease steadily
over successive years. Even so, Y beat VP and remained as a stronger predictor of these
strategies which require L2 knowledge that more experienced learners are supposed to possess.

Figure 6.9 Asking for L2 information across university year of study

6
22. Ask native
speakers for
English definition.
23. Ask native
speakers for
spelling/
pronunciation.

Mean frequency rating

26. Ask teacher

for example
sentence.
4

1
First year

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

Fifth Year

Year of Study

All in all, it can be sensibly suggested that more experienced learners, (i.e. with more
years of study in university), seem to be more concerned with both receptive and productive
aspects of knowing a word such as spelling and pronunciation and example sentences. Also, it
appears that preference for getting meaning from the teacher in English is a pattern of more
experienced learners, whereas, getting the teacher to provide simple translation is recurrent in

249
less experienced learners. In other words, the use of translation to convey meaning is gradually
abandoned as learners become more proficient. It is true that these conclusions appear to be
contradicting what we stated above regarding the relationship between E and social-discovery
strategies as a single category. However, it should be recalled that E significantly predicted such
a strategy category more strongly than Y, and VP was excluded from the model simply because
it was not a predictor variable. In the case of three of the above separate strategies, VP did
explain them but was excluded because it was strongly related to Y.
Gender, on the other hand, remained as a single predictor only of the frequency with
which L2 learners ask the teacher for spelling and pronunciation (strategy no. 27). However, if
we compare this finding with that of asking native speakers for spelling and pronunciation, we
can see that G did not account for the use of such a strategy, but Y did. Then, it must be admitted
that this mixed result does not allow us to provide an appropriate interpretation. What is
somewhat clear is that women tend to ask the teacher for spelling and pronunciation more often
than men, but why is this tendency not observed with asking native speakers for exactly the same
information? In the literature, we can broadly relate this result to Nyikos (1990:285) who found
that women attached great importance to spelling as a criterion for success in some memory
tasks (e.g. rote memorisation achieved by simple repetition in silent and written form). This
might explain why women might be more concerned with spelling than men. However, the
question why female learners are inclined to do so still remains unanswered. Similarly, asking
classmates, friends, and relatives for spelling/pronunciation (no. 21) showed this inconsistency in
that none of the four learner variables of our study significantly predicted this strategy. As we
can see, these three strategies describing the extent to which learners ask for spelling and
pronunciation yielded different results. It seems that the differences depend more on whom
learners ask for that information rather than the information itself. Furthermore, contrary to our
finding that G only predicted one social-discovery strategy, Green and Oxford (1995) did find

250
gender differences in several social strategies, and also in memory, metacognitive, and affective
strategies (see 3.2.2).
In sum, extraversion positively predicted the use of social-discovery strategies as whole
category and some separate strategies. This finding appears to be consistent with those reported
in the literature of LLS studies in that the personality traits of extraverts might encourage them to
make use of socially-related learning strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989, 1990; Oxford and
Ehrman, 1995; Ehrman, 1996; Wakamoto, 2000). At the same time, the extraversion construct
can be empirically supported by this relationship as long as learning strategies are considered
synonymous with individuals manifestations of social behaviour. Y and VP, on the other hand,
also emerged as predictor variables of the use of some social-discovery strategies. Similar results
were found by Nakamura (2000) who reported strategy use differences across levels of
achievement see also Ahmed (1988) and Stoffer (1995) in 3.3.1.4. Finally, gender accounted
for only one social-discovery strategy. The small contribution of gender to these strategies is not
in line with the literature where women are generally found to use social strategies more often
than men (Oxford, Nyikos, and Ehrman, 1988). However, it can be stated that our results on
gender and social strategies are more consistent with those from Jimenez-Catalan (2003) who
looked into sex differences and use of VLS.
6.4.5 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of note-taking strategies
As described earlier, the category of note-taking strategies included twenty-four items
from the VLS-Q. In 6.3.1, we observed through simple correlations that E was not statistically
related to note-taking strategies either as a category or as separate variables. Nonetheless, some
tendency emerged in the sense that extraversion came close to explaining the frequency with
which L2 learners use vocabulary notebooks (r = - 0.139, p < 0.092). That is to say, more
extraverted learners tended to report less use of vocabulary notebooks. Hence, it may be
suggested that introverted learners show more preference for this strategy, but this requires

251
further research via other research instruments apart from written questionnaires. In this realm,
we expected a negative relationship between E and note-taking strategies in that we surmised
that more introverted learners would be characterised by keeping more systematic, wellorganised notes perhaps because of their well-ordered mode of life (H. J. Eysenck and S. B.
Eysenck (1969:118). Other note-taking strategies (favouring extraverts), which nearly reached
the .05 significance level for inclusion in MR were (1) recording words on audio tapes p <
0.078, (2) writing down antonyms/synonyms p < 0.061, and (3) accompanying words with
drawings/pictures p < 0.073. More importantly, the finding of (2) is in line with the frequency
with which extraverts relate new words to antonyms/synonyms (see 6.3.2 and 6.4.7). Hence, it
can be suggested that extraverts write down somewhere the associations they generate through
antonyms/synonyms. Regarding (3), it might be that extraverts are more visual than introverts, a
finding that is consistent with Ehrman and Oxford (1989). Similarly, the nearly significant result
of extraversion and (3) partially supports the finding that extraverts as more auditory than
introverts (Ehrman, 1996).
In this subsection, we also aim to explore the contribution not only of E but also VP, Y,
and G to note-taking strategies and thus provide a more realistic description of the nature of such
contributions. If we look at Table 6.18 showing the results obtained through stepwise MR
analysis, we can see that VP, G and to a lesser extent Y, prevailed as predictors of note-taking
strategies. Also, it can be noted that only one predictor model included more than one learner
variable (strategy no.43), i.e. not many combined effects among VP, Y, and G were observed.
Furthermore, ten note-taking strategies were not statistically accounted for by any of these
predictors, though as noted earlier some nearly significant values were reached.

252
Table 6.18 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to note-taking strategies
Predictor
Variables

R
squared

Adjusted R
squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Note-taking Strategies

0.168
0.028
0.021
0.028
0.168
< 0.044
Criterion Variable: 30. Write down information of the word on textbook.
Gender
0.190
0.036
0.030
0.036
0.190
< 0.020
Criterion Variable: 31. Write down words on English notebook.
Vocabulary
0.206
0.043
0.036
0.043
0.206
< 0.011
Criterion Variable: 32. Write down words on specific section of English notebook.
Vocabulary
0.162
0.026
0.020
0.026
- 0.162
< 0.047
Criterion Variable: 33. Write down words on vocabulary notebook.
Gender
0.188
0.035
0.029
0.035
0.188
< 0.022
Criterion Variable: 34. Write down words on cards/paper slips.
none
Criterion Variable: 35. Write down words on charts.
Year of Study
0.216
0.047
0.040
0.047
0.216
< 0.008
Criterion Variable: 36. Record words on audio-cassettes.
Gender

none
Gender
Vocabulary
none
none
none
Vocabulary
Vocabulary
Gender
none
Year of Study
Vocabulary
none
Vocabulary

Criterion Variable: 37. Keep vocabulary records in computer/electronic devices.

0.189
0.036
0.029
0.036
- 0.189
< 0.021
Criterion Variable: 38. Write down Spanish translation.
0.209
0.043
0.037
0.043
- 0.209
< 0.010
Criterion Variable: 39. Write down English definition.
Criterion Variable: 40. Write down antonyms/synonyms.
Criterion Variable: 41. Accompany words with drawings/pictures.
Criterion Variable: 42. Write down example sentences.
0.190
0.036
0.029
0.036
0.190
< 0.020
Criterion Variable: 43. Write down pronunciation.
0.203
0.041
0.035
0.041
- 0.227
< 0.005
0.265
0.070
0.058
0.029
0.172
< 0.033
Criterion Variable: 44. Write down part of speech.
Criterion Variable: 45. Write down grammar of the word.
0.189
0.036
0.029
0.036
0.189
< 0.021
Criterion Variable: 46. Write down contextual/situation use.
0.191
0.036
0.030
0.036
0 .191
< 0.020
Criterion Variable: 47. Write down contextual reference.
Criterion Variable: 48. Organise words by unit/lesson.
0.271
0.074
0.067
0.074
- 0.271
< 0.001
Criterion Variable: 49. Classify words by part of speech.

Vocabulary

0.226

Vocabulary

0.236
0.056
0.049
0.056
- 0.236
Criterion Variable: 51. Organise words in alphabetical order/sections.
Criterion Variable: 52. Write down words in chronological order.
Criterion Variable: 53. Highlight new words.
-

none
none
none

0.051
0.045
0.051
- 0.226
Criterion Variable: 50. Classify words by semantic fields.

4.118
5.534
6.574
3.998
5.343
7.209
5.465
6.728
5.516
5.563

5.456
5.559
11.758

< 0.006

7.896

< 0.004

8.743

253
These ten strategies were concerned with where notes were kept (strategy no. 34, 36), what was
written down (no. 39, 40, 41, 44, 47), and how notes were organised (no. 51, 52, 53). In other
words, the frequency with which L2 learners use such bedrock or universal strategies does
not depend on their vocabulary proficiency, university year of study or gender, though they may
be influenced by other situational and learner factors not covered in this thesis (see Green and
Oxford, 1995). It should be noted that some of these strategies were in fact very infrequent (see
6.1.1, 6.1.3), which of course makes them less variable, so less likely to correlate with anything
(Scholfield, personal communication).
More importantly, G alone significantly accounted for the use of note-taking strategies as
a single category, which covers the three aspects outlined above (location, content, and
organisation of notes). Overall, female learners tend to take vocabulary notes more often than
male learners. A similar tendency was observed regarding the use of some separate variables
such as writing down new words in the margins of the textbook (no. 30), keeping a vocabulary
notebook (no. 33), and writing down pronunciation (no. 43). These findings seem to be
consistent with those reported by Nakamura (2000), Gu (2002), and more recently by JimenezCatalan (2003), whose studies were devoted to VLS use. From these findings it may be
suggested that women tend to use more note-taking strategies because they generally seem to be
more organised and more concerned about consolidating meaning through writing words down.
Hence, it would be interesting to see whether there may be gender differences in terms of longand short-term memory capacity, which might explain why women take notes more often than
men. Nevertheless, there was one strategy from this category which males appeared to use more
than females, i.e. vocabulary records in computers/electronic devices. A possible interpretation
for this finding may be that males are generally characterised by their frequent use of
computerised programmes. This pattern has been observed not only in language learners but also

254
in other types of students. However, it was found that women significantly reported using
electronic dictionaries more often than men (see 6.4.3).
VP, on the other hand, predicted the frequency of use of two location-related (no. 31 and
32), four content-related (no. 38, 42, 43, and 46), and three organisation-related note-taking
strategies (no. 48, 49, and 50). In fact, VP was a negative predictor of six of these strategies. As
pointed out above, VP in combination with G accounted for the frequency with which L2
learners write down the pronunciation of a new vocabulary item, though VP was a negative
predictor. This means that females with lower vocabulary proficiency tend to use this strategy
more frequently, maybe because they are in the process of consolidating pronunciation if we
consider that smaller VP may be equivalent to lower lexical proficiency. Also, it should be
recalled that females reported asking the teacher for spelling and pronunciation more often than
men (see 6.4.4), thus supporting the result for writing down pronunciation. However, a closer
look at the separate note-taking strategies predicted by VP indicates that there are some mixed
results as the relationship is both positive and negative. For example, VP explains that the higher
the learners VP the higher the frequency with which they write down new words on their
English notebook (no. 31), but also the higher their VP the lower the frequency of writing down
new words on a specific section of the English notebook (no.32). 54 Obviously, we would expect
a negative relationship between VP and writing down Spanish translation (no. 38), a finding
supported elsewhere in our study.
The other two strategies that VP positively predicted were the frequency with which L2
learners write down example sentences (no. 42) and write down the contextual/situational use of
new words (no. 46), both of which involve L2, hence, they are naturally related to higher VP. It
seems that L2 learners with higher VP tend to be concerned with how the word is used in
sentences perhaps as a way of consolidating meaning through remembering those sentences.
54

At least in the Mexican context, L2 learners sometimes keep a specific section on L2 vocabulary somewhere
within the notebook they use for their English courses. Other learners just keep vocabulary notes mixed together
with those for other L2 aspects, e.g. grammar, listening, reading, etc.

255
Also, we expected that VP would positively explain those note-taking strategies related to
writing more information about new words such as English definitions, antonyms/synonyms, but
they were not predicted by any of the other learner variables of our study.
Regarding the other negative predictive values of VP, we found that apparently L2
learners tend to make less use of more systematic organisation note-taking strategies as their VP
gradually becomes higher. In other words, L2 learners with smaller VP may organise words by
unit or lesson, classify words by part of speech or in alphabetical order. This finding makes sense
in that once learners become more lexically proficient they may not be so worried about the way
they organise their vocabulary notes. This interpretation can be partially supported by the
negative relationship of university year of study and the frequency of organising notes by unit or
lesson, i.e. more experienced learners reported less use of this strategy. Furthermore, VP
negatively predicted the extent to which learners write down pronunciation (no 43). This
suggests that the higher the VP the lower the frequency of including phonological information in
the note entry maybe because they no longer need it as at that stage they have mastered the basic
phonological rules to be generalised when meeting new words (i.e. these learners can attempt to
figure out how new words are pronounced). It should be recalled that the predictor model for this
strategy also included gender, but VP hierarchically appeared first.
Although to a lesser extent, Y also was positively related to two note-taking strategies:
writing down words on charts (no. 35) and writing down the grammatical behaviour of the word
(no. 45). However, the result about the increasing use of wall charts by more experienced
learners seems to be difficult to interpret. It might be that learners enrolled in higher years of
university study use wall charts for short presentations for English-related subjects, e.g. English
literature and the popular means of presenting information is through them. Hence, they may
tend to use wall charts for their own vocabulary learning purposes (see, endnote no. 35 in
Appendix F for a description of how some learners use wall charts). Another explanation for this

256
may be that more advanced learners receive training in teaching-related subjects, which are not
offered to first- or and second-year learners. As Figure 6.10 shows, there is a jump in year five,
whereas other years are more level.

Figure 6.10 Writing down new words on wall charts across university year of study
6

Mean frequency rating

1
First

Second

Third

Fourth

Fifth

Year of Study

Regarding the frequency with which learners write down the grammatical behaviour of new
words, we found that more experienced learners tend to do this more often than less experienced
ones. This finding does make sense in that lower-year learners might be more worried about
meaning, perhaps conveyed by L1 equivalents as well as other shallow aspects of knowing a
word, e.g. spelling and pronunciation. Higher-year (more experienced) learners, on the other
hand, may be more concerned with information about how the word is grammatically used, e.g.
whether the word is followed by a given preposition.
To sum up, we have presented to what extent the four learner variables of our study
contribute to the use of note-taking strategies. As pointed out in this subsection, E did not

257
emerge as a predictor variable; however, we cannot conclude that E is not related to note-taking
and further research is needed. The other predictors VP, G and Y did play a role in explaining
the use of note-taking strategies. More importantly, we have found similar strategy use patterns
reported in the literature of VLS, especially for VP (Gu and Johnson, 1996) and G (Nakamura,
2000; Gu, 2002; Jimenez-Catalan, 2003). The relationship of Y and the use of wall charts was
not easy to interpret: no literature was found to arrive at an appropriate explanation, but we
speculatively offered two. In the next subsection, we will present the results and discussion for
the contribution of the four variables to the use of repetition strategies.
6.4.6 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of repetition strategies
The general picture for the contribution of E, VP, Y, and G does not look very clear.
Table 6.19 shows that the use of repetition strategies as a category was not related to any of the
learner variables. What can be interpreted from this general finding is that females and males use
rote repetition with similar frequency just as Nyikos (1990) reported in her experimental study
with university learners without previous experience in German. Also, learners enrolled in
different years of study and with different VP may tend to use repetition as they are very popular
and universal strategies. A similar pattern is observed regarding separate repetition strategies
such as repeating the word silently (strategy no. 55), the word alone (no. 58), repeating word
plus translation (no. 59), plus examples (no. 60), and plus L2 definition (no. 61). In addition to
these non-significant findings, MR showed that E was not a predictor of any of the nine
repetition strategies in this category. Based on the short- and long-term memory differences
between introverts and extraverts, we expected E to predict the use of repetition strategies (see
2.3.2.1). That is, less aroused individuals (i.e. extraverts) would tend to use shallow
maintenance rehearsal as compared to more aroused individuals (i.e. introverts). However, we
also suggested the opposite direction, which will be briefly touched on in the next subsection
(see also 6.3.1).

258
Table 6.19 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to repetition strategies
Predictor
Variables
none
Gender
none
Vocabulary
Year of Study
none
none
none
none
Vocabulary

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Repetition Strategies

Criterion Variable: 54. Say word aloud repeatedly.
0.170
0.029
0.022
0.029
0.170
Criterion Variable: 55. Repeat word silently.
Criterion Variable: 56. Write down word repeatedly.
0.187
0.035
0.029
0.035
- 0.187
Criterion Variable: 57. Listen to tape-recorded words.
0.161
0.026
0.019
0.026
- 0.161
Criterion Variable: 58. Repeat word alone.
Criterion Variable: 59. Repeat word and translation.
Criterion Variable: 60. Repeat word and examples.
Criterion Variable: 61. Repeat word and L2 definition.
Criterion Variable: 62. Repeat spelling of word.
0.241
0.058
0.052
0.058
- 0.241
-

< 0.038

4.383

< 0.022

5.390

< 0.050

3.915

< 0.003

9.114

As for some note-taking strategies, VP negatively predicted the frequency with which L2
learners write down words repeatedly (no. 56) and repeat the spelling of words (no. 62). It seems
that learners abandon these strategies as they become more lexically proficient or that use of
these strategies results in low vocabulary proficiency because they are not effective (i.e. no depth
of processing). Interestingly, this result goes more or less in line with that of Gu and Johnson
(1996) who reported a negative relationship between VP and writing words repeatedly.
Moreover, a similar tendency is observed with regard to listening to tape-recorded words as
predicted by Y, though it should be recalled that this was one of the least-frequently used
strategies across the entire sample. Learners tend to listen to words recorded on tape with even
less frequency as they move to higher years of study (ranked 67th out of 78th). Interesting, a look
at Figure 6.11 shows that five-year learners tend to record and listen to new words from tapes
more frequently than lower-year learners. Admittedly, we found no explanation for this
unexpected result. Another interesting pattern observed in five-year learners is that they tend to

259
listen to tapes more frequently than recording them, which appears conflicting (see 6.4.5).
However, it might be the case that these learners listen to tapes not necessarily recorded by them.

Figure 6.11 Recording and listening to words from tapes across university years of study
6
36. Record words
on audiocassettes.
57. Listen to taperecorded words.

Mean frequency rating

1
First year

Second Year

Third Year

Fourth Year

Fifth Year

Year of Study

Contrary to the non-significant relationship between G and the category of repetition

strategies, G alone predicted positively the use of verbal repetition (no. 54), meaning that
females are inclined to say the word aloud several times more frequently than males. Again, it
seems that women are not only concerned with memorising words by saying words aloud
repeatedly, but also with acquiring the pronunciation of L2 words. Women were found to ask
teachers for pronunciation and wrote the pronunciation down more frequently than men (see
6.4.4 and 6.4.5). Gu (2002) also found a similar pattern among Chinese learners in that females
reported using oral repetition than males, but no gender differences arose regarding visual
repetition. Likewise, Jimenez-Catalan (2003) reported that females said a new word aloud when
studying more frequently than males, which implies some sort of verbal repetition. In fact, use of

260
verbal repetition as included in her VLS questionnaire differed in terms of gender, though
significant results were not offered. Once again, an explanation for this strategy pattern has not
been given in the literature of VLS. Thus, we may suggest that those differences may be
explained on the basis of gender differences in cognitive functions (see gender in 3.2.2) just as
long as verbal repetition is viewed as a cognitive strategy as classified by Schmitt (1997).
Gender differences in saying the word aloud several times might also be explained in terms of
variation both in short- and long-term memory as in the case of memory and extraversion. In
other words, women might opt more for shallow strategies such as repeating aloud than men
simply because they might not need strategies involving deeper mental processes. Nevertheless,
it should be noted that these explanations are mere conjectures as more research is needed in the
area of gender and rote memorisation/rehearsal.
Recapitulating the findings in this subsection, we can state that the category of repetition
strategies and five other separate strategies did not show variability in terms of learners E, VP,
Y, and G. In the analysis of the few significant results yielded by MR, the predictor models
included only one learner variable, suggesting no independent effects of multiple predictors. VP
was a negative predictor of written repetition and repetition of spelling. Y also predicted
negatively the frequency with which learners listen to new tape-recorded words. Further, G
emerged as a determinant of verbal repetition, though a grounded explanation could not be
offered. Finally, the low contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of repetition strategies might
explain the universal nature of repetition or suggest a need for further research on which other
situational and learner variables could play a part.
6.4.7 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of association strategies
In 6.3 we observed via simple correlations that E was related to the use of four separate
association strategies and the whole category. We also detected that extraversion nearly
correlated significantly with four other association strategies no. 65, 68, 71, and 72, actually

261
below the .10 significance level. In this respect we also provided some explanation for this
relationship. However, it seems necessary to see whether E alone accounts for the use of
association strategies or whether besides E there is also a contribution from VP, Y, and G. If
extraversion combines with other predictor variables, then we would be able to explore its
hierarchical contribution to association strategies. If E remains as a single predictor via MR, then
we would be able to confirm the findings obtained through simple correlations in that there is a
positive relationship between E and the use of association strategies.
Stepwise MR results show that E, VP, and Y emerged as predictors of association
strategies, comprising twelve strategies (see Table 6.20). As expected, this was not the case for G
which was excluded from all the predictor models as it did not reach statistical significance. That
is to say, both males and females tend to use association strategies with similar frequency.
Similarly, Gu (2002) found no differences between Chinese women and men in any of the
encoding strategies, which include association/elaboration, imagery, visual, auditory, and
semantic encoding, among others. Jimenez-Catalan (2003) also reports similarities in the use of
some association-oriented strategies such as the Keyword Method, semantic maps, linkage to
synonyms/antonyms. Hence, if we consider that G only predicted the use of one repetition
strategy (see 6.4.6) and that G did not explain any of the association strategies, we can suggest
that there are no gender differences in memory strategy use. However, this proposition seems to
be inconsistent with gender variation in memory strategies reported by Green and Oxford (1995),
though they focused on more general language learning strategies. Continuing with the analysis
of non-significant results, we also observed that E, VP, Y, and G did not explain the frequency
with which learners associate the new word with a similar word in L1 (strategy no. 66), with
collocations (no. 68), and with contextual/situational use (no. 72). A similar situation was
observed with visualising the written form or the meaning of the word (no. 70). Once again, it

262
appears that we are dealing with another set of universal or bedrock strategies or perhaps
other predictor variables not considered in our study might have come into play.

Table 6.20 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to association strategies

Predictor
Variables
Extraversion
Year of study
Extraversion
Extraversion
Year of Study
none
Year of Study
Vocabulary
none
Extraversion
none
Vocabulary
none
Year of Study
Extraversion

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Association Strategies

0.232
0.055
0.047
0.054
0.218
< 0.007
0.285
0.081
0.068
0.027
0.166
< 0.040
Criterion Variable: 63. Relate word to L2 word to similar sound.
0.167
0.028
0.021
0.028
0.167
< 0.041
Criterion Variable: 64. Relate word to antonyms/synonyms.
0.224
0.050
0.044
0.050
0.224
< 0.006
Criterion Variable: 65. Relate word to word in L3/L4.
0.163
0.027
0.020
0.027
0.163
< 0.046
Criterion Variable: 66. Associate word with similar L1 word.
Criterion Variable: 67. Use keyword method.
0.227
0.052
0.045
0.052
0.398
< 0 .001
0.285
0.081
0.069
0.030
- 0.242
< 0.031
Criterion Variable: 68. Relate word to collocations.
Criterion Variable: 69. Associate word with semantically related words.
0.223
0.050
0.043
0.050
0.223
< 0.006
Criterion Variable: 70. Visualise written form or meaning.
Criterion Variable: 71. Associate word with personal experience.
0.171
0.029
0.023
0.029
0.171
< 0.036
Criterion Variable: 72. Associate word with contextual/situational use.
Criterion Variable: 73. Associate word with physical action.
0.280
0.078
0.072
0.078
0.280
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 74. Think of prefixes/suffixes for the word.
0.203
0.041
0.035
0.041
0.203
< 0.013

6.360
4.241
7.832
4.057
6.493

7.725
4.461
12.502
6.348

Turning now to the statistically significant results, we can first report that E, our variable
of special interest, emerged as a good predictor of several association strategies. Interestingly, E
along with Y explained the category of association strategies as a whole, but E predicted better
than Y. Since Beta is positive, this means that use of associations increases as more extraverted
learners move along their years of studies. Further, a closer look at this category allows us to see
that E alone positively accounted for the extent to which learners associate the L2 word with a

263
similar sound (no. 63), with an antonym/synonym (no. 64), with semantically related words (no.
69), and with the prefixes and suffixes that can be attached to the new word (no. 74). From these
results, it can be suggested that more extraverted learners are inclined to use association
strategies more often than less extraverted learners (introverts). As briefly pointed out in 6.3.1,
our findings regarding E and association strategies are not easy to compare with those from other
studies since research in this realm is relatively sparse. The most relevant studies that have been
cited in our literature review looked into personality variables and use of general language
learning strategies (Ehrman and Oxford, 1989 and 1990; Oxford and Ehrman, 1995; Ehrman,
1996; Wakamoto, 2000). However, there is no direct reference to individual association
strategies as they classified learning strategies differently. All in all, it seems that extraverted
learners get involved in deeper levels of mental processing when memorising new vocabulary
perhaps because they naturally find it difficult to commit them to long-term memory or because
this activity generates extra internal stimulation, which they crave. By contrast, introverts may
find associations over-stimulating and therefore avoid them (see 2.3.2.1, 2.4.2.2, 3.3.2.2, and
6.3.2). Actually, M. W. Eysencks (1975) study has been referred to all through this thesis as the
only approximate reference point for our results, though not precisely about learning strategies.
He found that extraverted subjects produced faster associations than introverts. This finding can
provide some indication of extraversion differences in making associations as well as in
memory. Still, further research on this area should be done to arrive at more precise
interpretations.
Y, on the other hand, emerged as a single predictor of two other association strategies
relating new words to foreign languages other than English (no. 65) and associating the new
word with physical action (no. 73). The finding that learners tend to use strategy 65 as they move
to higher years of enrolment makes sense as more experienced learners have the opportunity to
start learning other languages apart from English. Actually, fifth-year learners showed this

264
tendency as observed from their mean frequency rating (4.14). This is so because the curriculum
for this undergraduate programme includes French as a foreign language courses. Another
explanation might be that first-year learners are unlikely to take an L3 course as they are starting
to consolidate English, though this does not mean that they are not allowed to enrol in L3
courses. Second- and third-year learners normally start taking French lessons until they reach
higher years of study at the university. Therefore, it is expected that learners at higher years of
study would take advantage of having lexical knowledge in an L3 like French and make
connections with English vocabulary. Also, English and French share some lexical items that
may facilitate L2 vocabulary acquisition. Nonetheless, the finding that Y predicts use of
associations involving physical action seems a little complex to interpret, though there is a fairly
steady rise over university years (means = 3.81, 4.13, 4.64, 4.76, and 5.21). A possible reason for
this pattern might be that more experienced learners tend to feel more confident about making
use of any tricks for learning vocabulary as they may think that the most bizarre associations can
help lexical retention. Another explanation for this finding might be found in the curriculum
itself because learners usually take a course on language teaching methods when they are
enrolled in third year, for example the Total Physical Response Method. Hence, learners are
likely to apply the principles of TPR to their own vocabulary learning.
Contrary to our expectations, use of the Keyword Method (KM) was positively predicted
by Y, but negatively predicted by VP. It must be admitted that this predictor model (Y and VP)
turns out to be a little difficult to explain.55 The finding that learners use the KM more frequently
as they move to higher years of study appears logical, especially with fifth-year learners who are
characterised by the highest mean frequency rating (4.42). However, how is it possible that the
higher the learners vocabulary proficiency the less frequent the use of the KM? Perhaps the low

55

This makes sense surely if we see VP as the cause: KM uses L1 plus visual associations so it does not need (as
input) high L2 vocabulary knowledge, as antonym associations do, hence learners with low VP can use it. However,
if we see VP as the effect, it does not make sense, as KM is supposed to be effective and should yield higher VP as
output/product, unless it is not effective here (Scholfield, personal communication).

265
frequency use of the KM (ranked 65th, mean = 2.68) may have had something to do with this
finding,56 which might reflect the lack of training on this effective method. Yet, what can be
explained here is that learners with higher VP may not find the KM useful as they already posses
the lexical proficiency necessary in everyday communication. If learners happened to be trained
in the KM, but they seem to abandon it, then we might be dealing with a matter of negative
attitudes towards it. Nevertheless, we are not certain whether this low use of the KM is due to
lack of training or negative attitudes. In this respect, Scholfield (personal communication) points
out that maybe this is a clue to VP being best seen as explanatory/presage rather than
explained/product here (but not for associating words with personal experience). As an aside, it
should be noted that this is the only predictor model in which Y and VP are put together by
stepwise MR analysis perhaps because they are here unusually, opposing determinants of the
KM use. To add more complex and conflicting results to the above, VP, on the other hand,
emerged as a single predictor of the frequency with which learners associate new words with
personal experience (no. 71), meaning that greater use of this strategy may be a function of
higher VP. This would make sense only if we viewed this strategy as predictor of VP: we would
be implying that associating words with personal experience may be conducive to L2vocabulary
acquisition. Yet, this is difficult to confirm via our study. Anyhow, such a suggestion appears to
make sense, though it would require some sort of experiment to confirm it.
In summary, E emerged as a good predictor of association strategies, especially when all
the strategies were considered together as single category. Although E was complemented by Y
when explaining this strategy category, E explained it more powerfully than Y. More
importantly, after running stepwise MR in which E, VP, Y and G were inserted as possible
predictors of separate association strategies, only E remained in the predictor model for strategy
no. 63, 64, 69, and 74. Thus, the results obtained from simple correlation analyses were
56

We correlated VP scores with KM ratings for each university year and found that this negative relationship is
especially strong in the third-year group (r = - 0.567, n = 15, p < 0.028)

266
confirmed. Based on these findings, we can suggest that more extraverted learners tend to make
use of association strategies more frequently than less extraverted learners. Y, on the other hand,
positively accounted for two separate association strategies (no. 65 and 73) and was strongly
accompanied by negative VP when explaining the use of the KM. VP, in turn, emerged as a
positive determinant of associating words with personal experience. Furthermore, in terms of
gender and association strategies we found that both males and females use them with similar
frequency. Finally, four strategies were not significantly accounted for by any of our four learner
variables, suggesting that they constitute some sort of universal strategies across our sample. In
the next subsection, we will examine to what extent these four learner variables explain the use
of our last category further consolidation strategies.
6.4.8 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of further consolidation strategies
As described in 4.5 (Table 4.5), the category of further consolidation strategies (FCS)
includes those self-initiated activities in which learners get involved with the sole purpose of
consolidating the vocabulary items that are in the process of being acquired or those in which
learners may be exposed to sources of vocabulary. In 6.3.2 we reported a positive relationship
between degree of E and use of FCS. Once again, we aim to know to what extent E accounts for
three of the four FCS and FCS as a category, when the other predictor variables are entered into
stepwise MR analysis. Thus we will be able to state whether E still emerges as a good predictor
of FCS.
If we have a look at the results shown in Table 6.21 we notice that E predicted the
frequency with which L2 learners use words in conversation and in writing (strategy no. 76),
make up imagined conversations (no. 77), and look for opportunities to meet new words (no. 78).
More importantly, FCS as single category was positively predicted by E in the first place and VP
in the second just beating Y for inclusion, i.e. E arose as the best predictor of FCS category use.
Although we have already provided a discussion on the relationship between E and FCS (see

267
6.3.1 and 6.3.2), we briefly recapitulate it here. It is not surprising to find out that more
extraverted learners tend to further consolidate L2 vocabulary more often than less extraverted
learners. We have stated that the personality traits (e.g. sociability, liveliness, excitement)
inherent in extraverted learners may prompt them to look for ways of practising and
consolidating L2 vocabulary. Also, it may be pointed out that more frequent use of FCS reported
by more extraverted learners is not necessarily reflected in their VP. It should be recalled that E
was not statistically correlated overall with scores from the Vocabulary Levels Test (see 6.2.2 for
a discussion). Hence, it can be suggested that learners may either take different learning roads to
L2 vocabulary acquisition or take similar roads, but with different frequency. However, it still
may be the case, from the evidence here, that where extraversion leads to more FCS, greater VP
results.

Table 6.21 The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to further consolidation strategies

Predictor
Variables
Extraversion
Vocabulary
none
Vocabulary
Extraversion
Extraversion
Gender
Extraversion

R
squared

Adjusted
R squared

R squared
change

Beta

Criterion Variable: Further Consolidation Strategies

0.296
0.087
0.081
0.087
0.292
< 0 .001
0.344
0.118
0.106
0.031
0.176
< 0.025
Criterion Variable: 75. Test myself or have others test me.
Criterion Variable: 76. Use new words in conversations and writing.
0.384
0.148
0.142
0.148
0.381
< 0 .001
0.422
0.178
0.166
0.030
0.173
< 0.022
Criterion Variable: 77. Make up imagined conversations.
0.306
0.093
0.087
0.093
0.306
< 0 .001
Criterion Variable: 78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.
0.259
0.067
0.061
0.067
0.254
< 0 .001
0.333
0.111
0.099
0.044
0.210
< 0.008

9.795
15.782

15.244
9.182

Turning now to the role of VP in predicting separate FCS, we observed that once again
VP was accompanied by E when positively predicting the use of no. 76, but this time VP resulted
in a better determinant than E. This finding suggests that L2 learners need VP as a prerequisite
for communicative language use. Also it may be that high use of FCS may be conducive to

268
higher VP in L2 learners. This second suggestion appears to be supported by the results reported
by Gu and Johnson (1996) who found that activation strategies positively predicted receptive
VP. Activation strategies can be paralleled with the FCS in our study, e.g. I try to use newly
learned words in real situations. However, as pointed out by Scholfield (personal
communication), the interpretation of VP effects on VLS, or the reverse, is equally ambiguous in
their study, even if those researchers do not recognise that. Ahmed (1988) also considered these
kinds of strategies which he labelled as practice strategies (see 3.3.4). Interestingly, Ahmed
looked into the relationship between vocabulary achievement and strategies employed. Likewise,
he found a positive relationship between vocabulary competence and use of practice strategies.
In other words, good language learners were distinguished from underachieving learners both in
terms of vocabulary competence and practice strategies. However, like in Gu and Jonhson
(1996), it may be argued that there is no way of telling which way round the effect really is: VP
VLS or VLS

VP (Scholfield, personal communication).

G in combination with E, on the other hand, explained one FCS (no. 78), though G
remained as best predictor in the model. With gender as a predictor, then, it can be stated that
females tend to look for opportunities to encounter new words more often than males. Similar
results were found by Gu (2002) who found that Chinese females attempted to look for
opportunities to practise L2 vocabulary more frequently than males. In the same vein, JimenezCatalan (2003) reported gender differences in the use of English-language media (songs, movies,
newscasts, etc), which can be paralleled with strategy no. 78. Again, it was female learners that
reported greater use of this FCS than male learners. In looking for an explanation for such a
difference, we can suggest that motivational and attitudinal differences in women and men might
have something to do in language learning; that is to say, women appear to be more motivated
than men (Gardner, 1985; Sung and Padilla, 1998). As a matter of fact, Oxford et al (1996)
discovered that women were more willing to try out new VLS than men, perhaps encouraged by

269
their degree of motivation. Further, if we consider FCS as some sort of metacognitive strategies
(e.g. planning to use a new word in a real conversation), just as Schmitt (1997) classified them,
then we may find some explanation for this gender difference. Green and Oxford (1995) reported
that women used metacognitive strategies more frequently than men. In addition to this,
Jimenez-Catalan (2003), who used Schmitts VLS questionnaire, reported greater use of
metacognitive strategies (e.g. using English-language media) in women than in men. Similarly,
Gu (2002) found that female learners reported using metacognitive-related VLS strategies more
frequently than males. However, these results must be treated with caution since the term
metacognitive strategy seems not to be in line with the usual definition (see 3.1.2.3, 3.1.2.4)
which is concerned with planning learning, monitoring strategy use and evaluation. These
activities could be done with any of the VLS in our study (Scholfield, personal communication).
Also, it should be noted that G only predicted the use of only one FCS that seems to require
some kind of metacognitive processes on the part of the learner. Hence, our finding in this
respect is not conclusive.
Summarising our findings here, we have seen than E emerged as the best predictor of
FCS, especially as a category. Also in this category, three FCS were accounted for by E. These
results seem to be consistent with the personality traits of more extraverted learners and the
research done on E and language learning (see Dewaele and Furnham, 1999 for a thorough
review). Also, VP and G emerged as predictors of separate FCS in combination with E. Y, on the
other hand, was excluded from the MR analysis, but it correlated with FCS as a category and
with the frequency with which learners use new words in conversation and writing (no. 76).
Finally, the four learner variables of our study did not account for the strategy in which learners
test themselves or have others test them (no. 75), though E almost reach the required significance
level (p < 0.079). Initially, we had expected E to play a role in the use of this FCS.

270
In this section, via stepwise MR we have provided a detailed account of the contribution
of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of vocabulary learning strategies. The next section (6.5) is devoted
to the analysis of the interviews carried out with extreme introverted and extraverted learners as
discriminated by the EPQ-R. Having in mind the significant results about the relationship
between E and use of VLS, we aim to provide a brief qualitative description of these differences
in the areas of social-discovery, association, and further consolidation strategies.
6.5 Qualitative differences between introverted and extraverted learners in the use of VLS.
As described in chapter five (see 5.2.3.1), twenty-five learners were selected for
interviews on the basis of their scores on the E scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire,
whose minimum score is zero (more introverted learners) and maximum score is 19 (more
extraverted learners). More specifically, twelve introverts (six females and six males) and
thirteen extraverts (nine females and four males) were probed for their VLS use. Table 6.22
shows the distribution of the twenty-five interviewees across university years of study. It also
provides their scores on the VLT, end-of-semester English grades, and degree of extraversion
along with their personality type.

271
Table 6.22 Distribution of interviewed learners and their performance
Case
No.

Pseudonym

8
10
14
24
28
33
34
48
55
56
58
62
84
85
90
95
103
114
118
128
131
134
137
146
147

Nube
Lucas
Jonas
Lupita
Carmelo
Zulema
Franco
Gely
Lucas
Jimena
Abelardo
Gladia
Marina
Juvenal
Celine
Cristina
Hernan
Ramuel
Anabel
Israel
Frida
Marilia
Georgia
Linda
Neria

Year
of
Study
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5

Gender

VLT
Score

F
M
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
F
F

12.60
10.00
9.60
8.80
16.20
18.80
12.00
14.80
7.20
20.00
13.40
15.20
5.80
15.60
15.00
22.80
19.20
14.60
24.00
27.00
24.40
24.80
18.40
25.40
20.60

End-ofsemester
grade
9.60
7.00
7.90
8.20
9.30
10.00
9.10
8.10
6.80
8.70
9.20
8.50
7.00
9.00
8.00
10.00
6.50
7.20
9.00
10.00
9.30
9.30
NA
NA
NA

Extraversion
score
5.00
17.00
4.00
4.00
17.00
5.00
1.00
17.00
17.00
4.00
3.00
17.00
18.00
6.00
17.00
4.00
17.00
7.00
17.00
5.00
18.00
2.00
19.00
17.00
17.00

Personality
Type
IN
EX
IN
IN
EX
IN
IN
EX
EX
IN
IN
EX
EX
IN
EX
IN
EX
IN
EX
IN
EX
IN
EX
EX
EX

Regarding extraversion and language outcomes, it can be observed that there are no
significant differences between introverts and extraverts in their performance on the Vocabulary
Levels Test, whose maximum mean score is thirty (t = 0.015, p = n.s.). Therefore, it can be
suggested that performance on the VLT is not a function of whether learners are introverts or
extraverts (see 6.2.2 for further explanation). Nonetheless, the picture seems to be a bit different
when considering extraversion and end-of-semester English grades (maximum score = 10). The
t-test for independent samples revealed that introverts did significantly better than extraverts on
English achievement grades (t = 2.557, p < 0.019). Based on these results, we can suggest that
although extraversion does not explain learners vocabulary proficiency level, it seems to play a

272
role in terms of English academic achievement, a measure considered more of CALP type (see
6.2.1).
Having briefly described the participants for the interview in terms of degree of
extraversion (personality type), vocabulary and English achievement scores, university year of
study, and gender, we will now proceed to provide some qualitative picture of their VLS use. It
should be noted that special attention will be paid to the three VLS categories in which
extraversion appears to determine their frequency of use: social-discovery strategies, association
strategies, and further consolidation strategies. The rationale for this decision lies in the finding
that no relationship was found between E and the categories of guessing, skipping, dictionaryuse, note-taking, and repetition strategies, not even with individual VLS within each of these
categories. However, we do not mean that E is definitely related only to such strategies: that is
why further research should be pursued by using VLS gathering instruments other than
questionnaires and/or interviews (see 6.2 and 6.3).
6.5.1 Case studies of selected language learners
As pointed out in 5.4 the data from the learner interviews were not fully transcribed as we
did not intend to use them to record frequencies of VLS. Rather, we listened to all twenty-three
learner interviews and transcribed two selected cases: an extreme introvert and an extreme
extravert. The method for description of the two selected cases was adopted from Naiman et als
(1978) good language learner study where they report the result for what they label the The
Adult Interview Study. Thus what follows is a description of two case studies followed by a
discussion. It should be noted that in the discussion section we will consider extracts from the
rest of this subsample in order to provide support for our interpretation.

273
6.5.1.1 The typical introverted L2 learner
In 2.3.1 we provided definitions of the typical introvert and extravert in terms of
H. J. Eysenck and S. B. Eysenck, (1969:118), whose personality theory is framed within the trait
tradition. Later on in this thesis, we described Oxford and Andersons (1996:208)
conceptualisation of the traits of introversion and extraversion types on the basis of the work of
C. Jung (see 2.4.2.2). In a nutshell, then, typical introverts are passive, careful, thoughtful,
reflective, controlled, peaceful, reliable, even-tempered, and calm. From a pedagogical view they
prefer to work alone or else in pairs with a classmate they know well. They do not like
continuous group work in the language classroom, but they can work on something for a long
time uninterruptedly in quiet locations. Having these personality traits in mind, now we proceed
to describe in detail our first case in the way Naiman et al (1978) did.

Marilia (see Appendix K for full transcription).

Marilia was a fourth-year student and was twenty-three years old at the time of the
interview. She comes from a small town in the Peninsula of Yucatan, Mexico. She has never
been to an English-speaking country, though Belize is just across the border with south-eastern
Mexico. She scored two out of nineteen on the extraversion scale, denoting a high degree of
introversion. Interestingly, she preferred to conduct the interview in Spanish as she said it was
more comfortable for her, though she was a fourth-year student and had quite high VP (24.8/30)
and end-of-semester grade scores (9.30/10), so was proficient enough to deal with the interview
in English. In other words, Marilia can be considered as a typical good language learner. More
importantly, when asked about her personality she overtly said:

R: In general, how do you describe yourself in character, temperament, what adjectives

describe you?
M: I like being at home. I'm not too noisy. I like studying alone. I like walking. But I don't
have many friends; Im not sociable at all. I don't usually go to pubs or discos.
R: Did you answer the personality questionnaire as honestly as possible?
M: Yes.

274
Broadly speaking, Marilia seems to use a variety of strategies for discovering and
consolidating words meaning. She attempts to guess meaning from written context, that is, from
the clues within the sentence in which the word appears (6), 57 from clues within the target words
(2), and from the topic of the reading (7). As she puts it:
R: But, do you pay attention to the context?
M: Yes.
R: And what do you exactly do to guess from context. What do look at?
M: I also relate it to what it's talking about. That helps me a bit.
R: But, do you relate it to the topic?
M: Yes.
R: Only that? Or something else you do?
M: I relate it to the topic.
R: And don't you analyse the word itself? to see if it looks like something or it sounds like
something?
M: Sometimes. There are words that are composed of suffixes and prefixes. Those words
sometimes help me.
R: Are you aware of suffixes and prefixes?
M: Yes.

We asked if somebody taught her how to guess from context and she said that she learned that on
her own because she likes reading a lot in English (but maybe not speaking English), especially
for the undergraduate programme she is enrolled in. Marilia said that she reads a lot in Spanish
as well. Hence, we may suggest that through experience/practice she has developed L1 strategic
competence, which somewhat has encouraged her to attempt guessing meaning from all kind of
contexts in L2 as well. Interestingly, we looked at Marilias responses on the VLS-Q, which she
completed a few weeks after this interview, and found that she highly rated strategies 2, 6 and 7
with number six on the scale (always or nearly true of me). Also, although not elicited via the
interview, we found out through the VLS-Q that she skips over new words hoping to guess
meaning by later written context (8).
Although Marilia may be considered an advanced learner of English she relies heavily on
bilingual dictionaries (10). We had expected her to use monolingual dictionaries (12) rather than
bilingual ones. She reported that she also uses the dictionary because she always wants to know
57

For ease of connection between qualitative and the quantitative parts of our study, numbers in brackets in this
section are used to refer to the specific strategy numbers from the VLS-Q.

275
the new word she meets when she cannot guess its meaning (I look it up in the dictionary
because I don't like having doubts about new words, because I don't understand the context if
don't find the meaning of the word). This statement may be related to her personality traits in
that introverts seem to be worried when uncertainty arises. Interestingly, she checks a variety of
information in the dictionary, for example, the different meanings of a single word (14) as she
described it, and its grammatical category (17). However, it was discovered that she does not pay
attention to pronunciation (15) even though she understands the phonetic symbols because she
took the module on English phonology and phonetics.
In terms of social-discovery strategies, Marilia was found to ask classmates for a words
meaning. Curiously, she said that she rarely asked her teacher for help. We went into more
details and encouraged her to talk about this. Marilia categorically reported:
R: In the classroom, you find a new word and you don't have a dictionary at hand, and you
cannot guess meaning, do you ask somebody?
M: I ask my classmates who know. I ask them for the meaning.
R: Only that? In English or Spanish?
M: In Spanish.
R: Do you ask the teacher?
M: I don't generally ask the teacher.
R: Why?
M: Because... I don't like asking, I prefer to ask my friends or after the class I look it up in the
dictionary.

As noted at the beginning of Marilias personality description, she does not like working in
groups and she only asks classmates that she knows better (typical of an introvert). Also, it
appears that she feels more confident asking classmates for a Spanish translation (19) rather than
an English definition (20). Again, this may be considered as an aspect of her personality in that
asking in L2 would raise her arousal (over-stimulation) level to the extent that she avoids that
whenever possible. Also, using L2 would imply taking risks, which are not generally
characteristic of more introverted learners.
Marilia also reported using several ways of keeping a note of vocabulary items. All in all,
she does not keep a vocabulary notebook (33), but keeps notes on her English notebook (31) and

276
in the margins of the textbook (30) as well. She told us that her close friends usually point out
the fact that her textbook is full of notes. In addition, she does not write down words on index
cards (34) but she writes down words on poster-size sheets of paper (35) and sticks them
somewhere at home.
R: Do you use cards or small pieces of paper?
M: No.
R: What do you do then?
M: Generally, I buy poster-size paper and I stick them on the wall at home. I write down new
words, but I don't write the meaning in English or in Spanish.
R: Why not?
M: Because I feel I will not learn them that way. When I see the wall charts I repeat the words.
Sometimes I test myself on the words, for example, this means this, that means that, etc.

She justifies why she does not often write any other information about the word such as English
definition (39) or translation (38) by arguing that she feels forced to think about all this
information when looking at the words on their own. Interestingly, Marilia does not seem to
organise her notes in a systematic way as she writes them down on her English notebook just as
they appear (52).
Closely related to taking notes, Marilia also reported writing the item several times (56)
when attempting to commit words to memory, i.e. about 20 or 30 times the word alone.58 For this
purpose, she does have a separate notebook, which we suppose is only for practice. Likewise,
she says the word aloud several times when she is alone in her bedroom. In fact, she answered as
follows:
R: Well, let's move on the third part of the interview. What do you do to retain words?
M: I repeat them. I write them down and repeat them. For example, sky, sky, sky, many times,
and I retain them. When I see them in context it is easy to remember them.
In class, for example, if the teacher, I see a word I don't know, I ask a classmate, and she tells
me what it is, at that moment I repeat the word mentally. For example, today I learned a new
word. I didn't know the word widower, which means viudo. I ask my friend Ana for the
meaning. She takes the same course but with a different teacher.
R: So you say that you repeat words, but you don't repeat aloud, do you?
M: Yes, I do.

58

As Scholfield points out, for Ahmed (1998) and others keeping a note of and repeating a world alone was a poor
learner strategy. Here we see it can be a good learner strategy, if the word is used as a prompt to retrieve further
information about the word, not just repeated as a word alone.

277
As can be noted above, Marilia takes advantage of one popular memorisation strategy: verbal
and written repetition. Besides, she seems to associate new words with other related words
already existing in her mental lexicon as in the case of the new word to her widow, and perhaps a
strategy that involves associating the new word with similar words in L1 (66).
R: So you learned the word 'widower' (viudo), what about 'viuda'?
M: Widow.
R: Did you know that?
M: No, I relate it to widower.

More importantly, Marilia appears to have good long-term memory as she says she finds it
relatively easy to memorise vocabulary items once she encounters them and decides to commit
them to memory. She also points out that she tries to relate the words from her wall charts with
something. We further wanted her to explain in more detail what type of associations she uses,
but she found it difficult to do so.
R: Besides repeating, do you have other special ways of memorising words?
M: For example, the words I have in wall charts, I see them and try to associate them with
something.
R: Something like what?
M: [bit silent] like something very related so that I don't forget them, so when I remember this I
could say, 'ah, it means this.'
R: Do you do other things apart from repeating?
M: When I see the word in context, which I also look up in the dictionary, I look at it for a
moment and try to put it in my mind.
R: In the same manner as with the word 'widower,' you will not forget the word?
M: I don't know how to explain. I retained it already, maybe in the way I learned it, that I didn't
know, that my friend told me and that another person said it when giving a presentation.

Thus, Marilia shows a high degree of attention to the words she meets especially when reading,
which is characteristic of more introverted individuals (see E and vigilance in 2.3.2.1). As she
straightforwardly states, from readings and films she manages to remember words seen before to
that extent that she is able to establish links between two words, or even the same word met
several times in different contexts (71). Further, her mind seems to be working on vocabulary
learning so that when doing something else words just come to her mind. This may be reflected

278
in her VLT scores, which placed her within the group of higher VP (even though overall E was
not statistically related to VP).
Finally, in terms of further consolidation strategies, Marilias low degree of extraversion
appears to cause her to work and study alone, especially when preparing for exams. Generally,
L2 learners gather together for such a purpose.
R: When preparing for exams, do you and your friends gather together to study?
M: No, I don't like studying with others; I feel I learn better when alone.

Furthermore, it seems that Marilia prefers writing and reading in English as a way of
consolidating meaning. This may be related to the fact that she does not pay attention to
pronunciation of words. It might also be suggested that the preference for writing to speaking is
consistent with her low degree of extraversion. Finally, contrary to the general assumption about
concentration for studying, she claimed that she can study in a noisy and distracting environment
as she gets so immersed in concentration that she forgets there is somebody else or noise present.
6.5.1.2 The typical extraverted L2 learner
From the point of view of trait theorists such as H. J. Eysenck and his associates, in
general, extraverts are social, outgoing, responsive, lively, talkative, easy-going, and carefree,
and show a high degree of leadership. Also, extraverts like to take risks and/or chances and
frequently act on the spur of the moment. In terms of language learning, extraverts like group
work, enjoy English conversation, role-plays, and other interaction-related activities (Oxford and
Anderson, 1996:208). Again, having this description in mind, we now describe our selected case.

Georgia (see Appendix L for full transcription of interview).

Georgia was a fifth-year student and twenty-three years old at the time of the interview.
In a few months she would be receiving her first degree in English. Like Marilia, she had never

279
been to an English-speaking country. As a selected case, Georgia obtained the maximum score
on the personality questionnaire, ranking her as the most extraverted learner in our sample. This
was corroborated when she was asked to describe herself in terms of personality and also
because she was very cooperative and talkative during the interview, which was done in English.
It should be noted that the content of the interview is presented verbatim (language errors are
kept).
R: Just in general, how do you consider yourself? What adjectives can you apply to yourself?
G: I think I am a very happy person, and I like smiling and to be nice to people. I don't like
some kind of people but I try to smile and know the people. I'm a joker person. I love jokes,
also I like to go out with friends, I like to talk a lot.
R: Are you sociable?
G: I think so. I'm easy-going.
R: You're not shy at all?
G: I don't think so.
R: Did you answer the personality test honestly?
G: Yeah, very honestly.
R: Well, based on your results of the test, you are a very extraverted person.
G: Really? [smiles].

On the receptive vocabulary levels test Georgia received a mean score of eighteen out of thirty
(60 %). Unfortunately, Georgias end-of-semester English grade was not available for the simple
reason that fifth-year learners did not take any English courses as they were more concentrated
on other subject matters such as English literature, English-Spanish-English translation, and
teaching practice. Hence, we are unable to allocate her to any of the English academic
achievement groups; however, based on the interview she may be considered as a moderate
language achiever.
All in all, Georgia reported using a wide range of VLS similar to those used by Marilia,
though some qualitative differences can be spotted. Let us start with guessing strategies. Georgia
claimed that she first attempts to guess the meaning of new words from the context before doing
something else.

280
R: Georgia, what do you do when you find an unfamiliar word and you want to know what it
means and it's not directly explain by the teacher or the textbook; what do you do in order to
figure out its meaning.
G: First, I try to understand according to the reading, or according to the yep... the meaning,
but if I don't understand what the word means, I got into a dictionary to look the word; first a
dictionary English to English, but if I can't understand I go to a dictionary English to Spanish
or Spanish to English.
R: Okay, let's focus on... you said that you try to figure out the meaning by context, just
describe more in detail what you do.
G: I read maybe two or three times, ok the context and I try to relate the word with other words
in the reading, for example. But if I can't understand the context I must go to the dictionary.

She also appears to pay attention to the structure of the new word itself (2), which might not be
characteristic of more extraverted learners as they are generally viewed as more field-dependent
(see 2.3.2.1). Obviously, we cannot generalise this based on a single case study. Also, it should
be recalled that extraversion differences in the use of VLS are reflected in terms of frequency of
use rather than strategy types. Thus, Georgia, as an advanced learner of English, has a high
degree of lexical awareness in that she knows about compounding and derivations.
R: Apart from cognates, do you pay attention to the word, to the single word? [What do you
look at?]
G: Yes, sometimes. For example, what is the meaning of the word? Because sometimes the
word is like a compound or something like that. If I know the meaning I try to analyse what is
the meaning come from.
R: Only compounds? Any other things you analyse in the word? Just the word?
G: It depends, for example, if the word has suffixes or prefixes I know that I must know what
is a suffix or prefix, and according to that I try to understand the meaning with less or more or
something like that.

She also showed some degree of awareness about skipping words when she feels she cannot
guess from all kinds of contexts (9). Other kinds of contexts mentioned by Georgia included
looking at the pictures that accompany the text.
Regarding dictionary use, she mentioned that she owns two monolingual dictionaries
Cambridge and Oxford though she admitted that sometimes the definitions in such dictionaries
do not help her much. Also, there seems to be a contradiction in what she said about dictionaries
in that at the beginning of the interview she reported using a bilingual one. However, asking her
what kind of information she checked in the dictionary may suggest that she relies more on

281
monolingual dictionaries (12), perhaps because of her willingness to take risks as well when
using a monolingual rather than a bilingual dictionary.

R: Okay, you open the dictionary and what information do you check in the dictionary?
G: The meaning of the word, for example, what is the meaning of the word, but I mean when
you put a preposition, sometimes the dictionary has grammar, abbreviations. Also the
pronunciation.
R: What else can you find in the dictionary that may help you improve your vocabulary?
G: Examples about the meaning of the word.
R: Do you use the dictionary to check spelling?
G: Yes, sometimes, right now yeah, because my students ask me a lot of, what is this? Spell
that.
R: Do you use any electronic dictionaries?
G: No, only books.
R: Do you check for single words or expressions?
G: In dictionaries, single words, but I check words that have prepositions, for example.

Interestingly, Georgia appears to pay attention to the information offered by dictionaries. As she
mentioned, the fact that at the time of the interview she had recently begun to teach English
gives her a reason to do so. Perhaps as an inexperienced teacher of English she might not want to
appear foolish in the classroom when her students asked her for the meaning of a word.
Highly consistent with her personality traits, Georgia appears to make extensive use of
social-discovery strategies. Unlike Marilia, she is eager to participate in class and enjoys
working in groups. Incidentally, it would have been interesting to know whether her personality
traits also encourage her as a teacher to promote social-related classroom activities, but this is
beyond the scope of our investigation.
R. Okay, let's move when you are in class. Do you ask others, about meaning or something?
G: My students or my classmates?
R: Your classmates.
G: Yes, I do.
R: What information do you ask, about the word?
G: Only the meaning, and sometimes I know the meaning in English and sometimes how can I
use this word, give me an example.
R: Do you ask the teacher?
G: Yeah, sometimes, most of the... it's like both, I ask my classmates and sometimes my
teacher.

282
Further, Georgia appears to take advantage of her extraversion traits as she does not feel
inhibited when participating in class. In fact, willingness to make mistakes is one of the
characteristics of the good language learner (see 3.1.2.1).
R: Do you participate a lot in class?
G: Yes, I think so [smiles].
R: Do you talk a lot in class?
G: Yeah, I like to talk.
R: Don't you feel, let's say shy?
G: No, I don't think so.
R: I mean, you don't mind about people laughing at your mistakes?
G: No, I don't. Maybe at the beginning yeah, I was like that, but now I don't. I only try to
express my ideas; I know that I have to learn more words.

Something interesting in Georgias learning preferences has to do with the environment. She
showed orientation towards active contexts. In other words, she said she feels anxious in quiet
settings. This corroborates Eysencks work on personality in that extreme extraverts are more
stimulus-hungry. Interestingly, she said she likes parties but in places where she can talk a lot to
people.
A little inconsistent with our expectations is the fact that Georgia does keep a vocabulary
notebook (33), which is not common for advanced learners.59 This might be so because she was
currently teaching at the time of the interview as she overtly reported:
R: Let's move on notes. Do you keep any notes on vocabulary?
G: I have a notebook, especially now that I'm teaching, I have a special notebook, and I write
my words because first I read the lesson and if I find some words I try to look, yeah and write
them if I cant stand them on my head [she means if I cant retain them]
R: What's the name of the coursebook?
G: New Interchange 1 and 2, basic and intermediate.
R: Tell me about the notebook you use to prepare your lesson.
G: Okay, I have a notebook because I have three groups, I write what the exercise is talking
about, the homework, the new words, the new words for me.

59

It may be argued that fifth-year learners completed the VLS-Q in relation to their lesson preparation for teaching
rather than to their own learning strategies. However, Georgia was the exception in this group, which denotes her
willingness to take risks by starting teaching, a characteristic of more extraverted learners. Also Y did not predict the
use of note-taking strategies category and strategy 33, but gender did.

283
In her vocabulary notebook she writes a variety of information covering several aspects of what
is involved in knowing a word. Interestingly, she keeps a note of words that have arisen in class
as a learner and when preparing the lesson for her students.
R: What information do you write down about words? Words you don't know.
G: The meaning and examples.
R: And when your students ask you about vocabulary, what do you do?
G: I try to explain to explain in English what is the meaning of the word, and after that I use
some examples and if they don't get the meaning I try with another example or I ask somebody
in class who can help explain the word.
R: So you write down new words, definitions in English and examples.
G: Yes.
R: When reading here in your lesson, do you write on the text when you don't know the word?
G: Ah yeah, I underline the word and I put like a sign [a star] and word in English.

Thus, she writes meaning plus examples and English definition (39). From the above excerpt, it
seems that she tries to avoid using Spanish translation, which may reflect her own view of
conveying meaning in L2. Also, the use of wordcards seems to decrease as learners continue
with their studies in that Georgia said that she used them in previous English courses, perhaps
encouraged by her teachers at that time.
Briefly, as pointed out repeatedly in this chapter, repetition emerged as a very popular
strategy for committing words to memory, i.e. rote memorisation. In this respect, Georgia
reported saying new words aloud several times (about six or eight times) (54). She claimed that
she used to write down items repeatedly while enrolled in earlier years of study (56). She also
admits that she finds some words difficult to retain. When doing verbal repetition, she says the
word plus ways in which she can use it, i.e. phrases containing it (60). Most importantly, she
claims to relate new words to sounds (63), perhaps meaning linking words to how it sounds. It
should be recalled that extraverted learners were found to use association strategies more often
than introverted ones.

284
R: That's the other part - associations, but tell me about it.
G: I don't know but sometimes I try to relate the word to words in Spanish, and sometimes to a
song, some singers, the TV, oh, those words were on that TV show.
R: Any other associations? For example, relating words to opposites, antonyms, synonyms.
G: Ah yeah, for example empty and full and I try that.
R: Do you associate new words with words in other languages?
G: Yes, sometimes, I do that with Italian.

Although we could not enter into more details about the association strategies, it seems that
Georgia did use them frequently, e.g. relating words to songs, antonyms/synonyms (64), and also
to words from other foreign languages (65). What she said about Italian words makes sense since
there is a close linguistic relationship between Spanish, Italian and French (i.e. Romance
languages).
Finally, we can conclude by reporting that Georgia may be considered as a very active
and lively language learner and with a high degree of instrumental motivation. She knows her
own weaknesses as a language learner and attempts to take advantage of any chances to meet
and practise new words (76, 78).
R: Any other things you do to practise just vocabulary, not grammar?
G: I try to speak. I mean, when I have a new word, or for example the words I know now and
try to speak and speak, whatever kinds of things.
R: And do you practise with foreigners or who do you practise with?
G: I practise with friends, exchange visitors. Sometimes with a friend who is in North Carolina
- he's Mexican. And sometimes he corrects my mistakes.
R: How often do you practise?
G: Everyday I try to speak in English, in the morning, in the afternoon, in my lessons.

This can be confirmed from the further consolidation strategies she claims to use. Again, her
high degree of sociability allows her to speak to native speakers of English without any
inhibition. This trait could also be observed during the interview as she talked more than the
average learner and she decided to have the interview in English. One more advantage is that she
started teaching before finishing her studies. It should be noted that pre-service teachers in our
BA programme are encouraged to start teaching basic English courses, but not all of them apply
for such teaching assistantships. We very tentatively suggest that the practitioners that volunteer
to begin teaching early may be more extraverted that those who do not.

285
6.5.1.3 Discussion of case studies
Having provided a detailed description of the two selected cases from our subsample, we
now proceed to enter into a discussion of some qualitative differences in regard to their use of
VLS and personality. We will include excerpts from other learner interviews in order to support
our discussion. It should be noted that we will concentrate on the three VLS categories, which
were found to be related to extraversion via the VLS questionnaire, that is, social-discovery,
association, and further consolidation strategies.
As described above, Marilia and Georgia are representative of both extremes of the
extraversion continuum. In terms of VP and English academic achievement, they seem to be
different as well. Marilia obtained good grades which place her among good language learners.
Georgia, on the other hand, obtained average grades. Interestingly, Georgia showed more
openness during the interview. If we look at the length of the responses in each case study, we
can detect that Georgia gave extended responses more often than Marilia who required more
prompts from the researcher. Also, the use of L1 and L2 for the interview appeared to be a
function of personality traits, even though both learners may be considered linguistically capable
of being interviewed in English. In fact, most of the fourth- and fifth-year learners (5 out of 6)
preferred the interview in English. More importantly, Anabel, a third-year extraverted learner,
had some problems in expressing something in English as quoted below:
R: Do you pay attention to other things in the dictionary?
A: Yes, like... [she pauses] in some cases its a verb, when its how can I say that in English?
[She asks the researcher]
R: You can switch to Spanish if you want. Okay?
A: Well, when its the the meaning of the word, that word has another usage, like if its a
preposition, and so on, I try to pay attention to all the things that the word means, when that
word is with, before or after a preposition.

As can be observed, although Anabel was reminded about using Spanish during the interview,
she did not switch; on the contrary, she paraphrased what she wanted to say. However, it should
be noted that Israel, an introverted fourth-year learner chose English for the interview. Whether

286
or not most introverted learners would have preferred to conduct interviews in Spanish, then,
remains open to question, and could be investigated in future studies.
In the description of our two case studies, we have pointed out some differences between
Marilia and Georgia as far as use of VLS is concerned. Social-discovery strategies appear to be
preferred more by Georgia, though Marilia also reported using them to a lesser extent. Similarly,
Marilias pattern of behaviour was also found in Nube, who can be regarded as an introvert high
English achiever as well.
R: So, you don't usually ask your classmates for word meaning?
N: No, not even the teacher.
R: Not the teacher?
N: Rarely.
R: Why not?
N: Maybe because I feel embarrassed, because I don't like asking somebody.
R: Do you remember when you last ask the teacher for help?
N: No, I don't remember.

Nube shows a high degree of inhibition, which is a typical characteristic of more introverted
people. Examples like Nubes were detected throughout the interviews with these types of
learners. Cristina, another good introvert English achiever, admitted she had problems in
developing social skills that allow her to freely ask classmates or the teacher for meaning and to
participate in class.

R: When you find a new word, do you ask somebody?

C: Yes, but I don't usually ask.
R: Do you ask the teacher for help?
C: Yes, sometimes
R: Do you ask your classmates?
C: No, I don't rely on my classmates.
R: Do you participate in class?
C: No, that is one of my problems.
R: Can you tell me more about it.
C: Well, I feel embarrassed. I'm afraid of making mistakes, lack of self-confidence.

More extraverted learners, on the other hand, reported great use of social-discovery strategies
along with participation in class. Lucas, for example, claims not to feel embarrassed when asking

287
the teacher for help because that is past tense, meaning that he felt more embarrassed in highschool. We suppose this because he was first-year learner at the time of the interview. Another
extraverted learner, Marina, points out that asking the teachers is not a matter of embarrassment,
but nervousness. In sum, the strategic behaviour shown by Marilia and Georgia seems to be
representative of the rest of the interviewees: extraverts were found to rely more on the use of
social-discovery strategies than introverts. However, it must be recognised that further
investigation should be conducted by using other research instruments, which may help
triangulate the possible outcomes.
The positive relationship between extraversion and use of association strategies appears
not to be clear through the analysis of the interview data as both Marilia and Georgia reported
using them. However, by looking at the other learners responses covering these strategies, we
did find some pattern of strategic behaviour. Let us look at the example of Lucas:
L: I'm very curious about vocabulary. When I see an object or something and I think 'What's
the English for that? How is it pronounced?' This way, imagination comes out.
R: You just said that you relate the words to other words. Tell me more about it.
L: When I make up a sentence I try to use the new word. I try to link it to something I know or
something in the same context.

What Lucas reported above does reflect to some extent his promptness to using association
strategies in that his mind is always active for any opportunity to deal with new L2 vocabulary
and associate it with existing knowledge. The question here would be to see why these apparent
natural strategies are closely related to extraversion as shown in our quantitative analyses.
A more clear-cut difference between Marilia and Georgia is observed regarding further
consolidation strategies. Marilia, though hard-working, does not feel encouraged to look for
opportunities to practise her vocabulary or meet new words thorough social-learning activities.
Georgia, on the other hand, characterised by her high degree of sociability and self-confidence,
appears to get involved in any learning-activities that she feels that she can take advantage of.
Interestingly, similar patterns were observed with the rest of the interviews.

288

R: Who do you practise your vocabulary with?

C: Alone, I speak to myself; sometimes it is difficult to find a person who can practise with me.

As seen above, introvert Cristina again reported practising vocabulary alone trying to justify that
it is not easy to find somebody to practise with. However, this is not a problem for her as she
said she practises alone. Introvert Nube, for example, goes to the Self-Access Centre to watch
videos and above all, to read, i.e. solitary activities. In contrast, more extraverted learners
actively engaged in more social activities such as talking to native speakers of English.
Certainly, such activities promote a high degree of stimulation from which extraverts appear to
benefit.
In summary, we have presented two case studies of two selected language learners
among twenty-five. What we did was to provide some verbatim evidence of their strategic
behaviour in relation to VLS, especially the three main VLS categories that were positively
predicted by extraversion as shown by simple correlations and stepwise MR analysis. Thus we
qualitatively corroborated the relationship between extraversion and social-discovery,
association, and further consolidation strategies. As a caveat, we must admit that through semistructured interviews it is difficult to capture learners actual strategic behaviour regarding VLS.
Also, at the time of the interview we did not have enough empirical evidence of the relationship
between extraversion and VLS use as we conducted the interviews before administering the VLS
questionnaire. Perhaps with some evidence to hand, it would be more productive to probe
learners with even more structured and focused interviews along with other research instruments
such as the think aloud technique plus observation of tasks in which learners are involved in
actual use of VLS.

289
6.6. Summary of the chapter
In this chapter we have attempted to cover in five main sections both the quantitative and
the qualitative aspects of our study. Also, we have described and explained the apparently
limited but real contribution of extraversion to the use of vocabulary learning strategies and to
some language outcomes. At the same time, we have touched on the use of VLS across the
whole sample regardless of the four predictor variables stated in our study. More importantly, we
have considered the contribution of three variables (VP, Y, and G) to the use of VLS in order to
explore the extent to which the role of extraversion in determining VLS changes in their
presence. Thus we think that we have provided a more realistic account of the relationships
between these four variables and VLS use.

290

Chapter 7

Conclusion

This final chapter comprises, among other aspects, the major conclusions of the study,
whose main objective was to explore the relationship between L2 learners degree of
extraversion and the frequency with which they use VLS. It begins with a summary of major
findings, which are considered to present our general conclusions. Next, the limitations of the
investigation are discussed, followed by some suggestions for further research. Finally and more
importantly, some pedagogical implications are drawn.
7.1 Summary of major findings
In chapter six, we have given an account of the results of our investigation in both
quantitative and qualitative terms. At the same time, we have attempted to provide not only a
description and interpretation of the results but also an explanation for them in the spirit of the
work of H. J. Eysenck who included both a descriptive and an explanatory level in his
personality theory. What follows is a summary of the principal findings of our study following
the sequence in which the research questions and hypotheses were presented in 4.6.
1) Use of Vocabulary learning strategies by the whole sample
In this regard, seventeen research questions and four hypotheses were posited without
considering any of the learner variables (see 6.1 for the description of these results). Most of the
significant results were reported via ANOVA with the Bonferroni adjustment test and a few with
t-tests.
Most- and least-frequently used VLS
RQ-1A. What are the most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies?
Using the dictionary to check meaning(s) was the most often used VLS, followed by
writing down the Spanish translation as well as keeping a note of new words on the textbook

291
itself. Other highly-frequently used strategies among these English majors include using
bilingual dictionaries and using dictionaries to check examples and fixed expressions in them.
Guessing meaning from textual context and finding opportunities to meet new words were
ranked among the top ten strategies. In addition, repeating the word silently and associating L2
words to L1 words emerged as most frequently used VLS. Finally, as to be expected of would-be
teachers, our learners also reported writing English definitions for a new L2 word with high
frequency.
The least frequently used VLS was recording new words on audiocassettes. A similar
pattern was observed regarding keeping notes on computer or any other electronic devices, using
electronic dictionaries (i.e. handheld translators), and using web-based dictionaries. Also,
learners do not seem to use poster-size sheets of paper much to write down new vocabulary
items. Interestingly, several VLS within the category of note-taking were ranked low by the
learners writing down the contextual reference of the word, attaching drawings and pictures to
new words, classifying words by part of speech and in alphabetical order. Lastly, learners
reported low-frequent use of repetition of the spelling of the word either silently or aloud. This
makes sense as learners normally say the word as a whole rather than its spelling letter by letter,
unless the main purpose is to consolidate its written form.

Frequency of use in VLS categories

RQ-1B. What are the most and least frequently used VLS categories?
The 78-item VLS-Q comprises eight strategy categories. The most frequently used VLS
category was guessing strategies (mean = 4.15). Note-taking strategies, on the other hand, were
the least frequently used category (mean = 3.22). Dictionary-use strategies were the second most
used category. An interesting frequency pattern was observed among social-discovery, further
consolidation, and skipping strategies in that they had a similar frequency rating (means = 3.88,

292
3.87 and 3.80). This means that there were not many significant differences between categories,
except for guessing strategies as compared with note-taking strategies, dictionary-use strategies
and association strategies, and so on (F(7, 875) = 15.628, p < 0.001).

RH-1A. Repetition strategies are more frequently used than association strategies.
This hypothesis was not statistically supported. The results from the questionnaire data
showed that L2 learners use both repetition and association strategies as categories with similar
frequency (t = 0.142, df = 144, p = n.s. (without Bonferroni adjustment)). As suggested in 6.1.2,
the nature of the undergraduate programme might have been a factor in such a result.

Frequency of use within VLS categories

Category 1. Guessing strategies
RQ-1C. What type of guessing is most- and least-frequently used?
All in all, a significant difference was observed among the VLS in this category (F(6, 876)
= 39.408, p < 0.001). Thus, guessing meaning from the written context emerged as the most
frequent type of guessing used by all learners (mean = 4.89). On the other hand, guessing
meaning by the sound of the word was rated as the least frequently used type of guessing (2.8), p
< 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment. Learners also claimed to use other types of guessing with
moderate and similar frequency guessing meaning by looking at pictures in the text and
analysing the words part of speech (means = 4.28 and 4.22); checking for cognates and
analysing a words structure (mean = 4.16 for both). Interestingly, guessing meaning by the topic
of the reading (mean = 4.54) appeared to be rated as highly as guessing meaning from the written
the context (mean = 4.89), but significant differences were observed favouring the latter (p <
0.002) with the Bonferroni test.

293
Category 2. Skipping strategies
RQ-1D. Are there any differences between skipping new words only and skipping new words
with subsequent guessing attempt?
A paired-sample t-test revealed a significant difference between these two types of
skipping (t = 8.61, df = 147, p < 0.001). In other words, learners claimed to skip over new words
and attempt to guess meaning by delayed context more frequently than skip over new words only
(means = 4.49 vs. 3.10). This means that learners appear to be conscious about new words,
which they consider important and thus bear them in mind for later guessing.

Category 3. Dictionary use strategies

RH-1B. Bilingual dictionaries are more frequently used by all learners than monolingual
dictionaries.
RH-1C. Electronic dictionaries and internet-based dictionaries are the least frequently used
vocabulary reference works.

These hypotheses were statistically confirmed. In fact, significant differences were

observed among the four types of dictionaries via one-way within-subjects ANOVA (F(3, 438) =
169.076, p < 0.001). The Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons was performed to
check for valid significant differences. Learners reported using bilingual dictionaries more
frequently than monolingual dictionaries (p < 0.001), than internet-based strategies (p < 0.001),
and than pocket electronic dictionaries (p < 0.001). Also, a significant difference was observed
between these two least frequently used dictionaries (p < 0.002), favouring internet-based
dictionaries.

294

RQ-1E. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information are looked up
in the dictionary?
The ANOVA results showed a significant difference in the use of these strategies (F(4, 588)
= 24.593, p < 0.001). Thus, in order of frequency learners claim to use dictionaries to check (1)
meaning(s), (2) examples and fixed expressions, (3) spelling, (4) pronunciation, and (5) part of
speech. However, no significant differences were found between (1) and (2) (p = n.s.), hence we
can conclude that learners frequently focus on meaning and examples and fixed expressions
when using dictionaries. Interestingly, these five strategies were rated above 4 on the 1-6 scale.
Category 4. Social discovery strategies
RQ-1F. What type of person is the most and least frequently asked for information about new
words?
Three general types of person were selected for analysis: asking classmates, asking
teachers, and asking native speakers. A significant difference was found in the frequency with
which learners ask these three types of person for information about a word (F(2, 292) = 21.920, p
< 0.001). More specific results showed that learners tend to ask the teacher for information about
words more frequently than other learners (p < 0.001) and than native speakers (p < 0.001) with
the Bonferroni test. Also it was found that learners ask native speakers for information about a
word very infrequently, a result that makes sense in their EFL environment. What seems unusual
is that no differences were observed between these two social strategies (p = n.s.). This means
that learners rely heavily on the teacher as a source of information.

295
RQ-1G. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners ask the teacher for
translation and English definition?
RQ-1H. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners ask other classmates for
translation and English definition?

One-way within subjects ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the use of these
four strategies (F

(3, 444)

= 9.584, p < 0.001). However, it was found that learners did not differ

significantly in whether they ask teachers for a Spanish translation or English definition (p =
n.s.). Interestingly, both strategies were highly used. Learners significantly differed when asking
classmates, friends, and relatives for both types of information, that is, they tend to ask for a
translation more often than English definitions presumably because they do not trust any of them
to give correct English information (p < 0.001, with the Bonferroni test). Further comparisons
revealed when asking for an English definition learners resorted more frequently to teachers than
to other classmates (p < 0.001, with the Bonferroni test), a finding which seems logical.
However, when asking for an L1 translation both to teachers and classmates, no differences were
detected (p = n.s.).

RQ-1I. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information about new
words are requested?
ANOVA showed an overall significant difference in the kind of information that learners
request about new words (F(5, 730) = 11.392, p < 0.001). Descriptively, the results showed that
these English-major learners ask for the following in order of frequency: (1) the words use, (2)
spelling and pronunciation, (3) English definition, (4) example sentences, (5) Spanish translation,
(6) the grammar of the word. Strategy (1) differed significantly from (2), hence, the latter is the
most frequently asked type of information (p < 0.010, with Bonferroni adjustment). Interestingly,
the first five information-related strategies are requested from the teacher.

296
Category 5. Note-taking strategies
RQ-1J. What is the most and least frequent place for keeping a note of new words?
Eight mean frequency ratings were subjected to analysis showing an overall significant
difference (F(7, 1015) = 144.638, p < 0.001). Keeping a note of new words in the margins of the
textbook and writing them on the English-course notebook emerged as the most frequent placerelated note-taking strategies because their mean frequency rating did not differ significantly (p =
n.s.). By contrast, learners reported recording words on tapes and keeping words in electronic
devices very infrequently. Again, these are the least frequent place-related note-taking strategies
because of the non-significant differences (p = n.s.). In fact, they also appeared among the ten
least frequently used VLS.

RQ-1K. What is the order of frequency with which different kinds of information about new
words are written down?
RQ-1L. Are there any differences in the frequency with which learners write down words with
Spanish translation and with English definition?
The results showed the following frequency order with which learners write down
information about new words (F(9, 1332) = 74.634, p < 0.001): (1) Spanish translation, (2) English
definition, (3) example sentences, (4) pronunciation, (5) contextual/situational use, (6)
antonyms/synonyms, (7) grammatical/syntactic behaviour of the word, (8) part of speech, (9)
drawings/pictures, and (10) contextual reference. No significant differences were observed
between (1) and (2) (p = n.s., with the Bonferroni test), suggesting that learners use both VLS
with similar frequency, perhaps due to the nature of the learners English major. Likewise, this
finding answers research question 1L. In fact, these two strategies were rated among the top-ten
VLS. On the other hand, the least frequent information-related note-taking strategies are (9) and
(10) since no significant differences were observed (p = n.s., with the Bonferroni test).

297

RQ-1M. What is the most and least frequent way of organising notes about new words?
In terms of ways of organising notes, ANOVA showed an overall significant difference
(F(5, 740) = 98.028, p < 0.001). More specifically, learners do not seem to worry much about the
way they organise their vocabulary notes as they reported highlighting new words (presumably
where they appear) and writing down new items in the order they appear (mostly in textbooks or
English notebooks as seen above). By contrast, the least frequent ways of organising vocabulary
notes include alphabetical order and by grammatical category, which makes sense because they
demand a higher degree of organisation. These two pairs of strategies were selected to answer
this research question because no significant differences were detected in each pair (p = n.s.,
with the Bonferroni adjustment).

Category 6. Repetition strategies

RQ-1N. What type of repetition is most and least frequently used?
ANOVA revealed a significant difference among the four modes of repetition (F(3, 444) =
73.911, p < 0.001). The most frequently used mode of repetition involved saying the word
silently and repeatedly either alone or plus some other information. Its relatively high mean
frequency rating also ranked among the top-ten most used VLS. This strategy differed
significantly from saying the word aloud repeatedly (p < 0.043 with Bonferroni adjustment).
Listening to tape-recorded words repeatedly emerged as the least use mode of repetition, which
differed significantly from writing the word several times (p < 0.001 with Bonferroni
adjustment).

RQ-1O. What information about new words is most and least handled repeatedly?

298
To answer this question we put five VLS together which described several types of
information handled repeatedly. Again an overall significant difference was observed via
ANOVA (F(4, 592) = 44.316, p < 0.001). More specifically, it was found that learners most prefer
to say the word alone, presumably silently or aloud (p < 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment). In
contrast, repeating the spelling of the word (letter by letter, silently or aloud) appears to be the
least frequently used repetition strategy of this type (p < 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment).
Learners also reported repeating words along with examples, with English definition, and with
L1 translation, in fact above the midpoint of the scale. As pointed out above (RH-1A), no
significant differences were observed between repetition and association strategies.
Category 7. Association strategies
RQ-1P. What type of association is most frequently used?
RH-1D. The Keyword Method is the least-frequently used association strategy.

An overall significant difference was found among the 12 types of association strategies
(F(11, 1606) = 43.725, p < 0.001). As no significant differences were detected among the four most
frequently used association strategies (p = n.s., with the Bonferroni test), we find it difficult to
provide a conclusive result. Hence, we can say that associating words with cognates and with the
situational use visualising the form or the meaning of new words are the types of associations
that L2 learners claimed to generate with high frequency. On the other hand, using the KM and
relating new words to L3/L4 words emerged as the least frequently used types of association (p =
n.s., with the Bonferroni test),

Thus we confirm RH-D1, a hypothesis supported by the

literature, and especially by our preliminary study.

299
Category 8. Further-consolidation strategies
RQ-1Q. What type of further-consolidation strategies are most and least frequently used?
Four types of further-consolidation strategies were arranged together for analysis,
showing a significant difference (F(3, 444) = 66.286, p < 0.001). Looking for opportunities to meet
new words ranked first in this category, which differed from using new words in conversation
and writing (p < 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment). This very popular strategy was ranked 7th in
the 78 VLS, and 3rd in our preliminary study in which most of the learners reported using it. The
most infrequent FCS involves testing their vocabulary with other learners or testing themselves
(p < 0.001 with Bonferroni adjustment), which differed significantly from making up imagined
conversations in English. It can be suggested that the low rating for the former might have been
affected by the meaning of testing, which may mean formal testing to these learners.
2. Extraversion and English academic achievement and vocabulary proficiency
Two hypotheses were formulated concerning the relationship between extraversion and
English academic achievement and extraversion and receptive vocabulary proficiency:
RH-2A. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English academic
achievement as measured by end-of-semester grades.
RH-2B. There is a negative relationship between extraversion and English receptive vocabulary
as measured by the Vocabulary Levels Test.

As seen in 6.2.1, the results showed a negative relationship between learners degree of
extraversion and their end-of-semester English grades (r = - 0.22, n = 136, p < 0.01, two-tailed),
suggesting that introverts may be better achievers than extraverts. Nonetheless, no relationship
was observed between learners degree of extraversion and their scores on the Vocabulary

300
Levels Test (r = 0.022, n = 150, p = n.s., two-tailed), meaning that learners with large or small
receptive vocabulary proficiency may be either introverts or extraverts.

3. Extraversion and the use of vocabulary learning strategies

Seventeen research questions and ten hypotheses were posed in order to look into the
relationship between learners degree of extraversion and their use of VLS, which were
considered in terms of overall strategy use, strategy categories, and separate strategies. As
explained in 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, extraversion was found to be statistically related to a certain number
of strategies, which will be summarised into these three main strategy areas. Also, for reasons of
space, we do not intend to dwell much on the non-significant results; instead, we will list them
accordingly.

(i) Extraversion and overall use of VLS

RQ-3A. Is there is a relationship between the degree of extraversion and overall use of
vocabulary learning strategies?
In order to answer this research question, we correlated scores on the extraversion scale
with the total mean ratings of the seventy-eight questionnaire items. The results indicated a
positive relationship between extraversion and overall VLS use (r = 0.174, n = 150, p < 0.033,
two tailed). This suggests that extraverted learners appear to use VLS more frequently than
introverted learners; put another way, the more extraverted the L2 learner the more use of VLS
as a whole (see 6.3.1).

(ii) Extraversion and the use of VLS in categories

It should be recalled that the VLS questionnaire includes eight different VLS categories,
whose separate strategies were logically arranged into guessing strategies, skipping strategies,

301
dictionary use strategies, social-discovery strategies, note-taking strategies, repetition strategies,
association strategies, and further consolidation strategies. For each category mean scores were
computed.
The results showed positive relationships between learners degree of extraversion and
their use of social-discovery strategies (RH-3A, r = 0.251, n = 147 p < 0.002), association
strategies (RH-3, r = 0.232, n = 147 p < 0.005), and further consolidation strategies (RH-3H, r =
0.296, n = 147 p < 0.001). This means that more extraverted learners are inclined to use these
strategies more than less extraverted learners (i.e. more introverted learners). Thus, our three
hypotheses about extraversion and these three VLS categories were confirmed. However, no
relationship was found between extraversion and guessing strategies (RQ-3B, r = 0.038, n = 147
p = n.s.), skipping (RQ3-G, r = - 0.070, n = 148 p = n.s.), dictionary use strategies (RQ-3H, r =
0.059, n = 145 p = n.s.), note-taking strategies (RQ-3K, r = 0.033, n = 144 p = n.s.), and
repetition strategies (RQ-3O, r = 0.070, n = 147 p = n.s.).

(iii) Extraversion and the use of individual VLS

Simple correlations were run between extraversion scores and ratings of seventy-eight
separate VLS. Positive relationships were found between extraversion and use of eleven specific
strategies (see 6.3.2). As expected, the strategies belonged to the three VLS categories described
above. Thus extraversion correlated with four social-discovery strategies, four association
strategies, and three further consolidation strategies.
However, it should be noted that not all the hypotheses regarding extraversion and
individual social-discovery strategies were fully confirmed. For example, RH-3D was not
supported as none of the significant results emerged for asking native speakers. RH-3C was
partially confirmed as extraverts reported asking the teacher for English definition (r = 0.278, n =
150, p < 0.001), for a words use (r = 0.188, n = 150, p < 0.021), for the grammatical category of

302
the word (r = 0.169, n = 150, p < 0.039). Similarly, RH-3B was partially supported but to a lesser
degree

than

RH-3C

because

one

type

of

information

requested

from

other

learners/friends/relatives reached the significant level i.e., asking for an English definition (r =
0.167, n = 149, p < 0.042, two-tailed).
It is worth noting that three individual social-discovery strategies almost reach the
required .05 significance level in relation to extraversion. These were asking native speakers for
an English definition (r = 0.155, n = 149, p < 0.058), and asking the teacher for an example
sentence (r = 0.140, n = 150, p < 0.089 and for spelling/pronunciation (r = 0.156, n = 149 p <
0.057), which more or less support the above hypotheses.
As to the two hypotheses about individual association strategies, RH-3F was partially
supported as a significant level was reached in relating new words to L2 words with similar
sounds (r = 0.167, n = 150, p < 0.041), relating words to antonyms/synonyms (r = 0.224, n =
150, p < 0.006), associating words with semantically-related words (r = 0.223, n = 150, p <
0.006), and thinking of affixes for the new word (r = 0.203, n = 150, p < 0.013), which together
involve associations in L2. RH-3G, on the other hand, was not statistically confirmed as none of
the associations involving non-linguistic clues reached the significance level, for example,
associating new words with physical actions ( r = 0.10, n = 150, p = n.s.).
Furthermore, the two hypotheses concerning individual further-consolidation strategies
were supported. A positive relationship was found between extraversion and the strategy of
looking for opportunities to meet new words (RH-3I, r = 0.216, n = 150, p < 0.008) as well as
between extraversion and the frequency with which learners practise newly-learned words both
in real (r = 0.181, n = 149, p < 0.027) and imaginary situations (r = 0.306, n = 150, p < 0.001).
The strategy of quizzing on vocabulary alone or in groups almost reached the significance level
(r = 0.144, n = 150, p < 0.079).

303
Finally, no significant relationships were observed regarding extraversion and the use the
individual strategies subsumed under the categories mentioned in (ii) above, findings that answer
the rest of the research questions: for guessing (RQ-3C to RQ-3F0, for dictionary use (RQ-3I and
RQ-3J) for note-taking (RQ-3L to RQ-3N) and for repetition (RQ-3P and RQ-3Q). However,
some of these relationships were nearly significant, for example, extraversion and write new
word on vocabulary notebooks (r = - 0.139, n = 148, p < 0.092), a finding that more or less
supports the idea of introverts tendency to this strategy (see 6.3.3 for further details).
4. The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of VLS: overall, as categories, and
individually.

In order to provide a more realistic picture of the relationship between extraversion and
use of VLS, we considered other variables inherent in L2 learners such as vocabulary, university
year of study, and gender. Thus, we aimed to explore the nature of such a relationship and how
extraversion contributes in the presence of other learner factors as stated in the following
research question:
RQ-4 What is the relative contribution of extraversion, university year of study, gender and
vocabulary proficiency to the use of vocabulary learning strategies?
As explained in 5.4, we made use of stepwise MR analysis in which E, VP, Y, and G
were entered as predictor variables and VLS as criterion variables as an overall means, in
categories, and as separate variables (see 6.4). All in all, overall use of VLS was statistically and
hierarchically predicted by learners year and extraversion. In terms of VLS categories, Y alone
predicted the use of guessing strategies, skipping strategies. G, on the other hand, accounted for
the use of note-taking strategies. Two predictor models also emerged as in the case of E and Y
when explaining the use of social-discovery strategies and association strategies; E and VP when
predicting the use of further consolidation strategies. Another dual model was that of VP and G

304
that accounted for dictionary use strategies. Nonetheless, the use of repetition strategies was not
explained by any of our four predictor variables.
The stepwise MR analysis of separate VLS showed that VP emerged as the most frequent
predictor of separate VLS (twenty-five items), followed by Y (thirteen items). E and G were the
least frequent predictors of VLS with only eleven items each (see Appendix M for a table
showing this in more detail). More importantly, E, our variable of main interest, remained as a
good predictor of VLS use with a similar pattern as shown in simple correlations. In some
instances, E emerged hierarchically as a better predictor in the model, whereas in others E was
placed second. In some others, E did not emerge as a predictor, as in the case of individual
guessing, skipping, dictionary use, note-taking, and repetition strategies. Similarly, Wakamoto
(2000) found only 16 significant relationships between extraversion and language learning
strategies. In short, it can be suggested that VP was as expected, the main predictor of VLS use;
however, it may be possible to think that some VLS also contribute to L2 vocabulary acquisition,
but this aspect was beyond the scope of this thesis.

5. Qualitative differences between introverted and extraverted learners of English in VLS

use
This is the brief qualitative component of our thesis. In 6.5 we saw that there are some
differences between introverts and extraverts in the use of social-discovery, association, and
further consolidation strategies. Certainly, these qualitative results provide some support for the
findings obtained via the VLS questionnaire in our quantitative component of the thesis. As
pointed out in 6.5.1.3, the interviews should have focused more on specific parts where
extraversion was found to be more related to VLS use. However, at the time when the interviews
were conducted we were not aware of the key areas of VLS because they took place before
learners completed the VLQ-Q, in order to avoid any sort of interview bias from a prior

305
questionnaire. Now that we know where the VLS frequency differences are between Es and Is, in
our further research interviews will be focused on such differences (i.e. asking for frequencies of
VLS use rather than eliciting whether they use a given strategy or not). We emphasise this
because the relationship between extraversion and the number of VLS was not significant for the
whole sample (r = 0.137, n = 150, p = n.s.).

7.2 General conclusions

Now that we have presented a summary of the major findings of our investigation, we
can briefly recapitulate them in the form of general conclusions. All in all, extraversion, our
variable of main interest, plays an important role in the use of VLS, within both the social and
cognitive domains, and both discovery and consolidation phases. Interestingly, H. J. Eysenck
considered them in his personality theory (see 2.1). Thus, what others called practice strategies
appeared to be explained by extraversion as in the case of looking for opportunities to meet and
practise new vocabulary items (see Ahmed, 1988 in 3.3.4). Nevertheless, this does not mean
precisely that less extraverted learners may not show a strong willingness to learn L2 vocabulary,
rather, they may have similar goals but they may opt for other strategies requiring lower levels of
arousability, for example, preferring reading to meeting people and repetition to associations.
More importantly, by considering the above aspects and both the quantitative and
qualitative results, we may conclude that L2 learners degree of extraversion accounts for the use
of (1) social-discovery strategies, (2) association strategies, and (3) further-consolidation
strategies. Nonetheless, the question still remains partially unanswered from an explanatory
perspective: why do more extraverted L2 learners appear to use VLS more frequently than less
extraverted ones? In chapter six, we provided some explanations of this major finding; however,
we have to admit that these explanations were somewhat speculative due to, in part, the lack of
research in this specific realm. These can be summarised as follows:

306
1. The positive relationship between extraversion and overall use of VLS can be explained
on the basis of L2 learners personality traits (see 2.3.1, 2.4.2.2, 6.4). Firstly, it seems that
more extraverted learners engage in more learning activities so as to generate higher
levels of stimulation and excitement more frequently than do less extraverted learners.
Secondly, this overall relationship may lead us to suggest that extraverts might need more
strategies to compensate, for example, for their disadvantage in long-term memory,
which seems to be essential in L2 vocabulary learning. Thirdly, it could also be the case
that more extraverted learners use VLS overall more frequently than introverted learners
simply because the nature of their personality allows them to do so naturally in the three
categories where we found a difference (see below).
2. The positive relationship between extraversion and the use of social-discovery strategies
seems easier to explain, obviously from the social point of view. As expected, more
extraverted learners reported using such strategies more often than less extraverted
learners. Again, the social-related traits inherent in extraverts (e.g. liveliness, sociability)
appear to enable them to naturally make use of these strategies. Psychologically
speaking, we can suggest that extraverted learners, who are normally under-aroused, are
moved by a need for places and situations with high levels of arousability. It is no
coincidence that extraverts are considered stimulus-hungry, whereas introverts are seen
as stimulus-shy.
3. The positive relationship between extraversion and association strategies seems to
reinforce the view held by cognitive psychologists that extraversion is associated with
memory (see 2.3.2.1). Extraversion has been found to be negatively related to long-term
memory, giving rise to the suggestion that it is more introverted learners who are better at
LTM, whereas more extraverted learners do more successfully in tasks involving STM.
Hence naturally it would be association strategies that were rated more frequently used

307
by more extraverted learners. Nevertheless, it should be admitted that we also thought
that more introverted learners would engage in VLS strategies characterised by deeper
levels of processing, whilst more extraverted learners would do the opposite. Still,
extraverts have been found to produce faster associations in L1 than introverts. This
finding, in a way, supports our interpretation of the results of association strategies as a
possible function of extraversion. Further, it can be suggested that since association
involves generating more internal, cognitive stimulation in the mind than repetition it is
generally preferred by extraverts and avoided by introverts.
4. The positive relationship between extraversion and further consolidation strategies can
also be explained on the basis of the personality traits of L2 learners. As suggested above,
what can be seen as a need for social and cognitive stimulation might trigger a more
frequent use of VLS involving personal contact with L2 speakers. Put another way,
extraverts may engage in consolidation strategies such as practising vocabulary in reallife situations and making up imagined conversations, which lead us to interpret this in
terms of both cognitive and social processes.

We have briefly recapitulated the nature of the relationship between extraversion and
VLS (the focus-on-process aspect) as obtained via learner questionnaires and interviews. Now
we move on to discuss the relationship between extraversion and L2 outcomes (the focus-onproduct aspect). We found that extraversion correlated negatively with end-of-semester English
scores (CALP-oriented measures), suggesting that successful achievers were less extraverted
despite the fact that classroom participation was included in this measure, a feature which should
have favoured extraverts. We also stated that this result was in line with the literature on
extraversion and general academic achievement at levels above primary school. Unexpectedly,
we did not find any statistical relationship between extraversion and scores on the VLT. This

308
means that good and poor lexical achievers were either more introverted or more extraverted
learners. The typical question here would be, why do introverted and extraverted learners not
differ in terms of receptive VP but in some VLS? What can be suggested here is that as far as
vocabulary is concerned, learners may take different routes for learning or they may take similar
routes but with different frequency. This can also be explained on the basis of introverts and
extraverts strategic investment as supported by the learner interview data. Again, the question
was partially answered, but further research is warranted using other research instruments.
Regarding the role of the other three learner variables in predicting the frequency with
which L2 learners use VLS, it was VP that turned out to be the most recurrent predictor variable
in comparison with E, YS, and G. VP was a predictor of 25 strategies followed by Y that
explained 13 separate VLS. E and G, on the other hand, determine the use of 11 strategies each
(see Appendix M). As a matter of fact, Wakamoto (2000) found 8 significant relationships
between extraversion and LLS among Japanese learners of English with the 50-item version of
the SILL. Gu and Johnson (1996), on the other hand, found that vocabulary scores were
predicted by an array of VLS just as scores of VP accounted for the use of 25 VLS in our study.
Interestingly, this means that once we know our learners VP scores, we can statistically predict
how frequently they will use certain VLS.
As stated previously, Y emerged as a predictor of at least 13 VLS, generally suggesting
more use of VLS across higher years of study. Perhaps the low number of occurrences in which
Y plays the role of predictor variable was due to the fact that MR deals with linear relationships
only. It may have been the case that some further differences could have been spotted via
ANOVA; for example, in the use bilingual dictionaries (strategy 10) we might have expected to
find differences between learners across university year of study (first year vs. fifth year).
Another reason could be the fact that MR omitted Y from the model sometimes because it
correlated highly with VP but was a weaker predictor of VLS than VP when considered together

309
in a MR predictor model. However, with the limitation to linear relationships, Y did predict the
frequency with which L2 learners use guessing and skipping, and social strategies as VLS
categories. Finally, like E, G appeared to determine the use of 11 VLS as well. As suggested in
the literature, female learners reported using certain strategies more frequently than male
learners, especially in the area of note-taking and dictionary use strategies. Incidentally, we did
not find any significant gender differences in relation to scores on the VLT and end-of-semester
English grades. Again, it can be suggested that women might take different vocabulary learning
routes or might adopt the same VLS but with more investment than men as shown via the
questionnaire ratings. However, it should be noted that further research needs to be done in order
to arrive at more precise interpretations.
Last but not least, we also attempted to provide an overall picture of the use of VLS
among all the learners as a single group. In the preliminary study (see chapter 5), and in the main
study (see 4.5 and 6.1), we found that English-major learners reported a high frequent use of a
range of VLS. We also suggested that perhaps the nature of the undergraduate programme and
the teaching methods might have played a role in encouraging learners to use VLS with such a
frequency. It might have been possible that the constraints of the EFL environment turned out to
be a factor as well. In other words, learners may attempt to compensate for this disadvantage by
making the most of the few opportunities to deal with L2 vocabulary in real-life situations.
In sum, we have recapitulated the major results of our investigation, especially those
concerned with the relationship between extraversion and the use of VLS. Surprisingly, it was
more extraverted learners that reported higher frequency use of vocabulary strategies, perhaps
influenced by their own personality traits. Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that
extraversion was not the only and the best predictor of VLS use as reported above. Furthermore,
it should be considered that in other studies an array of both situational and learner factors have
been found to account for the use of LLS, and VLS may not be the exception.

310
7.3 Limitations of the study
Generally speaking, studies are never free from shortcomings and obviously our
investigation is no exception. The limitations of our study are mostly concerned with the
research instruments used for collecting personality and strategy data, with the statistical
methods used, possibly with the selection of subjects, with the apparent weak relationship
uncovered between extraversion and VLS use, and with the nature of the VP-VLS relationship.

1. Although the main instrument for gathering the strategy data was the VLS questionnaire,
we attempted to incorporate a qualitative account via learner interviews. Despite these
attempts, we feel that other methods for collecting actual strategy data would have made
our study more robust in depicting what learners really do when learning vocabulary. The
drawbacks of both structured questionnaires and semi-structured interviews have been
documented in the literature (Seliger and Shohamy, 1989; OMalley and Chamot, 1990;
Cohen, 1998). Perhaps it would have been more enriching to include some classroom
observation in order to capture the extent to which both introverted and extraverted
learners use social-discovery strategies or any other observable behaviour such as using
dictionaries. As Cohen (1998:33) points out, external observational records may help to
lend a more impartial, objective perspective to the research study, rather than having the
study rely solely on data provided by learners. Another highly-reliable research method
that would have captured actual use of VLS is think aloud, which aims to discover the
nature of cognitive processes that learners engaged in when competing a task. In our
study, think-aloud would have been useful to explore how introverts and extraverts
actually use guessing, skipping, dictionary-use, and memorisation strategies. Also, these
other methods might have enabled light to be thrown on success of strategy use, but

311
clearly for pedagogical usefulness it is more helpful to know how extraversion affects
success of VLS use, not just amount of VLS use.
2. We devoted chapter two to the personality domain of our study, which was framed within
Eysencks personality theory. By the same token, we used one of his personality
inventories in order to obtain psychometric measures of our learners. However, in the
few studies on personality and use of LLS other personality tests have been used,
especially the Myers-Brigg Type Indicator (MBTI) in Ehrman and Oxford (1989; 1990)
Oxford and Ehrman (1995), and Wakamoto (2000). Hence, perhaps it would have been
more useful to use the MBTI in combination with the EPQ-R in order to triangulate our
learners scores on extraversion, even though the MBTI is more oriented to uncover
personality types rather than traits. This does not mean, however, that we doubt the
validity and reliability of the EPQ-R as Naiman et al (1978) did when they obtained very
low correlations between the extraversion scale of the EPI and some language measures.
Furthermore, the learner interviews should have included not only use of VLS but also a
discussion of the results of the EPQ-R so as to conjoin strategic behaviour with
personality traits. Thus, we could have made the interviews more sensitive to the
relationship between extraversion and VLS use.
3.

The selected statistical procedures used might be considered as a weakness of the study.
We relied on stepwise MR analysis and simple correlations as the main statistical
techniques to explore the relationship between extraversion and VLS use as well as the
contribution of extraversion, vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender
to VLS use (two continuous and two categorical variables). The possible problems with
these statistical procedures may lie (a) in the fact that we necessarily treated the
categorical variables of G and Y as continuous ones, though this is routinely done in MR
studies and (b) that since these statistics are linear, we were not able to detect any non-

312
linear relationships and (c) that with MR we could not detect instances where our
explanatory/predictor variables may have had any interactive effect on VLS use. Use of
ANOVA would have taken care of these problems but raised different/worse ones of its
own, in that it is less easy to accommodate our key non-categorical factors (E and VLS)
in ANOVA, and that dealing with four factors and their interactions generates an
enormously complicated analysis that would be exceedingly difficult to interpret and
present clearly. Probably, the most important factor which our data may have slightly
misrepresented is with respect to the Y variable which did not always relate linearly with
others as the graphs show in 6.4. However, we have dealt with this by drawing attention
to it in the relevant places. Anyhow, on balance, we think MR did provide a useful
analysis of the nature of the relationships of these four variables and VLS use.
4. The selection of the subjects of our study may have some disadvantages. It should be
recalled that all the participants were students enrolled in an English-major. Hence, it can
be argued that this limits our ability to generalise our findings to students in general and
to other universities in Mexico. Typically, English majors seem to have some kind of
advantage over other non-English majors in several ways, especially in the case of
awareness and use of VLS. It should be mentioned that some of the students were
already functioning themselves as teachers which may have affected results as this is
not typical of all university students learning English. Perhaps it would have been better
to include a random sample of learners from other majors in order to address this
apparent shortcoming. Anyhow, the generalisation suggested in the study can still be
applicable to the different English-related undergraduate programmes all over Mexico.
5. The apparent low correlation coefficients and beta values obtained between extraversion
and the use of VLS might be viewed as a weakness of the study. In other words, it seems
that even when the relationship is significant, extraversion statistically explains very little

313
about the use of VLS. Nevertheless, in studies of personality, especially done by trait
theorists, such low correlations have routinely been obtained to such an extent that it has
become the main criticism on description of personality in terms of traits within the
individual. However, maybe this is just how relationships involving personality variables
are, so we cannot complain. Still perhaps, in our study, we could in a number of items
have made the VLS-Q more sensitive to personality-related traits by more careful
wording. For example, item 75 of the VLS-Q should have been worded as I test myself
on the new words that I intended to consolidate and I have others test me on
vocabulary, instead of I test myself or have others test me on new words. For the
purpose of finding out about general VLS, this item would have not presented any
problems, but for our purposes, it was flawed by being a double-barrelled item which
combined features which might separately been characteristic of introverted and
extraverted learners. In fact, items such as 75 and 76 were each a combination of two
other strategies so as to have a more compact VLS-Q but this did risk the sensitivity of
the questionnaire towards personality traits. Anyhow, this represents a caution for other
researchers.
6. Although we stated the scope of our investigation in 1.3, we repeatedly argued that the
direction of real effect involving VP and VLS is often unclear,60 which can be seen as a
limitation of our study. As suggested in 6.4 when VP appears as a predictor of VLS one
can look at it in three ways (irrespective of negative or positive). Firstly, sometimes logic
suggests that the effect must be VLS

VP. For example, in strategy 32 (keeping notes

on specific section of the English notebook), there seems no way that knowing more L2
vocabulary would make it easier to use the strategy, but using it might improve
60

When VP emerges as a significant predictor that does not prove that the real effect is VP
VLS. Correlation
studies such as ours (and MR is a correlation-based method) cannot prove real world cause effect. One would need
experiments to sort out the cause-effect relationship. For us here we just have to use judgement to decide
(Scholfield, personal communication).

314
vocabulary learning. Secondly, we feel that a contribution would also be logically seen
from VP to VLS. For instance, all the research evidence elsewhere is that using the
Keyword Method (no. 67) would be a good strategy promoting greater VP. Hence,
maybe lack of a positive relationship (in our study) shows that we are seeing here is not
VLS

VP but a VP

VLS. That is, those who knew less L2 vocabulary are more able

to or willing to use this strategy precisely because it depends on visual and L1

associations, not other L2 words. Thirdly, it can be argued that sometimes the nature of
the VP/VLS relationship conveys an ambiguous interpretation. For example, the negative
relationship of VP with strategy 38 (writing down a Spanish translation) may lead us to
provide a bidirectional interpretation: (a) maybe using this strategy is less useful for
vocabulary retention than other information-like sentences (strategy 42) i.e. VLS
VP, and (b) maybe those with lower VP use strategy 38 precisely because they do not
have enough L2 vocabulary to write something in English like an example sentence, or
maybe both (a) and (b) are true, i.e. a vicious circle. Another example involving this
circle is with strategy 76 (using word in conversation and writing). All in all, the task of
sorting out the role of VP as a cause or effect of VLS, or both not originally pursued
in our study can also be seen as a suggestion for further research (see 7.4).

In summary, we have pointed out the possible areas of our study which we believe may
constitute limitations, which could be overcome with further research as suggested below.
Nevertheless, we suggest that such limitations do not represent a serious risk to the validity and
reliability of our study. Rather, they point to ways of improving the design of the investigation
and to the need for further research to corroborate our findings.

315
7.4 Suggestions for further research
As stated by Seliger and Shohamy (1989:254-254), research is cyclical; it is as a
recurrent sequence of events. They continue by saying that the nature of research is such that
the more answers are obtained, the more questions arise. This is true in the sense that we do not
always manage to describe a phenomenon with a single study, but with a series of them. Hence,
what follows is a set of recommendations for further research, which can be conducted either on
the relationship between extraversion and VLS use or on the influence of other situational and
learner factors on VLS as well as on the real VLS

VP effect.

1. The validity of the VLS-Q was grounded on the preliminary study that we carried out
with a sample of L2 learners whose educational background and university major were
similar to those involved in the main study. We have further suggested some
improvement to some items in the previous section, point 5. However, reliability of the
questionnaire was not pursued as explained in 5.2.3.2. So for future research, it seems
that a study should be conducted with the purpose of testing the reliability of the VLS-Q
not only with English-major but also with non-English major learners. Once the
reliability of the VLS-Q is ensured through potential modifications, it may be used as an
indicator of what VLS students claim to use.61 This could be used to detect the VLS areas
in which training may be worth implementing (see 6.4 for teaching implications).
2. More importantly, the relationship between extraversion and use of VLS should be
further explored. It should be pointed out that this would require the use of other methods
for strategy data gathering, such as observation and think aloud procedures. Also, as the
area of VLS appears to be too wide to be covered in a single study, it is recommended to
concentrate on the relationship between extraversion and separate VLS categories, e.g.
61

As pointed out by Scholfield (personal communication), this assumes that unreliability arises only from the
instrument, never from the subjects themselves. One cannot so easily remedy the latter type.

316
guessing, skipping, and dictionary use via think aloud, social-discovery strategies in the
classroom via observation, and the like. Now that we know to some extent the specific
areas of VLS that appeared to be related to with extraversion we can focus our study on
those VLS such as social-discovery, association, and further-consolidation strategies, and
attempt to further record success of use as well as just use.
3. Another recommendation is concerned with the personality inventories. In this respect,
we suggest the use of at least two psychometric tests in order to explore more in depth the
relationship between extraversion and use of VLS. Similarly, we also suggest including
personality scales other than extraversion on an exploratory basis. It should be
remembered that Eysenck and his associates consider three personality dimensions
(extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism) and Costa and McCrae (1992) offered their
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness). Furthermore, the Myers-Briggs type indicator seems to offer another
option for personality measures, though it is framed within type theories of personality.
Nevertheless, as stated in the limitations of the study, the recommendation about using
other personality inventories does not necessarily mean that the EPQ-R may have been a
determinant of the low correlations between extraversion and VLS.
4. As pointed out in 7.3, we suggest that the real VLS

VP effect should be further

investigated, which of course would imply something more than the researchers
judgement. Hence, we recommend the use of more experiment-oriented studies whose
research designs that involve learners performance on specific vocabulary learning tasks,
for example, memorising words through repetition and associations. We also recommend
setting up tasks on particular VLS due to the array of the strategies presented in our
study.

317
In sum, the exploratory nature of the investigation leaves the door open to further
research, whose recommendations have been outlined above. Finally, through the small
contribution of our investigation to the field of L2 vocabulary acquisition, we would like to
encourage researchers and teachers to consider the extraversion variable as a possible
determinant of VLS use. From a wider perspective, we suggest that more research should be
conducted on the relationship between personality traits and the use of LLS as there is little to
offer in this area (see 2.4.2.1). Though considerable research has been done on the relationship
between extraversion and learners L2 measures, which is what we have labelled as the productoriented studies (see 2.4.2.1), this is relatively uninformative without research into the processes
and strategies that lie between extraversion and the product.
7.5 Pedagogical implications
Doing research for the sake of research may be insufficient not only in the field of
applied linguistics but also in other disciplines (though not to a classical researcher). We believe
that research of this sort should ideally serve the interests of the people involved in the field in
which it is framed (i.e. researchers, teachers, and learners). Closely related to the pedagogical
implications of our study are the relevance and the purpose that we stated in chapter one. In this
section, then, we aim to recapitulate these two aspects in order to draw out the implications for
pedagogy from our major findings. All in all, it should be remembered that our study was mostly
focused on two aspects of L2 learners: their degree of extraversion and their use of VLS. Hence,
most of the pedagogical implications outlined here are more concerned with learning than with
teaching vocabulary. Obviously, this does not mean that teachers are being ignored here; on the
contrary, they are encouraged to consider our suggestions for the sake of their learners, since
good teaching must be founded on a good understanding of how learning occurs.

318
We have found that learners degree of extraversion is associated with the frequency with
which they use social-discovery, association, and further consolidation strategies. Based on such
findings, we can now suggest that extraversion may have some influence at least on these three
VLS categories, though further research is warranted. Most importantly, it is here where our
main pedagogical implication can be drawn. We would suggest that language teachers should
ideally provide learners with the VLS that suit them better according to their degree of
extraversion. We, as teachers, may ask ourselves how many times we have attempted to teach
our learners better ways of learning and increasing their L2 vocabulary, but these attempts have
really been more like impositions than suggestions. Therefore, we believe that extraversion as
measured by a reliable personality test (e.g. the EPQ or the MBTI), among other factors, should
be taken into account when teaching vocabulary and when implementing VLS training. It should
be noted, however, that we do not mean that VLS are exclusively to be recommended to either
more introverted or more extraverted learners. Rather, we have been emphasising all through this
study that differences in VLS use have to do with the extent to which they use them. It may be
found that introverts and extraverts use the same type of VLS, but may differ in terms of
frequency of use. Interestingly, we suggest that once we know learners degree of extraversion
we could predict to some extent how frequently L2 learners will use, for example, socialdiscovery strategies. At the same time, knowing their extraversion traits, we may be able to
identify in which areas of VLS they may require some help from the teacher.
Another pedagogical implication of our study can be drawn on the basis of the
contribution of the VLS questionnaire, which was the product of our preliminary study.
Regardless of the extraversion dimension, teachers can also make use of the VLS-Q as a
diagnostic tool before implementing embedded or integrated strategy training. Furthermore, even
if strategy instruction is not the main purpose, teachers can suggest to learners what areas of VLS
they should work on their own. In sum, the diagnostic value of the VLS is not restricted to

319
strategy training. Furthermore, it is not necessary to cover all the categories of the VLS.
Teachers can concentrate on specific areas such as dictionary use in order to find out their
learners strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, as a caveat, it should be noted that the VLS-Q
needs to be subjected to further reliability analysis, which is a normal procedure in the
development of questionnaires of this sort, and might need modifying for use in other countries
than Mexico, for which it was tailor made.
More pedagogical implications can be stated on the basis of the other predictor variables
of our study: vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender. Vocabulary
proficiency emerged as the most frequent predictor of VLS use, though the direction of real
effect involving VP and VLS is generally unclear (see 7.3). The implication on the VP

VLS is

that if students are not using certain VLS because their VP is too low for them to be able to use
them and those VLS are considered useful, then the teacher should do more direct vocabulary
teaching to boost learners basic VP rapidly up to a threshold to be able to use those VLS.
However, most cases are ambiguous; hence the teacher would have to judge carefully, e.g. if VP
is low, the teacher might check if those learners are using them (e.g. 2 or 76). If not, maybe it is
for VP reasons, so the intensive vocabulary teaching is recommended. On the other hand, for
those learners with higher VP who do not seem to use certain useful VLS (e.g. 76), maybe it is
for other reasons: they need VLS training to made aware of them, or maybe their personality
traits also come into play as seen in association strategies (Scholfield, personal communication).
Furthermore, the pedagogical implication on VLS

VP in some instances (as argued by Gu and

Johnson, 1996) is that teachers should know what individual strategies and strategy categories
seem to contribute most to vocabulary proficiency. Thus the teacher may promote the use of
those VLS that appear to be more useful, but we suggest that special attention should be paid to
learner factors affecting VLS, especially extraversion, gender, vocabulary proficiency and
learning experience i.e. university year of study.

320
University year of study also predicted frequency of strategy use among our participants.
Again, this finding may help teachers to estimate their learners use of VLS across university
years of study and inform some sort of training in accordance with the students learning
experience (e.g. guessing and skipping strategies were used more frequently as learners move
from year of study to year of study). However, it must be pointed out that the use of VLS across
university year of study is not necessarily linear as shown in 6.4.3 where first-year learners
reported using bilingual dictionaries with high frequency, but its use decreased with third-year
learners and increased again with fifth-year learners, though these differences were not
significant. Thus, bearing this in mind, teachers can decide when to promote the use of certain
VLS.
As pointed out in 6.4, gender did play a role in determining the use of VLS, which were
employed more frequently by females than males, except for keeping vocabulary records in
computer/electronic devices, which was preferred more frequently by males. This is in line with
the finding that females have been found to be more willing to try out new vocabulary learning
strategies (Oxford et al, 1996). In our study gender was found to be related to dictionary-use and
note-taking strategies. The implication for pedagogy here is that teachers should consider gender
as a factor when overtly teaching these VLS or when providing learners with the repertoire of
VLS. Ideally, teachers should present learners with not only the VLS that best suit them but also
with the most effective VLS. However, of course in our study we did not aim to estimate the
effectiveness of VLS, rather, we just described what L2 learners reported doing when learning
new vocabulary items.
To conclude, we have drawn some possible implications for L2 pedagogy, which were in
fact the raison dtre of our study. In this investigation we mainly looked into two learner
variables: extraversion and VLS in hope of finding some relationship between them. Likewise,
we examined the role of vocabulary proficiency, university year of study, and gender as

321
predictors of VLS use. All in all, the pedagogical implications were aimed at either direct or
embedded strategy instruction if we depart from the premise that there should be a gradual shift
towards more focused-on-the-learner approaches. To do so, teachers should encourage L2
learners to learn how to fish and keep new vocabulary items instead of giving them the fish only.
As Scholfield puts it (personal communication), maybe sometimes in order to be equipped to fish
they need to be given a fishing rod, i.e. some VLS may not be trainable without teaching more
vocabulary first to raise VP to a level where the VLS can be used. Most importantly, L2 teachers
should pay attention to learners personality, vocabulary proficiency, learning experience, and
gender among other factors when teaching vocabulary or when encouraging learners to use a
given strategy, for example, social-discovery strategies can be generally exploited by more
extraverted learners than more introverted learners. Finally, as noted in 7.3 and 7.4 our
investigation has not come to an end for the simple reason that more studies are needed in order
to arrive at more robust conclusions. Thus we suggest that our study should pave the way for a
better understanding of the nature of the relationship between L2 learners degree of extraversion
and their use of VLS. Surprisingly, it was those learners who were more extraverted that
appeared to use VLS more frequently than less extraverted learners (introverts). Hence some
questions still remained unanswered as follows: Do the findings mean that extraverts are so
active and lively that they eagerly look for ways to consolidate new vocabulary items? Do the
findings suggest that more introverted learners use some VLS less frequently than more
extraverted learners simply because they seem not to need them to learn L2 vocabulary as they
naturally possess a good long-term memory span? Certainly, these and other related questions
require further research, which will be our next step in the future.

322

References
Abraham, R. (1985) Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL
Quarterly, 20, 4, 689-725.
Ahmed, M. (1988) Vocabulary Learning Strategies: a Case Study of Sudanese Learners of
English. Unpublished Ph D Thesis. University College of North Wales Bangor.
Alderman, D. (1981) Language proficiency as a moderator variable in testing language
aptitude. (TOEFL Research Report No. 10.) Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
Allport, G. (1937) Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. London: Constable.
Allport, G. (1961) Pattern and Growth in Personality. London: William Clowes & Sons.
Allsopp, J., and H. J. Eysenck (1975) Extraversion, neuroticism and reasoning ability as
determinants of paired-associates learning. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 1, 15-24.
Alseweed, M. (2000) The Effects of Proficiency and Training on the Word-solving Strategies of
Arab EFL Readers. Unpublished Ph D. Thesis, University of Essex.
Amritavally, R. (1999) Dictionaries are Unpredictable. ELT Journal, 53, 4, 262-269.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York: Freeman.
Anthony, W. (1973). The development of extraversion, of ability, and of the relation between
them. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 223-227.
Anthony, W. (1977). The development of extraversion and ability: an analysis of Rushtons
longitudinal data. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 193-196.
Ard, J. (1982). The use of bilingual dictionaries by ESL students while writing. ITL Review of
Applied Linguistics, 58, 1-27.
Atkins, B. (1985) Monolingual and bilingual learners dictionaries: a comparison. In R. Ilson
(ed.) Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. ELT Documents 120, (pp. 1524) Oxford: Pergamon.
Atkinson, R., and Raugh, M. (1975) An application of the mnemonic keyword method to the
acquisition of Russian vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 96, 124-129.
Battenburg, J. (1991) English monolingual learners dictionaries: a user-oriented study.
Lexicographica, Series Maior, 39. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Baxter, J. (1980) The dictionary and vocabulary behaviour: a single word or a handful? TESOL
Quarterly, 14, 3, 325-336.

323
Beaton, A., Gruneberg, M., and Ellis, N. (1996) Retention of foreign language vocabulary
learner using the keyword method: a ten-year follow up. Second Language Research, 11,
2, 112-120.
Bejoint, H. (1981) The foreign students use of monolingual English dictionaries: a study of
language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics, 2, 3, 207-222.
Bendig, A. (1960) Extraversion, neuroticism, and student achievement in introductory
psychology. Journal of Educational Research, 53, 7, 263-267.
Bensoussan, M. (1983) Dictionaries and tests of EFL reading comprehension. ELT Journal, 37,
4, 341-345.
Bensoussan, M., and Laufer, B. (1984) Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7, 15-32.
Bialystok, E. (1979) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Canadian
Modern Language Review, 35, 3, 372-394.
Bialystok, E. (1981) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern
Language Journal, 65, 1, 24-35.
Bialystok, E. (1985) The compatibility of teaching and learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6,
3, 255-262.
Biggs, J. B. (1993). What do inventories of students learning process really measure? A
theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 319.
Borgatta, E. (1964) The structure of personality characteristics. Behavioural Science, 9, 8-17.
Bowers, K. (1973) Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological
Review, 80, 5, 307-336.
Brace, N., Kemp, R., and Snelgar, R. (2000) SPSS for Psychologists. London: Palgrave.
Bremner, S. (1999) Language learning strategies and language proficiency: investigating the
relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 4, 490-514.
Brown, A. L. (1982) Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed self-control
training. Topics in Language Learning Disabilities, 2, 1-17.
Brown, H. D. (1973) Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 23,
2, 231-244.
Brown, H. D. (1991) Breaking the Language Barrier. Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, ME.
Bryman, A., and Cramer, D. (2001) Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London:
Routledge.
Burger, J. (1993) Personality. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.

324
Busch, D. (1982) Introversion-Extraversion and the EFL Proficiency of Japanese students.
Language Learning, 32, 1, 109-132.
Carell,, P., Prince, M., and Astika, G. (1996) Personality types and language learning in an EFL
context. Language Learning, 46, 1, 75-79.
Carton. A. (1971) Inferencing: a process in using and learning language. In P. Pimsleur and T.
Quinn (eds.) The Psychology of Second Language Learning. (pp. 45-58) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C., and Scheier, M. (1992). Perspectives on Personality. Boston: Simon and Schuster,
Inc.
Cattell, R. B. (1946) Description and Measurement of Personality. London: Harrap.
Cattell, R. B. (1965) The Scientific Analysis of Personality. London: Penguin.
Chamot, A. (1987) The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.)
Learner Strategies in Language Learning. (pp. 71-83). New York: Prentice Hall.
Chamot, A., OMalley, J., Kupper, L., and Impink-Hernandez, M. (1987) A study of learning
strategies in foreign language instruction: first year report. Rosslyn, Va.: Interstate
Research Associates.
Chamot, A., Kupper, L., and Impink-Hernandez, M. (1988) A study of Learning Strategies in
foreign language instruction: Findings of the longitudinal study. Rosslyn, Va.: Interstate
Research Associates.
Chapelle, C. and Roberts, C. (1986) Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of
proficiency in English. Language Learning, 36, 1, 27-45.
Chapelle, C., and Green, P. (1992) Field independence/dependence in second language
acquisition research. Language Learning, 42, 1, 47-83.
Chaplin, D., et al (1988) Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as
prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 541-557.
Chastain, K. (1975) Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language
Learning. 25, 1, 153-161.
Chern, C. (1993) Chinese students word-solving strategies in reading in English. In T. Huckin,
M. Haynes and J. Coady (Eds.) Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning (pp.
67-85). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Child, D. (1964) The relationships between introversion-extraversion, neuroticism and
performance in school examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 178196.
Clarke, D., and Nation, P. (1980) Guessing the meaning of words from context: Strategy and
techniques. System, 8, 211-220.

325
Coady, J. (1993) Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. In T.
Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (Eds.) Second Language Reading and Vocabulary
Learning (pp. 3-23). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Cohen, A. (1990) Language Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Cohen, A. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. London: Longman.
Cohen, A., and Aphek, E. (1979) Easyfying second language learning. A research report under
the auspices of Brandeis University and submitted to the Jacob Hiatt Institute, Jerusalem.
ERIC ED 163 753.
Cohen, A. and Aphek, E. (1980) Retention of second language vocabulary over time:
Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System, 8, 3, 221-235.
Cohen, A. and Aphek, E. (1981) Easifying Second Language Learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 3, 2, 221-236.
Cohen, A. et al (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. (Chapter 4)
London: Longman.
Cook, M. (1993) Levels of Personality. London: Cassell.
Corcoran, D., and Houston, T. (1977) Is lemon test an index of arousal level? British Journal of
Psychology, 68, 361-364.
Costa, P. and McCrae, R. (1992) Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 653-655.
Cowie, A. (2002) English Dictionaries for Foreign Learners: a History. Oxford: Clarendon.
Craik, F., and Lockart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: a framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Cummins, J. (1979) Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the
optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19,
121-129.
Daalen-Kapteijns, M., Elshout-Mohr, M., and De Glopper, K. (2001). Deriving the meaning of
unknown words from multiple contexts. Language Learning, 51, 1, 145-181.
Dewaele, J., and Furnham, A.. (1999) Extraversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic
research. Language Learning, 49, 3, 509-544.
Dewaele, J., and Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and and speech production: a pilot study of
second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 355-365.
Ehrman, M. (1996) Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties. Thousands Oaks,
CA: SAGE.

326
Ehrman, M., and Oxford, R. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological
type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal, 73, 1, 1-13.
Ehrman, M., and Oxford, R. (1990) Adult Language learning styles and strategies in an intensive
training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74, 3, 311-327.
Ehrman, M., and Oxford, R. (1995) Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success.
Modern Language Journal, 79, 1, 67-89.
Ellis, R. (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ely, C. (1986) An analysis of discomfort, risk taking, sociability and motivation in the L2
classroom. Language Learning, 36, 1, 1-25.
Ely, C. (1989) Tolerance of ambiguity and use of second language strategies. Foreign Language
Annals, 21, 1, 437-445.
Entwistle, N. (1972) Personality and academic attainment. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 42, 137-151.
Epstein S. (1979) The stability of behaviour: I. On predicting most of the people much of the
time. Journal of. Personality and Social.Psychology, 37, 1097-126.
Ewen, R. (1993) An Introduction to Theories of Personality. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Eysenck, H.J. (1947) Dimensions of Personality. London: Methuen.
Eysenck, H. J. (1952) The Scientific Study of Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. (1962) Conditioning and personality. British Journal of Psychology, 53, 3, 299305.
Eysenck, H. J. (1965) Extraversion and the acquisition of eyeblink and GSR conditioned
responses. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 4, 258-270.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological Basis of personality. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1970) The Structure of Human Personality. London: Methuen.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971) (Ed.) Readings in Extraversion-Introversion 2. Fields of Application.
London: Wiley and Sons.
Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York: Guilford.
Eysenck, H. J. (1991) Dimensions of personality: 16, 5 or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790.
Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, M. W. (1985) Personality and Individual Differences. London:
Plenum Press.

327
Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. (1969) Personality Structure and Measurement. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J., and Eysenck, S. B. (1991) The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised.
London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Eysenck, M. W. (1975). Extraversion, arousal and speed of retrieval from secondary storage.
Journal of Personality, 43, 390-401.
Eysenck, M. W. (1982) Attention and arousal: cognition and performance. New York: Springer.
Eysenck, M. W. and Eysenck, H. J. (1980) Mischel and the concept of personality. British
Journal of Psychology, 71, 191-209.
Fan, M. (2003) Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language
vocabulary strategies: a study of Hong Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87, 2,
222-241.
Ffrench, J. (1983) Inferencing. In The Humanities, Section II, No. 30 (pp.11-33). Yokohama
University.
Fiske, D. (1949) Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different
sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 813-818.
Fowle, C. (2002) Vocabulary notebooks: implementations and outcomes. ELT Journal, 56, 4,
380-388.
Furnham, A. (1992a) Personality at Work. London: Routledge.
Furnham, A. (1992b). Personality and learning style: A study of three instruments. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13, 4, 429-438.
Furnham, A. and Heaven, P. (1999) Personality and Social Behaviour. London: Arnold.
Gale, A. (1969) Extraversion-introversion and the EEG. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 2,
209-223.
Gardner, R. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Arnold.
Gardner, R., and MacIntyre, P. D. (1993) A students contributions to second language learning.
Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 25, 1-11.
Geen, R. (1984) Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extraverts on arousal and
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 6, 1303-1312.
Goldberg, L. (1990) An alternative description of personality: The big five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.

328
Goodenough, D. (1976) The role individual differences in field dependence as a factor in
learning and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 675-694.
Grainger, P. (1997) Language-learning strategies for learners of Japanese: Investigating
ethnicity. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 3, 378-383.
Gray, J. (1972) The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion: a modification of
Eysencks theory. In V. Neblitsyn and J. Gray (eds.) Biological Bases of Individual
Behaviour. London: Academic Press.
Green, J., and Oxford, R. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 2, 261-297.
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 Strategies

http://www.arts.nie.edu.sg/ell/PeterG/Personal/.

Questionnaire,

Version

5.

Gu, Y., and Johnson, R. (1996) Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.
Language Learning, 46, 4, 643-679.
Guiora, A., et al. (1972). Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning, 22, 111130.
Gupta, S. (1976) Extraversion and reinforcement in verbal operant conditioning. British Journal
of Psychology, 67, 1, 47-52.
Gupta, S., and Shukla, A. (1989) Verbal operant conditioning as a function of extraversion and
reinforcement. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 39-44.
Haastrup, K. (1987) Using think aloud and retrospection to uncover learners lexical inferencing
procedures. In C. Faerch and G. Kasper (Eds.) Introspection in Second Language
Research (pp. 197-212) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Haastrup, K. (1991) Lexical Inferencing Procedures or Talking about Words. Tubingen: GNV.
Hampson, S. (1988) The Construction of Personality. London: Routledge.
Hansen, J. and Stansfield, C. (1981) The relationship of field dependent-independent cognitive
styles to foreign language achievement. Language Learning, 31, 2, 349-367.
Hartmann, R. (1983) On theory and practice. In R. Hartmann (Ed.) Lexicography: Principles and
Practice (pp. 3-11). London: Academic Press.
Hatch, E. (1983) Psycholinguistics: a Second Language Perspective. Rowley, Massachusetts:
Newbury House.
Hatch, E. & Lazaraton, A. (1991) The Research Manual. Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.

329
He, T. (2001) Contrastive goal orientations in an EFL reading context: influences on reading
strategy use and comprehension patterns. TESL-EJ, 5, 1, 1-18.
Hojat, M. (1987) Dimensionality of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: a study with Iranian
college students. Journal of General Psychology, 114, 3, 289-296.
Holmes, D. (1967) Pupillary response, conditioning and personality. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 5, 95-103.
Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M., and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern
Language Journal, 70, 125-132.
Howarth, E., and Eysenck, H. J. (1968) Extraversion, arousal, and paired associate recall.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3, 114-116.
Hsiao, T., and Oxford, R. (2002) Comparing theories of language learning strategies: a
confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86, 3, 368-383.
Huckin, T., and Bloch, J. (1993) Strategies for inferring word-meanings in context: a cognitive
model. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes and J. Coady (Eds.) Second Language Reading and
Vocabulary Learning (pp. 153-178). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Huckin, T., and Coady, J. (1999) Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language. A
Review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 2, 181-193.
Jackson, C., & Lawty-Jones, M. (1996). Explaining the overlap between personality and learning
style. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 3, 293-300.
Jimenez-Catalan, R. (2003) Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1, 54-77.
Johnson, D., et al (1999) Cerebral blood and personality. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,
2, 252-257.
Jung, C. (1998) Psychological types. In C. L. Cooper and L. Pervin (eds.) Critical Concepts in
Psychology. (pp. 28-39). London: Routledge.
Keefe, J. (1979) Student learning styles: Diagnosing and prescribing programs. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kiany, G. (1997) Extraversion and Pedagogical Setting as Sources of Variation in Different
Aspects of English Proficiency. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Essex.
Kimura, D. (1992) Sex differences in the brain. Scientific American. September Issue,
http://www.dhushara.com/book/socio/kimura/kimura.htm.
Kleinsmith, L., and Kaplan, S. (1963) Paired associate learning as a function of arousal and
interpolated interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 114-116.

330
Kline, P. (1966) Extraversion, neuroticism and academic performance among Ghanaian
University Students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 92-94.
Kline, P. (1993) Personality. The Psychometric View. London: Routledge.
Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary
acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language Journal, 78,
285-299.
Koelega, H. (1992) Extraversion and vigilance performance: 30 years of inconsistencies.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 2, 239-258.
Kojic-Sabo, I., and Lightbown, P. (1999) Students approaches to vocabulary learning and their
relationships to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 2, 176-192.
Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kudo, Y. (1999) L2 vocabulary learning strategies. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.
University
of
Hawaii
at
Manoa,
on-line
document:
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW14/default.html.
Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London:
SAGE Publications.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research. London: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1997) The lexical plight in second language reading. In J. Coady and T. Huckin, T.
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. (pp.20-34) Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Laufer, B. (2003) Vocabulary acquisition in a second language: Do learners really acquire most
vocabulary by reading? Some empirical evidence. Canadian Modern Language Review,
59, 4, 567-587.
Laufer, B. and Hadar, L. (1997) Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and
bilingualised dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. Modern
Language Journal, 81, 2, 189-196.
Laufer, B., and Kimmel, M. (1997) The bilingualised dictionaries: How learners really use them.
System, 25, 3, 361-369.
Laufer, B., and Yano, Y. (2001) Understanding unfamiliar words in a text: Do L2 learners
understand how much they dont understand? Reading in a Second Language, 13, 2, 549566.

331
Lavach, J. (1973) The effect of arousal on short- and long-term memory. Journal of Educational
Research, 67, 3, 131-133.
Lawson, M. and Hogben, D. (1996) The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language
students. Language Learning 46:1, 101-135.
Leeke, P. and Shaw P. 2000. Learners' independent records of vocabulary. System, 28, 2, 271289.
Lemke, E., et al (1974) Role of ability and extroversion in concept attainment of individuals
trained in heterogeneous or homogeneous personality groups. Journal of Educational
Research, 67, 5, 201-204.
Levin, J., Pressley, M., McCormick, C., Miller, G., & Shriberg, L. (1979). Assessing the
classroom potential of the keyword method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 583594.
Lieberman, M. (2000). Introversion and working memory: central executive differences.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 3, 479-486.
Liebert, R., and Spiegler, M. (1994). Personality, Strategies and Issues. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: an Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liu, N., and Nation, P. (1985) Factors affecting guessing vocabulary from context. RELC, 16, 1,
33-42.
Ludvigh, E., and Happ, D. 1974. Extraversion and preferred level of sensory stimulation. British
Journal of Psychology, 65, 190-193.
Luppescu, S., and Day, R. (1993) Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language
Learning, 43, 2, 263-287.
Lynn, R. (1959) Two personality characteristics related to academic achievement. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 29, 213-216.
Matthews, G., and Deary, I. (1998) Personality Traits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, S. (1995) Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London: Arnorld.
McDonough, S. (1999) Learner strategies. Language Teaching, 32, 1-18.
McLaughlin, and Eysenck, H. J. (1967) Extraversion, neuroticism, and paired associate learning.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 2, 128-132.
Miles, J., and Shevlin, M. (2001) Applying Regression and Correlation. A Guide for Students
and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications.

332
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and Assessment. New York: John Wiley.
Myers, I., and McCauley, M. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nagi, Y. (1987) The Relationship of Field Dependence-Independence, Extraversion-Introversion
and Attitude/Motivation to Foreign Language Proficiency. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Essex.
Nagy, W., and Herman, P. (1987) Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for
acquisition and instruction. In M. McKeown and M. Curtis (eds.), The Nature of
Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 19-36). Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Naiman, N. Frohlich, M, Stern, H., and Todesco, A. (1978) The Good Language Learner.
Clevelond: Multilingual Matters. (reprinted, 1996).
Nakamura, T. (2000) The Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies: the Case of Japanese EFL
Learners in Two Different Learning Environments. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Essex.
Nation, P. (1983) Testing and teaching vocabulary. Guidelines, 5, 1, 12-25.
Nation, P. (1990) Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Nation, P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. and Coady, J. (1988) Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter and M. McCarthy (eds.)
Vocabulary in Language Teaching (pp. 97-108). London: Longman.
Nesi, H. (1998) Dictionaries on computer: how different markets have created different products.
Unpublished Manuscript. Centre of English Language Teacher Education, University of
Warwick, UK.
Nesi, H., and Meara, P. (1994). Patterns of misinterpretation in the productive use of EFL
dictionary definitions. System, 22, 1, 1-15.
Norman, D. (1976) Memory and Attention. London: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Norman, W. (1963) Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor
structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 574, 583.
Nuttall, C. (1982) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London: Heinemann.
Nyikos, M., (1990) Sex-related differences in adult language learning: Socialization and memory
factors. Modern Language Journal, 74, 273-287.

333
OMalley, M. (1987) The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on acquiring English
as a second language. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language
Learning. (pp. 133-143). New York: Prentice Hall.
OMalley, J., and Chamot, A. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OMalley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., and Russo, R. (1985a) Learning
strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 1,
21-46.
OMalley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R., and Kupper, L. (1985b) Learning
strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly,
19, 3, 557-584.
Ortet, G., Rogla, M., and Ibanez, M. (2001) Cuestionario Revisado de Personalidad de Eysenck.
Adaptacion al Espanol. Segunda Edicion, revisada y ampliada. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Oxford, R. (1989) Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with implications
for strategy training. System, 17, 2, 235-247.
Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies. What every teacher should know. Boston:
Heinle and Heinle.
Oxford, R. (1994) Language learning strategies: an update. ERIC Digest 376707, ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Washington DC.
Oxford, R., and Anderson, N. J. (1995) A crosscultural view of learning styles. Language
Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts, 28, 201-205.
Oxford, R., and Burry-Stock, J. (1995) Assessing the use of language learning strategies
worldwide with ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL).
System, 23, 1, 1-23.
Oxford, R., and Crookall, D. (1989) Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings,
and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 4, 404-419.
Oxford, R., and Ehrman, M. (1995) Adults language learning strategies in an intensive foreign
language program in the United States. System, 23, 3, 359-386.
Oxford, R., and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by
university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 3, 291-300.
Oxford, R., and Lavine, R. (1992) Teacher-student style wars in the language classroom:
Research insights and suggestions. ADFL Bulletin, 23, 2, 38-45.
Oxford, R., Lavine, R. Z., Hollaway, M. E., Felkins, G., & Saleh, A. (1996). Telling their stories:
Language learners use diaries and recollective studies. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language
learning strategies around the world: Crosscultural perspectives (pp. 19-34) . Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.

334
Paribakht, T., and Wesche, M. (1999) Reading and incidental L2 vocabulary acquisition. An
introspective study of lexical inferencing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21,
195-24.
Peacock, M., and Ho, B. (2003) Student language learning strategies across eight disciplines.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 2, 179-200.
Pervin, L., and John, O. (1997) Personality. Theory and Research. New York; John Wiley and
Sons.
Pimsleur, D., Sunland, D., and McIntyre, R. (1966) Underachievement in Foreign Language
Learning. New York: MLA Materials Center.
Politzer, R. (1983) An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviours and their
relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 1, 54-68.
Politzer, R. and McGroarty, M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their
relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19,
1, 103-123.
Power, R., and Thompson, W. (1970) Simulation of introversion and extraversion on the lemon
test. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 1, 91-93.
Pressley, M., et al (1982) Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies:
additional comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 5, 693.707.
Pressley, M., Levin, J., and McDaniel, M. (1987) Remembering versus inferring what a word
means: mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. McKeown and M. Curtis (eds.) The
Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp.107-127). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Pritchard, D. (1952) An investigation into the relationship of personality traits and ability in
language learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 157-158.
Read, J. (1998) Validating a test to measure depth of vocabulary knowledge. In A. Kunnan (Ed.)
Validation in Language Assessment (pp. 41-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Read, J. (2000) Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reid, J. (1987) The Learning Style Preferences of ESL Students. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 1, 87111.
Revelle, W., and Loftus, D. (1992) The implications of arousal effects for the study of affect and
memory. In S.A. Christianson (Ed.) (1992) Handbook of Emotion and Memory.
Erlebaum.
Richards, J., and Rodgers, T. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

335
Robinson, D., Gabriel, N., and Katchan, O. (1994). Personality and second language learning.
Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 1, 143-157.
Rodriguez, M., and Sadoski, M. (2000) Effects of rote, context, keyword, and context/keyword
methods on retention of vocabulary in EFL Classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 2, 385412.
Rossi-Le, L. (1989) Perceptual Learning Style Preferences and their Relationship to Language
Learning Strategies in Adult Students of English as a Second Language. Unpublished
Thesis, Drake University, IA, USA.
Rubin, J. (1975) What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 1, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981) Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11, 2, 117-131.
Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research, history and typology. In
A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. (pp. 15-30).
New York: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, J., and Thompson, I. (1982) How to Be a More Successful Language Learner.
Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Sanaoui, R. (1995) Adult learners approaches to learning vocabulary in second language.
Modern Language Journal, 79, 1, 15-28.
Savage, R. (1962) Personality factors and academic performance. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 32, 251-253.
Savage, R. (1966) Personality factors and academic attainment in junior school children. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 36, 91-92.
Scarcella, R., and Oxford, R. (1992) The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the
Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Schmeck, R. (1988) Individual differences and learning strategies. In C. Weinstein et al (Eds.),
Learning and Study Strategies. (pp. 171-191) New York: Academic Press.
Schmitt, N. (1997) Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.)
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. (pp. 199-227). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D. (1995) Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings and
practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49, 2, 133-143.
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., and Clapham, C. (2001) Developing and exploring the behaviour of
two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18, 1, 55-88.
Scholfield, P. (1982) Using the English dictionary for comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 2,
185-194.

336
Scholfield, P. (1997) Vocabulary reference works in foreign language learning. In N. Schmitt &
M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. (pp. 279-302).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seliger, H. (1977) Does practice make perfect? A study of interaction patterns and L2
competence. Language Learning 27, 2, 263275.
Seliger, H., and Shohamy, E. (1989) Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Shigehisa, T., and Symons, J. (1973) Effect of intensity of visual stimulation on auditory
sensitivity in relation to personality. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 2, 205-213.
Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Arnold.
Smart, J., Elton, C., and Burnett, C. (1970). Underachievers and overachievers in intermediate
French. Modern Language Journal, 54, 415-420.
Spielberger, C. (1972) Anxiety as an emotional state. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.) Anxiety: Current
trends in theory and research, vol. I. London: Academic Press.
Stagner, R. (1961) Psychology of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stenberg, G., Risberg, J., Warkentin, S., and Rosen, I., (1990) Regional patterns of cortical blood
flow distinguish extraverts from introverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 11,
663-673.
Stenberg, G., Wendt, P., and Risberg, J. (1993). Regional cerebral blood flow and extraversion.
Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 5, 547-554.
Stern, H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31, 304-318.
Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Stern, H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sternberg, R. (1987) Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. McKeown and M. Curtis
(eds.) The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 89-105). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Sternberg, R., and Powell, J. (1983) Comprehending verbal comprehension. The American
Psychologist, 38, 878-893.
Stoffer, I. (1995) University Foreign Language Students Choice of Vocabulary Learning
Strategies as Related to Individual Difference Variables. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Alabama.

337
Strong, M. (1983) Social styles and second language acquisition of Spanish-speaking kindergarteners, TESOL Quarterly 17, 2, 241-58.
Summers, D. (1988). The role of dictionaries in language learning. In R. Carter & M. McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching (pp. 111-125). London: Longman.
Sung, H., and Padilla, A. (1998) Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in the
learning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. Modern Language
Journal, 82, 2, 205-216.
Sutter, W. (1989). Strategies and styles. Aalborg, Denmark: Danish Refugee Council.
Tanwar, U., and Malhotra, D. (1992). Short-term memory as a function of personality and
imagery. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 2, 175-180.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of "communication strategy." In C. Faerch & G.
Kasper (eds.) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, (pp. 61-74), London:
Longman.
Thompson, G. (1987). Using bilingual dictionaries. ELT Journal, 41, 282-286.
Thompson, I. (1987) Memory in language learning. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.) Learner
Strategies in Language Strategies (pp. 43-56). Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.
Tomaszczyk, J. (1979) Dictionaries: users and users. Glottodidactica, 12, 103-119.
Underhill, A. (1985) Working with monolingual learners dictionaries. In R. Ilson (Ed.)
Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. ELT Documents 120, (pp. 103114). Oxford: Pergamon.
Van Hell, J., Mahn, A. (1997) Keyword mnemonics versus rote rehearsal: learning concrete and
abstract foreign words by experienced and inexperienced learners. Language Learning,
47, 3, 507-546.
Van Parreren, C. and Schouten-Van Parreren, M. (1981) Contextual guessing: a trainable reader
strategy. System, 9, 3, 235-241.
Wakamoto. N. (2000) Language learning strategy and personality variables: focusing on
extraversion and introversion. IRAL, 38, 1, 71-81.
Walker, E. (1958) Action decrement and its relation to learning. Psychological Review, 65, 129142.
Walker, L. (1983) Word identification strategies in reading a foreign language. Foreign
Language Annals, 16, 4, 293-299.
Wen, Q., and Johnson, R. (1997) L2 learner variables and English achievement: a study of
tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied linguistics, 18, 1, 27-48.

338
Wenden, A. (1987) Conceptual background and utility. An introduction to learner strategies. In
A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Strategies (pp. 3-13).
Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.
White, C. (1996) Note-taking strategies and traces of cognition in language learning. RELC
Journal, 27, 1, 89-102.
Williams, R. (1985) Teaching vocabulary recognition strategies in ESP reading. ESP Journal, 4,
2, l21-131.
Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.
Wilson, G. (1978) Introversion/Extroversion. In H. London and J. E. Exner, Jr. (eds.)
Dimensions of Personality. (217-261). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Witkin, H., and Goodenough, D. (1977) Field dependence and interpersonal behaviour.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 661-689.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976) The second Time Around: Cognitive and Social Strategies in Second
Language Acquisition. PhD Thesis, Standford University.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979) Individual differences in second language acquisition, In C. J.
Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W. S. Y. Wang (Eds.) Individual Differences in Language
Ability and Language Behaviour. (pp. 203-228), New York: Academic Press.
Yang, N. (1999) The relationship between EFL learners beliefs and learning strategy use.
System, 27, 4, 515-535.
Yonnaly, D., and Gilfert, S. (1995) Electronic dictionaries in the classroom!? Bah, Humbug! The
Internet TESL Journal, http://iteslj.org/
Young, D., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process
written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied Language Learning,
8, 1, 43-73.
Zuckernick, H (1996) Second language word decoding strategies. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 53, 1, 76-96.

339

Appendix A
Mexican universities offering English majors
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE AGUASCALIENTES (UAA)
BA IN ELT
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA (UABC)
BA IN ELT
BA IN TRANSLATION
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR (UABCS)
BA IN MODERN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DEL CARMEN (UADELC)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE CHIAPAS (UNACH)
BA IN ELT
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE CHIHUAHUA (UACH)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD DE COLIMA (UCOL)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD DE GUANAJUATO (UGTO)
BA IN ELT
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE GUERRERO (UAGRO)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DEL ESTADO DE HIDALGO (UAEH)
BA IN ELT
UNIVERSIDAD DE GUADALAJARA (UDG)
BA IN ELT

340
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DEL ESTADO DE MXICO (UAEMEX)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTNOMA DE MXICO (UNAM)
BA IN ELT
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DEL ESTADO DE MORELOS (UAEMOR)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE NUEVO LEN (UANL)
BA IN APPLIED LINGUISTCS
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA BENITO JUREZ DE OAXACA (UABJO)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
BENEMRITA UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE PUEBLA (BUAP)
BA IN MODERN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE QUERTARO (UAQ)
BA IN MODERN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSIDAD DE QUINTANA ROO (UQROO)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
UNIVERSIDAD DE SONORA (UNISON)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
BA IN TRANSLATION
UNIVERSIDAD JUREZ AUTNOMA DE TABASCO (UJAT)
BA IN MODERN LANGUAGES
UNIVERSIDAD AUTNOMA DE TLAXCALA (UATX)
BA IN APPLIED LINGUISTCS
UNIVERSIDAD VERACRUZANA (UV)
BA IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE

341

Appendix B
Curriculum of BA Programme in English
Common-core Subjects for all majors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Logic
Mathematics
Reading and Writing in Spanish
Regional Problems Seminar
Ethics

Common-core subjects for majors in the Humanities

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

History and Regional Culture

Introduction to Economics
Introduction to Law
Political and Social Theories
Contemporary Social Problems
Research Methods for Social Sciences
General Anthropology

Specific subjects for English major

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

Spanish Grammar
English I
Workshop on Advanced Spanish Writing
English II.
Listening and Speaking in English
General Linguistics
English III.
Reading and Writing in English
Psycholinguistics or Morphology
English Grammar I
Philosophy of Education
English IV.
Sociolinguistics or Semantics
English Grammar II.
Educational Technology
English V.
Regional Problems Seminar
Methodology of English Language Teaching
French I or Translation I
English VI.
Phonology y Phonetics of English
Life and Culture of US and UK
Materials Design
French II or Translation II
English VII.
Spanish-English Contrastive Analysis
Teaching Practicum I
History of the English Language
French III or Translation III
English VIII.
Literature I
Teaching Practicum I
Literature II
French IV or Translation IV
Advanced Research Methods Seminar

342

Appendix C
Vocabulary Learning Strategy - Open Questionnaire
Initials: ___________ Group: ___________ Semester: __________ Date: _________
Introduction: This self-report aims to collect information about the different strategies you use
to learn vocabulary both inside and outside the classroom, when interacting with your
classmates, your teacher and perhaps with English speakers. It is important to note that this is not
an evaluation of how good you are at learning vocabulary; rather it is just a way of getting to
know you as a learner of English.
Instructions: There are THREE sections in this report. Each section has a general stem sentence
and some examples of strategies that complete the first part of the sentence. Please, read the stem
sentence carefully and complete it with statements describing your learning strategies.
Feel free to answer either in English or in Spanish and if you have any doubts, ask the researcher
for help.
Note: You do not have to write paragraphs. It will be enough to write separate sentences.
1. Dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary items.
When I meet a new word, which is not directly explained by the teacher or the book and I want
to know what it means

I check if the word looks similar to Spanish.

I ask the teacher/classmate for a translation.

2. Keeping vocabulary notes.

When I want to keep notes about new words

I write the word in the margins of the textbook.

I write sentences with the word in it.

3. Memorising vocabulary items.

When I want to memorise/retain new words

I repeat the word aloud several times.

I write the word several times.

Note: Feel free to write more sentences about you learning strategies, which you think do not
belong to the above sections. Any information related to the ways you learn vocabulary is
relevant to this study.
Thank you

343

Appendix D
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Interview Guide
Briefing
Ice-breakers (e.g. talking about the city, the university, the interviewees hometown, etc).
Purpose of the interview. Description of the structure of the interview.
Answers to possible questions asked by the learner before the actual interview.
Section I
Dealing with unfamiliar vocabulary items.
When you meet a new word, if it is not directly explained by the teacher or the book, how do you
figure out its meaning?
Follow-ups:
Do you ever guess? How?
Do you ever use a dictionary? Monolingual or bilingual? What do you look up in the
dictionary?
Do you ever skip new words and not bother with them?
Do you ask other people? Who? What information do you ask about?
Section II
Note taking
What notes, if any, do you keep about new words, where, and how?
Follow-ups:
Do you keep a vocabulary notebook? How do you organise it? Semantic maps?
Drawings?
In general, what kind of information do you note down, regardless of use of a vocabulary
notebook?
Do you use word cards? Can you describe how you use them?
Section III Memorising/Retaining Words
What do you do to try to retain new words?
Follow-ups:
What kind of repetition? (written/verbal, silent?).
What sort of associations do you use to memorise new words?
Do you seek out occasions to practise vocabulary and English generally? (e.g. watching
TV, listening to TV, listening to recorded vocabulary lists, internet).
Do you check words written on commercial products/items? How?
Do you put labels on objects?
Do you test yourself? Ask others to test you on vocabulary?
Do you use the vocabulary section of the coursebook?
Debriefing
Interviewers main points from the interview.
Do you have anything you want to bring up or ask about before we finish the interview?

344

Appendix E
Condensation of VLS
Preliminary VLS

Condensed VLS

Dealing with unknown vocabulary

Dealing with unknown vocabulary

Guessing
1. I check if the word is a cognate.
2. I guess the meaning by looking at the words stem.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

I analyse the grammatical category of the word, i.e. noun, verb, etc.
I check for prefixes and suffixes. (condensed with 2)
I check for compounds. (condensed with 2)
I check for synonyms. (belongs with 37)
I relate the word to the whole text. (condensed with 8 and 9)
I relate the word to the main topic of the reading.
I look for the relationship of the word to the text.

10. I read the sentence again to guess the meaning.

11. I check if the word is repeated several times in the passage.
12. I check if the word has another word in common.(condensed with 2)
13. I keep on reading to guess what the word means.
14. I check if I have seen or heard the word before. (eliminated)
Using dictionaries and other sources
15. I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary.
16. I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and check its pronunciation.
17. I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and check its different
meanings.
18. I underline the word and then look it up in a bilingual dictionary. (belongs
with 15)
19. I look up the word in a monolingual dictionary.
20. I look up the word in a monolingual dictionary and check its different
meanings.
21. I use an on-line dictionary. (condensed with 22)

Guessing
I check if the word is a cognate.
I guess the meaning by analysing the words parts (e.g. prefixes and
suffixes -rewritable, compounds bus stop)
I analyse the grammatical category of the word, i.e. noun, verb, etc.

I guess the meaning from the context (e.g. from the sentence,
paragraph, topic, situation).
I read the sentence again to guess the meaning.
I check if the word is repeated several times in the passage.
I keep on reading to guess what the word means.
Using dictionaries and other sources
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary.
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and check its pronunciation
I look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and check its different
meanings.
I look up the word in a monolingual dictionary.
I look up the word in a monolingual dictionary and check its different
meanings.

345
22. I look up the word on the internet if possible.
23. I search the web for articles containing the new word. (condensed with
107)
24. I go to the resource centre and ask for a CD dictionary. (modified)
25. I look up information in other books in which the word is used.
(condensed with 107)
26. I look up the word in a dictionary and check for examples. (modified)
27. I first look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and then in a monolingual
one.
Asking others
28. I ask my classmates or friends for a translation.
29. I ask my classmates for a definition.
30. I ask my native speaker friends for a definition. (condensed with 29)
31. I ask my teacher for a translation.
32. I ask my teacher for an example sentence.
33. I ask my teacher for the words use.
34. I ask my teacher for the different meanings of the word.
35. I ask my teacher for a situation in which the word can be used.
(condensed with 33)
36. I ask my teacher for a definition. (modified)
37. I ask my teacher for a synonym.
38. I ask my teacher for examples.
39. I ask my teacher for an English explanation. (condensed with 36)
40. I ask my father for a translation. (condensed with 28)
41. I ask for a translation if I listen to the word. (eliminated)
Taking Vocabulary Notes
Location
42. I write down new words in the margins of the textbook.
43. I write down information about new words on the text itself. (condensed
with 42)
44. I write down new words on my English notebook.
45. I write down new words meaning and examples on my English notebook.
(moved to Kind of Information subcategory)

I look up the word on the internet if possible, (on-line dictionaries,

thesaurus, etc)
I look up the word in a CD-ROM dictionary.
I look up the word in a bilingual or monolingual dictionary and check for
examples.
I first look up the word in a bilingual dictionary and then in a monolingual
one.
Asking others
I ask my classmates or friends for a translation.
I ask my classmates or native speaker friends for a definition in English.
I ask my teacher for a translation.
I ask my teacher for an example sentence.
I ask my teacher for the words use.
I ask my teacher for the different meanings of the word.
I ask my teacher for a definition in English.
I ask my teacher for a synonym.
I ask my teacher for examples.

Taking Vocabulary Notes

Location
I write down information about new words in the margins of the textbook
or the text itself.
I write down new words on my English notebook.

346
46. I keep a vocabulary section at the end of my English notebook.
47. I keep a vocabulary section at the top of my English notebook.
(condensed with 46)
48. I write down new words on my vocabulary notebook.
49. I write down new words on cards.
50. I write down the new word on an accordion* which I can check all the
time. (* a small piece of paper card containing a lot of information)
(eliminated, too peculiar???)
51. I write down new words on Post-It. (condensed with 49)
52. I write down new words on wall charts or posters.
53. I write down new words in my wordlist. (goes with 44, 48)
54. I keep a vocabulary list either in my notebook or separate sheets.
(condensed with 46, 49)
55. I write down new words on something handy, e.g. textbook, notebook,
and sheets of paper. (condensed with 42, 46, 49)
56. I just highlight the word on the text itself. (condensed with 42)
Kind of information
57. I write down new words and their Spanish translation.
58. I write down meaningful sentences using the new word. (condensed with
64)
59. I write down the pronunciation of new words.
60. I write down antonyms or synonyms beside new words.
61. I write down a short definition of new words.
62. I write down the examples the teacher gives or writes on the board.
(condensed with 64)
63. I write down the word along with my own drawings. (see 69)
64. I write down sentences taken from my textbook or the dictionary.
65. I write down information about word use.
66. I write down the grammatical category of new words.
67. I underline the word and write the meaning next to it. (implicit in 57, 60
and 61)
Other actions
68. I write down new words I see or hear every day. (implicit)
69. I write down new words along with a picture. (condensed with 63)
70. I write new words in capital letters.
71. I underline the sentence where I found the new word. (belongs with 72)
72. I circle or underline new words for further checking.

I keep a vocabulary section at the end or top of my English notebook.

I write down new words on my vocabulary notebook.
I write down new words on cards or small pieces of paper.

I write down new words on wall charts or posters.

Kind of information
I write down new words and their Spanish translation.
I write down the pronunciation of new words.
I write down antonyms or synonyms beside new words.
I write down a short definition of new words.
I write down the word along with my own drawings or pictures.
I write down sentences taken from my textbook or the dictionary or given
by the teacher.
I write down information about word use.
I write down the grammatical category of new words.
Other actions
I write new words in capital letters.
I circle or underline new words for further checking.

347
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.

I use footnotes in which I write important information about new words.

I put asterisks or question marks beside the most recent words.
I highlight new words in web page style: New. (belongs with 74)
I write down a list of words by unit or lesson.
I classify new words into their grammatical category.
I use colours to categorise words into their grammatical category.
(belongs with 77)
Memorising/Retaining Vocabulary

Repetition
79. I say the word aloud several times.
80. I read my wordlist aloud.
81. I read aloud the word and its Spanish translation.
82. I say example sentences aloud several times.
83. I spell the new word several times. (modified)
84. I hum sentences I write using the new word. (moved to Further
practice/consolidation)
85. I make up a song using the new words. (moved to Further
practice/consolidation)
86. I listen to my own recording of new words several times.
87. I repeat aloud or silently the words that I listen from my own recording.
88. I repeat the words silently.
89. I write down the word several times.
90. I write the word several times in Spanish and in English.
91. I write down short sentences several times.
92. I test myself using with my flashcards (belongs with 108)
93. I review my flashcards several times.
94. I review the slips of paper and drawings I stick on the wall. (condensed
with 93).
95. I review my wall charts every morning/night. (condensed with 93)
Association
96. I associate new words with words I already know.
97. I relate new words to synonyms or antonyms.
98. I relate new words to orthographically similar words, e.g. row raw.

I use footnotes in which I write important information about new words.

I put asterisks or question marks beside the most recent words.
I write down a list of words by unit or lesson
I classify new words into their grammatical category.
Memorising/Retaining Vocabulary

Repetition
I say the word aloud several times.
I read my wordlist aloud.
I read aloud the word and its Spanish translation.
I say example sentences aloud several times.
I spell the new word several times aloud/silently.

I listen to my own recording of new words several times.

I repeat aloud or silently the words that I listen from my own recording.
I repeat the words silently.
I write down the word several times.
I write the word several times in Spanish and in English.
I write down short sentences several times.
I review my flashcards or wall charts several times.

Association
I associate new words with words I already know.
I relate new words to synonyms or antonyms.
I relate new words to orthographically similar words in English or
Spanish, e.g. row raw, cap capa = cloak.

348
99. I relate new words to orthographically similar words in Spanish even
though they do not mean the same, e.g. cap capa=cloak. (condensed
with 98)
100.
I associate the new word with drawings or pictures.
101.
I memorise new words by generating images on my mind.
102.
I associate new words with some song lyrics.
103.
I relate new words to situations in which they can be used.
104.
I associate new words to the place I see or hear them.
105.
I relate new words to physical actions.
Further practice/consolidation
106.
I use the new word in everyday conversation.
107.
I focus on a new word and try to recognise it when reading or
listening.
108.
I ask classmates/friends to test me on new words.
109.
I practise explaining the meaning of new words to my
classmates/friends.
110.
I invent a story using the new words.
111.
I pay attention to the spelling of the word. (implicit in 83)
112.
I write a diary using as many new words as possible.

I associate the new word with drawings or pictures.

I memorise new words by generating images on my mind.
I associate new words with some song lyrics.
I relate new words to situations in which they can be used.
I associate new words to the place I see or hear them.
I relate new words to physical actions.
Further practice/consolidation
I use the new word in everyday conversation.
I focus on a new word and try to recognise it when reading or listening.
I ask classmates/friends to test me on new words.
I practise explaining the meaning of new words to my
classmates/friends.
I write a diary using as many new words as possible.

349

Appendix F
VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE
Validated Version
(see endnotes at the end of Appendix F)
Alfredo Marin-Marin
I. Dealing with unknown vocabulary
Guessing
1. I check if the word looks similar to Spanish.
2. I analyse the structure of the word (i.e. prefixes: mishear and suffixes: homeless) or parts
of the word (i.e. compounds: penknife).
3. I analyse the grammatical category of the word by looking at the sentence.
4. I guess the meaning of the word by its sound, i.e. I say it aloud and guess.
5. I guess the meaning by looking at the pictures accompanying the text.
6. I guess the meaning with the help of the words I know in the sentence or paragraph.
7. I guess the meaning by the topic or the situation in which the word appears.
8. I keep on reading and try to guess later on from the context.
9. I skip the word if I do not manage to guess the meaning.
Using dictionaries and other sources
10. I look up the word in an English-Spanish-English dictionary.
11. I look up the word in my electronic translator.
12. I look up the word in an English-English dictionary.
13. I look up the word on the internet if possible, (i.e. on-line dictionaries).
14. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its meaning(s).
15. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its pronunciation.
16. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its spelling.
17. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its grammatical category (i.e. if the word is
a verb, noun, adjective or both a verb and noun)
18. I look up the word in the dictionary and check example sentences and/or fixed
expressions.
Asking others
19. I ask classmates, friends or relatives for a Spanish translation.
20. I ask classmates, friends or relatives for a definition in English.
21. I ask classmates, friends or relatives the spelling or pronunciation of the word.
22. I ask native speakers for a definition in English.
23. I ask native speakers for the spelling or pronunciation of the word.
24. I ask the teacher for a Spanish translation.
25. I ask the teacher for a definition in English.
26. I ask the teacher for an example sentence.
27. I ask the teacher for the spelling or pronunciation of the word.
28. I ask the teacher for the words use (i.e. how and when it can be used appropriately).
29. I ask the teacher for the grammar of the word, (i.e. if the verb is followed by an ing form
or to-infinitive: consider going or consider to go.

350
II. Taking Vocabulary Notes
Places where notes are kept about new words
30. I write down information about new word in the margins of the textbook or where the
word occurs.
31. I write down new words on my English notebook (i.e. the one I use for my English
course or other courses).
32. I write down new words in a specific vocabulary section at the end or top of my English
notebook.
33. I write down new words on my vocabulary notebook.
34. I write down new words on cards or small pieces of paper, which I carry with me.
35. I write down new words on wall charts, posters and small pieces of paper, which I stick
somewhere at home.
36. I record new words on audio-cassettes.
37. I keep vocabulary notes in a computer or other electronic devices.
Kind of information recorded about new words
38. I write down new words and their Spanish translation.
39. I write down new words and their definitions in English.
40. I write down antonyms or synonyms beside new words.
41. I write down the new word along with my own drawings or pictures.
42. I write down example sentences using the new word.
43. I write down the pronunciation of new words.
44. I write down the grammatical category of new words.
45. I write down the grammatical behaviour/pattern of the word, (i.e. depend on and not
depend of).
46. I write down information about the appropriate context or situation in which the word can
be used.
47. I write down the contextual reference for the new (e.g. page number, unit or lesson, film,
song, etc).
Organisation of notes about new words.
48. I organise new words by unit or lesson of the textbook.
49. I classify new words into their grammatical category, (e.g. verbs in one section, nouns in
another).
50. I classify new words by meaning groups, (e.g. animals, verbs involving motion).
51. I organise new words by alphabetical order or sections, (i.e. words beginning with A in
one section, with B etc).
52. I write down new words in the order they appear.
53. I use different devices to highlight the words you consider important. (.e.g. capital letters,
coloured pens or markers, asterisks, lines, etc).
III. Memorising/Retaining Vocabulary
Repetition to help retain the word.
A. Modes of repetition
54. I say the word aloud several times.
55. I repeat the word silently in my mind.
56. I write the word several times.
57. I listen to the words recorded on tape.

351
B. What is repeated.
58. I just repeat the English word alone.
59. I repeat the word and its Spanish translation and vice versa.
60. I repeat example sentences several times.
61. I repeat the word and its English definition.
62. I repeat the spelling of the word several times. (i.e. saying the word and spelling it aloud).
Association to help retain words.
63. I relate new words to other English words with similar sounds or spelling (e.g. link &
wink, row & raw).
64. I relate the new words to antonyms or synonyms in English (e.g. wide & narrow, view &
opinion).
65. I associate new words with similar words in another foreign language I have studied.
66. I associate new words with a similar word in Spanish (i.e. cognate, relation & relacin).
67. I use the Keyword Method. (e.g. if I want to memorise the word trigger, I think of a
word in Spanish that sounds similar like trigo; then I create an image of a gun covered
with wheat.
68. I relate new words to words which usually go together in speech or writing (e.g. words
with do and words with make).
69. I associate new words with semantically related words or group of words. (e.g. flood &
water, sink & parts of the kitchen).
70. I visualise the form (spelling) of new words.
71. I associate new words with my personal experience. (e.g. fall in love).
72. I associate new words with the place I see or hear them (e.g. books, movies, songs,
magazines, situations).
73. I associate new words with physical action that I do or imagine.
74. I think of prefixes and suffixes that can be attached to the new word (e.g. soft soften softener)
Further practice/consolidation of new words.
75. I quiz myself or have other quiz me on new words (e.g. practising giving meanings in all
possible manners, playing memory games).
76. I use as many new words as possible my everyday conversation or when writing in
English, (e.g. talking to classmates, native speakers, writing letters, diaries, etc).
77. I make up imagined conversations and stories in which I use new words.
78. I look for opportunities to encounter new words or reviewing words in English (e.g.
reading magazines, watching movies, using internet, listening to the radio, etc).

Note:
Excerpts from subjects with name were taken from interviews, e.g. IV. Susan: fourth-year
learner.
Excerpts with subject number were taken from the open questionnaire, e.g. L.V.2 means fifthyear learner, number 2 in the list.
Interviewers questions are given in [ ].
My comments on the excerpts are given in < >.
1.

Most of the words are sometimes similar to Spanish, so I can guess more or less, (I. Ingrid). I can guess because
some words are like in Spanish, for example, cognates, (IV. Susan).

352
2.

I pay attention to suffixes and prefixes and I set up a relationship with words previously learnt, (L.V.2). I try to
guess, you know, you can see sometimes ... you can guess by looking at the word formation I mean the stem of the
wordso you can see if the word is derived from other or is what I usually do if I cant, then I go to a bilingual
dictionary. (V. Adan).

3.

As we have dealt with grammar categories, I know the category, from the context I realise if it is a verb or an
adjective, (II. Jose Alberto). On the context, I read it, I try to guess, if its an adverb or verb, etc, (IV. Heriberto).

4.

by context or sometimes by the sound its sound I dont know it must be this [referring to meaning of word]
(III. Yesica).

5.

Sometimes the text in the book has photographs and I see those photographs as a strategy to guess the meaning, (III.
Abril).

6.

I read all the sentence, see the context, the words surrounding, (II. Christian). I read all the text or the words which
are near the new word, then I have an idea about the meaning of the word, (III. Virginia).

7.

Sometimes in the textbook the words are related to some topic, (IV. Yadira). I relate the word to the topic of the
reading and sometimes guess the word according to the topic, (L.II.7).

8.

I continue reading and try to guess the meaning of the word by the context. At the end if I dont understand, I come
back and look up the word in the dictionary, (IV. Lorena). I continue reading and if the word appears several times
and try to understand because sometimes the text gives the meaning of the word, (L.II.37).

9.

When reading I find many new words what I do is to continue reading. Sometimes I ignore some unknown words, I
do not stop at every new word I meet. (II. Jose Alberto).

10. I look up the word in the dictionary, [R: What kind of dictionary do you use, English-English or Spanish English?]
Spanish-English, (II. Marisela).
11. I use a translator I have the word, the several meanings and sentences, (V. Gaby).
12. In first semester I used a bilingual dictionary, but this semester I find it easier to use a monolingual dictionary which
gives me a wider context of the word, (II. Jose Alberto).
13. Sometimes I look up information on the internet and I have found lots of English dictionaries on line, e.g.
www.english.town.com, (III. Adeyanira).
14. [What information do you look up in the dictionary?] Spelling, I dont know how to say that if it is noun,
verbhow I can use it, if the word has different meanings, things like that, (III. Adeyanira).
15. [What information do you look up in the dictionary?] Well, the pronunciation, and many times I choose the
appropriate meaning that I need because many times a single word has many meanings, (I. Miguel).
16. [What information do you try to find or look up in the dictionary?], -The meaning, [Only the meaning?]
Synonyms, spelling words related, (II. Brenda).
17. [What do you look up?] The meaning. [Apart from the meaning?], -If the word is an adjective or a verb, sometimes it
is a adjective or a noun, a verbsometimes it is a verb, sometimes it is a nounor how it works and when. (V.
Miguel).
18. [What information do you look up, apart from meaning?] Examples, how I can use the new word, (Jose Antonio
502). - - Usually, in the dictionary, after the word and the meaning are given, you can find the word in fixed phrases,
I also pay attention to that, (I. Ingrid).
19. I look it up in the dictionary or sometimes I ask a classmate for a translation, and he doesnt know the meaning of the
word I have to ask the teacher for a translation, (L.II.32). <L.I.15 said that she asked her father when encountering
new words. Thus, it may possibly imply asking for translation as this learner is starting her first year>. Cf 23.
20. [When you ask, for example, your classmates or teachers, what information do you ask about?] Meanings, but by
context, I dont want them to translate the word for me in Spanish, it doesnt work for me, (III. Carolina).
21. <Although, not mentioned overtly, asking for pronunciation may take place when learners want to extend their
knowledge of the word for productive purposes. Asking for spelling, on the other hand, may arise in listening activities
or conversations. That is why this item is worth being included.>

353
22. I ask my classmates sometimes, other times I ask foreign people who speak the language, because I have some
friends, (IV. Susan) <for her, foreigners are mostly Americans as she works in Summer Language School>.
23. If I dont get the meaning I ask my friends I have lots of native speaker friends. (III. Carolina). <In this case, it
may be that when interacting with native speakers they may ask for definitions, spelling and pronunciation. Other
students reported practising new words in conversations with native speakers of English>.
24. cf 18.
25. Well, I ask the teacher for an explanation, in English of course, (II. Guadalupe). <this implies that the teacher
provides the learner with a definition in English.
26. I ask the teacher to give me an example in English, (L.I.26). Sometimes I prefer to ask the teacher for the meaning
of the word and if it is possible that the teacher could give me some examples, that would be good, (L.IV.19).
<Typically, in Mexico my students refer to examples as the meaningful sentences in which the new word is included>.
27.

[Dou you ask only for meaning?] Sometimes I ask for the pronunciation, (I. Miguel). [What do you ask?] The
meaning and the pronunciation in British or American English because sometimes it is different, (II. Roberto). <With
regard to spelling, although not mentioned overtly that way, some learners reported practising spelling with friends
(e.g. II. Angel), so it may be assumed that they sometimes ask teachers and classmates for that aspect>.

28. Also if the word has several meanings, I ask the teachers in what situations I can use the word and which meaning is
more appropriate, (L.II.27).
29. [What else do you ask about?] and how we use the word in some sentence, maybe the the ing after some verbs,
for example,I dont know, (II. Christian).
30. I write the word in the margins of the textbook and I underline the sentence where it is used, L.IV.29). When in
class, if I see a new word I write down in the book, later on I write it on my notebook, (L.III.17).
31. I write it in a notebook but not in a special notebook, (L.IV.25). <It happens that sometimes learners divide their
notebooks into the several subjects they take in a semester>.
32. I use a section at the end of my notebook, like a glossary where I write down new words or difficult ones along with
its meaning in Spanish, (L.I.8). I write down the new words on the first two lines at the top of my notebook,
(L.II.38).
33. I write down the new word along with its Spanish translation in my vocabulary notebook, (L.I.14). I write down the
word in a notebook specifically for vocabulary and I write down its meaning in Spanish, (L.II.6).
34. Sometimes I write down words on cards, on one side the word and on the other side in Spanish and I keep them with
my notebook, (L.II.5).
35. I write the words in a big paper in front of my bed, so I can read every morning when I wake up, or maybe at night
when I go to bed, (L.IV.27). I make a poster and write the new words in big letters and with fluorescent colours, then
I put it on the wall in front of my bed, (L.IV.21). I write them in a piece of paper or a card and stick them near my
bed, when I have nothing to do I see them and repeat them, (L.III.35).
36. I record my voice saying the new words, (L.I.22). I take the tape recorder, and in my free time, I listen to the
words, (I. Ingrid). <This is the same learner both from the Open Questionnaire and the Interview. At least one learner
in each year reported using tape recorders>.
37. <Although, nobody mentioned they kept notes this way, it can be suggested that some of them may use some kind of
PC organiser as they reported using web sites for learning English>.
38. I keep a record in which I include the new word, its meaning, its Spanish equivalent, examples and the phonetics,
(L.II.16). I write the word in English with its equivalent in Spanish, and if I can, with a sentence to see the word in
context, (L.III.7)
39. I make a list of unknown words. I order them alphabetically, writing down the explanation in English, then I write
down a sentence with the word in it. Finally, I write down the meaning in English, (L.IV.8) I look up the definition in
a dictionary and then I write down in a notebook, (L.V.16).
40. I write down the new word in a space of my book with its meaning, synonym or translation, (L.III.30). I just write
the most common synonym or I write like key or cue words, (L.V.8). I write down its antonym to remember the word
better, (L.III.4)

354
41. If I can, I draw the meaning of the word in the notebook or textbook, (L.II.29). I write down the word in the
notebook, and I use some pictures, (L.II.36).
42. I copy examples [sentences] from the textbook, dictionary or from the board, (L.III.25). I write down examples
using the new word, (L.III.14)
43. I write down the word on my notebook, beside the word, how it is pronounced and its meaning, L.I.26).
44. I write what part of the speech it is, (L.V.19). I make a few annotations[What do you write down?] I write down
the translation, in Spanish, its grammatical category, examples, (II. Jose Alberto).
45. I write down the word and its meaning; I add an example of how the word is used, and if the word follows some rules
I write them down and put a star, (L.I.20)
46. I look up the definition in English, and then I write both English and Spanish and examples of the word, the usage of
the word, (V. Brenda). <As some learners said they asked the teacher or looked up in the dictionary when and where
the new word can be used, this suggests that some may write down such information somewhere>.
47. [How do you organise your vocabulary section?] Alphabetically and sometimes I put the page where I found the
word I dont know, (IV. Lorena). [How do you organise that special notebook?] Well, I organise it by subjects I
have 5 pages for adjectives, other (pages) for verbs, and I write the unit (of the book) where I took it, (IV. Ixchel).
48. I write down a list by unit, (L.III.5). When the exam is near (coming), I look up the vocabulary unit by unit and I
repeat every word, (III. Elsy). <It seems that the words are noted down in the order they appear in the lesson or unit of
the book>.
49. I classify the new word, I mean, if it is a noun, a verb, etc, (L.III.2). I write down new words in my vocabulary
notebook where I write adjectives, nouns, etc., each one in its category to make it easier to remember them, (L.II.27).
50. I do how do you say campos semanticos?, [semantic maps, how do you know that? Well, when I was in primary
school we did it, now I do it in English, for example, hospital: nurse (II. Brenda).
51. I have a 100-page notebook and its organised in alphabetical ordera, b, c I learned that in secondary school, the
teacher asked us to keep a diary of unknown English words, (I. Ingrid). I read texts and highlights words I dont
know. Then I write them down alphabetically in my notebook, the I look up the meaning in English, (IV. Veronica).
52. [How do you organise your vocabulary notebook?] Well, the vocabulary is all continuous, because I think if I try to
organise my notebook in alphabetical order, I think that maybe I dont study, (II. Christian).
53. <In this respect, learners reported using such devices to indicate that the word is new, that the word needs further
checking, etc>.
54. I write the word several times, I repeat the word aloud. (L.III.37).
55. I repeat the word aloud or in my mind several times, (L.III.14). <One of the first year learner reported repeating the
word mentally 30 times>.
56. Also I have to write the word several times to remember how it is written, (L.II.27). I try to memorise the word by
writing it many times on pieces of paper, (L.III.38). I write the word several times, it depends on the spelling
difficulty, (II. Alma). <Another student reported writing the word repeatedly 5 times>.
57. I record the word and then I listen to a tape many times, (L.V.6). I listen first and then I repeat the word, (L.V.5).
<This involves some kind of aural repetition as they presumably listen to the tape several times>.
58. I need to write the word several times, [How many times?] I dont know 4 maybe 5. [So you dont repeat aloud?]
Yes, I write it and I repeat it aloud. [Silently?] Yes, also most of the time because I need to concentrate on the word,
(III. Abril).
59. I repeat the word. [How do you repeat?] -I use two ways. I say the word once, I say the meaning, and I say the word
again and the way it sounds in Spanish and I say the meaning, or sometimes I say the way it sounds in English, the way
it sounds in Spanish and then the meaning. (II. Angel) <Although a bit confusing, this suggests the learner repeats the
word both in English and Spanish and vice versa>.
60. I write down sentences using the word and I repeat them several times, (L.I.1)
61. I read the definitions aloud. [So the new word in sentences, not alone?] Not alone, sentences and its meaning in
English, definitions, words and definitions and examples, (IV. Veronica).

355
62. I try to spell the word many times, (L.V.18).
63. I relate words to words I already know, for example link, then I think about wink; similar you see, I dont usually take
notes, I just think. Then next time when I find the word wink, yes, its not link, (V. Adan). <This learner said he has
been successful at least in the vocabulary section of the exam>. I try to memorise by comparing the words, for
example row raw, (L.III.22).
64. [Any associations? ] About the word, I ask my classmates to help me find synonyms, for example for wood we put
forest, (II. Angel). For example, the opposites narrow and wide, I imagine a wide street and a narrow street, (II.
Brenda).
65. I find a word and then I look for an equivalent, not in Spanish, in another language, in my case I took French so I
put the word in French or even in the same language, a synonym or something that could be a link, (V. Adan).
66. I try to relate the word to some other words with a close meaning in Spanish for example, relation and its Spanish
relacion, (IV. Ixchel).
67. Suggested by P. Scholfield (Personal Communication, 2001).
68. Also it is helpful when you take, for example a verb, lets say make, and you put the words that can be with this verb,
like make I dont know make a. (III. Jose Antonio). <Although the learner does not know the term, he was
talking about collocation, which is an important aspect in vocabulary learning>.
69. If we are talking about flood I relate it to water and disaster and others, (III. Adeyanira). (cf II. Brenda). Games or
making groups of things, for example a group of fruits, tropical fruits, raspberry, I dont know liche, not common fruits,
strange fruits, very difficult words to learn, (II. Roberto).
70. The spelling always I imagine because its my problem, and the situation, (II. Alma). Sometimes I see the word, I
close my eyes and try to visualise the word. [What do you visualise, picture or the word, the letters?] If I dont
remember the spelling, the letters, If I dont remember the meaning, some pictures, images, something like that, (II.
Guadalupe).
71. [Can you think about an example of how you do that] -For example, something stupid, fall in love. I have the image of
someone in my mind to remember the word I associate this with somebody I used to be in love with, (III. Yesica).
For me, its just enough to associate the word with an occasion/action of my daily life to remember the word,
(L.I.16).
72. I also sometimes relate these words to a song I have listened before, L.IV.24). I remember a movie that is called, I
think, Before and After, I dont remember, but I relate the meaning for I try to understand the meaning with that
movie< (V. Ana). <She said she always confuses the pair before-after, that movie>.
73. Sometimes I use my movements to learn some new words; I try to do the action of the word, (L.V.7). I imagine the
thing that it means, for example, hit, I imagine, well, I imagine somebody, I imagine even abstract things. (IV.
Veronica)
74. I pay attention to suffixes and prefixes and I set up a relationship with words previously learnt, (L.V.2).
75. I like studying with my friend; we repeat the words, then she asks me and I answer and vice versa; its a funny way for
doing something not very easy, (L.IV.7). My partner and I try to explain the words with an easy definition, hands,
objects, etc. (L.V.8).
76.

I try to use it (the word) when talking to my friends or in common situations, (L.V.11). I write stories by using
words I want to memorise, L.II.31). <Other learners said they chat in English on the internet; other said they practise
new words in conversations with native speakers, cf. IV. Susan>.

77. When I am alone in my room I talk to myself; I also pray in English, (III. Jose Antonio). <Although this learner did
not mention that he invented conversations, it can be suggested that somewhat he may think about imagined
conversations>.
78. I like learning vocabulary from song lyrics; so I listen to song and I repeat the new words and I sing the song to learn
them, (L.II.18). For me, the best way to learn new vocabulary is by reading stories in English which I find
interesting, I dont stop reading and read the stories again because I like them, (L.II.17). <Also several learners
reported using internet in English, reading newspapers, etc>.

356

Appendix G
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire -Revised (EPQ-R)
(Extraversion Scale)
INSTRUCTIONS: Please answer each question by putting a circle around the YES or NO
following the question. There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Work
quickly and do not think too long about the exact meaning of the questions.
Are you a talkative person?
Are you rather lively?
Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions?
Do you like going out a lot?
Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends?
Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people?
Can you easily get some life into a rather dull party?
Do you like telling jokes or funny stories to your friends?
Do you like mixing with people?
Can you get a party going?
Do you like plenty of bustle and excitement around you?
Do other people think of you as being very lively?
Do you have many different hobbies?
Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at a lively party?
Do you prefer reading to meeting people?
Do you have many friends?
Do you nearly always have a "ready answer" when people talk to you?
Do you like doing things in which you have to act quickly?
Do you often make decisions on the spur of the moment?

357

Appendix H
Vocabulary Levels Test (Version 2) N. Schmitt
Registration Number: ______________________.Date: ______________________.
Semester: _________________.

English Course: ______________.

This is a vocabulary test. You must choose the right word to go with each meaning. Write the
number of that word next to its meaning. Here is an example.

1. business
2. clock

_____ part of a house.

3. horse

_____ animal with four legs.

4. pencil

_____ something used for writing.

5. shoe
6. wall

You answer it the following way.

1. business
2. clock

__6__ part of a house.

3. horse

__3__ animal with four legs.

4. pencil

__4__ something used for writing.

5. shoe
6. wall

Some words are in the test to make it more difficult. You do not have to find a meaning for those
words. In the example above, these words are business, clock, and shoe.
If you have no idea about the meaning of the word, do not guess. But if you think you might
know the meaning, then you should try to find the answer.

358
SECTION A
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

copy
event
motor
pity
profit
tip

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

accident
debt
fortune
pride
roar
thread

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

coffee
disease
justice
skirt
stage
wage

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

arrange
develop
lean
owe
prefer
seize

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

clerk
frame
noise
respect
theatre
wine

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

blame
elect
jump
threaten
melt
manufacture

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

dozen
empire
gift
tax
relief
opportunity

_____ end or highest point.

_____ this moves a car.
_____ thing made to be like another.

_____ loud deep sound.

_____ something you must pay.
_____ having a high opinion of yourself.

_____ money for work.

_____ a piece of clothing.
_____ using the law in the right way.

_____ grow.
_____ put in order.
_____ like more than something else.

_____ a drink.
_____ office worker.
_____ unwanted sound.

_____ make.
_____ choose by voting.
_____ become like water.

_____ chance.
_____ twelve.
_____ money paid to the government.

359
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

ancient
curious
difficult
entire
holy
social

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

admire
complain
fix
hire
introduce
stretch

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

slight
bitter
lovely
merry
popular
independent

_____ not easy.

_____ very old.
_____ related to God.

_____ make wider or longer.

_____ bring in for the first time.
_____ have a high opinion of someone.

_____ beautiful.
_____ small.
_____ liked by many people.

SECTION B
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

bull
champion
dignity
hell
museum
solution

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

muscle
counsel
factor
hen
lawn
atmosphere

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

blanket
contest
generation
merit
plot
vacation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

abandon
dwell
oblige
pursue
quote
resolve

_____ formal and serious manner.

_____ winner of a sporting event.
_____ building where valuable objects are shown.

_____ advice.
_____ a place covered with grass.
_____ female chicken.

_____ holiday.
_____ good quality.
_____ wool covering used on beds.

_____ live in a place.

_____ follow in order to catch.
_____ leave something permanently.

360
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

comment
gown
import
nerve
pasture
tradition

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

assemble
attach
peer
quit
scream
toss

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

pond
angel
frost
herd
fort
administration

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

drift
endure
grasp
knit
register
tumble

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

brilliant
distinct
magic
naked
slender
stable

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

aware
blank
desperate
normal
striking
supreme

_____ long formal dress.

_____ goods from a foreign country.
_____ part of the body which carries
feelings.

_____ look closely.

_____ stop doing something.
_____ cry out loudly in fear.

_____ group of animals.

_____ spirit who serves God.
_____ managing business and affairs.

_____ suffer patiently.

_____ join wool threads together.
_____ hold firmly with your hands.

_____ thin.
_____ steady.
_____ without clothes.

_____ usual.
_____ best or most important.
_____ knowing what is happening.

SECTION C
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

area
contract
definition
evidence
method
role

_____
_____
_____
_____

written agreement.
way of doing something.
reason for believing
something is or is not true.

361
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

adult
vehicle
exploitation
infrastructure
termination
schedule

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

debate
exposure
integration
option
scheme
stability

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

alter
coincide
deny
devote
release
specify

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

access
gender
psychology
license
orientation
implementation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

correspond
diminish
emerge
highlight
invoke
retain

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

edition
accumulation
guarantee
media
motivation
phenomenon

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

bond
channel
estimate
identify
mediate
minimize

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

explicit
final
negative
professional
rigid
sole

_____ end.
_____ machine used to move
people or goods.
_____ list of things to do at
certain times.
_____ plan.
_____ choice.
_____ joining something into a whole.

_____ change.
_____ say something is not true.
_____ describe clearly and exactly.

_____ male or female.

_____ study of the mind.
_____ entrance or way in.

_____ keep.
_____ match or be in agreement with.
_____ give special attention to something.

_____ collecting things over time.

_____ promise to repair a broken product.
_____ feeling a strong reason or need to do.
something.

_____ make smaller.

_____ guess the number or size of something.
_____ recognizing and naming a person or thing.

_____ last.
_____ stiff.
_____ meaning no or not.

362
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

abstract
adjacent
neutral
global
controversial
supplementary

_____ next to.

_____ added to.
_____ concerning the whole world.

SECTION D
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

analysis
curb
gravel
mortgage
scar
zeal

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

artillery
creed
hydrogen
maple
pork
streak

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

cavalry
eve
ham
mound
steak
switch

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

chart
forge
mansion
outfit
sample
volunteer

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

circus
jungle
trumpet
sermon
stool
nomination

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

revive
extract
gamble
launch
provoke
contemplate

_____ eagerness.
_____ loan to buy a house.
_____ small stones mixed with sand.

_____ a kind of tree.

_____ system of belief.
_____ large gun on wheels.

_____ small hill.

_____ day or night before a holiday.
_____ soldiers who fight from horses.

_____ map.
_____ large beautiful house.
_____ place where metals are made and shaped.

_____ musical instrument.

_____ seat without a back or arms.
_____ speech given by a priest in a church.

_____ think about deeply.

_____ bring back to health.
_____ make someone angry.

363
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

shatter
embarrass
heave
obscure
demonstrate
relax

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

decent
frail
harsh
incredible
municipal
specific

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

correspond
embroider
lurk
penetrate
prescribe
resent

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

adequate
internal
mature
profound
solitary
tragic

_____ have a rest.

_____ break suddenly into small pieces.
_____ make someone feel shy or nervous.

_____ weak.
_____ concerning a city.
_____ difficult to believe.

_____ exchange letters.

_____ hide and wait for someone.
_____ feel angry about something.

_____ enough.
_____ fully grown.
_____ alone away from other things.

SECTION E
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

alabaster
tentacle
dogma
keg
rasp
chandelier

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

throttle
convoy
lien
octave
stint
benevolence

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

bourgeois
brocade
consonant
prelude
stupor
tier

_____ small barrel.

_____ soft white stone.
_____ tool for shaping wood.

_____ kindness.
_____ set of musical notes.
_____ speed control for an engine.

_____ middle class people.

_____ row or level of something.
_____ cloth with a pattern or gold or silver
threads.

364
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

scrawl
cringe
immerse
peek
contaminate
relay

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

alcove
impetus
maggot
parole
salve
vicar

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

blurt
dabble
dent
pacify
strangle
swagger

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

alkali
banter
coop
mosaic
stealth
viscount

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

illicit
lewd
mammoth
slick
temporal
vindictive

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

dissipate
flaunt
impede
loot
squirm
vie

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

indolent
nocturnal
obsolete
torrid
translucent
wily

_____ write carelessly.

_____ move back because of fear.
_____ put something under water.

_____ priest.
_____ release from prison early.
_____ medicine to put on wounds.

_____ walk in a proud way.

_____ kill by squeezing someones throat.
_____ say suddenly without thinking.

_____ light joking talk.

_____ a rank of British nobility.
_____ picture made of small pieces of glass or
stone.

_____ immense.
_____ against the law.
_____ wanting revenge.

_____ steal.
_____ scatter or vanish.
_____ twist the body about uncomfortably.

_____ lazy.
_____ no longer used.
_____ clever and tricky.

365

Appendix I
VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Learner,
The following questionnaire has been designed to collect information about how you learn English
vocabulary both inside and outside the classroom when interacting with your classmates, your teacher and
perhaps with English speakers or when studying alone.
Please, note that this is not an evaluation of how good you are at vocabulary; rather it is just a way of
getting to know you as a learner of English.

Instructions for sections I, II and III:

Read the statement and choose a response by circling the number (1 through 6 as below) that most apply
to you when learning English vocabulary. Please, review the response numbers below and report what
you really do in this respect.
1. Never or almost never true of me.
2. Rarely or seldom true of me.
3. Sometimes not true of me.
4. Sometimes true of me.
5. Generally true of me.
6. Always or nearly true of me.

SECTION I Dealing with unknown vocabulary.

Never
true of me

Always
true of me

How I guess the meaning of new words.

1. I check if the word looks similar to Spanish.

2. I analyse the structure of the word (i.e. prefixes: mishear and suffixes:
homeless) or parts of the word (i.e. compounds: penknife).

3. I analyse the grammatical category of the word by looking at the sentence.

4 5

4. I guess the meaning of the word by its sound, i.e. I say it aloud and guess.

5. I guess the meaning by looking at the pictures accompanying the text.

6. I guess the meaning with the help of the words I know in the sentence
or paragraph.

7. I guess the meaning by the topic of the text in which the word appears.

8. I keep on reading and try to guess later on from the context.

9. I skip the word if I do not manage to guess the meaning.

Other: _____________________________________________________

4 5

366
How I use dictionaries and other sources.
10. I look up the word in an English-Spanish-English dictionary.

4 5

11. I look up the word in my electronic translator.

12. I look up the word in an English-English dictionary.

1
1

2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5

6
6

13. I look up the word on the internet if possible, (i.e. on-line dictionaries).

4 5

14. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its meaning(s).

4 5

15. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its pronunciation.

4 5

16. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its spelling.

17. I look up the word in the dictionary and check its grammatical category
(i.e. if the word is a verb, noun, adjective or both a verb and noun).

4 5

18. I look up the word in the dictionary and check example sentences and/or
fixed expressions.

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

19. I ask classmates, friends or relatives for a Spanish translation.

20. I ask classmates, friends or relatives for a definition in English.

4 5

21. I ask classmates, friends or relatives the spelling or pronunciation

of the word.

22. I ask native speakers for a definition in English.

23. I ask native speakers for the spelling or pronunciation of the word.

24. I ask the teacher for a Spanish translation.

25. I ask the teacher for a definition in English.

26. I ask the teacher for an example sentence.

27. I ask the teacher for the spelling or pronunciation of the word.

28. I ask the teacher for the words use (i.e. how and when it can be used
appropriately).

29. I ask the teacher for the grammar of the word, (e.g. if the verb is followed
by an ing form or to-infinitive: consider going or consider to go.

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

Who I ask and what information I request.

367
SECTION II Taking Vocabulary Notes
Places where I keep a note of new words (and any information about them).
30. I write down information about new word in the margins of the textbook
or where the word occurs.

31. I write down new words on my English notebook (i.e. the one I use for
my English course or other courses).

32. I write down new words in a specific vocabulary section at the end or top
of my English notebook.

33. I write down new words on my vocabulary notebook.

4 5

34. I write down new words on cards or small pieces of paper, which I carry
with me.

35. I write down new words on wall charts, posters and small pieces of paper,
which I stick somewhere at home.

36. I record new words on audio-cassettes.

37. I keep vocabulary notes in a computer or other electronic devices.

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

38. I write down new words and their Spanish translation.

4 5

39. I write down new words and their definitions in English.

4 5

40. I write down antonyms or synonyms beside new words.

41. I write down the new word along with my own drawings or pictures.

4 5

42. I write down example sentences using the new word.

43. I write down the pronunciation of new words.

4 5

44. I write down the grammatical category of new words.

4 5

45. I write down the grammatical behaviour/pattern of the word, (e.g. depend on
and not depend of).
1

46. I write down information about the appropriate context or situation in which
the word can be used.
1

47. I write down the contextual reference for the new word (e.g. page number,
unit or lesson, film, song, where I saw the word).

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

Kind of information I record about new words

368
How I organise my notes about new words.
48. I organise new words by unit or lesson of the textbook.

4 5

49. I classify new words into their grammatical category, (e.g. verbs in one
section, nouns in another).

50. I classify new words by meaning groups, (e.g. animals, verbs involving
motion).

51. I organise new words by alphabetical order or sections, (i.e. words

beginning with A in one section, with B etc).

52. I write down new words in the order I meet them.

53. I use different devices to highlight the words you consider important. (.e.g.
capital letters, coloured pens or markers, asterisks, lines, etc).

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

A. Ways I do repetition.
54. I say the word aloud several times.

4 5

55. I repeat the word silently in my mind.

56. I write the word several times.

57. I listen to the words recorded on tape.

58. I just repeat the English word alone.

59. I say the word and its Spanish translation.

4 5

60. I repeat example sentences several times.

61. I repeat the word and its English definition.

4 5

62. I repeat the spelling of the word several times, letter by letter.

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

SECTION III. Memorising/Retaining Vocabulary

Things I do repeatedly to help myself retain new words.

B. Information that I handle repeatedly.

369
Association I make to help myself retain words.
63. I relate new words to other English words with similar sounds or spelling
(e.g. link & wink, row & raw).

64. I relate the new words to antonyms or synonyms in English

(e.g. wide & narrow, view & opinion).

65. I associate new words with similar words in another foreign language
I have studied.

66. I associate new words with a similar word in Spanish (i.e. cognate,
relation & relacion).

67. I use the Keyword Method. (e.g. if I want to memorise the word trigger,
I think of a word in Spanish that sounds similar like trigo; then I create an
image of a gun that I found in a wheat field.

4 5

68. I relate new words to words which usually go together in speech or writing
(e.g. words with do and words with make).

69. I associate new words with semantically related words or group of words.
(e.g. flood & water, sink & parts of the kitchen).

70. I visualise the written form (spelling) or the meaning of new words.

71. I associate new words with my personal experience. (e.g. fall in love).

72. I associate new words with the place I see or hear them (e.g. books,
movies, songs, magazines, situations).

73. I associate new words with physical action that I do or imagine.

74. I think of prefixes and suffixes that can be attached to the new word (e.g.
soft soften - softener)

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

75. I quiz myself or have other quiz me on new words (e.g. practising giving
meanings in all possible manners, playing memory games).

76. I use as many new words as possible my everyday conversation or when

writing in English.

77. I make up imagined conversations and stories in which I use new words.

4 5

78. I look for opportunities to encounter new words or review words in

English (e.g. reading magazines, watching movies, using internet, listening
to the radio, etc).

Other: _________________________________________________________

4 5

What I do to practice or /consolidate new words.

370
SECTION IV About Yourself.

Registration number: _______________ English Course: _________________ Date _______

How long have you been learning English? ______ years and ______ months.

Have you received any private lessons of English? If so, how long?
______________________________________________________________________________
Do you study other foreign languages apart from English? If so, which ones?
______________________________________________________________________________
Have you been in an English speaking country? If so, where and how long?
______________________________________________________________________________
Does anybody in your family know or speak English? If so, who?
______________________________________________________________________________
Do you have access to TV or radio in English? Please explain.
______________________________________________________________________________
Do you have access to internet? If so, where and how often you use it in English?
______________________________________________________________________________
Have you received any training of general language strategies? If so, please explain.
______________________________________________________________________________

371

Appendix J
Overall Use of VLS in order of frequency
Rank
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.

Number/name of VLS
14. Use dictionary to check meaning(s).
38. Write down Spanish translation.
30. Write down information of the word on textbook.
10. Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
18. Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
6. Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.
78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.
55. Repeat word silently.
66. Associate word with similar L1 word.
39. Write down English definition.
53. Highlight new words.
52. Write down words in chronological order.
16. Use dictionary to check spelling.
72. Associate word with contextual/situational use.
58. Repeat word alone.
7. Guess meaning by topic.
70. Visualise written form or meaning.
28. Ask teacher for word's use.
8. Skip word, guess by delayed written context.
31. Write down words on English notebook.
27. Ask teacher for spelling/pronunciation.
15. Use dictionary to check pronunciation.
54. Say word aloud repeatedly.
5. Guess meaning by pictures in text.
3. Analyse part of speech.
73. Associate word with physical action.
71. Associate word with personal experience.
25. Ask teacher for English definition.
1. Check for similar L1 word.
2. Analyse word structure when guessing.
26. Ask teacher for example sentence.
76. Use new words in conversations and writing.
17. Use dictionary to check part of speech.
42. Write down example sentences.
24. Ask teacher for translation.
19. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for translation.
12. Look up word in monolingual dictionary.
60. Repeat word and examples.
61. Repeat word and L2 definition.
59. Repeat word and translation.
43. Write down pronunciation.
56. Write down word repeatedly.
29. Ask teacher for grammar of word.
64. Relate word to antonyms/synonyms.
69. Associate word with semantically related words.
46. Write down contextual/situation use.

N
150
150
150
150
148
148
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
150
149
149
150
149
150
150
150
150
150
149
150
150
150
150
148
149
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149

Mean
5.1000
4.9467
4.9067
4.9067
4.9054
4.8919
4.8733
4.7333
4.7133
4.7000
4.6600
4.6467
4.6333
4.5933
4.5733
4.5400
4.4933
4.4733
4.4733
4.4600
4.4497
4.4333
4.3154
4.2819
4.2200
4.2148
4.2067
4.2000
4.1667
4.1667
4.0933
4.0805
4.0600
4.0533
4.0067
3.9667
3.9257
3.9195
3.8933
3.8800
3.8733
3.8600
3.8533
3.8000
3.7467
3.6510

Std.
Deviation
1.17439
1.32496
1.33787
1.30228
1.30586
1.13770
1.22774
1.38383
1.36759
1.32478
1.68623
1.58913
1.38746
1.32146
1.44402
1.24043
1.36469
1.52692
1.38398
1.59542
1.47243
1.40668
1.58578
1.30011
1.51001
1.65857
1.55997
1.48369
1.30264
1.46739
1.53416
1.37308
1.59374
1.55346
1.46318
1.45361
1.77699
1.60875
1.67551
1.67861
1.74285
1.80614
1.56036
1.58855
1.54653
1.49289

372
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.

63. Relate word to L2 word with similar sound.

77. Make up imagined conversations.
68. Relate word to collocations.
21. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for
spelling/pronunciation.
32. Write down words on specific section of English
notebook.
20. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for English definition.
40. Write down antonyms/synonyms.
23. Ask native speakers for spelling/pronunciation.
22. Ask native speakers for English definition.
45. Write down grammar of the word.
9. Skip word.
33. Write down words on vocabulary notebook.
74. Think of prefixes/suffixes for the word.
48. Organise words by unit/lesson.
44. Write down part of speech.
75. Test myself or have others test me.
4. Guess meaning by sound.
65. Relate word to word in L3/L4.
67. Use keyword method.
50. Classify words by semantic fields.
57. Listen to tape-recorded words.
34. Write down words on cards/paper slips.
62. Repeat spelling of word.
51. Organise words in alphabetical order/sections.
49. Classify words by part of speech.
41. Accompany words with drawings/pictures.
47. Write down contextual reference.
13. Look up word in www.
35. Write down words on charts.
11. Look up word in electronic dictionary.
37. Keep vocabulary records in computer/electronic
devices.
36. Record words on audio-cassettes.

150
150
148

3.6467
3.6133
3.5878

1.89005
1.71760
1.42823

150

3.5533

1.52622

150

3.4667

1.66151

149
150
149
149
150
148
148
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
150
150
149
150
150
149
149
150

3.4497
3.4400
3.3758
3.3557
3.1800
3.1081
3.0676
3.0467
3.0400
2.9667
2.9400
2.8733
2.7867
2.6800
2.6667
2.4933
2.4832
2.4667
2.2933
2.2483
2.2467
2.2200
2.1745
1.7987
1.6600

1.57014
1.56076
1.71825
1.79742
1.59727
1.48065
1.87958
1.60677
1.74894
1.59031
1.62708
1.42507
1.71682
1.68817
1.58714
1.65374
1.66280
1.50911
1.59507
1.42329
1.47433
1.44645
1.43664
1.37044
1.15758

149

1.5369

1.13020

150

1.3667

.83880

373

Appendix K
Transcript from:
Marilia
Gender:
Female
Year:
4
Vocabulary score: 24.8/30
End-of-semester grade:
9.30/10
Extraversion score: 2/19
Personality Type: Introverted
Age:
23
R: What do you regularly do when you meet a new word?
M: I look it up in the dictionary because I don't like having doubts about new words, because I
don't understand the context if don't find the meaning of the word.
R: But, do you pay attention to the context?
M: Yes.
R: And what do you exactly do to guess from context. What do look at?
M: I also relate it to what it's talking about. That helps me a bit.
R: But, do you relate it to the topic?
M: Yes.
R: Only that? Or something else you do?
M: I relate it to the topic.
R: And don't you analyse the word itself?
M: No.
R: To see if it looks like something or it sounds like something?
M: Sometimes. There are words that are composed of suffixes and prefixes. Those words
sometimes help me.
R: Are you aware of suffixes and prefixes?
M: Yes.
R: Something else you do?
M: I relate the word it to the context.
R: Something else?
M: I relate it to other words I know.
R: How exactly?
M: In the sentence.
R: Who taught you that?
M: Me alone. I learned this here. I like reading a lot in English. I read a lot here with this major.
R: Do you think this has helped you increase your vocabulary?
M: Yes, I like reading a lot.
R: in Spanish as well?
M: Yes.
R: OK, let's talk about the dictionary. What dictionary do you use?
M: A Larousse.
R: Is it English-Spanish, English-English? Bilingual or monolingual?
M: Bilingual.
R: The pocket one or the big one?
M: The big one.
R: Ok, imagine, you find a new word and decide to look it up. Tell me what information do you
look up?

374
M: The meaning of the word, but there are some words that have several meanings and I like
writing down all of them.
R: What else do you look up?
M: I try to relate it to other words to make easier to remember.
R: Does the dictionary tell you whether the word is a verb or adjective? Do you pay attention to
that?
M: Yes.
R: And how does the dictionary tell you that?
M: If it's a noun, it says N, with abbreviations, if it's a verb, with V.
R: What other information do you look up?
M: Well, the word and their several meanings, that the word can be a verb or noun, sometimes a
verb followed by a preposition, and sometimes I find sayings.
R: Do you care about pronunciation?
M: No.
R: Do you understand the symbols used for pronunciation?
M: Yes, but I don't pay attention to them when looking up words. I understand them because I
took phonetics.
R: So, you're not interested in this?
M: No.
R: But, do you like writing in English?
M: Yes.
R: In the classroom, you find a new word and you don't have a dictionary at hand, and you
cannot guess meaning, do you ask somebody?
M: I ask my classmates who know. I ask them for the meaning.
R: Only that? In English or Spanish?
M: In Spanish.
R: Do you ask the teacher?
M: I don't generally ask the teacher.
R: Why?
M: Because... I don't like asking, I prefer to ask my friends or after the class I look it up in the
dictionary.
R: Do you ask any classmates?
M: Yes.
R: In class, do you like to work alone or in groups?
M: I like working alone.
R: Then, you don't like interrupting the teacher by asking for meaning?
M: No, no.
R: OK, now let's talk about your vocabulary notes. How do you organise your notes?
M: When I feel I have many new words to learn I write down the word several times.
R: How many times?
M: 20 or 30. I like writing.
R: Only the word in English? Or along with something?
M: Only the word.
R: Do you say the word several times?
M: Yes, I do that, aloud in my room.
R: Okay, we will talk about that later on. Let's come back to notes. Tell me about them.
M: I have a notebook I fill with words. As I said, I write down words many times until I feel I
have learned it.
R: For example, when reading and you find a new word, you underline it and do you write
something next to it?

375
M: Yes, I find the word and besides it I write the meaning. When I feel I have enough words I
put them in my notebook.
R: And, don't you write in the margins of the book or notebook?
M: Yes, in my English book. My friends always talk about that. "Look how you have your books
full of notes."
R: And why do you write them down in there?
M: Because I feel it helps when I come back to read that part again I will find the notes there,
next to the unfamiliar words. The notes are handy.
R: And in your notebook, do you use a section of it or do you write down new word in your
English notebook?
M: In my English notebook.
R: As they appear, right?
M: Yes.
R: Do you use cards or small pieces of paper?
M: No.
R: What do you do then?
M: Generally, I buy poster-size paper and I stick them on the wall at home. I write down new
words, but I don't write the meaning in English or Spanish.
R: Why not?
M: Because I feel I will not learn them that way. When I see the wall charts I repeat the words.
Sometimes I test myself on the words, for example, this means this, that means that, etc.
R: And the word you write down on the posters, do they follow some order?
M: No, as they appear. I just see the word and try I know if it's a verb or noun.
R: Are you interested in the spelling of words?
M: Yes.
R: The pronunciation?
M: No, but I try to write them down correctly.
R: Well, let's move on the third part of the interview. What do you do to retain words?
M: I repeat them. I write them down and repeat them. For example, sky, sky, sky, many times,
and I retain them. When I see them in context it is easy to remember them.
In class, for example, if the teacher, I see a word I don't know, I ask a classmate, and she tells me
what it is, at that moment I repeat the word mentally. For example, today I learned a new word. I
didn't know the word widower, which means viudo. I ask my friend Ana for the meaning. She
takes the same course but with a different teacher.
R: So you say that you repeat words, but you don't repeat aloud, do you?
M: Yes, I do.
R: Don't you record yourself saying new words?
M: No, I don't like it.
R: Besides repeating, do you have other special ways of memorising words?
M: For example, the words I have in wall charts, I see them and try to associate them with
something.
R: Something like what?
M: [bit silent] like something very related so that I don't forget them, so when I remember this I
could say, 'ah, it means this.'
R: Do you do other things apart from repeating?
M: When I see the word in context, which I also look up in the dictionary, I look at it for a
moment and try to put it in my mind.
R: In the same manner as with the word 'widower,' you will not forget the word?
M: I don't know how to explain. I retained it already, maybe in the way I learned it, that I didn't
know, that my friend told me and that another person said it when giving a presentation.

376
R: So, you manage to remember where you learned or saw the word?
M: Yes.
R: For example, from films you have learned word, or form the readings?
M: Yes, from the readings I have learned a lot of words. Sometimes I see them here, and then I
realise that I met such a word in another reading.
R: So you learned the word 'widower' (viudo), what about 'viuda'?
M: Widow.
R: Did you k now that?
M: No, I relate it to widower.
R: And, similar words, don't you put them together?
M: No.
R: Opposites?
M: No.
R: In general, how do you practise your vocabulary? How do you know you have learned word
you wanted to?
M: In the way I told you. I repeat a lot. Sometimes I'm doing something different and the new
words come to my mind.
R: Now let's talk about your study habits? Do you like studying alone or in groups?
M: Alone.
R: With music or noise?
M: With music, and even if there's noise, I'm so concentrated on my study that I forget that
there's somebody or noise.
R: But, in a quiet environment you manage to concentrate?
M: Yes.
R: Because, people say that too much silence makes one sleep.
M: I can study as well.
R: When preparing for exams, do you and your friends gather together to study?
M: No, I don't like studying with others; I feel I learn better when alone.
R: Do you like going out?
M: I prefer to stay at home.
R: For example, at the park sitting on a bench next to a stranger, would you find it easier to have
a conversation with him/her.
M: No.
R: Why?
M: I feel I'm not a social person.
R: Do you think this is bad?
M: At home, I feel different.
R: In general, how do you describe yourself in character, temperament, what adjectives describe
you?
M: I like being at home. I'm not too noisy. I like studying alone. I like walking. But I don't have
many friends; Im not sociable at all. I don't usually go to pubs or discos.
R: Did you answer the personality questionnaire as honestly as possible?
M: Yes.

377

Appendix L
Transcript from:
Georgia
Gender:
Female
Year:
5
Vocabulary score: 18/30
End-of-semester grade:
N/A
Extraversion score: 19/19
Personality Type: Extraverted
Age:
23
R: Georgia, what do you do when you find an unfamiliar word and you want to know what it
means and it's not directly explain by the teacher or the textbook; what do you do in order to
figure out its meaning.
G: First, I try to understand according to the reading, or according to the yep... the meaning,
but if I don't understand what the word means, I got into a dictionary to look the word; first a
dictionary English to English, but if I can't understand I go to into a dictionary English to
Spanish or Spanish to English.
R: Okay, let's focus on... you said that you try to figure out the meaning by context, just describe
more in detail what you do.
G: I read maybe two or three times, ok the context and I try to relate the word with other words
in the reading, for example. But if I can't understand the context I must go to the dictionary.
R: Okay, guessing from the sentences. Any other way of guessing; what else do you do to guess,
what do you look at in the text?
G: Ah in the text, ok for example, if it's a paragraph I try to read the paragraph or the whole
reading, after I try to comprehend it, but if I can't, the same thing.
R: Do you look at the pictures or something?
G: Yeah, if the book has pictures I try to relate for example what is the reading talking about or
something like that, if the book has pictures.
R: Do you sometimes skip over or just ignore some words?
G: Yeah, sometimes.
R: Are you familiar with cognates and false cognates?
G: I was studying about them, but I'm trying to learn because there are a lot of them to learn, but
I'm familiar with them.
R: And you do you pay attention to cognates?
G: Yes, I try to pay attention to them.
R: And what about the word itself, not the context? Do you analyse the word?
G: Yes, sometimes.
R: What do you look at?
G: For example, that if it's a cognate it's similar in Spanish and I try to understand the word in
Spanish and I say okay this is maybe the meaning.
R: Apart from cognates, do you pay attention to the word, to the single word? [What do you look
at?]
G: Yes, sometimes. For example, what is the meaning of the word? Because sometimes the word
is like a compound or something like that. If I know the meaning I try to analyse what is the
meaning come from.
R: Only compounds? Any other things you analyse in the word? Just the word?

378
G: It depends, for example, if the word has suffixes or prefixes I know that I must know what is
a suffix or prefix, and according to that I try to understand the meaning with less or more or
something like that.
R: What about dictionaries? What kind of dictionaries do you use?
G: I have the Cambridge, and another that is the Oxford; they are English-English. I think these
dictionaries are very clear, but sometimes the definitions are not enough to know the meaning.
R: Okay, you open the dictionary and what information do you check in the dictionary?
G: The meaning of the word, for example, what is the meaning of the word, but I mean when
you put a preposition, sometimes the dictionary has grammar, abbreviations. Also the
pronunciation.
R: What else can you find in the dictionary that may help you improve your vocabulary?
G: Examples about the meaning of the word.
R: Do you use the dictionary to check spelling?
G: Yes, sometimes, right now yeah, because my students ask me a lot of, what is this? Spell that.
R: Do you use any electronic dictionaries?
G: No, only books.
R: Do you check for single words or expressions?
G: In dictionaries, single words, but I check words that have prepositions, for example.
R. Okay, let's move when you are in class. Do you ask others, about meaning or something?
G: My students or my classmates?
R: Your classmates.
G: Yes, I do.
R: What information do you ask, about the word?
G: Only the meaning, and sometimes I know the meaning in English and sometimes how can I
use this word, give me an example.
R: Do you ask the teacher?
G: Yeah, sometimes, most of the... it's like both, I ask my classmates and sometimes my teacher.
R: Do you participate a lot in class?
G: Yes, I think so [smiles].
R: Do you talk a lot in class?
G: Yeah, I like to talk.
R: Don't you feel, let's say shy?
G: No, I don't think so.
R: I mean, you don't mind about people laughing at your mistakes?
G: No, I don't. Maybe at the beginning yeah, I was like that, but now I don't. I only try to express
my ideas; I know that I have to learn more words.
R: So, do you like to work in groups or alone?
G: In groups. I prefer that.
R: And when you study for an exam, for example, do you study alone at home or do you prefer
with friends?
G: Sometimes I need to study alone, but I need some kind of noise, for example TV or music, or
something like that.
R: Can you concentrate with loud music when studying?
G: Normally, loud music no, I only need a little noise.
R: If there's silence at home, how do you feel?
G: I feel anxious or something like that?
R: Do you like parties?
G: Yeah, but the kind of parties where you chat.
R: Let's move on notes. Do you keep any notes on vocabulary?

379
G: I have a notebook, especially now that I'm teaching, I have a special notebook, and I write my
words because first I read the lesson and if I find some words I try to look, yeah and write them
if I cant stand them on my head.
R: What's the name of the coursebook?
G: New Interchange 1 and 2, basic and intermediate.
R: Tell me about the notebook you use to prepare your lesson.
G: Okay, I have a notebook because I have three groups, I write what the exercise is talking
about, the homework, the new words, the new words for me.
R: What information do you write down about words? Words you don't know.
G: The meaning and examples.
R: And when your students ask you about vocabulary, what do you do?
G: I try to explain to explain in English what is the meaning of the word, and after that I use
some examples and if they don't get the meaning I try with another example or I ask somebody
in class who can help explain the word.
R: So you write down new words, definitions in English and examples.
G: Yes.
R: When reading here in your lesson, do you write on the text when you don't know the word?
G: Ah yeah, I underline the word and I put like a sign and word in English.
R: Do you use any cards... do you write down words on cards?
G: No, I used to do that when I was learning English VII or something like that. It was like I had
more time to do that.
R: That's part B. Let's talk about memory. Are you good at memorising things like words in this
case?
G: Depends. Sometimes there are some words are difficult to, I know the meaning and I forget.
Sometimes there are difficult words and they are not used, not common in the vocabulary, and
these words are difficult to me.
R: Do you repeat words aloud?
G: Yeah, when I'm going to have a presentation I try to emphasise the word and learn the word
and maybe six or eight times.
R: And do you write the word several times?
G: Yeah, when I have to learn the word, I used to do that, I wrote the word ten times. But now I
don't.
R: When you repeat aloud what do you repeat?
G: Sometimes de word and how I can use the word. I try to relate it to sounds or something like
that.
R: That's the other part - associations, but tell me about it.
G: I don't know but sometimes I try to relate the word to words in Spanish, and sometimes to a
song, some singers, the TV, oh, those words were on that TV show.
R: Any other associations? For example, relating words to opposites, antonyms, synonyms.
G: Ah yeah, for example empty and full and I try that.
R: Do you associate new words with words in other languages?
G: Yes, sometimes, I do that with Italian.
R: Any other things you do to practise just vocabulary, not grammar?
G: I try to speak. I mean, when I have a new word, or for example the words I know now and try
to speak and speak, whatever kinds of things.
R: And do you practise with foreigners or who do you practise with?
G: I practise with friends, exchange visitors. Sometimes with a friend who is in North Carolina he's Mexican. And sometimes he corrects my mistakes.
R: How often do you practise?
G: Everyday I try to speak in English, in the morning, in the afternoon, in my lessons.

380
R: What about your classmates?
G: I try, I try.
R: Just in general, how do you consider yourself? What adjectives can you apply to yourself?
G: I think I am a very happy person, and I like smiling and to be nice to people. I don't like some
kind of people but I try to smile and know the people. I'm a joker person. I love jokes, also I like
to go out with friends, I like to talk a lot.
R: Are you sociable?
G: I think so. I'm easy-going.
R: You're not shy at all?
G: I don't think so.
R: Did you answer the personality test honestly?
G: Yeah, very honestly.
R: Well, based on your results of the test, you are a very extraverted person.
G: Really? [smiles].

381

Appendix M
The contribution of E, VP, Y, and G to the use of VLS
Number/name of VLS
1. Check for similar L1 word.
2. Analyse word structure when guessing.
3. Analyse part of speech.
4. Guess meaning by sound.
5. Guess meaning by pictures in text.
6. Guess meaning by context in sentence/paragraph.
7. Guess meaning by topic.
8. Skip word, guess by delayed written context.
9. Skip word.
10. Look up word in bilingual dictionary.
11. Look up word in electronic dictionary.
12. Look up word in monolingual dictionary.
13. Look up word in www.
14. Use dictionary to check meaning(s).
15. Use dictionary to check pronunciation.
16. Use dictionary to check spelling.
17. Use dictionary to check part of speech.
18. Use dictionary to check examples/fixed expressions.
19. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for translation.
20. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for English definition.
21. Ask classmates/friends/relatives for spelling/pronunciation.
22. Ask native speakers for English definition.
23. Ask native speakers for spelling/pronunciation.
24. Ask teacher for translation.
25. Ask teacher for English definition.
26. Ask teacher for example sentence.
27. Ask teacher for spelling/pronunciation.
28. Ask teacher for word's use.
29. Ask teacher for grammar of word.
30. Write down information of the word on textbook.
31. Write down words on English notebook.
32. Write down words on specific section of English notebook.
33. Write down words on vocabulary notebook.
34. Write down words on cards/paper slips.
35. Write down words on charts.
36. Record words on audio-cassettes.
37. Keep vocabulary records in computer/electronic devices.
38. Write down Spanish translation.
39. Write down English definition.
40. Write down antonyms/synonyms.
41. Accompany words with drawings/pictures.
42. Write down example sentences.
43. Write down pronunciation.
44. Write down part of speech.
45. Write down grammar of the word.
46. Write down contextual/situation use.

VP

+
+

+1
+1
+

+2
+2
+
+

+
+
+
+
+2
-

+1

+
+
+
+2

+1
+
+

+1
+

+2
+
+
+
+
-

+
-1

+2
+

382
47. Write down contextual reference.
48. Organise words by unit/lesson.
49. Classify words by part of speech.
50. Classify words by semantic fields.
51. Organise words in alphabetical order/sections.
52. Write down words in chronological order.
53. Highlight new words.
54. Say word aloud repeatedly.
55. Repeat word silently.
56. Write down word repeatedly.
57. Listen to tape-recorded words.
58. Repeat word alone.
59. Repeat word and translation.
60. Repeat word and examples.
61. Repeat word and L2 definition.
62. Repeat spelling of word.
63. Relate word to L2 word with similar sound.
64. Relate word to antonyms/synonyms.
65. Relate word to word in L3/L4.
66. Associate word with similar L1 word.
67. Use keyword method.
68. Relate word to collocations.
69. Associate word with semantically related words.
70. Visualise written form or meaning.
71. Associate word with personal experience.
72. Associate word with contextual/situational use.
73. Associate word with physical action.
74. Think of prefixes/suffixes for the word.
75. Test myself or have others test me.
76. Use new words in conversations and writing.
77. Make up imagined conversations.
78. Look for opportunities to meet new words.
Number of times each predictor is significant

+
-

+
+
+
+2

+1

+
+
+
+
+2
+
+2
11

+1

25

13

VP

Y
+

+1
11

The contribution of E, VP, Y, G to VLS categories

Name of VLS Category
GUESSING STRATEGIES (1-7)

SKIPPING STRATEGIES (8-9)

+
1

DICTIONARY USE STRATEGIES (10-18)

+2

+
+1

SOCIAL STRATEGIES (10-29)

+2

NOTE-TAKING STRATEGIES (30-53)

REPETITION STRATEGIES (54-62)

ASSOCIATION STRATEGIES (63-74)

+1

FURTHER CONSOLIDATION (75-78)

+1

Code:
E
= Extraversion
Y
= University year of study
= negative relationship
1, 2
= rank order of predictor variables

VP
G
+

+2
+2

= Vocabulary proficiency
= Gender
= positive relationship