Language Value
December 2019, Volume 11, Number 1 pp. 71-102
Copyright © 2019, ISSN 1989-7103
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian
Learners of English
James Rock
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, Italy
ABSTRACT
In this paper, a think-aloud protocol is used to explore the vocabulary learning strategies of ten adult
learners of English at a university in the north of Italy. The focus is on discovering the types of techniques
that are actually used by learners while performing a deliberate vocabulary learning task. As well as
providing details about the strategy use of each participant, the investigation considered the strategies
used by more and less successful EFL learners. In general, less attention was awarded to techniques
involving deeper mental elaboration, such as complex guessing for meaning or the use of mnemonic
techniques, in favour of strategies requiring less mental effort. There was also less emphasis on
mechanical repetition than in many previous studies on the topic.
Keywords: vocabulary learning strategies, exploratory, think-aloud, strategy sequences, frequency of
use
I. INTRODUCTION
The present study is an in-depth exploration of the vocabulary learning strategies of a
group of Italian adult learners of English as a foreign language. Information is provided
about the types of strategies used and how frequently they are employed on a deliberate
vocabulary learning task. The investigation distinguishes between individuals in terms
of their strategic behaviour and also considers the relationship between language
learning success and strategy use. The hope is that the findings will help inform how
English vocabulary is presented and taught to Italian learners of English in the
classroom.
Due to the longevity of language learning strategy research, and its sub-set comprising
vocabulary learning strategies, which emerged over forty years ago, it is necessary to
begin by establishing why this investigation is of value. This is pertinent, given that the
traditional approach to such research, which targeted the techniques that learners apply,
has been the subject of criticism. Essentially, rather than focus exclusively on the types
of strategies used by learners, some researchers (Dörnyei 2005, Tseng et al. 2006, Tseng
Copyright © 2019 Language Value, ISSN 1989-7103
71
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors
James Rock
and Schmitt 2008) have called for greater attention to be devoted to exploring the forces
driving our learning behaviour. The consequence of this is that many experts are
seemingly less keen now on examining the types of strategies used by learners. Yet, the
position adopted here is that there are still valid reasons for persisting with inquiries of
observable learner behaviour. Indeed, in Gao’s (2007) view, existing models of strategy
use and investigations that look at the initial driving forces are not incompatible, as they
are measuring the beginning and end-product of the same event. Rose (2012) also
maintains that it is possible to study strategic learning both in terms of what drives a
learner to behave in a certain way, but also in terms of the cognitive and behavioural
strategies they employ (Rose 2012: 97). More recently, Oxford (2017) and Rose et al.
(2018) both assert that investigating learning strategies is still beneficial,
notwithstanding recent developments in the field of strategy research. Such views
helped establish the theoretical basis of the present study, which was also reinforced by
Pawlak and Oxford’s (2018: 529) assertion that it is difficult to imagine how any kind
of learning, including foreign language learning, could be successfully managed without
skilled use of strategies. Consequently, it is anticipated that this exploration of strategy
use will prove beneficial, since it presents detailed information about the types of
strategies employed and indicates how learners differ in terms of their use.
Since the goal is to present a thorough exploration of strategy use, the emphasis is
placed on qualitative rather than quantitative research methods. For data collection, a
think-aloud protocol is utilised to tap into the thoughts and actions of a group of learners
as they attempt to determine and consolidate ten unknown lexical items. This
methodological decision is supported by Takeuchi
(2019:
16) who contends that
research on language learning strategies should “observe the trend in the direction of
qualitative data collection methodologies including narratives, interviews, diaries,
journals, portfolios, and think-aloud protocols”. Besides functioning as a useful tool for
uncovering the strategic moves made by individuals, a think-aloud protocol also enables
one to gain some valuable insight into how a group of students differ while undertaking
a specific learning task. This is relevant, as research has indicated that a variety of
factors may influence the types of learning strategies that are used (Oxford 1990,
Macaro 2006). These include, amongst others, age, gender, attitude, motivation,
aptitude, learning stage, learning styles, individual differences, cultural differences,
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
72
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
beliefs about language learning, and language proficiency. In this instance, the objective
is to contribute to our understanding of the influence of language learning success on
strategy use. Though this topic has received research interest, there exists a paucity of
research involving Italian adult learners of English. Consequently, rather than select
participants randomly for the think-aloud study, the sample comprises an assortment of
learners who were either successful or unsuccessful in their most recent university
English examination.
The study focuses on:
Identifying the strategies used by Italian learners of English while discovering
and consolidating unknown English words.
Exploring the relationship between language learning success and strategy use.
II. CONTEXT OF THE STUDY
The motivation to perform the study came while I was teaching English to a group of
undergraduate students at a university in the north of Italy. All members of the class had
been unsuccessful in the previous end-of-year written English language exam. The
language class, in question, is termed a recupero course, and functions as a remedial
programme for students who need to improve their level of performance in the end-of-
year written exam in English. Hence, the course is very exam-oriented and contains
fewer students than traditional English language courses at the university. In class, it
struck me how passive many individuals were in terms of how they approached various
learning tasks, with many showing a degree of reluctance to engage actively in language
learning. With this in mind, I chose to focus exclusively on vocabulary learning, with
the aim of learning more about the kinds of strategies used by Italian learners of English
to discover and consolidate lexical meaning in English. In so doing, I hoped some
useful data would emerge surrounding the strategic behaviour of more and less
successful learners.
By contextualising the investigation within a third-level institution in the north of Italy,
the findings can be examined alongside studies with participants from different
backgrounds. This is recommended by Takeuchi (2019), who claims that future studies
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
73
James Rock
should focus on a specific population in a specific task-setting and context, as strategy
use depends to a large extent on learners, tasks, and contexts. Consequently, rather than
try to uncover general patterns in the population, which has been the focus of a large
proportion of previous research on strategies, the goal here is to collect rich data about
strategy use from learners as they actively engage in a deliberate vocabulary learning
task. Pawlak and Oxford (2018) highlight the value of doing so, since understanding
how strategies are used in specific learning tasks or the different phases of tasks remains
a challenge for researchers.
III. VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES
While there has been an interest in language learning strategies for several decades,
many investigations have focused broadly on language learning as a whole and tended
to ignore vocabulary learning strategies (Schmitt 1997). Readers are invited to refer to
Cohen and Macaro (2007) for a thorough overview of language learning strategy
research, plus a
2018 special issue of Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching that explores past research on the topic and recommends avenues for future
research. However, a body of research devoted specifically to vocabulary learning
strategies now exists, which has addressed a variety of issues over the years (see Pavičić
Takač 2008 for a detailed survey of vocabulary learning strategy research).
In terms of focus, research has been done on various topics, including classifying
vocabulary learning strategies (Stoffer 1995, Schmitt 1997, Gu 2003, Zhang and Li
2011), examining frequency of strategy use (Cohen and Aphek 1981, Gu and Johnson
1996, Lawson and Hogben 1996, Barcroft 2009; O’Malley et al. 1985a, Schmitt 1997,
Schmitt and Schmitt 1993, Fan 2003, Kafipour et al. 2011, Arjomand and Sharififar
2011, Rabadi 2016), and considering the effect of strategies on vocabulary retention
(Atkinson and Raugh 1975, Brown and Perry 1991, Rodríguez and Sadowki 2000,
Zahedi 2012, Wei 2015). On top of that, many studies have been conducted on learners
from different cultural backgrounds and at various stages of education. In the last
decade alone, numerous publications have appeared concerning the vocabulary learning
strategies of English learners from many countries, including Malaysia (Asgari and
Ghazali 2011), Turkey (Çelik and Toptaş 2010, Kirmizi and Topcu 2014, Yigit and
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
74
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
Aykul 2018), Iran (Hamzah et al. 2009, Davoudi and Chavosh 2016), Indonesia (Bakti
2018, Noprianto and Purnawarman 2019), Poland (Nosidlak 2013), Croatia (Roguli and
Čizmić 2018), Romania (Cusen 2009) and China (Zou and Zhou 2017). The hope is that
this study of Italian learners of English will contribute to the field by providing another
contextualized investigation of strategy use.
Several key investigations of vocabulary learning strategies by prominent experts in the
field are outlined below. Quite a few of them were published more than two decades
ago, when interest in strategy research was at its peak. Yet, due to the nature of this
study, which explores the types of strategies actually used, how learners differ in terms
of strategy use, and the relationship between learning success and strategy use, they
remain relevant and will be referred to while discussing the findings.
III.1. Types and frequency of vocabulary learning strategies
Gu and Johnson (1996) surveyed the vocabulary learning behaviour of 850 Chinese
university learners of English. Participants reported greater use of meaning-oriented
strategies than rote-learning strategies. It also emerged that “contextualised guessing,
skilful use of dictionaries for learning purposes
(as opposed to looking up for
comprehension only), note-taking, paying attention to word formation, contextual
encoding, and intentional activation of new words all positively correlated” (Gu and
Johnson
1996:
668) with vocabulary size. Conversely, visual repetition was the
strongest negative predictor of learning outcome. In another survey, Schmitt and
Schmitt (1993) asked 600 Japanese learners of English to indicate whether they used a
particular strategy or not, as well as whether they thought it was helpful or not. There
was a strong preference for a bilingual dictionary, while most respondents also guessed
for meaning frequently and asked classmates for help with deciphering lexical meaning.
As for consolidation strategies, some form of repetition was the most popular strategy,
while focusing on a word’s spelling or connecting a word with synonyms or antonyms
were also common. In terms of helpfulness, a bilingual dictionary was considered most
beneficial, while asking a teacher for a paraphrase or synonym also ranked highly.
Forming an image of a word, or using the Keyword Method, were both considered
unhelpful.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
75
James Rock
While obtaining perceptions of strategy use lends itself to descriptive analyses, Lawson
and Hogben (1996) believed more could be understood about learner behaviour by
exploring the kinds of strategies they actually use rather than those they think they use.
To do so, they adopted a think-aloud protocol to explore the behaviour of 15 foreign
language learners as they attempted to acquire the meaning of several new words. Their
study design proved instrumental when choosing a data collection tool for the present
investigation. In terms of findings, the most frequently used strategy involved some
form of repetition of words and their meanings. Such findings supported an earlier
investigation by O’Malley et al. (1985a), which also highlighted the recurring use of
repetition and reported actions requiring active manipulation of information to be far
less frequent. In Lawson and Hogben’s study, participants largely ignored the physical
or grammatical features of words, and overlooked more elaborate acquisition
procedures, such as the Keyword Method. Barcroft (2009) expanded on Lawson and
Hogben’s work by exploring the relationship between strategy use and vocabulary
learning performance. With respect to shared features across both studies, three actions
emerged: repetition, testing, and mnemonic use. Though such findings attest the value
of mechanical strategies to learners, techniques requiring deeper mental elaboration
resulted in greater recall of words. This supports an earlier study by Cohen and Aphek
(1981), who highlighted the benefit of strategies requiring complex mental elaboration
for learning vocabulary.
III.2. The relationship between language learning success and strategy use
Early research on the topic of language learning strategies focused on the topic of what
defines a good learner, with Rubin (1975: 42) postulating that “if we knew more about
what the 'successful learners' did, we might be able to teach these strategies to poorer
learners to enhance their success record” (1975: 42). A study by Ahmed (1989) on
vocabulary learning strategy use revealed that good learners are more aware of what
they can learn about new words and words’ collocation, spelling and context. In
contrast, poor learners refuse to use the dictionary and almost always ignore new words.
They are generally characterised by their apparent passiveness in learning. Gu (1994)
performed an in-depth analysis of the vocabulary learning strategies of a ‘good’ and
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
76
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
‘poor’ Chinese learners of English. In a similar vein to the present study, a think-aloud
protocol was employed to tap into the types of strategies used by learners. Gu reported
that the poorer learner used a narrower range of strategies than the good learner and
used them ineffectively. In his view, poorer learners need to learn how to monitor and
evaluate their strategy use as well as the learning process. Moreover, they need to
understand that there is more to learning a language than remembering the target
equivalents of all native language words. In an excellent review of research on ‘good’
and ‘poor’ language learners, Griffiths (2008) deals with the issue in view of current
thinking in the field and examines the implications for language teaching. With regard
to vocabulary size and strategy use, Fan (2003) revealed that learners with a greater
knowledge of English vocabulary were more self-initiated, used more sources, and
employed guessing and dictionary strategies more often than individuals with lower
proficiency, which supports some earlier studies (Ahmed 1989, Barcroft 2009, Gu and
Johnson 1996, Lawson and Hogben 1996, Sanaoui 1995). Finally, Teng (2015), in a
study of 145 Chinese EFL learners, reported that participants’ scores in strategy use
correlated significantly and positively with breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge.
Against this background, is it reasonable to assume that less successful learners will
improve if they pursue the vocabulary learning strategy use of better learners? While
this may often be the case, Gu (1994) cautions against doing so, as many less successful
learners use a high number of strategies but remain poor learners. Moreover, the
literature shows the findings of previous studies often vary in terms of the importance
awarded to rote-learning and meaning-oriented strategies. Consequently, investigating
actual strategy use may shed light on the priority awarded to such techniques. It may
also help explain why less successful Italian EFL learners struggle and what can be
done to improve their language learning performance.
IV. PARTICIPANTS
Ten individuals took part in the study (See Table 1 and Table 2). At the time of the
investigation, they were all attending the second year of a three-year undergraduate
degree programme in foreign languages at a university in the north of Italy. A structured
sample was chosen to increase the likelihood of the sample containing a mix of more
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
77
James Rock
and less successful learners of English. Thus, five individuals had all previously failed
the end-of-year written examination in English on, at least, three occasions. As a result,
they were attending a remedial English language programme, or a recupero course as it
is defined at the university in question, which prepares students to retake the written
exam. Another five individuals were randomly selected from a regular second year
course and had not yet attempted the end-of-year exam. As well as selecting the
participants from different types of EFL courses, the productive vocabulary knowledge
of each learner was also assessed.
To test productive vocabulary knowledge, a paper and pencil version of Lex30 (Meara
and Fitzpatrick
2000) was used
(researchers can access the Lex30 test at
productive vocabulary of non-native speakers of English. It is a word association task,
in which learners are presented with thirty stimulus words, and are required to produce
at least three responses to each word. Thus, we are left with a short text generate by
each testee, which typically contains about 90 different words. The stimulus words are
selected so that they elicit unusual, infrequent words in native speakers. In terms of
evaluation, Lex30 awards one point to every response word, which does not appear in
the most frequent 1,000 words of English. The assumption is that learners with a lower
level of vocabulary knowledge will struggle to produce low frequency responses in this
task, and that the presence of low frequency words in a test taker’s response set
indicates that they have an extended productive vocabulary. The developers of Lex30
claim that the test has considerable potential as a quick productive vocabulary test and
can also be successfully used to identify cases where the vocabulary development of
learners may be abnormal. The results indicated that the group of learners attending the
recupero course possessed a lower level of productive vocabulary knowledge than those
attending the regular second year course.
Table 1. Participants involved in the study
Participant
1
2
3
4
5
Age
24
22
22
22
22
Gender
F
F
F
F
F
Course study
2nd year
2nd year
2nd year
2nd year
2nd year
recupero EFL
recupero EFL
recupero EFL
recupero EFL
recupero EFL
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
78
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
course
course
course
course
course
Score on Lex30
7
28
38
28
38
Table 2. Participants involved in the study
Participant
6
7
8
9
10
Age
19
20
20
20
22
Gender
F
M
F
F
M
Course study
2nd year EFL
2nd year EFL
2nd year EFL
2nd year EFL
2nd year EFL
course
course
course
course
course
Score on Lex30
45
46
53
54
80
V. METHODOLOGY
The experimental set up is a variation on the work of Lawson and Hogben (1996), who
also used a concurrent think-aloud procedure in their investigation of vocabulary
learning strategies. As in their study, participants were presented with twelve English
sentences, with each sentence containing an unknown word (this will henceforth be
referred to as the target word). Their task was to think aloud as they discovered and
consolidated the meaning of the words by whichever means they chose. Each learner
was instructed to report on the thoughts that were in the focus of their attention, and,
were not required to describe or explain what was being done. Unlike in Lawson and
Hogben’s study, they were also allowed to use a bilingual and monolingual dictionary.
V.1. Selecting the target words for the think-aloud task
The following criteria were used in the selection of the twelve words. This was partially
in keeping with Lawson and Hogben’s
(1996) selection criteria, with the main
difference being that while they focused exclusively on nouns, my study included other
parts of speech.
1. Eight words were nouns, three words were adjectives and one target word was
a verb.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
79
James Rock
2. Each word had to be one for which the students did not know the meaning.
This was established prior to commencing the task.
3. Each word had to represent a familiar object, concept or emotion.
4. Three words had to contain suffixes.
To cover the possibility of some words being familiar to participants, some reserve
items were selected that also fulfilled the above criteria. If a learner knew the meaning
of a word on the standard list, one of the reserve items of the same type would substitute
it. The complete list of words is shown below.
Target Words
COT
LATCH
MUZZLE
SHOVEL
REFURBISHMENT
LUMBER
SEASONING
UNDERDOG
GOBSMACKED
BLISSFUL
GUTLESS
GRIEVE
Reserve Target Words
PAVING
PERISHABLE
UNASSAILABLE
LEAFLET
OUTSKIRTS
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
80
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
Each word was presented in context, with each sample sentence selected from the
British National Corpus (See Table 3). Every effort was made to check that each
sentence provided a clue to the word’s meaning.
Table 3. Sentences used in the think-aloud study.
Sentences containing the twelve target words
1.
GOBSMACKED - The loyal workers were gobsmacked to find two months later their ex-boss had
bought all his ex-machinery at an auction for next to nothing and started up in business again under
another name in the same building. (Source: Trade Union Annual Congress (1985-1994). Rec. on 6
Jun 1993.
2.
COT - ‘I have put your daughter in a cot in your room,’ Mrs Barnet continued. (Source: Ruth
Appleby. Rhodes, Elvi. London: Corgi Books, 1992, pp. 109-226, 3427 s-units)
3.
REFURBISHMENT - We have undergone in the last year a major refurbishment of all our guest
and public rooms and now offer the comforts so necessary for a mini-break. (Source: Short breaks -
- Brighton and Hove 1992, 829 s-units)
4.
SHOVEL - Tom dug frantically with the shovel, lifting the heavy rain-soaked clods of earth with
difficulty. (Source: Saigon. Grey, Anthony. London: Pan Books Ltd, 1983, pp. 9-128. 2513 s-units)
5.
LATCH - I can still remember the click of the latch as she shut the door behind her. (Source: Part
of the furniture. Falk, Michael. London: Bellew Pub. Ltd, 1991, pp. 1-146. 3416 s-units)
6.
UNDERDOG - The Welsh team arrived in Edinburgh last night keen to exploit the underdog tag
for tomorrow's rugby international at Murrayfield, a ground where they have not won since 1985.
(Source: Scotsman. Leisure material, 6963 s-units)
7.
LUMBER - All along the riverbank, for a distance of 200 metres, piles of lumber are burning.
(Source: Volcanoes. Francis, Peter. London: Penguin Group, 1979, 1432 s-units)
8.
GRIEVE - Yes, we grieve when tragedy strikes in such awful forms as we have seen recently.
(Source: I believe. Carey, George. London: SPCK, 1991, pp. 32-131. 2205 s-units)
9.
SEASONING - There are indeed times when a lemon as a seasoning seems second only in
importance to salt. (Source: An omelette and a glass of wine. David, Elizabeth. London: Penguin
Group, 1987, pp. 156-274. 1944 s-units)
10.
MUZZLE - But you have to admit, it's for the dog's own protection to wear a muzzle, as they can
pick up all sorts of things in the street which can poison them. (Source: Dogs Today. Windsor:
Burlington Pub. Ltd, 1992, 1478 s-units)
11. BLISSFUL - Once the winter rains have passed, Delhi experiences two months of weather so
perfect and blissful that they almost compensate for the climatic extremes of the other ten months
of the year. (Source: City of djinns. Dalrymple, William. London: HarperCollins, 1993, 2329 s-
units)
12. GUTLESS - I should have had the support of my team but they are gutless.
(Source: Today.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
81
James Rock
11230 s-units)
Additional sentences containing the reserve words
1.
PAVING - A short path led along cracked paving to a front door with coloured glass set into its
wood. (Source: Hide and seek. Potter, Dennis. London: Faber and Faber Ltd, 1990, 2403 s-units).
2.
PERISHABLE - Moreover, if the retailer has too much stock of perishable goods, items may
deteriorate or pass their ‘sell by’ date before they are sold. (Source: Retailing: a manual for
students. Leach, Helen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd, 1989, pp. 45-160. 3291 s-units).
3.
UNASSAILABLE - When, just as Kylie ended her ten-date tour, the UK's top pop magazine
Smash Hits held its annual awards ceremony, her position as music's No 1 female star was
unassailable. (Source: Kylie Minogue: the superstar next door. Stone, Sasha. London: Omnibus
Press, 1989, pp. 4-96. 2055 s-units).
4.
LEAFLET - Criticism was made of his publicity leaflet, which featured a photograph not only of
the candidate, but a Family ensemble complete with children. (Source: High risk lives: lesbian and
gay politics after the Clause. ed. Lincoln, Paul and Kaufmann, Tara. Bridport, Dorset: Prism Press,
1991, pp. 126-248. 1766 s-units).
5.
OUTSKIRTS - He switched the engine on and swung the Audi out of the car-park, down
Yorkstrasse towards the outskirts of the city. (Source: The Lucy ghosts. Shah, Eddy. London:
Corgi Books, 1993, pp. 321-452. 4235 s-units).
V.2. The interviews
Each participant was provided with a sheet of paper, listing the twelve target words, and
was asked in English to mark any word whose meaning he/she knew. If any of the
words were familiar, the cards for those words were replaced with a card from the
reserve set. The objective of the study was explained to the participants, i.e. to obtain
some information on ways Italian learners go about learning the meaning of new
English words. This was followed by each learner listening to a brief description of the
think-aloud protocol, as well as observing the researcher run through the think-aloud
method with a practice card. They were told to feel free to use the monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries provided as often as they felt necessary. Having completed the
demonstration, each learner progressed through the twelve cards featuring the target
words. All ten interviews were recorded with the average duration being 46 minutes.
VI. DATA ANALYSIS
The following section describes how the think-aloud data was analysed and coded.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
82
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
VI.1. Analysis of the recordings and coding of data
The ten recordings were transcribed and analysed for different types of strategic moves.
A chart was created for each learner, which included the strategies they used, as well as
the sequences in which they were used. Each strategy was coded and assigned to one of
five higher-level categories (See Table 4), which was largely based on the procedure
used by Lawson and Hogben (1996). A category describing dictionary use was added.
The first four categories represented the kinds of actions used to discover the meaning
of a new word, while the fifth category described the techniques used to consolidate the
meaning of a new word. Categories 1 and 2 involved transformation of the features of
the word and/or the meaning, with strategies demanding more complex mental
elaboration occupying the former category and those requiring less mental elaboration
the latter. Regarding the use of context as a way of providing clues to word meaning,
the decision was made to split this strategy between Categories 1 and 2. Hence, more
complex speculation on the meaning of a word, using knowledge of other constituents
of the sentence, occupied Category 1, while quickly guessing the meaning of a word
using English, or providing a translation, fell into Category 2. Translating a sample
sentence or producing a literal translation of a target word were viewed as demanding a
lower degree of mental elaboration and were, thus, assigned to Category 2. This
category also included techniques analysis of physical features of a word, such as its
appearance or its sound as a basis for identifying its features. By contrast, the
production of synonyms of the target word before consulting a dictionary was viewed as
demanding greater mental effort, and, thus, occupied Category 1. Category 3 reflected
some form of word feature analysis. This included the analysis of affixes, or other
grammatical features of a word, such as its part of speech. Category
4 included
strategies employed while consulting a dictionary, while Category
5 represented
consolidation strategies based upon note-taking, rehearsal of the word and/or the
meaning, or some form of self-testing.
Table 4. Categories of strategies used for coding
1. Complex elaboration (C.E)
Complex use of context: the individual made a serious attempt to derive the target word meaning from
the sentence, by referring to the meaning or features of other words in the sentence.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
83
James Rock
Paraphrase: the individual suggested synonyms of the target word before consulting a dictionary.
2. Simple elaboration (S.E)
Simple use of context: the individual attempted to explain the meaning of the target word (in English or
Italian) without making specific reference to any other word(s) in the sentence.
Simple use of context: the individual suggested a possible Italian translation for the target word without
making specific reference to any other word(s) in the sentence.
Literal translation: the individual attempted to translate literally the target word into Italian.
Physical appearance: the individual commented on the target word’s similarity to a word in the L1 or
L2.
Sentence translation: the individual attempted to translate the sample sentence into Italian.
3. Word feature analysis (W.F)
Word classification: the individual commented on the part of speech of the new word.
Use of affixes: the individual used his/her knowledge of prefixes or suffixes.
4. Dictionary use (D.U)
Bilingual dictionary: the individual referred to a bilingual dictionary to find the meaning of the target
word or another word in the sentence.
Monolingual dictionary: the individual referred to a monolingual dictionary to find the meaning of the
target word or another word in the sentence.
5. Consolidation strategies
Note taking (NT): the individual took a note of various features of the new word (meaning, translation,
pronunciation, grammatical properties, sample sentence, other uses of the word).
Simple word rehearsal (REH): the individual used repetition, or other kinds of learning strategies, to help
remember the meaning of the target word.
Cumulative rehearsal (REH): the individual not only repeated the word and/or meaning but also returned
to previous words and rehearsed these in a sequence.
Self-testing (ST): the individual engaged in self-testing by covering the Italian/English meaning of the
new word and tried to generate the other part of the pair.
VII. FINDINGS
In this section, the strategies used by the group to discover and consolidate the meaning
of the lexical items is the vocabulary learning task are discussed
(Table 4), with
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
84
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
reference also made to the types of strategies used while consulting dictionaries during
the task (See Table 5 and Table 6). This is followed by a description of the strategies
employed by each participant. The subsequent discussion section reflects on the strategy
use of the sample of learners, and considers the strategy use of those who were
described as being less successful learners.
VII.1. The types of strategies used to discover and consolidate lexical meaning
The most popular strategy involved the use of a bilingual dictionary, which was
consulted to a greater or lesser extent by all ten individuals. While a monolingual
dictionary was used less often, it was still popular with only one participant choosing
not to use it. Guessing for meaning through English, or coming up with a translation of
a word, were also common. Similarly, sentence translation was prominent, with seven
individuals doing so at some point during the task. By contrast, examples of more
complex guessing for meaning were less prevalent. With regard to word feature
analysis, half of the sample attended to the affixes of several target words, with a similar
number focusing on grammatical properties of words. Finally, though the majority of
participants commented on a physical similarity between a target word and a known
word, only two individuals highlighted synonyms of a word.
There was also variation in terms of the use of consolidation strategies. Repetition, in
particular, was less frequent than expected. Indeed, only three participants engaged in
simple word repetition, albeit doing so on several occasions. There were instances of
cumulative rehearsal, though this was only popular with four individuals. On the other
hand, note taking was much more evident, with most learners writing a target word and
one, or more, translations of a word. Fewer individuals chose to write the meaning of a
word in English, though they did so consistently. In general, the sample failed to take
written notes of grammatical or pronunciation features, and they chose not to write an
example sentence to help remember a word. Finally, there was only one case of self-
testing.
VII.2. The types of strategies used to discover and consolidate lexical meaning
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
85
James Rock
Most participants sought more than one translation of a word in a bilingual dictionary.
Many also looked for more than one meaning of a word in a monolingual dictionary,
though they did so less frequently. Similarly, their attention was only occasionally
drawn to sample sentences in a monolingual and bilingual dictionary. In terms of word
feature analysis, while half of the sample attended to grammatical information of, at
least, one target word, only three individuals considered pronunciation features. The
same number paid attention to different parts of speech of, at least, one target word, or
looked for synonyms in a monolingual dictionary. Finally, only two learners searched
for further information about a word they found in a dictionary definition (See Table 7).
All ten participants matched a dictionary entry to the context in which a target word was
originally used (See Table 8). There was also a strong desire to translate, with most of
them trying to guess a translation of a target word found in a monolingual dictionary.
Indeed, half of the sample also translated the definition of a word found in a
monolingual dictionary. When English was used to guess for meaning, learners were
more likely to search for information about a word in a monolingual dictionary.
Similarly, after providing synonyms of words, they were more likely to use a
monolingual dictionary. On the other hand, upon translating a sentence, a bilingual
dictionary was used more often.
Table 5. The types of strategies used by each participant to discover and consolidate lexical meaning
A.
Frequency of strategies used to determine lexical meaning
Strategy
PARTICIPANTS
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
freq.
of
use
W.F: Checked the part of speech of the
1
1
0
0
4
6
5
0
0
2
19
target word
W.F: Checked the affixes of the target
1
2
1
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
9
word
S.E: Tried to translate the sentence into
2
7
2
10
0
2
0
2
2
0
27
Italian
S.E: Tried to translate literally the target
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
3
word
S.E: Guessed a translation of the word
1
5
0
3
0
3
0
4
1
1
18
without referring to other items
S.E: Guessed the meaning of the word
1
1
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
5
29
without considering other items
S.E: Commented on the similarity of the
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
8
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
86
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
target word to an L1 or L2 word
C.E: Guessed the meaning of the word by
0
0
0
0
6
3
2
0
0
3
14
considering other items in the sentence
C.E: Suggested possible synonyms of the
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
target word
D.U: Used a bilingual dictionary to look
12
11
3
10
4
10
12
10
7
8
87
up the target word
D.U: Used a bilingual dictionary to look
0
3
0
5
0
2
2
2
6
0
20
up a non-target word in the sentence
D.U: Used a monolingual dictionary to
7
1
12
5
12
0
6
4
11
11
69
look up the target word
D.U: Used a monolingual dictionary to
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
look up a non-target word in the sentence
Total frequency of strategy use per
26
32
23
33
32
32
30
23
25
35
student
Table 6. The types of strategies used by each participant to discover and consolidate lexical meaning
B. Strategies used to consolidate lexical meaning
Strategy
PARTICIPANTS
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
freq.
of
use
N.T: Wrote the target word and one or
12
12
1
10
0
12
12
12
11
0
82
more translations in Italian
N.T: Wrote the target word and its
0
0
11
0
12
0
0
0
9
12
32
meaning in English
N.T: Wrote the IPA of the target word
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
N.T: Wrote some grammatical
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
information about the target word
N.T: Wrote a sentence or phrase to
4
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
help remember the word
N.T: Wrote a sentence or phrase to
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
help remember a non-target word
N.T: Wrote information about other
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
uses of the target word
REH: Simple word rehearsal
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
12
REH: Cumulative rehearsal
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
4
S.T: Self-testing
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total frequency of use of
31
16
14
11
12
12
13
14
30
12
consolidation strategies
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
87
James Rock
Table 7. Types of dictionary consultation strategies
Strategy
PARTICIPANTS
Tot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Read more than one translation of a target word in
12
9
2
5
0
10
6
6
5
8
63
a bilingual dictionary
Read more than one definition of a target word in a
2
0
4
1
6
0
2
0
3
1
19
monolingual dictionary
Read a sample sentence containing a target word
3
0
1
2
0
1
0
1
2
1
11
in a bilingual dictionary
Read a sample sentence containing a target word
0
0
1
3
2
0
0
0
1
1
8
in a monolingual dictionary
Considered the IPA of a target word
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
7
Considered the grammatical properties of a target
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
2
8
word
Looked up synonyms of a target word
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
7
Looked at the meaning of another part of speech
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
4
of a target word
Related the target word’s meaning to the context in
10
4
6
2
10
5
11
3
4
8
63
which a word was originally found
Guessed an Italian translation of a target word
0
0
2
2
7
0
3
3
5
3
25
after reading a definition in a monolingual
dictionary
Translated a definition of a target word found in a
0
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
6
monolingual dictionary into Italian
Looked up the meaning of an unknown word
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
found in the definition of a target word in a
monolingual dictionary
Took note of another new word that was of interest
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
88
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
VII.3. The types of strategies used to discover and consolidate lexical meaning
VII.3.1.
Participant 1
This individual actively used a bilingual dictionary to discover word meaning. Her
reliance on a bilingual dictionary was shown by the fact that it was consulted thirteen
times throughout the task. This feature really distinguished her from the other
participants. While a monolingual dictionary was also used, it merely functioned as a
tool to consolidate something she had found in a bilingual dictionary. She infrequently
guessed for meaning through English or tried to come up with an Italian translation of a
word. Similarly, she seldom engaged in word feature analysis. With regard to
consolidation, she took a lot of written notes, which included writing the target words, a
possible translation of each word, and a sample sentence illustrating the use of several
target words. Finally, she engaged in simple word repetition with half of the target
words.
VII.3.2.
Participants 2 and 4
Both individuals focused heavily on guessing translations of words, as well as making
numerous attempts at sentence translation. They also frequently consulted a bilingual
dictionary. While participant two only used a monolingual dictionary once, participant
four used one regularly to confirm something she had read in a bilingual dictionary.
Both learners failed to examine the surrounding words to derive lexical meaning. In
terms of consolidation, they took a written note of target words and, at least, one
translation of each word. They also employed a vocabulary learning technique, with
participant 2 using cumulative rehearsal and participant 4 engaging self-testing.
VII.3.3.
Participants 3 and 5
These participants were characterised by their use of English while determining word
meaning. Hence, they frequently referred to a monolingual dictionary and guessed for
meaning through English. While participant 3 chose not to engage in complex guessing
for meaning, participant 5 focused heavily on the surrounding words in several sample
sentences before guessing. In terms of consolidation, they both took written notes of
target words and the meaning of each word in English.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
89
James Rock
VII.3.4.
Participants 6 and 7
Both individuals awarded a lot of attention to the grammatical properties of words.
There were also instances of quick guessing for meaning, plus more complex guessing
involving prior knowledge of other sentence components. A bilingual dictionary was
consulted frequently to check the meaning of both target and non-target words. On
several occasions, participant 7 also made use of a monolingual dictionary. Finally, they
took written notes of the meaning of each target word in Italian.
VII.3.5.
Participant 8
This individual used both Italian and English frequently to determine lexical meaning.
Thus, she combined translation
(i.e. guessing a translation of an item, sentence
translation, or using a bilingual dictionary) with several strategies involving English
(use of a monolingual dictionary and guessing for meaning). With regard to
consolidation, she took a note of a translation of each word and engaged in both simple
and cumulative rehearsal of words.
VII.3.6.
Participant 9
This learner relied heavily on a bilingual and monolingual dictionary to discover
meaning. Indeed, she consulted her bilingual dictionary thirteen times and a
monolingual dictionary on eleven occasions. Compared with the other participants, she
used a monolingual dictionary used more extensively and did so not only to confirm the
meaning of a word previously found in a bilingual dictionary. With regard to
consolidation, she frequently engaged in repetition, which included both simple
repetition of words and cumulative rehearsal of all ten words. Finally, she took many
written notes in both Italian and English.
VII.3.7.
Participant 10
This individual consistently used both types of dictionary, with a monolingual
dictionary being his preferred choice. Indeed, although a bilingual dictionary was used
seven times, its use was confined to consolidating the meaning of a word previously
sourced in a monolingual dictionary. He guessed for meaning in English six times, as
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
90
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
well as guessing several synonyms of words. He also showed determination to work out
the meaning of unfamiliar words through English. Thus, instead of quickly seeking a
translation of a word, he generally guessed for meaning before looking for further
information in a monolingual dictionary. Upon doing so, he then frequently sought
confirmation in a bilingual dictionary. In terms of consolidation, he chose not to focus
on rehearsal or self-testing strategies and wrote each target word and its meaning in
English.
VIII. DISCUSSION
The principle objective was to investigate the strategies used by a group of ten Italian
learners to discover and consolidate the meaning of twelve English words. From the
outset, it was hoped the investigation would provide some useful information about the
types of strategies that were actually used by Italian learners of English on a deliberate
vocabulary learning task. As well as shedding some light on the types of techniques
commonly employed, the hope was that more could be learned about the way individuals
differ in relation to vocabulary learning behaviour. From this standpoint, a special focus
was placed on uncovering details about the relationship between language learning
success and strategy use. The above-mentioned points are discussed below, while time is
also taken to consider how the results could help inform how English vocabulary is
taught to Italian learners of English in the classroom.
The strategies used by Italian learners of English while discovering and
consolidating unknown English words
When faced with the task of determining lexical meaning, many participants chose to
translate. This involved either guessing a translation of an English word/phrase or
consulting a bilingual dictionary. The desire to translate supports earlier investigations of
strategy use by Lawson and Hogben (1996) and Barcroft (2009), which also reported
that learners translated items frequently. While the former noted instances of sentence
translation, there was no evidence of this in Barcroft’s study. In my study, sentence
translation was popular with several individuals. Guessing for meaning typically
involved learners coming up with a translation or providing a brief description of the
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
91
James Rock
meaning of a word in English. Consequently, there were few instances of the kind of
guessing that requires careful examination of contextual clues in a sentence to help
derive word meaning. Such findings support Barcroft (2009), who claimed that his
participants spent little time examining the sentence context as a means of generating
cues for word meaning. In light of this, it is recommended that more needs to be done to
teach Italian learners how to use context as a word learning method. This is particularly
pertinent, given that guessing for meaning is an important skill for promoting vocabulary
development in learners. Moreover, with the swing in language learning research
towards producing more active and independent language learners, it makes sense to
equip them with the tools that will enable this to happen. Thus, rather than resort to a
dictionary or ask a teacher for assistance, learners should be shown how to look out for
contextual clues, such as synonyms, antonyms, cognates, definitions, parts of speech,
pronunciation clues.
Dictionaries were frequently used throughout the task. While several individuals
prioritised a monolingual dictionary, there were more instances of bilingual dictionary
use. This confirms earlier studies by Schmitt and Schmitt (1993) and Loucky (2003)
who also revealed a preference among students for a bilingual dictionary. This is a cause
for concern, as a study by Ali (2012) on dictionaries as learning tools revealed that a
monolingual dictionary was more effective than a bilingual dictionary. This is because a
monolingual dictionary requires more effort and supplies sufficient contexts in their
definitions of new words and expressions. By doing so, they assist learners to learn new
words and vocabulary items and to produce them in similar contexts. As expected, the
present study also indicated that guessing for meaning and dictionary use are closely
related. Thus, those who guessed translations of words or sentences were much more
likely to consult a bilingual dictionary. On the other hand, those who used an English
medium to guess the meaning of a word were more inclined to access a monolingual
dictionary. The findings regarding dictionary use once again highlight the fact that
greater attention should be devoted by teachers to contextualised vocabulary learning.
Indeed, while consulting a dictionary, few participants paid attention to contextualised
sentences or information about grammar, pronunciation, or synonyms. Hence, more
could be achieved by showing Italian EFL learners how to use a bilingual and
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
92
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
monolingual dictionary effectively, as well as providing them with information about the
benefits that can be derived from learning words in context.
There was also variation in terms of the level of attention devoted to word parts. While
several participants ignored word parts almost completely, others actively examined the
grammatical and physical form of words to help derive lexical meaning. Hence, unlike
Lawson and Hogben’s (1996) who reported that participants largely ignored the physical
or grammatical features of unknown words, my findings support Schmitt and Schmitt
(1993), who highlighted the popularity of this strategy with their learners. From a
pedagogical perspective, Schmitt (1997) stresses the importance of teaching word parts
to students, as those who are familiar with them can guess meaning faster. As well as
focusing on physical components of words, more should be done to direct students
towards pronunciation of words. This stems from the fact that little attention was paid to
pronunciation features of words in this study. This may be due to a lack of time devoted
towards pronunciation by EFL teachers in Italy. According to Harmer (2001), most
English language teachers get students to study grammar and vocabulary, yet little
attempt is made to teach pronunciation. Gilbert (2008) also argues that teachers often
find that they do not have enough time in class to give proper attention to this aspect of
English instruction. Considering that pronunciation is a challenging aspect of learning
English for Italian learners, teachers should devote more time to teaching this skill.
Shooshtari at al. (2013: 463) provide some useful guidelines for teachers about how this
may be achieved.
In terms of consolidating lexis, mechanical repetition was less prominent than in some
previous studies of vocabulary learning strategies (Lawson and Hogben 1996, O’Malley
et al.
1985a, Barcroft
2009). My findings are, thus, more reflective of an earlier
investigation by Gu and Johnson (1996) who also reported how respondents generally
avoided rote-learning strategies. While the use of repetition as a learning strategy is
often overlooked in favour of more meaning-centred techniques, a recent study by
Altalhab (2018) on the effects of repetition on vocabulary retention shows that it may be
worth spending more time on this strategy, particularly with difficult words or
collocations. In terms of the use of mnemonic strategies, Schmitt and Schmitt (1993)
reported that their respondents found them unhelpful, while O’Malley et al. (1985a) also
described such techniques as being infrequently used. In Lawson and Hogben’s (1996)
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
93
James Rock
study, there was no evidence of the Keyword Method, while only a small proportion of
learners used mnemonic strategies, which were similar to some component of the
Keyword Method. Barcroft (2009) also reported very little evidence of strategies
requiring manipulation of information to consolidate lexical meaning. My data largely
reflects such studies, with no evidence of the Keyword Method found or, indeed, any
form of imagery being used. With regard to self-testing of word meaning, there was only
one instance of this learning technique in my study, which contrasts with Lawson and
Hogben (1996) and Barcroft (2009) who reported frequent instances of its use in their
studies. On the other hand, note taking was very common here, with some individuals
writing a translation in Italian, while others took notes exclusively in English. Most
learners, however, failed to take note of any features related to pronunciation, grammar
or collocation. The popularity of note taking supports a recent study by Boonnoon
(2019) who also identified this strategy as one of the most frequently used by
respondents.
Exploring the relationship between language learning success and strategy use.
A good deal of variation was found in terms of the types of strategies used by the
learners. Consequently, it was not possible to identify an underlying trend linking them
all. Typically, learner differences resulted from either focusing on the use of translation
or making use of their English knowledge to determine lexical meaning. Alternatively,
several individuals combined translation with other strategies, such as guessing for
meaning, analysis of word parts and use of a monolingual dictionary. While it was also
impossible to determine a marked difference between the types of strategies used by the
five most (1-5) and the five least successful learners (6-10), some features are referred to
here. For instance, while several participants sought, once in a while, to translate a
sample sentence containing a target word, participants 2, and 4 relied almost exclusively
on this strategy with the target words in the learning task. Such determination to
translate was not so evident with the other learners. Also, in terms of frequency of
strategy use, the individual with the smallest vocabulary size (participant 1) ended up
using the most strategies in the vocabulary learning task. In particular, she used an
extensive range of strategies while consulting a dictionary and consolidating lexical
meaning. This type of strategy use was somewhat unexpected, as research findings often
indicates that less successful learners are generally characterised by the limited number
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
94
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
of strategies they employ. Thus, it conflicts with Fan (2003) who revealed that learners
with a greater knowledge of English vocabulary employed guessing and dictionary
strategies more often than individuals with lower proficiency. It also lends support to
Gu’s (1994) observation that many less successful learners use a high number of
strategies but remain poor learners. Another observation related to participants 3 and 5
who predominantly used a monolingual dictionary, with participant 5 also carefully
examining sentence context to help derive meaning. Once again, it was anticipated here
that this type of strategy use would typically be associated with more proficient or
successful learners.
IX. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
With regard to limitations of the study, it should be noted that research on the validity of
think-aloud reports in SLA is only in its infancy stage (Bowles 2010). One of the
criticisms of using think-aloud protocols relates to the validity of such reports, with
researchers unsure as to whether verbalising while completing a task acts as an
additional task and alters cognitive processes rather than providing a true reflection of
thoughts. Upon analysing studies that have investigated reactivity in the L2 literature,
Bowles (2010) claimed that while thinking aloud only has a small effect on post-task
performance, it increases time on a task. Aside from potential issues with the validity of
my think-aloud data, another limitation of my think-aloud study may relate to the fact
that I failed to specify which language the learners should use while verbalising their
thoughts. According to Bowles
(2010:
115) not specifying the language(s) of
verbalisation introduces variability into the research design of the study and creates a
situation in which some participants may think aloud entirely in the L1, while others
may force themselves to think aloud entirely in the second language and might therefore
be unable to communicate some of their thoughts as effectively as they could in the L1.
Finally, a potential pitfall of using think-aloud reports lies in the fact that learners might
report what they perceive they ought to know or do while learning new vocabulary in
English, what they think ideal learners know and do, and not what they in fact know or
do (Ericsson and Simon 1980).
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
95
James Rock
X. CONCLUSION
This study suggests that it is possible to gain a good understanding of Italian EFL
learners’ use of vocabulary learning strategies by encouraging them to think aloud while
performing a deliberate vocabulary learning task. Detailed information about the types
of strategies used and their frequency of use were reported and discussed. Moreover, it
was possible to identify the types of strategies used by individual leaners. Whilst it was
not possible to provide clear-cut evidence of major differences in strategy use between
more and less successful learners, some differences were revealed. Above all else, the
study highlighted the marked variation that exists among a group of Italian learners of
English in terms of how they approach the task of vocabulary learning in English. It
indicated that while they may differ in terms of the types of strategies they use, the same
strategies are often repeatedly employed by an individual with each new word.
It is hoped this information will be of use to teachers when planning vocabulary
teaching programmes. They are advised to discover more about the vocabulary learning
behaviour of their students, and to identify the types of strategies that are not being
used, or not being employed effectively. This information could then be passed on to
learners with details about new strategies they could employ to improve their ability to
learn words. For instance, it emerged that contextualised guessing for meaning, which
involves looking for clues within a sentence, is rarely attempted by most learners.
Instead, they prefer to make a quick guess at a translation or to seek help from a
bilingual dictionary. It would also be beneficial to educate learners on ways of
improving the effectiveness of certain strategies. This could, for example, include
showing them how to maximise dictionary use, and informing them about the various
merits of each type of dictionary. Similarly, they could be instructed on ways of
improving their note taking skills. This study reported that there is often a failure to
include useful information about words, with the focus placed exclusively on writing a
translation or the meaning of a word in English. In terms of future research, it is felt
more could be learned about the topic by analysing some of the underlying driving
forces behind learner motivation, such as learner beliefs about vocabulary knowledge
and learning, followed by an examination of the relationship between such driving
forces and the types of strategies used by learners.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
96
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M.O. 1989. “Vocabulary learning strategies”. In Meara, P. (Ed.) Beyond
words, London: British Association for Applied Linguistics, in association with
Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, 3-14.
Ali, H. 2012. “Monolingual dictionary use in an EFL context”. English Language
Teaching, 5 (7).
Altalhab, S. 2018. “Short- and long-term effects of repetition strategies on vocabulary
retention”, Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9 (2), 146-149.
Arjomand, M., and Sharififar, M. 2011. “The Most and Least Frequently Used
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Among Iranian EFL Freshmen Students and its
Relationship to the Gender”. The Iranian EFL Journal, 7 (1), 91-100.
Asgari, A. and Ghazali, M. 2011. “The Type of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Used
by ESL Students in University Putra Malaysia”. English Language Teaching, 4,
84-90.
Atkinson, R. C. and Raugh, M. R. 1975. “An application of the mnemonic keyword
method to the acquisition of a Russian vocabulary”. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 104, 126-133.
Bakti, K.N.N.
2018.
“Vocabulary learning strategies used by junior high school
students”. Indonesian Journal of English Language Studies, 3 (2).
Barcroft, J. 2009. “Strategies and performance in intentional L2 vocabulary learning”.
Language Awareness, 18 (1), 74-89.
Boonnoon, S. 2019. “Vocabulary learning strategies employed by Thai university
students across four academic profiles”. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies, 9 (8), 902-910.
Bowles, M.
2010.
“Concurrent Verbal Reports in Second Language Acquisition
Research”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111-127.
Brown, T. S. and Perry, F. L. 1991. “A comparison of three learning strategies for
ESL vocabulary acquisition”. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 655-670.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
97
James Rock
Çelik, S. and Toptaş, V. 2010. “Vocabulary learning strategy use of Turkish EFL
learners”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 62-71.
Cohen, A.D. and Aphek, E. 1981. “Easifying second language learning”. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 3 (2), 221-235.
Cohen, A and Macaro, E. (Eds). 2007. Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of
Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cusen, G.
2009. Investigating vocabulary learning strategies: A case study of
Romanian undergraduates with a professional interest in learning English as a
foreign language. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Davoudi, M. and Chavosh, M. 2016. “Vocabulary Learning Strategy Use by Iranian
EFL Learners across Proficiency Levels”. International Journal of Linguistics, 8
(1), 67-81.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in
Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1980. “Verbal reports as data”. Psychological
Review. 87 (3), 215-251.
Fan, M. 2003. “Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second
language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners”. The Modern
Language Journal, 87 (2), 222-241.
Gao, X. 2007. “Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to
Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt”. Applied Linguistics, 28, 615-620.
Gilbert, J. B. 2008. Teaching Pronunciation Using the Prosody Pyramid. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, C.
(Ed.)
2008. Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Y.Q. 1994. “Vocabulary learning strategies of good and poor Chinese EFL
learners”. In Bird, N., Falvey, P., Tsui, A., Allison, D. and McNeill, A. (Eds.)
Language and learning. Hong Kong, The Education Department, 376-401.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
98
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
Gu, P.Y. and Johnson, R.K. 1996. “Vocabulary learning strategies and language
learning outcomes”. Language Learning, 46 (4), 643-679.
Hamzah, M. S. G., Kafipour, R., and Abdullah, S. K. 2009. “Vocabulary learning
strategies of Iranian undergraduate EFL students and its relation to their
vocabulary size”. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (1), 39-50.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching, London, Longman.
Kafipour, R., Yazdi, Soori, A. and Shokrpour, N. 2011. “Vocabulary levels and
vocabulary learning strategies of Iranian undergraduate students”. Studies in
Literature and Language, 3, 64-71.
Kirmizi, Ö. and Topcu, N. 2014. “Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Turkish EFL
Students at Karabük University”. Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences,
18 (3).
Lawson, M.J. and Hogben, D. 1996. “The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-
language learners”. Language Learning, 46 (1), 101-135.
Loucky, J.P. 2003.
“Using computerized bilingual dictionaries to help maximize
English vocabulary learning at Japanese colleges”. CALICO Journal, 21 (1),
105.
Macaro, E. 2006. “Strategies for language learning and for language use: revising the
theoretical framework”. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (3), 320-337.
Meara, P. and Fitzpatrick, T. 2000. “Lex30: an improved method of assessing
productive vocabulary in an L2”. System, 28 (1), 19-30.
Noprianto, E. and Purnawarman, P. 2019. “EFL students’ vocabulary learning
strategies and their affixes knowledge”. Journal of Language and Linguistic
Studies, 15 (1), 262-275.
Nosidlak, K. M. 2013. “Vocabulary learning strategies of the advanced students”.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (4), 655-661.
O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L. and Russo, R.
1985a. “Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students”.
Language Learning, 3 (1), 21-46.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
99
James Rock
Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies. What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle Publishers.
Oxford, R.L. 2017. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: self-
regulation in context, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Pavičić Takač, V.
2008. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language
Acquisition. Clevedon-Buffalo-Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Pawlak, M., and Oxford, R.L. 2018. “Conclusion: The future of research into
language learning strategies”. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Rabadi, R. 2016. “Vocabulary Learning Strategies Employed by Undergraduate EFL
Jordanian Students”. English Language and Literature Studies, 6, 47.
Roguli, J. and Čizmić, I. 2018. “Vocabulary learning strategies used by medical
students: Croatian perspective”. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 7 (2), 44-58.
Rose, H. 2012. “Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:
Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater”. Applied
Linguistics, 33, 92-98.
Rose, H., Briggs, J.G., Boggs, J.A., Serio, L. and Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. 2018. “A
systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-
regulation”. System, 72, 151-163.
Rubin, J. 1975. “What the good language learner can teach us”. TESOL Quarterly, 9,
41-51.
Sanaoui, R. 1995. “Adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second
languages”. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 15-28.
Schmitt, N. 1997. “Vocabulary learning strategies”. In Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M.
(Eds.) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 199-227.
Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D.R. 1993. “Identifying and Assessing Vocabulary Learning
Strategies”. Thai TESOL Bulletin, 5 (4), 27-33.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
100
Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of English
Shooshtari, Z.G., Mehrabi, K., and Mousavinia, S.R. 2013. “A Call for Teaching
Pronunciation in Iranian Schools”. International Journal of Academic Research
in Progressive Education and Development, 2 (1).
Stoffer, I.
1995. University Foreign Language Students’ Choice of Vocabulary
Learning Strategies as Related to Individual Difference Variables. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Alabama: University of Alabama.
Takeuchi, O. 2019, “Language learning strategies: Insights from the past and directions
for the future”. In Gao, X.
(Ed.), Second handbook of English language
teaching. New York, NY: Springer Press, 1-20.
Teng, M. F. 2015, “Assessing the relationship between vocabulary learning strategy use
and vocabulary knowledge”. PASAA, 49, 39-44.
Tseng, W.T., Dörnyei, Z. and Schmitt, N. 2006. “A new approach to assessing
strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition”.
Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), 78-102.
Tseng, W.T. and Schmitt, N. 2008. “Toward a model of motivated vocabulary
learning: A structural equation modelling approach”. Language Learning, 58
(2), 357-400.
Wei, Z. 2014. “Does teaching mnemonics for vocabulary learning make a difference?
Putting the keyword method and the word part technique to the test”. Language
Teaching Research, 19, 43-69.
Yigit, T. and Aykul, B. 2018. “A comparison of vocabulary learning strategies of high
school and university students”. European Journal of Education Studies, 5 (8).
Zahedi, Y. and Abdi, M. 2012. “The Impact of Imagery Strategy on EFL Learners’
Vocabulary Learning”. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 2264-
2272.
Zhang, B. and Li, C. 2011. “Classification of L2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies:
Evidence from Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses”. RELC Journal.
42, 141-154.
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
101
James Rock
Zou, L. and Zhou, Y. 2017. “A study of English vocabulary learning strategies used by
ethnic minority students in Leshan Normal University, Sichuan, China”. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 7 (6), 468-472.
Received: 03 June 2019
Accepted: 12 December 2019
Cite this article as:
Rock, James. 2019. “Exploring the Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Italian Learners of
English”. Language Value,
11
(1),
71-102. Jaume I University ePress: Castelló, Spain.
http://www.languagevalue.uji.es.
ISSN 1989-7103
Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors
Language Value 11 (1), 71-102
102
