Content uploaded by Omar Colombo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Omar Colombo on Dec 23, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
505
UNDERSTANDING THE VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES
OF BRUNEIAN STUDENTS LEARNING VIETNAMESE AS A
FOREIGN LANGUAGE: A SOCIAL INTERACTION PERSPECTIVE
Omar Colombo1, Tran Trong Nghia2
Abstract
Scholars assert that mastering vocabulary is a paramount communication skill in learning
foreign languages (FL). Consequently, learners must employ Vocabulary Learning Strategies
(VLS) to store and utilize new words effectively. As there has been limited exploration of VLS
use by Bruneian students and VLS employment by learners of Vietnamese as a FL, this research
investigates the VLS, particularly the Social Strategies applied by Bruneian students studying
Vietnamese as FL. Bruneian students often encounter challenges in learning, retaining, and
applying Vietnamese vocabulary. To address these challenges, instructors promote activities
and assessments such as writing scripts and creating videos to facilitate Vietnamese language
interaction and usage. These practices aid learners in recalling vocabulary naturally based on
real communication needs. Researchers administered an adapted Schmitt’s (1997) Vocabulary
Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ) to 120 students of Vietnamese as a FL. Learners
rated their use of 65 VLS based on a 5-point Likert scale. A descriptive statistical approach was
utilized for the data analysis. Findings highlighted that Bruneian learners were moderate VLS
users. Discovery-Social and Consolidation-Cognitive strategies were the most frequently used,
with Discovery-Determination and Consolidation-Social were the intermediate ones, while
Memory and Metacognitive consolidation VLS were the least used. Overall, learners valued the
interactions with the lecturer and classmates (Social Strategies) while learning new Vietnamese
words. This research underscores VLS in Vietnamese language education, particularly the role
of Social Strategies and interactive communication. Instructors should incorporate interactive
strategies to provide real-life language experiences. Ongoing efforts to implement interactive
communication strategies is crucial for enhancing Vietnamese language education. This can
support Bruneian students in their language learning journey and foster proficiency in
Vietnamese language skills.
Keywords: Vietnamese as a foreign language, Vocabulary learning strategies, Social
Strategies, class interaction, Bruneian learners
1 PhD., Language Centre, Universiti Brunei Darussalam. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1503-3732
Email: omar.colombo@ubd.edu.bn
2 PhD., Language Centre, Universiti Brunei Darussalam. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8161-8586
Email: trong.tran@ubd.edu.bn
506
TÌM HIỂU CHIẾN LƯỢC HỌC TỪ VỰNG CỦA SINH VIÊN
BRUNEI HỌC TIẾNG VIỆT NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ:
GÓC NHÌN TƯƠNG TÁC XÃ HỘI
Tóm tắt
Giới nghiên cứu khẳng định rằng việc nắm vững từ vựng là kỹ năng tối quan trọng trong
việc học và giao tiếp bằng ngoại ngữ. Để làm được điều đó, người học cần sử dụng các chiến
lược học từ vựng (Vocabulary Learning Strategies - VLS) một cách hiệu quả. Theo nhóm nghiên
cứu, cho đến nay chưa có khảo sát nào về VLS cho sinh viên Đại học Quốc gia Brunei nói riêng
và những người học tiếng Việt như một ngoại ngữ nói chung. Công trình này sẽ thực hiện nhiệm
vụ đó; đặc biệt nhóm sẽ chú trọng quan sát, đánh giá các chiến lược Tương tác xã hội. Thực tế
cho thấy, sinh viên Brunei thường gặp một số khó khăn trong học tập, ghi nhớ và vận dụng từ
vựng trong giao tiếp. Để giải quyết những thách thức này, giảng viên thường xuyên tổ chức và
khuyến khích các hoạt động mang tính tương tác cao, chẳng hạn như các dự án sáng tạo nội
dung, các video về hội thoại. Những hoạt động này giúp người học ghi nhớ từ vựng một cách
tự nhiên dựa trên nhu cầu giao tiếp thực tế trong hoạt động của họ. Nhóm nghiên cứu sử dụng
bảng hỏi Chiến lược học từ vựng (VLSQ) của Schmitt (1997), đã được điều chỉnh, áp dụng
nghiên cứu trên 120 sinh viên theo học tiếng Việt như một ngoại ngữ. Người học tự đánh giá
mức độ sử dụng 65 VLS của mình dựa trên thang điểm Likert 5 cấp độ. Các thao tác phân tích
dữ liệu được thực hiện bằng phương pháp thống kê và mô tả. Kết quả: sinh viên Brunei sử dụng
VLS ở mức trung bình; nhóm chiến lược Siêu nhận thức ít được áp dụng nhất; nhóm chiến lược
Nhận thức và nhóm chiến lược Xã hội được sử dụng phổ biến nhất. Điều này cho thấy họ thường
xuyên tham gia vào các hoạt động nhóm, tương tác xã hội trong quá trình học từ vựng. Nhìn
chung, người học đánh giá cao việc tương tác với giảng viên và bạn cùng lớp (Chiến lược xã
hội) khi học từ mới. Nghiên cứu này cũng nhấn mạnh tầm quan trọng của VLS trong giảng dạy,
đặc biệt là vai trò của các Chiến lược tương tác xã hội. Nhóm nghiên cứu cũng kiến nghị người
dạy nên tích hợp các chiến lược để mang lại trải nghiệm ngôn ngữ thực tế. Việc triển khai các
chiến lược giao tiếp tương tác là yếu tố then chốt để nâng cao hiệu quả giảng dạy, giúp sinh
viên Brunei phát triển kỹ năng sử dụng tiếng Việt.
Từ khóa: Tiếng Việt như một ngoại ngữ, các chiến lược học từ vựng, chiến lược tương
tác xã hội, tương tác trong lớp học, sinh viên Brunei
1. Introduction
Mastering vocabulary in a Foreign Language (FL) is the most critical skill in
foreign language learning (Davies & Pearse, 2000; McCarthy, 1990; Laufer, 1986).
Vocabulary allows learners to communicate, read (Davis & Kelly, 2003), speak and
write in a new language, and be understood by speakers of this language (Susanti, 2002).
Consequently, a student lacking vocabulary knowledge cannot convey and communicate
507
clearly (Gan, 2012) with native speakers. However, students are rarely exposed to real-
life language experiences when learning a foreign language. The lack of real
communication experiences has two consequences for the student’s vocabulary skill
improvement: Firstly, “learners have to rely on classroom instructions, and accordingly
vocabulary learning is largely dependent on classroom instructions” (Lee, 2007: 149-
150). From this point of view, interpersonal learner-teacher and learner-learner
interactions should be integrated into the FL teaching and learning approach of any
educational context; by interacting with teachers and classmates, learners find the
opportunity to discover, practice, recall, and retrieve new vocabulary items. Secondly,
since it is infeasible for instructors to teach every word, and students cannot memorize
and recall every newly encountered word during FL lessons (Sokmen, 1997), learners
must receive instructions in Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS). In this paper, the
researchers use VLS to refer to “the operations employed by the learner to aid the
acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (Oxford, 1990: 8) regarding
vocabulary. As stated by Vo and Jaturapitakkul (2016: 106) and Zarrin and Khan (2014:
76), students can develop their word power, awareness, and understanding of words by
applying VLS. If, on the one hand, learners depend on teachers and peers for practicing
new words in the inside-classroom interactions, then on the other hand, they should be
able to increase their self-learning skills by applying different kinds of VLS. However,
learners may not automatically engage in VLS. Thus, FL instructors should teach
different strategies to help students become efficient self-learners (Cameron, 2001).
As not much research has been done on VLS use by Bruneian students, as well as
on VLS employment by learners of Vietnamese as a FL (VFL), this is a pilot study
attempting to investigate which VLS are commonly used by Bruneian students of
Vietnamese as a third language. This paper’s teaching and learning challenge is to find
out if the interactive teaching approach, which is applied by the Vietnamese educator
here, influences students’ choice of VLS and students’ preference for any other kinds of
VLS. This research also attempts to observe the students’ perception of the role played
by the Social Vocabulary Learning Strategies.
Therefore, this study looks at the following research questions:
1. Are Social VLS commonly utilized by Bruneian students when learning
Vietnamese as a Foreign Language? Additionally, are there any notable
correlations between the use of Social strategies and other types of VLS?
2. What are the Bruneian students’ perceptions about the role played by specific
Social VLS dimensions?
508
2. Vietnamese language teaching and learning context
The inclusion of Vietnamese in the FL curriculum of the Bruneian university
under study in 2022 signifies the strategic vision and profound cooperation between
Vietnam and Brunei. Led by native-speaking instructors, the VFL program utilizes
interactive teaching methods, which have proven effective in engaging students.
Students highly appreciate learning through interactive activities both inside and
outside the classroom. During the first semester, the level of language input and
exposure to new vocabulary is somewhat limited; hence, participating in interactive
activities can help students remember new material relatively quickly. However, the
amount of new vocabulary will increase from the second semester onwards, making
vocabulary learning more challenging. Moreover, due to the specificity of Vietnamese
vocabulary and language differences, students occasionally face hurdles, requiring
teacher intervention and student’s personal effort. Therefore, training and equipping
students with VLS are essential.
Studies across Asia utilizing Schmitt’s (1997) VLSQ have shed light on the
preferred learning strategies among FL learners. While these studies offer valuable
insights, they do not fully address the unique linguistic context of Brunei, where
multilingualism poses challenges in navigating various linguistic structures. Learners
must not only expand their vocabulary but also master the skill of switching between
languages with distinct grammatical and phonetic structures.
Bruneian students often encounter difficulties learning Vietnamese vocabulary due
to its unique characteristics. Vietnamese, renowned for its tonal nature and
predominantly monosyllabic structure, presents challenges for learners, especially those
unfamiliar with tonal languages. Additionally, the inclusion of disyllabic and
polysyllabic words, influenced by Chinese and French, adds another layer of
complexity. Pronunciation becomes a significant hurdle as all Vietnamese words carry
tones, which can perplex speakers of Malay and English, hindering comprehension and
confidence. Estimates indicate that Chinese-derived vocabulary could make up up to
60% of the Vietnamese lexicon, with numerous borrowings from other languages,
enriching linguistic diversity. Consequently, Bruneian students face challenges grasping,
retaining, and effectively utilizing Vietnamese vocabulary.
Learning motivation is also a significant concern. Vietnamese, newly introduced
into Brunei for the last few semesters, is chosen by Bruneian students with the
expectation that the comprehensive strategic partnership recently established between
Brunei and Vietnam will bring them ample job opportunities. However, this outlook
pertains to the future, whereas current observations suggest that student motivation
levels are not sufficiently robust. Results from some small-scale surveys conducted by
instructors have shown that most students choose Vietnamese due to the highly
509
enjoyable classes, which incorporate engaging activities such as cooking, producing
videos, or participating in cultural events with the Vietnamese community. Many
scholars agree that highly motivated learners of a FL are more likely to invest time,
effort, and resources into their language-learning endeavours (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Rivers, 1987; Gardner, 1985). Motivation acts as a driving force that fuels learners’
engagement and commitment to the learning process.
To address students’ difficulties, teachers encourage language interaction activities
aimed at purposeful tasks, such as script writing and video creation depicting various
situations to promote interaction and Vietnamese language usage. Interpersonal
interactions play a pivotal role in the instructor’s teaching and learning approach,
fostering a dynamic and engaging classroom environment. Activities such as group
work, pair work, role-play, simulations, and interactive games encourage active
participation and collaboration among students. Group projects promote teamwork, task
allocation, and the execution of language-related tasks, enhancing communication and
time management skills. Cultural exchange activities allow students to appreciate native
speakers’ values and practices, fostering flexibility and cultural awareness.
These interactive activities serve specific communication purposes, motivating
students and encouraging linguistic creativity to aid vocabulary memorization. As Deci
and Ryan (2000) highlights, positive interpersonal interactions support student
motivation and well-being by creating a supportive learning environment. Testing
activities are conducted interactively to assess language proficiency, aligning with
Rivers’s (1987) recommendation for testing to involve real-life language use situations.
Bruneian students are encouraged to engage with teachers and classmates through
various communication channels, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and email, with
interactions recorded, assessed, and graded at the semester’s end. Each semester,
students are tasked with mastering 20-40 communication questions (20 for level 1 and
40 for level 2) by repeatedly practicing with teachers and classmates. These questions
focus on topics related to their daily life and learning. Repetition ensures students
accumulate enough language input after each semester and continue to improve in
subsequent semesters. Cognitive-mechanical repetition VLS can be effective in
vocabulary acquisition (Nation, 2001), such as engaging in repetitive tasks and repeating
words aloud in drills or conversations. This also explains why the rate of choosing CON-
Cognitive VLS by students is very high (see Findings section).
3. Literature background
3.1. Research on vocabulary learning strategies
Several scholars have covered the relevance of students’ VLS use. Studies have
demonstrated that students need the autonomy to select the strategies that best suit their
510
individual needs for application within and beyond the classroom (Nation, 2001, 1990;
Schmitt & Schmitt, 1995; Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). Hence, students should be active
and independent FL learners (Nation, 2001).
A wide range of strategies is categorized within various VLS classifications or
taxonomies.
In the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire, Oxford
(1990) categorized the learning strategies as Direct and Indirect; the first included
Memory, Cognitive, and Compensation strategies, whilst the second covered
Metacognitive, Affective, and Social learning strategies. Similarly, O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) identified three strategy categories: Metacognitive, Cognitive, and
Social-Affective VLS.
In their Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ), Gu (2003, 2018) and GU and
Johnson (1996) suggested two main VLS categories: Metacognitive strategies combined
Beliefs about vocabulary learning, and Metacognitive Regulation strategies, while the
Cognitive category included Inferencing, Taking Notes, Using Dictionaries, Rehearsal,
Encoding, and Activating strategies.
Schmitt (1997) attempted another VLS questionnaire. Schmitt’s (1997)
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ) organized 58 strategies in two
main categories and six subcategories. As shown below, the Social strategies were
shared by the two main categories.
In Schmitt’s (1997) VLS taxonomy, the first main category is named Discovery
(DIS; 14 items); though a Discovery VLS, student should discover the meaning of a
newly encountered word. There are two subcategories within Discovery strategies:
(1) Determination (DIS-DET; 9 items) VLS are individual learning strategies, such
as students’ analysis of the new word discourse elements, its context meaning, and its
cross-language cognates by themselves.
(2) Discovery Social (DIS-SOC; 5 items) strategies, which are applied through
interactions with others (teachers, peers, friends).
The second main strategy category, Consolidation (CON; 44 items), allows
students to consolidate, memorize, recall, and retrieve known words. This category
includes the following subcategories:
(3) Consolidation Social (CON-SOC; 3 items) strategies consist of consolidating
the meaning of a word by asking others.
(4) Memory (CON-MEM; 27 items) strategies are linked to in-depth mental and
morphosemantic operations, such as promoting verbal and visual imagery, and word
grouping.
511
(5) Cognitive (CON-COG; 9 items) strategies are not linked to mental processing;
thus, they are related to automatic means, such as mechanical and traditional oral and
writing repetitions, note-taking, and glossary consultation.
(6) Lastly, the Metacognitive (CON-MET; 5 items) subcategory involves students’
decision-making, monitoring, and self-assessing strategies, for instance practicing new
words over time and consulting media resources (songs, movies, etc.) in the targeted FL.
Several researchers have adapted and employed Schmitt’s (1997) VLSQ to study
learners’ VLS preferences and employment. Schmitt’s (1997) VLSQ underpins the
current investigation into Bruneian students’ preference and use of interactive Social
strategies, among other VLS, while studying new Vietnamese vocabulary. As observed
above, few studies have examined VLS use among Bruneian learners; thus, the findings
of this pilot study will be discussed by juxtaposing them with similar papers focusing
on VLS application among other Asian student cohorts.
3.2. Research on Interactive Language Teaching Approach
The interactive language teaching approach prioritizes active participation and
communication between teachers and students, fostering an environment of engagement
and collaboration. This method transcends traditional rote learning by leveraging
authentic language materials, prompting learners to interact meaningfully with the
language inside and outside the classroom. This approach emphasizes several key
benefits, including enhanced student engagement, improved communication skills
across speaking, listening, reading, and writing, cultural awareness, critical thinking
development, and long-term retention of language knowledge. Rivers (1987) suggests
that, at the foundational levels, interactive classes focus primarily on intentional
communication, placing less emphasis on grammatical structures, and involving
students in joint tasks and purposeful activities where they collaboratively engage in
practical tasks or creations.
Engaging in interactive activities not only enhances the enjoyment of learning but
also encourages active participation among students (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). By
practicing communication across various contexts, students can effectively hone their
language skills (Celce-Murcia et al., 2014). Moreover, integrating authentic materials
and cultural elements allows students to develop a deeper understanding and
appreciation of the target culture (Kramsch, 1993). Assessments should strive to mirror
real-life language usage as accurately as possible (Rivers, 1987).
In this approach, Bruneian students are encouraged to ask questions, interact with
their peers, and actively participate in class discussions. These interactions are assessed
and graded, contributing to a comprehensive evaluation of students’ language
proficiency and interactive skills. In short, the interactive approach offers a dynamic and
512
student-centered way of teaching FLs, promoting active engagement, meaningful
communication, and cultural understanding. By integrating interactive activities and
authentic materials, this approach helps students develop practical language skills and
fosters a lifelong appreciation for language learning.
4. Study methodology
4.1. Instrument
Schmitt’s (1997) VLSQ was selected as the instrument for examining Bruneian
students’ perception and use of Social VLS. Drawing from the insights of previous
scholars (e.g., Yee Chin et al., 2021; Laffey, 2020; Kai-Chee & Wee-Ling, 2019; Vo
& Jaturapitakkul, 2016), some original VLSQ strategies were revised, and
uncommon strategies were omitted. Furthermore, statements were simplified, and
examples and illustrations were incorporated to elucidate potentially unfamiliar
items. Some technologically advanced VLS were also added to the questionnaire.
The final VLSQ version counted 18 Discovery strategies and 47 Consolidation
Strategies for a total of 65 items. Eight were related to the Social VLS: five DIS-
SOC and three CON-SOC strategies. A team of experts and native Vietnamese
speakers validated the consistency of the questionnaire. A pilot study involving 75
students of VFL was conducted in December 2023 in the Bruneian university context
targeted in this paper. The internal consistency coefficient test was very high
(Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient: .923). Next, the questionnaire was converted
into an online Qualtrics format for easy distribution among VFL students. The full
version of the VLSQ is provided in the Appendix.
4.2. Questionnaire procedure
The VFL lecturer shared the VLSQ link with students through WhatsApp
during the second semester of the academic year 2023-2024. Students filled out the
questionnaire in 20mn to 25mn. By filling it out, each student consented to
participate in the study. Student’s anonymity was guaranteed. The survey
participation was voluntary.
Sociodemographic, educational, and linguistic information were requested
from learners.
Students were asked to rate the use of each VLS with a 5-point Likert scale, from
1 ‘Never used’ to 5 ‘Always used’.
4.3. Data analysis
Data was organized in the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) Version
20 software. The internal consistency coefficients for both the Discovery VLS category
513
(Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.78) and the Consolidation VLS category (Cronbach’s Alpha =
0.89) were notably high. These results indicated good internal consistencies and allowed
the researchers to proceed with statistical tests.
Data was analyzed based on a descriptive statistical approach. Concerning the data
analysis purpose, researchers adopted the score range categorization suggested in Zaid
Araf Mohd Noor et al. (2016), from 1.00-1.40, indicating a ‘Low use’ of the strategy, to
4.50-5.00, implying a VLS ‘High use’.
Paired Sample t-tests were run to compare the mean variance between VLS. The
purpose of a Pearson linear correlation test was to observe any significant correlation
between the use of Social strategies and other kinds of VLS.
4.4. Sample
Researchers administered the VLSQ to 120 Bruneian university students of VFL.
Most were between 17 and 22 years old (91.7%, N=110), and female (81.7%, N=98).
They were first (25.8%, N=31), second (60.8%, N=73), third or fourth (both, 6.7%, N=8)
year students. They were all English speakers. They spoke between three and seven
native and FLs; most spoke four (44.2%, N=53) or five (24.2%, N=29) languages. They
were studying or had studied VFL for one (85.8%, N=103), two (10.9%, N=13), or three
(3.3%, N=4) semesters. Hence, they were VFL beginner students, since the Bruneian
educational context targeted in this study required students three semesters to complete
the level A1 (CEFR) of this language.
5. Findings
5.1. Research Question 1: Social VLS Use Frequency and Impact
In this section, researchers highlight the overall results of the VLSQ data. The
purpose here is to observe if Social VLS were commonly used by students while
discovering (DIS-SOC) and consolidating (CON-SOC) new VFL words. Furthermore,
the findings of a Pearson test are highlighted to verify if students’ use of Social VLS
impacted the employment of other kinds of VLS. The analyzed data has been
summarized as follows:
514
Table 1. Inter-category overall findings of the Vocabulary Learning Strategies use
(N=120; means in descending order; SDs)
Strategy (Sub)Category
M
SD
Frequency
User
Rank
DIS-Social (DIS-SOC)
3.44
.86
Moderate
1
CON-Cognitive (CON-COG)
3.40
.54
Moderate
2
DIS-Determination (DIS-DET)
3.34
.47
Moderate
3
CON-Social (CON-SOC)
3.26
.84
Moderate
4
CON-Memory (CON-MEM)
3.09
.55
Moderate
5
CON-Metacognitive (CON-MET)
2.83
.65
Moderate
6
Strategies Overall Mean:
3.23
Table 1 displays an overall mean of 3.23, indicating that students were moderate
VLS users. The standard deviations were below 1 (SD=.47<.86), i.e. the data
distribution was closer to the mean, which indicates that there were low data variances
and high levels of agreement among students relating to the effectiveness of the VLS.
Social strategies were the most popular Discovery (DIS) VLS (first position),
whereas Cognitive VLS were favored by students within the Consolidation (CON)
strategies (second place). A mean difference of only .04 between the DIS-Social and
CON-Cognitive subgroups showed that students preferred to apply primarily these
two kinds of VLS. DIS-Determination (third place), and CON-Social (fourth place)
strategies were found in the intermediate positions. CON-Memory VLS followed in
fifth place. CON-Metacognitive strategies were the least appreciated by students
(sixth position).
515
Table 2. Mean-variance and mean-correlation between the six Vocabulary
Learning Strategies subcategories (N=120)
VLS Subcategories
Pearson Linear Correlation Test (r-value)
DIS-
SOC
CON-
COG
CON-
DET
CON-
SOC
CON-
MEM
CON-
MET
Paired
Sample
t-Test
(df=119)
DIS-SOC (-)
r=.48**
Sig.=.00
r=.60**
Sig.=.00
r=.60**
Sig.=.00
r=.48**
Sig.=.00
r=.41**
Sig.=.00
CON-COG (-)
t=.51
Sig=.61
r=.56**
Sig.=.00
r=.41**
Sig.=.00
r=.56**
Sig.=.00
r=.48**
Sig.=.00
CON-DET (-)
t=-1.50
Sig=.14
t=1.34
Sig=.18
r=.42**
Sig.=.00
r=.62**
Sig.=.00
r=.41**
Sig.=.00
CON-SOC (-)
t=2.48
Sig=.01
t=1.90
Sig=.06
t=1.11
Sig=.27
r=.51**
Sig.=.00
r=.22*
Sig.=.01
CON-MEM (-)
t=5.03
Sig=.00
t=6.78
Sig=.00
t=6.35
Sig=.00
t=2.67
Sig=.01
r=.45**
Sig.=.00
CON-MET (-)
t=8.00
Sig=.00
t=10.23
Sig=.00
t=9.10
Sig=.00
t=5.08
Sig=.00
t=4.45
Sig=.00
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The lowest learners’ use of the CON-Metacognitive strategies is corroborated by
the Paired Sample t-test findings (see Table 2). The most consistent mean-variance
pertains to Metacognitive strategies on one hand, and the three most frequently
employed VLS subcategories by the participants—CON-Cognitive (t=10.23, df=119,
p=.00), DIS-Determination (t=9.10, df=119, p=.00), and DIS-Social (t=8.00, df=119,
p=.00)—on the other.
These findings underlined that students highly appreciated socializing VLS (DIS-
SOC) for discovering the meaning of new VFL words. However, interactive practice
was not the students’ most applied strategy to consolidate their vocabulary knowledge
(CON-SOC).
516
Table 2 also indicates the findings of the inter-subcategories Pearson test (the
findings in italics). The six subcategories were positively related and increased evenly
(r-value between .22 and .62, with a shared variance between 4.84% and 38.44%, i.e.
with a low to moderate effect strength; p=.00). Findings demonstrated significant
interrelationships among the six kinds (subcategories) of strategies used. Hence, for this
present research purposes, the higher the learners’ rating of the strategies related to social
interpersonal relations, the higher the value given to other kinds of strategies to discover
and consolidate the vocabulary knowledge (DIS-SOC and CON-SOC VLS/Other kinds
of VLS: r=.22<.60, p=.00<.01).
5.2. Research Question 2: Students’ Perception of the Role Played by Specific
Social VLS Dimensions
The second research question seeks to clarify students’ awareness of specific
Social VLS dimensions. Aggregated Discovery and Consolidation Social VLS findings
are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Students’ perception of the Discovery (DIS) and Consolidation (CON)
Social Vocabulary Learning Strategies usefulness (N=120;
means of the strategies use frequency in descending order; SDs)
Social Strategies
Use Frequency/5
Item
Nb
Category
Statement
M
SD
Rank
17
DIS
I ask classmates or friends for the meaning of
the new word.
4.00
1.03
1
14
DIS
I ask my teacher for a translation to a known
language.
3.78
1.15
2
21
CON
I interact with other learners of the foreign
language.
3.77
1.18
3
19
CON
I study and practice the new word’s meaning
in a group activity.
3.51
1.14
4
16
DIS
I ask my teacher for an example sentence
including the new word.
3.39
1.20
5
517
Social Strategies
Use Frequency/5
Item
Nb
Category
Statement
M
SD
Rank
18
DIS
I discover the new word’s meaning through
group work activity.
3.26
1.21
6
15
DIS
I ask my teacher for a paraphrase or synonym
of the new word.
2.75
1.24
7
20
CON
I interact with native speakers.
2.52
1.30
8
Discovery and Consolidation Social Strategies Overall Mean:
3.37
The findings indicate that learners were moderate to moderate-high users of
socializing VLS either to discover the meaning of new Vietnamese words or to
consolidate their Vietnamese vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, high standard
deviations (SD>1) indicate high variability (dispersion) of the students’ levels of
agreement with the eight Social VLS.
Three out of the top four Social strategies involved students’ interactions with
peers and friends (Item 17, M=4.00, SD=1.03) and other VFL learners (Item 21,
M=3.77, SD=1.18) to discover the meaning of new words, as well as engaging in group
activities with peers to practice and consolidate the vocabulary knowledge (Item 19,
M=3.51, SD=1.14). However, students reported only moderate usage of group-activity
strategies for discovering the meaning of new VFL words (Item 18, M=3.26, SD=1.21).
Learners also demonstrated moderate-high utilization of the discovery approach
characterized by consulting teachers for the translations of unfamiliar words (Item 14,
M=3.78, SD=1.15). Nevertheless, they only moderately requested teachers’ assistance
in providing example sentences featuring newly encountered words (Item 16, M=3.39,
SD=1.20) or suggesting alternative phrases or synonyms (Item 15, M=2.75, SD=1.24).
These findings imply substantial differences in usage frequency. Learners strongly
preferred engaging in social interactions with peers inside the classroom, especially
during the discovery phase. A few reasons support these conclusions. Firstly, the four
VLS related to the learner-peer interaction yielded a higher aggregated mean, thus
indicating a stronger preference among participants, and a lower standard deviation
when compared with the three Social strategies linked to the learner-teacher interaction
518
(interaction learner-peers VLS, Items 17, 18, 19 and 21: aggregated mean 3.63, SD=.81;
interaction learner-teacher VLS, Items 14, 15 and 16: aggregated mean 3.31, SD=1.00;
Paired Sample t-test between the two aggregated variables: t=3.92, df=119, p=.00).
Secondly, the outside-classroom strategy related to interactions with native speakers
(Item 20, M=2.52, SD=1.30) had the lowest mean frequency, and the highest students’
rating dispersion (SD) within the Social VLS group. Lastly, the results of the VLSQ
overall data seen above showed that learners had a stronger preference for the DIS-
Social VLS and a lower one for the CON-Social strategies (DIS-Social: M=3.44,
SD=.86; CON-Social: M=3.26, SD=.84; Paired Sample t-test DIS-Social/CON-Social:
t=2.48, df=119, p=.01).
6. Discussion
The discussion is divided into two sections, corresponding to the two
abovementioned research questions. Section 6.1 discusses the Bruneian students’ use of
interactive (social) strategies while studying Vietnamese vocabulary items, and the
relationships between the use of these strategies and other kinds of VLS (research
question 1). The purpose of section 6.2 is to debate the students’ perceptions about the
roles played by specific Social VLS dimensions (research question 2).
6.1. Social-interactive strategies usefulness among existing VLS
Findings highlighted that, overall, the participants were moderate VLS users. This
result is consistent with findings from similar studies on VLS used by Asian students of
Vietnamese (Vo & Jaturapitakkul, 2016) and other FLs, such as English (e.g., Ta’amneh,
2021; Rabadi, 2016; Jafari & Kafipour, 2013; Shamis, 2003; Wharton, 2000; Park, 1997)
and Arabic (e.g., Harun & Zawawi, 2014).
The surveyed 120 Bruneian students were primarily users of Social strategies
during the VFL vocabulary discovery phase. Furthermore, findings showed positive
correlations between the use of different kinds of VLS. Hence, students’ employment of
Social strategies had a linear impact on their adoption of other strategies. Only a few
studies identified the importance of Social strategies for Asian learners. For instance, in
Gökhan Karacan and Dikilitaş’ (2020) study, the 103 Italian-Turkish simultaneous and
sequential bilingual high school students reported using Social VLS the most. However,
it is not uncommon to find studies on VLS usage concluding that Asian learners
preferred to avoid Social strategies. For instance, Social VLS were found to be the least
used in some investigations on Iraqi (e.g., Al-Omairi, 2020; Amirian & Heshmatifar,
2013), Indonesian (e.g., Besthia, 2018), and Taiwanese (Chinese) (e.g., Chieh-Yue &
Yu-Hua, 2004) EFL/ESL students. These considerations suggest that the 120 Bruneian
students effectively integrated the social-interactive approach pursued by their VFL
instructor into their learning methods.
519
Nevertheless, students preferred to adopt individual and self-learning strategies to
consolidate, recall, and retrieve new vocabulary. Thus, consistent with other studies on
VLS usage by Asian students (e.g., Yee Chin et al., 2021; Kai-Chee & Wee-Ling, 2019;
Lee et al., 2019; Vo & Jaturapitakkul, 2016; Hsu, 2012), Bruneian students rated the
CON-Cognitive VLS highly.
Students perceived the CON-Social VLS as only moderately useful. Additionally,
CON-Cognitive VLS exhibited less variability compared to DIS and CON Social
strategies, highlighting the importance of mechanical cognitive processes in reinforcing
learned vocabulary. As Kudo (1999) argues, some cognitively less demanding strategies,
such as mechanical written and verbal repetitions and note-taking (CON-Cognitive
strategies), are commonly employed by FL learners. However, more in-depth strategies
like mnemonic (CON-Memory) and Metacognitive strategies require higher levels of
student involvement, including selective attention, cognitive effort, and extended
learning periods. Cognitive mechanical strategies have the advantage of making learners
aware of the importance of learning a new FL and understanding and recalling
vocabulary items by applying less mental effort (Vo & Jaturapitakkul, 2016; Wenden,
1987). In addition, Kai-Chee and Wee-Ling (2019) claim that the preference for
cognitive mechanical strategies is consistent with students learning a completely new
language. These observations are relevant to the educational context addressed in this
research, since Bruneian students studying Vietnamese were novices in this FL, not yet
having reached the A1 (CEFR) level, and may have initially preferred to employ
mechanical, simple, and familiar cognitive strategies to consolidate their vocabulary
knowledge.
In agreement with the studies cited above (Ta’amneh, 2021; Yee Chin et al., 2021;
Al-Omairi, 2020; Gökhan Karacan & Dikilitaş, 2020; Kai-Chee & Wee-Ling, 2019;
Besthia, 2018; Rabadi, 2016; Harun & Zawawi, 2014; Amirian & Heshmatifar, 2013;
Hsu, 2012), CON-Metacognitive strategies received the least appreciation from
students. Metacognitive strategies are complex as they require students to manage their
FL learning by continually planning and monitoring their progress (Harris, 2003),
involving the process of “thinking about thinking” (Anderson, 2002: 3). Thus, the
participants in the present research study were likely unaware of how to employ
Metacognitive strategies, hence why they preferred to employ DIS-Social and as well
as CON-Cognitive strategies.
6.2. Interaction practicing inside and outside the classroom
Findings underscored the VFL Bruneian students’ preference for inside-class
learner-peers socializing interactions. This finding might be due to a few reasons:
520
1) Learner-learner interaction preference. Learners might have appreciated
discovering new words with peers at the same FL learning level (Kai-Chee et al., 2019),
thus leveraging their comfort in collaborative learning settings and fostering the further
development of cooperative learning skills (Vo & Jaturapitakkul, 2016). Furthermore,
findings revealed that Bruneian students depended entirely on the educational context
while learning the Vietnamese language.
2) Learner-teacher minimizing reliance. Various studies conducted in Malaysia
(e.g., Tahmina, 2023; Zaid Araf Mohd Noor et al., 2016) find that students seemed to
minimize their reliance on teachers. Other scholars have drawn attention to the impact
of emotional, cultural, and learning factors on the student-teacher relationship among
Asian learners. Kafipoor (2010) attributed the lower rates of teacher-asking among ESL
Iranian students to the educational structure within Iranian culture; there, teachers
provide all necessary information during lessons, leaving students to merely record what
was said. Quite often, students underline the teachers-students difference status, which
implies that Asian learners “feel shy or have a fear of making mistakes in front of their
teacher” (Kai-Chee et al., 2019: 68). Laffey (2020) suggested that the reduced
dependence of EFL Korean learners on teachers could be attributed, on one hand, to
Asian learning cultures and practices, and on the other hand, to the autonomy skills
developed by university students in exploring word meanings. Hence, the relatively
lower use of teacher-asking rather than learner-learner interactive strategies by VFL
Bruneian students might be related to their cultural and FL learning practices.
Additionally, students demonstrated advanced self-learning skills in consolidating their
vocabulary knowledge through CON-Cognitive VLS. Thus, Bruneian students were
moderate to moderate-high users of note-taking (Item 55: M=4.85, SD=.42), oral
repetition (Item 49: M=4.64, SD=.68) and written repetition (Item 50: M=3.88,
SD=1.14) strategies, along with the autonomous consultation of glossaries (Item 51,
students’ use of personal vocabulary notebook: M=3.83, SD=1.32; Item 52, students’
use of textbook’s vocabulary sections: M=3.63, SD=1.13). For the VLSQ full
statements, see the Appendix.
3) Irrelevance of the learner-native speaker interaction. Learners often lack
exposure to the target FL outside the classroom, which is why they cannot regularly
practice the language (Rabadi, 2016). This might be due to the lack of contact with
Vietnamese native speakers, who currently compose a small expatriate community of
around 300 people in Brunei (information source: VnExpress). Consequently, learners
rely only on language teachers and classmates during their classes for their FL learning.
7. Teaching implications
This study identified three key implications for teaching Vietnamese to Bruneian
students.
521
Firstly, Oxford (1990) argues that moderate use of VLS suggests that students are
generally aware of the strategies; however, teachers should encourage students to extend
their VLS knowledge during their vocabulary acquisition process. Thus, Bruneian
students lack awareness of the range of VLS available, underscoring the importance of
educators offering training sessions to familiarize students with effective vocabulary
acquisition strategies. Educators should prioritize Memory and Metacognitive
consolidation strategies, which enable VFL students to improve their self-learning skills.
Secondly, it is essential to enhance learner-teacher interaction further. Despite
teachers broadening their interaction channels, Brunei students tend to be reserved and
often prefer asking their peers rather than the teacher. To address this, creating a
supportive classroom environment is crucial. This can be achieved through more
interactive activities and rapport-building with students. Building personal connections
with students to foster trust and rapport is essential. This entails demonstrating genuine
engagement with their interests, concerns, and cultural backgrounds.
Finally, promoting more social interaction and exposure to the Vietnamese
language is crucial. Bruneian students have limited exposure to the Vietnamese
community outside the classroom. Therefore, educators should create additional
opportunities for engagement with the language and culture through cultural events,
physical activities, and online platforms. By addressing these implications, instructors
can better support students in acquiring Vietnamese vocabulary effectively and fostering
a deeper appreciation of the language and culture.
8. Conclusion
The study sheds light on the VLS employed by Bruneian students studying VFL.
Overall, the participants demonstrated moderate employment of VLS, with a
predominant reliance on Social strategies during the vocabulary discovery phase.
Positive correlations were observed among different types of VLS, indicating that the
use of Social Strategies influenced the adoption of other strategies. Despite previous
studies suggesting Asian learners’ aversion to Social strategies, the findings suggest that
Bruneian students effectively integrated the social-interactive approach promoted by
their VFL instructors into their learning practices. Bruneian students rated Cognitive
VLS highly, particularly Cognitive mechanical strategies, indicating their preference for
familiar and straightforward approaches to vocabulary consolidation. However,
Metacognitive strategies were less favored, suggesting a lack of awareness or motivation
among students. This highlights the importance of prioritizing VLS in teaching
approaches to enhance students’ understanding and utilization of various strategies,
including Memory and Metacognitive consolidation strategies, thereby improving
learning efficiency and independence. Furthermore, the study revealed Bruneian
students’ preference for learner-peer interactions within the classroom, potentially
522
influenced by their educational context and cultural background. The limited interaction
with native speakers outside the classroom and the small Vietnamese expatriate
community in Brunei may contribute to students’ reliance on teachers and peers for
language practice. As a result, efforts to create more opportunities for authentic language
exposure and practice outside the classroom are recommended to enhance students’
proficiency and confidence in using the target language. Overall, the study underscores
the significance of considering social interaction dynamics and cultural factors in
language learning contexts and emphasizes the need for targeted instructional strategies
to address students’ preferences and learning needs effectively.
Further investigations into VLS are warranted. Research should be conducted with
a larger sample of participants to ensure comparative and reliable research findings.
Additionally, qualitative researcher-student interviews might give insight into students’
knowledge of VLS, including the most popular and unpopular strategies, those
considered helpful and unhelpful, as well as identifying learners’ motivations that shape
their beliefs, choices, and behaviours.
REFERENCES
Al-Omairi, M. (2020). The Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies by EFL and EAP
Undergraduate University Learners’ in the Iraqi Context. Arab World English
Journal: Special Issue on the English Language in Iraqi Context. 111-
120. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/elt2.7
Amirian, S.M.R., & Heshmatifar, Z. (2013). A Survey on Vocabulary Learning
Strategies: A case of Iranian EFL University Students. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 4(3), 636-641. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.3.636-641
Anderson, N.J. (2002). The Role of Metacognition in Second/Foreign Language
Teaching and Learning. ERIC Digest. Washington DC: ERIS Clearinghouse.
Paper resume retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/ERIC-
ED463659/pdf/ERIC-ED463659.pdf
Besthia, W. (2018). A Survey on Vocabulary Learning Strategies: A Case of Indonesian
EFL University Students. Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-
JRME), 8(5), 29-33. Retrieved from https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-
jrme/papers/Vol-8%20Issue-5/Version-3/E0805032934.pdf
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733109
523
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D.M., & Snow, M.A. (2014). Teaching English as a second
or foreign language. USA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Chieh-Yue, Y., & Yu-Hua, W. (2004). An Investigation Into Vocabulary Learning
Strategies Used by Senior High School Students in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of
TESOL, 1(2), 1-44. Retrieved from
http://www.tjtesol.org/attachments/article/328/Taiwan%20Journal%20of%20TES
OL%20Vol.1%20No.2%20-1.pdf
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.bn/books?id=1zDlbvHuo
YgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false
Davis, S.M., & Kelly, R.R. (2003). Comparing Deaf and Hearing College Students’
Mental Arithmetic Calculations Under Two Interference Conditions. American
Annals of the Deaf, 148(3), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2003.0018
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 Speaking Problems: Implications for ESL Curriculum
Development in a Teacher Training Institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 37(1), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n1.4
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gökhan Karacan, C., & Dikilitaş, K. (2020). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Of Italian-
Turkish Bilingual Students: Impact Of Simultaneous And Sequential Acquisition.
Sustainable Multilingualism, 17(1), 41-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/sm-2020-0013
Gu, Y. (2018). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies
for ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching (SSLLT),
8(2), 325-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.7
Gu, Y. (2003). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary learning art of two successful
Chinese EFL learners. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
(TESOL) Quarterly, 37(1), 73-104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588466
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
1770.1996.tb01355.x
524
Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning
context. TESL-Electronic Journal, 7(2), 1-19. Retrieved from https://www.tesl-
ej.org/ej26/a1.html
Harun, B., & Zawawi, I. (2014). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Arabic Vocabulary
Size among Pre-University Students in Malaysia. International Education Studies,
7, 219-226. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n13p219
Hsu, J. (2012). Learning Chinese characters: A comparative study of the learning
strategies of western students and eastern students in Taiwan. Master’s thesis,
Colorado State University, Colorado. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/
10217/67308
Jafari, S., & Kafipour, R. (2013). An investigation of vocabulary learning strategies by
Iranian EFL students in different proficiency levels. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(7), 23-
27. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.23
Kafipour, R. (2010). Vocabulary Learning Strategies, Vocabulary Knowledge and
Reading Comprehension of EFL Undergraduate Students in Iran. PhD Thesis,
University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Retrieved
from http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/12421/
Kai-Chee, L. & Wee-Ling, K. (2019). Vocabulary Learning Strategies: The case of
Mandarin Learners in Sarawak. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 20(3),
62-72. Retrieved from https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/hbds/
article/view/175195
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kudo, Y. (1999). L2 vocabulary learning strategies. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Hawaii, Manoa, Hawaii. Retrieved from
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/788d75bf-
b87d-4081-8bc4-de538098a393/content
Laffey, D. (2020). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Preferred by Korean University
Students. English Teaching, 75(4), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.
75.4.202012.81
Laufer, B. (1986). Possible changes in attitudes towards vocabulary acquisition research.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL), 24(1),
69-75. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259820087
_Possible_changes_in_attitude_toward_vocabulary_acquisition_research
525
Lee, S. (2007). Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Korean University Students: Strategy
Use, Vocabulary Size, and Gender. English Teaching, 62(1), 149-169. Retrieved
from http://kate.bada.cc/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/kate_62_1_7.pdf
Lee, H.L., Chin Siao, M., Mahama, T., Chua Hui, W., & Hasan Muhammad, M. (2019).
Analysis on Vocabulary Learning Strategies in Mandarin among University
Students across Three Different Disciplines. In: Lee, H.L., & Khuzaiton, Z. (eds.),
Third Languages Teaching and Learning, Publisher: Penerbit UMK (pp.53-64).
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344040936_Analysis_
on_Vocabulary_Learning_Strategies_in_Mandarin_among_University_Students_
across_Three_Different_Disciplines
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Newbury House.
O’Malley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L., & Scarcella, R.C. (1994). Second language vocabulary learning among
adults: State of the art in vocabulary instruction. System, 22(2), 231-243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(94)90059-0
Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean
university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 211-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb02343.x
Rabadi, R.I. (2016). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Employed by Undergraduate EFL
Jordanian Students. English Language and Literature Studies, 6(1), 47-58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ells.v6n1p47
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University 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.
526
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical underpinnings
and practical suggestions. ELT Journal, 49, 133-243. https://doi.org/
10.1093/elt/49.2.133
Shamis, W.A. (2003). Language learning strategy use in Palestine. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 20-
33. Retrieved from https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26a3/
Sokmen, A. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In: N.
Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy (pp. 237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Susanti, R. (2002). Penguasaan Kosa Kata dan Kemampuan Membaca Bahasa Inggeris.
Jurnal Pendidikan Penabur, 1, 87- 93. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.co.id/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=id&user=VztE
QDYAAAAJ&citation_for_view=VztEQDYAAAAJ:e5wmG9Sq2KIC
Ta’amneh, M.A.AA. (2021). An Analysis of Various Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Used by EFL University Students. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research, 8(3), 77-88. Retrieved from https://www.jallr.com/index.php
/JALLR/article/view/1193
Tahmina, T. (2023). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Used by the High-Proficiency
Learners. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 6(1), 93-101.
https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v6i1.26142
Hoài, T. (2023). Kiều bào đề nghị lập góc văn hoá Việt Nam tại Brunei. VnExpress.
Retrieved from https://vnexpress.net/kieu-bao-de-nghi-lap-goc-van-hoa-viet-
nam-tai-brunei-4569247.html
Vo, T., & Jaturapitakkul, N. (2016). The use of vocabulary learning strategies by Thai
EFL learners studying Vietnamese as a third language. LEARN Journal: Language
Education and Acquisition Research Network, 9(2), 105–121. Retrieved from
https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/102650
Wenden, A.L. (1987). Conceptual Background and Utility. In: Wenden, A.L. & Rubin,
J. (Eds.), Learner’s Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 3-13). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language
learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50, 203-243. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/0023-8333.00117
527
Yee Chin, Y., Saazai Mat Saad, N., Baharun, H., Ibrahim, M. & Ain Chua, N. (2021).
Mandarin Vocabulary Learning Strategies among Islamic Science University of
Malaysia (USIM) Mandarin Learners. Asian Journal of Research in Education and
Social Sciences, 3(3), 163-176. Retrieved from https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/
index.php/ajress/article/view/15702
Zaid Arafat Mohd Noor, Nik Mohd Rahimi Nik Yusoff, Irma Martiny Md. Yasim, &
Mohd Yusri Kamarudin (2016). Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning Strategies
in Malaysia. Creative Education, 7, 428-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236
/ce.2016.73042
Zarrin, S., & Khan, Z. (2014). A Study of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Among
Undergraduate Learners of A.M.U. US-China Foreign Language, 12(1), 75-82.
Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Study-of-Vocabulary-
Learning-Strategies-Among-of-Zarrin-
Khan/2ff00a743c4c1f2d3cabfbf318ea6f1043b34e5b
528
Appendix
Adapted Schmitt’s (1997) Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
(VLSQ).
DIS: Discovery. CON: Consolidation. DET: Determination. SOC: Social. MEM:
Memory. COG: Cognitive. MET: Metacognitive.
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
DIS-DET
1
I try to identify the grammatical category of the new word (for
instance, if it is a noun, a verb, an adjective, etc.) to find out
the meaning.
DIS-DET
2
I analyze the structure (the form) of the new word, for instance
its construction and/or its elements.
DIS-DET
3
I relate the new word to a similar one in another known
language (cognates, similar words; or words with similar
sound).
DIS-DET
4
I relate the new word (form and/or sound) to a similar known
word(s) in the same foreign language.
DIS-DET
5
I relate the new word with available pictures and/or gestures.
DIS-DET
6
I guess the new word from textual context, or from context
clues.
DIS-DET
7
I use a traditional (paper based) monolingual and/or bilingual
dictionary to find out the meaning of the new word.
DIS-DET
8
I use a smartphone dictionary app to find out the meaning of
the new word.
DIS-DET
9
I use an online dictionary (Google Dictionary, Dictionary.com,
Reverso, etc.) to find out the meaning of the new word.
529
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
DIS-DET
10
I use an online translator (Google Translate, Papago, DeepL
Translator, Generative AI, etc.) to find out the meaning of the
new word.
DIS-DET
11
I use a word list and/or a glossary to find the word’s meaning.
DIS-DET
12
I use flash cards to find the word’s meaning.
DIS-DET
13
I continue reading, hoping the meaning of the new word will
become clear.
DIS-SOC
14
I ask my teacher for a translation to a known language.
DIS-SOC
15
I ask my teacher for a paraphrase or synonym of the new word.
DIS-SOC
16
I ask my teacher for an example sentence including the new
word.
DIS-SOC
17
I ask classmates or friends for the meaning of the new word.
DIS-SOC
18
I discover the new word’s meaning through group work
activity.
CON-SOC
19
I study and practice the new word’s meaning in a group
activity.
CON-SOC
20
I interact with native speakers.
CON-SOC
21
I interact with other learners of the foreign language.
CON-MEM
22
I study the new word with a picture of its meaning.
CON-MEM
23
I visualize the new word to help me to remember it: I imagine
the word’s meaning.
530
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
CON-MEM
24
I connect the new word to a personal experience of mine.
CON-MEM
25
I group words in a category including the new word. For
instance, family members, food, transportation, animals,
places.
CON-MEM
26
I connect the new word to its synonyms and antonyms. An
example for the English word Huge: Big is its synonym, Small
is its antonym.
CON-MEM
27
I use semantic maps like word webs, including the new word.
CON-MEM
28
I use scales for gradable adjectives, including the new word.
Some examples with English scale adjectives: White
⇒
Grey
⇒
Black; Cold
⇒
Cool
⇒
Warm
⇒
Hot.
CON-MEM
29
I use the Loci Method: I connect the new word with its location
on a page, or with the occasion where I saw it. Or I link it to a
physical object in a specific familiar place/location.
CON-MEM
30
I group words together to study them, including the new word.
CON-MEM
31
I write words together spatially on a page to group them,
including the new word.
CON-MEM
32
I use the new word in sentences so that I can remember it.
CON-MEM
33
I group words together within a storyline.
CON-MEM
34
I study the spelling/writing form of the new word.
CON-MEM
35
I study the sound (pronunciation) of the new word.
CON-MEM
36
I write the new word down together with its pronunciation.
531
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
CON-MEM
37
I pronounce a new word aloud when trying to memorize it.
CON-MEM
38
I visualize the form, spelling, or characters of the new word.
CON-MEM
39
I underline/highlight the initial component or part of the new
word.
CON-MEM
40
I study the word configuration: to remember the form and/or
sound of the new word, I break it into several visual parts (in
the order of its parts).
CON-MEM
41
I use the Keyword Method, associating the foreign word with a
similar-sounding word in a language I know, to create a
memorable image.
CON-MEM
42
I use the structure (the form) of the new word, for instance its
construction and/or its elements, to remember it.
CON-MEM
43
I use the grammatical category of the new word (for instance,
if it is a noun, a verb, an adjective, etc.) to remember the new
word.
CON-MEM
44
I paraphrase the meaning of the new word (I use other words
in the same foreign language to explain the new words so that
I can understand them better).
CON-MEM
45
I relate the new words to the language I know (cognates,
similar words, or words with similar sound).
CON-MEM
46
I learn an idiom or phrase containing the new word.
CON-MEM
47
I relate the new words to actual actions. For instance, miming
playing with a ball when learning the word 'play'.
CON-MEM
48
Apart from the meaning of the new word, I pay attention to
532
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
how it is used (its functions, the context/situation in which the
word might be used).
CON-COG
49
I say the word repeatedly to memorize it.
CON-COG
50
I write the word down repeatedly to memorize it.
CON-COG
51
I keep my personal vocabulary notebook to study/revise new
words.
CON-COG
52
I use the vocabulary section in my textbook to study/revise new
words.
CON-COG
53
I use word lists and/or a glossary from other sources (other
books, paperback, etc.) to study/revise new words.
CON-COG
54
I use flash cards and/or postcards and/or post-Its to remember
the new word.
CON-COG
55
I take notes in class.
CON-COG
56
I listen to recordings of word lists.
CON-COG
57
I play vocabulary games (phone, tablet, computer).
CON-COG
58
I write letters, messages (in chats, forums, etc.), or emails to
practice new words.
CON-MET
59
I use Foreign-language media (songs, movies, news,
newspapers, podcasts, etc.) to remember/practice new words.
CON-MET
60
I test myself with word tests.
CON-MET
61
If I don’t understand the meaning of the new words, I pass it.
533
Subcategory
Item
No
Statement (N=65)
CON-MET
62
I continue to study new words over time, and revise old
vocabulary regularly.
CON-MET
63
I learn from errors in vocabulary usage that I make.
CON-MET
64
I use language learning applications (Duolingo, Busuu,
Clozemaster, etc.) to study/revise new words.
CON-MET
65
I use online language learning contents and/or websites to
study/revise new words.
