Cogent Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaps20

Vocabulary learning strategies: A comparative

study of EFL learners

Rezvan Ghalebi, Firooz Sadighi & Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri |

To cite this article: Rezvan Ghalebi, Firooz Sadighi & Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri | (2020)
Vocabulary learning strategies: A comparative study of EFL learners, Cogent Psychology, 7:1,
1824306, DOI: 10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 14 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7777

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaps20
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Vocabulary learning strategies: A comparative
study of EFL learners
Rezvan Ghalebi1, Firooz Sadighi1* and Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri1

Received: 04 May 2020

Abstract: Understanding students’ learning strategies is important for teachers and
Accepted: 13 September 2020 researchers since they try to develop a learning environment that stimulates high-
*Corresponding author: Firooz quality learning outcomes. To this end, the present study examines a sample of 218 EFL
Sadighi, Department of English students on BA, MA, and Ph.D.s of English language studies at an Iranian university. It
Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Shiraz, Iran was an attempt to find out if learners with different levels of academic degrees differ
E-mail: [email protected]
significantly in using vocabulary learning strategies. To this end, the participants
Reviewing editor: answered open-ended and closed-ended questionnaires of Vocabulary Learning
Meihua Qian, Education and Human
Development, Clemson University, Strategies. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative analysis, results revealed signifi­
Clemson, UNITED STATES
cant differences between undergraduate and postgraduate students’ usage of voca­
Additional information is available at bulary learning strategies. However, there was no significant difference between MA
the end of the article
and Ph.D. students in their use of vocabulary learning strategies. Indeed, exploring the
vocabulary learning strategies use of English language students can reveal individual
differences in vocabulary learning among students, and encourage EFL teachers and
curriculum developers to design materials and activities which would help the learners
improve their vocabulary learning.

Subjects: Educational Psychology; Social Sciences; Education; Educational Research;

Higher Education; Educational Psychology; Arts & Humanities; Language Teaching &
Learning

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Rezvan Ghalebi is a Ph.D. candidate in TEFL at Vocabulary learning strategies can be considered
Islamic Azad University, Shiraz branch. Her as a part of general learning strategies in second
research interests are language skills, assess­ language acquisition. O’Malley and Chamot
ment, and teacher education. describe learning strategies as the specific
Firooz Sadighi is a professor of applied lin­ thoughts or behaviors that learners apply to help
guistics. He received his Ph.D. from the them understand, learn, or maintain new infor­
University of Illinois. His research areas include mation (1990). Exploring the vocabulary learning
first/second language acquisition, second lan­ strategies use of English language students can
guage education, and syntax studies. reveal individual differences in vocabulary learn­
Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri holds a Ph.D. in ing among students, and encourage EFL teachers
TEFL. He has been teaching English for many and curriculum developers to design materials
years. Currently, he is a member of staff at the and activities which would help the learners
English Department, Islamic Azad University, improve their vocabulary learning. The present
teaching graduate students. His main fields of study examines a sample of 218 EFL students on
interest are international exams (IELTS, TOEFL), BA, MA, and Ph.D.s of English language studies at
teacher training, teacher development, assess­ an Iranian university. The results revealed signifi­
ment, and research. He has been an interna­ cant differences between undergraduate and
tional examiner for some exams(IELTS, ESOL, postgraduate students’ usage of vocabulary
OET) and he is an all-time avid learner and learning strategies. However, there was no sig­
a passionate and enthusiastic teacher. nificant difference between MA and
Ph.D. students in their use of vocabulary learning
strategies.

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

Keywords: vocabulary learning strategies; undergraduate students; postgraduate students

1. Introduction
Second/foreign language learners are the most to acknowledge the importance of vocabulary.
Vocabulary problem applies well to non-native language users who often find themselves looking
for words to express themselves in speaking and writing. They also report demotivation while reading
and listening because of a limited load of vocabulary. Language experts and researchers, too, under­
stand the value of vocabulary knowledge and, particularly, its close relationship to reading abilities
(Gardner, 2013; Nation, 2013). Both nonnative language users and language scholars are aware of the
vocabulary-learning challenges encountered by different learners. Most mentioned is the large num­
ber of words, word families, and multiple-word units needed to learn and use. However, regarding the
learning of vocabulary, the situation in each context is different. Drawing upon the fact that in the
context of foreign language learning the opportunities are restricted in terms of target-language input,
output, and interaction, what seems necessary for vocabulary learning is the employment of motiva­
tional and effective learning strategies (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). Regarding both foreign and second
contexts of language learning, it was revealed that the lack of vocabulary knowledge can be an
important reason for making learners reluctant to be exposed to the skills of reading and listening.
Besides, a wide range of notable features are usually subsumed under the category of the challenge of
vocabulary learning (and teaching) such as word frequency, saliency, learning burden, and learners’
particular vocabulary needs and wants (Grabe & Stoller, 2018).

Although some teachers may think that vocabulary learning is easy, learning new vocabulary items
has always been challenging for the learners. The educational implications for EFL students with
limited vocabulary are profound. Students who do not have sufficient vocabularies or word-learning
strategies continue to struggle throughout their educational careers, which leads to a cycle of
frustration and continued failure (Khany & Khosravian, 2014). Furthermore, the vocabulary level of
an individual is viewed as a means of unlocking or closing access to information and often illustrates
whether a person is considered educated (Beck & McKeown, 2007). One of the first problems a foreign
language learner encounters is how to commit a massive amount of foreign words to memory.
Establishing independent vocabulary skills needs a high level of motivation on the learner’s part and
is a dynamic process that involves multiple variables and the practice of different skills. The sort of
strategies used by the students often depends on the specific learner; however, inside the classroom,
teachers can explicitly model their strategies, remind students about them, and practice them to
motivate the students’ independent vocabulary-building skills. This classroom practice gives students
the chance to take learning into their own hands. Recent years have now seen a wealth of interest in
learning strategies designed to increase students’ vocabulary acquisition and development (Van de
Wege, 2018). In the light of providing opportunities for learners to be first exposed to the new words
and their meanings and to be secondly placed in conditions under which they try to retrieve, recall, and
use the target vocabulary items across different settings and contexts, the process of vocabulary
development will occur (Cook, 2013). However, it should be noted that vocabulary development has
a multi-faceted nature which includes the knowledge of not only word meanings, but also pronuncia­
tion, spelling, grammatical properties, connotations, morphological options, as well as semantic
associates of the words. Being scaffolded and assisted, English learners can develop vocabulary
successfully (Kayi-Aydar, 2018). In the other words, what learners need during the process of voca­
bulary development is to be directed and guided by their teachers to manage study time to optimize
the learning both inside and outside of the classroom (Rogers, 2018).

Language learning strategies (LLS) have been of interest to researchers since the 1970s when
researchers tried to track the types of learning strategies used by successful second language (L2)
learners (e.g. Rubin, 1975). In the history of LLS studies, a flourishing shift, between the 1980s and
1990s, occurred toward the categorization of them (e.g. Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998; O’Malley
& Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990, 1996; Wenden, 1991; Wenden & Rubin, 1987). O’Malley and
Chamot (1990), for instance, proposed three types of strategies including cognitive, metacognitive,

Page 2 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

and social/affective strategies. At about the same time, Oxford (1990) introduced the classical
taxonomy that classifies LLS into six categories of cognitive, metacognitive, mnemonic, compen­
satory, affective, and social strategies.

In addition to documenting and classifying LLS being employed by language learners, another
important line of LLS research is concerned with the relationship of LLS to L2 performance. Providing
support, some studies revealed that implementing an effective strategy is well anchored in listening
comprehension (Carrier, 2003; McGruddy, 1999; Ross & Rost, 1991; Vandergrift, 2003), reading com­
prehension (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003), writing (Macaro, 2001), and oral production (Cohen et al., 1998;
Macaro, 2001; Nakatani, 2005). There has also been an upsurge of interest in how learners employ
vocabulary learning strategies (e.g. Cohen & Aphek, 1981; Hulstijn, 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Schmitt, 1997). Drawing on the review of literature, it has been found that the most frequently used
vocabulary learning strategies by learners are using a bilingual dictionary, verbal and written repeti­
tion, studying the spelling, guessing from context, and asking classmates for meaning (Schmitt, 1997).
Moreover, it was revealed that learners use more types of strategies for learning vocabulary than for
reading, listening, speaking, and writing (Chamot, 1987). Using a sample of EFL learners in Iran, the
current study aims to assess the hypothesis that learners with different academic degrees use
different vocabulary learning strategies. All participants are from Persian L1 backgrounds who learned
English as a foreign language at varying ages and with different amounts of EFL input. Quantitative
and qualitative analyses were conducted to clarify vocabulary learning strategies used by English
language learners with different academic degrees.

2. Review of literature
Going through the review of literature, several attempts have been made to classify language
learning strategies (e.g. Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin, 1981). O’Malley and Chamot (1990), for
example, introduced metacognitive, cognitive, and social/affective as the most basic three types
of learning strategies (pp. 44–45). Consistent with this insight, Oxford (1990) introduced two broad
categories of strategies including direct and indirect. The former includes memory, cognitive, and
compensation strategies while the latter subsumed metacognitive, affective, and social strategies
(p. 17). Recently, Gu and Johnson (1996) pointed to metacognitive regulation and cognitive
strategies as the two main dimensions of vocabulary learning strategies which covers six sub­
categories of guessing, using a dictionary, note-taking, rehearsal, encoding, and activating, all of
which were further subcategorized. Compatible to the mainstream of those Schmitt (1997, 2000)
suggested two categories of L2 vocabulary learning strategies including discovery and consolida­
tion strategies which the former referred to determination and social strategies whereas the latter
included social, memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies, with 40 strategies in all.

If students are to develop their vocabulary as autonomous learners, they must learn strategies
to do so. Interest in such learning strategies has continued to grow for some decades, ever since
communicative language teaching (CLT) began gaining popularity in the 1970s and 1980s.
Historically, it was assumed that learners simply pick up vocabulary incidentally, due to input
exposure, rather than necessarily, through explicit instruction (Hazenberg & Hulstijn, 1996).
However, research in this field has focused on identifying the general types of strategies that
are linked to successful learning as well as with implementing these strategies to more specific
language learning areas, such as the development of L2 vocabulary (Schmitt, 1997). A part of
research into learning strategies was focused on strong learners rather than on weak ones. The
goal was to recognize the characteristics and practices of successful language learners to under­
stand them and instruct them to the less successful learners (Plonsky, 2011). It was found that
those proficient learners consciously knew what they could learn about new vocabulary, paid more
attention to spelling and form, and could learn more easily from context. On the other hand, the
less successful learners did not want to use a dictionary and ignored unknown words and context
in the learning process. They were generally characterized by passiveness in their approach to
learning (Gu, 2003). It was found that the qualities of strong learners differed because of many
variables involved in learning; and in the area of vocabulary learning the focus moved from

Page 3 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

attempts to pass on the strategies of strong learners to weaker learners to attempts to find out
how to use L2 learning strategies successfully (Plonsky, 2011). Research in the area then came to
be more in line with CLT approaches, in which the learners, tasks, and learning environment were
all taken into deep consideration.

In an attempt to particularly analyze the findings of general learning research and vocabulary
learning studies, three general conclusions have been made by Schmitt (1997) which are respec­
tively as follow: first, the significance of vocabulary learning by most students prompt them to
employ more strategies for this aspect of language learning than others; second, the students
overuse some mechanical strategies such as memorization, note-taking, and repetition in contrast
to deep processing strategies such as guessing, imagery, and the keyword technique; and finally,
they use a variety of strategies which is one of the vital characteristics of an effective learner who
takes the initiative to manage her/his vocabulary learning. Schmitt also highlighted the importance
of drawing students’ attention to the frequency of the target words meanwhile they are being
recommended about the vocabulary learning strategies. Following this insight, Nation (1990) and
Schmitt (2000) pointed to the appropriate incorporation of high-frequency during the process of
vocabulary teaching and learning since they mainly demand strategies for review and consolida­
tion, whereas low-frequency words will mostly be met incidentally in reading or listening requiring,
therefore, strategies for determining their meanings, such as guessing from context and using
word parts (p. 133). However, these assumptions have not been supported by empirical data.

Additionally, the way by which an individual employs the strategy is contingent upon her/his
cognitive approach to learning and her/his attitude toward that task (Kolb, 1984). O’Malley et al.
(1985), for instance, found that Asian students are reluctant to use strategies for imagery and
grouping to learn vocabulary, yet they outperformed the experimental groups merely applying rote
memorization strategies. To address the categorization of students based on the strategies being
employed, Schmitt (1997) surveyed a sample of 600 Japanese students and indicated that using
a dictionary and repetition strategies are more demanded and implemented by learners who
regard them as being most useful strategies for vocabulary learning and consider imagery and
semantic grouping strategies as the least useful. There was also some evidence to support that
more advanced learners tended to use more complex and meaning-focus strategies than less
advanced learners.

In support of the proposition regarding the association between vocabulary learning strategies
and learners’ language proficiency and vocabulary knowledge, Gu and Johnson (1996) carried out
a study to confirm both the metacognitive strategies of self-initiation and selective attention as
significant predictors of English proficiency. Moreover, analyzing the findings on this subject
indicated that there is a positive relationship between several types of vocabulary learning
strategies and vocabulary breadth knowledge, including contextual guessing, skillful use of dic­
tionaries, note-taking, paying attention to word formation, contextual encoding, and activation of
newly learned words. The efforts have been also made to show how employing certain types of
vocabulary learning strategies may facilitate vocabulary acquisition. The findings of those studies
can be treated as evidence that exerting efforts by learners to practice newly learned vocabulary
items outside the classroom make them be more successful in acquiring vocabulary (Kojic-Sabo &
Lightbown, 1999; Moir & Nation, 2002).

On the other hand, some studies’ focus has been drawn on the influential factors making
students prefer to use a particular vocabulary learning strategy. Fan (2003), for instance, found
that learners used strategies they perceived as useful more frequently than those they perceived
as less useful. Regarding learning vocabulary strategies, another mainstream of studies has also
examined them in the context of the classroom. Grenfell and Harris (1999) provide insights into the
effectiveness of implementing awareness-raising activities to familiarize and aware learners to
metacognitive strategies directing them to more willing to use new vocabulary mnemonic

Page 4 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

strategies which were found to be helpful not only for learning vocabulary but also for improving
test performance.

Consistent with previous studies and in support of the significance of instruction of vocabulary
learning strategies in the classroom, Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009) found effective teaching of
strategies can even alter the learners’ frequent use of mnemonic strategies which were positively
related to participants’ language performance. Reviewing the literature, considerable studies have
been carried out to provide useful insight into the relationship between vocabulary learning
strategies and both vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth knowledge (Gu & Johnson, 1996;
Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999; Moir & Nation, 2002; Nation, 2001; Qian, 2002; Schmitt, 2008, 2010).
Nassaji (2006), for example, sought to indicate the relationship between the depth of vocabulary
knowledge and lexical inference strategies (i.e. strategies for inferring the meaning of unknown
words). He found that learners with greater depth of vocabulary knowledge were more successful
in employing lexical inference strategies as well.

In brief, different ways of teaching and learning vocabularies are usually utilized by the teachers
and learners such as using flashcards, notebooks, dictionaries, or synonyms and antonyms.
Despite these efforts and invariably experiencing so many difficulties, vocabulary is by far the
most sizable and unmanageable component. This raises a fundamental query that why learning
vocabulary is such a challenging and unproductive experience? Which strategy could be used to
make vocabulary less of a struggle? Accordingly, the current study aims to focus on the exploration
of learners’ vocabulary learning strategies, which have been demonstrated to play a prominent
role in learners’ life span. To further our understanding of vocabulary learning strategies, we will
answer the following research questions:

(1) To what extent do learners with different academic degrees share common vocabulary
learning strategies?
(2) What are undergraduate and postgraduate students’ reflections on English language voca­
bulary learning strategies?

By addressing these questions in this study, we hope to contribute to a fuller understanding of

English vocabulary learning strategies.

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants
The sample was predominantly female (75.7%) with participants’ ages ranging from 18 to
36 years. The students were in their undergraduate years of study (60%), with the remainder of
the sample being in either their MA (32%) or Ph.D. years (8%). There were 148 teaching students,
39 translation students, and 31 Linguistics and literature. They were recruited from departments of
foreign languages at Bushehr Islamic Azad University, Bushehr Payame Noor University, Bushehr
Khalije Fars University, and the Farahangian University of Bushehr. All participation was voluntary
and participants were willing to share truthfully during the research. They also understood that the
results of the data collection were intended only for research purposes.

3.2. Instruments
The present study employed a mixed-method research design applying closed-ended and open-
ended questionnaires as the instrument of the study for exploring the students’ attitudes on
vocabulary learning strategies. To improve the validity of the data and to avoid participants’
misunderstanding or failing to fully express their views due to their English proficiency limitations,
they were free to use Persian or English in answering the questions. To receive reliable data, the
answers were transcribed and translated. The data were transcribed in Persian and then translated
into English. Besides, the transcripts were sent to a proficient bilingual colleague for possible

Page 5 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

proofreading. The responses were coded to develop categories, themes, and areas of interest and
to identify patterns and relationships.

3.2.1. The Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire

The current study used Schmitt’s Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ) adopted by
Bennett (2006). It is a 40-item Likert-scale questionnaire with a reliability coefficient of 0.83 for this
study. The learners gave their responses on five-point Likert scales, with the available answers
being: never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and always (5). The 5-point scale makes it
possible to collect more detailed and revealing information. The questionnaire was also piloted
using a small group of students with similar characteristics to the participants in the main study.
The purpose was to guarantee that the questionnaire covered the strategies related to learning
English vocabulary and that the students could understand the questionnaire completely.
Although the completion of the questionnaire took approximately 30–35 minutes, the researchers
informed the participants that there was no fixed time in completing it.

3.2.2. Open-ended questionnaire

Open-ended questionnaires, intended to investigate students’ perceptions of English language voca­
bulary learning strategies, were conducted during the class. Before completing the questionnaires,
students were informed about the study aims and the general form of the questionnaires, and that
their participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. It took respondents approximately
20–25 mints to complete the questionnaires. All participation was voluntary and 159 participants
were willing to share truthfully during the qualitative phase of the research. They also understood that
the results of the data collection were intended only for research purposes. The data was analyzed
manually as themes and subthemes were extracted from transcriptions until all researchers agreed
that no further ones could be extracted. The answers were analyzed in Persian, and the excerpts used
to illustrate our results in the current paper were translated into English.

3.3. Research design and procedure

This descriptive cross-sectional study utilized a mixed-method approach integrating both closed-
ended self-report questionnaires and open-ended questionnaires to gain a more thorough picture of
the phenomenon. Prior approval was sought from the university principals according to the university’s
ethical guidelines. Data collection started with a closed-ended vocabulary learning strategies ques­
tionnaire. It took around thirty-five minutes. They were invited to complete the questionnaire in the
classroom environment or they were sent to the students as an online questionnaire. In the following
week, an open-ended questionnaire was handed out in their classrooms or they were sent to the
students as an online questionnaire. They had enough time to answer the questions completely. Some
participants answered and returned it on the same day, but others gave it back within one week. The
researchers were present at the research site to explain the goal and design of the study. They were
told that their participation in the research is voluntary, were assured of the privacy of their answers,
and that their responses would not influence their course scores.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative analysis

One-way analysis of variance (Table 1) showed that students’ vocabulary learning strategies were
significantly different in terms of academic degrees.

The results of the Tukey post hoc test (Table 2) revealed that vocabulary learning strategies were
significantly different only among BA and MA students.

Friedman’s test of vocabulary learning strategies (Table 3) showed that the strategies priority
was in the following order for BA students: Determination(1st), Memory (2nd), Social (3rd),
Cognitive (4th), and Metacognitive (5th). For MA and Ph.D. students: Metacognitive (1st),
Cognitive (2nd), Social (3th), Determination (4th), and Memory (5th).

Page 6 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

Table 1. Vocabulary learning strategies in terms of academic degrees

Variable Degree N Mean Std. Deviation
Vocabulary B.A 147 69.1 7.58
Learning Strategies
M.A 56 72.21 7.58
Ph.D. 15 72.20 11.62
F(2,309) = 5.73 p =.004

Table 2. Tukey post hoc test

Variable Degree Mean Difference
Vocabulary Learning B.A M.A −3.11**
Strategies
B.A Ph.D. −3.1ns
ns
M.A Ph.D. .01
**p ≤ .01 *p ≤ .05 ns = not significant

4.2. Qualitative analysis

The analysis of qualitative data revealed the following strategies used by undergraduate and
postgraduate students. The main questions were as follows:

In what ways do you manage to learn vocabulary?

How do you deal with the new words that you come across in reading materials?

Apart from all the above-mentioned ways of learning new words, what other strategies do you
often take that are not listed in the questionnaire?

Analysis of qualitative data (Table 4) revealed that postgraduate students use metacognitive,
cognitive, and social learning strategies in terms of English vocabulary learning. For metacognitive
strategies, the students declared that they use vocabulary notebooks, questions for reflection, learning
journals, and word tests. Referring to cognitive strategies, underlining, highlighting, systematic repeti­
tion, taking notes in class, summarising meaning, guessing meaning from context, using imagery for
memorization, and using flashcards are the mentioned learning strategies. The most popular social
strategies with postgraduate students involved asking teacher for paraphrase or a synonym of a new
word, asking the teacher for a sentence including the new word, asking classmates for meaning,
discovering new meaning through group word activity, and interacting with native speakers.

On the other hand, undergraduate students use determination, affective, and memory learning
strategies in terms of English vocabulary learning. For determination strategies, the participants
mentioned analyzing part of speech, analyzing affixes and roots, checking for an L1 cognate,
analyzing any available pictures or gestures, and using bilingual and monolingual dictionaries.
Affective strategies constitute yet another subcategory of vocabulary learning strategies, including
listening to music, trying to think positively, and rewarding themselves. The most popular memory
strategies with undergraduate students included connecting word to personal experience, asso­
ciating the word with its coordinates, connecting the word to its synonyms and antonyms, using
semantic maps, using the new word in sentences, using keyword method, paraphrasing the words
meaning, and using physical action when learning a word (table 5).

Page 7 of 12
 Table 3. Friedman test of vocabulary learning strategies in terms of academic degrees
Degree Factors Mean Rank Priority Chi-squire n df
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306

BA Determination 4.60 The first 220.57** 147 4

Social 3.64 3nd
Metacognitive 3.34 5th
Cognitive 3.57 4th
Memory 3.84 2nd
MA Metacognitive 4.80 The first 142.26** 56 4
Social 3.64 3nd
Memory 3.44 5th
Determination 3.52 4th
Cognitive 3.70 2nd
Ph.D. MetaCognitive 5.04 The first 29.11** 15 4
Determination 3.36 4th
Memory 3.12 5th
Social 3.40 3nd
Cognitive 3.62 2nd
**p < .01

Page 8 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

Table 4. Vocabulary learning strategies by MA and Ph.D. students

Metacognitive strategies
vocabulary notebooks
questions for reflection
learning journals
Testing oneself with word tests
Cognitive strategies
Underlining
highlighting
systematic repetition
Taking notes in class
summarising meaning
guessing meaning from context
using imagery for memorization
using flashcards
Social Strategies
Asking the teacher for paraphrase or a synonym of a new word
Asking the teacher for a sentence including the new word
Ask classmates for meaning
Discovering new meaning through group word activity
Interacting with native speakers

Table 5. Vocabulary learning strategies by BA students

Strategy
Determination Strategies
Analyzing part of speech
Analyzing affixes and roots
Checking for L1 cognate
Analyzing any available pictures or gestures
Using bilingual and monolingual dictionaries
Affective Strategies
listening to music
trying to think positively
rewarding themselves
Memory Strategies
Connecting word to a personal experience
Associating the word with its coordinates
Connecting the word to its synonyms and antonyms
Using semantic maps
Using the new word in sentences
Using the keyword method
Paraphrasing the words meaning
Using physical action when learning a word

5. Discussion
The present study aimed to compare the preferences of vocabulary learning strategies among under­
graduate (BA) and postgraduate (MA & Ph.D.) students in the English language department of a private
university in Iran. The results confirmed the research hypothesis which claimed that learners with
different academic degrees use different vocabulary learning strategies. Metacognitive strategies were
found to be the first most frequently used strategy for postgraduate students. It showed that MA and
Ph.D. learners were strongly taking control of their learning. Taking control of one’s learning is a major
feature of independent learning. This finding was unlike the findings of Sahbazian’s (2004) study. She
found metacognitive strategies among the less frequently used strategies and concluded that learners
did not or could not take control of their learning. A reason why metacognitive strategies were found to
be the least frequently used strategies might be due to the popularity of rote learning among students
and teachers in Turkey. Cognitive strategies were the second used strategy by Iranian postgraduate EFL
students. Since cognitive strategies were found to be a positive predictor of general proficiency as shown
by Gu and Johnson (1996), it can be implied that these strategies were used frequently due to the
sufficient general English proficiency of the MA and Ph.D. learners in the present study.

Page 9 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

Data analysis revealed determination and memory strategies as the most frequently used strate­
gies by undergraduate students. High use of these strategies showed that the students preferred
vocabulary learning strategies which were simple with less need for mental activities and processing.
This finding is consistent with the results of a study done by Sahbazian (2004). She found that the
participants of her study preferred using memory strategies. A reason why memory strategies were
found to be the most frequently used strategies might be due to the popularity of rote learning among
students and teachers. Memory and note taking strategies help the students to save the information
and use it when needed (Mokhtar et al., 2007). Deeper strategies require significant active manipula­
tion such as imagery, differencing, and keyword method (Schmitt, 2007). Schmitt in line with our
findings believes that deeper strategies are preferred by intermediate or advanced learners.

There are many factors involved in learning a language; what seems prudent is the fact that language
teachers should provide and teach the different strategies to the learners as most of them are unaware
of these strategies. Many studies have provided proof that strategy instruction has an impact on strategy
use and promotes learners’ vocabulary learning. Such findings are one of the reasons why Oxford (1999)
stated that the frequency of use of a strategy and its contribution percentage should be determined at
the beginning of a class to enable teachers to gain the best outcome from their teaching. Besides,
making the students aware of the strategies they use in learning as well as their effectiveness can help
them manage their strategy use and subsequently improve learning.

6. Conclusion and implications

Learning a foreign/second language is a dynamic and complicated process that benefits from learners
taking strategic steps to facilitate their learning. This can be done, among other ways, by seeking out
opportunities for developing learners’ language learning strategies. In other words, what learners need
during the process of language development is to be directed and guided by their teachers to manage
study time to maximize the learning both inside and outside of the classroom (Rogers, 2018). Accordingly,
teachers can do much more to design the course textbook to facilitate students’ vocabulary development.
To help students develop their vocabulary knowledge, it is important for an instructor to teach them how to
use effective strategies to learn more efficiently when they build their vocabulary skills. The sort of strategy
employed and how it is used may determine how well a word is learned (Sokmen, 1997). It is hoped that
the findings of this study provide useful information concerning the vocabulary strategy use of Iranian
students. Notwithstanding its strengths, there are several limitations in this study that should be noted.
First, the sample in this study is representative of a special context in Iran, which may limit the general­
izability of the findings to other cultural contexts. It also consisted mostly of female undergraduate
university students. Generalization of the results might be limited to populations of similar educational
attainment, age, and sex distribution. Future studies should be conducted with populations of different
levels of academic attainments, different age groups, and different sexes.

Funding References
The authors received no direct funding for this research. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing low-income
children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and
Author details focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107
Rezvan Ghalebi1 (3), 251–271. https://doi.org/doi:10.1086/511706
E-mail: [email protected] Bennett, P. (2006). An Evaluation of Vocabulary Teaching
Firooz Sadighi1 in an Intensive Study Programme. Unpublished MA
E-mail: [email protected] Thesis. The University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri1 The United Kingdom
E-mail: [email protected] Carrier, K. A. (2003). Improving high school English language
1
Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic learners’ second language listening through strategy
Azad University, Shiraz, Iran. instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 383–408.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2003.10162600
Citation information Chamot, A. U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL stu­
Cite this article as: Vocabulary learning strategies: A dents. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner stra­
comparative study of EFL learners, Rezvan Ghalebi, Firooz tegies in language learning (pp. 71–83). Prentice Hall.
Sadighi & Mohammad Sadegh Bagheri, Cogent Psychology Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El–Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J.
(2020), 7: 1824306. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. Longman.

Page 10 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using Mokhtar, A. Z., Rawian, A., Yahaya, M. F., & Abdullah, A.
a second language. Longman. (2007). Vocabulary learning strategies of adult
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S., & Li, T. –. Y. (1998). The impact of learners. The English Teacher, 133–145.
strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign lan­ Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978).
guage. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and The good language learner. Ontario Institute for
using a second language (pp. 107–156). Longman. Studies in Education.
Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second lan­ Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising
guage learning. Studies in Second Language training on oral communication strategy use. Modern
Acquisition, 3(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Language Journal, 89(1), 76–91.
S0272263100004198 Nassaji, H. (2006). The relationship between depth of
Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language vocabulary knowledge and L2 learners’ lexical infer­
teaching (4th ed.). Routledge. encing strategy use and success. The Modern
Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, Language Journal, 90(3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.
and actual usefulness of second language vocabu­ 1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00431.x
lary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners. The Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary.
Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222–241. https:// Newbury House.
doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00187 Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another
Gardner, D. (2013). Exploring vocabulary: Language in language. Cambridge University Press.
action. Routledge. Nation, I. S. P. (2013). Learning vocabulary in another
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2018). Teaching vocabulary for language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
reading success. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies
Language Teaching, First Edition. https://doi.org/10. in second language acquisition. Cambridge University
1002/9781118784235.eelt0773 Press.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G.,
learning strategies: In theory and practice. Routledge. Russo, R., & Kuper, I. (1985). Learning strategy
Gu, Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in second language: applications with students of English as a second
Person, task, context and strategies. Electronic language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 285–296.
Journal. TESL-EJ, 7(2), 1–26. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning stra­ every teacher should know. Newbury House.
tegies and language learning outcomes. Language Oxford, R. L. (Ed). (1996). Language learning strategies
Learning, 46, 643–697. around the world: Crosscultural perspectives.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. (1996). Defining a minimal University of Hawai‘i Press.
receptive second-language vocabulary for Oxford, R. L. (1999). Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky
non-native university students: An empirical (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics
investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145–163. (pp. 518–522). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.2.145 Plonsky, L. (2011). The effectiveness of second language
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign lan­ strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language
guage vocabulary learning. In J. Coady & T. Huckin Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.
(Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition (pp. 00663.x
203–224). Cambridge University Press. Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction vocabulary knowledge and academic reading per­
help EFL learners to improve their reading ability? An formance: An assessment perspective. Language
empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–60. Learning, 52(3), 513–536.
Kayi-Aydar, H. (2018). Scaffolding vocabulary Rogers, J. (2018). Teaching/Developing vocabulary
development. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English through metacognition. The TESOL Encyclopedia of
Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/ English Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118784235.eelt0733 9781118784235.eelt0737
Khany, R., & Khosravian, F. (2014). Iranian EFL learners‟ Ross, S., & Rost, M. (1991). Learner use of strategies in
vocabulary development through Wikipedia. English interaction: Typology and teachability. Language
Language Teaching, 7(7), 2014. https://doi.org/10. Learning, 41(2), 235–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
5539/elt.v7n7p57 1467-1770.1991.tb00685.x
Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, L. M. (1999). Students’ Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can
approaches to vocabulary learning and their rela­ teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51. https://doi.
tionship to success. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), org/10.2307/3586011
176–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00014 Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second lan­
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the guage learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 117–131.
source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/II.2.117
Macaro, E. (2001). Learner strategies in second and foreign Sahbazian, S. (2004). Perceived vocabulary learning
language classrooms. Continuum. strategies of Turkish University students
McGruddy, R. (1999). The effect of listening comprehen­ [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Oklahoma
sion strategy training with advanced-level ESL State University.
students [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In
Georgetown University N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effective­ Description, acquisition, and pedagogy (pp. 199–227).
ness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strate­ Cambridge University Press.
gies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching.
Teaching Research, 13(4), 425–449. https://doi.org/10. Cambridge University Press.
1177/1362168809341511 Schmitt, N. (2007). Vocabulary in language teaching.
Moir, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2002). Learners’ use of strate­ Cambridge University Press.
gies for effective vocabulary learning. Prospect Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second language vocabu­
Journal, 17, 15–35. lary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3),

Page 11 of 12
Ghalebi et al., Cogent Psychology (2020), 7: 1824306
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2020.1824306

329–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Van de Wege, M. (2018). Teaching strategies for inde­

1362168808089921 pendent vocabulary development teaching
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary vocabulary. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
researchmanual. Palgrave Macmillan. Language Teaching, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Sokmen, A. J. (1997). Current Trends in Teaching Second-lan­ 9781118784235.eelt0754
guage Vocabulary. In N.Schmitt & M.Mc Carthy (Eds), Vandergrift, L. (2003). From prediction to reflection:
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition, and Pedagogy(pp. Guiding students through the process of L2 listening.
237–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3),
Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of 425–440. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.59.3.425
motivated vocabulary learning: A structural equation Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds). (1987). Learner strategies in
modeling approach. Language Learning, 58(2), language learning. Prentice Hall.
357–400. https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922. Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner
2008.00444.x autonomy. Prentice Hall.

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Psychology (ISSN: ) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 12 of 12