VOCABULARY LEARNINGSTRATEGY USE IN THE
SWEDISH SECOND LANGUAGELEARNING CONTEXTRICHARD LA BONTEE, PHD
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Brief Outline• Project Background• Key concepts & Previous work
• Aim & Research Question(s)• Methods• Results• Key Findings & Interpretations• Next Steps

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Project Background• Doctoral research performed between 2014-2018• Adult, immigrant Swedish L2 vocabulary learning (note: not SFI)
• Learners in Sweden, Studying Swedish at institutes of higher education
Phase

Instrumentation

Exploring theDemographic/ContextExploratory study
re: VLS Use by
Demographic / inContext
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

ArticleMethodData
Transcriptions, Observation
Notes

Analyses

I: Initial VLS ListInterview & Learning Task

II: Statistical Evaluation ofSVLSSSVLSS 1.2

Questionnaire response

EFA, Text Analysis,
Readability, Reliability

III: Theoretical Evaluation of
SVLSS

VLS List Comparative Review

Stoffer, 1995;
Gu & Johnson, 1996;
Schmitt, 1997; Fan, 2003

VLS Questionnaire Metaanalysis

IV: Vocabulary Knowledge
Beliefs

Open-ended Question

Written response

Content-Analysis

Report I: Reported VLS Useand PatternsSVLSS 2.0

Questionnaire response,
Demographic Information

Content-Analysis

Analysis of variance,
Cluster Analysis

L2 Word Knowledge
Nation’s Word Knowledge Taxonomy (2013, p. 49)

MEANINGFORM

Receptive
Spoken What does the word sound like?

How is the word pronounced?

Written What does the word look like?

How is the word written andspelled?
What word parts are needed toexpress the meaning?

What parts are recognizable in thisWord Parts word?

What meaning does this word form

Form and meaning signal?

USE

What word form can be used toexpress this meaning?

Concepts and Referents What is included in the concept?

What items can the concept referto?

What other words does this make

What other words could we use
instead of this one?

In what patterns does the word

In what patterns must we use thisword?
What words or types of words must
we use with this one?

Associations us think of?
Grammatical Functions occur?

What words or types of words

Collocations occur with this one?
Constraints on use

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Productive

Where, when, and how often
would we expect to meet thisword?

Where, when and how often canwe use this word?

Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS)• ”… teachable, dynamic thoughts and behaviors that learners
consciously select and employ in specific contexts toimprove their self-regulated, autonomous L2 vocabualry
development” (Oxford, 2017: 17)• Two purposes for the use of VLS for learning word
knowledge (Gu, 2003):– 1. Knowing things about words– 2. Being able to use word knowledge productivelyUNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS)• Correlation between higher VLS use frequency and higher levels of language
proficiency(Stoffer, 1995; Fan, 2003; Loucky, 2003; Chang Tsai & Chang, 2009; etc.)• VLS use influences/influenced by:– Age (Stoffer, 1995)– Vocabualry Learning Achievement (Ahmed, 1989; Sanaoui, 1995; Kojic-Sabo &Lightbown, 1999)– Education background?
– Time spent studying a language?
– Extent of other languages known/studied?
– Various steps of ’beginner’ proficiency?
– Various adult age groups?
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS)• Four key studies that sought to establish VLS taxonomies
which were realized through Likert-scale questionnaire tools:– Stoffer, 1995 (VOLSI)– Gu & Johnson, 1996 (VLQ)– Schmitt, 1997
– Fan, 2003 (VLSQ)+Nation’s VLS Taxonomy (2013)

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Authentic Language UseCreative Activities

VLSQ(Fan, 2003)

Memory Strategies:
Rehearsal

Memory Strategies
Cognitive Strategies

Repetition Strategies

Association Strategies
Grouping Strategies
Analysis Strategies

Memory Strategies:
Encoding

Activation Strategies

Social Strategies

Dictionary Strategies
Note-taking Strategies

Determination
Strategies
Social Strategies

Using Backgroundknowledge/widercontext

Known Word
Strategies

Source Strategies
Dictionary Strategies

Guessing Strategies

Using Linguistic Cues /Immediate Context
Self-motivation
Overcome Anxiety

Selective Attention
Self-Initiation
Beliefs about
Vocabulary Learning

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Metacognitive
Strategies

Management
Strategies(Nation, 2013)

Skill in use: Enriching Knowledge(LaBontee, forthcoming)

Create Mental Linkages
Visual/Auditory
Physical Action
Organize words(Schmitt, 1997)

Sources: Finding
Processes: Noticing, Retrieving, Generating
information about words

Vocabulary
Learning
Strategies

VLQ(Gu & Johnson, 1996)

Planning: Whatto focus on andwhenVOLSI(Stoffer, 1995)

SVLSS 2.0
Structure(LaBontee, forthcoming)

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURGSVLSS 2.0 VLS CLASSIFICATIONS# of items

WORD KNOWLEDGESVLSS 2.0 ESTABLISH(Determination/Sources)
Structure

13

ESTABLISH WORD KNOWLEDGE(Guessing/Background/Context)

7

IMPROVE WORD KNOWLEDGE(Rehearsal)

9

IMPROVE WORD KNOWLEDGE(Encoding)

24

PRODUCTIVE ACTIVATION

8STRATEGIC SELF-REGULATION

8UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURGTOTAL:

69

Foci of Strategy Use
MediaTexts
Dictionary
Note-taking
SocialBackground knowledge
Wider context
Immediate context
Linguistic cue
Memorizing
Rehearsing oftenInterval
AssociationAudio
VisualPhysicalTechniques (keyword, loci, peg)
Lexico-grammatical
SemanticWritten
Oral
Creative-Productive
Planning learning
Affective regulation
Motivation
AvoidanceAim & Research Question(s)AIM: To establish an exploratory foothold for research into VLS use byadult, Swedish L2 learners in Sweden.
1.

What VLS do adult Swedish L2 learners report using to learn
Swedish vocabulary in Sweden? (Questionnaire; SVLSS)
1a. Do any VLS classifications appear more/less reported used?
(Descriptive statistics)

1b. Do any demographic groups exhibit differences in VLS use?
(ANOVA)

1c. Do any learner profiles emerge in terms of reported VLS use?
(Cluster Analysis)
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Method• Distribution of (digital, online) SLVSS 2.0 to Swedish L2
programs across Sweden.
• Google forms platform• Participants (N=401):– Aged 18+– Non-Scandinavian L1– Enrolled as Swedish language students– Identify as ’beginner’ learners, having studied under 1 year.

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Participant DataHighestDegree

Languages’known’(not Swedish)Prof.
LevelTime SpentStudyingAgeHigh school

134

None

102

’Monolingual’1718-21115

0-1 month147

Associates

21A1-A2241

2 langauges

1922-25152

2-3 month101

Bachelor’s

161

B153

3 languages

152

26-30

39

4-6 month51

Master’s

51

4 languages

187

31-39

51

6-12 month

61

Doctoral31

5+ languages

2640+

44+ Diversity of L1’s (majority Germanic & Romance langauges)
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURGRESULTS – RQ 1A
Do any VLS classifications appear more/less reported used?

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Do any VLS classifications appear more/less reportedused?
Table 5VLS Categories
Improve Knowledge - Rehearsal
Improve Knowledge - Encoding
Productive Activation
New Knowledge - Sources
New Knowledge - Context
Self-Regulating Planning

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

N
401
401
401
400
398
400

Mean
2.72312.9357
3.11783.376
3.63883.1717SD
0.64720.55691
0.67171
0.691
0.788220.58824

Variance
0.419
0.31
0.451
0.477
0.621
0.346

RESULTS – RQ 1B (ANOVA, TUKEY)
Do any demographic groups exhibit differences in VLS use?

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Results (RQ1a):
Whole Sample
Comparisons
AGE
GROUPS:Age 18-21
Age 22-25
Age 26-30
Age 31-39
Age 40+

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Results (RQ1a):
Whole Sample
Comparisons
EDUCATIONGROUPS:High SchoolSome Uni
Bachelor
Master
PhD

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Table 7
Education Factor ANOVA
Factor 01: Improve
Knowledge - Rehearsal Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 02: Improve
Knowledge - Encoding Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 03: Activation
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 04: New
Knowledge - Sources
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 05: New
Between GroupsKnowledge - Context
Within Groups
Total
Factor 06: SelfRegulating Planning
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum ofSquares dfMean
Square F

1.392
6163.476 391
164.868 397

0.232 0.555 0.766
0.418

1.072
121.08122.1514.859
175.051179.91

6391
397
6391
397

0.179 0.577 0.749
0.31

3.164
6185.608 390
188.772 396

0.527 1.108 0.357
0.476

7.882
6
238.149 388
246.031 394

1.314
0.614

0.697
6137.006 390
137.703 396

0.116 0.331 0.921
0.351

Sig.

0.81 1.809 0.096
0.4482.14 0.048

Results (RQ1a):
Whole Sample
Comparisons
PROFICIENCYGROUPS:’None’ (Pre-A1)
Beginner (A1-A2)
Intermediate (B1)

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Table 8
Swedish Proficiency Factor ANOVA
Factor 01: Improve
Knowledge - Rehearsal Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 02: Improve
Knowledge - Encoding Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 03: Activation Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 04: New
Between Groups
Knowledge - Sources
Within Groups
Total
Factor 05: New
Knowledge - Context Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 06: SelfRegulating Planning
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum ofSquares dfMean
Square F

0.667

20.333166.191 393
166.858 395

0.423

0.116

20.058122.615
122.73
5.68
171.356
177.036

393
395
2393
395

0.312
2.84
0.436

6.514 0.002

4.584

2

2.292

4.962 0.007

181.075 392
185.659 394

0.462

5.406

2

2.703

236.771 390
242.178 392

0.607

0.958

20.479136.218 392
137.176 394

0.347

Sig.

0.788 0.455

0.185 0.831

4.452 0.012

1.379 0.253

Results (RQ1a):
Whole SampleComparisons
TIME SPENTSTUDYINGGROUPS:
0-1 month
2-3 month
4-6 month
6+ month

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Table 9Time Spent Studying Swedish Factor
ANOVA
Factor 01: Improve
Knowledge - Rehearsal Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 02: Improve
Knowledge - Encoding Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 03: Activation Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 04: New
Knowledge - Sources
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 05: New
Knowledge - Context Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Factor 06: SelfRegulating Planning
Between Groups
Within Groups
TotalSum ofSquares

dfMeanSquareF

2.274

30.7581.811 0.145

149.027 356
151.301 359

0.419

0.979

30.326107.477108.456
7.163
155.932
163.095

356
359
3356
359

0.302
2.388
0.438

5.451 0.001

3.834

3

1.278

2.619 0.051

173.726 356
177.56 359

0.488

9.685

3

3.228

213.573 354
223.259 357

0.603

0.452

30.151

125.298 355
125.75 358

0.353

Sig.

1.081 0.357

5.351 0.001

0.427 0.734

RESULTS – RQ 1C (CLUSTER ANALYSIS)Do any learner profiles emerge in terms of reported VLS use?

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Results – Hierarchical Cluster
Analysis
Factors:

Age
Education
Multi-lingualism,
Swedish prof.
Time studying

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Table 10
Cluster Distribution
N12
Outlier (-1)
Combined
Excluded Cases
Total
Cluster

77274
2353
53406

% ofCombined
21.80%
77.60%
0.60%
100.00%% of Total
19.00%
67.50%
0.50%
86.90%
13.10%
100.00%Table 11
Cluster Analysis Centroids
VLS Classification
Groups
Improve Knowledge:
Rehearsal

Results –Cluster
Analysis

Improve Knowledge:
Encoding**Activation*Establish Knowledge:
Sources**T-test mean dif.
* = p < .05** = p < .01
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG*

Establish Knowledge:
Contexts
Self-Regulation Planning

ClusterGroup 1Cluster
Group 2Outlier(1-)

Combined

Mean

2.76752.71822.38892.7271

Std. Deviation

0.69153

0.641860.707110.65212Mean

2.88572.94171.89582.9236

Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation

0.49662.89190.74030.55439
3.18980.62038

1.03122.875
2.651650.54882
3.123
0.67253

Mean

3.26

3.431

2.7693.39

Std. Deviation

0.59570.708

2.50210.7003Mean

3.45453.72182.78573.6582

Std. Deviation
Mean
Std. Deviation

0.730173.03490.64969

0.77995
3.20470.561542.525382
1.414210.78843.16080.59497

Interpretation of Results - Profiles
Table 12Profiles
N
Demographic Description Significant Differences in Strategy
Use -UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Group 177
Almost no Swedish proficiency
Less time spent learning Swedish
Less exposure to Swedish
Younger Learners
Fewer Activation
Fewer Establishing Knowledge(Sources)
Fewer Establishing Knowledge(Contexts)
Fewer Self-regulation
More Rehearsal
Overall less strategy use-Group 2274
Beginner Swedish proficiency
More time spent learning
SwedishDiversity of age groups
More of all Strategy Classes
excluding Improving
Knowledge through Rehearsal
Overall greater strategy use

Preliminary Interpretation of Findings• Less experience in Swedish L2 learning (group 1) may serve as a barrier to theuse of more sophisticated and effortful VLS (self-regulatory, productive activation)• This may result in reliance on rehearsal and encoding strategies to firstconcretize a baseline of vocabulary knowledge before accessing strategies
intended to expand vocabulary knowledge (e.g., strategies for establishing wordknowledge).
(e.g., Oxford & Nyikos, 1989)• Even at early, granular stages of vocabulary learning (as seen here), increased
TL proficiency correlates to the use of more straetgies overall(e.g., Chang Tsai & Chang, 2009; Fan, 2003; Kung & Chen, 2004; Nemati, 2008; Stoffer, 1995)• Surprisingly, degree of learners’ multilingualism had no observed influence on
use of strategies in this study.

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Future Steps• More work to be done on adult populations regarding their strategic
vocabulary learning practices and linking this to actual teaching practices inSwedish L2 classrooms.
• Exploration of the differences in VLS use across learner groups at the
granular level (e.g., VLS use across a year of learning)• Exploration of other tools than Likert-scale Questionnaires? Need forsurveys that contextually-embed VLS use?
(e.g., Cohen & Wang, 2018)• Reporting of instrumentation processes, and the use of data collection
instruments that are adapted/valid for a specific context and demographic
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG

Thank you!
Questions, Comments, References:
Richard LaBontee, The University of Gothenburg
Richard.la.bontee@gu.se

UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG