Poster Presentation

The Effect of Explicit VLS Instruction

on the Vocabulary Learning Behaviors
of Biology Majors
Kaoru Kobayashi
Tokyo University of Agriculture
Andrea Little
Tokyo University of Pharmacy and Life Sciences
A previous study on vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) instruction for Japanese life science
majors found that they preferred shallower VLS to those involving deeper processing forlearning general science terminology. It also found that VLS instruction positively affected
the vocabulary learning behaviors of self-management and input-seeking. These findings
supported those of earlier researchers on the value of explicit VLS training for humanities
majors in increasing the use of self-management and input-seeking strategies. The present
study seeks to clarify how explicit VLS instruction of deeper memory strategies can affectthe vocabulary learning behaviors of Japanese biology majors when studying ESP vocabulary.
Pre- and post-instruction surveys were used to measure the change in their vocabulary
learning behaviors. Statistical analyses including split-plot design ANOVA revealed that the
VLS instruction was effective regardless of the students’ vocabulary size in self-management,
input seeking, shallower memory strategies and intrinsic motivation.

Chamot (2005) defined learning strategies as “procedures that facilitate learninga task” (p. 112). She stressed the importance of teaching new strategies to assist
less successful learners in becoming better language learners. Twenty years earlier,
Nunan (1997) found incorporating learning strategy training into an academic
English course significantly increased the learners’ knowledge and perceptionof the value of strategies. He also found that it enhanced their motivation.
164

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178

Regarding vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) specifically, studies by Mizumoto
and Takeuchi (2008, 2009) showed explicit VLS training for humanities majors
increased their use of self-management and input-seeking. Little and Kobayashi(2015) confirmed these findings with life science majors and also revealed they
preferred shallower strategies to deeper strategies for learning general sciencewords. Shallower strategies, such as oral rehearsal and writing rehearsal, arecognitive strategies that involve “repeatedly saying or writing a word” to learn
vocabulary (Schmitt, 1997, p. 215). Deeper strategies, or memory strategies,
on the other hand, require more elaborate mental processing as learners mustlink the word with knowledge they already have (Schmitt, 1997). According
to the Depth of Processing Hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972), this type ofprocessing is key for retaining words in long-term memory. ESP vocabulary isessential for learners to demonstrate understanding, “make meaning, and engage
with disciplinary knowledge” (Woodward-Kron, 2008, p. 246). Thus, the present
study seeks to clarify how explicit VLS instruction of deeper memory strategies
affects the vocabulary learning behaviors of biology majors when studying ESP
vocabulary.
Research Question
How does VLS instruction in deeper memory strategies using biology terms
influence the vocabulary learning behaviors of biology majors of different
vocabulary sizes?

Methodology
Participants
The participants were 109 second-year university students (41 males; 68
females), all biology majors and Japanese native speakers. The study took placein an English course on academic reading using science texts. Using Mochizuki’s(1998) Vocabulary Size Test, the students were divided into two groups. Students
with a smaller vocabulary size (5,000 words or less) were assigned to one group(SVS). Those with a larger vocabulary size (more than 5,000 words) were placedin the other group (LVS). The SVS group had 37 students (14 males; 23 females),165

Kobayashi & Little

and the LVS group had 72 students (27 males; 45 females).
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
To evaluate the students’ vocabulary learning behaviors before and after receiving
deeper memory VLS instruction, a modified version of Mizumoto and Takeuchi’s(2008) VLS questionnaire was used. We added one question each about affixes(Q25) and grouping (Q26) strategies. The questionnaire comprised a total of 35
items in six categories (Table 1; see Appendix A for the English translation of thequestionnaire). The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale from 1 indicating“strongly disagree” to 5 indicating “strongly agree.”Strategy Instruction
The instructed strategies were all memory strategies involving deeper processing:imagery, association, affixes, and grouping (Table 2).
Table 1Categories and Subcategories of VLS Questionnaire
Categories

Subcategories

Number of Items

Self-management

7

Input-seeking

4

Shallower VLS

Deeper Memory VLS

Writing Rehearsal

3

Oral Rehearsal

3

Imagery

5

Association

2

Affix

1

Grouping

1

Extrinsic Motivation

3

Intrinsic Motivation

6

Total

35

166

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178
Table 2Deeper Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Subcategories
Strategies
Imagery

Subcategories
Drawing a picture
Using the student’s mental image of the meaning
Associating the meaning with the student’s personal experience
Creating a mental image using the orthographical form
Keyword method
Creating a negative/positive image based on the meaning

Association

Associating the item with synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy
Creating a semantic network

Affix

Dividing the item into prefix, root and suffix

Grouping

Grouping the new items according to their meanings
Making a sentence/story using the new item(s)Vocabulary List and Strategy Handouts
The target words were 30 biology terms (Appendix B) selected from the Life
Science English-Japanese Japanese-English Dictionary (Life Science Dictionary
Project, 2012). A pilot test confirmed all words were unknown to participants.
The words were divided into five sets of six words. Each set listed the words
and gave sample sentences with a biology context. Each memory strategy had
a handout that explained why it is useful, examples of how to use it with afew sample words, and a practice guide. For example, the association strategy
handout first explained how we can retain words well by making associations
in our minds. Then, it showed several examples of association networks (e.g.,semantic network, synonyms and antonyms, and hyponymy) centered on somesample words. Finally, it provided a step-by-step guide for practicing the strategy.

167

Kobayashi & Little

Procedure

In Week 1, the students answered the questionnaire (pre-VLS). In Week 2, thestudents were given explicit instruction on the first memory strategy and handson experience using it to learn the first vocabulary set. In the following week, thestudents took a quiz on the first set. This two-week procedure was repeated threetimes until the students were introduced to the fourth memory strategy in Week
8 and took a quiz on the fourth set of vocabulary in Week 9. In Week 10, thestudents were given the fifth set of vocabulary items and were told to learn theitems using any strategy they liked. In Week 11, the students took a quiz on thefifth set, and answered the same questionnaire (post-VLS).

Results
Data Analysis
1. The mean and SD of the total Likert scale scores of all items in the same
category were calculated for the pre- and post-VLS questionnaires. The
pre/post gain between the two questionnaires for each category was also
calculated.
2. A split-plot design ANOVA was conducted with the students’ pre- andpost-VLS questionnaire scores as a within-factor and their vocabulary
size as a between-factor. This was done to see if there was an interaction
between the two factors. The effect sizes for the pre/post gains were also
calculated. JMP Version 13 was used for statistical analyses.
Gain in VLS Categories for Each Group after VLS Instruction
Tables 3 and 4 show the descriptive statistics of each category and the pre/post
gains for the SVS group and the LVS group, respectively.
Figures 1-6 show the pre/post gain of each group for each VLS category.
Significance of GainsThe results of the split-plot design ANOVA are given in Table 5. As shown in
Table 5, the interaction effect between the two factors (namely, vocabulary size
and VLS instruction) was not significant for any category: F (1, 107) = .27, p =.6070, n.s. for self-management; F (1, 107) = .22, p = .64, n.s. for input seeking; F
168

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for VLS Categories and Pre-Post Gain for SVS Group (n = 37)
Pre-VLS
Questionnaire

Post-VLS
Questionnaire

Strategies

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Gain

Self-management 1-7

1.73(0.66)

2.02(0.83)

0.29

Input Seeking 8-11

2.22

(1.03)

2.41(1.00)

0.19

Shallower Strategies 12-17

3.26(1.06)

3.49(0.77)

0.23

Deeper Strategies 18-26

2.57(0.72)

2.6(0.69)

0.04

Extrinsic Motivation 27-29

3.55(0.77)

3.64(0.67)

0.09

Intrinsic Motivation 30-35

2.55(0.93)

2.75(0.87)

0.19

Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for VLS Categories and Pre-Post Gain for LVS Group (n = 72)
Pre-VLS
Questionnaire

Post-VLS
Questionnaire

Strategies

Mean

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

Gain

Self-management 1-7

2.18(0.86)

2.4(0.80)

0.22

Input Seeking 8-11

2.38

(1.08)

2.66(1.02)

0.27

Shallower Strategies 12-17

3.35(0.86)

3.5(0.71)

0.15

Deeper Strategies 18-26

2.88(0.66)

2.9(0.61)

0.03

Extrinsic Motivation 27-29

3.79(0.73)

3.89(0.68)

0.11

Intrinsic Motivation 30-35

2.91(0.93)

3.06(0.87)

0.15(1, 107) = .34, p = .56, n.s. for shallower strategies; F (1, 107) = .00, p = .95, n.s.
for deeper strategies; F (1, 107) = .02, p = .90, n.s. for extrinsic motivation; F (1,107) = .09, p = .76, n.s. for intrinsic motivation. This makes it possible for us todiscuss the influence of the two factors independently.
169

Kobayashi & Little

Figure 1.Self-management.

Figure 2. Input seeking.

Figure 3. Shallower strategies.

170

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178

Figure 4. Deeper strategies.

Figure 5. Extrinsic motivation.

Figure 6. Intrinsic motivation.

171

Kobayashi & Little
Table 5Results of Split-Plot Design ANOVA (p Values)
Vocabulary Size

Post VLS Q. Scores

Vocabulary Size x PrePost VLS Q. ScoresSelf-Management

0.0059*0.0001*0.6070

Input Seeking

0.28950.0121*0.6401

Shallower Strategies

0.72650.0074*0.5603

Deeper Strategies

0.0100*0.63040.9522Extrinsic Motivation

0.05860.13930.9025Intrinsic Motivation

0.0453*0.0248*0.7637Note 1. Vocabulary Size x Pre-Post Survey Scores indicates the interaction between vocabulary
size and pre-post survey scores.
Note 2. * = p ≤.05

The p values for the pre- and post-VLS questionnaire scores show that VLS
instruction had a positive effect for self-management, input seeking, shallower
strategies, and intrinsic motivation as follows: self-management, F(1, 107) =15.8575, p = .0001, d = .3453 for LVS and d = .4861 for SVS; input seeking, F(1,107) = 6.5177, p = .0121, d = .3278 for LVS and d = .1884 for SVS; shallower
strategies, F(1,107) = 7.4459, p = .0074, d = .2225 for LVS and d = .3513 for
SVS; and intrinsic motivation, F(1,107) = 5.1821, p = .0248, d = .2118 for LVS
and d = .2374 for SVS.
Table 6 shows the effect sizes for the pre/post gains. Based on Cohen’scategorization (small ≥ .20, medium ≥ .50, large ≥ .80), the effect sizes are
considered rather small, ranging from .1884 to .3513. The only exception was for
self-management for SVS (0.4861), which was close to medium size.

Discussion and Pedagogical Implications

Overall, the results show explicit VLS instruction has a positive impact on
vocabulary learning behaviors regardless of vocabulary size except for the useof deeper strategies and extrinsic motivation. This finding was unexpected as
172

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178
Table 6
Effect Size (d)
SVS

LVS

Self-Management

0.48610.3453

Input Seeking

0.18840.3278

Shallower Strategies

0.35130.2225

Deeper Strategies

0.05340.0434Extrinsic Motivation

0.13600.1653Intrinsic Motivation

0.23740.2118

Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009) found VLS instruction is most effective for lessproficient learners, while Little and Kobayashi (2015) found more proficientlearners benefited most. Nonetheless, the results in this study for each strategy
were variable.
Metacognitive Behavior
As Chamot (2005) stresses, explicit strategy instruction fosters metacognition,
thereby enabling students to understand their own thinking and learning
processes. In this study, it appears explicit VLS training increased the students’awareness of their own cognitive processes and enhanced their strategy use in
input-seeking and self-management, regardless of vocabulary size.
Motivation
The present study found explicit VLS instruction had a positive impact on eachlearner’s intrinsic motivation but not on their extrinsic motivation. Rasekh andRanjbary (2003) observed learner motivation rises as they begin to understandthe connection between their own strategy use and language learning successes.
However, we need to be cautious in attributing this increase in motivation to
strategy instruction. Learning biology terms related to their majors may also havepositively influenced the students’ motivation.

173

Kobayashi & Little

Strategy Use
Shallower strategy use increased for all students, whereas deeper strategy use
remained unchanged. This was unexpected because the training focused on deeper
strategies. There are two possible explanations. First, as Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet,
Zajchowski, and Evans (1989) noted, learners can only actively transfer strategies
to new learning situations when they have metacognitive knowledge of thestrategy. Ten weeks was probably insufficient for this, particularly as the students
only had limited class time to practice them. Second, strategy use is influenced
by the learner’s culture (Chamot, 2005). It is well-known many Japanese learners
prefer shallower strategies (Schmitt, 1997).

Implications

Given vocabulary learning’s importance and the essential nature of ESP
vocabulary for making meaning and identifying with a discourse community, it
is worthwhile for teachers to provide some VLS training. VLS training not only
raises learners’ metacognitive awareness and intrinsic motivation but has also beenfound to strongly correlate with higher TOEIC scores (Mizumoto & Takeuchi,2008). Explicit VLS instruction should include training both in shallower as well
as deeper memory strategies. This will expose learners to strategies that may be
unfamiliar to them as well as to ones they are avoiding. It will also help them tosee what works best for different types of vocabulary while revealing their own
strategy preferences (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2008). Finally, strategy training
should be an ongoing part of classes and not limited to one semester as it takes
time for learners to acquire a strategy.

References

Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues andresearch. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112-130. doi:10.1017/
S0267190505000061
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework formemory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
174

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178

Life Science Dictionary Project. (2012). Life science English-Japanese JapaneseEnglish dictionary. Tokyo, Japan: Yodosha.
Little, A., & Kobayashi, K. (2015). Vocabulary learning strategies of Japaneselife science students. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 81-111. doi: 10.1002/tesj.141
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2008). Exploring the driving forces behind
TOEIC scores: Focusing on vocabulary learning strategies, motivation, andstudy time. JACET Journal, 46, 17-32.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of
explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese
EFL university students. Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 425-449.
doi:10.1177/1362168809341511
Mochizuki, M. (1998). Nihonjin eigo gakushusha no tameno goi saizu tesuto.
[A vocabulary size test for Japanese learners of English.]. Institute for
Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 12, 27-53.
Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy training in the language classroom:
An empirical investigation. RELC Journal, 28(2), 56-81. doi:
10.1177/003368829702800204
Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans, E. D. (1989). The
challenges of classroom strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal,
89(3), 301-342.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training forvocabulary learning. TESL-EJ, 7, 1-18.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.
199-227). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon – The nature and roles of
specialist knowledge in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 7, 234-249. doi: 10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.004.

Author bios

Kaoru Kobayashi, PhD in applied linguistics, has been teaching English atuniversities in Japan. Her research interests are in vocabulary acquisition,
175

Kobayashi & Little

metadiscourse and ESP. She is currently an assistant professor at Tokyo University ofAgriculture. mq7k-kbys@asahi-net.or.jp
Andrea Little has been teaching EAP and ESP to university students and adults
in Japan for over 20 years. Her current research interests include vocabularyacquisition, vocabulary learning strategies, ESP, and task-based language teaching.
jejinjapan@yahoo.co.jp
Received: September 30, 2017
Accepted: November 10, 2018

176

The Effect of Explicit VLS, OnCUE Journal, 11(2), pages 164-178

Appendix A

177

Kobayashi & Little

Appendix B
List of Target Vocabulary Items in Alphabetical Order1amphibian

9 dissection

17 hydrophobicity

24 oocyte

2anemia10 electrolysis

18 immunodeficiency

25 ovulation

3

antigen

11 endoscopy

19 intoxication

26 permeability

4

carcinogen

12 erythrocyte

20 invertebrate

27 precursor

5carnivore

13 excretion

21 leucocyte

28 proteolysis

6

centrosome

14 gastritis

22 metastasis

29 solubility

7

decomposition

15 germination

23 neonate

30 specimen

8dermatology

16 hemorrhage

178