A study of vocabulary learning strategies among high and low Iranian English vocabulary learners

Learning a foreign/second language is a dynamic and complicated process that benefits from learners taking strategic steps to facilitate their own learning. Accordingly, the current study investigates the differences between Iranian high and low English vocabulary learners in terms of vocabulary lea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cogent education 2021-01, Vol.8 (1)
Main Authors: Ghalebi, Rezvan, Sadighi, Firooz, Bagheri, Mohammad Sadegh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
College Students
Educational research
English (Second Language)
English as a second language
English as a second language learning
Foreign Countries
Foreign language instruction
high English vocabulary learners
Iranian EFL learners
Learning Strategies
low English vocabulary learners
Metacognition
Second Language Learning
Second language vocabulary learning
Vocabulary Development
Vocabulary learning strategies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Learning a foreign/second language is a dynamic and complicated process that benefits from learners taking strategic steps to facilitate their own learning. Accordingly, the current study investigates the differences between Iranian high and low English vocabulary learners in terms of vocabulary learning strategies. Two hundred and eighteen university students in Iran took the vocabulary level test and filled out a vocabulary learning strategies survey. In fact, it was an attempt to examine if high/low learners differ significantly in using vocabulary learning strategies. To this end, 218 EFL, 111 high, and 107 low English vocabulary learners were selected to answer Schmitt's Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire (VLSQ). The findings showed significant differences between high and low English vocabulary learners' usage of determination, memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. However, there was no significant difference in their use of social strategies.
ISSN:2331-186X
2331-186X
DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2020.1834933