The Relationship Between Language Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Size Among High School ELL Students

Abstract

This study inspects the relationship between language learning strategies (LLS) of 905 Jordanian high school ELL students and their vocabulary size. The data are collected through two instruments: First, a questionnaire of 35 items and 3 types of strategies (metacognitive, cognitive, and social-affective strategies) were adapted from the Strategy Inventory Learning (SILL, Version 7.0) by Oxford (2005) to evaluate language learning strategies. Second, the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT): Version 2 by Schmitt (2001) to gauge the vocabulary size by measuring the 2,000 word-level, 3,000 word-level, 5,000 word-level, 10,000 word-level, and Academic Word (AWL) level of the students. The results of the descriptive analysis revealed that the students’ overall LLS was at a moderate strategy use. Concerning their use of strategies, the most used strategies were metacognitive, followed by cognitive strategies, and the least used strategies were social-affective strategies. In addition, the effect of their vocabulary size on the use of LLS was identified. Students with high vocabulary size applied more language learning strategies and specific strategies more than students with low vocabulary size. The students’ use of LLS had a positive and significant correlation with their vocabulary size. Students with higher vocabulary size were able to employ strategies to manage and control their learning, in addition, to observe their learning better than students with lower vocabulary size. All together for students to be better in learning English, they are required to enhance their vocabulary because of its substantial relationship with language learning strategies.

Language Learning Strategies Used by ESL Students in Enhancing English Proficiency: A Systematic Review (2013-2022)

“…Metacognitive strategies (Chang & Liu, 2013;Fernandez-Malpartida, 2021;Nazri et al, 2016;Rahimirad & Zare-ee, 2015;Rianto, 2020;Ardasheva, 2016;Ardasheva, 2016;Rabadi, 2019;Sukirlan et al, 2020;Barrios, 2015) Affective strategies (Sadeghi et al, 2021;Sukying, 2021) Social strategies (Shah et al, 2013;Montano-Gonzalez & Cancino, 2020;Babikkoi & Abdul Razak, 2014) More than one strategies Metacognitive strategies, social strategies (Fu et al, 2018;Mohammadipour et al, 2018) Compensation strategies, cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies (Danko & Decman, 2019) Table 5 cont.…”

“…This systematic review also includes indirect techniques, which include metacognitive strategies, emotional strategies, and social strategies. According to ten papers included in (Chang & Liu, 2013;Fernandez-Malpartida, 2021;Nazri et al, 2016;Rahimirad & Zare-ee, 2015;Rianto, 2020;Ardasheva, 2016;Rabadi, 2019;Sukirlan et al, 2020;Barrios, 2015), metacognitive methods were the most prevalent among learners. Similarly, the publications claimed that learners' proficiencies were among the most important considerations in the selection of LLS and that they were educated to utilize the methods explicitly.…”