Impact of Vocabulary Learning Strat Instruction On Libyan EFL Teachers and Learners

Rashed, Warda Ali Salem (2018) The impact of vocabulary learning strat-
egy instruction on Libyan EFL teachers and learners. Doctoral thesis (PhD),
Manchester Metropolitan University.
Downloaded from: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/620466/

Usage rights: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Deriva-
tive Works 4.0
Please cite the published version
https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk
THE IMPACT OF VOCABULARY LEARNING
STRATEGY INSTRUCTION ON LIBYAN EFL
TEACHERS AND LEARNERS
WARDA ALI SALEM RASHED
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

of the
Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Languages, Information and

Communications
Manchester Metropolitan University
2018
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................... 7
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................ 9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... 12
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. 13
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................. 15
DEDICATION ............................................................................................... 16
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................... 17
1.1 General background ...................................................................... 18
1.2 General compendium of Libyan education .................................... 19
1.3 Prosperity of education and achieving literacy for all .................... 20
1.4 Schooling system in Libya ............................................................. 21
1.5 Development of university schooling system ................................ 22
1.5.1 Al-jabal Al-gharbi University ...................................................... 23
1.6 Learning and teaching English in Libya ......................................... 24
1.7 Teacher training in Libya ............................................................... 25
1.8 Goals of the present research ....................................................... 27
1.9 Research questions, design, and hypothesis ................................ 27
1.10 Organisation of the thesis ............................................................. 29
2.0: Literature Review ............................................................................... 31

2.1 Defining terms ............................................................................... 31
2.2 Vocabulary importance ................................................................. 33
2.3 Language learning strategies (LLSs) ............................................ 35
2.3.1 Language learning strategies classification .............................. 37
2.4 Vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) .......................................... 39
2.4.1 Classifications of vocabulary learning strategies....................... 41
2.4.2 Factors influencing the choice of VLSs ..................................... 49
2
2.4.3 Research on vocabulary learning strategies within an EFL
context ...................................................................................... 51
2.5 Teaching language learning strategies ......................................... 55
2.5.1 Vocabulary instruction ............................................................... 56
2.5.2 Vocabulary teaching strategies (VTSs) ..................................... 59
2.6 Vocabulary learning strategy training (VLST) ................................ 62
2.6.1 Previous research in the field of strategy training ..................... 63
2.6.2 Vocabulary learning strategy training frameworks .................... 66
3.0: STUDY 1: Overview of the current situation....................................... 72

3.1 Vocabulary learning strategy research methods ........................... 73
3.1.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ) .............. 74
3.1.2 Classroom observation ............................................................. 76
3.1.3 Semi-structured interview ......................................................... 78
3.1.4 Diaries ....................................................................................... 79
3.1.5 Think-aloud protocols................................................................ 80
3.2 Study 1 population and location .................................................... 80
3.3 Ethical considerations ................................................................... 82
3.4 Study 1 instrumentation ................................................................ 83
3.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ) .............. 83
3.4.2 Classroom observation ............................................................. 86
3.4.3 Semi-structured interview ......................................................... 87
3.5 Pilot study...................................................................................... 87
3.5.1 The procedures for piloting instruments .................................... 88
3.5.2 Piloting the questionnaire .......................................................... 89
3.5.3 Piloting the interview ................................................................. 90
3.5.4 Piloting the observation ............................................................. 91
3.5.5 Pilot study results ...................................................................... 92
3
3.5.6 Drawbacks of the piloting .......................................................... 94
3.6 Study 1 analysis ............................................................................ 94
3.6.1 Study 1: quantitative data analysis, results and discussion ...... 95
3.6.1.1 Teachers’ VLSs questionnaire (TVLSQ) .......................... 100

3.6.1.2 Students’ VLSs questionnaire (SVLSQ) .......................... 112
3.6.2 Study 1: qualitative data analysis, results and discussion ....... 124
3.6.2.1 Open-ended questionnaire items ..................................... 124

3.6.2.2 Interview procedures and analysis ................................... 132
3.6.2.3 Observation analysis ....................................................... 146
4.0: STUDY 2: The VLST programme .................................................... 150
4.1 Strategy training .......................................................................... 151
4.2 Language choice ......................................................................... 154
4.3 Selection of strategies ................................................................. 154
4.4 Design ......................................................................................... 156
4.4.1 Teachers’ training phase ......................................................... 159
4.4.2 Students’ training phase ......................................................... 162
5.0: STUDY 3: trial and evaluate the training programme ....................... 164
5.1 Study 3 population ...................................................................... 164
5.2 Study 3: quantitative data analysis, results and discussion ......... 166
5.2.1 Results of questionnaire 1 (VLSQ1)........................................ 167
5.2.1.1 VLSQ1: strategy use by experimental groups’ participants

169
5.2.1.2 VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by experimental groups’
participants ....................................................................................... 175
5.2.1.3 VLSQ1: strategy use by control groups’ participants ....... 185
5.2.1.4 VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by control groups’ participants
189
5.3 Strategy training programme ....................................................... 196
5.3.1 Results of questionnaire 2 (VLSQ2)........................................ 200
5.3.1.1 Effects on frequency of promotion/use of VLSs ............... 200
4
5.3.1.2 Effects on perceived usefulness of VLSs ......................... 212
5.4 Comparison of VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and VLSQ3 results ................... 222
5.5 Study 3: qualitative data analysis, results and discussion ........... 233
5.5.1 The evaluation form ................................................................ 233
5.5.2 Study 3: Observation and semi-structured interview analysis . 237
6.0 Summary of major findings.......................................................... 244

6.1 Study 1 results: an overview of the current situation ................... 244
6.2 Study 3 results: trial and evaluation of the VLST programme ..... 247
6.2.1 Effect on teachers’ promotion and perceived usefulness of VLSs

248
6.2.2 Effects on students’ use and perceived usefulness on VLSs .. 249
7.0 Conclusion .................................................................................. 251

7.1 Research limitation ...................................................................... 254
7.2 Research contribution and implications ....................................... 255
8.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................. 257

8.1 Appendix 1: S1 teachers’ questionnaire (TVLSQ) ....................... 257
8.2 Appendix 2: S1 students’ questionnaire (SVLSQ) ....................... 261
8.3 Appendix 3: S1 students’ questionnaire (Arabic version) ............ 265
8.4 Appendix 4: Schmitt’s original questionnaire (SOQ) ................... 269
8.5 Appendix 5: Schmitt’s original questionnaire (SOQ) (Arabic version)

272
8.6 Appendix 6: Observation sheet ................................................... 276
8.7 Appendix 7: Teachers’ interview questions ................................. 280
8.8 Appendix 8: Students’ interview questions .................................. 281
8.9 Appendix 9: Students’ interview questions (Arabic version) ........ 283
8.10 Appendix 10: A letter of permission ............................................. 284
8.11 Appendix 11: A letter of permission (Arabic version) ................... 286
8.12 Appendix 12: Information sheet................................................... 287
5
8.13 Appendix 13: Consent form for participants ................................ 288
8.14 Appendix 14: Consent form for participants (Arabic version) ...... 289
8.15 Appendix 15: End of course evaluation form ............................... 290
8.16 Appendix 16: VLSs most and least promoted by teachers (S1) .. 291
8.17 Appendix 17: VLSs most and least used by students (S1) .......... 292
8.18 Appendix 18: Study 3’s VLSs questionnaire ............................... 293
8.19 Appendix 19: A sample of handouts distributed in S3 ................. 297
8.20 Appendix 20: A sample of training sessions conducted in S3 ..... 298
8.21 Appendix 21: Experimental groups’ results to VLSQ1 in frequency

of use/promotion of VLSs ............................................................ 300
8.22 Appendix 22: Experimental groups’ results to VLSQ1 in perceived

usefulness of VLSs ..................................................................... 302
8.23 Appendix 23: Students’ results in frequency of use [VLSQ1,

VLSQ2, and VLSQ3] ................................................................... 304
8.24 Appendix 24: Students’ results in perceived usefulness [VLSQ1,

VLSQ2, and VLSQ3] ................................................................... 305
8.25 Appendix 25: A sample of lesson plan ........................................ 306
8.26 Appendix 26: A sample of checklist ............................................. 308
8.27 Appendix 27: A sample of checklist (Arabic version)................... 309
8.28 Appendix 28: VLSs most promoted/perceived usefulness by EG

teachers (Study 3) ....................................................................... 310
8.29 Appendix 29: VLSs most used/perceived useful by EG students 311
REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 312
Word count 76,225
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Type of study and data collection methods employed to answer

research questions ............................................................................ 29
Table 2: Features of language learning strategies ....................................... 36
Table 3: Schmitt’s (1997) classification of VLSs .......................................... 45
Table 4: Number, gender, and distribution of S1 participants ...................... 81
Table 5: Reliability of the VLS questionnaire ............................................... 85
Table 6: Sample of the data gathered in the pilot study ............................... 92
Table 7: Categories of vocabulary learning strategies included in the VLSQ
.......................................................................................................... 96
Table 8: Study 1: Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values of five VLSs
categories .......................................................................................... 98
Table 9: Study 1: teachers’ age and years of EFL teaching ....................... 102
Table 10: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to determination strategies
........................................................................................................ 103
Table 11: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to social strategies .......... 105
Table 12: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to memory strategies ...... 107
Table 13: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to cognitive strategies ..... 110
Table 14: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to metacognitive strategies
........................................................................................................ 111
Table 15: Study 1: students’ general demographic information ................. 113
Table 16: Study 1: students’ results with regard to determination strategies
........................................................................................................ 114
Table 17: Study 1: students’ results with regard to social strategies .......... 116
Table 18: Study 1: students’ results with regard to memory strategies ...... 118
Table 19: Study 1: students’ results with regard to cognitive strategies ..... 121
Table 20: Study 1: students’ results with regard to metacognitive strategies
........................................................................................................ 123
Table 21: Teachers' responses regarding the teachability of VLSs ........... 125
Table 22: Teacher interviewees’ information ............................................. 135
Table 23: A sample of the observation sheet used .................................... 146
Table 24: Training applications in the study ............................................... 157
7
Table 25: A sample of Study 3 questionnaire format ................................. 158
Table 26: Research timetable of teachers’ training phase ......................... 160
Table 27: Number and distribution of Study 3 participants. ........................ 165
Table 28: Overall averages in use and perceived usefulness in VLSQ1. ... 167
Table 29: VLSQ1: VLSs promoted/used by EG participants ...................... 170
Table 30: VLSQ1: perceived usefulness of VLSs by EG participants ........ 176
Table 31: VLSQ1: VLSs promoted/used by CG participants ...................... 185
Table 32: VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by CG participants ..................... 189
Table 33: Results of a Pearson correlation coefficient calculation between
teachers’ and students’ responses .................................................. 195
Table 34: VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 results in frequency of use/promotion of VLSs:
Experimental Groups ....................................................................... 201
Control Groups ................................................................................ 207
Table 36: VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 results in perceived usefulness of VLSs:
Experimental Groups ....................................................................... 212
Control Groups ................................................................................ 219
Table 38: Comparison of teachers’ VLSQ1, VLSQ2 and VLSQ3 results in
frequency of promoting the use of VLSs ......................................... 224
perceived usefulness of VLSs ......................................................... 227
Table 40: Overall comparison of students’ prior, post and delayed-
questionnaires ................................................................................. 231
Table 41: Examples of students’ VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and VLSQ3 results in
frequency of use. ............................................................................. 232
perceived usefulness. ...................................................................... 232
Table 43: EG participants’ responses to question 3 on the evaluation form
........................................................................................................ 234
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Kudo’s (1999) taxonomy of VLSs ................................................. 47

Figure 2: Ellis’s (1994) factors that affect the choice of VLSs ...................... 49
Figure 3: VLST framework for strategy instruction ..................................... 159
Figure 4: Initial DIS strategies use by EG participants ............................... 172
Figure 5: Initial CON strategies use by EG participants ............................. 174
Figure 6: Initial DIS strategies promotion and perceptions of usefulness by
EG teachers. ................................................................................... 177
Figure 7: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by EG
students ........................................................................................... 179
Figure 8: Initial DIS strategies perceived usefulness by EG participants ... 180
Figure 9: Initial CON strategies’ promotion and perceptions of usefulness by
EG teachers. ................................................................................... 181
Figure 10: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by EG
students ........................................................................................... 183
Figure 11: Initial CON strategies’ perceived usefulness by EG participants
........................................................................................................ 184
Figure 12: Initial DIS strategies’ results by CG participants ....................... 187
Figure 13: Initial CON strategies use by CG participants ........................... 188
Figure 14: Initial DIS strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG
teachers........................................................................................... 191
Figure 15: Initial DIS strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG
students. .......................................................................................... 192
Figure 16: Initial CON strategies’ promotion and perceptions of usefulness by
CG teachers. ................................................................................... 193
Figure 17: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG
students. .......................................................................................... 194
Figure 18: A sample of flash cards presented in the lesson ....................... 197
Figure 19: A sample of slides used in the VLST programme. .................... 198
Figure 20: EG teachers’ prior and post results in frequency of use of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 204
9
Figure 21: EG teachers’ prior and post results in frequency of use of DIS
strategies ......................................................................................... 204
Figure 22: EG students’ prior and post results in frequency of use of DIS
strategies ......................................................................................... 206
Figure 23: EG students’ prior and post results in frequency of use of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 206
Figure 24: CG teachers’ prior and post results in frequency of promoting the
use of DIS strategies ....................................................................... 209
Figure 25: CG teachers’ prior and post results in frequency of promoting use
of CON strategies ............................................................................ 209
Figure 26: CG students’ prior and post results in frequency of use of DIS
strategies ......................................................................................... 211
Figure 27: CG students’ prior and post results in frequency of use of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 211
Figure 28: EG teachers’ prior and post results in usefulness of DIS strategies
........................................................................................................ 215
Figure 29: EG teachers’ prior and post results in usefulness of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 215
Figure 30: EG students’ prior and post results in usefulness of DIS strategies
........................................................................................................ 217
Figure 31: EG students’ prior and post results in usefulness of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 217
Figure 32: CG teachers’ prior and post results in usefulness of DIS strategies
........................................................................................................ 220
Figure 33: CG teachers’ prior and post results in usefulness of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 220
Figure 34: CG students’ prior and post results in usefulness of DIS strategies
........................................................................................................ 221
Figure 35: CG students’ prior and post results in usefulness of CON
strategies ......................................................................................... 221
Figure 36: Overall mean scores for frequency of use of DIS strategies
achieved by EG and CG teachers prior, post and after the training 223
10
Figure 37: Overall mean scores for frequency of use of CON strategies by
EG and CG teachers prior, post and after the training .................... 223
Figure 39: Overall mean scores for perceived usefulness of DIS strategies
achieved by EG and CG teachers prior, post and after the training. 230
Figure 38: Overall mean scores for perceived usefulness of CON strategies
achieved by EG and CG teachers prior, post and after the training. 230
Figure 40: Participants’ awareness of VLSs before and after the VLST
programme ...................................................................................... 235
11
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EFL English as a Foreign Language

CALLA Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
LLSs Language Learning Strategies
VLSs Vocabulary Learning Strategies
VLST Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training
VLSQ Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
TVLSQ Teachers’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
SVLSQ Students’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
FL Foreign Language
L1 The first language/the native language
L2 The second language/the foreign language
VTSs Vocabulary Teaching Strategies
CG Control Group
EG Experimental Group
ESL English as a Second Language
SOQ Schmitt’s Original Questionnaire
SILL Strategy Inventory Language Learning
CIT Completely Informed Training
SSBI Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction
GTM Grammar Translation Method
VLSQ1,2,3 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire 1,2,3
S1,2,3 Study,1,2,3
DIS Discovery strategies
CON Consolidation strategies
12
ABSTRACT
This study examines the impact of the teachability of vocabulary learning

strategies (VLSs) on Libyan EFL teachers and students at university level. It
investigates the extent to which instructing language teachers in how to
integrate strategic intervention into regular classes impacts upon teachers’ and
students’ use, promotion of the use, and perceptions of usefulness of
vocabulary learning strategies. The empirical research in this area has been
very limited, and the vast majority of studies have centred around examining
the influence of strategy instruction on language learners’ achievements.
Bearing this in mind, the present study provides an exciting opportunity to
advance knowledge of the impact of direct teaching of VLSs on EFL teachers
and students alike. The findings make an important contribution to literature in
the field of vocabulary learning and teaching.
The study recruited 109 participants, including 13 EFL teachers from two
different university levels (Year 1 and 2) and two English language faculties at
the Al-jabal Al-gharbi University in the cities of Tiji and Badr. The aims were 1)
to identify the current situation in terms of VLSs known, promoted or used, 2)
to design a strategy training programme for teachers and students, and 3) to
trial and evaluate the effectiveness of the training programme on students’ and
teachers’ use, promotion, and adoption of learning strategies. To achieve the
research aims, three studies were carried out and two phases of training
arranged. Teachers were targeted in the first phase, which was administered
by the researcher and ran for a 2-week period, with students targeted in the
second phase, which was carried out by trainee teachers, with the
researcher’s guidance, for 10 weeks.
Data for this research were collected using a multi-method approach in the
form of VLS questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, observations, and an
evaluation form. The quantitative and qualitative data obtained from the
instruments were triangulated to allow for a more comprehensive
13
understanding, as well as to render reliable conclusions. Microsoft Office Excel
programmes, SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science), and a
qualitative content analysis were used to analyse the data gathered. The
results of the study reveal that the training had a positive impact on both the
teachers’ and students’ attitudes, perceptions and adoption of VLSs. What is
more, teachers and students showed an increased awareness of
using/promoting the use of learning strategies even when the training had
finished, which in turn indicates that the impact of VLS training has been
durable.
14
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Dr Rob

Drummond and Dr Huw Bell, whose knowledge and advice throughout this
study has been invaluable.
I also owe much gratitude to all the participants, who, without exception,
welcomed the opportunity to take part in this study and were generous with
their time and willingness to help.
Thanks to Manchester Metropolitan University and the School of Languages,

Information and Communications for providing the resources that allowed me
to complete my Ph.D. thesis.
Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank my family and friends, whose
prayers were the source of my encouragement and inspiration. Thank you.
15
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated with sincere love and gratitude to the soul of my
husband ‘Mohamed’, who has always looked forward to this moment May Allah
forgive him and grant him his highest paradise.
To my children ‘Nabeela’, and ‘Abdullah’, who have supported me throughout

with a great deal of patience and have made me better and stronger than I
ever could have imagined
16
1.0 Introduction
Vocabulary has been acknowledged as crucial in learning language. It is the
element that connects the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing
together and without which ‘one cannot speak, understand, read or write a
foreign language’ (Rubin and Thompson, 1994: 79). Therefore, building up a
rich store of vocabulary is of vital importance for language learners, while
improving word power at a feasible pace demands the identification of effective
methods or techniques. Recent developments in the field of English language
teaching and learning have yielded numerous techniques that can facilitate
vocabulary learning, known as Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLSs).
Research into VLSs has a long history (see e.g., Chamot & O’Malley, 1987;
Ahmed, 1988; Cohen, 1990; Brown & Payne 1994; and Schmitt, 1997).
Different taxonomies have been suggested and several strategies have
theoretically or empirically been mentioned as positive in enriching lexis
(Oxford, 2013). Despite this, many language learners seem to restrict
themselves to limited strategies for one reason or another. However, one of
the greatest challenges for language learners, especially those who are from
non-English speaking environments (e.g. Libya) where exposure to language
is very limited, is the lack of vocabulary that in turn negatively affects their
comprehension of both receptive and productive language use (Nation, 1990).
Here lies the importance of teaching and learning some useful strategies to
help such students in reducing their burden and gaining more autonomy in
their language learning. One might say that finding powerful methods to make
vocabulary learning easier and quicker is the students’ responsibility, but
teachers should also be aware of such strategies in order to ‘shift the
responsibility onto the students (to) become more self-reliant and learn how to
manage their own learning’ (Trendak, 2015: 173). So, teaching ‘learners how
to learn’ (Brown, 1994: 124) by raising their awareness of different strategies
available seems to be a crucial matter, not just for language students but also
for their teachers, since it may be overwhelming for teachers to teach all the
needed lexis due to time constraints.
17
Data on the impact of the teachability of VLSs on language teachers’
awareness and perceptions are limited. So far, very little attention has been
paid to investigating the efficacy of instructing teachers in how to integrate
strategy training into regular classrooms. Bearing this in mind, this research
argues that if Libyan EFL teachers and learners are taught VLSs, their
awareness of VLSs increases and thus their use/adoption of such powerful
strategies will be promoted. The study mainly focuses on the VLST
(Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training) programme introduced to teachers,
who in turn explicitly delivered sessions, with guidance, to their students. The
remainder of this introduction provides a brief history of the context of Libya.
The discussion in the following sections begins with a geographical and
historical review, moving towards the educational system, which has received
a considerable amount of attention in terms of status, teaching/learning
English, and general development. The rationale is to present a
comprehensive background to the context of the current study, and to give an
overall picture of past and recent changes and challenges that the educational
system in Libya has faced. The introductory chapter concludes by presenting
the research goals, design, and organisation of the study.
1.1 General background
Geographically, Libya is located on the continent of Africa, specifically in

central North Africa, with Tripoli as its capital (Elmbruk, 1998). The republics
of both Chad and Niger adjoin it from the south, with Tunisia and Algeria to the
west. From the east, it borders Egypt and Sudan. Demographically, Libya’s
population is quite small, about 6.6 million (Najeeb, 2013), compared to its
size. The census of the Libyan population initially began after the country
gained its independence, and in 1954 the total population was 1,088,873
(Bureau of Statistics and Census Libya, 1954 to 2006). Before this period,
there was no official census. Later, the census was conducted every 10 years,
and was characterised by better conditions in terms of human and material
potential, due to the discovery of oil. Economically, Libya mainly depends upon
oil sector revenues, which account for about 90% of the country’s annual
income (Najeeb, 2013).
18
Successive civilizations in Libya, such as the Phoenicians, Greeks and
Romans, played a major role in Libyan history, and that of North Africa in
general. The modern history of Libya begins with Ottoman rule in 1551, which
lasted for about four centuries. After this came colonisation by the Italians, who
entered Libya in 1911 and ousted the Turks in 1918. The country was in
conflict and struggled to gain its freedom. The Italians continued to rule the
country until the end of World War II in 1945, following the victory over the Axis
powers by the Allies, which put Libya under British tutelage until its
independence in 1951 (Country Profile, 2005). The United Nations awarded
the Libyan state the right to sovereignty over the whole territory of Libya, and
Idris became king of Libya by national consensus, a reign that was to continue
until 1969. Subsequently, a group of officers led by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi
overthrew the monarchy, and promoting a Libyan Arab Republic, became the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 1977 (Elmabruk, 2008). During the reign of
Muammar Gaddafi, which lasted more than four decades, Libya witnessed
many conflicts with foreign countries, resulting in them imposing economic
sanctions and a blockade that lasted for a decade. On the 17 th of February
2011, a revolution began, which succeeded in overthrowing Colonel Gaddafi
in October of that year.
1.2 General compendium of Libyan education
After independence, the value of education in general rose significantly

(Najeeb, 2013). In light of this, educational attainment became a target for the
vast majority of Libyan families. This is clearly reflected in a field study
conducted by a team interested in the educational situation in Libya in 1997
(The United Nations Report, 1998). That study focused on Libyan youth trends
and attitudes about the importance of higher education, and found that 94% of
the sample aspired to receiving a modern education. The study also
demonstrated the participants’ desire to access professions that enjoy high
social value in the community, such as doctors, engineers and professors of
foreign languages. Indeed, the study showed that more than 90% of applicants
in the academic year 1998 preferred to specialise in medicine, engineering
and foreign languages. In the family domain, various social studies and local
19
polls over the last five decades have indicated that Libyan parents aspire for
their offspring to receive higher education. Additionally, ensuring their children
obtain a higher education is in itself a source of pride for those parents.
Traditionally, the value and importance placed on education differed between

rural and urban areas, and between males and females. The results of one
field study, which analysed the lifestyles of some farming villages in Libya in
1979 (Ali et al., cited in Elmbruk, 1998), reported that the majority of parents
who were farmers, 78%, opted to provide their male children with a university
education, compared to only 41% who did so for their female children.
Nowadays, and after almost three decades, there is no doubt that the ratio has
changed. By comparison, the outcome of another study (Al-Tabib, 1997)
conducted in Tripoli, pointed out that parental opinion in urban areas seemed
to vary greatly, as the results presented high rates of parental emphasis on
the importance of providing university learning for males and females alike
(94% males, 86% females).
1.3 Prosperity of education and achieving literacy for all
During the Italian colonisation of Libya, the literacy rate did not exceed 1% of
Libyans according to figures in 1940 (Elmabruk, 1998), which was due to
decades of settlement where formal schools were only open to bureaucratic
and Italian settlers. In those days, Libyans missed out on the opportunity to
acquire cultural knowledge, and in order to overcome such a problem they
continued sending their children to Quranic schools to learn the Holy Quran,
basic maths and writing. Through attaining independence, Libya became more
powerful. Investment in education began gradually and improved greatly after
the discovery of oil, making it possible for the government to allocate money
from its general budget to basic education, which would later become free for
all citizens. Under the monarchy, many schools were established and all
Bedouins and female children had the right to education. Literacy rates rose
rapidly, with 37% of students being in various educational levels in the late
1990s (Bureau of Statistics and Census Libya, 2008: 142). That proportion
20
remained similar until the end of the first decade of this century, where the
proportion of students engaged in education accounted for about 35% by the
end of 2008 (ibid). By tracking the generations that were born after
independence and who were attending schools during that time, and
comparing them to those who were born prior to the Italians’ departure, or a
few years later (1940-1944), we can clearly see how much has changed in the
educational structure of Libya. With the old regime for example, and according
to the Human Development Report in Libya (1999), there was a sharp decline
in the level of education: nearly three-quarters were unable to enter the basic
educational system, or dropped out before reaching the primary stage. Of the
remaining quarter of that generation on the other hand, about 7.5% finished
the primary stage, compared to 8.3% who continued their studies until
completing the preparatory phase. With regard to those who managed to
complete their secondary grade or above, the number did not exceed 10.5%.
In contrast, with new generations the number of educated people who
continued their studies until the higher stages formed approximately 65%.
17.7% only satisfactorily completed their primary education, whereas 17% left
study before finishing the primary phase.
Another area that is testament to the growth of education in recent decades,

is the rising rates of school enrolment among 6 - 24-year olds. These rates
rose from 64% in 1973 to 75% in 1995 (Country Profile, 2005), and increased
further during the first ten years of the current century. In 2007, the UNESCO
Institute for Statistics (UIS) reported that Libya had one of the highest rates of
literacy in Africa. According to the Human Development Report (1999), this
can be attributed to two major factors - one being the big improvements that
have taken place at all levels (primary, secondary and higher education), and
the other being the sharp increase in acceptance rates of female applicants to
schools, so that their enrolment rates equal those of males.
1.4 Schooling system in Libya
As a rule, education in Libya takes two routes: public and private, comprising
all age groups and levels. Both systems follow the same learning stages,
21
beginning with kindergarten, which is for children aged four to five and lasts
for two years. This stage is not compulsory, and is available at private and
public schools alike. Following that are nine years of basic education, for which
all Libyan children have to enrol. Here, students are introduced to applied
science subjects like mathematics and physics. Humanities subjects, such as
history and languages are also introduced in this stage.
Prior to university, three years of secondary education (intermediate level)

for students aged 16 are required, which is for students who have successfully
finished their basic education. The secondary stage is divided into two main
specialties: arts and sciences. During the first year of this stage, students are
taught very general subjects, and later, in the second year, they specialise in
the aforementioned routes. On completion of this stage and by gaining their
secondary education certificate, then they may join higher education
institutions such as colleges and universities. This stage lasts for four years,
and may be extended further depending on the subject and the department.
Those who want to pursue their advanced studies may enrol in their Masters
or PhD (Doctorate). It is worth mentioning that, unlike other phases of
education, higher education has received a great deal of attention from the
Libyan government, which has and still does support many students in the
completion of their higher studies by sending them abroad at the public
expense.
1.5 Development of university schooling system
As this study is mainly concerned with teaching and learning at university

level, I will no longer talk in detail regarding the above-mentioned stages, but
will limit my discussion to the university system in Libya.
The first university in Libya was established in 1955, and was founded in
Benghazi, under the name ‘The University of Libya’. It began with only one
faculty, which was Arts and Education, a small number of male students (31),
and no females.
22
However, higher education has been changing since 1973, when greater
interest was first paid to establishing more universities with different
campuses. This is clearly demonstrated by the increase in the number of
universities over the years. In 1985, there were 11 universities, and this had
jumped to 22 by 2001. This figure has shrunk back to 14 universities between
2005 and the present day, due to the annexation of some universities by
others. According to The Bureau Statistics book (2008), the number of
students enrolled in Libyan universities reached 300,966 in various
specialities, whereas the number of graduates was 25,178. If we try to
estimate the current number of enrolled students, and compare this to the
number at the beginning of the 1960s, we would find a massive difference in
enrolment rates in universities, which confirms the improvement in educational
performance. With respect to staff, there was also a significant increase, and
the number reached 10,355 in 2008.
1.5.1 Al-jabal Al-gharbi University
Al-jabal Al-gharbi University is one of the official public universities in Libya,

and is located in Gharyan city, about 80 km from Tripoli. This university
administratively oversees many colleges and higher education institutions in
different towns and villages situated up in the western mountain chains, as
well as those at the foot of the mountains. The Faculty of Accounting in
Gharyan was the first one founded, and was adopted as an independent
university in 1991 in the city of Zintan, to later be annexed to Zawiya University
in 1997. Subsequently, it was adopted as a supervisory university for all
departments of the mountain areas in 2004. On 1st January 2005, it became a
stand-alone university followed by 11 faculties distributed throughout the
western mountains.
The University offers BSc and BA qualifications, with the duration of study
being from four to six years according to specialisation. Furthermore, it grants
Master's degrees in some specialities, such as economics, accounting,
Arabic/Islamic studies and electrical engineering.
23
1.6 Learning and teaching English in Libya
Although Arabic is the dominant language in Libya, English has been able to
command a prominent place in Libyan schools’ curricula over the years. One
of the primary factors for such an increasing interest in the English language
is the country’s eagerness, like other nations, to keep pace with globalisation,
which in turn necessitates ‘a need to have a common language in the globe
that can help in communication’ (Youssef, 2012: 367). The British Council
(1995: 2) reports that ‘One out of five of the world’s population speak English
to some level of competence. Demand from the other fifth is increasing’.
Another important factor that needs to be addressed is the urgent need for
using English as the principal ingredient in teaching and learning in higher
education in Libya. In addition to this, academic conferences, books and
international business also utilise English.
Improving the quality of English language learning and teaching was and still
is the ultimate goal for the Libyan authorities. By reviewing the literature, it can
be seen that English in Libya went through many stages, which are
characterised to some extent by volatility and instability. In the 1970s for
example, English witnessed a strong beginning as it was a compulsory
subject. Later, when Colonel Gaddafi was running the country, and due to
government decisions at that time, teaching and learning foreign languages
was banned at all levels of education. The suspension began in 1986 and
lasted for six years before English was brought back in both private and public
schools and universities in 1993. The decision to cancel English language
teaching and learning not only negatively affected students during this period
but also affected the English teachers themselves, who became jobless. Later,
another negative consequence emerged in the extreme shortage of qualified
language teachers, a situation the government attempted to remedy through
the recruitment of non-Libyan teachers from other countries.
In returning English to the Libyan curricula, considerable effort has been

devoted to filling the gap that arose from its cancellation, for instance the
introduction (in 2000) of a new curriculum for English at basic levels, and
24
moreover, opening training centres to assist English teachers in improving
their teaching proficiency and coping with the newly introduced syllabus. Many
scholarships for outstanding students to study abroad and to qualify in their
speciality were also granted. Students were able to learn English in the fifth
grade of their primary level upwards. In private schools, students became
exposed to English at an earlier age. Students at basic education were
exposed to a series of course books entitled English for Libya by Mustafa
Gusbi, in which units were organised into several sections, and each section
was dedicated to a specific area, such as grammar, vocabulary, listening, or
speaking. It is a highly demanding syllabus based on Communicative
Language Teaching, which comprises activities that ‘promote meaningful and
purposeful language use, receptive and productive, in oral and written
contexts’ (Orafi and Borg, 2009: 245). Preceding this series had been an older
book of five parts, Modern Readers, in which vocabulary acquisition was the
major focus. This had implemented the Grammar Translation Method (GTM),
by using repetition and ‘stereotypical lesson plans’ (Najeeb, 2013: 1248).
With respect to integrating technology in teaching English, the Ministry of

General Education in Libya highly recommended its use. This can be shown
by the outcomes of Emhamed and Krishnan’s (2011) study of existing positive
attitudes of Libyan teachers towards integrating technology in their lessons.
Despite the developments mentioned above, we cannot ignore the fact that
many challenges still hinder English language teaching in Libya. The GTM is
still adopted by some instructors, which results in the deterioration of learners’
proficiency (Saaid, 2010). Poor technological equipment in Libyan schools is
also a principle obstacle for both teachers, especially untrained ones, and
learners who get bored by the same routine in their lessons.
1.7 Teacher training in Libya
Gaddafi’s decision to ban the teaching of foreign languages (section 1.6)

badly affected the educational system in Libya. When Libyan EFL teachers
resumed teaching in 1993-1994, many problems were encountered. According
to Mohsen (2014), the ban resulted in a lack of qualified teachers, teaching
25
aids, language laboratories, and teacher training. To fill this gap, Libyan
universities recruited expatriates of different nationalities, from Arab,
European, and Asian countries, and Libyan EFL teachers were sent abroad to
complete their higher studies. Many of them went back home with specialist
skills, and a significant growth in staff at Libyan universities was noticed.
However, concerns were raised with regards to placing them in higher
educational positions (The Libyan National Commission for Education, Culture
and Science, 2004). The Commission (2004) pointed out the lack of sufficient
teacher training and called for the design of professional arrangements in this
regard. Studies such as those conducted by Orafi (2008), Orafi and Borg
(2009), and Ali (2016), found that Libyan EFL graduates are generally lacking
in speaking skills, which undoubtedly influences the nature of the teaching
approaches favoured (Orafi, 2008; Ali, 2016). Therefore, the need for
conducting intensive training programmes for new, as well as past graduates,
is crucial so that they can refresh their knowledge and practise more up-to-
date techniques for teaching English (Mohsen, 2014).
The Ministry of Education, in collaboration with other organisations, such as

the British Council, American Peace Corps, and UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), provided many in-service
courses for preparatory teachers in the period between 1960 to 1970. At that
time, less emphasis seemed to be placed on training university staff, which
may be because most of them were foreigners and had been chosen
according to certain standards. In the mid-2000s, some summer programmes
were organised for English teachers, but ‘The teachers were not very aware
of the benefits of training [and generally] they were not so active that they
shared in those courses’ (Mohsen, 2014: 61). This was perhaps because the
timing of the courses coincided with the teachers’ summer-vacation (ibid), or
because the teachers themselves were not convinced of the importance of
such programmes.
26
In 2008, more attention was paid to improving Libyan teachers’ skills and
knowledge in order to keep pace with methodological and pedagogical
developments, and as a result a specialised centre (The Central Centre for
Teacher Training) was established for this purpose (Mohsen, 2014). However,
this centre did not organise specific training for English teachers and thus did
not attract them to participate. Many university teachers still teach grammar,
and students are still weak and poor in language (ibid). In order to develop
learners’ productive and receptive skills, we should consider raising teachers’
teaching competence, which is at the core of the present thesis.
1.8 Goals of the present research
The research aims to explore whether instructing teachers in the use and
teaching of VLSs has any effect on improving teachers’ and students’
awareness and use of vocabulary learning strategies by:
a. Describing the current situation and identifying issues with regard to the
use of VLSs, teaching methods and attitudes.
b. Designing a VLST programme for teachers, who will be instructed (by

the researcher) in how to deliver its sessions to their students.
c. Evaluating the effectiveness of integrating a VLST programme on

increasing participants’ awareness and enhancing their use/promotion
of VLSs in real classroom settings.
1.9 Research questions, design, and hypothesis
The present research was designed to address the following questions - one
main question and three preliminary questions:
❖ Preliminary questions
1. What VLSs do Libyan EFL teachers at a university level
know/promote to their students?
2. What VLSs do Libyan EFL learners at a university level use / know?
27
3. To what extent do Libyan EFL teachers believe that VLSs can be
taught?
❖ Main question
4. Does training Libyan EFL teachers in how to teach the VLSs play
any significant role in vocabulary learning strategy use and
perceptions by either teachers or students?
In this research, I hypothesise that instructing EFL teachers and students in

the different VLSs will have some effect on vocabulary strategy
use/integration, either on learners or their teachers.
H0: Training Libyan EFL teachers in how to teach the VLSs does not play any
significant role in vocabulary strategy use, adoption or perceptions (by either
teachers or students).
Whereas the alternative hypotheses states that

H1: Training Libyan EFL teachers in how to teach the VLSs plays a significant
role in vocabulary strategy use, adoption and perceptions (by both teachers
and students).
To answer the research questions, three studies (chapters 3, 4 & 5) were

conducted in a predetermined order. Both qualitative and quantitative methods
were used in the investigations. Table 1 (next page) illustrates the type of study
– i.e. S1, S2, and S3, and instruments of data collection that were used to
answer each research question.
28
Table 1: Type of study and data collection methods employed to answer
research questions
Research Question Study employed Instrument/s
RQ1: What VLSs do

Libyan EFL teachers at a
university level
know/promote to their
Study1: overview of VLS questionnaire,
students?
the current situation semi-structured
RQ2: What VLSs do (chapter 3) interview, and
Libyan EFL learners at a classroom
university level use/know? observation
RQ3: To what extent do
Libyan EFL teachers
believe that VLSs can be
taught?
RQ4: Does training Libyan Study2: VLST Pre, post, and

teachers on how to teach programme (chapter delayed-
the VLSs play any 4) questionnaires, semi-
significant role in structured interview,
vocabulary strategy use classroom
and perceptions by either Study3: VLST trial observation,
teachers or students? and evaluation checklists, and end
(chapter 5) of evaluation form.
It should be borne in mind that, based on S1 results, S2 (the VLST

programme) was designed. Study 3 in the second part of the table involved
two stages, which were teachers’ training and students’ training, both of which
were thoroughly elaborated on in the above-mentioned chapter, that is,
Chapter 5.
1.10 Organisation of the thesis
In addition to the introductory chapter (i.e. chapter 1), this thesis includes six
chapters arranged as follows; literature review, overview of the current
situation (study 1), the VLST programme (study 2), trial and evaluation of the
VLST programme (study 3), summary of major findings, and finally, the
conclusion. The literature review covers the various areas of vocabulary, its
29
importance, taxonomies, learnability and teachability. This is followed by study
1 which centres around identifying the current situation in the context of study
(i.e. Libya) in terms of VLSs known, used or promoted and teaching methods
adopted. This study is used as a basis for designing study 2. Study 2 (chapter
4) describes the training programme, purposes, phases, and procedures. This
is followed by the trial and evaluation of the VLST programme study (chapter
5). Similarly to study 1, a multi-method approach is used to explore the effect
of the strategic intervention on teachers’ and students’ use, adoption, and
perceptions of usefulness. Each of the three studies is complete on its own,
i.e. contains its own results and discussion, and was devoted to answering
certain question/s, as indicated earlier in Table 1. Later, a summary of the
major findings gathered from the studies is presented, and these are
compared and contrasted with relevant literature. Lastly, the conclusion
completes the thesis by examining the extent to which the research questions
have been answered. Some implications, recommendations for further
research, and limitations are also identified in this chapter.
30
2.0: Literature Review
Over the years, there has been a large volume of published studies
describing the role of vocabulary and its learning strategies in second or
foreign language acquisition. The first serious discussions and analyses of
vocabulary learning strategies emerged during the late 1980s (Chamot &
O’Malley, 1987; Ahmed, 1988; Nation, 1997; Cook, 2008). Studies like Cohen,
1990; Brown & Payne, 1994; and Schmitt, 1997 were the initial attempts that
tried to classify the VLSs. Traditionally, vocabulary was ignored not only in
second or foreign language research but also in language teaching (Hashemi
& Aziznezhad, 2011). However, such neglect did not last long, as the
aforementioned studies and a plethora of linguists, theorists and psychologists
have provided us with useful information about vocabulary and vocabulary
learning strategies in particular, which have since been acknowledged as a
subclass of general language learning strategies (Oxford 1990: Schmitt, 1997;
Gu, 2003). Recently, there has been abundant research addressing the idea
that vocabulary is considered by learners to be a central and intrinsic element
among other parts of language learning and teaching. Meanwhile, limited
lexical knowledge has been considered as leading to receptive and productive
language difficulties. According to Shen (2003), it is crucial for both FL (foreign
language) learners and teachers to realise the role of having a sufficient
amount of vocabulary and its effect on the process of language acquisition.
2.1 Defining terms
Before reviewing literature concerning LLSs and VLSs, some terms require
clarification, showing how different researchers perceive them, and starting
with the term ‘vocabulary’.
Vocabulary is not simply a list of individual words; it is more complicated than

that. Knowing a word ‘means learning much more than just its meaning, with
the word’s form, associations, collocations, and grammatical patterns among
other things also needing to be acquired’ (Brown, 2010: 254). In the review of
the literature that has been conducted in the field of language teaching and
31
learning, it can be seen that various definitions of the concepts of ‘vocabulary’
and ‘word’ are revealed; depending on the particular approach. However,
finding a universal definition for the aforementioned terms seems to be difficult,
since to date there is no consensus about one specific clarification. In this
regard, Pavičić Takač attributed such a lack to the fact that:
…vocabulary of any language consists of a wide range of lexical

forms. Thus, many linguists and theorists of L2 acquisition agree
that vocabulary is made up of a variety of forms, such as
morphemes, both free and bound (e.g. laugh, or the prefix un-),
their combinations, i.e. derivatives (e.g. laughter, unbelievable),
compounds (e.g. bus conductor), idioms, i.e. units that cannot be
reduced or changed, and whose meaning cannot be retrieved from
individual meanings of their components (e.g. to bite the dust), and
other fixed expressions, such as binomials and trinomials (e.g. sick
and tired; ready, willing and able), catchphrases (e.g. they don’t
make them like that anymore), prefabricated routines or prefabs
(e.g. if I were you), greetings (e.g. How do you do?) and proverbs
(e.g. It never rains but it pours). This list of formal categories
indicates a tremendous heterogeneity and a wide range of lexical
items, but is by no means complete and absolute, nor are the
categories strictly demarcated: their overlap is inevitable. It is this
aspect that places vocabulary on the boundaries between
morphology, syntax and semantics. (2008: 6)
Perhaps for such reasons and others, Harley (1996: 3) described vocabulary
knowledge as ‘a disarmingly simple term for a complex multidimensional
phenomenon’. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that vocabulary is the
building blocks in a language, and that ‘One cannot speak, understand, read
or write a foreign language without knowing a lot of words. Therefore,
vocabulary learning is at the heart of mastering a foreign language’ (Rubin and
Thompson, 1994: 79). This shows indirectly that the more vocabulary that is
stored, the easier it is to express our notions and access background
knowledge.
32
The word ‘Strategy’, on the other hand, describes the particular ‘attacks’ that
people make on a given problem; they are the moment-by-moment methods
that people utilise to resolve issues posed by second / foreign language input
and output (Brown, 2001). The word ‘strategy’ in itself is a military term
(Oxford, 1990) that came to be used to refer to plans for military operations.
This term dates back to the ancient Greeks and ‘strategia’, which means a
high-level plan to achieve one or more objectives under uncertain conditions
(Zare-ee and Salami, 2014: 120(. In time, the word strategy became very
common in various fields of life such as politics, games, business and
education, where it has been switched into language learning strategies
(Trendak, 2015) and vocabulary learning strategies. Throughout this chapter,
the terms language learning strategies and vocabulary learning strategies will
be defined and discussed in depth.
2.2 Vocabulary importance
Traditionally, it has been emphasised that ‘Lexical problems frequently

interfere with communication (which in turn) breaks down when people do not
use the right words’ (Allen, 1983: 5). Put differently, a limited range of lexis
impedes language use and production, since the more vocabulary people are
able to use correctly, the better their ability to express themselves with self-
confidence, and the better their understanding of the world they live in (Nandy
1994: 1). Mastering vocabulary on the other hand, is an essential component
of language learning, as ‘If language structures make up the skeleton of
language, then it is vocabulary that provides the vital organ and flesh’ (Harmer,
1997: 153). Similarly, Taylor (1992: 30) asserts that, ‘Vocabulary permeates
everything language learners or language teachers do in an English language
class, whichever skill or language point is being practised’. Thus, people need
to have adequate vocabulary to use in their conversations, as well as to
facilitate their understanding of what they hear and read. Perhaps Wilkins best
summed up the importance of vocabulary by saying, ‘There is not much value
in being able to produce grammatical sentences if one has not got the
vocabulary that is needed to convey what one wishes to say … without
33
grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be
conveyed’ (1972: 11). Undoubtedly, grammar is essential in a language
learning classroom, but when compared to vocabulary, it becomes less
important (Flower, 2000). In fact, weak storage of vocabulary affects learners’
comprehension of both receptive and productive language use (Nation, 1990).
Thus, the necessity of building up a much larger lexical repertoire is crucial,
and to overcome such a problem, learners need to adopt some assisting
strategies. Richards and Renandya (2002: 255) point out that:
…without extensive vocabulary and strategies for acquiring new

vocabulary, learners often achieve less than their potential and
may be discouraged from making use of language learning
opportunities around them such as listening to the radio, listening
to native speakers, using language in different contexts, reading,
or watching television.
Consequently, achieving language learning success requires obtaining an

extensive vocabulary, but this not to say that we should neglect grammar
completely. Language learners usually report a lack of vocabulary as the major
obstacle impeding their successful communication. This may explain why
most of them usually carry their dictionaries with them, not their grammar
books.
To sum up, we can see how valuable vocabulary is, since having a good
lexical repertoire seems to be an essential and fundamental element for
language learners. Without a substantial lexicon, mastering any of the four
skills of language is difficult to achieve. Linguists and educators now generally
recognise the importance of vocabulary, and what we see today in the field of
language teaching and learning is good proof of this. On the basis that the
present study focuses on vocabulary learning strategies, particularly on VLST
(Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training), some literature concerning VLSs will
be reviewed. As vocabulary learning strategies are considered a subgroup of
language learning strategies, which in turn are considered a part of general
34
language learning strategies (Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1997; Nation 2013), it will
be worth briefly mentioning LLSs before discussing VLSs in detail.
2.3 Language learning strategies (LLSs)
As mentioned in the previous section, in order to establish a clear idea of

what VLSs are, some issues concerning LLSs need to be identified, such as
their definition and classification. For this reason, this section will look at the
different definitions and taxonomies that have been created in this domain.
With regard to a definition of LLSs, there is a degree of uncertainty around

such terminology in the literature, and finding a universal definition for the term
is rather difficult. Different scholars define LLSs differently, and thus a number
of definitions for LLSs have been used within the field of second / foreign
language learning. Two of the first people who approached the idea of
successful language learners and brought the concept of LLSs to a wider
audience were Rubin (1975) and Stern (1975). Rubin viewed learning
strategies, as ‘The techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire
knowledge’ (1975: 43). Later, she defined them as ‘Strategies which contribute
to the development of the language system which learners construct and affect
learning directly’ (1987: 22-23). According to O’Malley and Chamot’s
terminology, language learning strategies are defined as ‘Special thoughts or
behaviours that individuals use to comprehend, learn, or retain new
information’ (1990: 1). Similarly, Oxford (1994: 1) considers them as ‘Actions,
behaviours, steps, or techniques students use, often unconsciously, to
improve their progress in apprehending, internalising, and using the L2’. Later,
Chamot (2004: 14) described them as ‘The thoughts and actions that
individuals use to accomplish a learning goal’.
In terms of strategy training, Oxford (1990: 8) supposed that language

learners make use of LLSs in order ‘to make (their) learning more enjoyable,
more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations’.
Such a view upholds the idea that language learners can benefit from strategy
training since it enhances their self-direction and ability during the learning
35
process. Interestingly, Oxford (1990: 9), in her presentation of the twelve
features of language learning strategies, particularly the tenth argument (see
Table 2 below), clearly confirmed the notion of strategy training/instruction by
frankly saying that LLSs can be taught.
It is my intention to shed some more light on the teachability of LLSs,

particularly VLSs, and their impact on teachers’ and students’ adoption and
perceptions of usefulness of such strategies. The features of LLSs in general,
suggested by Oxford (1990), are worth considering since they share some
common aspects with vocabulary learning strategies.
Table 2: Features of language learning strategies
Language Learning Strategies
• Contribute the main goal, communicative competence.

• Language learning strategies allow learners to become more self-
directed.
• Expand the role of language teachers.
• Are problem-oriented.
• Are specific actions taken by the learner.
• Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive.
• Support learning both directly and indirectly.
• Are not always observable.
• Are often conscious.
• Can be taught.
• Are flexible.
• Are influenced by a variety of factors.
Source: Language Learning Strategies (Oxford, 1990: 9)
With regard to the above, it seems obvious that there is diversity in defining
LLSs, but generally, all definitions appear to some extent to share the same
notions in terms of aiding language learners to become more effective, flexible
and independent in their learning, and this could happen via finding different
ways to empower those learners. In this research though, my own working
definition will be that LLSs are any actions, behaviours and thoughts
intentionally operated by language learners to facilitate their language
learning.
36
2.3.1 Language learning strategies classification
The literature on LLSs has classified several taxonomies. In this section

however, a historical perspective will be adopted while presenting the
taxonomies so as to show how their systems developed and were modified
over time. It should be borne in mind that the present thesis is mainly focused
on the teachability of vocabulary learning strategies, which are a subgroup of
LLSs, and due to wording restrictions only brief examples of LLS typologies
will be mentioned. I will start with one of the earliest taxonomies developed in
this regard, which was proposed by O’Malley et al. (1985). In their typology,
LLSs are divided into metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies and
social/affective strategies. The first includes advance organizers, directed
attention, selective attention and self-management, while cognitive strategies
comprise repetition, translation, grouping, imagery and transfer.
Social/affective, which is the last group of this taxonomy, involves co-operation
and questioning for clarification. With respect to the training, O’Malley et al.’s
study demonstrated that combining strategic intervention with integrative
language skills does indeed have a positive impact on target language
learning.
Rubin’s (1987) classification of LLSs on the other hand, helped to distinguish

strategies that can contribute directly to learning from those that indirectly
contribute to learning. According to Rubin (1987), there are three types of
strategies that assist directly or indirectly in language learning. These are
learning strategies, communication strategies and social strategies. Rubin’s
typology however, has been/is often criticised for its overlap. That is to say
that the strategies listed in her taxonomy ‘did not exclude each other and
frequently turned up in more than a single grouping’ (Trendak, 2015: 68).
In 1990, another noteworthy taxonomy was offered by Oxford. In this

taxonomy, Oxford identified six sub-categories which were divided into two
main groups, direct and indirect strategies. The former category comprises
memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies, while
37
the second one includes metacognitive strategies, affective strategies and
social strategies. Oxford’s classification is deemed to be one of the more
comprehensive taxonomies since it is based on typology dating back to 1985
and it was later amended and improved (Trendak, 2015). However, Oxford’s
taxonomy has been criticised by a number of researchers. Ellis (1994), for
example, pointed out that in this taxonomy L2 learning strategies and L2 using
strategies were not clearly distinguished. Moreover, compensation strategies
were gathered under learning strategies, which established a debatable issue
for some linguists. According to Oxford (1996: 142), compensation strategies
allow learners ‘to communicate in the target language despite limitations in
their knowledge (and they) can be used for any of the four basic language
skills’. Indeed, some certain compensatory strategies (e.g. using miming and
gestures) are more applicable in speaking, while other compensation
strategies such as coining words and using synonyms can be used for both
productive and receptive skills (ibid).
In 1992, Stern identified five types of LLS. These were management and
planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative-experimental
strategies, interpersonal strategies and affective strategies. With management
and planning strategies, the learner has to set a goal that will be within his/her
reach and assess their achievement in the light of that goal. Cognitive
strategies, according to Stern (1992), are the techniques that learners use
when they engage in their study and practice of the target language. The third
type of Stern’s taxonomy, communicative-experimental strategies, aim mainly
to avoid message breakdown and to convey it adequately by, for example,
using gesturing and paraphrasing. The fourth type is interpersonal strategies,
which language learners can use to overcome the social problems they
encounter when they learn the target language. Lastly, there are affective
strategies, which involve creating favourable conditions and defeating the
inevitable issues of negative affect (Stern, 1992).
Drawing upon the above, it seems obvious that the classification system of
LLSs has witnessed considerable progress, moving from a simple system
38
towards a more thorough one (Trendak, 2015). In general, problems regarding
finding an inclusive categorisation remain unresolved, and thus it is advisable
to continue investigations in this area. Too many terms and classification
systems are offered in this field, and researchers are still puzzled as to which
taxonomy to follow when carrying out strategy research (Hsiao & Oxford,
2002). However, as the current study is based on the idea of
training/instruction in the different types of VLSs in a real classroom
environment, the following section is dedicated to reviewing studies
concerning vocabulary learning strategies before handling VLS taxonomies in
detail.
2.4 Vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs)
Learning vocabulary at a feasible pace demands finding effective ways to

improve word power. Spending a lot of time teaching words that fulfil all
learners’ needs, on the other hand, is fruitless since no one can teach learners
all the words they need, especially if their proficiency levels vary. Therefore,
finding powerful methods to make vocabulary learning easier and quicker is
the students’ responsibility, and because most language learners are
generally unaware of VLSs (Asgari & Mustapha, 2011), teachers should also
be aware of such strategies and should present sets of VLSs (Oxford, 2003)
so that students can pick and apply the ones that suit their learning style.
Although the validity of learning styles is still causing a certain amount of
disagreement amongst researchers as they are not accepted by everyone
(Coffield et al., 2004), Oxford (2003) asserts that the fruitfulness of strategies
should require, amongst others, fitting the student’s particular learning style to
one degree or another. However, Coffield et al., in their study, identified 71
different learning styles, 13 of them categorised as major models, but generally
found no evidence to support their validity.
In terms of EFL language learning and teaching in non-English speaking

environments (e.g. Libya), where exposure to language is very limited, the
necessity of the aforementioned strategies becomes urgent. Having this in
mind, the prime concern of this study is the VLST that will be introduced to
teachers, who in turn, will explicitly deliver the VLST sessions to their learners
39
and guide them in choosing and using the appropriate strategies that would
assist them in acquiring vocabulary on their own. Before discussing this, it is
better to look at the VLS definitions and classifications.
By definition, VLSs are specific techniques, actions and devices adopted by

learners to ease and boost their vocabulary learning. This definition is close to
that of Asgari and Mustapha (2011: 85) who describe VLSs as ‘steps taken by
the language learners to acquire new English words’. For Schmitt (1997: 203),
vocabulary learning strategies ‘could be any action which affects this rather
broadly-defined process’. Meanwhile, Pavičić Takač states that by the means
of VLSs learners can ‘discover lexical items (both their meaning and form),
and internalise, store, retrieve and actively use these in language production’
(2008: 106). Lately, Saengpakdeejit has defined VLSs as ‘an attempt or
attempts made by language learners while encountering vocabulary problems
to discover the meanings of unknown words, to retain the newly learned words
in long-term memory and to recall them at will’ (2014: 1102). Catalan, on the
other hand, provides a more detailed definition for VLSs. According to her
(2003: 56), vocabulary learning strategies are:
Knowledge about the mechanisms (processes, strategies) used

in order to learn vocabulary as well as steps or actions taken by
students to a) find out the meaning of unknown words, b) retain
them in long-term memory, c) recall them at will, and d) use them
in oral or written model.
In the present research, the definition suggested by Catalan (2003) will be

adopted due to the following: Firstly, Catalan’s definition seems more thorough
as it summarises previous scholars’ thoughts such as those of Rubin (1987),
Oxford (1990), and Schmitt (1997), and thus it comprises the various goals
proposed in the VLS definitions provided by previous scholars. Secondly,
Catalan’s definition involves the desired purpose of conducting strategy
training instruction, which is expanding knowledge of VLSs - one of the current
research aims.
40
As noted earlier, having an adequate store of vocabulary appears essential
for EFL/ESL learners since it has been considered as key in building up the
different skills, i.e. reading, writing, speaking and listening. Finding appropriate
and effective ways that assist in comprehending, retaining and recalling the
learned words is of utmost importance to language learners, and due to its
significance, it was suggested that ‘Presenting vocabulary learning strategies
should be the prime concern [not only for language learners, but also] for
course book writers, materials developers, syllabus designers, decision-
makers and finally, teachers’ (Bastanfar, 2010: 159). By looking at previous
definitions, it can be understood that VLSs are largely used to facilitate the
learning of lexis via discovering the meaning of obscure words, retaining them
and remembering them when needed. This suggests that the definition of
VLSs seems to stem from that of LLSs (See section 2.3 for more information).
In response to the growth of research on vocabulary learning strategies, many
taxonomies have been suggested in order to classify them. The next section
will be devoted to discussing the classification systems of VLSs, and in doing
so a historical perspective will be adopted.
2.4.1 Classifications of vocabulary learning strategies
On the whole, VLSs are a subset of language learning strategies, which in

turn come under the umbrella of general learning strategies (Nation, 2001).
Thus far, research has tended to concentrate on VLSs rather than LLSs, and
what we see now from proposing different taxonomies for VLSs is proof of this,
despite the fact that studies in the field of vocabulary learning strategies are
still characterised by the lack of any comprehensive list or taxonomy (Schmitt,
1997). According to Schmitt (1997: 199), the reason for this is the fact that:
The research which has been done on vocabulary learning

strategies has tended to deal with individual or small numbers of
strategies, with very few studies looking at the group as a whole.
(Therefore) the current state of the area is typified by the lack of a
comprehensive list or taxonomy of lexically-focused strategies.
41
However, similarly to language learning strategies, several classifications for
VLSs have been offered by a number of scholars. Examples of these
taxonomies will be outlined chronologically in this section to highlight the
improvements in the VLSs field, beginning with Stoffer’s (1995) taxonomy, and
with specific attention given to Schmitt’s (1997) classification of VLSs in line
with the present study.
Stoffer (1995) was one of the earliest people to develop a taxonomy in this
regard and is therefore worth noting. In her study, a questionnaire comprising
53 items on the vocabulary learning strategy inventory was designed to assess
VLSs specifically via factor analysis to cluster the 53 items into nine categories
as follows:
▪ Strategies involving authentic language use.
▪ Strategies used for self-motivation.
▪ Strategies used to organize words.
▪ Strategies used to create mental linkages.
▪ Memory strategies.
▪ Strategies involving creative activities.
▪ Strategies involving physical action.
▪ Strategies used to overcome anxiety.
▪ Auditory strategies.
Stoffer (1995) administrated her questionnaire to 707 students at the

University of Alabama, enrolled in Spanish, German, Russian, French, and
Japanese as foreign languages. Her study revealed that strategies for creating
mental linkages were the most frequently utilised ones, with the strategy of
connecting an L2 with an L1 coming top. According to Kudo (1999), individual
vocabulary learning strategies have been progressively investigated but only
Stoffer (1995) and Schmitt (1997) have researched them as a whole group.
However, Stoffer’s taxonomy does not seem complete since it has been
criticised for the absence of detailed statistical data to support the categories
(Kudo, 1999). This may explain why Stoffer’s (1995) classification was not
accepted by other scholars, and why a subsequent generation of empirical
studies do not employ it.
42
A year later, Gu and Johnson (1996) developed another taxonomy for
vocabulary learning strategies. In their system, they identified the following
types of VLSs: a) beliefs about vocabulary learning, b) metacognitive
regulation, c) guessing strategies, d) dictionary strategies, e) note-taking
strategies, f) rehearsal strategies (memory), g) memory encoding strategies,
and h) activation strategies. The rationale behind their study was to compare
the frequency of VLS use with learners’ beliefs about vocabulary learning, level
of improvement of learners’ vocabulary, and learning success. Section 2.4.3
provides more information about this study.
However, to date the most prominent typology of vocabulary learning

strategies is that offered by Schmitt (1997), in an attempt to overcome the
drawbacks of previous research that had lacked large-scale studies based on
comprehensive classifications. Although Schmitt’s taxonomy, according to
Pavičić Takač (2008: 71),
Includes only major vocabulary learning strategies based on the

author’s subjective estimation, [and occasionally it is] difficult to
decide whether a procedure qualifies as an individual and
independent strategy or is merely one of its variations whose
number would be too huge for a classification to be manageable,
It is currently considered the most comprehensive classification of this

subgroup of learning strategies and therefore needs to be investigated in more
detail (Pavičić Takač, 2008).
For the purpose of the current study, this particular taxonomy is deemed to
be the most comprehensible and standardized for the assessment goals. By
utilising it, the participants’ answers can be gathered easily. It is based on the
theory of learning strategies as well as on theories of memory. This taxonomy
is technologically simple and can be applied to learners of different educational
backgrounds and target languages. Finally, it is rich and sensitive to the other
43
relevant learning strategies, and allows comparisons with other studies
(Catalan, 2003).
Although Schmitt (1997) believed that Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of LLSs was
unsatisfactory in categorizing vocabulary-specific strategies, he developed his
system based on it. This may mean that Oxford’s taxonomy was fundamentally
on the right track but incomplete. Therefore, Schmitt (1997) adopts only four
out of six strategy groups of Oxford’s taxonomy, which are: cognitive,
metacognitive, social and memory, and he does not involve affective strategies
in his classification of VLSs. Furthermore, he notes that in Oxford’s system
there is no category ‘which adequately describes the kind of strategies used
by an individual when faced with discovering a new word's meaning without
recourse to another person's expertise’ (p. 205). As a result, a new category,
which is called determination strategies, was added. In Schmitt’s classification,
the strategies are grouped into two main dimensions as discovery strategies
and consolidation strategies (see Table 3). In this case, he distinguished the
strategies that are ‘useful for the initial discovery of a word's meaning’ from
those that are ‘useful for remembering that word once it has been introduced’
(Schmitt, 2000: 135). Discovery strategies include nine determination
strategies and five social strategies, whereas consolidation strategies
encompass three social strategies, 27 memory strategies, nine cognitive
strategies and five metacognitive strategies. In total, Schmitt’s taxonomy
comprises 58 VLSs that were obtained from a survey of 600 Japanese EFL
students. Table 3 on the next page illustrates Schmitt’s classification of
vocabulary learning strategies.
44
Table 3: Schmitt’s (1997) classification of VLSs
Strategies for the discovery of new word’s meaning
Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been
DET Analyse part of speech encountered
DET Analyse affixes and roots
DET Check for L1 cognate MEM Study the spelling of a word
DET Analyse any available pictures or gestures MEM Study the sound of a word
DET Guess from textual context MEM Say new word aloud when studying
DET Bilingual dictionary MEM Image word form
DET Monolingual dictionary MEM Underline initial letter of the word
DET Word lists MEM Configuration
DET Flash cards MEM Use the Keyword Method
SOC Ask teacher for an L1 translation MEM Affixes and Roots (remembering)
SOC Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of new word MEM Part of Speech (remembering)
SOC Ask teacher for a sentence including the new word MEM Paraphrase the words meaning
SOC Ask classmates for meaning MEM Use cognates in study
SOC Discover new meaning through group work activity MEM Learn the words of an idiom together
MEM Use Physical action when learning a word
MEM Use semantic feature grids
Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been encountered COG Verbal repetition
COG Written Repetition
SOC Study and practice meaning in a group COG Word Lists
SOC Teacher checks students’ word lists for accuracy COG Flash Cards
SOC Interact with native speakers COG Take notes in class
MEM Study word with a pictorial representation of its meaning COG Use the vocabulary section in your textbook
MEM Image word's meaning COG Listen to tape of word lists
MEM Connect word to a personal experience COG Put English labels on physical objects
MEM Associate the word with its coordinates COG Keep a vocabulary notebook
MEM Connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms MET Use English-language media (songs, movies, newscasts,
MEM Use Semantic maps etc.)
MEM Use 'scales' for gradable adjectives MET Testing oneself with word tests
MEM Peg Method MET Use spaced word practice
MEM Loci Method MET Skip or pass new word
MEM Group words together to study them MET Continue to study word over time
MEM Group words together spatially on a page
MEM Use new word in sentences
MEM Group words together within a storyline
Note: SOC= Social strategies, DET= Determination strategies, MEM= Memory
strategies, COG= Cognitive strategies, MET= Metacognitive strategies.
45
Although the typology offered by Schmitt was a pioneering one, it attracted
some criticism. For example, it was argued that the distinction between
cognitive and memory strategies is difficult to achieve since both groups of
strategies are employed in remembering words through some form of
language manipulation (Pavičić Takač, 2008). To overcome such
shortcomings, Schmitt decided to classify all the strategies that are not clearly
related to mental manipulation, such as repetition, as cognitive strategies,
whereas those strategies that are similar to traditional mnemonic techniques,
like associations, as memory strategies. Nevertheless, there are some
researchers who are still not fully satisfied with the aforementioned solution
(ibid).
As a starting point, Kudo (1999) utilised Schmitt’s (1997) categorisation in

designing his study that later resulted in offering another noteworthy
classification scheme of vocabulary learning strategies. In his taxonomy,
memory and cognitive strategies are combined into psycholinguistic strategy,
whereas metacognitive and social strategies are merged into metacognitive
strategy as a result of exploratory factor analyses. Determination strategies
are also removed as a result of factor analysis. Kudo (1999), in his study,
aimed mainly to explore the frequency of individual strategy use and to put
together a typology of VLSs (Pavičić Takač, 2008). His results however,
showed that Japanese learners do not prefer using the strategies that require
deep cognitive processing and usually opt for employing the traditional
strategies of mechanical rote learning. Kudo’s (1999) classification is widely
used in research studies due to its standardisation for assessment goals,
technological simplicity, its ease of use in gathering responses from language
learners, and its richness and sensitivity to the other relevant learning
strategies (Kalajahi, 2012). Figure 1 illustrates Kudo’s (1999) taxonomy of
VLSs.
46
Figure 1: Kudo’s (1999) taxonomy of VLSs
Two years later, another VLS taxonomy was proposed by Nation (2001). In
this typology, vocabulary learning strategies are divided into three general
classes: planning, sources and processes, each of which entails a subset of
different strategies. Planning involves choosing words, choosing the aspects
of word knowledge, choosing strategies, and planning repetition. The sources
category on the other hand, contains analysing the word, using context,
consulting a reference in L1 or L2, and using parallels in L1 and L2. Finally,
the processes category includes noticing, retrieving, and generating.
Compared to other VLS classifications, Nation’s (2001) taxonomy is purely
theoretical and does not stem from empirical research (Bastanfar, 2010). In
terms of strategy training, Nation, in his recent publications, suggests it be a
part of a vocabulary development programme (Kalajahi, 2012).
The successive research on finding an exclusive classification for

vocabulary learning strategies is still ongoing. After Nation’s (2001) study, Fan
(2003), Marin (2006), Winke & Abbuhl (2007), and Zhang & Li (2011) made
their attempts in the field of strategy classification. Fan, for example,
conducted a large scale project in which vocabulary tests and strategy
questionnaires were completed by 1,067 university students. In the study, Fan
distinguished nine categories of vocabulary learning strategies, which are:
management (contains metacognitive and social/affective strategies),
47
sources, guessing, dictionary, repetition, association, grouping, analysis, and
known words.
Marin (2006) on the other hand, developed her taxonomy of VLSs from a
questionnaire that was distributed to 150 students at the University of
Quintana, Mexico. In her classification, VLSs were grouped into three main
classes: (1) dealing with unknown vocabulary items (includes guessing,
dictionary use, and asking others), (2) note-taking (involves places where
notes are kept, like word cards; kind of information noted down, like synonyms;
and organization of notes, like alphabetical order), and (3) memorising /
retaining vocabulary (comprises repetition, association, and further practice).
After Marin (2006), Winke and Abbuhl (2007) classified vocabulary learning
strategies into three categories: Input-based strategies (i.e. extensive reading
and asking for L1 translation), output-based strategies (i.e. taking notes and
speaking with native speakers), and cognition-based strategies (i.e.
mnemonics and contextual guessing). Finally, in a more recent attempt, Zhang
and Li (2011) proposed their taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies
basing on the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of strategies, and
identified a six-part classification of vocabulary strategies, four of which are
related to the cognitive process in lexical acquisition and the other two of which
are metacognitive and affective factors.
To conclude, in this section I aimed to outline as many taxonomies as

possible so as to show that within the area of vocabulary learning strategies
new classifications have emerged. Roughly speaking, despite the slight
differences among the different taxonomies cited above in terms of the
categorisation that they follow, they all present a list of extensively applicable
vocabulary learning strategies to aid language learners in their learning of
lexis. By addressing the mentioned taxonomies, it was found that Schmitt’s
(1997) classification best serves the purposes of the present study, as
mentioned previously, since the principal pursuit of this study is strategy
training and this particular taxonomy includes almost all the different types of
VLSs that students may need. It would be fruitful to concisely provide
background information about the factors that may affect strategy choice
48
before addressing some of the research works that are concerned with VLSs
in an EFL context.
2.4.2 Factors influencing the choice of VLSs
The variation of strategy choice and use among language learners seems to
be affected by several factors. Oxford (1990) for instance, pointed out some
variables that could be associated with strategy use. To her, such factors are
motivation, gender, age, cultural background, brain hemisphere dominance,
career orientation, academic major, beliefs, and the nature of the L2 task.
Later, Ellis (1994) grouped the affecting factors under three broad categories:
a) individual learner differences, b) social and situational factors, and c)
learners’ learning outcomes. The next figure explains the aforementioned
variables:
Figure 2: Ellis’s (1994) factors that affect the choice of VLSs
For Pavičić Takač (2008), the role of L1 or other languages, the complexity
of the learning context, memory, the source of vocabulary, individual learners’
differences, the role of the teachers, and vocabulary teaching strategies are
the prime variables that influence the choice of vocabulary learning strategies,
whereas Schmitt (2000: 133) sees that the effectiveness with which learning
49
strategies can be taught and used depends on proficiency level, L1 and
culture, motivation and purposes for learning a language, the task and text
being used, and the nature of the language itself. Indeed Arabic (the
participants’ L1) markedly differs from English and the debate on the role of
L1 in L2 classroom has been an ongoing. The strategy instruction (in this
study) will be more effective when the participants’ mother tongue is used
(Bastanfar and Hashemi, 2010). From a cognitive prospective, researchers
such as Storch and Wigglesworth (2003) asserted that the use of L1 provides
cognitive support for ESL/EFL learners during language analysis as well as in
the completion of tasks that demand cognitive processing. It also serves a
number of functions, involving recruiting and maintaining interest in the
mission as well as evolving techniques to facilitate the task and make it more
manageable (ibid). Therefore, in this study, L1 will be used as a mediator for
the communication. The actual strategy instruction will be in English, simplified
as much as possible, and supported in Arabic.
Since there are a great number of variables that could interact with learning
strategies, I will exemplify some of them to show how they affect the choice of
strategies. Learners’ age, for instance, is regarded as a variable playing an
important role in the selection of learning strategies (Trendak, 2015). Ellis
(1994: 541) notes that ‘age emerges as a clear factor affecting the way
strategies are used’. He claims that older learners tend to use more advanced
strategies than young learners, who in turn preferred to employ simple ones.
Perhaps this could be attributed to the fact that adults are better and faster at
learning vocabulary and grammar rules than young learners. Of course, this is
not always the case, but it is likely to happen. Another example of key factors
that determine strategy selection and use is ethnicity.
Trendak (2015) reviewed several studies that dealt with nationality and
ethnicity variables and their influence in the process of language learning, and
concluded that the role of such factors in choosing and using strategies cannot
be downplayed. According to her, memorisation strategies are typical for Arab
cultures, and I mostly agree with her opinion in this regard. Based on my
50
experience in the teaching field, I can say that in Libya (the context of the
present study) more emphasis was and is still put on rote memorisation, L1
translation and grammar recognition. This confirms Oxford’s (1989: 242) view
that ‘Oriental students seem to prefer strategies involving rote memorisation
and language rules as opposed to more communicative strategies’. Sutter
(1987, cited in Oxford, 1989), in this vein, goes further by saying that if the
strategies being taught did not suit the learner’s national origin or cultural
background, disaster happened. Therefore, camouflaging the newly trained
strategies under the guise of familiar ones is essential (ibid).
Depending on the above discussion however, it can be understood that

language learners differ greatly from each other in their way of learning and
choosing the appropriate strategies that suit their learning style. Having
summarised what the variables that affect strategy choice are, I will now move
on to outline some previous works on VLSs within an EFL context which are
targeted by this study.
2.4.3 Research on vocabulary learning strategies within an

EFL context
One of the best-known and most frequently cited studies in this regard is
Schmitt’s (1997), in which 600 Japanese EFL learners were divided into four
groups: junior high school students, high school students, university students,
and adult learners. In his survey, he used a questionnaire of 40 discovery and
consolidation strategies to investigate strategy use and participants’
perceptions of the helpfulness of each strategy. As reported by Schmitt, the
target of the study was ‘to assess which vocabulary learning strategies
learners actually use and how helpful they believe them to be’ (1997: 199).
The study’s findings revealed that in discovery strategies the ‘bilingual
dictionary’ was the most used (85%) and most helpful (95%). For consolidation
strategies, ‘verbal and written repetitions’ came top in use (76%) and
helpfulness (91%), which is not surprising given the fact that in Asian
educational institutions, like those in the Arab world, more emphasis is placed
51
on rote learning strategies (Politzer & McGroarty, 1985). Conversely, ‘asking
the teacher to check students’ flash cards or word lists’ was the least frequently
used (3%) and the least helpful (39%) in consolidation strategies, while for
discovery strategies, ‘checking for L1 cognate’ was the most infrequently
utilised (11%) and least helpful (40%). Such an outcome is expected bearing
in mind the complete difference between the two languages, i.e. English and
Japanese, as cognates in Japanese are almost non-existent.
Prior to Schmitt, Ahmed (1989), and Gu and Johnson (1996) undertook other
prominent and large-scale surveys within an EFL context. Ahmed (1989) for
instance, examined the use of VLSs among 300 undergraduate Sudanese
students. In achieving that, he used think-aloud, observation and semi-
structured interviews. Results showed that good learners and poor learners
differ in strategy use since the former use strategies more than the latter.
Successful learners, according to him, were aware of the learning process,
recognised the importance of learning vocabulary in context, and were
conscious of the semantic correlation between new and previously learned
items. In contrast, unsuccessful learners made use of fewer strategies, showed
little awareness, and avoided active practice (Ahmed, 1989). Furthermore, he
found that note taking and dictionary strategies were the most frequently used
among the participants.
Gu and Johnson (1996), on the other hand, investigated the relationship

between the use of vocabulary learning strategies and its outcomes in learning
English. A vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire of 91 items was
distributed to 850 Chinese sophomores at Beijing University. The findings of
the study revealed that the participants in general ‘did not dwell on
memorisation, and reported using more meaning-oriented strategies than rote
strategies in learning vocabulary’ (p. 668). On the basis of their study’s results,
they grouped learners into five types based on their approach (readers, active
strategy users, non-coders, coders, and passive strategy users). In their
research, only the questionnaire was used in their data collection, which led
some researchers to criticise the study in terms of data triangulation (Tassana-
52
ngam, 2004). In this regard, Nation (2001) also remarked about the data
gathered from the use of a self-report questionnaire in Gu and Johnson’s study.
He said, ‘…what learners say they do does not always represent what they
actually do’ (2001: 226).
At more or less the same time, Lawson and Hogben (1996) explored the
kinds of VLSs used by 15 Australian students when learning 12 Italian words.
They employed interviews and think-aloud methods in their investigation.
Based on the aforementioned methods, they classified 15 VLSs under four
categories: a) repetition, b) word feature analysis, c) simple elaboration, and
d) complex elaboration. In their study, they came to the conclusion that
learners who used more strategies more often recalled more of the learned
words than those who used less strategies. Additionally, they found that
repetition strategies were the most frequently utilised, as well as elaboration
strategies and deliberate mnemonic strategies, which were superior to
repetition in helping to recall words, and word feature analysis strategies. In
comparison, large scale studies, as noted earlier, were not the only way to
explore the domain of strategy utilisation, and mini-studies were also used,
with Gu’s (2003) being a good example of this. In this study, only two
successful Chinese EFL learners, who were not English majors, participated.
Instruments such as think-aloud, reading tasks and interviews were used to
investigate the use of VLSs. Gu’s results showed that the two participants were
indeed aware of the importance of the vocabulary that should be integrated
with language use, and they demonstrated high levels of self-initiation, and
employed a wide range of VLSs. The value of conducting interviews in such
studies was also revealed. In this regard, the present study will also use
interviews as a method of collecting data. Indeed, while the sample size in
Gu’s study was small by any standard, the research came up with a valuable
taxonomy of VLSs, in which they were classified as cognitive, metacognitive,
memory and activation strategies.
Research on vocabulary learning strategies within an EFL context is still

ongoing. Recently, Arjomand and Sharififar (2011) aimed to explore the
53
correlation between gender and vocabulary learning strategy use among 80
Iranian EFL freshmen students. Their findings showed that social strategies
were the least frequently used by both genders, and that there was no
significant difference in the performance of males and females. In general,
they found that female students were more eager to use cognitive and
determination strategies, whereas male students favoured using
metacognitive and cognitive strategies. In a more recent attempt,
Saengpakdeejit (2014) examined the types of VLSs used by 63 undergraduate
Thai EFL students at Khon Kaen University. A semi-structured interview was
employed in collecting data. Findings of the study showed that learners
displayed awareness of vocabulary learning strategies. By contrast, also
within an EFL context, Guduru’s (2014) study revealed that Saudi EFL learners
are unaware of most VLSs, thus they do not use them in their vocabulary
learning. It may be true that being aware of the different strategies is part of
the commonly accepted definition of VLSs, but this does not mean that people
can only use things that they are aware of, which is an issue that should be
borne in mind.
As discussed above, it can be seen that over the past few years, the field of
language learning strategies, particularly vocabulary learning strategies, has
attracted the attention of strategy researchers, and as a result numerous
studies have been conducted and are still taking place. Scholars’ successive
investigations have yielded numerous techniques. Many of those strategies
were theoretically or empirically examined and reported as positive, such as
using vocabulary clusters, the total physical response technique, the use of
real objects, dictionary look-up, the keyword method, self-initiated use of new
words, note taking, and synonyms (Oxford, 2013). However, many language
teachers and learners are unaware of such strategies and they seem to restrict
themselves to a limited selection for one reason or another. In such a case,
strategy training would be beneficial in equipping those teachers and learners
with a set of strategies so that they can deal with their language teaching and
learning on their own. This is what the current study aims to do. To put it
differently, if teachers are to be in a position to make their students aware of
54
various strategies that can aid their process of language learning, they should
first be familiar with the techniques that are available. Thus, the present study
hypothesises that if university teachers and students are instructed in
vocabulary learning strategy use, their awareness of VLSs’ importance will
increase and thus their use and adoption of such strategies will be promoted.
However, before delving more into this hypothesis, it is worth reviewing some
studies that involve training / instruction in VLSs and looking at their findings.
Furthermore, issues relating to teaching language learning strategies and
vocabulary instruction will be discussed in the upcoming section.
2.5 Teaching language learning strategies
Research into strategy training in second and foreign language contexts has
flourished recently, with its ultimate goal of answering whether training in
strategies would result in improvement in languages learners’ performance.
Although almost all the conducted studies, as we will see next, have
investigated the positive effects of direct strategy training in language learners’
achievement, it is rare to see works investigating the influence of direct
strategy instruction on the teachers’ side.
In relation to studies concerned strategy training, O’Malley (1987) carried out

one in this area, in which he focused on the impact of training in the use of
learning strategies. In his study, 75 high school students from different
nationalities participated. Those participants were placed into three groups: a
control group and two experimental groups. The control group did not receive
any strategy training, and were required to learn the words using their normal
methods, whereas the treatment groups were directly trained in implementing
learning strategies. Interestingly, the results of the study showed that the effect
of strategy training on Asian students is dissimilar to that on Hispanic learners,
since the former performed poorly in their post-tests, whereas the latter
showed a positive response to the training. Still, this experiment supported the
idea that LLSs could be teachable. Other studies on language learning
strategy instruction were performed (Cohen et al., 1996; Dadour & Robbins,
1996) which were a threshold for successive research either in the field of
language learning strategies or in vocabulary learning strategies.
55
Turning to strategy training, Oxford was one of the many researchers who
recognised that LLSs are teachable and trainable. In proclaiming this, she said
that literature has proven that the more exposure language learners have to
strategy training courses, the faster they learn the target language (1990).
Oxford also claimed that learning strategies are easy to teach and modify
through using strategy training. Nonetheless, although the success of strategy
training is consistently shown, studies still do not frequently affirm this claim
(Oxford, 2002). According to Oxford, this may be due to: a) the period of
strategy training being too short, b) the training task being difficult or
disproportionately easy, c) a lack of integration of the training into normal
classroom settings, and finally d) insufficient assessment of students’ initial
strategy use and needs (2002). In the current study, such problems will be
taken into account in order to ensure the study’s findings are reliable. As long
as the teachability and trainability of learning strategies have been proven
theoretically and practically (Al-Ghamdi, 2012), all that is needed now is to
determine a suitable approach to introduce the instruction programme for
learning strategies, which will be elaborated on in the next section.
2.5.1 Vocabulary instruction
Finding the best method that can be applied for vocabulary instruction is
hard to achieve (National Reading Panel, 2000), but previous research seems
to agree on two ways of teaching vocabulary, which are explicit instruction and
implicit instruction. The former type refers to teaching specific words directly,
such as by providing word roots or affixes analysis, whereas the latter means
teaching vocabulary incidentally via exposing language learners to extensive
reading (Sedita, 2005). Although many scholars such as O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) favoured using the explicit approach, this does not mean the
role of the implicit approach should be ignored, since teaching students all the
required words is difficult to achieve. According to Tseng and Schmitt, the
implicit approach is fruitful ‘at enhancing knowledge of words that have already
been introduced because it fills in the contextual knowledge that cannot be
easily taught explicitly’ (2008: 4). This interpretation seems to contrast with
56
that of Oxford (2002: 126) who argued that ‘Blind training, in which students
are led to use certain strategies without realizing it, is less successful,
particularly in the transfer of strategies to new tasks’. She adds that the best
way to make training successful is for it to be woven into normal class
activities. Language teachers, according to Pavičić Takač (2008), indeed
intuitively allude to vocabulary learning strategies in their teaching of the target
language, but such an implicit approach to strategy training does not seem to
be useful enough in terms of its influence on students’ choices and application
of VLSs. To overcome this issue, Pavičić Takač believes that the solution lies
in the type of approach chosen, and in this case, he opts for the explicit one.
By means of this approach, according to him, we could raise learners’
awareness of their own strategies, introduce them to new ones, and give them
any opportunity to apply, analyse and adopt new VLSs (p. 149).
In the late twentieth century, the attention seems to be drawn away from the
learners to the teachers, resulting in the proposal of new approaches for
vocabulary teaching and learning. Oxford and Scarcella (1994) for example,
offered a new ‘research-based approach to L2 vocabulary instruction’, in which
the emphasis is placed on vocabulary learning strategy training while bearing
in mind learners’ different needs, goals and styles in terms of vocabulary
instruction. In this approach teachers guide students to use strategies
effectively and give them opportunities to practise the skills inside their class.
According to the authors (1994: 235), the research-based approach centres
on five points:
a) Teachers are recommended to carefully consider the words that

students need to know.
b) Vocabulary instruction should be tailored to suit individual students,
such as in learning styles, needs and goals.
c) Learners should be taught how to continue independently to improve
their vocabulary learning.
d) Vocabulary learning strategies should be emphasised.
57
e) Finally, more emphasis should be given to implementing a variety of
fully contextualized (e.g. reading, writing, and listening to authentic
material) and partially contextualized activities (e.g. semantic mapping
and word association). In contrast, decontextualized activities (e.g.
flashcards and word lists) should be limited.
Taking the above points into consideration, it seems apparent that more
attention has been given to VLSs due to their role in enhancing learners’
independent learning, which in turn may be linked to the extensive literature
on learner self-determination. All in all, many scholars (Sedita, 2005; Pavičić
Takač, 2008; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008) recommend using both methods of
instruction. Such an argument was recently supported by Yang and Lui, who
claimed that via ‘the combination of strategy instruction and language
teaching, learners not only acquire the learning strategies they need but also
learn when to use what strategy to deal with a particular task’ (2014: 189).
Since the present study focuses on strategy training instruction, the explicit
approach, in which strategies are directly taught, will be adopted in the training
programme. The rationales behind selecting this particular approach are:
firstly, the participants will be intentionally informed about the value of the
training programme in terms of purposes and advantages from the beginning,
to increase their awareness of the vocabulary learning strategies; this cannot
be done implicitly. Secondly, advanced learners will not be targeted in this
study, as only beginners will be dealt with, therefore explicit instruction will be
more effective, especially when the learners’ L1 (Arabic) is used (Bastanfar
and Hashemi, 2010). In my experience, students at lower levels usually
demand more opportunities to learn vocabulary and VLSs directly, compared
to those at higher levels.
In accordance with the pilot study outcomes, both teachers and students
were interested in the idea of conducting a strategy training programme in the
classroom. Moreover, it was found that like any other language learners, the
participants had to recall many English words daily, which causes a problem,
58
especially for those who do not know or use techniques to facilitate their lexis
learning. Therefore, this study intends to deal with instructing teachers in a
mixed set of VLSs, which they will then in turn teach to their learners in order
to assist their vocabulary mastery via different sets of strategies, allowing
learners to pick the ones that suit their learning style. It also aims to explore
the effect of the strategy training on the teachers’ and students’ adoption,
utilisation and perceptions of vocabulary learning strategies.
2.5.2 Vocabulary teaching strategies (VTSs)
Unlike native speakers of a language, foreign language learners start their

study of English with very few known English words, and have very limited
time and opportunities to learn from input and to produce output. Therefore
direct vocabulary study is a way to speed up the learning process (Nation,
2013). Previously, vocabulary teaching strategies were classified as planned
and unplanned activities in classrooms (Seal, 1991). The unplanned teaching
strategies refer to incidental or accidental learning of vocabulary in classes,
when learners request the particular meaning of the word, or when the
teachers want to draw attention to any relevant words (Shen, 2003). In such a
situation, teachers may use various strategies to clarify the meaning of the
target words. For example, they may use synonyms, body language, or
antonyms. Additionally, this type of teaching strategy relates to ‘teachers’
spontaneous reactions with the aim of helping learners when the need arises,
in which case teachers improvise’ (Pavičić Takač, 2008: 19). Planned
vocabulary teaching strategies on the other hand, refer to ‘deliberate, explicit,
clearly defined and directed vocabulary teaching’ (ibid). For this strategy,
instructors choose certain words and work out a way of teaching them in
advance.
Based on the learners’ learning styles and goals, numerous activities have
been suggested, which will be divided into three categories: decontextualized
activities, partially contextualized activities, and fully contextualized activities
(Oxford & Scarcella, 1994). In the former category, words are removed as
completely as possible from the context and learned separately, e.g. dictionary
use and word lists. In the partially contextualized type, teachers use a number
59
of partially contextualized activities for vocabulary instruction, such as
semantic mapping and word grouping. Fully contextualized activities occur
when learners practise reading, writing, listening and speaking, while engaged
in meaningful authentic communication activities, for instance reading books
and interacting with native speakers.
Turning to vocabulary teaching strategies, by definition, they are everything

teachers do or should do to assist learners in learning the words of the target
language (Hatch & Brown, 2000). For instance, teachers would introduce and
present the meaning and form of a word, and then stimulate their learners to
revise, practise and consolidate it (Pavičić Takač, 2008). In a good attempt,
Pavičić Takač (2008) conducted a study on the relationship between VLSs
and VTSs, assuming that the implementation of a specific vocabulary teaching
strategy would bring about the employment of a corresponding vocabulary
learning strategy. In his study, nine teachers and 17 primary school classes
were involved. In the investigations, Pavičić Takač (2008) used a
questionnaire as the main instrument. The findings of the study revealed that
vocabulary learning strategies used by the participating learners are
independent of vocabulary teaching strategies employed by their teachers. To
Pavičić Takač (2008), there are two likely causes for the weak relationship
between VLSs and VTSs. The first reason is the lack of teachers’
understanding of factors affecting vocabulary acquisition and being unaware
of the VLSs utilized by their students, which means they cannot adapt their
teaching strategies to cater to their students’ needs. Secondly, teachers might
be using a small number of VTSs that may limit their ability to provide a variety
of models of vocabulary learning strategies for students to imitate and
internalise. However, although the results in this study did not show any
significant correlation between VTSs and VLSs, it is a research-inspiring issue.
The context of the present thesis, i.e. EFL adults, is not similar to that of Pavičić
Takač’s (2008) study, and hopefully this will provide more insight into the little-
researched area of the teachability of VLSs.
To sum up, it is easy to find those who argue that vocabulary can take care
of itself (Bastafar, 2010), but there is some convincing evidence supporting the
60
theory that mastering vocabulary is one of the most challenging missions that
a learner faces during language acquisition (elaborated in 2.1). Such a
situation is typical for Libyan EFL teachers and learners, whose exposure to
English in their daily life is extremely limited. Here lies the importance of
adopting some useful strategies to somehow help such teachers and students
in reducing their burden and making them more independent and confident in
their language teaching and learning. Being an EFL learner and an English
teacher at Al-jabal Al-gharbi University has allowed me to observe some
common patterns that university teachers follow in their teaching of
vocabulary. In general, they prefer to use some classic methods which result
in learners not putting any effort into gaining the meaning of learnt words. For
instance, they pick up some basic words from the target lesson and give their
Arabic meaning directly, or read a whole word list with its translation and ask
their students to read after them (Orafi, 2008). As a consequence, students
rely totally on their tutors in eliciting the meaning of the unknown words, which
in turn leads those learners to become predominantly receptive (ibid).
Language teachers and learners, in general, are not always aware of the
power of using VLSs to ease their lexical acquisition and make it more
effective. Presumably, if students are left on their own they typically use simple
VLSs, which may not be sufficient to satisfy their needs. Therefore, the
necessity of instructing language learners in new kinds of learning strategies
becomes urgent. Oxford and Nyikos (1989: 291), in this regard, argued that
the appropriate use of learning strategies ‘enables students to take
responsibility for their own learning by enhancing learner autonomy,
independence and self-direction’. Hence, instead of spoon-feeding learners
most of the time with vocabulary that they need, teachers may teach them how
to monitor their lexis learning independently by teaching them new VLSs.
Teaching learners how to learn is an important issue that should be kept in
teachers’ minds, but in my view, teaching teachers how to teach vocabulary
learning strategies is also a crucial means by which we can assist both
teachers and learners in making the learning process interesting and not
overwhelming.
61
Having considered what is meant by vocabulary teaching strategies, I will
now move on to discuss the issue of vocabulary learning strategy training.
2.6 Vocabulary learning strategy training (VLST)
Data about the efficacy of introducing strategy training to language teachers

are limited. The majority of strategy training studies have concentrated mainly
on providing students with VLSs training. Up to now, far too little attention has
been paid to introducing teachers to strategy training. Apart from Avila and
Sadoski (1996), Aktekin and Guven (2007), and Tanyer and Ozturk (2014),
who also mainly focused on learners’ training but to some extent partially
referred to teachers’ training, there is a general lack of research in the area.
Perhaps most of us, not only language scholars, when we think of teachers,
assume that they are fully qualified (especially those holding Master’s and
doctoral degrees) and that further training may be effortless, which is not
always true.
With language learners, the fruitfulness of introducing them to specific

training in how to use learning strategies more efficiently, as we will see next,
is evident. According to Nation (2001), strategy training plays an
advantageous role in developing lexis. The benefit of training in strategies
extends to include language teachers as well, since it was noted that when
teachers use strategy training they ‘often become enthusiastic about their
roles as facilitators of classroom learning. Strategy training makes them more
learner orientated and more aware of their students’ needs’ (Oxford et al.,
1990: 120). Moreover, some researchers go further by suggesting that before
instructing students how to employ strategies efficiently, their teachers should
be trained in strategy instruction and assessment in their classes (Rasekh &
Ranjbary, 2003). Despite all of the aforementioned advantages, learners’
training ‘remains a secondary concern in many language classrooms’
(Wenden & Rubin, 1987:159). This, according to O’Malley and Chamot (1990),
can be attributed to the complexity of the process of strategy training, which
requires informed and qualified instructors who spend a long period of time
working with learners. However, before going further, it might be useful to
clarify exactly what is meant by learner training in learning strategies:
62
For Ángel (2008) for instance, learner training in learning strategies refers to
an exercise that permits students to display their knowledge about themselves
and the way they learn, which is based on the exploration of what they ‘do to
achieve the same tasks and goals and the trying out of strategies that they are
not very familiar with’ (p. 504). Although abundant research upholds the
positive effects of strategy training in students’ learning performance, as we
will see in the coming section, some other studies, by contrast, are still
uncertain about the effectiveness of strategy training on language
performance. O’Malley et al. (1985), for example, carried out a study to explore
whether training EFL learners to use a combination of different strategies, such
as cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies, would result in improving
students’ vocabulary learning. The outcomes of the study revealed that there
was no significant difference between treatment groups, which may due to the
fact that ‘the proficiency distance between the groups was not big enough’
(Trendak, 2015: 49). Similarly, Rossiter (2003), in a more recent attempt,
conducted a study on the impact of affective strategy instruction on measures
of L2 proficiency and of self-efficacy, and concluded on the negative effect of
instruction in language performance. However, despite the uncertainty of
some scholars, the vast majority of strategy researchers still upheld the
usefulness of strategy training in participants’ learning performance. The
forthcoming reviewed surveys will address this.
2.6.1 Previous research in the field of strategy training
With the expansion of vocabulary learning strategy training research,

numerous attempts have been made to work out the relationship between
strategy use and success, in both second and foreign language learning.
Cohen and Aphek (1981), for example, were some of the earliest researchers
to probe this area. They trained 26 Hebrew adult students to remember
vocabulary items by mnemonic association, and tested the strategy use of
their participants after three weeks of training, finding that students who made
associations succeeded in recalling vocabulary better than those who did not.
However, this may not demonstrate a causal link, as perhaps those who made
63
successful associations had some other factors going for them, such as
proficiency and aptitude (ibid). Four years later, Crow and Quigley (1985)
utilised semantic field strategy training to promote lexis learning. In the early
nineties, Brown and Perry (1991) compared the effectiveness of training in
three VLSs: keyword, semantic, and keyword-semantic (combination of both)
among 60 Arabic learners, and assumed that the deeper the processing the
strategy involves, the better the result in retention will be.
Another attempt was conducted by Alseweed (2000), to discover the

relationship between VLS use and success in vocabulary acquisition. His
study centred on training 19 Arabic undergraduate students in using word-
solving strategies like skipping, using dictionaries and cognate guessing. His
results also showed that training students in how to utilise such strategies in
fact raised high proficiency students’ strategy use more than it did that of
students with low proficiency. This, however, does not mean that advanced
learners are more motivated and open to learning English and using new
learning strategies than beginners. Researchers such as El aouri and
Zerhouni (2017) demonstrated that Moroccan EFL freshmen students use
learning strategies at ‘a medium level and exhibit a high level of motivation
and that their motivation to learn English and use of LLSs are strongly and
positively correlated’ (p. 53).
Rasekh and Ranjbari (2003), on the other hand, assessed the impact of
metacognitive strategy training on strengthening EFL students’ lexical
knowledge. Ten weeks of training Iranian EFL learners revealed a positive
effect on vocabulary knowledge. In addition, a year later, Tassana-ngam
(2004) tested the influence of instructing Thai EFL students at university level
in how to use five VLSs, which were dictionary use, grouping, the keyword
method, context, and semantic mapping. By the end of the study, it was found
that training in the aforementioned strategies indeed promoted the awareness
of how to learn lexis. Likewise, Zhao (2009) investigated the correlation
between metacognitive strategy training and vocabulary learning among 134
Chinese college students. A five-week training programme evidenced the
positive effect of metacognitive strategy training, with the experimental group
64
surpassing the control group in a post-training vocabulary test. The procedures
of the strategy training were based on the three components of metacognitive
strategies, which were planning, monitoring and evaluating.
Al-Nammoura (2011) looked into students’ attitudes towards using training-

based VLSs. In the study, 63 EFL Palestinian learners were trained in using
five VLSs - two determination-discovery strategies (guessing meaning from
context and dictionary work), two memory-consolidation strategies (keyword
method and memorisation) and one social-discovery strategy (asking for
meaning). The findings of Al-Nammoura’s study showed that using VLSs in
fact enhanced the participants’ achievement in vocabulary learning.
Furthermore, the students who received the training were more positive than
those who did not.
More recently, attention has focused on comparing the different effects of

vocabulary strategy training and the traditional mode of presenting vocabulary.
The findings of this study showed that the group that received vocabulary
strategy training outperformed the group that studied vocabulary via traditional
activities prescribed by textbooks, whilst Rezaei et al.’s (2013) study found
that training autonomous and non-autonomous Iranian EFL learners to use
VLSs actually improved their vocabulary retention. However, it is not likely to
‘dis-improve’ it, though it might be an ‘attention effect’ rather than the result of
instruction. Al-Khasawneh and Huwari (2014) tested the impact of teaching
metacognitive strategies on vocabulary learning among Jordanian university
students via the use of the CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language Learning
Approach) model. Their results revealed that the post-test scores of the
experimental group significantly outclassed those of the control group. In this
regard, it is worth mentioning that the idea of CALLA will be adopted for the
present study, and will be discussed thoroughly in sections 2.6.2 and 4.4.1.
Rahimi (2014) noted the positive effect of VLSs instruction on the depth of
vocabulary knowledge among a group of low intermediate Iranian EFL
students.
Thus, going through the prior literature it seems obvious that acquiring and
remembering vocabulary will be more effective and feasible via strategy
65
employment and training. Although training language learners in how to utilise
particular vocabulary learning strategies has generally proved successful,
there are still findings that may suggest some studies ‘have been less
convincing in demonstrating the effectiveness of strategy training’ (Ellis, 1997:
88-89). Relying on the aforementioned premise, conducting further empirical
research in order to measure the usefulness of strategy training is
recommended. Furthermore, despite the fact that research has consistently
supported the significance of the direct instruction and use of strategies, many
students and teachers are not yet conscious of the effective power of such
knowledge (Oxford et al, 1990; Fan, 2003; Naeimi & Yaqupi, 2013). This may
be attributed to time constraints, where students, especially EFL students, are
exposed to English lessons in fixed and limited time periods. As a
consequence, teachers in such situations seem to rely on covering the
materials that are stated in their curriculum, and thus, more emphasis is being
allotted to teaching writing, reading, listening and speaking rather than
vocabulary and its learning strategies. In EFL contexts, there are too many
words to teach and it has long been maintained that ‘large amounts of
vocabulary cannot be acquired in a short time through language skills only’
(Pavičić Takač, 2008: 76). In such a case, it will be rather time consuming to
meet the aforesaid goal. Vocabulary learning strategies, if strategy training is
effective, allow learners to take the control of their learning away from their
teachers, letting teachers concentrate on other things (Nation, 2013). Such an
argument therefore gives a justification for carrying out this study and for why
teachers and students should embark on strategy training. Having reviewed
some of the previous research in the field of strategy training, I will now move
on to discuss several frameworks that have been designed in this regard.
2.6.2 Vocabulary learning strategy training frameworks
There has been an expansion in VLS research devoted to questioning the

effectiveness of receiving strategy instruction, however only a few scholars
have succeeded in developing well-recognised models for strategy training
(Oxford, 1990; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Chamot & Rubin, 1994; Cohen,
66
1998; Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Despite the variation between one training
model and another, their desired goals seem to be shared. They all aim to: a)
raise the students’ awareness about learning strategies and model them
overtly along with the task, b) encourage strategy use and explain its rationale,
c) provide learners with varied options of relevant strategies to choose from,
d) offer controlled practice in the use of some strategies, and finally e) provide
some sort of a post-task analysis to allow learners to reflect on their strategy
use (Dörnyei, 2005).
The first models for teaching learning strategies were Oxford’s (1990) CIT
(Completely Informed Training) model, O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) CALLA
(Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach), Cohen’s (1998) SSBI
(Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction) model, and Grenfell and Harris’s
(1999) model. The CIT model, for example (sometimes called Strategy-Plus-
Control Training), focuses on eight steps, which teachers should consider
during the implementation of strategy training. This model usually works better
with long-term strategy training, but can be adapted for one-time training
through choosing specific units (Mei, 2013), whereas the teachers’ work in the
SSBI model that was introduced by Cohen (1998) takes different roles in order
to assist students to learn how to use the strategies which suit their learning
style. The Grenfell and Harris (1999) model on the other hand, suggests a
cycle of six stages, which students can work through before starting a new
one.
In a different study, O’Malley and Chamot launched the next instructional

model, which was CALLA, in 1990. This framework was based on cognitive
theory and was established for second and foreign language learners alike.
The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach has been successfully
employed in various contexts (Al-Khasawneh and Huwari, 2014), and with my
context, I believe that this approach in particular will be effective in raising
participants’ awareness of vocabulary learning strategies, which in turn
reflects on their language teaching/learning. The CALLA model is a recursive
cycle so that there is always an opportunity to revise former instructional
phases when needed. Therefore, the instructional method for my study will
67
partly depend upon this model to train the participants in VLSs. That is to say,
apart from revising the strategies introduced in the previous session, each
session begins by activating background knowledge and explaining the
strategies selected. Then, in the presentation phase, the strategies are
explicitly modelled and explained with thorough illustrations and
exemplification. Later in the practice phase, the opportunity to employ the
strategies discussed within authentic learning tasks is provided and guided
either by me (in the teachers’ training phase) or by the trainee teachers (in the
students’ training phase). The opportunity to evaluate the success of the
training sessions is provided at the end of the training programme in the form
of a post survey involving questionnaires, observations, interviews, etc. In the
final phase, which is the expansion phase, another survey, similar to the
aforementioned one, is conducted three months after the VLST programme in
order to examine the impact of the strategy instruction on participants’
use/promotion of use of VLSs in the long run. Chapter 4 (section 4.4.1),
however, will discuss this in-depth and provide reasons why this particular
framework has been chosen in the current study.
Turning to the model, it has been organised into five recursive phases:
preparation, presentation, practice, evaluation, and expansion, and in terms of
the validity, this model has been employed in various contexts (Al-Khasawneh
and Huwari, 2014). It was declared on the website of the CALLA framework
that ‘it is being implemented in approximately 30 school districts in the United
States as well as in several other countries’ (Coskun, 2010: 42). Studies such
as Coskun (2010), Erkan and Saban (2011), Sardroud (2013), and Al-
Khasawneh and Huwari (2014) have recently utilised the theoretical
framework as an instruction method in strategy training in their EFL contexts.
Although the mentioned model was developed as a metacognitive strategy
training pattern, it could be used to investigate other strategy learning
categories. Bornay (2011) for instance, explored the advantages of explicit
memory strategy training via the application of the CALLA model. According
to her, exposing first-year university Spanish students to explicit instruction in
two memory strategies (grouping and mind-mapping) for six-week periods
68
contributed to developing the participants’ stock of VLSs, raising their
metacognitive awareness and enhancing their learning skills. She also
described the model as being flexible and simple for learners to follow, due to
the fact that ‘the order in which the stages take place can be altered in
accordance with students’ prior knowledge’ (Bornay, 2011: 21).
However, it is necessary to bear in mind that recommending a fixed

framework that could be applied for strategy training is hard to achieve
(Ghazal, 2007), since a number of variables, i.e. proficiency level, task, text,
and so on, have an impact on the effectiveness of strategies that can be taught
and used. Subsequently, several issues were highlighted prior to carrying out
any strategy training that may assist teachers in adopting a suitable framework
for strategy training for their students (Ghazal, 2007). According to Ghazal,
discovering what strategies or combination of strategies need to be addressed
and taught by teachers is a priority, followed by identifying and taking into
account the strategies that are known and preferred by learners. Thirdly, some
learners may need to be convinced that strategy training is for their own
benefit. Fourthly, after picking up the strategies that learners should pay
attention to, teachers should determine the time allotted for strategy use
training, as well as a syllabus for each strategy that covers the required
knowledge and provides enough independent practice. Fifthly, when the
recommended VLSs are considered, teachers should bear in mind that
effectiveness depends on the context in which strategies are used, and they
are not inherently good. The effectiveness of teaching and using learning
strategies depends on several variables such as task, proficiency level and the
context of learning. Lastly, teachers should keep in mind that students need to
realize the target of each strategy and the conditions under which it works
best, and furthermore, they need sufficient practice to feel confident and
proficient in utilising strategies, so teachers should provide adequate time for
strategy training.
By and large, being aware of the utility of VLSs without providing training in
how to use them in advance is not sufficient, either for teachers or learners.
As a result, this steers us to consider the significance of strategy training, via
69
explorations around the influence of VLS teachability. Additionally, numerous
scholars consider teaching VLSs to be crucial, and many studies have been
conducted within EFL contexts such as Turkey, Jordan, China, Japan, and
Taiwan, although so far there has been no empirical study on strategy training
for Libyan EFL teachers and students. To the best of my knowledge, almost
all the conducted studies deal with providing language learners with strategy
training, while neglecting the teachers’ side. The view of teaching students
more language and letting strategies look after themselves (Kellerman, 1991),
although not completely agreed with, seems still to dominate the current
situation in my context, resulting in teachers and learners undervaluing these
techniques. Teaching the target language alone is not sufficient; learners’
attention should also be drawn to strategies that could be helpful when
promoting successful learning (Trendak, 2015). Based on my experience as a
teacher, the current situation in vocabulary teaching and learning in Libya can
be summarised as follows.
There is a passive way of teaching and learning vocabulary that puts the
responsibility mainly on teachers. In the course of time, the myths concerning
vocabulary teaching and learning have not changed much, and rote
memorisation still dominates the process of language teaching and learning,
and should be replaced by more effective techniques. Added to that is the
absence of systematic research that in turn would guarantee success in the
process of language teaching and learning. Lots of teachers and learners
underestimate vocabulary learning strategies, something that should be
changed by increasing their awareness of such strategies. Bearing the above
in mind, research into vocabulary learning strategies is needed and would
have significant practical value in enriching the literature in this area.
Therefore, under the assumption that Libyan EFL teachers and students have
very little exposure to vocabulary learning strategies, this study’s target is first
to discover the VLSs known / used by Libyan EFL teachers and learners, and
then to trial and evaluate the developed VLS training programme, showing the
impact of strategy training on teachers’ and learners’ performance and
perceptions. The strategies that will be introduced in the treatment process will
70
be chosen from Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy, whilst the strategy instruction
model will be the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach,
originated by Chamot and O’Malley (1994).
Having considered the issues related to LLSs / VLSs, their taxonomies,

teachability and learnability, we will now move on to present and discuss the
three studies that the current thesis centres around, starting with study 1 – i.e.
overview of the current situation.
71
3.0: STUDY 1: Overview of the current situation
The previous chapter was devoted to discussing issues relating to LLSs,

VLSs, and their classifications, with more emphasis allocated to the notion of
‘strategy training’ and its various frameworks. The following chapters however,
will be dedicated to the main study of the current thesis, which in turn
comprises three studies (S1, S2, and S3), one study in each chapter. During
these studies I played different roles. In S1, for example, my role was
researcher and observer, identifying the current situation in terms of strategy
use and the nature of teaching approaches followed. Later, in S2, my role
transitioned into that of a designer, who designed the training programme and
all the materials used. In S3, I was the trainer, facilitator and assessor, who
guided and supported the participants throughout the strategy instruction
programme.
In this chapter, the principal goals for Study 1 will focus on finding out what
is being done by Libyan EFL teachers and learners in terms of VLSs
promoted/used and the nature of the teaching methods adopted. Attitudes and
perceptions towards the teachability of VLSs will also be investigated in this
chapter. S1 however, answers the first three preliminary questions of the
present research which are:
• What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL teachers at a

university level know / promote to their students?
• What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL learners at a

university level use / know?
• To what extent do Libyan EFL teachers believe that VLSs can be
taught?
In answering these questions, a multi-method approach in the form of a VLS

questionnaire, a semi-structured interview, and classroom observation was
used. This chapter will present the overall findings and results derived from
72
the initial survey, beginning with a descriptive analysis of the VLS
questionnaire. Before proceeding with S1 analysis, it will be necessary to
overview the most frequently used methods for investigating language
learning strategies, explaining why particular instruments have been adopted
in the present research.
3.1 Vocabulary learning strategy research methods
Researchers have made use of different instruments for investigating

language learners’ learning strategies, including diaries (Trendak, 2015),
think-aloud protocols (Gu, 2003), observations (Rubin, 1975; Ahmed, 1989),
written questionnaires (Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1997) and oral interviews (Gu,
2003; Saengpakdeejit, 2014). Each of these methods has its strengths and
weaknesses as not all of the methods undertaken proved to be completely
successful (Trendak, 2015). Despite the limitations that each method has, and
which will be discussed later in this section, all have provided us with valuable
insights into unobservable mental learning strategies (Chamot, 2004). Before
proceeding further in discussing the advantages and drawbacks of the
aforementioned research approaches, it should be borne in mind that finding
the correct, effective measure to identify language learning strategies appears
to be a great challenge (Cohen, 2014; Pavičić Takač, 2008). This may be due
to the fact that while some language learning strategies are observable (e.g.
asking for questions and using dictionaries), most of them are internal or
mental processes (like guessing and making associations) and hence cannot
be easily observed. Consequently, to quote Cohen (2014: 66-67), ‘designing
a study that assesses strategy use with some accuracy is a challenge’, or as
it was seen by Trendak (2015: 113) ‘a daunting task’. To solve such a dilemma,
it was suggested that multiple approaches be used while investigating learning
strategies to complement data (ibid). Bearing in mind the issues mentioned
above, and in order to increase the validity and credibility of the present
research results, I intend to use triangulation, i.e. using a combination of
qualitative and quantitative data. Triangulation has already been employed in
numerous studies (Pavičić Takač, 2008; Trendak, 2015), and itself divides into
73
four techniques - source triangulation, investigator triangulation,
methodological triangulation, and finally location triangulation (Pavičić Takač,
2008). In my study, triangulation in methods is used, that is, questionnaires,
interviews and observations. Triangulation in source of information, i.e.
investigator, teachers and students, and triangulation in data-gathering
location, i.e. different sites, are also applied.
The following sections will firstly present the advantages and disadvantages
of the most frequently used instruments for investigating LLSs, for instance
written questionnaires, oral interviews, classroom observations, diaries and
think-aloud procedures. More emphasis will be placed on the former three
methods as the current study utilised them in collecting data concerning
strategy use/adoption and strategy training effectiveness. Justifications for
why certain instruments have been chosen in my study will also be outlined.
The detailed information about participants, data collection procedures and
data analysis will be provided later in this chapter.
3.1.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ)
A written questionnaire is a research tool that is widely used in identifying

and assessing the use of vocabulary learning strategies. Studies such as
those conducted by Oxford (1990), Stoffer (1995), Sanaoui (1995), Gu and
Johnson (1996), Schmitt (1997), Fan, (2003) and many more have made use
of vocabulary learning strategy questionnaires for data collection due to their
efficiency and comprehensibility in assessing the frequency of strategy use
(Chamot, 2004; Pavičić Takač, 2008; Oxford, 2013) in a short time with less
cost and effort (Trendak, 2015). Compared to diaries, thinking-aloud and
observations, questionnaire responses can be delimited to relevant
information (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Moreover, data gathered by means of
this method is easy to administer and score, it serves as the basis of
standardisation, allows comparability, and can be analysed in relation to
different variables, e.g. age, gender and level of proficiency (Oxford, 2013).
Furthermore, questionnaires can be anonymous and thus it is expected that
participants will be more relaxed and honest (Pavičić Takač, 2008). For such
74
reasons, the present study uses questionnaires in order to create a broad
picture of strategy utilisation and attitudes among a large group of participants.
This, in turn, will serve in generating and testing the hypotheses (Cohen,
2014).
In VLS studies, one of the most frequently and widely used questionnaires
is one that was developed by Gu and Johnson (1996). This lengthy
questionnaire, containing 91 items altogether, was devised to specify which
strategies Year-2 Chinese learners at Beijing University use to learn English
vocabulary, and their beliefs about vocabulary learning. One of the biggest
advantages of Gu and Johnson’s questionnaire is the comprehensibility. The
items in this questionnaire were divided into three groups: beliefs about
vocabulary learning, metacognitive strategies, and cognitive strategies. The
respondents’ task was to rate their use of each strategy on a 7-point Likert
scale, ranging from extremely untrue of the learner (1) to extremely true of the
learner (7). The researchers in this study grouped learners into five types
based on their learning approach (readers, active strategy users, non-coders,
coders, and passive strategy users), which supports the view that different
approaches can be efficient (Pavičić Takač, 2008).
Oxford’s (1990) SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning)

questionnaire is another example of a structured, valid and widely used survey
(Pavičić Takač, 2008). This questionnaire was created to evaluate strategy use
in relation to variables such as gender, cultural background, learning style, and
proficiency level. Although the SILL is in English and has been designed for
English speakers learning a new language, students whose mother tongue is
different have also utilised this survey (ibid). Like Gu and Johnson’s (1996)
instrument, Oxford’s survey has ‘undergone standardisation, it is reliable and
effective’ (Trendak, 2015: 116). Schmitt (1997) organised his VLSs system
based on Oxford’s (1990) study. Here, it is worth mentioning that for the
purpose of the present study, the typology used was inspired by Schmitt
(1997). According to Brown (2016), questionnaires can be self-administrated
(i.e. mailed to the participants to be completed whenever is appropriate and
then returned via mail) or group-administrated, which is when they are
75
distributed to groups of individuals at one time and place. In this project, the
latter approach was used to guarantee a full return of the questionnaire as well
as to provide ‘on-the-spot’ clarification.
However, like any research approach, the use of questionnaires is not

without criticism. According to Dörnyei (2014), there are certain problems with
the use of such a method. One of these is the unsuitability for probing deeply
into an issue, due to the nature of the questions and respondents, which are
usually characterised by superficiality. In addition, there is an increased
possibility of items being left without a response either by mistake or
intentionally, which may result in unreliable findings, and spelling problems that
leave little or no room for correcting the respondents’ mistakes. Lastly, and
most importantly, is the ‘prestige bias’, that is, it is not always the case that
people give honest responses about themselves. Nonetheless, apart from
such drawbacks, the advantages that can be achieved from questionnaires
are clear, as mentioned above. I am well aware of the disadvantages of
questionnaires, but in my study they work well for this objective and in this
scenario. Therefore, in the present study, a written questionnaire was a main
instrument (more details about the questionnaire utilised will be presented in
section 3.3.1). Having discussed the first instrument used in this research, the
next section addresses the classroom observation, which was the second
method adopted in the investigations.
3.1.2 Classroom observation
Qualitative data was gathered via observation, semi-structured interviews,

and open-ended questions. Classroom observation is one of the earliest
methods used in identifying language learning strategies (Rubin, 1975;
Ahmed, 1989). Observational data on learning strategies can be gathered via
recording or videotaping learners and their behaviour in their classrooms
(Pavičić Takač, 2008). However, there are certain problems associated with
the use of observational techniques. One of these is that many strategies are
mental operations that cannot be simply noted and thus never result in an
obvious behaviour (Oxford, 1996; Cohen, 2014). To clarify further, observers
76
can only notice the strategies whose applications are visual, e.g. dictionary
use, taking-notes and asking questions (Pavičić Takač, 2008), and thus, they
can produce a description, whereas with cognitive or internal strategies such
as making associations for example, observation is inadequate in providing a
description, although this does not mean that this method is not workable and
useful (Cohen and Aphek, 1981). To overcome this problem, it can be useful
to combine the observation technique with other research methods, e.g.
interviews and questionnaires, in order to complement the data (Pavičić Takač,
2008; Oxford, 2013; Cohen, 2014), which this study intended to do. An
additional drawback to using the observation approach is, to quote Pavičić
Takač, ‘the initial labelling of the strategies on which coding of the observed
behaviour - and consequently the interpretation of the data – will be based’
(2008: 84). That is to say that structured observations can be used to obtain
quantitative data suitable for statistical analyses, but sometimes they do not
turn out to be successful research instruments, as happened with O’Malley et
al.’s study (1983 cited in Pavičić Takač, 2008). In the current study, a
structured observation schedule in the form of an ‘Observation Sheet’ (see
Appendix 6) was utilised so that quantitative data could be collected and
analysed statistically. Thus, the study hypotheses could be examined and
generated.
There are other problems linked with observation, such as the presence of
the researcher and the method of recording the observed activities, i.e.
audio/video-taping or taking notes (Oxford, 1996; Pavičić Takač, 2008). In
these instances, the learners’ normal behaviour can be affected; they may feel
uncomfortable, or furthermore, they may be reluctant to be recorded. These
were difficulties which I faced while piloting the observation since the
participants’ permission to record their behaviour visually or via an MP3 device
could not be obtained (see section 3.4.2). However, despite the advantage of
replaying the video and audio data at a later time, there are always some
events that cannot be captured by means of such technology (Oxford, 1996;
Cohen, 2014). Consequently, in my study, in order to avoid the aforementioned
shortcomings, the option of note taking was chosen as a method for recording
77
the participants’ strategy use. Although the use of field notes also comes with
its own drawbacks, such as keeping the researcher busy and the impossibility
of recording all that happened in the classroom, the prepared observation
sheet provided great assistance in taking notes throughout the observation.
In the current study, the main reason for employing the live observation was
to actually observe what the participants do and not what they say they do.
Such observation plays ‘a crucial role in both the collection and interpretation
of the language learning strategy data’ (Oxford, 1996: 94). However, despite
the limitations, many researchers (Chesterfield & Chesterfield, 1985; Pawlak
2009; and Macaro, 2001 cited in Trendak, 2015) found strategy observation,
i.e. a type of strategy assessment tool by which teachers and researchers can
observe students’ strategic behaviour (Oxford, 2013), valuable and beneficial.
According to Ahmed (1988), this technique is particularly useful in catering for
the vocabulary learning strategies that are not verbalised but have a motor
activity counterpart, such as consulting dictionaries and writing words down.
During the observations, my role as an observer was non-intrusive (see
section 3.5.5). The conducted observations mainly focused on identifying the
VLSs promoted/employed by teachers and students. An observation sheet
was used to record the information. Certain problems that were encountered
when piloting the observations, mentioned in subsection 3.5.7, were also
faced here. Bearing in mind the above discussion, the present study employed
observational techniques as well as questionnaires and interviews, in order to
complement the data.
3.1.3 Semi-structured interview
Interviews can be structured, semi-structured or unstructured, by which the

interviewee could have more or less freedom in selecting the information to be
given in his or her responses (Pavičić Takač, 2008: 86). In the current study,
the semi-structured approach was chosen to (a) supplement the data obtained
through the VLS questionnaire, (b) determine the employed strategic action
inside the classroom, (c) find out the difficulties regarding vocabulary teaching
and learning, and finally (d) provide further information concerning participants’
78
attitudes towards VLS instruction. The retrospective nature of the semi-
structured interview, in which the participants’ task is to fully describe what they
thought about and what they did in reality while performing a learning task
(Trendak, 2015), would allow me to gain deeper insight into strategic profiles.
This method is particularly useful for allowing the researcher and the
participants to ‘pursue topics of interest which may not have been foreseen
when the questions were originally drawn up’ (Cohen, 2014: 71). As with any
other research instrument, there are certain problems associated with the use
of oral interviews. One of these is the influence of forgetting, as informants
may often forget to report some processes and strategies (Ahmed, 1988) or
may give answers that they think they are expected to give (Trendak, 2015).
Therefore, data collected by the use of this approach was used to supplement
those obtained from the VLSs questionnaire and classroom observation.
Interviews can be carried out with individuals or with a group of people. In

order to diminish the issues of mutual influence on the interviewees, the
talkativeness of informants and the impact of the interviewer (Pavičić Takač,
2008), face-to-face individual interviews were conducted. In the present
research, the semi-structured interview was conducted with the participants
after distributing the VLSs questionnaire and conducting the observations.
Procedures of the interviews are presented in section 3.4.3.
In general, the information gathered from the participants, teachers and

students, via VLSs questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and classroom
observations were used to answer research questions 1, 2, and 3, as well as
to develop Studies 2 and 3.
3.1.4 Diaries
Diaries have also been used in eliciting information about learners’ utilisation
of strategies over a long period of time (Pavičić Takač, 2008). In these,
‘Learners write personal observations about their own learning experiences
and the ways in which they have solved or attempted to solve language
problems’ (Chamot, 2004: 16). Diaries are usually retrospective, i.e. recording
79
data after completing the task, and unstructured so that the entries might cover
a wide range of topics, which in turn results in gathering a much greater volume
of data than is needed for a straightforward analysis (O’Malley & Chamot,
1990). For this reason, this research tool is appropriate in gaining qualitative
data on specific strategies used by individual learners (Pavičić Takač, 2008).
In my study however, I will not use diaries because the collected data would
then be self-observation, and participants may not necessarily give accurate
descriptions of their learning/teaching strategies (Chamot, 2004).
3.1.5 Think-aloud protocols
Think-aloud procedures, or so-called self-revaluation, are another research

instrument that has been employed in assessing students’ learning strategies
(Cohen & Aphek, 1979; Ahmed, 1989; Alseweed, 2000). In these, the learners
are given a learning task and are asked to verbally describe their thoughts and
beliefs while working on it (Chamot, 2004; Pavičić Takač, 2008). By nature,
the think-aloud procedure is introspective and non-mentalistic, and is
considered as most accurately reflecting learners’ cognitive processes
(Cohen, 2014). However, there are some problems linked with this instrument,
one of which is the difficulty of interpreting and generalising from the gathered
data, as ‘one cannot get information on what it is the learner does not attend
to’ (Pavičić Takač, 2008: 84). Besides, much of cognitive processing is
unconscious and thus inaccessible (Cohen, 2014). As with all research
measures, the use of think-aloud protocols is not without drawbacks, and thus,
researchers should see them as a complement and not as a replacement to
other instruments (Cohen, 2014). The next sections will be devoted to
discussing location, sample and ethical issues encountered in S1.
3.2 Study 1 population and location
As indicated in section 3.1, in this research, the triangulation was not only
in the instrumentation, and in the source of information, but also the location.
The participants recruited for this study represented two English language
faculties at the Al-jabal Al-gharbi University in the cities of Tiji and Badr. In
80
October 2015, 109 participants, including 13 EFL teachers from two different
university levels (1st and 2nd grade) and from two different locations (Tiji and
Badr) were recruited for S1. Since one of the main aims of the present study
was to survey vocabulary learning strategies among Libyan EFL teachers and
students, teachers from other nationalities were not included. The participating
teachers, who freely volunteered to participate in the study, varied in age,
qualifications and years of experience in the teaching field. The students
targeted were made up of 96 English-majors, who were enrolled in the autumn
semester of 2015, and studying English as a foreign language. There were 40
male and 56 female participants. Most of the participating students were aged
between 17 and 25 years old, with only a few (14 participants) over 25. The
participants all shared the same language (Arabic) and culture. Table 4
(below), illustrates the number, gender and distribution of S1 participants.
Table 4: Number, gender, and distribution of S1 participants
Participants N Gender Grade

Male Female grade 1 grade 2
Teachers 13 8 5 - -
Students 96 40 56 46 50
Total 109 48 61 46 50
The criteria for selecting the participants was as follows: firstly, they had to
be freshmen or sophomores and would therefore likely be less proficient in
English than the other grades. This in turn, would make them more eager to
learn, or furthermore, invent ways to facilitate their language learning. In my
view, the more recently admitted the students are, the greater their needs to
develop strategic competence that could assist their language learning.
Bearing this in mind, more experienced and advanced students were excluded
from the study. It seems reasonable that advanced students have already
created their own methods that they stick to, and thus changing their
preferences may be a challenging matter (Trendak, 2015). In addition,
because of their proficiency level, ‘they are likely to develop learning
81
awareness to a greater degree and (as a result they) require less learner
training than their less advanced peers’ (p. 96). In my research, due to the
limited time available for the study, strategy training targeted students with little
experience in dealing with problems when learning English. With respect to
the participating teachers, they were chosen on the basis that their L1 is not
English, that they have limited or no knowledge of VLSs, and they have never
been trained on the use of VLSs or how to explicitly introduce them to their
students. All of which were indicated in the pilot study.
Before proceeding with the ethical considerations, it would be beneficial to

discuss the curriculum for English faculty students and the entry criteria.
In Libya, admission to the English programme at the faculty of Education and

Arts requires the Secondary Education Certificate (GSES) that students get at
the end of the ‘intermediate’ stage, in which they have to achieve a score of
65% or more. They also have to take a written English test for university
entrance, which usually focuses on grammar and comprehension skills.
Regarding the syllabus of English, students study grammar, conversation,
comprehension, phonetics, translation, language lab, theoretical language
sciences, literature, and writing. The outline of the syllabus, which shows what
courses are to be covered each year, is provided by the university and the
details of what to include is left to the teachers based on their experience and
knowledge. In this research, I opted for using the term ‘beginners’ to refer to
the participating students not because they are beginners in terms of
proficiency level, but because they are newly-admitted students and to some
extent fresh to the term of VLSs, as the pilot study showed.
3.3 Ethical considerations
The principle of consented participation was followed in all procedures

concerning data collection (Appendices 13 and 14). The participants were fully
informed about the aims, purpose and procedures of the research. They all
read the Information Sheet (see Appendix 12) and signed the consent forms.
The participants also understood that they were free to withdraw at any time
during the data collection period without giving any reason and without any
82
detriment to themselves (Appendix 13). Permission was granted from the
participants and the heads of the English departments at Tiji and Badr faculties
at the very beginning of data collection (Appendices 10, and 11). Furthermore,
the participants were ensured that the data would remain confidential and
anonymous. In the Information Sheet, it was explained that the information
provided would be safeguarded unless subject to any legal requirements, and
that the data would be stored securely. In order to overcome the problems that
occurred during the pilot study (elaborated in the next subsections) and due to
religious and cultural constraints, videotaping was avoided and audio-taping
used instead. Not using videotaping, however, left me unable to take note of
everything that took place in the classrooms.
3.4 Study 1 instrumentation
So far the previous section has focused on ethical issues. The following
subsections will deal with Study 1 methods adopted, procedures, results and
discussions, starting with the VLS questionnaire.
3.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ)
In order to explore the strategies participants apply to their vocabulary

teaching and learning, a 38 item vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire
was employed. The VLSQ was adapted from Schmitt’s (1997) 58 strategies,
and was expanded by adding some demographic and open-ended questions.
When developing the questionnaire, some strategies in the taxonomy were
modified, either by combining them together, e.g. the strategy ‘I use a bilingual
dictionary’ and ‘I use a monolingual dictionary’ became ‘I use a dictionary
(dictionary strategies)’, or in terms of wording. The strategy ‘I associate the
word with its coordinates’, for instance, was simplified by including some more
relevant examples in brackets, ‘I associate the word with its coordinates (e.g.
apple, pears, peaches)’ and so on. With dictionary strategies, mentioned
above, one must not forget that bilingual dictionaries and monolingual
dictionaries are different VLSs and the normal use of the former is likely to be
related to the infrequent use of the latter, but in general the two are not mutually
83
exclusive (Kudo, 1999). In general, the rationales behind the above-mentioned
adaptations were to cater for students whose English proficiency was low, in
order to make Schmitt’s questionnaire easier to follow and to make it shorter
for participants to complete. By doing this, the fatigue effect, i.e. the tiredness
and boredom resulting from administering a lengthy questionnaire (Brown,
2016), was avoided.
Being a practitioner of English language teaching has also allowed me to

observe the VLSs that were used by undergraduate students in Libya.
Therefore, from my perspective as a teacher and based on my experience in
the teaching field, I sought to eliminate from the questionnaire, some strategies
that would not serve the aims of the study. Some strategies are dated, such
as the peg and loci methods, and Libyan teachers and learners seldom, if ever
use them. I intended to use the survey that I adapted from Schmitt’s study
instead of using his original. To test the hypothesis, two versions of the
questionnaire were piloted, Schmitt’s Original Questionnaire (SOQ) with its 58
statements (Appendices 4 and 5) and the developed version being used in this
study (Appendices 1, and 2). By analysing the gathered data, the
aforementioned supposition was highly supported. The loci and peg methods,
for instance, which were avoided in the developed questionnaire, were not
loaded at all by the participants in SOQ, since 100% of the participants said
that they never used them. Besides, the participants felt more comfortable with
the modified survey than SOQ, whose statements per participant were quite
extensive. By minimising the SOQ items, more space was left to add some
items concerning attitudes towards strategy training.
As stated above, the employed questionnaire was based on Schmitt’s (1997)

taxonomy, which included determination (DET), social (SOC), memory (MEM),
cognitive (COG), and metacognitive (MET) strategies (Refer to literature
review for a detailed description of each category). The category names were
not mentioned in the questionnaire as they were not thought to be relevant to
the participants and might prove a distraction. The VLSQ was split into three
parts: Part A included some demographic statements about the participants’
personal information (e.g. gender and age). Although the demographic data
84
obtained were analysed, they were only examined to determine whether the
items of the questionnaire were well formulated and ‘to gather information
useful for describing (participants) in some detail’ (Pavičić Takač, 2008). Part
B consisted of rating statements established to measure the participants’
employment of the VLSs. Since this part concerned collecting information on
participants’ opinions and beliefs, all statements were on a five-point Likert
scale. The statements were arranged as follows: always, often, sometimes,
rarely and never. Participants needed to tick the adverb that represented the
frequency. The questions involved seven determination strategies, five social
strategies, seventeen memory strategies, six cognitive strategies, and three
questions addressing metacognitive strategies, Table 7 in section 3.6.1
illustrates this. It is worth mentioning that compared to SOQ the adapted
questionnaire lost two determination strategies, three social strategies, ten
memory strategies, three cognitive strategies, and two metacognitive
strategies. Part C, on the other hand, contained some open-ended questions,
in which participants were allowed to describe their own opinions about the
idea of conducting strategy training and to explore the difficulties they might
encounter during their vocabulary teaching and learning. In this project, I
intended to use both closed (as in Part B) and open response questions (Part
C) in order to benefit from the advantages of each type. Schmitt’s (1997)
questionnaire was established in numerous previous studies, and thus, its
construction and validity has been thoroughly investigated. In this study
however, Cronbach’s Alpha was used as the indicator of internal consistency
of the adapted VLSs questionnaire. The reliability was 0.997 by Cronbach’s
Alpha coefficients, which means that the scale had a good internal
consistency, see table 5 below.
Table 5: Reliability of the VLS questionnaire
Variable No. of statements Cronbach’s alpha
VLSQ 39 0.997
85
To avoid any misapprehensions or language barriers, the VLSQ was in the
participants’ mother tongue (Arabic). As the population targeted in the present
study was Libyan EFL teachers and learners, two parallel versions of the
VLSQ were circulated, the Teachers’ Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Questionnaire (TVLSQ, Appendix 1) and the Students’ Vocabulary Learning
Strategies Questionnaire (SVLSQ, Appendices 2 and 3), which will be
discussed in detail later. Both versions were inspired by Schmitt’s (1997) VLS
taxonomy, and the only difference between them was in the background and
open-ended questions. Questions relating to strategy implementation, in
general, were almost identical.
Having discussed the first instrument used in S1, the next section of this
chapter addresses the second method adopted in the investigations -
classroom observation.
3.4.2 Classroom observation
The observational technique was also employed to supplement the data

gathered from the VLSs questionnaire. Live classroom observation was
conducted to obtain further in-depth information on the participants’ strategic
action and the nature of the teaching methods followed in general. During the
observations, my role as an observer was non-intrusive. I watched and wrote
down what the teacher and students were actually doing. The conducted
observations mainly focused on identifying the VLSs promoted by
teacher/employed by students. Attention was also paid to the teaching
methods followed since the use and choice of VLSs might be influenced by
the students’ perception of vocabulary teaching strategies (Pavičić Takač,
2008). Bearing in mind time constraints and the impossibility of writing down
everything that takes place in the classroom, an observation sheet (Appendix
6) was used to record the most relevant information. Initially, I intended to
videotape the observed lessons but unfortunately was not allowed to do so.
Certain problems that were encountered when piloting the observations,
mentioned in section 3.5.6, were also faced here. Therefore, to better conduct
an accurate observation, an observation sheet was prepared. The information
86
gathered from the participants, teachers and students, via classroom
observation were to complement those obtained from the VLSQ.
3.4.3 Semi-structured interview
The third method utilized in the present study was the semi-structured
interview. This instrument was conducted with the participants after distributing
the VLSQ and conducting the observations. The interviewees’ appointments
were arranged a few minutes after their regular lessons, one participant at a
time, so that their thoughts on their own strategic action were fresh. During the
interviews, careful listening and the use of prompts enabled me ‘to ask
respondents to extend, elaborate … or qualify their response’ (Cohen et al.,
2000). I obtained permission to audio-record the interviews so that, when
transcribing, no information was missed. Later, respondents’ answers were
translated from Arabic to English and then transcribed. For anonymity
purposes, pseudonyms and numbers were used instead of the participants’
real names. At the end of each interview, a copy of the VLSQ was provided to
the participants to comment on, so as to probe for more views regarding their
strategy utilisation. Appendices 7 and 8 present the whole range of questions
for teachers’ and students’ interviews. The data collected from the VLSQ,
classroom observation and semi-structured interviews were used to answer
research questions 1, 2 and 3 as well as to develop Studies 2 and 3.
3.5 Pilot study
Prior to conducting the main study, I decided to travel to Libya and carry out
a pilot study. The reason behind this was to check the comprehensibility and
feasibility of implementing the chosen methods and procedures, as well as to
increase the chances of assessing the problems that may occur in the main
study. Issues relating to time management, such as sufficient time for filling
out questionnaires or conducting interviews were also resolved. Some other
advantages to conducting such a study, mentioned by Meriwether (2001),
were also taken into account, such as allowing a preliminary testing of the
research hypothesis, permitting a thorough check of the planned statistical and
87
analytical procedures, and providing me with ideas that might not have been
foreseen before conducting the pilot study. The details of the pilot study are
summarised as follows:
The study was conducted at the university of Al-jabal Al-gharbi in Tiji City in
Libya. The participants who took part in this study shared the same culture
and language (Arabic) and majored in English. The study took place over a
period of two weeks, from the 1st to the 13th of September 2014. Permission
was sought at the very beginning. The head of the English department
welcomed the idea and signed the permission. She also provided me with the
names of the English teachers. I was then able to meet four English teachers
(three males and one female); the other teachers were in classes. I introduced
myself and verbally clarified the purposes behind my presence in the
university. The Information Sheet, which I developed, was also provided. As
indicated previously, in this sheet, explanations about my research and the
procedures for the pilot study were provided. I invited them to take part in the
study either by filling out the questionnaire or by conducting interviews. I also
indicated my need to conduct some classroom observations. The same
procedures were followed with the volunteered students. I visited them in their
class after their lesson and explained why I was there and what I needed from
them. It was ensured that they understood that their participation was entirely
voluntary and their confidentiality absolutely guaranteed, and that furthermore,
the data that they provided would be destroyed once processed.
3.5.1 The procedures for piloting instruments
During the first week of the pilot study, I repeatedly visited the university in
order to meet the participants to speak with them and visit them during their
regular classes. The rationale behind that was to familiarise the participants
with what would happen next and to make them feel more at ease during the
observations. In addition, in order to obtain meaningful data from observation
of learning strategy behaviour, ‘it is likely that the investigator will need to visit
the same class over an extended period’ (Cohen, 2014). During this week,
some strategy training was also introduced to the teachers who were involved
88
in the study, via describing and exemplifying some vocabulary learning
strategies. I gave the teachers a short discussion about some VLSs, such as
associations, paraphrasing and the keyword method. The discussion was
followed by a short practice in which the teachers were encouraged to come
up with their own examples for the introduced strategies. Once the training
was over, I asked the teachers to give a 10-minute talk about the practised
strategies. They were free to speak in Arabic or in English. Later, I asked them
to follow the same steps and present the techniques to their students as well
as encourage the use of them. In the second week of the pilot study the
questionnaires were distributed and observations were carried out before
follow-up interviews were conducted.
3.5.2 Piloting the questionnaire
According to Dörnyei, there is only one way to know how the items of the
questionnaire will work in actual practice; that is,
By administering the questionnaire to a group of respondents who

are in every way similar to the target population the instrument was
designed for. This is usually an undeclared pre-test whereby the
respondents are not told that this is a questionnaire under
construction. (2003: 67)
Therefore, the intention behind piloting the questionnaire was to check the
clarity and usefulness of the items in obtaining the expected information. To
avoid testing fatigue and overestimating or underestimating the use of certain
strategies, the questionnaire was in Arabic (the participants’ mother tongue).
The translation was done by the researcher, and prior to administrating the
questionnaire, it was revised twice by two Arabic-English linguistic specialists,
one from Manchester Metropolitan University and the other a PhD teacher at
Al-jabal Al-gharbi University, to check the validity of the translation. There were
no significant differences in terms of meaning between the translations.
Sufficient verbal explanations of how to respond to the statements were given
to the participants. They were informed that the questionnaire was not a test
89
and that their answers would only be used for study purposes. The
respondents were encouraged to highlight any difficult or ambiguous
questions that they could not understand. The time for completing the
questionnaire was not restricted. As strategies differ from one person to
another, the participants were not allowed to discuss or share their answers
with one another, and therefore completed the questionnaire in front of me. I
collected the questionnaires immediately after the students had finished
completing them.
In this phase, 14 participants (ten students and four teachers) took part, and
two versions of the questionnaire (see section 3.4.1) were demonstrated.
Students were divided into two groups, with five in each group. The first group
was given the original version of Schmitt’s (1997) questionnaire (Appendix 4),
with its 58 items, whereas the second group was handed the adapted version
(Appendix 2), also based on Schmitt’s study. The rationale behind developing
this version was discussed above in section 3.4.1. Even though the
questionnaires were conducted in the participants’ native language (Arabic),
and their items were simplified by including some more relevant examples,
e.g. I check for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra-‫)الجبر‬, further
explanations were needed, which took more time than expected, especially for
SOQ. A parallel version of this questionnaire was also handed to the four
volunteer teachers (Appendix 1). As indicated in section 3.4.1, demonstrating
two versions of the questionnaire allowed me to test which one could better
serve the main study in terms of feasibility, comprehensibility and answering
my research questions. When scoring the data, I followed the same method
that Schmitt (1997) used in scoring his questionnaire data, which was using
percentages to present the collected data. The results were analysed
quantitatively with the help of Microsoft Office Excel, either in terms of
frequency or in percentages.
3.5.3 Piloting the interview
The aims of testing interviews were: a) to check the clarity of the questions,
and b) to identify central problems in the instructions, contents and time
90
allocations so that they could be corrected and resolved before the main study
took place. The interviews were carried out in Arabic in order to reduce the
possibility of being misunderstood or misinterpreted, as well as to enable
participants to freely express their ideas and thoughts. The interviewees’
appointments were arranged based on convenience and availability. The
duration of the interviews was about 25 minutes, and the respondents’
answers were recorded and transcribed by the researcher.
3.5.4 Piloting the observation
Observation procedures were also piloted. My role as an observer was a

non-intrusive role (Cohen et al., 2000). In other words, it was like ‘someone
who takes no part in the activity, but his/her status as a researcher is known
to the participants’ (Robson, 2002: 319). Therefore, I did my best not to
interrupt the flow of the class. In order to be able to observe both teacher and
students, I sat to the side and opened my observation sheet (see section
3.6.2.3), which was prepared so that notes could be taken regarding issues
relating to vocabulary learning/teaching strategies, and started writing notes
once the teacher began his/her lesson. After each observation, any issues,
themes and questions that had been generated from the observational data
were discussed in a follow-up interview. The interview was conducted with the
teacher that was observed, depending on his or her free time and availability.
In analysing the observational data, the focus was on describing what the
participants (teacher and students) did in terms of vocabulary learning strategy
use/promotion. Piloting the observation in general allowed me to refine my
approach (see section 3.4.2 above) and obtain live data on the ongoing
actions. It is true that the data gathered by this technique was limited to overt
strategies, but the use of observations was essential in order to ensure that
the teachers followed their lesson plans as agreed, and also to keep track of
how students responded to the strategy instruction provided by their teachers.
Strategies operating at a cognitive level were elicited by other instruments,
such as questionnaires and interviews.
91
3.5.5 Pilot study results
The data gathered from the VLSs questionnaires, classroom observation

and semi-structured interview will be outlined in this section, starting with the
results concerning strategy use/promotion and continuing with identifying the
nature of teaching methods adopted. Because the analysis of any kind of pilot
study should mainly be descriptive (Bunn et al., 1998), descriptive statistics
were used to identify the frequency of VLSs used/promoted or known by
Libyan EFL teachers and learners. In terms of strategy use, the obtained
results revealed that the deeper the processing the strategy requires, the less
frequently it is used by the participants. In other words, participants seemed to
prefer mechanical strategies that do not involve complicated stages such as
repetition and asking for L1 meaning, at the expense of the deeper ones.
Table 6 (below) exemplifies some of the participants’ responses to the piloted
VLSQ.
Table 6: Sample of the data gathered in the pilot study
Type Strategy use

VLSs of Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never
VLSs F % F % F % F % F %
L1 translation DIS 7 70% 2 20% _ _ 1 10% _ _
The key word 50

MEM _ _ _ _ 1 10% 4 40% 5
method %
10
Paraphrasing MEM 1 10% 5 50% 2 20% 1 10% 1
%
Written repetition COG 8 80% 2 20% _ _ _ _ _ _
In general, the participants questioned seemed to resort to VLSs to a

medium extent. The strategy category reported to be the most commonly
utilised was determination strategies, followed by memory strategies, social
strategies, cognitive strategies, and lastly metacognitive strategies. When
comparing the results of each individual strategy, it was apparent that the
strategies of dictionary use, repetition, contextual clues, and analysing affixes
and roots were the most favoured ones among almost all respondents.
92
Broadly, the feedback of the survey indicated that both teachers and
students have very limited knowledge about vocabulary learning strategies.
For one reason or another, they seemed to stick to a few strategies, which
may be due to them being unaware of any other strategies. The results
obtained also showed that teachers and students did not consider VLSs as
difficult to teach/learn in classrooms. Instead, they all had a positive attitude
towards conducting strategy training and they highly encouraged the idea. In
this regard, for example, the overall response to the question ‘Would you be
receptive to being taught VLSs in your classroom?’ was very positive. All the
participants seemed to share the same view and they all strongly agreed with
the suggested idea. For example, one interviewee said: ‘Of course, I like. I
need to develop my vocabulary repertoire and I think that this training would
help me’, while another commented: ‘Surely, and I encourage conducting such
useful programmes.’
During the observations, the strategies that were obvious were very few. Part
of this may be due to the fact that observation reveals only those strategies
whose application is manifested in observable behaviour (Pavičić Takač,
2008). In general, the participants being observed tended to use simple
strategies, such as dictionary use, asking their teacher for Arabic translations,
and guessing meaning from context, which do not comprise complicated
steps. However, when the students were given a short talk about the
usefulness of VLSs they were interested and eager to know more. In the
follow-up interview, they believed that such instruction would be helpful for
them in terms of easing their learning of lexis.
If we move to identifying the nature of the teaching approaches followed, the

results obtained revealed the use of some vocabulary teaching strategies (see
the previous chapter for more details), e.g., giving antonyms, analysing word
roots, and memorising lists of words. Here, it is interesting to note that the
teachers’ use of certain VTSs seems to influence their students’ choice of
VLSs. This explains why there is a kind of agreement in the strategies chosen
by both teachers and students, in which the latter possibly acquired them
through observation and imitation (Pavičić Takač, 2008). Bearing the
93
aforementioned point in mind it can be concluded that exposing teachers to
strategy training can exert a beneficial influence on students’ use of VLSs. A
teacher-fronted approach that encourages one-way communication, on the
other hand, has also been observed in the investigated classes.
3.5.6 Drawbacks of the piloting
While piloting the instruments, it was not possible to record the lesson
visually or even using an MP3 device. This resulted in pen and paper
recording, which was time-consuming. Cultural and religious norms were
widely mentioned by the participants as reasons behind their objection to being
recorded. However, using a digital audio recorder was not helpful in picking up
the information needed regarding vocabulary strategies when the lesson
contained reading or writing activities. In such cases, handouts (Yes-No
checklist) were prepared and given to the people being observed, who were
asked to tick the strategies that applied after the lesson.
In the piloted questionnaire, open-ended items concerning attitudes towards

vocabulary learning and the strategy training programme seemed to be
ambiguous to some participants, so they were reworded. With respect to the
interview questions, they were slightly too long for participants, especially the
students. This was therefore to be rectified prior to carrying out the main study
by making them shorter and more focused.
The previous sections provided a brief overview of the study location,

population, ethical issues, instrumentation and the conducted pilot study. I will
now focus on the S1 results and discussion.
3.6 Study 1 analysis
Data concerning strategy use, the nature of teaching approaches, and

attitudes towards strategy instruction gathered from the questionnaires,
interview and observation will be analysed and discussed in this section.
Statistical procedures will be followed in analysing the quantitative data,
whereas the qualitative information will be transcribed and used to interpret
94
the results. Since S1 aims to explore and describe the current situation in
terms of strategy implementation and teaching methods followed, mixed
methods of data collection were adopted, which was assumed to be
appropriate for such an investigation. However, the data obtained was used
for triangulation in answering S1 questions, stated at the outset of this chapter.
For the sake of manageability and practicality, S1 results were coded under
two categories according to the type of instrument used in data collection. That
is to say, the questionnaire data were presented and discussed under the
category of ‘quantitative data analysis’, whereas the category of ‘qualitative
data analysis’ was allocated for interpreting the results gathered from
observation, interview and the questionnaire’s open-ended questions. Since
the VLSQ was the main instrument for S1 data collection, analysis of the
quantitative data will be provided first. What follows now is the questionnaire
results and discussion.
3.6.1 Study 1: quantitative data analysis, results and

discussion
Prior to conducting the strategy training programme, the participants,

teachers and students, were given a VLSQ. As discussed above, the purpose
behind this was to elicit how often the strategic action is used/promoted, as
well as to select certain strategies to be taught in the training programme,
which will be accounted for in more detail in the coming chapters. Thirty-eight
items were modified based on Schmitt’s (1997) typology, which includes
determination, social, memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies. Each
subgroup will be analysed and interpreted in-depth at a later stage. The coding
of the questionnaire data was done manually. When scoring the data, I
followed the same method that Schmitt (1997) used in scoring his
questionnaire data, which was using percentages to present the collected
data. The results were analysed quantitatively with the help of SPSS version
21.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), one of the most commonly
used software programmes in social sciences research. Both the teachers’
and students’ responses were independently entered into SPSS and
95
descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies (F), percentages (%), mean (M)
and standard deviation (SD) were produced. From this point on, tables used
in presenting data will involve the aforementioned elements. For manageability
and practicality purposes, the 38 items in the questionnaire, which concern
VLSs, were grouped into five subscales based on the previously mentioned
categories, as suggested by Schmitt (1997). Table 7 (next page) illustrates the
distribution of the used questionnaire items’ according to the categorisation of
the VLSs.
Table 7: Categories of vocabulary learning strategies included in the VLSQ

Category Number of Statement No
statements
Determination 7 1-7
Social 5 8-12
Memory 17 13-21, 24-25 & 33-
38
Cognitive 6 22-23, 26-27, 29 &
32
Metacognitive 3 28 & 30-31
As shown in the table above, the statements of the questionnaire were

presented in a jumbled order, without logical groups, similarly to the manner
employed by Schmitt (1997). The logic behind this was to help students work
through a different strategy each time, which requires paying more attention
to each single strategy, and thus gaining more reliable and transparent
answers.
Once the results were input into SPSS, the descriptive statistics for each
category were obtained and conceptualised in the form of tables and figures.
In comparison to Schmitt’s questionnaire, which included two scales (Yes and
No), the adapted questionnaire was based on the 5-point Likert scale in order
to obtain more detailed and precise information than Schmitt in terms of
strategy implementation. The questionnaire statements had five options,
96
which were later given values from 5 to 1 as follows: 5 = always, 4 = often, 3
= sometimes, 2 = rarely and 1 = never. The participants here had to indicate
their frequency of use of the strategy by selecting one of the options for each
item in the questionnaire. The score average for each strategy was computed
by dividing the sum of the participants’ responses by the number of the
participants. For instance, the mean score for the strategy of ‘analysing parts
of speech’ (item 1 in Table 9, section 3.6.1.1) in the teachers’ questionnaire
was calculated by dividing the total responses for each frequency adverb value
by the number of teachers, i.e. 13 (47 ÷ 13 = 3.6). The score average for each
of the five categories was calculated by dividing the total mean values of the
strategies by the number of strategies. For example, the score average for the
category of determination strategies in the teachers’ questionnaire was 3.6 +
3.0 + 2.3 +2.8 + 3.8 + 2.6 + 3 = 21.1 ÷ 7 = 3.0.
After calculating all the mean scores, they were compared according to the
differences between them. That is to say, the higher the mean value was, the
more often the strategy was utilised. As a 5-point Likert scale was adopted in
the distributed questionnaire, a mean value above 3 represented high
frequency in the use/promotion of the strategy, while those below 3 indicated
low frequency in the use/promotion of the strategy. Bearing this in mind, the
mean scores of the five dimensions of VLSs gained in S1 ranged between low
to high (see Table 8 below), with a medium overall strategy promotion/use for
both teachers (M = 2.7, SD = .22) and students (M = 2.8, SD = .27). Table 8
presents the mean and standard deviation scores of the five categories of
VLSs. However, it is worth mentioning that the data collected in S1, which will
be presented below, indicates the current situation of strategy use by both
Libyan EFL teachers and students before the intervention.
97
Table 8: Study 1: Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) values of five VLSs
categories
Category M SD
Determination Strategies
Teachers 3.0 0.53
Students 3.3 0.46
Social Strategies
Teachers 3.0 0.33
Students 2.8 0.37
Memory Strategies
Teachers 2.5 0.40
Students 2.6 0.39
Cognitive Strategies
Teachers 2.8 0.43
Students 2.9 0.49
Metacognitive Strategies
Teachers 2.6 0.15
Students 2.7 0.20
Overall
Teachers 2.7 0.22
Students 2.8 0.27
With the purpose of giving an account of the VLSs, teachers’ and students’
data were gathered. Based on the results in Table 8 it is clear that the
participants are generally medium use strategy users. Among the five
categories of VLSs, determination strategies appeared as the most frequently
encouraged/used by both teachers (M = 3.0, SD = .53) and students (M = 3.3,
SD = .46) and memory strategies were ranked lowest by teachers (M = 2.5,
SD = .40) and students (M = 2.6, SD = .39) alike. In terms of the investigated
participants, teachers seem to prefer promoting the use of determination and
social strategies, as the mean values of these two categories were found to
be ranked highest at 3.0, followed by cognitive strategies (M = 2.8).
Metacognitive strategies came next with a mean score of 2.6, and lastly
memory strategies ranked the lowest (M = 2.5) among the five dimensions.
Although the results of the pilot study (see section 3.5.5) revealed that memory
strategies were among the most favoured ones, the main study showed quite
the opposite, which was also contrary to my earlier assumption (mentioned on
page 51). A possible explanation for this might be that the total number of
participants in the pilot study was small (just 14) compared to that in the main
98
study, and also the number of items in the questionnaire, especially SOQ (see
section 3.4.1) was quite high and comprised a lot of memory items.
As for the investigated students, according to Table 8, we can assume that

participants favoured using determination strategies, with a mean score of 3.3,
which was just above their teachers’ score. This finding is in accordance with
recent studies such as Aljadee’s (2007) and Amirians and Heshmatifar’s
(2013), which found that the determination category was the most preferred
amongst the five categories of VLSs among Libyan and Iranian EFL students.
Cognitive strategies came in second place in terms of implementation (M =
2.9, SD = .49), followed by social strategies in third place (M = 2.8, SD = .37)
and then metacognitive strategies in fourth place with a mean value of 2.7.
Memory strategies were observed to obtain the lowest average score (M =
2.6) among all categories by both Libyan EFL teachers and students, which
was contrary to my earlier assumption and the pilot study results as indicated
above. However, this finding seems to be consistent with Aljadee’s (2007)
study, which found that the use of memory strategies was not so frequent
among Libyan EFL learners.
Bearing the above discussion in mind it can be assumed that both Libyan
EFL teachers and students were positive with regard to
employing/encouraging the use of determination strategies and social
strategies at the expense of the other categories. They seemed to infrequently
promote/utilise metacognitive strategies and memory strategies in their
vocabulary teaching/learning. This however, will be accounted in for more
detail in the coming sections. By looking at Table 8 in page 97, we can see
that apart from social strategies, students’ implementation of the other
strategies is slightly higher than their teachers’ promotion of such strategies.
The reasons why teachers are normally unaware of encouraging more use of
VLSs in their classrooms could be numerous. One interpretation could be that
the time constraints, as three interviewees put it, lead to teachers
concentrating on covering the materials that are stated in their curriculum
rather than anything else. In addition, the teachers are unaware of the
99
importance of such strategies and have never been trained in how to use or
teach them before (see section 3.2, page 82-83), which makes it a difficult task
to integrate the strategies in their lessons. Teachers were indeed positive with
regard to promoting the use of determination strategies and social strategies
but this may be due to the strategies being used spontaneously and reactively
with the aim of helping students when the need arises.
To sum up, the initial analysis of the S1 survey showed that Libyan EFL
teachers and students did sometimes implement/promote the use of some
VLSs in their vocabulary teaching/learning. An independent samples t-test
comparing the teachers’ scores with the students’ ones showed no statistically
significant difference between teachers’ promotion of VLSs and students’ use
of the determination strategies Ts (M=3.0, SD=0.53) and Ss (M=3.3.
SD=0.46); t(12) = -1.282, p = 0.857. A similar observation holds true for the
social strategies t(8) = 1.132, p =0.834, memory strategies t(32) = -0.857 p =
0.655, cognitive strategies t(10) = -0.449, p = 0.879, and metacognitive
strategies t(4) = -0.894, p =0.519. The results in general confirmed some
findings obtained in earlier studies, as well as demonstrating some contrasts
that could be used to enrich our knowledge of VLSs. It is true that the
participants in this project were rated as medium strategy users of the five
categories overall, but within each category, scores ranged from high to low
based on the kind of strategy. In order to give a clear picture of the whole
pattern of VLSs implemented/promoted by participants, it is useful to know the
frequencies of all the vocabulary learning strategies included in the
questionnaire according to their categorisations. The coming two sections will
look in detail at the participants’ responses; I will start with the teachers’ survey
as this particular group of participants receives the greatest attention in the
current research.
3.6.1.1 Teachers’ VLSs questionnaire (TVLSQ)

Although eight teachers were involved in the training programme (S3), the
TVLSQ was initially administrated to a total of 13 participants to obtain as
much information as possible. As previously indicated, the participating
100
teachers were recruited from two faculties (Tiji and Badr) at Al-jabal Al-gharbi
University, and were delivering English lectures to grade 1 and 2 students. The
participants varied in age, experience and qualifications (Master’s and Doctor
of Philosophy). The TVLSQ items were 41 in total. Part 2 was the main part of
the questionnaire and involved 38 items in the form of statements followed by
a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 meant ‘always’, 4 ‘often’, 3 ‘sometimes’, 2
‘rarely’, and 1 ‘never’. The items in this part were divided into five categories,
as stated earlier, and focused on those strategies teachers actually had in
mind when teaching English vocabulary. The supplementary parts of the
TVLSQ included three open-ended questions so that the teachers could
provide qualitative data on their beliefs about vocabulary teaching and VLS
instruction, plus some items allocated for basic background information i.e.,
age and years of experience. The results in this section were divided into two
parts: demographic information and vocabulary learning strategies use/
promotion, which was further divided into five subsections as we will see next.
Open-ended questions included in the TVLSQ were analysed qualitatively in
subsection 3.6.2, since this section concerns the quantitative data analysis
only.
Part 1: Teachers’ demographic information
As discussed earlier in this chapter, of the initial cohort of 13 EFL teachers,

five were female and eight were male, which represents the overall ratio of
male to female English language teachers at the university. Instructors whose
majors were related to linguistics were given priority to participate in the study
because they were more likely to deal with new words in their English teaching,
and more likely to be familiar with VLS research. The data gathered revealed
that the participants had a wide age range and for the sake of practicality, they
were coded under different decades. The same procedure was followed in
coding the length of teaching experience. The table below illustrates teachers’
age and years of EFL teaching.
101
Table 9: Study 1: teachers’ age and years of EFL teaching
Participants’ age Participants’ experience
Years N % Years N %
25-30 2 15% 0-10 7 54%
31-40 7 54% 11-20 4 31%
41-50 3 23% Over 20 2 15%
Over 50 1 8%
Total 13 100% Total 13 100%
As can be seen from Table 9, the vast majority (around 69%) of the
participating teachers were less than 40 years old. Teachers who were aged
between 40 and 50 were few (only three, 23%), with only one participant (8%)
aged over 50. In the EFL teaching field, most of the instructors involved in this
study seemed to be young professionals who had been teaching English for
less than ten years (54%). Four teachers had up to 20 years of teaching
experience (31%) and just two teachers (15%) had been teaching EFL for
more than 20 years.
Part 2: Vocabulary learning strategies promoted
This part included 38 items, and the teachers were asked to rate to what
degree they integrate/promote the use of VLSs in their teaching practices. On
the five-point scale, teachers were generally found to be moderate strategy
users of the five categories of VLSs, namely determination, social, memory,
cognitive and metacognitive strategies. However, within each category some
strategies were encouraged in the teaching process much more often than
others, and this is what will be discussed next.
I. Determination strategies
This category comprised seven items as shown in Table 10, next page. On
the whole, the overall mean of this category was the highest (M = 3.0), as
noted earlier in this chapter. This means that the use of determination
102
strategies seems to have been more often encouraged by Libyan EFL
teachers. This position seemed to be shared with social strategies, which will
be discussed later. Table 10 (below) shows the percentages, mean scores and
standard deviation of each type of the seven determination strategies included
in the questionnaire.
Table 10: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to determination strategies

Frequency of use
Item
Always Often Some- Rarely Never

no.
Strategy times M SD
F % F % F % F % F %
1 Analysing part of speech 3 23.1 4 30.8 4 30.8 2 15.4 0 0.0 3.6 1.04
(e.g. Noun, verb)
2 Analysing affixes and 0 0.0 4 30.8 6 46.2 3 23.1 0 0.0 3.0 0.75
roots (e.g. Un-predict-
able)
3 Checking for L1 cognate 2 15.4 0 0.0 2 15.4 5 38.5 4 30.8 2.3 1.37
(e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬,
Algebra-‫)الجبر‬
4 Analysing any available 2 15.4 3 23.1 2 15.4 3 23.1 3 23.1 2.8 1.46
pictures or gestures
5 Guessing from textual 5 38.5 3 23.1 3 23.1 2 15.4 0 0.0 3.8 1.14
context
6 Using a dictionary 1 7.7 4 30.8 2 15.4 1 7.7 5 38.5 2.6 1.50
7 Using a word list for 2 15.4 2 15.4 5 38.5 3 23.1 1 7.7 3.0 1.18
studying new words
Table 10 shows the results obtained from the initial survey of determination
strategies. It is apparent from the table that there is a low-to-high degree of
encouragement of determination techniques, since the mean scores of the
statements ranged from low, as in item 3 (M = 2.3), to high, as in item 5 (M =
3.8). The respondents appeared to strongly encourage their students to guess
the meaning of new words from textual context (item 5). Of the 13 teachers
who responded to this question, five said that they always use contextual clues
in their teaching practices. This result was rather predictable since the use of
such a strategy is a common practice in Libya due to the fact that it saves time
and does not interrupt lesson flow. This was followed by the strategy of
‘analysing parts of speech’ (item, 1, M = 3.6), which was second in terms of
use. The strategies of ‘using word lists for studying new words’ (item 7) and
‘analysing affixes and roots’ (item 2) came third with a mean score of 3.0.
Several studies such as Schmitt (1997), Ghazal (2007), and Narayanasamy
103
(2014) have confirmed the effectiveness of the word list strategy in FL
vocabulary learning. In the current study, the word list strategy ranked in the
middle position in terms of utilisation, which was contrary to expectations. This
means that this strategy is often adopted, but not to the extent of usually. In
contrast, strategies of ‘analysing any available pictures or gestures’ (item 4, M
= 2.8), and ‘using dictionaries’ (item 6, M = 2.6) appeared to have the smallest
mean score, with the strategy of ‘checking for L1 cognates’ (item 3, M = 2.3)
turning out to be the least known/encouraged amongst the determination
strategies. Just two (15.4%) of those who answered question 3 reported that
they always encourage students to check for L1 cognates, which is not
surprising since Arabic and English languages belong to different families. The
former belongs to the Semitic language family whereas the latter to the
Germanic branch of the Indo-European family (Aljdee, 2007) and thus finding
cognates to take advantage of is a difficult task. If they existed, they would be
very few. However, in response to this item, two of the participating teachers
chose ‘Always’. A possible explanation for this might be due to loanwords; the
Arabic language is like any other language where loanwords from different
languages have entered into it and been adapted by people, and the two
respondents who opted for ‘always’ may have answered the question with
loanwords in mind (Schmitt, 1997). This appears to be the case with their
students as well, as we will see later. Another unanticipated finding was that
teachers rarely ask their students to check the meaning of unknown words in
their dictionaries. They seem to be unaware of the usefulness of consulting
dictionaries, which are ‘often the only source of information on words (and)…
one of the key strategies for independent learning of a foreign language’
(Pavičić Takač, 2008). Here, it could be argued that teachers have to be aware
of the advantage and applicability of the different VLSs, including dictionary
use, in order to aid their students to reflect on their own vocabulary learning.
II. Social Strategies
In this part, five items were allocated for measuring social strategies. Table
11 (next page) revealed that all social strategies received means higher than
3.0, with the exception of the strategy of asking classmates for meaning, and
104
the strategy of discovering the meaning through group work activity, which
received means of 2.8 and 2.7 respectively. However, the overall mean of this
category, that is 3.0, compared to the other four categories of VLSs
(determination, memory, cognitive and metacognitive strategies) meant it
came in first place in terms of promotion along with the determination category.
Table 11 below presents the percentages, mean, and standard deviation
values of each type of the five social strategies included in the questionnaire.
Table 11: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to social strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.
Always Often Some- Rarely Never M SD

Strategy times
F % F % F % F % F %
8 L1 translation 5 38.5 1 7.7 4 30.8 2 15.4 1 7.7 3.5 1.39
9 Paraphrasing the new 1 7.7 3 23.1 6 46.2 3 23.1 0 0.0 3.1 0.89
words or giving
synonyms
10 Giving sentences 2 15.4 3 23.1 6 46.2 2 15.4 0 0.0 3.3 0.96
include the new word
11 Asking classmates for 1 7.7 4 30.8 2 15.4 4 30.8 2 15.4 2.8 1.28
meaning
12 Discovering the 0 0.0 2 15.4 6 46.2 5 38.5 0 0.0 2.7 0.72
meaning via group
work activity
Table 11 provides the summary statistics for the frequency of promoting the
use of the five social strategies involved in the questionnaire. Items in the top
half of the table (items 8, 9 and 10) enjoyed a relatively high degree of
encouragement in their utilisation. The strategy of ‘L1 translation’, for example,
came first in terms of adoption, with a score average of 3.5, followed by the
strategy of ‘giving sentences including the new word’ (item, 10, M = 3.3), and
then by the strategy of ‘paraphrasing the new words’ (item 9), which came third
with a mean value of 3.1. In contrast, the Libyan EFL teachers appeared to
highly promote the use of mother tongue, as item 8’s mean score shows. Of
the 13 teachers who completed the questionnaire, just three said that they
rarely or never provide their students with Arabic translations. The reason for
this is not clear but it may have something to do with the traditional teaching
methods adopted, such as the grammar translation method, characterised by
the use of the mother tongue. Bearing this in mind, the teachers questioned
105
seem to teach English as they were themselves taught (Abukhattala, 2016).
Also, the use of L1 might have the advantage of being fast and easily
understood by the learners, which might be another possible explanation for
Libyan EFL teachers resorting to using L1 in classrooms.
In contrast, the bottom half of the table shows the least known/promoted
strategies in this category. Few teachers (only two) seemed to encourage
group work activities, which may be because of the fact that the classes are
usually large and thus managing time will be difficult. Most of teachers
investigated seemed not to encourage their students to consult each other
when facing difficulties in identifying the meaning of unknown words (item 11).
Almost half of those (around 46%) who responded to this item reported that
they do not promote the use of this strategy in their teaching practices. The
strategy of ‘discovering the meaning through group work activity’ (item 12)
seemed also to receive a moderate degree of attention from the teachers
questioned, with a mean value of 2.7, which is perhaps because it is time-
consuming. Compared to the other social strategies, the aforementioned items
appeared as the least adopted/promoted, which suggests the existence of an
interaction barrier between the teachers questioned and their students.
Although communicative activities in and out of classes can assist in
consolidating the newly learned words (Kudo, 1999), the results obtained
seem to show that this is rarely the case. Another possible explanation for this
may be that teacher-fronted classes encourage students to be solely
receptive, since they provide ‘few opportunities for students to work
collaboratively to explore each others’ learning strategies’ (Chamot, 2011: 36).
Besides, in an EFL environment such as Libya, exposure to the target
language is minimal and so this strategy was expected to rank low.
III. Memory Strategies
Seventeen statements pertaining to memory strategies are included in the

VLSQ (Table 12, next page). The overall mean score for memory strategies in
comparison to the other four categories was 2.5, which makes it the least
encouraged type among all the categories of VLSs. This means that the
106
participating teachers were generally less positive with regard to promoting the
use of memory strategies in their teaching practices. Table 12 illustrates the
percentages, means and standard deviation scores for each of memory
strategy included in the TVLSQ.
Table 12: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to memory strategies
Frequency of use
Item no.

Strategy times
F % F % F % F % F %
13 Drawing a picture of the 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 30.8 3 23.1 6 46.2 1.8 0.89
new word
14 Understanding the 2 15.4 3 23.1 4 30.8 2 23.1 1 7.7 3.1 1.21
meaning of the unknown
words by looking at the
accompanying picture
15 Connecting the word to a 0 0.0 3 23.1 4 30.8 3 23.1 3 23.1 2.5 1.12
personal experience
16 Associating the word with 2 15.4 1 7.7 4 30.8 4 30.8 2 15.4 2.7 1.30
its coordinates
17 Associating new words 2 15.4 1 7.7 6 46.2 4 30.8 0 0.0 3.0 1.03
with their synonyms or
antonyms
18 Using semantic maps 3 23.1 2 15.4 2 15.4 5 38.5 1 7.7 3.0 1.38
19 Using scales for gradable 1 7.7 2 15.4 3 23.1 4 30.8 3 23.1 2.5 1.26
adjectives
20 Placing new words in a 0 0.0 2 15.4 5 38.5 2 15.4 3 23.1 2.3 1.12
group with other items
based on topic, theme
etc
21 Using new words in 2 15.4 4 30.8 3 23.1 2 15.4 2 15.4 3.1 1.34
sentences to remember
them
24 Repeating a word (i.e. 1 7.7 2 15.4 5 38.5 2 15.4 3 23.1 2.6 1.25
aloud, in mind, by
spelling it)
25 Imagining the written 2 15.4 1 7.7 3 23.1 5 38.5 2 15.4 2.6 1.31
form of a word to
remember it
33 Using the keyword 0 0.0 1 7.7 2 15.4 3 23.1 7 53.8 1.7 1.01
method
34 Grouping words together 0 0.0 3 23.1 2 15.4 4 30.8 4 30.8 2.3 1.18
spatially on a page
35 Paraphrasing the word’s 1 7.7 3 23.1 3 23.1 4 30.8 2 15.4 2.7 1.23
meaning
36 Learning words of an 0 0.0 5 38.5 3 23.1 1 7.7 4 30.8 2.6 1.31
expression together as if
they were just one word
37 Underlining initial letter of 0 0.0 3 23.1 3 23.1 3 23.1 4 30.8 2.3 1.19
the word
38 Outlining the word with 0 0.0 3 23.1 2 15.4 5 38.5 3 23.1 2.3 1.12
lines (configuration)
107
From Table 12 we can see that out of the 17 questions relating to memory
strategies, just four items, 14, 17, 18 and 21, obtained fairly high scores.
However, the memory strategies that were most promoted were item 14 ‘using
new words in sentences’ and item 21 ‘looking at the accompanying pictures’
with a mean score of 3.1. The strategies of ‘association’ and ‘using semantic
maps’ (items 17, 18, M = 3.0) appeared as the second most frequently
promoted in this category. The strategies of ‘associating the word with its
coordinates’ and ‘paraphrasing the word’s meaning’ (items 16 and 35) came
in third place with a mean score of 2.7. Strategy 24, ‘repeating a word’, strategy
25, ‘imaging the written form of the word’ and strategy 36, ‘learning words of
an expression together’ ranked fourth (M = 2.6). The fifth most promoted
strategies, with a mean of 2.5, were strategy 15, ‘connecting the word to a
personal experience’ and strategy 19, ‘using scales for gradable adjectives’.
Apart from these, none of the other strategies were widely promoted. They all
scored less than 2.5, especially the strategy of ‘using the keyword method’
(item 33, M = 1.7). For this particular strategy, over half of those surveyed
reported that they never encourage their students to use the keyword method
in their vocabulary learning. This may be due to the difficulty of using the
strategy since finding Arabic words that are phonetically, concretely and
orthographically similar to the English ones is a difficult task, if not an
impossible one. What is more, the method entails creating an image to
combine the two concepts, which some teachers could find difficult to plan. In
comparison to the English language, many Arabic words are monosyllabic and
thus finding such an association demands a great deal of effort and time. The
keyword method demands more active manipulation of information (Schmitt,
1997), and thus, it is rarely spontaneously used unless it has been explicitly
taught, which requires careful planning (Pavičić Takač, 2008). As a rule,
learners who are more proficient in the target language can use this method
(ibid), whereas beginners often favour rote learning strategies, such as
repetition, over more complex ones. Vocabulary learning strategy training
success depends on the extent to which teachers know about existing VLSs
and ‘what form of knowledge and skills learners need to acquire in order to
successfully use each of them’ (2008). Therefore, in the training programme,
108
it would be good to let teachers and students know much more about the
different VLSs available and let them decide which ones they prefer to follow.
However, almost all of the strategies included in the VLSQ will be introduced
in the training and the focus will be on particular strategies (illustrated in study
2, Chapter 4), since a two-week period for teachers will not be enough to apply
all the suggested strategies. The strategy of ‘drawing a picture of the new word’
also ranked very low (item 13, M = 1.8). The majority of those who responded
to this item (around 46%) said that they never ask their students to draw a
picture of the new word. However, the successful integration of the
aforementioned strategy demands an efficient teacher, engaged learner and
an appropriate level to facilitate teacher-student feedback (Anderson, 2012).
The participating teachers also seemed to seldom pay attention to the use of
configuration (item 38, M = 2.3), ‘grouping words together spatially (item 34,
M = 2.3), or underlining the initial letter of the word (item 37, M = 2.3).
Furthermore, the teachers questioned were less likely to encourage their
students to imagine the written form of a word or use repetition methods (items
24, 25, M = 2.6).
IV. Cognitive Strategies
The cognitive strategy category involved six statements, as shown in Table

13 (next page). The category of cognitive strategies appeared as the second
most preferred one by respondents, with an overall mean score of 2.7, as
shown earlier in this chapter. This is still low, yet it means that Libyan EFL
teachers often promote the use of some cognitive strategies in their vocabulary
teaching. Table 13 (next page) shows the percentages, means and standard
deviation scores for each of the six cognitive strategies included in the TVLSQ.
109
Table 13: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to cognitive strategies
Frequency of use
Item no. Always Often Some- Rarely Never SD

M
Strategy times
F % F % F % F % F %
22 Writing a word 1 7.7 2 15.4 3 23.1 3 23.1 4 30.8 2.4 1.33
repeatedly
23 Acting out or miming 1 7.7 2 15.4 4 30.8 2 15.4 4 30.8 2.5 1.33
the new word
26 Taping or listening to 0 0.0 3 23.1 2 15.4 4 30.8 4 30.8 2.3 1.18
tapes of new words
27 Taking notes in class 1 7.7 4 30.8 5 38.5 1 7.7 2 15.4 3.0 1.18
29 Using the vocabulary 3 23.1 2 15.4 3 23.1 5 38.5 0 0.0 3.2 1.23
section or glossaries in
the textbook
32 Writing new words in 3 23.1 2 15.4 5 38.5 3 23.1 0 0.0 3.3 1.12
vocabulary notebook
The results in Table 13 show that half of the cognitive strategies included in
the TVLSQ were not popular among the respondents. It is obvious that
strategy 26 ‘taping or listening to tapes of new words’ ranked lowest (M = 2.3)
among all the six cognitive strategies in this category, with a standard deviation
score of 1.18. Of the 13 participants who responded to this item, seven
reported that they either ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ promote such a strategy to their
students. The strategies of ‘writing the word repeatedly’ (item 22, M = 2.4) and
‘acting or miming the new word’ (item 23, M = 2.5) were marginally favoured
by the respondents. In contrast, the bottom half of the table shows the most
reported cognitive strategies in this category, with the strategy of ‘writing new
words in vocabulary notebook’ (item 32, M = 3.3) in first place in terms of
integration into regular classes. This means the teachers questioned often
encourage their students to write the unknown words in their vocabulary
notebooks. Although it has been argued that teachers often neglect the
strategy of keeping vocabulary notebooks (Pavičić Takač, 2008), this does not
appear to be the case in the present study. Probably it is typical that university
students listen to their tutor-fronted lectures and take notes of what was said,
which in turn supports the earlier explanation of why classroom interaction was
very rare. The strategy of ‘using the vocabulary section in the textbook’ (item
29) appeared in second place with a mean value of 3.2. The participating
110
teachers seemed also to encourage the strategy of ‘taking notes in class’ (item
27, M = 3.0), which appeared to take third place in terms of promotion. Only a
small number of respondents, just three, who answered this item reported that
they rarely or never ask their students to take notes during lessons. From
these results, it can be assumed that strategies that demand less effort on the
part of the respondents were most popular.
V. Metacognitive strategies
Three statements were set out to measure the teachers’ awareness of
metacognitive strategies. Roughly speaking, from Table 14 (below) we can see
that none of the metacognitive strategies included in the questionnaire
received high scores. The mean values of these strategies ranged from 2.5 to
2.8, which implies that the use of metacognitive strategies was not actively
promoted in language classes. Less emphasis seemed to be put to
encouraging the use of metacognitive strategies to help students to learn
English vocabulary. On average however, the overall mean of the
metacognitive strategy category, that is 2.6, still comes in third place among
all four categories of VLSs, as reported earlier in this chapter.
Table 14: Study 1: teachers’ results with regard to metacognitive strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.

Strategy times
F % F % F % F % F %
28 Skipping or ignoring the 3 23.1 2 15.4 2 15.4 2 15.4 4 30.8 2.8 1.62
unknown word
30 Using English-language 0 0.0 4 30.8 2 15.4 4 30.8 3 23.1 2.5 1.19
media (i.e. songs,
movies)
31 Continuing to study 0 0.0 3 23.1 5 38.5 2 15.4 3 23.1 2.6 1.12
word over time (i.e.
revising it several times
during the day)
Table 14 shows the frequency of promoting the use of metacognitive

strategies. It indicates that the teachers questioned were moderately
encouraging students to employ metacognitive strategy in their vocabulary
learning. Metacognitive 28, to ‘skip the unknown word’ was the most
encouraged strategy among the metacognitive strategies, although this is still
111
low. This strategy came in first place with a mean value of 2.8, followed by
strategy 31, ‘continuing to study a word over time’ (M = 2.6). Strategy 30, ‘using
English-language media’ came last in terms of encouraging by respondents,
as a mean of 2.5 indicated. The latter strategy may be considered to be crucial,
as in an EFL environment, where exposure to English is very limited, teachers
should encourage their students to, for example, keep reading English books
or watching TV programmes spoken in English so to familiarise themselves
with the correct pronunciation of English words. It was quite disappointing to
know that such authentic materials in learning vocabulary in context were
underutilised by Libyan EFL teachers.
Having discussed the results obtained from the TVLSQ, the next section of
this chapter concerns the students’ VLS questionnaire. An overview of the
outcomes of the teachers’ questionnaire providing the most and least utilised
strategies is included as Appendix 16.
3.6.1.2 Students’ VLSs questionnaire (SVLSQ)

The counterpart to the TVLSQ was the SVLSQ. This questionnaire was
administered to 96 undergraduate students studying English as a foreign
language from two different sites at Al-jabal Al-gharbi University. Of the initial
cohort, 40 were female and 56 were male, as indicated at the beginning of this
chapter. Only students from grades 1 and 2 were included in the study, the
criteria for selecting the participants previously discussed in section 3.2. The
structure of the SVLSQ was similar to that of the TVLSQ, differing in the
number of questions asked, since the open-ended questions asked to
students were not similar to those asked to teachers. In this case, there were
43 in total. As in the TVLSQ, part 2 was the main part of the SVLSQ and
contained closed questions that had to be answered using a 5-point rating
scale from 1= never to 5= always. Just as was the case with the teachers’, the
supplementary parts of the students’ questionnaire included five open-ended
questions so that students could mention more techniques if they were not
included in the questionnaire, the difficulties they encountered when learning
vocabulary, any previous strategy training and their attitudes towards VLS
112
instruction. Additionally, some items were allocated for basic demographic
information, e.g. gender, age and level of study. On average, students took
about 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In reporting the results, the
same analysis undergone in providing the teachers’ data will be followed here.
Firstly, their basic background information will be discussed, followed by their
use of vocabulary learning strategies.
Part 1: Participants’ demographic information
This section presents the students’ background information including their

gender, age and level of proficiency. More details are provided in table 15:
Table 15: Study 1: students’ general demographic information
Category Details N %
Gender Male 40 42
Female 56 58
Age 17 - 20 46 48
21 - 25 36 37.5
Over 25 14 14.5
Year of enrolment Grade 1 46 48
Grade 2 50 52
The above table depicts the gender, age and proficiency level of the
participants. As for the participants’ gender, out of the 96 students, 58% were
female. Generally speaking, half of those surveyed (48%) were aged 17-20
years old, while 37.5% were 21-25 years old and only a few (14.5%) were over
25. As for year of enrolment, it can be seen that 52% of the participants were
from grade 2, whereas 48% of respondents were in their 1st grade.
Part 2: Vocabulary learning strategy use
Once the responses provided by the participating teachers were analysed, I

moved on to analyse those obtained from the participating students. The
rationale behind this was to elicit which VLSs were employed by the Libyan
EFL learners as well as to draw a comparison between students’ utilisation of
the different VLSs and teachers’ adoption/integration of such strategies in their
language classes. In this part, the same 38 items that were included in part 2
in the TVLSQ were used. As in the teachers’ questionnaire, all the items had
113
to be answered via the same 5-point Likert scale. On the aforementioned
scale, students were generally found to be medium strategy users of the five
categories of VLSs (see section 3.6.1). Nevertheless, within each category
some strategies were used much more often than others, and this is what will
be discussed next.
I. Determination strategies
The students questioned seemed to most often use determination strategies

in their vocabulary learning, since almost all the strategies that were involved
in this category received means higher than 3.0, with the exception of items 3
and 7, which received a mean of 2.8. This means that respondents were high
determination strategy users. For the students, this category came first in
terms of use with an overall mean score of 3.3, as indicated earlier in this
chapter. Table 16 below shows the percentages, means and standard
deviation values for each of the seven determination strategies included in the
SVLSQ.
Table 16: Study 1: students’ results with regard to determination strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.
Always Often Some- Rarely Never

Strategy times M SD
F % F % F % F % F %
1 I try to analyse part of 41 42.7 13 13.5 20 20.8 11 11.5 11 11.5 3.6 1.42
speech
2 I try to analyse affixes 39 40.6 12 12.5 14 14.6 19 19.8 12 12.5 3.4 1.49
and roots
3 I check for L1 cognate 16 16.7 11 11.5 31 32.3 18 18.8 20 20.8 2.8 1.34
4 I try to analyse any 22 22.9 23 24.0 13 13.5 29 30.2 9 9.4 3.2 1.34
available pictures
5 I try to guess from 34 35.4 15 15.6 28 29.2 13 13.5 6 6.3 3.6 1.26
textual context
6 I use a dictionary 57 59.4 10 10.4 19 19.8 10 10.4 0 0.0 4.1 1.08
7 I use a word list for 18 18.8 14 14.6 18 18.8 23 24.0 23 24.0 2.8 1.44
studying new words
Table 16 clearly indicates that the rank order of the determination strategies
used by Libyan EFL learners is ‘dictionary use’, ‘guessing from context’,
‘analysing parts of speech’, ‘analysing affixes/roots’, ‘checking for L1 cognate’
and finally ‘using word lists’ coming in last place. From the data in the table,
114
we can see that consulting dictionaries (item 6, M = 4.1) ranked highest not
only among the determination strategies, but overall. Of the 96 participants
who responded to this question, 57 reported that they always resort to their
English dictionaries in their vocabulary learning. This result suggests a greater
reliance on dictionary work in providing an explanation or translation for new
words. It seems possible that such a result is due to the mobility and
accessibility of this strategy. Another possible explanation for this may be the
proficiency level, as the students targeted were grade 1 and 2 and when
dealing with new words the dictionary may be their first choice, if not the only
one available. This finding is in agreement with data obtained by Aljdee (2007),
who found that Libyan EFL learners were much in favour of using their
dictionaries in their vocabulary learning. The studies that were conducted by
Schmitt (1997), and Gu and Johnson (1996) also indicated that Japanese and
Chinese learners of English most frequently consult their dictionaries. Next
followed strategy 5 ‘guessing from context’ and strategy 1 ‘analysing parts of
speech’ (M = 3.6). This mean value is higher than 3, which means that the
students frequently use the aforementioned strategies in their language
learning.
Apart from that, strategy 2 ‘analysing affixes and roots’ was also among the
most frequently used strategies as the mean of 3.4 indicated. This was closely
followed by the strategy of ‘analysing any available pictures and gestures’
(item 4) with a mean score of 3.2. In contrast, strategy 3, ‘checking for L1
cognate’ and strategy 7, ‘using word lists’ came at the bottom of the
implementation frequency list with a mean score of 2.8. Interestingly, the
results showed infrequent use of the word list strategy, although the literature
has proved its usefulness especially for beginner students (Schmitt, 1997).
Based on my experience, primary and secondary school teachers often
encourage students to use this strategy and students normally employ it quite
well, especially for independent learning outside their classrooms. However, a
possible explanation for the result may be that ‘some learning strategies are
more beneficial at certain ages than others, and that learners naturally mature
into using different strategies’ when they grow older (Schmitt, 1997). In
115
general, these results are also in agreement with Aljdee’s (2007) findings,
which showed the infrequent use of these strategies by Libyan EFL learners.
As discussed in TVLSQ above, students may avoid using cognates due to the
difficulty in finding Arabic-English associations, which may also be time-
consuming.
II. Social strategies
The overall mean value of this category is 2.8, which means that on the
whole, social strategies came third in terms of use by the students questioned.
Even though the mean score of this category also indicates low use, it still
means that the respondents adopt some social techniques to help themselves
to learn English vocabulary. Table 17 (below) illustrates the frequency of use
and the mean and standard deviation values for each social strategy involved
in the SVLSQ.
Table 17: Study 1: students’ results with regard to social strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.
SD
Always Often Some- Rarely Never M
Strategy times
F % F % F % F % F %
8 I use L1 translation 30 31.3 26 27.1 13 13.5 10 10.4 17 17.7 3.4 1.47
9 I ask teacher for 25 26.0 8 8.3 20 20.8 17 17.7 26 26.0 2.8 1.54
paraphrase or
synonyms of new
words
10 I ask teacher for 14 14.6 14 14.6 21 21.9 33 34.4 14 14.6 2.8 1.27
sentences including
the new word
11 I ask the meaning of 15 15.6 20 20.8 17 17.7 21 21.9 23 24.0 2.8 1.41
an unknown word
from my classmates
12 I try to discover the 3 3.1 11 11.5 34 35.5 12 12.5 36 37.5 2.3 1.17
meaning through
group work activity
Table 17 indicates low to high employment of social strategies. As shown in

the table, almost all the mean values ranged lower than 3.0, with only item 8
seeming to receive a relatively high amount of use by respondents as the
mean 3.4 indicated. Over half of those surveyed (about 56%) who responded
to this question reported that they always or often ask their English teacher for
116
Arabic translations. Although this result differs from those of some published
studies (Schmitt, 1997; Aljdee, 2007; Amirian & Heshmatifar, 2013), it is
consistent with that of Catalan (2003) who found that Spanish-speaking
students often ask their teachers for L1 translation. For Libyan EFL students
however, there may be some reasons behind their preference for this particular
social strategy. One of these could be that Libyan learners totally rely on their
teachers in eliciting the meaning of new words. They were not taught how to
do this themselves and were provided with the Arabic translation of the English
words whenever they needed it. Furthermore, newly admitted students do not
usually have sufficient knowledge of vocabulary, which would assist them in
understanding the meanings, and thus they generally tend to be silent unless
called upon. Consequently, if given a chance they would directly resort to L1
translation as being fast and easy to understand, especially if the teacher and
the learners share the same language. Teacher-fronted classes, which still
characterise many EFL classrooms, are another reason.
To sum up, social strategies were not very popular among the respondents
since the highest mean score achieved was 3.4 for item 8, as mentioned
above. This item was followed in rank by items 9, ‘I ask teacher for paraphrase
or synonyms’, 10, ‘I ask teacher for sentences including the new word’, and
11, ‘I ask my classmates’ with a mean value of 2.8. On the other hand, strategy
12, ‘I try to discover the meaning through group work activity’ was the least
popular in this category, with a mean value of 2.3. This suggests that there is
a lack of communication between the respondents, which may be due to their
shyness or fear of making mistakes and thus losing face in front of their peers.
Bearing this in mind, this point was taken into account during the training
programme. The participants were encouraged to break the ice and freely
consult with one another or their teacher if they had any problems with
vocabulary learning, and were encouraged not to panic.
117
III. Memory strategies
In comparison to the other four categories of VLSs, the total mean score for
the category of memory strategies ranked lowest (M = 2.6). Libyan EFL
learners seemed to be less positive regarding the use of these types of
techniques to help themselves learn English vocabulary. The percentages,
means and standard deviation values for each of the 17 memory strategies
included in the SVLSQ are summarised in table 18.
Table 18: Study 1: students’ results with regard to memory strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.
Always Often Some- Rarely Never SD

Strategy times M
F % F % F % F % F %
13 I draw a picture of the new 7 7.3 18 18.8 22 22.9 11 11.5 38 39.6 2.4 1.36
word
14 I try to understand the 17 17.7 12 12.5 20 20.8 38 39.6 9 9.4 2.8 1.26
meaning of the unknown
words by looking at the
15 I try to connect the word to 12 12.5 15 15.6 25 26.0 34 35.4 10 10.4 2.8 1.19
a personal experience
16 I associate the word with 11 11.5 5 5.2 32 33.3 42 43.8 6 6.3 2.7 1.06
its coordinates
17 I associate new words with 16 16.7 16 16.7 19 19.8 33 34.4 12 12.5 2.9 1.29
their synonyms or
antonymous
18 I do a mind map 8 8.3 7 7.3 28 29.2 40 41.7 13 13.5 2.5 1.08
19 I use scales for gradable 6 6.3 12 12.5 26 27.1 43 44.8 9 9.4 2.6 1.02
adjectives
20 I place new words in a 0 0.0 16 16.7 10 10.4 15 15.6 55 57.3 1.8 1.15
group with other items
based on topic, theme etc.
21 I use new words in 19 19.8 8 8.3 21 21.9 23 24.0 25 26.0 2.7 1.44
sentences to remember
them
24 I repeat a word (i.e. aloud, 31 32.3 26 27.1 21 21.9 18 18.8 0 0.0 3.7 1.10
in mind, by spelling it)
25 I try to imagine the written 13 13.5 18 18.8 19 19.8 26 27.1 20 20.8 2.7 1.34
form of a word to
remember it
33 I use the keyword method 6 6.3 18 18.8 26 27.1 21 21.9 25 26.0 2.5 1.23
34 I try to group words 1 1.0 13 13.5 12 12.5 41 42.7 29 30.2 2.1 1.02
together spatially on a
page
35 I try to paraphrase the 19 19.8 20 20.8 18 18.8 22 22.9 17 17.7 3.0 1.39
word’s meaning
36 I learn words of an 12 12.5 17 17.7 15 15.5 44 45.6 8 8.3 2.8 1.20
expression together as if
they were just one word
37 I try to underline initial 4 4.2 21 21.9 30 31.3 18 18.8 23 24.0 2.6 1.18
letter of the word
38 I try to outline the word with 8 8.3 10 10.4 19 19.8 47 49.0 12 12.5 2.5 1.10
lines (configuration)
118
Seventeen items in the questionnaire measured the extent to which Libyan
EFL students employ memory strategies in their English vocabulary learning.
On average however, memory strategies were shown to enjoy a low (as in item
34) to high (as in item 24) degree of employment by the respondents. The
strategies most commonly used were repetition (item 24, M = 3.7),
paraphrasing (item 35, M = 3.0), and association (items 17, M = 2.9, and 36,
M = 2.8). Apart from these, none of the other strategies were loaded
significantly. The mean values of all the remaining items were low. The data
obtained indicated that almost half of those surveyed (31 respondents) always
resort to the rehearsal technique, either verbally or written, in their vocabulary
learning. A possible explanation for this might be the ease of using such a
shallow strategy that does not involve any complicated processes. Students
usually prefer using simple strategies that help them to memorise English
vocabulary effectively with less time and effort. Another possible explanation
for this is that the conventional way of teaching and learning English, in which
vocabulary is taught mechanically, still influences the education process in
Libya. As indicated in Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, Libyan education originated in
Quranic schools where rehearsal-oriented learning was adopted to learn the
Holy Quran (Deeb & Deeb 1982). Because of that, as I explained earlier, the
educational system in Libya became more reliant on rehearsal strategy as a
typical way of teaching and learning in schools. Besides this, the surveyed
students, who were from Years 1 and 2, were freshmen in terms of not having
any other alternatives and not having been introduced to other vocabulary
learning strategies before. Furthermore, it was argued that learning strategies
and level of knowledge are connected, which is why beginners, who are
targeted in the current study, opt more often for mechanical strategies, e.g.
repetition strategies, that do not require higher levels of L2 knowledge (Pavičić
Takač, 2008). However, in terms of use, memory strategies scored rather low,
as out of the 17 items allocated for this category, only two received relatively
high scoring by respondents. In such a case, it would be assumed that if
students were introduced to different VLSs, their performance in vocabulary
learning could be improved. This finding matches those observed in earlier
119
studies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Lawson & Hogben, 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Marin,
2006; Aljdee, 2007).
Turning to the table in previous page, we can see that strategies 14, 15 and
36 appeared as the fourth most used strategies with a mean value of 2.8,
followed by strategy 16, ‘associating the word with its coordinates’, strategy
21, ‘using new words in sentences’ and strategy 36, ‘imagining the written form
of a word’, which came in fifth place with a mean of 2.7. The strategies of ‘using
scales for gradable adjectives’ (item 19) and ‘underlining initial letter of the
word’ (item 37) came sixth in the implementation scale with a mean value of
2.6. The remaining memory strategies were marginally loaded by respondents.
The surveyed students seemed to moderately (M = 2.5) use semantic maps
(item 18), the keyword method (item 33) and configuration (item 38). The
minority of those who responded to the aforementioned items, chose ‘always’
to describe their frequency of use of such strategies. Generally speaking,
these results were in agreement with Schmitt’s (1997) and Aljdee’s (2007)
findings, which showed that the keyword method, semantic maps and
configuration were relatively unused in Libya and Japan. However, in contrast,
strategies 13, ‘drawing a picture of the new word’ (M = 2.4), 20, ‘placing new
words in a group based on topic or theme’ (M = 1.8) and 34 ‘grouping words
together spatially on a page’ (M = 2.1) were among the least common memory
strategies with strategy 20 at the bottom of the implementation scale. These
results were somewhat expected because it is difficult for novice students to
use such strategies due to their limited vocabulary. At this level, promoting the
use of such strategies, in my view, could appear advantageous since low level
vocabulary tends to be more easily grouped than high level vocabulary. In
addition, it should be taken into consideration that the participants had never
been exposed to such techniques in their pre-university or even university
studies. Moreover, we cannot ignore the role of traditional vocabulary teaching
and learning procedures that are deeply rooted in the participants’ minds, and
which may prevent them from trying out new strategies to assist themselves
in their vocabulary teaching / learning.
120
IV. Cognitive strategies
The cognitive category came second in terms of use by the participating

students, with an overall mean score of 2.9, as discussed earlier in this
chapter. This score suggests that Libyan EFL students often adopt cognitive
strategies to aid them in their vocabulary learning. Table 19 (below) shows the
frequency, percentages, means and standard deviation values for each
cognitive strategy included in the questionnaire.
Table 19: Study 1: students’ results with regard to cognitive strategies

Frequency of use
Item no.
Always Often Sometim Rarely Never SD

Strategy es M
F % F % F % F % F %
22 I write a word 27 28.1 22 22.9 29 30.2 14 14.6 4 4.2 3.5 1.16
repeatedly
23 I act out or mime the 8 8.3 11 11.5 28 29.2 15 15.6 34 35.4 2.4 1.30
new word
26 I try to tape or listen 0 0.0 17 17.7 23 24.0 31 32.3 25 26.0 2.3 1.05
to tapes of new words
27 I take notes in class 24 25.0 18 18.8 19 19.8 30 31.3 5 5.2 3.2 1.28
29 I use the vocabulary 15 15.6 18 18.8 20 20.8 39 40.6 4 4.2 3.0 1.18
section/glossaries in
the textbook
32 I write new words in 16 16.7 21 21.9 20 20.8 25 26.0 14 14.6 3.0 1.32
vocabulary notebook
From the data in Table 19, it is apparent that there is very frequent use of
cognitive strategies amongst the surveyed students, since four out of six items
were higher than 3.0. Of the six cognitive strategies included in the
questionnaire, just two received very low loading by respondents. However,
the rank order of the cognitive strategies was ‘repetition’ (written repetition),
‘note-taking’, ‘using the vocabulary section in the textbook’ and ‘writing new
words in vocabulary notebook’, ‘miming’ and finally ‘taping or listening to tapes
of new words’. In this category, repetition (item 22) enjoyed the highest amount
of usage (M = 3.5), followed by the note-taking strategy (item 27) with mean
values of 3.2. These results match those observed in earlier studies (Gu &
Johnson 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Aljdee, 2007). This means that the participating
students are in favour of employing those ‘traditional’ strategies that do not
comprise complicated steps. Furthermore, as discussed in the above sections,
Libyan EFL students strongly believe in repetition and thus it received positive
responses from the participants. The strategies of ‘using the vocabulary
121
section in the textbook’ (item 29) and ‘keeping a vocabulary notebook’ (item
32) appeared as the third most frequently used cognitive strategies, with a
mean score of 3.0. Although these results differ from those of Aljdee (2007),
who found that Libyan EFL learners seldom keep a vocabulary notebook, they
are consistent with those of Schmitt (1997). This inconsistency may be due to
the students’ level of proficiency, as the participants in Ajdee’s (2007) study
were in their final year whereas the participants in the present study were
freshmen and sophomores, i.e. 1st and 2nd grades. Another possible
explanation for this is that the surveyed students have to study units like
‘Advanced Reading and Writing Skills II’, which require learning more
academic vocabulary, and thus, the earlier mentioned strategies were needed.
By contrast, the least favoured cognitive strategies were ‘miming the new
word’ (item 23, M = 2.4) and ‘taping or listening to tapes of new words’ (item
27, M = 2.3). The aforementioned findings support the fact that the more steps
the strategy involves, the less it will be implemented by students. Students
may see it as time-consuming to tape each English word they want to learn
with its translation into Arabic (the participants’ L1) and then play the tape and
listen to the words several times. The use of miming, on the other hand, may
be avoided by teachers and students because most of the words are abstract,
and thus they cannot be presented by using gestures.
V. Metacognitive strategies
For the students questioned, and compared to the other categories of VLS,
the metacognitive strategy category came third in terms of use as the overall
mean of 2.7 indicated. This position seemed to be shared with the social
strategy category, discussed above. In general, this means that Libyan EFL
students adopt metacognitive strategies to help them with their vocabulary
learning.
122
Table 20: Study 1: students’ results with regard to metacognitive strategies
Frequency of use
Item no.
always Often Some- Rarely Never
Strategy times M SD
F % F % F % F % F %
28 I skip or ignore the 19 19.8 12 12.5 25 26.0 33 34.4 7 7.3 3.0 3.0
unknown word
30 I use English- 9 9.4 14 14.5 26 27.1 24 25.0 23 24.0 2.6 2.6
language media (i.e.
songs, movies etc.)
31 I continue to study the 13 13.5 11 11.5 22 22.9 37 38.5 13 13.5 2.7 2.7
word over time (i.e.
revising it several
times during the day)
Three questions on the SVLSQ measured the extent to which Libyan EFL
students use metacognitive strategies in their English vocabulary learning. As
shown in table 20 (above), the overall response to metacognitive strategies
was low to moderate. Only one strategy, 28, was relatively high (M = 3.0),
whereas the remaining strategies ranked low in terms of use. For
metacognitive 28, almost one-third of the participants (around 32%) said that
they often skip or neglect unfamiliar words. In contrast, of the 96 participants,
just seven reported that they never pass any unknown words. Although these
results differ from Schmitt’s (1997), they are broadly consistent with
Alhaysony’s (2012), which showed that Saudi EFL learners very frequently
employ the aforementioned strategy. Neither do the findings of the present
study support Aljdee’s (2007) study, which indicated that Libyan EFL students
do not pass any strange words. A possible explanation for this might be that
the participants in Aljdee’s study were more advanced than those who
participated in the current study. In comparison to successful language
learners, unsuccessful learners seem often to ignore unknown words, being
unaware of the significance of such a strategy, which centres on improving
reading speed rather than vocabulary growth (Mikulecky, 1990 cited in
Schmitt, 1997). In contrast, the students questioned seemed to moderately
employ continuing to study words over time (item 31, M = 2.7) and using
English language media (item, 30, M = 2.6) in their vocabulary learning.
123
In summary, just as was the case with the TVLSQ, the results obtained from
the SVLSQ were outlined and the most and least used VLSs were provided in
Appendix 17. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the TVLSQ and
SVLSQ were only used in this phase so as to identify the participants’ strategic
action. Referring to the results obtained from the aforementioned
questionnaires, some VLSs were chosen, as illustrated in the next chapter, to
be introduced in the treatment programme.
3.6.2 Study 1: qualitative data analysis, results and

discussion
The previous part of this chapter discussed the findings that emerged from
quantitative data analysis. The following is the analysis of qualitative data
which emerged from open-ended questionnaire items, classroom observation
and semi-structured interview.
3.6.2.1 Open-ended questionnaire items

This subsection presents the participants’ responses to the open-ended
questions included in the teachers’ and students’ questionnaires. In this
section, relevant comments from the participants are quoted to clarify their
opinions and beliefs. The participating teachers were asked to write down their
thoughts regarding the teachability of VLSs, teaching vocabulary, and about
VLS instruction / training.
➢ Question 1: Do you think VLSs can be taught?

Yes, because _________________________
No, because __________________________
The qualitative data obtained from this question revealed that, of the 13
respondents, five (38.4%) answered ‘Yes’ while eight (61.5%) answered ‘No’.
All of the participants except two, who answered only ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, provided
the reasons for their positive or negative answers. The participants’ responses
to this question were classified into two broad categories for comparative
124
reasons. Table 21 (below) presents the category distributions of teachers’
responses to the above-mentioned question.
Table 21: Teachers' responses regarding the teachability of VLSs

Negative responses n Positive responses n
(No) … because of time constraints 5 (Yes) …because they are very 4
useful
(No) …because of the students’ 3 …because they help students 1
proficiency level. become better language
learners
…because of the curriculum 3 They are simple to teach and
restrictions. students may find them 1
… most of students use them already 2 enjoyable and interesting
(subconsciously).
In short, as shown above, there was a significant difference between the

participants who believed in the teachability of VLSs and those who did not.
Some teachers thought that most students employ VLSs unconsciously, which
is not always true. Language learning strategies can often be used consciously
but they can become automatic depending on individual learners and the task
they are engaged in (Pavičić Takač, 2008). Others believed that VLSs are easy
to teach, which is not always the case. It is true that some VLSs seem simple
to teach by, for example, providing straightforward advice as in ‘say the word
aloud several times and you will remember it’, but lots of strategies are
complex in nature and demand long-term teaching (ibid). According to Pavičić
Takač, learners indeed possess some sort of VLSs repertoire, ‘but they do not
make a systematic use of it, and therefore are in need of instruction’ (2008:
76). In general, based on Table 21, it can be assumed that negative comments
made by participating teachers regarding the teachability of VLSs were more
frequent than positive ones. This indicates that most of the participants
questioned did not think that VLSs are teachable. It is perhaps because the
teachers investigated had little knowledge of the different vocabulary learning
strategies and thus did not seem to be aware of the potential role of these
125
strategies in improving their students’ performance in the target language.
Here, it could be argued that teachers might teach VLSs to their students if
they were firstly convinced of their effectiveness and understood the
implications more clearly. Since the readiness of teachers to receive strategy
training is reassuring, it was my intention to design a programme that would
overcome the problems regarding timetable and curriculum restrictions that
were mentioned by more than half of the participants. By surmounting such
obstacles, the teachers’ motivation and willingness to integrate strategy
training into their classrooms would be increased. However, some of the
negative comments mentioned by the participants corroborate the ideas of
Chamot, who maintained that the objectives of the curriculum might ‘determine
how much time teachers are willing to spend on learning strategy instruction
[since curricula] with very specific standards and high stakes assessments of
these standards can make the teacher feel that there is no time to spare for
extras like teaching learning strategies’ (2011: 36). Apart from the curriculum
objectives, according to Chamot (p. 35), there are other likely factors that may
pose a hurdle for many language instructors when they teach VLSs. These
are the teacher’s teaching style and disposition, classroom organization, and
the language of instruction, to name but a few.
➢ Question 2: How do you wish to help your students with vocabulary

learning?
In response to this question, a range of responses was elicited. Four

participants (30.7%) believed that providing a high quantity of vocabulary
would help their students with vocabulary learning. Here, one may argue that
70% of respondents though would learn more words by studying less! That is
itself a vocabulary learning strategy of course, although it is not in any of the
questionnaires. Other responses to this question included encouraging
students to use English-speaking media, e.g. movies and songs (mentioned
by two - 15.3%); avoiding using Arabic (participants’ L1) in English classes;
encouraging students to read more; and finally, giving students more
activities/exercises on vocabulary. 30.7% of the respondents did not answer
126
this question, possibly because they did not have a clear view or because they
preferred not to say what they thought about it.
➢ Question 3: Would you be receptive to being trained in vocabulary-

learning strategies?
Although the negative comments about the teachability of VLSs, given in

table 21, were much more numerous than the positive ones, the participants
expressed very positive opinions about being involved in a strategy training
programme. The overall response to the above question was quite
encouraging, since 100% of the respondents answered ‘yes’, they would be.
Such a response is an optimistic sign and bodes well for me to carry on with
the study. The teachers questioned were interested in the VLS training
programme and they stressed the necessity of such programmes existing so
that they and their students could benefit from them.
T1: ‘Yes, I would like. I am interested in learning the strategies. I

think that teaching vocabulary may be better with the use of
such strategies.’
T2: ‘Why not. This is a good idea and I hope that there will be more
of these programmes in future, which would be useful for
language teachers and learners alike.’
Having discussed the data gathered from the open-ended questions

included in the teachers’ questionnaire, the next part of this chapter
addresses the qualitative data obtained from the open-ended items involved
in the questionnaire on the other side of the learning process, that is, the
students.
➢ Question 1: Do you use any other way of learning words that are not
mentioned in this questionnaire? If YES please write it here:
Of the 96 participants who responded to this question, just seven students

(7.3%) said ‘yes’ they employed strategies other than those mentioned in the
questionnaire, whereas 89 participants (92.7%) said ‘no’. The extra ways
127
employed by the participants were the use of social networks (e.g. Facebook,
Skype and Twitter), games, web pages, apps, computers, iPads and mobile
technologies that enable students to study whenever and wherever possible.
In fact, the rapid advances in technology and social networks make them
universal learning devices, and vocabulary learning is no exception. Some
may consider the aforementioned ways as learning strategies while others
may not, but generally they can add value to the entire process of
second/foreign languages acquisition. Recent empirical research tried to
examine the effectiveness of these tools in fostering vocabulary learning (Taki
& Khazaei, 2011, and Deng & Trainin, 2015) and found them efficient for both
teachers and students. The mass media, i.e. internet, apps, television and so
on, is unavoidably connected with contemporary language learning, especially
with those aspects related to vocabulary acquisition (Pavičić Takač, 2008). It
plays a significant role in learners’ lives since it provides them with a rich and
natural input and thus should be employed for their benefit in language
learning, either in or outside their classrooms, as Pavičić Takač (2008)
remarks. Although it was indicated that the strategies that are going to be
introduced in the training programme will be selected based on S1 results, the
use of IT and social media strategies will not be included due to the following
reasons: 1) Tiji and Badr English departments suffer from lack of technological
equipment such as computer sets, CDs, visual aids, and projectors etc., 2) the
lack of professional training in using modern technologies inside classes, and
3) the unavailability and sometimes blackout of the Internet that lasts for days.
‘In fact, Libya is one of a handful of countries in the entire world that has no
public Internet infrastructure’ (Elshaikhi, 2015: 12), which is perhaps due to the
governmental control over Internet use. This, however, does not mean that the
use of IT and social media was not briefly introduced in the programme and
participants encouraged to reflect on their experience of using such strategies.
➢ Question 2: What difficulties do you encounter when learning English

vocabulary?
The total number of responses to this question was 90 (93.7%). The other
6.3% of respondents did not comment on the question. However, just over two-
128
thirds (68.8%) of those who responded to this item reported that they easily
forget the words taught, as one participant said:
S1: ‘Sometimes, remembering the learnt words is a difficult thing. I

easily forget them.’
Another participant commented:

S2: ‘There are too many words that are difficult to memorise, I learn the
new word today, but I forget it tomorrow.’
Other responses to the above-mentioned question included insufficient

vocabulary knowledge, pronouncing the word, writing the word, and finally the
difference between the written form and the spoken form of the word. The
comments below illustrate this:
S3: ‘When I speak in English, I face a problem in expressing what is being
wondered in my mind fluently. I also struggle in understanding the
abstract and complicated words.’
S4: ‘In pronunciation. Some words are long or complicated and thus
difficult to pronounce.’
S5: ‘the silent letters.’
The latter two comments steer us to think about the level of proficiency and
its impact on the use of the target language. Students seem to be less
proficient and because of that they struggle in their language learning. This is
often the case not just because their repertoire of words is limited, but also
because they are unaware of the VLSs that would facilitate their vocabulary
acquisition. This however, supports the view that the less proficient the
learners, the less frequently they will employ strategies (Trendak, 2015). The
students who complained about long/complicated words, for instance, might
not be proficient in analysing affixes and word roots, and so on. The
assumption standing behind this is that the use of VLSs can speed up the
process of language learning and thus can result in elevating the level of
129
proficiency. This, in turn, leads us to the notion of introducing some
vocabulary learning strategies to aid students to overcome such problems.
➢ Question 3: Have you trained to learn about vocabulary learning

strategies? If YES when and how?
In response to this question, the majority of respondents (96.8%) said ‘no’,

they have never been trained in VLSs. Only three participants (3.2%) said
‘yes’. These participants however, did not provide any further information
about when and how they were trained on vocabulary learning strategies. In
general, students have not been instructed in the use of VLSs, which may be
due to the fact that teacher-training programmes in Libya have not had room
for such instruction and thus teachers are not aware of these types of
approaches. In the researcher’s experience, VLSs are rarely introduced in
pre-service teaching preparation, nor in in-service teaching. This in turn
emphasises the importance of improving future teacher training by helping
teachers to deal with vocabulary learning strategies and make use of strategy
training in their teaching practices. This is one of the ultimate goals of the
current study.
➢ Question 4: How do you wish your English teacher to help you with
vocabulary learning?
There were 85 responses to this question, while 11 students (11.5%) did

not provide an answer. Generally, the students questioned were not quite
satisfied with the methods used by their teachers when teaching vocabulary.
Approximately half of those who responded to this question (47.9%)
mentioned the traditional methods adopted in teaching vocabulary. For
example, one participant said, ‘By using other ways for teaching vocabulary
than just writing a list of new words on the board as if we in our pre-university
stage.’ Another student commented, ‘I would like teachers to employ new
ways when teaching vocabulary and they should deal with vocabulary
130
learning as same as they deal with other language aspects such as grammar
and writing.’
Following this, 12 students suggested the use of visual images in teaching

vocabulary, since they learn better by means of such a method. By contrast,
seven learners stressed the importance of paying more attention to
vocabulary teaching in the classroom, as one participant said, ‘I would like
them to focus more in teaching vocabulary and do not neglect its importance
in building up our lexicon repertoire.’ Some students (3.1%) suggested
providing more vocabulary practice, while others (2%) wanted to allocate
sufficient time for teaching lexis. All in all, the data obtained from this question
indicated that some features of the grammar translation method, in which
vocabulary teaching is restricted to giving students lists of foreign words
together with L1 translations, still plays a prominent role in EFL classes.
Besides this, students tended to rely on their teachers (teacher-centred
approach) in their language learning. These are rather expected outcomes.
Looking back in time, the status of formal vocabulary teaching in L2/FL
contexts (and Libya is no exception) has always been affected by the implicit
approach of vocabulary learning, contextual clues, monolingual dictionaries
and word lists with L1 translations (Pavičić Takač, 2008). However, the
contribution and impact of the earlier mentioned methods in language
acquisition cannot be rejected; vocabulary teaching should be based on a
variety of strategies to break the lesson routines and cater for students’
learning styles (ibid).
➢ Question 5: Would you be receptive to being taught vocabulary-learning

strategies in your classroom?
The students’ positive attitude towards VLSs was confirmed in this question
since all the participants (100%) were interested in vocabulary learning
strategy training and thought that such training would be fruitful in their
language learning. As one participant wrote:
131
‘Yes, of course I would be. As an English-major student, learning lots of
words is important thing and I think that conducting vocabulary learning
strategies is necessary in facilitating vocabulary acquisition.’
Another student said:

‘Yes, I am easily forgetful and I think that training in the vocabulary
learning strategies would be beneficial in helping me retain taught words.’
In short, all the students questioned were in favour of vocabulary learning

strategy instruction. Such a finding encourages the researcher to pursue the
main study, as planned.
3.6.2.2 Interview procedures and analysis

As mentioned earlier, the interviews aimed, on the one hand, to stimulate
teachers and learners to reflect on the process of vocabulary
teaching/learning, and on the other hand, to verbalise the vocabulary learning
strategies promoted/used during their EFL teaching/learning. The participants
who were used as interviewees had also participated in the questionnaire. The
semi-structured interview was administered to 11 participants, six teachers
and five students, at their faculties after distributing the VLSQ. It was decided
to interview participants after completing the questionnaire so that the
participants could comment on the strategies involved. With the participants’
consent, a smart phone and an MP3 player were used to record the oral
answers of the interviewees. The participants were interviewed separately,
one at a time, so that they would not be influenced by one another. Each
interview session lasted approximately 15-20 minutes. In an attempt to make
each interviewee, especially students, feel as comfortable as possible, their
L1 (Arabic) was used as a mediator for the communication. The answers were
translated from Arabic to English and then transcribed by the researcher. To
keep the participant's identities secure, pseudonyms and numbers were used
instead of the participants’ real names. As a warm-up, each interview began
with some biographical questions in which the interviewees were asked to say
132
something about themselves, e.g. their age, qualifications and so on. At the
end of the interview, each interviewee was thanked for his/her participation
and asked if he or she was interested in the results and whether they would
like to receive them. In analysing the qualitative data, Wenden and Rubin’s
(1987) content analysis was adapted, which Neuman (1997: 31) described as:
A technique for examining information, or content, in written or

symbolic material... In content analysis, a researcher first identifies
a body of material to analyse... and then creates a system for
recording specific aspects of it. The system might include counting
how often certain words or themes occur. Finally, the researcher
records what was found in the material. He or she often measures
information in the content as numbers.
Based on the above, the analysis of the data obtained went through the
following stages: translating, transcribing, coding, categorizing, and finally
interpreting to describe the current use of VLSs and the teaching methods
adopted. Having described the interview procedures and analysis, I will now
move on to present and discuss the results obtained from both models of
interview (teachers’ and students’), starting with teacher interviews.
❖ Teacher interviews
Six teachers who were teaching reading comprehension, writing skills,

conversation, vocabulary and spelling volunteered to participate in the
interview. Apart from the biographical questions, there were four main parts to
the interview. Each part contained two main questions and some follow-up
questions to gain further information from of the participants. For instance, the
follow-ups for the question ‘What do you think about vocabulary learning
strategies?’ were:
• Are they easy to use/teach?

• How important are they? Are they useful/not useful?
• Should they be taught? Why/why not?
133
The first part of the interview (questions 1 and 2) was concerned with
attitudes towards vocabulary and how useful it is, how vocabulary is normally
taught, and the difficulties found when teaching vocabulary. It was believed
that most informants would have some procedures, methods or techniques for
their vocabulary teaching. Interviewees were also asked about their
experience in teaching English, which was deemed crucial in knowing whether
experienced teachers have already been implicitly or explicitly exposed to
vocabulary learning strategies. The second part (Questions 3 and 4) was
concerned with vocabulary learning strategies, whether they are teachable
and learn-able, whether they are important, and which ones can assist
students in memorising words. Questions 5 and 6 in the third part dealt with
vocabulary learning strategy training. The former was regarding whether VLS
instruction increases learners’ awareness towards vocabulary learning,
whereas the latter was regarding the idea of conducting a VLS training
programme. Some prompts and probes were given to help the interviewee,
e.g. good? bad idea? Why?
The fourth part of the teachers’ interviews (Questions 7 and 8) was focused
on the participants’ own thoughts about what they would like to see in
vocabulary teaching in the future, and whether they had any comments on the
questionnaire. Finally, the interviewees were thanked for their participation and
were assured that the information they provided would only be used for the
current study. The findings gathered will be presented separately according to
the different parts. Table 22 (next page) provides some basic information about
the participating teachers.
134
Table 22: Teacher interviewees’ information
informant gender age Qualification Experience
Abdullah*(individual male 55 PhD in translation studies 25 years
interview then classroom
observation)
Hala* (interview) female 34 PhD in Linguistics 11 years
Omar* (interview) male 40 MA in TESOL 6 years
Farah* (individual interview female 28 MA in TESOL 4 years
then classroom observation)
Abdul-razag (interview) male 42 PhD in Linguistics 17 years
Alia (interview) female 32 MA in Linguistics & 8 years
TESOL
(*) the teachers’ pseudonyms.
Part 1: attitudes towards vocabulary and vocabulary teaching
In response to question 1, 100% of those interviewed stressed the

importance and usefulness of vocabulary in their English language teaching.
In this regard, Abdullah stated, ‘Vocabulary is the cornerstone of any
educational process without which no language can be learned or taught
properly.’ Abdul-razag also commented, ‘Vocabulary is very useful in teaching
any foreign language; in fact, all language skills depend mainly on how much
vocabulary you have.’ Given the context though, such results were expected,
as none could really argue that learning vocabulary is not useful. It was
intended to start the interview with a warm-up question so as to break the ice
and elicit participants’ attitudes towards vocabulary in order to later see
whether the training programme had an effect on their attitudes towards
vocabulary teaching.
In question 2, when the interviewees were asked, ‘How do you normally

teach vocabulary?’ the majority (67%) commented that they teach it within
sentences, i.e. giving sentences including the new words to simplify the
meaning. Other responses to this question included asking students to guess
the meaning of the new words (50%), using word lists (50%), L1 translation
(33%) and dictionary use (16.6%). One participant, Hala said that she prefers
asking her students to guess the meaning of any strange words before giving
135
sentences that include them. Hala was asked a follow-up question, that is,
'What do you do if the meaning of the new word is still unclear for students?'.
In response to this question, she said: ‘I just give them the Arabic meaning.’
Abdullah, on the other hand, indicated that he usually uses the newly learned
words within sentences or by giving the English words accompanied by their
definitions in Arabic (a word list). In summary, the reported strategies,
mentioned by the teachers above, were consistent with their answers in the
survey.
When asked about whether they had a particular method for vocabulary
teaching and whether they were satisfied with their way of teaching lexis, the
vast majority answered ‘no’ they do not have a particular method to follow.
67% of teachers questioned were quite satisfied with their way of teaching
English lexis, whereas 33% of teachers were not sure about their teaching
approach. Farah for example, said, ‘Personally, I am not satisfied with my
teaching approach. I do not know which method better suits my student
learning style.’ This piece of information seems interesting. Teachers seem to
know something about learning styles but they have got confused.
When the participating teachers were required to speak about the difficulties
encountered during their vocabulary teaching, only a few commented. Most of
the teachers were not able to mention any. These teachers seem to leave
vocabulary to take care of itself and they may think that it is the learners’
responsibility to build up their lexical repertoire and thus there is no need for
direct instruction. However, one of the participants, Abdullah, commented on
the question. He said:
‘For me, one of the most problematic aspects of teaching

vocabulary is related to the type of words needed to be taught. Are
they common and academic and students will benefit from them
or not? Also, the type of texts used in certain classes, for example,
close or far from the learners’ culture and life they live.’
In summary, the overall response to this part revealed that most of the
teachers investigated limited themselves to only a few methods in their
136
vocabulary teaching. Although the teachers seemed to be aware of the
importance of vocabulary, they paid little attention or furthermore, neglected it
in their classrooms.
Part 2: vocabulary learning strategies
This part of the interview required respondents to give information on

vocabulary learning strategies, i.e. which strategies would aid students in
memorising words, and whether they are teachable. Questions 3 and 4 formed
this part. To start with question 3: ‘What do you think of the so-called
vocabulary learning strategies?’ In response to this question, only a few who
had some professional knowledge, either because of their experience in
teaching EFL or because they were taught abroad, reported that they are
methods to facilitate word learning, whilst the vast majority had no idea about
what they are. However, once the notion of vocabulary learning strategies was
provided, the participants on the whole demonstrated that VLSs were
teachable. For example, Alia said:
‘To be honest, I do not know much about vocabulary learning

strategies, but based on the ones that you have provided in your
questionnaire I think that they are not difficult to teach or learn.’
Alia however, seemed to build up her assumption based on the names of the
strategies provided on the survey. It is true that most of the strategies would
appear easy to teach, such as ‘saying the word aloud many times’, and
‘analysing affixes and word roots’, but many of them are complex and demand
more time and effort.
Another interviewee, Omar, commented on the question by saying:
‘Teaching vocabulary learning strategies would be very useful. I do

not think that their teaching is a difficult task if employed properly
by qualified teachers. Teachers who are using such methods
should get very good training and practice.’
137
Omar might sound like he was trying to please me, but he may have wanted
to say that teachers need to be acquainted with the necessary knowledge to
facilitate the introduction of such instruction.
In response to question 4: ‘Which strategies do you think can help your

students to memorise vocabulary?’, all the interviewees, except one,
maintained that there were no particular strategies that could be considered
the best. According to the teachers questioned, all the strategies are workable
and useful. The following quotes illustrate this:
Hala: ‘All the strategies mentioned in the questionnaire should be

employed in teaching vocabulary. This is because of the difference
among learners where each one may be taught in a way different
from others.’
Farah: ‘I think that there are no specific strategies. Teachers and
students should know and use all the strategies to facilitate
vocabulary acquisition.’
Abdullah: ‘All the strategies mentioned in your questionnaire are helpful
and useful for both teachers and learners…some words may
demand particular strategies and even with students, each student
needs to use the strategy that feel comfortable with or meets his
or her requirements.’
The obtained responses seemed to be inconclusive and too general, and thus
did not meet my expectations. Therefore, in order to probe for more specific
answers, I asked the respondents to mention certain strategies they may feel
useful for their students, and told them they were free to refer to their
questionnaire if they did not recall any. The strategies of analysing parts of
speech, paraphrasing, contextual clues, and dictionary use were the most
dominating ones in the teachers’ comments. Drawing on the above discussion,
strategy training seems important as it would lead teachers to decide what
strategies to integrate in their lessons and what to leave to better suit their
students’ needs.
138
Part 3: strategy training
In this part of the interview, the respondents were required to give their
opinions about the vocabulary learning strategy instruction and the idea of
conducting VLS training. Questions 5 and 6 formed this part.
When the participating teachers were asked whether training them on VLSs
would make their students more aware of vocabulary learning (question 5),
the answer was clear. The majority of them (67%) believed that conducting
such training would increase students’ awareness towards vocabulary and
make them become more autonomous in setting their own learning targets.
Teachers could then apply a varied host of strategies and students could copy
the ones that suit their demands. In contrast, 33% of respondents were not
sure about the workability and suitability of integrating strategy training in the
classroom. To obtain further information, those who provided negative
comments were asked to give their reasons. One teacher, Abdul-razag, was
quite pessimistic about the effectiveness of strategy training. He reported that
most of his students hardly ever make use of the vocabulary they learn
outside of the classroom, which would be the case with such training. This is
clearly a very negative outlook. However, the fact that students do not make
use of the learnt words outside their classrooms does not mean that they do
not need good ways to study them, even if it is only for an instrumental
purpose. In the longer term, students will use the taught strategies if they feel
the results obtained from the training programme are satisfying.
Alia seemed to share Abdul-razag’s view. She commented:
‘I do not think so; most of students are not interested in lexis, they
learn words to pass their exam, and thus their interest of learning
these strategies would not be different. Contrariwise, they may find
them silly or boring.’
Such results obtained from the previous question will be taken into account
when designing materials for the training programme, which will be elaborated
upon in more detail at a later stage.
139
In question 6, the participants were asked about their opinions on the idea of
conducting vocabulary learning strategy training. The results were very
encouraging, with 83% of teachers welcoming the notion, showing their
interest in strategy training. This was reflected by the following comment:
‘Good idea. Conducting strategy training is necessary because students need
to remember learnt words and many of them fail in doing so’, and in ‘an
excellent idea, we hope see such training programmes in future.’
By contrast, only 17% of the respondents were not in favour of conducting

strategy training in regular lessons. Those who were against this type of
instruction in regular lessons attributed their answers to a lack of interest on
the part of their students, and the lack of time, as illustrated by Farah’s
comment: ‘…the time allocated for lessons will not be enough to explain and
practise each strategy. I think that vocabulary strategies should be taught
separately in specialised didactic sessions during students’ spare time.’
Part 4: further comments
In this part, the interviewees were required to give brief comments about
what they would like to see in vocabulary teaching in the future (question 7)
and to comment on the questionnaire (question 8).
In response to question 7: ‘What would you like to see in vocabulary teaching

in the future?’, a variety of answers were given. Two out of the six respondents
mentioned the wide use of media (e.g. the press, TV) and new technology (e.g.
the Internet, games) with one informant pointing out his desire to continue
participating in useful programmes that will benefit teachers and students
alike. This is apparent in the following quotation, ‘In the future, I hope to see
such useful programmes that include training both sides of the learning
process, that is, teachers and students.’
Another interviewee, Omar, alluded to the notion of improving the current

educational system and paying more attention to vocabulary and its learning
strategies, ‘…the current educational system should be improved and the
140
vocabulary learning techniques should be involved in it. Vocabulary learning
and teaching should gain more emphasis the same as grammar, reading,
writing and listening.’ Lastly, Hala suggested teaching vocabulary in the early
stages of learning, ‘Vocabulary is important and for me I think that it should be
taught as an isolated subject as grammar at primary and secondary schools.’
Finally, at the end of the interview, the participants were given the chance to
comment or add any further information on the questionnaire (question 8), and
three informants (50%) decided to do so.
Generally speaking, there was a sense of approval amongst the

interviewees. They all paid tribute to the idea of the research and one of them
praised me for carrying out a study in this area, which was encouraging, as
reflected by the comment, ‘It is a good effort that one may benefit from. The
idea of your research is new, at least for me, and I think that you will meet the
approval of everyone. Good job, carry-on.’
❖ Students’ interviews
As for the student interviewees, as a warm-up (Part 1) they were given a

short text to read before going through the interview questions. The
participants were told that the purpose of reading the text was see how they
deal with new words encountered. Then they were asked whether there were
any difficult words in the text and what they did to figure out their meaning.
Some prompts based on the literature were given, e.g. guessing, skipping, and
analysing parts of the word. After that, the participants were asked some
questions (2, 3 and 4), relating to vocabulary learning strategies (Part 2). In
those questions, they were asked how they normally learn new words and
whether they had a particular method or strategy in learning vocabulary. Some
prompts were given to help the volunteer students, such as: ‘When you read,
for example a book or a text, and come across a word that you do not know,
what do you do?’ (Prompts: look at its structure (noun, verb)? guess its
meaning? skip it? check it in your dictionary?).
141
Questions 5 and 6 (Part 3) in the student interviews were allocated to
vocabulary learning strategy training, whether the students would be receptive
to being trained in VLSs, and what they feel about the idea of vocabulary
learning strategy instruction. Finally, the students questioned were asked to
provide any further data or comment on their questionnaires (Part 4). Just as
was the case with the teachers’ interviews, the responses gathered from the
five participating students will be presented and clarified with quotations taken
directly from informants.
Part 1: warm-up
When the students had finished reading, they were asked their opinion of the
text. As mentioned above, some prompts were given: Was it clear to
understand? Were there any difficult words that you did not understand? What
did you do to figure out their meaning?
The results showed that all the interviewees (100%) found difficulty in
understanding several words in the text such as, ‘cremated’, ‘cemetery’ and
‘fought off’. Three of them (60%) opened their smartphones and referred to
their dictionaries while two (40%) reported that they had tried to guess the
meaning from context.
Part 2: Vocabulary learning strategies
This part was intended to find out how students normally learn vocabulary,
how they retain the newly learned words and their knowledge about
vocabulary learning strategies. When the students were asked: ‘How do you
normally study vocabulary?’ several responses were elicited. The vast majority
(80%) of respondents mentioned the use of repetition, either verbal or written.
As one informant said, ‘I used to repeat the new word several times to learn it.
I do that while I am walking. For me, that helps in memorising words.’ Another
reported, ‘I write the word down many times in order to remember, or spell it
aloud.’ The former quotation, however, indicated a combination of two
techniques, i.e. ‘oral repetition’ and ‘physical action’. On the basis of this
quotation one can also conclude that students were able to describe their
142
favoured VLSs accurately. This in turn may due to the frequent use of such
strategies over time.
The next method most widely reported strategy by 60% of the participants
was word lists, as observed in: ‘I always focus on word lists that are given to
us at class,’ and in: ‘In each lesson, our teacher gives us new words with their
Arabic translation, and I learn them by heart.’ The same percentage was also
given to the use of the internet (social media), as one interviewee put it: ‘I find
in Facebook and Twitter a great means for practising vocabulary. I have many
friends from different nationalities and we very often chat in English.’ Here it
might be suggested that teachers could invest in such methods and use
innovate teaching exercises that would meet their students’ digital needs.
Thus, students could practise English language and improve their writing skills
without the constraints of the traditional curriculum.
Finally, there was another technique mentioned by 40% of the respondents -

the use of dictionaries (especially bilingual ones), as one individual reported,
‘I always use my Arabic/English dictionary to learn about words. It provides a
great means in finding out meanings, pronunciations and examples.’
In question 3, when asked to speak about vocabulary learning strategies,

the answer was definite: none of the respondents had heard about them. They
all (100%) reported that the first time they had heard about them was when
they were asked to fill in the survey. This does not mean that they do not use
VLSs though. Actually, students had not known that there were so many
strategies to use for their vocabulary learning until they filled out the
questionnaire, which is an expected outcome. In general, this finding is
important because the present study is centred around the theme of strategy
training and thus this would make comparisons between pre-and post-training
clearer. That is to say, finding out whether or not the training encouraged or
discouraged the use of vocabulary learning strategies amongst the
investigated teachers and students. However, two students alluded to the
notion of the subconscious use of most strategies without knowing their
names, as reflected in: ‘…I already use most of these strategies
143
unconsciously,’ and in: ‘…some vocabulary learning strategies are already
used by many students, but it is useful to have a name for each strategy.’
These quotes generally referred to the lack of the students’ awareness of
retrieval strategies, and what is sought in this study is to promote the
participants’ awareness of these strategies to make them responsible for their
own learning processes.
Bearing the aforementioned responses in mind and in order to obtain further

information, the interviewee was asked to imagine that he or she came across
an unknown word while reading, for example in a book or a text, and was
asked what they would do to figure out its meaning.
As expected, the most frequently used strategy was looking the word up in
a dictionary, which was reported by 100% of the respondents, as stated in: ‘I
check my dictionary.’ and in: ‘I use the dictionary to find out the meaning. But,
if I was doing an exam and came across an unknown word and I did not have
my dictionary with me, I would try to guess its meaning from the context.’
Guessing strategies came next with 80% of the students questioned

reporting the use of contextual clues in deriving the meaning of unknown
words, and the above-mentioned example illustrates this. Conversely, 40% of
learners investigated were completely reliant on their teacher’s knowledge in
eliciting the meaning of new words. One interviewee said, ‘I rather prefer to
ask my English teacher for help,’ and another commented, ‘I ask my teacher
to help me.’
Apart from using dictionaries, guessing, and asking teachers for help,
skipping the unknown words and analysing parts of speech, e.g. nouns,
pronouns and so on, were methods utilised by 20% of the learners questioned.
The comments below illustrate this:
‘…if I read a text and come across one or two new words that I
cannot understand, I just ignore them’.
‘I try to analyse the unknown word, is it noun, adjective or

pronoun? Then, I try to guess its meaning.’
144
Part 3: strategy training
Questions 5 and 6 in the student interviews formed this part. The

respondents here were required to give their opinion about the idea of
conducting strategy training and whether they would be receptive to being
taught VLSs in their classrooms. In response to the former, the students’
positive attitude towards VLSs was greatly confirmed, since all the learners
questioned were in favour of being taught these types of strategies in their
classrooms. As an example, one informant said, ‘I think that it is a good idea
to teach these strategies in class. This definitely would facilitate the process
of vocabulary learning and would lead students to be responsible for their
language learning.’
This positive attitude appeared again when students were asked whether
they would like to be taught vocabulary learning strategies in their language
classes. The results obtained were encouraging, since all the learners
questioned were willing to participate in the study, which in turn reflected their
interest in improving their lexical repertoire by obtaining more techniques with
which to do so.
Part 4: further comments
At the end of the interviews, the participants were given a copy of the VLS
questionnaire and asked to comment on it. The rationale behind this was to
probe for further information regarding word learning strategies and the
questionnaire in general. None of the participants questioned had any
additional remarks. Just one student emphasised the relevance of VLSs and
training thereon in their language learning.
The results elicited from the VLS questionnaire and semi-structured

interview will be discussed later along with the observation findings so as to
provide definite answers to the Study 1 questions as stated below.
145
3.6.2.3 Observation analysis
During classroom observations (see table 22, in page 135), I mainly focused
on capturing the participants’ observable strategy use and the nature of the
teaching approaches adopted. To do so, an observation sheet (see appendix
6) with a list of individual strategies grouped under five categories, as
suggested by Schmitt (1997), was used. The rationale behind this was to help
guide the writing of field notes. On this sheet, the strategies were presented
according to their categorisations, those being, determination, social, memory,
cognitive and metacognitive strategies. I ticked the observed strategies and
passed comment on them. The following is a sample of the observation sheet
Table 23: A sample of the observation sheet used

Type of the Strategy Group Observed Not Comments
Observed
1. Determination strategies
• Analysing affixes and DIS*
roots
(*) DIS =Discovery strategies
The results obtained from observations revealed the participants’ in-class use
of strategies and the teachers’ teaching methods. I distributed checklists to the
participants so that they could tick the strategies they used and which might
not be observed while being engaged in writing field notes. As mentioned
above, I used the observation sheet to note down the observational data. On
this sheet, a brief description of the strategies noticed, from both teachers and
students, was written down, along with to which category they belonged. At
the end of the observation sheet, I recorded notes concerning the teaching
methods followed. In this regard, while observing the teachers’ methods of
instruction, the comments written centred on the strategies the observed
teacher used, encouraged or practised. Later, I analysed the comments to
identify the effect of teaching methods on strategy utilisation. Two teachers
who participated in the VLSQ were observed in their teaching and were
involved in a follow-up semi-structured interview to reflect on their teaching
146
methods in the classroom. When selecting the teachers who were to be
observed, I intended to choose those who were delivering sessions in
linguistics, reading and writing skills so as to increase the chances of coming
across unknown words. Although experience (senior or junior) and
qualification (Master’s or PhD holder) variables were not targeted in this study,
they were considered while observing teachers so as to see whether they had
an effect on strategy use/promotion and the nature of teaching approaches.
The observation sessions totalled three hours, and lasted for 60 minutes at a
time.
During observations, it was obvious that the instructors and learners favoured
the traditional approach, in which the teacher is at the centre of the learning
process. The interaction between the teachers and students was very limited
and thus learning through discussion was barely observed. The teachers’ role
was to provide materials, and learners simply followed the instructions.
Activities implemented were short and more emphasis was given to grammar
and written language at the expense of spoken language. When encountering
a new word, the teacher either wrote it on the board, said it aloud, or spelt it.
Arabic (participants’ L1) appeared many times during the lessons observed.
Based on the above, it may appear that in Libya the Grammar Translation
Method is dominant, but this might not be the case. Teachers are using
different techniques, which may or (more likely) may not fit into a coherent
approach; thus, forming any generalizations on the teaching methods adopted
was not possible.
Regarding the teachers’ strategy use, I identified three determination

strategies (word list, analysing parts of speech and contextual clues), one
social strategy (L1 translation), and three memory strategies (associations,
paraphrasing and repetition). On the part of the students, the researcher
observed the frequent use of two determination strategies (dictionary use and
contextual clues), two social strategies (asking teacher and classmates for L1
equivalent), and two cognitive strategies (repetition and note taking). These
results, in general, were consistent with the participants’ answers on the
survey.
147
To sum up, multiple research methods were used to answer Study 1 questions,
which were:
1. What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL teachers at a

university level know/promote to their students?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL learners at a

university level know/use?
3. To what extent do Libyan EFL teachers believe that VLSs can be

taught?
As seen above in the analysis, and based on the data obtained from the VLS
questionnaires, the participants reported an overall medium
promotion/implementation (teachers, M = 2.7; students, M = 2.8) of VLSs in
their teaching and learning practices. Such an outcome was contrary to my
earlier assumption that Libyan EFL teachers and students have no knowledge
of vocabulary learning strategies. A possible explanation for this might be that
participants had most likely developed conscious learning strategy knowledge
due to the repeated administration of the study instruments (i.e. VLS
questionnaires, interviews etc.), and thus they became more acquainted with
the strategies. However, the obtained results in general are in agreement with
those of earlier studies, such as Riazi (2007), which investigated vocabulary
learning strategies among 120 female Arabic-speaking students studying
English at a university in Qatar, Riazi and Rahimi (2005), which studied those
of Iranian EFL learners, and Ismail and Al-Khatib (2013), which researched
those of the Foundation Programme of the United Arab Emirates University, to
name but a few.
The strategy categories promoted most frequently by the participating Libyan

EFL teachers were determination and social strategies, with an overall mean
value of 3.0, followed by the cognitive category (M = 2.8) and metacognitive
category (M = 2.7), while the memory category (M = 2.5) was promoted least
among the five categories. Perhaps this may due to the fact that visible motor
VLSs are possibly ‘contagious’, i.e. if I see people doing something I may well
copy them, whereas memory strategies and many others are less visible and
148
therefore less likely to be copied. For example, students cannot all ask the
teacher for an L1 translation, because this only needs to happen once per
word per class, unless they do not hear it, so they may in fact be reporting
other people’s VLSs use. On the students’ side, they reported using
determination strategies most frequently (M = 3.3), followed by cognitive
strategies (M = 2.9), social strategies (M = 2.8), metacognitive strategies (M =
2.7), and finally memory strategies (M = 2.6). The findings are consistent with
those of Oxford (1990), as memory strategies have been found to be
infrequently used by language learners.
Lastly, it should be kept in mind that the questionnaires utilised in Study One
(S1) were only designed to answer S1 questions, and thus were not used in
S3. Based on quantitative data obtained from S1, the S3 questionnaire was
designed (Appendix 18). In the latter stages, the strategies included were only
those focused on in the training programme, and for each of the items in the
survey, participants were asked how frequently they used the strategy stated
and the extent to which they thought the same strategy was or may be useful
to them.
Study 1 questions are now complete, and I will move on to describe the
second study, which focuses on designing the Vocabulary Learning Strategy
Training programme. The principal goal for the upcoming study (i.e. S2) is to
develop a 12-week strategy training course consisting of two weeks of teacher
training followed by ten weeks of student training. The results obtained from
S1 were used to identify the current situation in Libya in terms of strategy
utilisation and also as a basis for designing the instruction programme, as we
will see in the next chapter.
149
4.0: STUDY 2: The VLST programme
As indicated in the previous chapter, vocabulary learning strategies in Libya

are something that teachers and students have very little, or no, exposure to.
Due to limited time allocated to English classes, teachers often concentrate on
covering the materials that are scheduled in their curriculum, and the most
common tips that they provide to their students are taking notes, word
formation and the use of dictionaries. According to Chamot (2011), students
are advised to use more learning strategies in order for them to take more
responsibility for their own vocabulary learning, thus allowing teachers to
concentrate on other things. To do so, this demands that teachers be
convinced of the usefulness of such strategies, which in turn requires teachers
to develop expertise in VLS instruction – something that is at the core of the
present study. Teachers need to know more about learning strategies and how
to effectively plan and introduce them to their students (Trendak, 2015). This,
ultimately, would not only persuade students of the value of working on
learning strategies but would also convince other instructors as well. However,
more or less all studies in this area deal with learners’ strategic training, i.e.
providing learners with some strategy instruction, and they neglect to look at
the teachers’ knowledge and training. Very little attention has been given to
guiding language teachers on how to integrate VLS instruction into their
regular language classes (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Accordingly, developing
teachers’ expertise in strategy instruction is vital, especially in the context of
Libya, where teachers and learners have had no previous experience of such
training.
Therefore, this chapter presents a description of the VLST programme for

both sides of the learning process - the teachers and students, with the
emphasis on training teachers, since the existing strategic training of students
seems to be mostly ‘implicit, sporadic and based on the teachers’ assessment,
interest, knowledge, experience and intuition’ (Pavičić Takač, 2008: 148).
150
4.1 Strategy training
Prior to presenting the VLST programme, I need to address several issues,

starting with terminology. The terms ‘strategy training’ and ‘strategy instruction’
have been presented in the literature for a few decades (Oxford, 1990: 200)
and they will be used throughout this thesis as they are both descriptive and
sufficient in meeting its needs.
The next issue relates to planning a strategy instruction programme.

According to Nation (2014), this requires making a decision on the content, i.e.
deciding which strategies should be taught, making a decision on the time
spent on strategy training, developing a syllabus for each strategy, and finally
monitoring and providing feedback to learners on their strategy utilisation. The
third issue is the intensity of the training. In this regard, Oxford (1990)
mentioned three different ways to teach learning strategies: a) awareness
training, b) one-time strategy training, and c) long-term strategy training. With
the first type, participants become familiar with the notion of learning strategies
and the way such strategies can enhance their achievement in different
language tasks. The pilot study of the current thesis could be considered
awareness training, referred to in section 3.5 of the previous chapter. With
one-time strategy training, participants learn and practise one or more
strategies with actual language tasks. This type informs participants about the
value of the strategy, its utilisation, function and how to evaluate its success
and effectiveness. The third type of training, long-term strategy training, bears
similarities to the one-time strategy but is more lengthy and covers a larger
number of strategies; that is why it is believed to be more valuable and
effective than one-term training (p. 1990). All in all, the main study of the
present research could be considered long-term training, since it is focused on
teaching as many VLSs as possible over a long period of time and tying these
strategies together with regular language learning classes, as we will see next.
Another issue worth mentioning is the explicitness of the training. Research

on the implementation of strategy training has increased the consensus that it
should be made explicit, i.e. explain why and what strategies are being taught,
151
and incorporate strategy instruction into normal lessons instead of it being
taught individually (Rubin et al., 2007) (refer back to literature section 2.5.1 for
more details about explicit strategy training). Explicit VLS instruction generally
demands ‘raising the learners’ [and teachers’] awareness of their own
strategies, introducing them to new ones, and giving them any opportunity to
apply, analyse and adopt new vocabulary learning strategies’ (Pavičić Takač,
2008: 148), all of which were included in the VLST programme.
Finally, it should also be considered that while designing the course, three
major perspectives were contemplated - those of the teacher, the learner and
the researcher respectively. It was essential to bear in mind that the planning
for strategic teaching demands including all aspects of knowledge and the
preparation of a sufficient amount of tasks and activities for participants to
develop gradually into autonomous strategy users (Pavičić Takač, 2008). Key
issues and further considerations for planning and implementing a strategic
teaching programme have been addressed in Chapter 2, section 2.6. One of
the ultimate goals of the current study was to encourage language teachers to
allocate some lesson time to strategic training and encourage students to use
the introduced strategies. According to Nation (2014: 333-334), teachers have
many options when planning strategic teaching in order to suit their learners’
needs:
• The teacher demonstrates the employment of the strategy.

• The steps included in the strategy are practised separately.
• Learners administer the strategy in pairs, supporting each other.
• Learners report back on their strategy use.
• Learners report on their difficulties and success in strategy usage
outside their class time.
• Teachers systematically test the strategy use of learners and give
them feedback.
• Where necessary, learners consult the teacher on their strategy use.
152
Nation argues that this ‘mini syllabus’ is required to be designed for every
individual vocabulary learning strategy, particularly those that are complex and
involve several steps, for example the keyword method. However, due to
limited time being available for strategy instruction, a simpler model was
favoured, that being the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach
(section 2.7.2). The main reasons for the selection of this particular framework
were: firstly, it encompasses three components, which are content, language
and a direct instruction in learning strategies, which in turn helps teachers to
combine them in a carefully planned lesson. Secondly, it provides guidelines
for instruction and elucidates how something is learned because it is grounded
in theory. Thirdly, it is a recursive cycle so that participants always have the
opportunity to revise former instructional phases when needed. Fourthly, its
purpose is to gradually build their self-confidence in language learning via
training students to choose the appropriate strategies that help them learn
effectively. Lastly and most importantly, students with limited English
proficiency and who are less likely to have improved their own VLSs are
specifically targeted in this approach. As covered in the literature, the
instructional procedures of this approach are based on five phases:
introducing, teaching, practising, evaluating, and finally applying the strategies
taught. In the present study, the first three steps were administrated during the
training process, whereas the latter two were performed at the end of the
training programme. More information about the instructional procedures
adopted will be addressed later in this chapter.
The overarching conclusion suggests that strategy training demands careful

planning, explicitness, integration into normal language classes, and
consistent cooperation between teachers and learners. These, amongst
others, were all accounted for in order to conduct successful training. The next
section reviews the language of instruction prior to considering the selection
of strategies to be taught in the VLST programme in section 4.3.
153
4.2 Language choice
In the VLST programme, I decided to choose a language medium in which

all the participants were proficient. In my context, it was impossible to avoid
using the participants’ mother tongue (i.e., Arabic) to provide the instructions,
especially with the students, who seemed to lack the necessary vocabulary to
understand the explanations of learning strategies. However, to ensure a
complete understanding of the explanations as to why and how to use VLSs,
a combination of Arabic and English was used. That is to say that the actual
strategy instruction was in English, simplified as much as possible, and then
supported in Arabic. Some materials such as questionnaires and checklists
were in Arabic, especially those used for students, while others, such as the
teachers’ lesson plans, descriptions of strategies, activities and handouts were
written in simple English. For both however, the participants were free to
respond either in Arabic or in English.
4.3 Selection of strategies
After assessing the participants’ strategy use, beliefs, and prior assumptions
about vocabulary learning strategy training, the selection of certain strategies
began. Taking into consideration the S1 results obtained (See previous
Chapter), and in order to carry out relevant and useful strategy instruction, it
was decided to select a set of strategies considered effective enough to be
taught in the training programme. It is worth reporting that although Schmitt’s
(1997) taxonomy served as a basis for the current study, it was impossible to
thoroughly teach all the strategies embedded, and the time allocated for the
project did not warrant a longer scheme of strategy instruction. Added to that
is the fact that the strategies suggested in this taxonomy are not all equally
useful and/or equally accessible (e.g. the loci method).
Study 1 showed that most of the strategies the participants often employed
were shallow ones (e.g. repetition methods) which, according to Pavičić Takač
(2008), can be taught easily via the provision of straightforward advice, e.g.
‘Say the words out loud when you learn them, because you will remember
154
them better!’ However, this does not mean that they were not briefly introduced
in the programme since it was advisable to start with shallow strategies and
move towards the deeper ones (Chamot et al., 1999), and it would be more
sensible to move from familiar to unfamiliar when learning something new.
Because there is no single strategy that is appropriate for all learners and
tasks, different strategies were chosen from the different VLS categories (see
Table 26), some of them being easy to learn and some demanding more effort.
Bearing this in mind, the strategies were chosen in light of Oxford’s (1990)
observation that broad focus strategy training shows participants how
strategies interact and gives them a broader understanding of the process of
language learning. A broad approach compared to a narrow one, according to
Oxford, ‘trains learners in large segments of the whole strategy classification
system’ (p. 205) by combining groups of strategies such as affective, social
and metacognitive. However, in this approach, the possibility of evaluating the
training success in relation to a specific strategy does not guarantee but does
allow ‘for multiple strategies to interact to maximize learning potential’ (p. 205),
which is one of the main goals of the present thesis.
From my perspective, the more teachers know about VLSs, the better
strategic trainers they will be. As the present study looks at introducing
participants to as many strategies as possible, 26 deep and shallow strategies
from Schmitt’s 58 strategies were selected for the training programme. The
basis of preferring Schmitt’s taxonomy in particular was made explicit in
subsection 2.5.1, in the previous chapter. However, while selecting the VLSs,
I avoided strategies that were least favoured, familiar or required most learning
time (e.g. Loci and Peg methods) and those that were impossible to use in the
participants’ context (e.g. ‘using the vocabulary section or glossaries in
students’ textbooks’, as they did not exist in their syllabus). Furthermore, I
combined the strategies that were similar to each other (e.g. ‘asking teacher
for an L1 translation’ and ‘asking classmates for the L1 translation’ became
‘asking for L1 translation’). Strategies that seemed to be routine in Libyan
universities, such as ‘continue to study a word over time’, were also excluded.
155
In this context, having an applicable and comprehensive list of vocabulary
learning strategies, such as those suggested by Schmitt (1997), is crucial. By
means of this, I was able to raise the participants’ awareness of the different
VLSs they employ or do not employ, provide and discuss new VLSs, highlight
changes reported in use and perceived usefulness, and then plan and conduct
a strategic teaching programme. To be more organised, the selected strategies
would be grouped in light of their process in vocabulary learning. That is, the
participants would be taught firstly how to discover the meaning of new words,
and then presented with ways to consolidate their meaning. Table 26 shows
the strategies to be taught in the VLST programme.
Having discussed the selection of strategies, I will now move on to outline the
VLST programme.
4.4 Design
Once S1 was finished, and the VLSs the participants already knew or used
had been identified, the preparation phase for S2 started. This research was
carried out in two main stages. Teachers were targeted in phase (I) and
students in phase (II). Table 24 (next page) outlines the two phases including
the number of participants and their roles in the training programme, the VLST,
and the methods used for data collection.
156
Table 24: Training applications in the study
Stage I (Teachers’ training) Stage II (Students’ training)

• The researcher = • The researcher = observer/
Participants instructor facilitator
• 8 teachers = trainees • 8 teachers = instructors*
• 96 students (46 from Year 1,
and 50 from Year 2) =
trainees.
• Assess teachers’ • Assess student’s knowledge
Pre-teacher/student knowledge and and use of VLSs.
training (i.e. Study 1) promotion the use of
VLSs.
• Methods used: initial VLS questionnaire, classroom
observation, and semi-structured interview.
Time • 10 days • 10 weeks
• 20 hours • 27 hours
• 2 hours per a session • The first 20 minutes of the
regular class.
Teaching • Vocabulary learning • Vocabulary learning
strategies. strategies.
The VLST • 10 sessions • One strategy per a day
programme • Approx. 4 strategies per (the researcher and teachers
(i.e. S2) a session worked on the strategies
targeted)
• Lesson plan, checklists • Checklists and handouts
Materials and handouts include include description of
description of strategies strategies and activities.
and activities.
Post-teacher/ student • Assess teachers’ use / • Assess students’ use /
training (i.e. Study 3) knowledge, perceptions, knowledge, perceptions, and
and perceived perceived usefulness of the
usefulness of the VLST. VLST.
• Methods used: pre, post, and delayed-questionnaire,
classroom observation, semi-structured interview, and end
of course evaluation sheet.
(*) teaching their classes using/not using VLS sessions.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, teachers’ (TVLSQ) and students’

(SVLSQ) questionnaires were only used in S1 in order to identify the
participants’ strategic action, that was, finding out what vocabulary learning
strategies the participants were already using and knew. Referring to the
results obtained from the aforementioned questionnaires, the VLS
questionnaire used in Studies 2 and 3 was modified. Since the current thesis
concentrates on measuring the extent to which strategy training influenced the
participants’ utilisation of VLSs, and due to wording constraints, one version,
157
involving only the VLSs items, was distributed to both teachers and students.
This version was almost the same as those aforementioned, and what made
it distinct was adding some rows for perceived usefulness, as shown below,
and the time of administration. In other words, the questionnaire was
distributed before and after the instructional training so as to investigate the
participants’ perceptions of VLSs in terms of usefulness and frequency of use.
For each item in this questionnaire, participants were required to respond to
both the frequency of use of the strategy stated, and the extent to which they
may find it useful. The following is a sample of the questionnaire format used
in Study 3; see Appendix 18 for the whole questionnaire.
Table 25: A sample of Study 3 questionnaire format

How frequently do you To what extent is it
use the strategy? useful?
Very useful
Sometimes
Not useful
Not sure
Always
Rarely
Useful
Never
Often
The strategy
1. Analysing part of speech (e.g.

noun, verb)
)...‫ فعل إلخ‬،‫ اسم‬:‫تحليل أجزاء الكالم (مثال‬
As indicated earlier, the participants were the researcher, teachers and

students, and each one had their own responsibility which was made clear to
them at the very beginning of the research. Figure 3 below summarises the
shift of responsibility in the training programme from the researcher to the
teacher and then to the learner, which was adapted from ‘The Learning
Strategies Handbook’ by Chamot et al. (1999:43):
158
Researcher Teacher responsibility Student responsibility
responsibility
Preparation (activate Attend participate. Attend participate.
background knowledge).
Presentation (explain & Apply strategies with
Apply the VLST sessions
model). guidance.
with guidance.
Practice (prompt strategies
& give feedback).
Teach strategies Use strategies
Evaluation (assess independently.
independently.
strategies).
Expansion (support &
transfer). Encourage using strategies. Transfer strategies to new
tasks.
Figure 3: VLST framework for strategy instruction
4.4.1 Teachers’ training phase
In order to maximise the length of the programme, the teacher training phase
was carried out two weeks prior to the students’ training phase, so the pre-
training survey was administered at the very beginning of the course. To be
more precise, the teachers’ training lasted for ten days, taking into account the
public holidays in Libya, which are Fridays and Saturdays. Consequently, the
training included ten sessions in total, all carried out by the researcher. All the
participating teachers were involved in the training programme in order to get
as much benefit as possible, but during the students’ instructional training only
those who were to teach the experimental group were allowed to provide the
strategy sessions, whereas teachers in the control group were asked to follow
their normal instruction. The next chapter provides in-depth information about
this.
159
Table 26: Research timetable of teachers’ training phase
Time Strategies focused on
Day 1 Warm-up session:
Pre-VLS questionnaire, introduce the concept and definition of
vocabulary learning strategy, list the strategies that they know / use,
discussing / raising awareness of VLSs.
Day 2 Discovering new words meanings (Part 1): analysing strategies (i.e.
analysing parts of speech, any available pictures, affixes and roots),
dictionary use
Day 3 Discovery strategies (Part 2): asking teacher or classmates for
clarifications (e.g. L1 translation, synonyms, paraphrasing, a sentence
including the new word), group work activity + lesson plan
Day 4 Discovery strategies (Part 3): check for L1 cognates, word lists, flash
cards
Day 5 Discovery strategies (Part 4): Guess from textual context, and review of
learned discovery strategies.
Day 6 Consolidating new words’ meaning (Part 1): repetition methods (i.e.
written and oral rehearsal), semantic maps + lesson plan
Day 7 Consolidation strategies (Part 2): Imagery strategies + the keyword
method – a brief description.
Day 8 Consolidation strategies (Part 3): Use of vocabulary notes, use scales
for gradable adjectives, and lesson plan
Day 9 Consolidation strategies (Part 4): grouping strategies (e.g. study them
together, spatially on a page etc.).
Day Review, practise teaching VLSs (lesson plans), post-VLS questionnaire
10 and end of course evaluation sheet
As indicated earlier in this chapter, the training was based on the CALLA
framework of teaching learning strategies. In each session, I began by
explaining the importance of the introduced strategies and distributing
handouts including explanations written in simple English (see Appendix 19
for a sample of the handouts administered). In relation to the lesson plans that
some sessions involved, teachers, with help and guidance, were trained on
how to plan for strategy instruction within a certain time frame.
In the presentation phase, I explicitly modelled and described the

characteristics, functions, and efficiency of each strategy taught with thorough
illustrations and exemplification. Teachers were also instructed in how to
choose certain words from their learning materials and apply the strategies
that were introduced in the session. Later in the practice phase, the opportunity
to employ the strategies learned within authentic learning tasks was provided
160
and guided by the researcher (refer to Appendix 20 for a sample of the
sessions conducted). The participants became aware of various learning
strategies available for use in determining the meaning of unknown words. It
was made clear to the participants that no single learning strategy can work in
every case and when the strategy is not workable they can use another one.
In this phase, I also provided feedback on the teachers’ work and lesson plans.
It should be borne in mind that while procedures in this phase are potentially
variable, and could have been done very differently, from my experience in the
EFL teaching field, this pedagogic approach most suits the Libyan teachers’
experience.
The opportunity to develop awareness and evaluate the success of the

training sessions was provided at the end of the VLST in the form of a post-
and delayed-questionnaire, checklists, observations, interviews, and an
evaluation sheet, in which participants expressed their opinions on the
fruitfulness of the training programme. At the end of the training programme
pre- and post- results were gathered from the participants in the control group
and the experimental group. They were then compared and discussed to
ascertain the effects of the course. This will be addressed in more detail along
with the data analysis procedures in the next chapter. In the final phase, that
is the expansion phase, teachers were asked to apply the VLST sessions in
their classroom. They were also encouraged to plan for strategy instruction,
choose and teach the strategies that they felt were workable with their
students, and guide students on how to employ these strategies.
With regard to the delivery of strategy sessions itself, Cohen (2011) suggests
several options, such as general study-skills instruction, lectures, workshops,
and peer tutoring. In the teacher-training phase, in addition to normal
classroom guidance and help, lectures and discussions were also provided.
The rationale behind choosing such an option was to assist language teachers
in becoming more aware of and familiar with the notion of vocabulary learning
strategies and the ways in which such strategies can help their students
accomplish different language tasks (ibid). The delivered lectures involved my
explanation, handouts, and PowerPoint slides. Later, during the students’
161
training phase, the teachers were to integrate their strategy training sessions
into their classroom teaching and;
…make sure that their students experience the advantages of
systematically applying strategies to the learning and use of the
language that they are studying… [and moreover] have the
opportunities to share their own preferred strategies with the other
students in the class and to increase their strategy repertoires
within the context of the typical language tasks that they are asked
to perform.
(Cohen, 2011: 138)
To sum up, as stated at the outset of this chapter, strategy training aims to
teach language teachers how to provide strategy instruction, giving them
opportunities to practise incorporating strategies into their regular lesson plans
and having them adapt existing course material to develop strategy teaching.
By doing so, teachers can heighten their students’ awareness of the different
VLSs that they can choose and use in their language learning.
4.4.2 Students’ training phase
In this phase, students were taught by the newly trained teachers. Before
and during the students’ training sessions, I worked with participating teachers
on their lesson plans and developed the materials used. Teachers were
encouraged to choose the strategies that they wanted to introduce to their
students. Then, the chosen strategies were developed using the students’
material, since in this phase the participating teachers and I were to continue
with the current syllabus of the university. I attended all the sessions in the first
six weeks of the students’ training programme to ensure teachers followed the
lesson plans as agreed. Then, I periodically observed the participants and
provided help when necessary. However, similarly to any teacher trying to
implement strategy instruction, some problems were encountered. These
difficulties included curriculum constraints, teaching styles, classroom
organisation, the teacher's beliefs, the language of instruction and the
162
teacher’s knowledge of promoting strategies, which all hampered further
improvement in the area of strategic intervention (Trendak, 2015).
Consequently, one direct benefit of S1 was the chance it created to identify
such hindrances, which were later considered in order to provide the ideal
conditions for the training programme.
After three months, I visited the participants (teachers and students) in their
classrooms, administered the same questionnaire and carried out some short
interviews and observations to measure the benefit of the training programme
and the use of strategies over that course of time.
163
5.0: STUDY 3: trial and evaluate the training programme
Having reviewed the current situation in Libya in terms of VLSs

promoted/used (S1 in Chapter 3) and the design of the VLS training
programme (S2 in Chapter 4), this chapter will describe the testing and
assessment of the VLST programme, and report on the findings collected as
a result of it. Study 3 answers the fourth and most important question in this
research which is:
➢ Does training Libyan EFL teachers in how to teach the VLSs play any
significant role in vocabulary strategy use and perceptions by either
teachers or students?
Similarly to S1, a multi-method approach has been used in order to answer

this question. The instruments utilised were pre-, post-, and delayed-VLS
questionnaires, a 12-week strategy training course consisting of two weeks of
teacher training followed by ten weeks of student training, semi-structured
interviews, and classroom observations of the sessions in which the trained
teachers implemented the strategy training. Before proceeding with the
analysis of the obtained data, it is important to discuss S3 sample and data
collection procedures.
5.1 Study 3 population
The same participants who took part in S1 participated in this study. The
only difference was in the number of participating teachers since in this study
only eight teachers were trained and used to teach the control and
experimental groups. Table 27 (next page) presents the number and
distribution of S3 participants.
164
Table 27: Number and distribution of Study 3 participants.
Groups Sort Class Site N

Teachers Students
Experimental A 1st year Tiji 2 22
B 2nd year Tiji 2 24
Control C 1st year Badr 2 27
D 2nd year Badr 2 23
Total 8 96
As illustrated in Table 27, the sample recruited for this research represented
two English language faculties at the Al-jabal Al-gharbi University in two
different locations (Tiji and Badr). The criteria for selecting the participants
were made explicit in Chapter 3, section 3.2. The participants consisted of four
classes and their teachers, who were already assigned into groups by the
university. The Tiji participants formed the experimental groups (A and B) and
were subjected to strategy instruction, whereas the Badr participants acted as
the control groups (C and D), and followed their regular lessons. The
participants were chosen from different sites in order to avoid any possible
interaction between them. In other words, the participants that formed the
experimental groups were not able to tell those in the control groups about the
training sessions, thus increasing the reliability of the study.
In reporting S3 results, the same analysis used in presenting S1 (elaborated

in Chapter 3) will be followed. The quantitative data analysis in the form of pre-
, post-, and delayed-VLS questionnaires (henceforth VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and
VLSQ3) will be discussed first, followed by an interpretation of the qualitative
data analysis including observation, interview and end of evaluation sheet. I
will now move on to analyse and discuss the quantitative data obtained.
165
5.2 Study 3: quantitative data analysis, results and
discussion
Since the principal aim of this thesis is to test the efficiency of the VLS
training course, the VLS questionnaire was distributed to all of the participants
before and after the training programme. The rationale behind administrating
VLSQ1 was to determine the current preferences and perceptions of the
participants before instruction took place, whereas the VLSQ2 and VLSQ3
were used to examine the subsequent use and perception of the VLSs taught
after the training was completed (as indicated in the previous chapter). Study
3 questionnaires included only the VLSs that were being taught in the training
programme. Thus, the survey consisted of 26 items in total. For analysis, and
for the sake of simplicity, the strategies were grouped under two broad
categories: discovery strategies and consolidation strategies, in light of their
process in vocabulary learning (see Table 3 in Chapter 2). The discovery
section comprised 12 items whereas the consolidation section contained 14
statements. The previous chapter can be referred to for the questionnaire
format and procedures (see Appendix 18 for S3’s whole questionnaire). For
each item in this questionnaire, participants were firstly required to respond
using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 5 = always to 1 = never, to
determine which VLSs they preferred. Then, for the same items, they were
asked to respond using a four-point Likert scale to measure usefulness. The
anchor points for this segment ranged from 4 = very useful to 1 = not useful,
so as to indicate the perceived usefulness of the items. In this regard, it should
be mentioned that while reporting on the results obtained, I faced a problem
when making the comparisons, which was due to the use of different
measuring scales, as mentioned above. However, to overcome this limitation,
percentages were used where relevant so as to identify whether the gap
between use and perceived usefulness has been bridged after the training
programme or not. In other words, to find out whether the strategies that were
perceived as more useful after the instruction were promoted/employed more
often or not.
166
During the analysis of Study 3 results, I followed almost the same method
used in scoring S1 findings, using descriptive statistics in terms of frequencies
(F), means (M), and standard deviations (SD) to present the obtained data.
Due to wording constrains, mean and standard deviation only were mentioned
here, with complete results included in Appendices 21 and 22. In these
appendices, EG results were thoroughly presented as they were subjected to
the VLST programme. Turning to the analysis procedures, a paired t-test and
Pearson correlation were also used in order to check whether there were
differences in preferences and perceptions before and after the training. As
was the case with S1, in S3 the higher the mean value, the more often the
strategy was promoted/employed/found useful, or vice versa. Data from
VLSQ1, VLSQ2 and VLSQ3 was inputted into SPSS. The analysis of the
quantitative data was divided into two sections and each section further
divided into subsections as seen below. As indicated earlier, the results of the
experimental groups will be presented, compared and discussed, followed by
the control groups’ responses.
5.2.1 Results of questionnaire 1 (VLSQ1)
This section shows the responses of groups A and B to the VLSQ1. The
overall results will be tabulated first followed by the outcomes of the individual
strategies. Table 28 (below) presents the overall findings regarding the
frequency of use/promotion of use of VLSs and perceptions of usefulness
before the training programme.
Table 28: Overall averages in use and perceived usefulness in VLSQ1.

Group participants N Category of Frequency of Perceived
VLSs use (1-5) usefulness (1-4)
M SD % M SD %
Experimental Teachers 4 Discovery 2.9 1.00 58 2.4 0.56 60
group (EG) Consolidation 2.0 0.58 40 2.2 0.45 55
Students 46 Discovery 2.9 0.51 58 2.7 0.20 68
Consolidation 2.8 0.50 56 2.5 0.28 63
Control Teachers 4 Discovery 2.7 0.72 54 2.6 0.36 65
group (CG) Consolidation 2.6 0.72 52 2.5 0.38 63
Students 50 Discovery 2.9 0.36 58 2.9 0.29 73
Consolidation 2.7 0.49 54 2.6 0.45 65
167
The results in Table 28, in general, reveal the relatively moderate
use/promotion of vocabulary learning strategies by both teachers and
students, which supports the findings obtained from S1 (see Chapter 3 for
further information). Concerning the frequency of use/encouraging the use of
VLSs however, EG students and teachers, before strategy training, seemed
to prefer using/encouraging the use of discovery strategies – these had an
overall mean of 2.9, as shown in Table 28. Consolidation strategies came next
in terms of promotion/utilisation with an overall mean value of 2.0 and 2.8 for
teachers and students respectively. Based on the data obtained, it seems
obvious that teachers’ encouragement of the use of the different VLSs is lower
than their students’ employment of such strategies. Section 3.5.1 in chapter 3
provides some possible explanations for such a result. When the results of EG
and CG were tested again by the use of an independent samples t-test, no
statistically significant difference was found between EG teachers and CG
teachers for promoting the use of discovery strategies t(22) = 0.499, p = 0.158,
and consolidation strategies t(26) = - 2.256, p = 0.307. A similar observation
holds true for EG and CG students’ employment of consolidation strategies
t(22) = 0.297, p =0.912, and discovery strategies t(26) = 0.479, p = 0.769. In
terms of perceived usefulness, the preliminary examination of the data
revealed that the average means of the participating students in the discovery
and consolidation strategies, which were 2.7 and 2.5 respectively, were also
slightly higher than those of their teachers. This means that students consider
some VLSs more beneficial for discovering and consolidating the meaning of
unknown words than their tutors do. By looking at the mean values for all of
the participants with regard to usefulness, one can see that most of them were
lower than those for the frequency of use. An independent samples t-test
generally did not show any statistically significant difference between the
mean scores for EG and CG teachers for the discovery strategies’ usefulness
t(22) = -1.033, p =0.155, and the consolidation strategies’ usefulness, t(26) =
-1.360, p =0.755. Similarly, the differences between the mean scores for EG
and CG students were not statistically significant for both discovery strategies
usefulness t(22) = -1.265, p = 0.107 and consolidation strategies usefulness
t(26) = 0.404, p =0.077. However, further analysis with the use of percentages
168
(see section 5.2 for reasons for calculating proportion) revealed that teachers
and students can see value in vocabulary learning strategies even though they
do not use them, which is an interesting point. Here, one may ask what the
logic is behind seeing value in things and not actually doing them. This is
perhaps best attributed to human nature – like smokers who still smoke even
though they know it is bad for their health.
Nevertheless, in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the whole

pattern of preferences for and perceptions of vocabulary learning strategies
before training, it is useful to present the participants’ responses to the
individual strategies according to their categorisation. For the sake of
practicality and space, teachers’ and students’ answers to each category will
be outlined in tables, and I will begin by summarising the findings related to
the frequency of use/encouragement of the use of VLSs, followed by their
perceived usefulness outcomes.
5.2.1.1 VLSQ1: strategy use by experimental groups’

participants
Table 29 (next page) displays the participants’ preferences, prior to training,
for the 26 strategies concerning discovery and consolidation categories. What
should be borne in mind before proceeding with the analysis is that the pre-
training data obtained in this study regarding the frequency of use of VLSs was
almost identical to those obtained in Study 1. That is to say that most of the
strategies that received high mean scores in S1 also ranked highly in S3
results, for example ‘to analyse parts of speech’ (S1 = 3.6; S3 = 3.5) and ‘to
guess from textual context’ (S1 = 3.8; S3 = 4.5). The interpretations in this
section will be kept somewhat brief since most of them have been made
explicit in S1 in Chapter 3.
169
Table 29: VLSQ1: VLSs promoted/used by EG participants
Discovery strategy Teachers Students
M SD M SD
1. Analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb) 3.5 1.29 2.8 1.19
2. Analysing affixes and roots (e.g. un-predict-able) 3.0 0.81 2.9 1.22
3. Checking for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫)الكحول‬ 2.2 0.95 2.3 1.15
4. Analysing any available pictures or gestures 4.0 0.81 3.1 1.36
5. Guessing from textual context 4.5 1.00 3.5 1.27
6. Using dictionaries 2.0 1.81 3.8 1.08
7. Using word lists 4.2 0.95 3.0 1.37
8. Using L1 translation 2.2 0.95 3.5 1.37
9. Paraphrasing the new words or giving synonyms 3.2 1.25 2.8 1.18
10. Giving sentences including the new word 2.7 0.95 2.5 0.96
13. Using flash cards 1.5 0.57 2.1 1.10
19. Using semantic maps 2.0 0.81 2.6 1.11
Consolidation strategies
11. Discovering the meaning through group work activity 2.2 0.95 2.4 1.27
12. Associating the word with its coordinates 3.2 1.25 2.9 1.26
14. Associating new words with their synonyms or antonyms 2.0 0.81 2.8 1.25
15. Using the keyword method 1.5 0.57 1.8 0.91
16. Repeating a word (i.e. aloud, in mind, by spelling it) 2.2 1.50 3.5 1.37
17. Using scales for gradable adjectives 2.9 0.95 2.6 1.07
18. Writing a word repeatedly 1.2 0.50 3.6 1.10
20. Placing new words in a group with other items based on 1.7 0.95 2.2 1.00
topic or function etc.
21. Imagining the written form of a word to remember it 1.7 0.95 3.3 1.17
22. Taking notes in class. 2.5 1.29 3.0 1.29
23. Grouping words together spatially on a page. 1.2 0.50 2.3 1.10
24. Learning words of an expression together as if they were 2.0 0.81 3.0 1.28
just one word.
25. Writing new words in vocabulary notebook. 2.2 1.25 2.7 1.21
26. Acting out or miming the new word. 2.0 0.81 2.8 1.10
Some discrepancies in terms of preferences between teachers and students

can be noted. The teachers, for example, frequently promoted the use of half
of the discovery strategies to their students, with the strategy of guessing from
textual context coming at the top of the list (M = 4.5, SD = 0.81), not only in
this category, but overall. This was followed by the strategy of word lists (M =
4.2), with the analysing any available pictures strategy in third place with a
mean score of 4.0. The strategies of analysing parts of speech (item 1),
paraphrasing (item 9) and analysing affixes (item 2) came in fourth, fifth and
sixth places with mean values of 3.5, 3.2, and 3.0 respectively. In contrast,
strategies relating to the use of L1 cognates (item 3), dictionaries (item 6), L1
translation (item 8), semantic maps (item 19), and giving sentences including
170
the new word (item 10) were the least encouraged, with the strategy of using
flash cards (item 13) at the bottom in terms of preferences, with a mean score
of 1.5. Apart from the mean achieved for item 7, which was 4.2, these results
generally supported those obtained in Study 1. Although S1 outcomes
revealed the infrequent use of the word list strategy (a compatible VTS), S3
showed quite the opposite. This however, may be attributed to the small
number of teachers who participated in S3 compared to those in S1, or
perhaps to the lack of teachers’ and students’ understanding and insight into
what strategies they really use.
The participating students, on the other hand, seemed to frequently employ

the strategies of guessing from context (item 5, M = 3.5), analysing available
pictures (item 4, M = 3.1), and using word lists (item 7, M = 3.0). These results
provide encouragement for teachers who believe in their importance and may
ensure they keep up their use. Possible explanations for obtaining such results
were made explicit in S1, Chapter 3. Students rely strongly on their first
language (item 8, M = 3.5) and dictionaries for their vocabulary learning, with
the latter being the most common strategy used amongst participating
students (item 6, M = 3.8). Students seemed to disagree with their teachers
regarding the use of such strategies, which is not surprising bearing in mind
the gap between teachers and students in terms of proficiency level. The least
commonly used discovery strategies on the other hand, were the strategies of
giving sentences including the learned words (item 10, M = 2.5, SD = 0.96),
checking for L1 cognates (item 3. M = 2.3, SD = 1.15), and using flash cards
(item 13), which received the lowest mean value of 2.1. This means that this
strategy was rarely used by the participants. Figure 4 (next page) better
summarises the initial discovery strategies use by experimental group
participants. One more thing to bear in mind is that correlations were also
tested at the end of the quantitative data analysis section, so as to identify
whether there was a correlation between the teachers’ and students’ opinions.
171
5
4.5
4
3.5
Mean scores
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q13 Q19
Teachers 3.5 3 2.2 4 4.5 2 4.2 2.2 3.2 2.7 1.5 2
Students 2.8 2.9 2.3 3.1 3.5 3.8 3 3.5 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.6
Figure 4: Initial DIS strategies use by EG participants
As for the consolidation strategies, the overall mean of teachers’ scores in

this category was 2.0, as indicated earlier, which means that teachers were
less positive with regard to encouraging their students to use consolidation
strategies. However, within this category, there is a certain degree of variety
between the achieved means, as noted in Table 29 above. The pre-training
survey, in general, shows that Libyan EFL teachers do not commonly favour
promoting the use of this type of strategy. Among the 14 items allocated to this
category, only one strategy, item 12 (to associate the word with its
coordinates), was relatively highly rated (M = 3.2, SD = 1.25). The results
presented in Table 29 (above) show that this finding might seem somewhat
surprising, as apart from promoting the use of coordinates, no other word
association strategies received a high rating. The literature, traditionally, has
shown that this type of strategy and other sense relationships such as
synonyms and antonyms can be illustrated with the use of semantic maps
(Oxford, 1990; Schmitt, 1997). In this study, Libyan EFL teachers seem to
promote the use of few associations and semantic grouping strategies and
they regard them as less helpful as will be shown in the next observations. The
results obtained concerning the above-mentioned item however, confirm those
obtained in S1 (see Chapter 3 for further details). In general, Table 29 clearly
shows that teachers before the training were low consolidation strategy
promoters. Statement 17, to use scales for gradable adjectives, came second
in terms of promotion with a mean score of 2.9, followed by the strategy of
172
taking notes in class (item 22), as the mean of 2.5 indicated. These ratings
were low, but higher than the others in this category. The remaining items
received lower ratings by respondents, especially those related to promoting
the use of the keyword method (item 15, M = 1.5, SD = 0.57), writing words
repeatedly (item 18, M = 1.2, SD = 0.50), and grouping words together spatially
on one page (item 23, M = 1.2, SD = 0.50). This generally confirms the findings
of Study 1.
Students’ usage of consolidation strategies, on the other hand, appeared to

somewhat exceed their teachers’ reinforcement of such strategies, as shown
in Table 29. Out of the 14 items relating to the consolidation category, five
items - 18, 16, 21, 22 and 24, ranked higher than 3.0. Despite the fact that the
overall average score of this category, which was 2.7, indicated a moderate
use of such strategies, the individual results within this category revealed a
low-to-high degree of employment. Broadly, Libyan EFL learners in the EG, as
seen in Table 29, seemed to rely to a large degree on repetition methods,
either written or verbal. Consolidation 18, for instance, to write a word
repeatedly, was often utilised, as the mean of 3.6 shows. The second highest
mean in the consolidation strategies was achieved by statement 16, to repeat
a word aloud, in the mind or by spelling it, (M = 3.5, SD = 1.37), followed by
imagery strategies (item 21, M = 3.3, SD = 1.17) in third place in terms of
usage. Consolidation 22 and 24 came fourth in the implementation scale with
a mean value of 3.0, which means that Libyan students often resort to taking
notes in class and learning words of an expression together as if they were
just one word. The strategy of associating the word with its coordinates (item
14), which was the only strategy that appeared to be highly preferred by
teachers, came fifth in terms of usage with a mean score of 2.9. This was
somewhat low, yet higher than the remaining consolidation strategies. Other
consolidation strategies, as noted in Table 29, ranked from low, as in item 15
(M = 1.8), to moderate, as in items 14 and 26 (M = 2.8). The strategies least
preferred by students were complicated ones that require deeper processing.
Again, these results are similar to those revealed in Study 1. Chapter 3 can be
referred to for detailed information and explanations. Figure 5 (next page)
173
clearly outlines the initial scores of 14 consolidation strategies across 8
teachers and 96 students. In this figure however, some kind of similarity can
be noted between teachers’ and students’ results, which may indicate the
existence of a correlation between the reported VLSs used and the compatible
VTSs adopted.
4
3.5
3
Mean scores
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q11 Q12 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26
Teachers 2.2 3.2 2 1.5 2.2 2.9 1.2 1.7 1.7 2.5 1.2 2 2.2 2
Students 2.4 2.9 2.8 1.8 3.5 2.6 3.6 2.2 3.3 3 2.3 3 2.7 2.8
Figure 5: Initial CON strategies use by EG participants
In summary, Table 29 reveals that before the training, teachers and students
had a preference for guessing strategies (item 5), analysing any available
pictures (item 4), and using word lists (item 6). The participants seemed also
to agree on the infrequent use/promotion of flash cards (item 13), L1 cognates
(item 3), and semantic maps strategies (item 19). When the results were tested
by the use of an independent samples t-test, there was a statistically significant
difference between teachers’ promotion of use of discovery strategies and
students’ utilisation of such strategies t(22) = 0.026, p = 0.016. However, the
consolidation strategies showed no statistically significant difference t(26) = -
3.636, p = 0.730. Based on S1 outcomes, these results were perhaps rather
predictable (see Appendix 21 for percentages and frequencies). However, for
the purpose of comparing teachers’ and students’ preferences before and after
the instruction, for the strategies being taught, the survey was undertaken
again. Section 4.4 in Chapter 4 can be referred to for further details about the
survey. In the consolidation category, the analysis of the data revealed that
174
Libyan EFL learners are more in favour of using these types of strategies, even
though their teachers do not usually encourage their use, which is not
surprising. Students are expected to employ more techniques to reach their
goal of successful learning.
5.2.1.2 VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by experimental

groups’ participants
In the current survey, the participants were also asked to respond as to
whether they thought the strategies sounded useful even if they did not use or
know them. This was used to provide an overall view of strategy use and
perceptions of individual strategy usefulness before the instruction. As the
VLSs were presented for the third time to the participants (i.e. pilot study, S1,
and S3) and each time they were free to ask questions if they did not
understand any strategy, it appears that most of the participants now have an
idea, no matter how limited, of how these strategies work. Similarly to the
previous analysis, Appendix 22 provides the frequencies and percentages of
each item in the questionnaire. Table 30 (next page) shows the teachers’ and
students’ perceptions of the 26 VLSs.
175
Table 30: VLSQ1: perceived usefulness of VLSs by EG participants
M SD M SD
7. Using word lists 2.2 0.95 2.7 0.95
just one word.
From Table 30 we can see that three out of the six discovery strategies that
teachers very often promoted the use of were also considered beneficial. The
three most highly encouraged discovery strategies were: item 1 ‘analysing
parts of speech’, item 4 ‘analysing any available pictures’, and item 5 ‘guessing
from textual context’ with a mean score of 3.0, which means that teachers do
not only encourage the use of such discovery strategies in their teaching
practices, but also believe in their potential helpfulness. In contrast, although
the strategy of word lists (item 7) received a high rating by teachers in terms
of promotion (M = 4.2; 84%), its helpfulness rating stood at only 2.2 (55%),
which means that teachers do not see this strategy as useful, despite the fact
that they promote its use frequently. Likewise, the usefulness of analysing
176
affixes and roots (item 2), and paraphrasing (item 9) was also rated low by the
participating teachers, with mean values of 2.2 (55%) and 1.5 (38%)
respectively. These low ratings for strategies that were reported by the
participants to be frequently promoted shows that teachers cannot necessarily
see any utility in some of the strategies that they currently encourage (see
Figure 6). This in turn justifies the strategy training provided, by which teachers
could notice and explore these techniques, and invest in them to bridge the
gap between their preferences and perceptions of helpfulness. Such
instruction helps teachers to identify strategies that can and cannot work with
their students, and to be aware of their potential utility. Item 10, ‘giving
sentences including the new words’, was also perceived as helpful with a
mean score of 3.0 (75%), which is inconsistent with its frequency of
use/promotion (54%) as shown in the Figure below. This shows that although
teachers rarely promote the use of this kind of discovery strategy, they strongly
believe in its helpfulness. This result matches that observed in Schmitt’s study
(1997). With the exception of the mean scores achieved by the above-
mentioned strategies, none of the other items differed to any great extent. The
remaining strategies were perceived to be relatively less helpful as indicated
by the low mean score achieved for promoting the use of L1 cognates (item 3,
M = 2.0; 50%) and paraphrasing (item 9, M = 1.5; 38%) strategies, which
turned out to be the least effective ones.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Usefulness Use
Figure 6: Initial DIS strategies promotion and perceptions of usefulness by EG

teachers.
177
Unlike their teachers, students before the training thought that all the
discovery strategies that they already used were useful, but they did not
always use them. By comparing the percentages of the ‘most used’ list with
the ‘most useful’ one, we can see a great discrepancy between the frequency
of use and the perceived usefulness. It was interesting to find that of the 12
discovery strategies, there was only one strategy, L1 translation (item 8),
where the usefulness score was slightly lower than that of usage (frequency
of use 70%; perceived usefulness 65%). However, these percentage scores
seem to be close and thus it still suggests that Libyan EFL students often resort
to their mother tongue in their vocabulary learning, and that they find it
advantageous. This finding further supports those obtained by Schmitt (1997)
and Fan (2003). The achieved percentages for usefulness for other strategies
reported to be very frequently used in this category were all above 60%. The
use of a language dictionary (item 6), for example, was among the strategies
that ranked highly in both frequency of use and usefulness (frequency of use
76%; perceived helpfulness 83%), which means that they do consider the use
of languages dictionaries as profitable in their vocabulary learning. This
appears to be the case with the other three discovery strategies reported to be
very often used by the participating students (items 4, 5, and 7). These items
received high scores in both usefulness (63%, 73%, and 68%, respectively)
and usage (62%, 70%, and 60%, respectively). Students here seem to utilise
the strategies that they believe to be helpful, which is perhaps not surprising.
This finding generally matches those observed in Schmitt’s (1997) study.
Figure 7 (next page) summarises the above discussion.
178
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Usefulness Use
Figure 7: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by EG students
On the whole, EG students were generally positive towards the efficiency of

all discovery strategies, with no strategy below 63%, as shown in Figure 5
below. When comparing helpfulness with promotion of use results among EG
teachers, in contrast, we can see that almost all discovery strategies were
ranked lower in perceived helpfulness than in frequency of promoting their use,
which might be interpreted as teachers knowing some discovery strategies but
not being completely satisfied with their potential utility. Although these
findings contradict Fan’s earlier works (1999; 2000), in which he
acknowledged the existence of a positive correlation between learners’ beliefs
and their strategy employment, they broadly support his later view that
language learners may or may not realise the value of the strategies they often
use (Fan, 2003). To clarify further, the participating teachers, as Figure 6
(above) depicts, reported preferring to encourage the use of ‘word lists’
strategy more than they did other sorts of discovery strategies, but did not
consider it more efficient in vocabulary learning/teaching than the use of
‘semantic mapping’, and vice versa. Therefore, strategy training would be
worthwhile to encourage teachers and students to deepen their knowledge of
strategy use and thus see the relevance of employing more strategies that
may enrich their vocabulary learning repertoire. Figure 8 (next page) shows
EG teachers’ and students’ mean scores with regard to the perceived
usefulness of discovery strategies.
179
3.5
3
2.5
Mean score
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q13 Q19
Teachers 3 2.2 2 3 3 2.5 2.2 2 1.5 3 2.2 2.2
Students 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.9 3.3 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.5
Figure 8: Initial DIS strategies perceived usefulness by EG participants
With regard to the teachers’ and students’ prior assumptions, before training
took place, concerning the helpfulness of the consolidation strategies, the
second part of Table 30 clearly illustrates them. In this regard, it is perhaps
wise to assume that most of the participants’ responses with regard to the
usefulness of VLSs might be considered as an unwillingness to appear
uninformed. That is to say, teachers and students have perhaps not
considered the utility of VLSs, but do not want to seem like they have not,
which in turn could possibly inflate their rating of potential helpfulness.
Turning to the table, on average, there were discrepancies between the mean
score for frequency of promotion/use and perceptions of helpfulness of
consolidation strategies. Amongst the teachers for example, almost all the
mean scores, as well as percentages (see Figure 6 below), for helpfulness
were higher than those for the frequency of promotion, with note taking
strategies (items 22 and 25) selected as the most useful, as the proportion
scores of 80% and 75% respectively indicate. Although these items ranked
low in terms of promoting their utilisation, they appeared to capture the first
two places in terms of perceived usefulness by the same participants. This
might mean that although Libyan EFL teachers express hesitancy in
encouraging their students to take notes in class, they seem to agree over its
helpfulness in consolidating the meaning of learned words. A possible
180
explanation for their hesitation might be that, to quote Pavičić Takač (2008:
82), these strategies are ‘time-consuming and strenuous, and learners need
to be constantly encouraged not to give up and to understand its advantages.’
Encouraging the use of scales for gradable adjectives (item 17), in contrast,
was perceived as moderately valuable despite the fact that it was the second
most commonly preferred strategy by the participants (frequency of promotion
3.2/58%; perceived helpfulness 2.7/55%). These results, again, contradict
those of Fan (1999; 2000b cited in Fan 2003), who claimed that the more the
strategies were valued, the more often they would be utilised. Apart from items
15 and 23, the remaining achieved mean scores in this category were rather
impressive. That is to say that the average scores for usefulness of many of
the individual consolidation strategies ranged from medium, as in items 11, 16,
17, 18, 21 and 24 (M = 2.2/ 55%), to high, as in item 25 (M = 3.0/ 75%). This
would suggest that Libyan EFL teachers before the training were generally
negative towards the use of some consolidation strategies, but did consider
them efficient (see previous explanation).
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Usefulness Use
Figure 9: Initial CON strategies’ promotion and perceptions of usefulness by EG

teachers.
Regarding the students’ perceived usefulness for consolidation strategies,

we can see from the analysis that the students had a preference for utilising
181
such strategies and they agree about their efficiency. All consolidation items
received relatively high percentages reached to 78%, as in strategy 14 (to
associate words with their synonyms or antonyms). These ratings in general
score highly when compared to those achieved for their frequency of use (see
Figure 7 below). Schmitt (1997) showed that the majority of Japanese learners
agree on the usefulness of studying synonyms and antonyms although they
do not currently use them, which appears to be similar to this case in the
present study. One other strategy perceived as useful was the use of repetition
methods, either verbal (item 16) or written (item 18). The mean score here was
2.9 (73%), making it the second most helpful consolidation strategy in terms
of overall average. Other consolidation strategies were also perceived as
helpful from the students’ perspective, as shown by high percentages.
Interestingly, students reported using the consolidation strategies from a low-
to-moderate extent but they perceive them as very useful. This result is in
agreement with Schmitt’s (1997) findings, which showed that students can see
benefit in strategies that they do not currently employ. The low percentages
obtained can perhaps be attributed to their insufficient knowledge concerning
the use and value of such strategies. Such a claim is clearly supported by the
data obtained. Take items 15 (to use the keyword method), 20 and 23 (to use
grouping strategies), for example, which received the lowest mean scores in
both frequency of use and perceived helpfulness (Figure 10, next page),
showing that the participants were generally negative towards the strategies
they had never heard of nor used. Bearing this in mind, strategy training could
be fruitful in enhancing learners’ understanding of the various VLSs that they
either use or do not use, and assisting them to choose strategies appropriate
to different tasks.
182
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Usefulness Use
Figure 10: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by EG students
To conclude, before the training programme, vocabulary learning strategies

were generally neither very frequently used/promoted nor considered as
effective, which is clearly evident by looking at the averages of the two
categories, i.e. discovery and consolidation strategies, presented in Table 28.
On the categorical basis however, Libyan EFL teachers and students reported
promoting/using more discovery strategies and finding them more profitable
than consolidation strategies, with a slight increase from the learners’ side as
the analysis indicated. A similar argument holds true for the individual
strategies, since the percentage scores for usefulness in each category were
generally higher than those of promotion/usage. On the individual strategy
level, we can also see that teachers’ and students’ perceptions were different.
Teachers, for example, had a preference for six discovery strategies (i.e.
analysing parts of speech, guessing from context, analysing available pictures,
analysing affixes, word list, and paraphrasing), and one consolidation strategy
(to use coordinates). From the teachers’ point of view, only the former three
discovery strategies can be considered as efficient for vocabulary learning,
whereas with the consolidation category, note taking was believed to be more
useful than the use of coordinates, which teachers reported encouraging the
use of very often. Students, on the other hand, seemed also to value the use
of word lists, analysing available pictures, and guessing strategies, finding the
latter very helpful as a discovery strategy. The participating students appeared
183
to favour two more discovery strategies, those being the use of language
dictionaries, and L1 translation, with the former deemed to be the most helpful
in this category, as discussed above. As for the consolidation category,
students valued five strategies (e.g. repetition, imagery, and note taking), but
they did not feel them useful enough for studying and practising vocabulary,
whereas they believed in the utility of studying synonyms and antonyms in
consolidating the meaning of learned words but rarely utilised them. Just as
was the case with S1, Appendices 28 and 29 list the VLSs that were used
most and those considered useful by the participants as a whole before the
VLST programme. Figure 11 (below) compares the mean scores achieved by
EG participants with regard to the usefulness of consolidation strategies.
3.5
2.5
Mean scores
1.5
0.5
0
Q11 Q12 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26
Teachers 2.2 2.7 2.5 1.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.2 3.2 1.7 2.2 3 1.7
Students 2.3 2.7 3.1 2.4 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.6
Figure 11: Initial CON strategies’ perceived usefulness by EG participants
A correlational analysis between teachers’ and students’ results was applied,

as we will see later, to identify whether there is a relationship between the
participants’ views. Having provided an overall picture of the EGs’ preferences
and perceptions of vocabulary learning strategies before the training
programme, I will move on to discuss the results obtained from the CG
participants.
184
5.2.1.3 VLSQ1: strategy use by control groups’
participants
In order to answer S3's question, more focus will be laid on the experimental
groups’ results since they were subjected to strategy instruction. Control
groups were also assigned to the current study to allow for comparisons of the
impact of teaching VLSs, thus increasing the reliability of measuring the
effectiveness of the training programme. Bearing this, and wording constraints
in mind, the results of the control groups will briefly be outlined. Table 31
(below) shows the initial VLSs survey of the control groups.
Table 31: VLSQ1: VLSs promoted/used by CG participants

M SD M SD
7. Using word lists 3.7 1.50 3.1 1.29
14. Associating new words with their synonyms or 3.7 1.89 2.3 1.30
antonyms
20. Placing new words in a group with other items 1.7 1.50 2.2 1.27
based on topic or function etc.
24. Learning words of an expression together as if they 2.5 0.57 2.8 1.38
were just one word.
185
Table 31 reveals that the use of discovery strategy 1 ‘analysing parts of
speech’ was the most frequently promoted amongst teachers in the control
groups (M = 4.0, SD =1.41) followed by discovery strategy 7, ‘the use of word
lists’ (M = 3.7, SD = 1.50). Strategies 5 (to guess from textual context) and 2
(to analyse affixes and roots) were the third and fourth most actively
encouraged by teachers in their practices, as the mean scores of 3.5 and 3.0
respectively indicate. Teachers in both groups seemed to agree on
encouraging the use of the discovery category, although the discovery
strategies that were highly loaded by the teachers in the experimental groups
outnumbered those by their colleagues in the control groups. However, apart
from the above, other mean scores gained by control group teachers in this
category were less than impressive. They ranked from low, as in items 13 and
19 (M = 1.7), to moderate, as in items 4, 8 and 10 (M = 2.7).
The discrepancy between the teachers and students’ adoption of discovery

strategies is clearly shown in Table 31. Although the overall average scores of
teachers’ and students’ promotion/employment of this category were similar
(2.7 and 2.9 respectively, as Table 28 on page 167 indicates), the individual
strategies that were highly ranked by learners outnumbered those that were
promoted by their teachers. This however, confirms the findings of 5.2.1.1.
Control group students prior to instruction actively used more than half the
discovery strategies, with strategy 6 (to use a language dictionary) and
strategy 8 (to use L1 translation) being the most used strategies, as the mean
scores of 3.3 and 3.2 respectively indicate. The other strategies that had mean
scores higher than 3.0 for frequency of use were items 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 (M =
3.1). The use of these particular strategies seemed to be shared amongst
students in both groups (EG and CG), although the scores of some discovery
strategies in the former group were much higher than the ones achieved by
the latter. For example, the mean score achieved on the use of dictionaries
(item 6) by the experimental groups, of 3.8, was much higher than in the control
groups (M = 3.1). A similar argument holds true for strategy 5 (to guess from
textual context) and strategy 8 (to use L1 translation). Students also seemed
to resort to the strategies of ‘analysing parts of speech’ (item 1, M = 2.8, SD =
186
1.32) and ‘giving sentences including the learned words’ (item 10, M = 2.7, SD
= 1.05), to a medium extent. The obtained values of the remaining items, i.e.
‘checking for cognates’ (item 3), ‘using flash cards’ (item 13), and ‘using
semantic maps’ (item 19), were not significant. As indicated earlier, such
strategies involve deeper cognitive processing and thus students may find
them difficult to employ (Schmitt, 1997). Figure 12 (below) better summarises
the aforementioned results.
4.5
4
3.5
Mean scores
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q13 Q19
Teachers 4 3 2.5 2.7 3.5 2.2 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 1.7 1.7
Students 2.8 3.1 2.3 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.3 2.4
Figure 12: Initial DIS strategies’ results by CG participants
The use of consolidation strategies was also not promoted very frequently by
CG teachers, as the overall average of 2.5 (see Table 28 on page 167)
indicates. Out of the 14 statements in this category, just four items were
relatively highly rated. The strategies with a mean exceeding 3.0 were: making
associations (item 14), repetition (item 16), and note taking (items 25 and 22),
with the latter being the most preferred amongst teachers in the control groups
(item 22, M = 4.0, SD = 1.41). This was followed by association strategies and
repetition strategies in second and third place in terms of promotion, with mean
values of 3.7 and 3.2 respectively. Strategies 18 (to write a word repeatedly),
21 (to imagine the written form of a word), and 26 (to mime the new word)
ranked in the middle in terms of promotion, as their mean scores of 2.7
indicate. The rest of the strategies in this category received low mean scores,
especially those related to placing new words in a group based on topic or
function (item 20) and encouraging the use of the keyword method (item 15).
187
Compared to their colleagues in the EGs, CG teachers generally encouraged
the use of consolidation strategies in their teaching practices, as the overall
mean suggests.
CG students, on the other hand, seemed to moderately use consolidation

strategies in their vocabulary learning, as Table 28 on page 167 demonstrates.
As the results show, there was a difference between teacher and student
preferences for such strategies, but in total both agreed on the use of repetition
methods (item 16) and note taking strategies (items 22 and 25). Mechanical
repetitions had the highest score from students (items 16 and 18, M = 3.5) due
to ease of utilisation, which in turn supports the aforementioned argument that
the higher the level of L2 knowledge, the higher the use of complex strategies
(Pavičić Takač, 2008). Learners in the current study were year 1 and 2, which
may justify the results obtained in this area. The strategy of imagining the
written form of the word came second in terms of employment (M = 3.2)
followed by note taking strategies in third place (item 22 and 25) with a mean
score of 3.0. Other strategies ranged from low, as in item 15 (the keyword
method, M = 2.0), to moderate, as in item 24 (to learn words of an expression
together, M = 2.8). Figure 13 (below) summarises the results concerning the
use of consolidation strategies by CG participants.
4.5
4
3.5
3
Mean scores
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q11 Q12 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26
Teachers 2 2 3.7 1.7 3.2 2.2 2.7 1.7 2.7 4 2 2.5 3.2 2.7
Students 2.3 2.5 2.3 2 3.5 2.4 3.5 2.2 3.2 3 2.3 2.8 3 2.6
Figure 13: Initial CON strategies use by CG participants
188
5.2.1.4 VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by control groups’
participants
Table 32 (below) depicts the initial results of VLSs’ perceived usefulness by
CG participants. The use/promotion of use of the 26 VLSs was generally
perceived as moderately useful by participants, although the overall average
scores of students were slightly higher than the ones achieved by their
teachers, as Table 28 on page 167 indicates.
Table 32: VLSQ1: perceived usefulness by CG participants

M SD M SD
7. Using word lists 2.5 1.29 2.6 1.08
just one word.
In the case of the teachers, the percentage scores of many of the discovery
strategies fell under 54%, as Figure 14 (p. 190) indicates. Only three
strategies, item 2 (to study affixes and roots), item 5 (to guess from context),
189
and item 8 (to use L1 translation), were perceived as being very efficient, with
the former (80%) being the most useful from the teachers’ point of view.
Although CG teachers encourage the use of strategy 8 in their teaching
practices to a medium extent, they believe strongly in its utility (frequency of
promotion 2.7/54%; perceived usefulness 3.0/75%). Bearing these
mean/percentage values in mind, the opinions of the teachers’ in the control
groups seem to contradict those of their colleagues’ in the experimental
groups. By comparing the most promoted strategies with the most useful ones,
we can clearly see that the CG teachers seem to undervalue the efficiency of
studying parts of speech (item 1) and word lists (item 7) although they very
frequently encourage their utilisation in their vocabulary teaching (Figure 14
next page). This generally refers to a teacher-centred approach that controls
the entire process of language learning in many EFL contexts. One possible
explanation for the aforementioned results however, may be a lack of teacher
awareness of other strategies. The use of the compatible VTS word lists, for
example, could be very useful if newly learned words were enriched by
semantic maps or were being utilised in sentences (Schmitt, 1997). The
strategies of studying any available pictures (item 4) and giving sentences
including the learned words (item 10) were moderately valued by the teachers,
as their mean score of 2.7 (68%) indicates. The result is consistent with their
frequency of promotion as discussed earlier. Teachers agreed that the
usefulness of the remaining discovery strategies was low, with the promotion
of the use of paraphrasing strategies being seen as least useful (M = 2.0/50%).
190
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Use Usefulness
Figure 14: Initial DIS strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG teachers
CG students valued the use of all the discovery strategies, with the strategy
of dictionary use turning out to be the most useful in this category, as the mean
score of 3.4 (85%) indicates. This strategy was followed by item 4 (to analyse
any available pictures), and item 8 (to use the mother tongue) with percentage
scores of 80%. The strategy of guessing from context (item 5, M = 3.1/78%)
ranked third in terms of perceived helpfulness, closely followed by item 9
(paraphrasing strategies, M = 3.0/75%). The strategies coded Q1, Q2, Q3, Q7,
Q10, Q13 and Q19 were in middle positions in terms of perceived usefulness,
with no average score coming below 63%. All discovery items, except two
(items 3 and 7), were almost congruent in their usage and utility. This may
indicate that students generally have positive opinions about the use and
usefulness of these types of strategies. CG students also reported high usage
of the word list strategy (item 7) with a low degree of satisfaction, as shown in
Figure 15 (next page). Students here seemed to copy some of their teachers’
VTSs into their vocabulary learning strategies even though they did not find
them useful, which is an interesting finding. Bearing this in mind, Pavičić Takač
(2008) suggested that promoting teachers’ awareness of the different VLSs
available, and the ones that are used by their students, could strengthen the
link between teaching and learning strategies and thus allow teachers to adapt
191
their teaching methods to meet their students’ needs. Figure 15 clearly depicts
all the mean scores achieved by the participants.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Use Usefulness
Figure 15: Initial DIS strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG students.
Within the consolidation category, ‘to associate new words with their
synonyms or antonyms’ (item 14), ‘to repeat a word verbally’ (item 16), and ‘to
write words in vocabulary notebook’ (item 26) seemed to be the only strategies
that CG teachers agreed on regarding their adoption and usefulness, as
shown in Figure 16, next page. It is notable that almost all the most promoted
strategies in this category were perceived as not useful for practising and
learning vocabulary. CG teachers, for instance, reported encouraging the use
of note taking strategies (item 22), but do not consider them valuable (see
sections 5.2.1.2 and 5.3.1.1.3 for a possible explanation). In contrast, they
believe in the potential helpfulness of studying coordinates (item 12, M =
3.0/75%) although they seldom encourage their use in their teaching practices
(40%). These findings may imply that teachers’ awareness of the different
VLSs available needs to be developed so as to bridge the gap between
frequency of promotion and perceptions of usefulness. In the current study, it
was my intention to stimulate teachers and provide them with opportunities to
adopt and apply compatible vocabulary teaching strategies that would cater to
their students’ needs.
192
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Use Usefulness
Figure 16: Initial CON strategies’ promotion and perceptions of usefulness by CG

teachers.
The means scores achieved by CG students regarding the perceived

usefulness of some consolidation strategies were also not high, with only two
strategies considered as being useful. The strategies that scored above 75%
were repetition strategies (items 16 and 18) and note taking strategies (items
22 and 25). These findings however, are in agreement with those obtained by
Schmitt (1997), who partially attributed this to the study system encouraged
by EFL schools, in which students are required to remember English grammar
and vocabulary via repetition or taking notes in class. Table 32 (p. 188), again,
clearly shows that strategies that require more active manipulation of
information, as in items 15, 17, and 20, were not only avoided by Libyan EFL
learners but were also not considered useful in learning and practising
vocabulary. Perhaps students did not know about such strategies and thus
reported that they are not efficient. That is why it seems essential to conduct
strategy training to provide students with opportunities to practise new
vocabulary learning strategies and to see whether there is any difference in
terms of use and perceived usefulness before and after training.
193
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Use Usefulness
Figure 17: Initial CON strategies’ use and perceived usefulness by CG students.
All in all, CG participants prior to strategy instruction seemed to promote/use

and consider VLSs useful to a medium extent, as the overall averages in Table
28, on page 167 indicate. Like EG participants, CG participants prior to the
treatment reported preferring discovery strategies and believing in their
helpfulness more than they did that of consolidation strategies. With individual
strategies, teachers and students appeared to have different opinions
concerning the use and usefulness of some VLSs, as shown above. As
opposed to their teachers, CG students viewed almost all the strategies that
scored highly in terms of use as also being valuable in acquiring vocabulary,
as the earlier analysis discussed. Once again, the dominating strategies that
enjoyed a high degree of usage and were perceived as most useful from the
CG students’ point of view, were the use of dictionaries, L1 translation,
repetitions methods, guessing from context, note taking strategies, and word
formation analysis strategies.
Finally, a correlational analysis was conducted to investigate whether there

is a relationship between teachers’ and students’ adoption/perceived
usefulness of VLSs. The results of the Pearson’s correlation show no
significant correlation between the scores of the students and those of the
teachers in terms of VLSs adoption and perceived usefulness. Indeed these
results further support the idea that students’ preferences for VLSs are
194
independent of their teachers’ compatible VTSs (Pavičić Takač, 2008). Further
statistical tests (i.e., paired-sample t-test), discussed in the upcoming sections,
showed a statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-training
results, which in turn supports the supposition that the current research built
on. However, a positive correlation was only found between CG teachers’ and
students’ adoption of consolidation strategies (r = .558), as illustrated in the
table below. This result is interesting, bearing in mind that CG students did not
receive any strategy training, but is insufficient to form the basis for any final
conclusions.
Table 33: Results of a Pearson correlation coefficient calculation between

teachers’ and students’ responses
Variables Participants Type of Pearson Sig. (2-

strategies correlation tailed)
EG DIS .343 .275
VLSs CON .101 .731
adoption CG DIS .443 .149
CON .558* .038
EG DIS .245 .442
VLSs CON .379 .182
usefulness CG DIS .330 .294
CON .506 .065
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
195
5.3 Strategy training programme
As discussed in S2, the training programme was carried out in two main
stages. Teachers were targeted in the first phase and students were then
trained in the second stage (see S2 in Chapter 4, section 4.4 for more details
about the design of the training programme). Each stage went through three
phases: pre-, during-, and post-implementation. The VLS questionnaire was
used in the former stage so as to elicit the participants’ preferences and
perceptions of the selected vocabulary learning strategies before training took
place. The during-implementation phase, was based on the five steps of the
instructional model of Chamot and O’Malley’s (1994) Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach, which involves: preparation, presentation,
practice, evaluation, and expansion. See sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 in the
previous chapter for further information about how the CALLA steps were
adapted in the current study.
The teachers’ instruction lasted for ten days (20 hours in total, approximately
two hours per day). Both the experimental and control group teachers attended
the training sessions, which were carried out by the researcher. I explained the
aim and procedures of the training programme at the very beginning. Each
session focused on different elements, and the teachers received handouts
that explained the target strategies accompanied by some exercises. Session
four, for example, was devoted to three discovery strategies - L1 cognates,
word lists, and flash cards. This session, as usual, began by revising the
strategies discussed in the previous session. Once the discussion was over,
handouts relating to the first strategy, i.e. L1 cognates (Appendix 19), were
distributed and teachers were asked to read through them. After that I asked
teachers if they had ever used or promoted the use of such a strategy in their
teaching practices. Teachers were free to share their thoughts with each other,
and speak in Arabic if they wanted to do so. In the presentation phase, I
explained the strategy and engaged teachers in some tasks. Initially, some
teachers struggled to find Arabic/English cognates, which was expected due
to the fact that the languages differ markedly from one another. However,
196
latterly and with some assistance, teachers succeeded in producing their own
examples. Once the first strategy was clarified and practised, handouts of the
second strategy (i.e. flash cards) were distributed and similar procedures (as
above) were followed.
Figure 18: A sample of flash cards presented in the lesson
The cards involved words, pictures, examples, word formations, or mind

maps printed on both sides. I divided teachers to groups of four and spread
the cards face up on the middle of each table. Then I asked questions and
teachers either to respond by saying the word, giving examples, collocations,
or creating mind maps. Slides were also used in the presentation phase to
assure full understanding of the strategies introduced. The teachers were
interested and enthusiastic throughout the course and there was not any
resentment, which may be due to the variety of activities and learning devices
implemented. A similar observation holds true for the participating students.
Although the participating students had no idea about their teachers’ training,
they notice a positive change in the teaching methods followed by their
teachers, which was good, according to some student interviewees, to break
197
up the classroom routine. The following is a sample of the slides used in the
instruction.
Figure 19: A sample of slides used in the VLST programme.
Appendix 20, however, provides a sample of the sessions conducted. In some

sessions, the teachers received additional training on how to plan for strategy
instruction within a certain period, in which milestones of how to prepare,
present, practise, and integrate strategic intervention were provided. Appendix
25 represents a sample lesson plan for one of the teachers’ training sessions.
The strategies covered in the training programme were 26 deep and shallow
strategies from Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy. Sections 4.3 and 4.4.1 in Chapter
4 discuss these strategies and provide reasons for adopting Schmitt’s (1997)
classification of VLSs. As indicated in the aforesaid chapter, the strategies
were selected based on S1 results. Table 26 in the former chapter highlights
the VLSs that have been focused on in this study. At the end of ten days
training, only EG teachers were allowed to provide strategy instruction to their
classes, whereas CG teachers were asked to follow their regular lessons. I
made unexpected observations of CG teachers to ensure that they actually
followed the instructions as agreed. The rationale behind this was to find out
whether following strategy training with practice and integration into a normal
classroom situation would have any impact on the use of VLSs in the long run.
The current literature however, does not provide much information about
strategy training from the language teachers’ perspective, their opinions on
198
VLSs, or their implementation during regular classes. Therefore, the present
study aims to obtain as much information as possible in this area. During the
training programme, the participating teachers acquired basic knowledge of
VLSs and understood the discrepancy between vocabulary teaching
strategies and vocabulary learning strategies. Then, they were directed to
expand their knowledge further by integrating what they had learned into their
classrooms. With my guidance, the trainee teachers carried out the second
stage of the training programme, the students’ training phase. This phase
lasted for ten weeks (27 hours in total, each session scheduled for 20 minutes
of strategy training). The training sessions were fitted into the normal teaching
timetable and the materials used were those set by the university. That is to
say, the participating teachers selected the target words from their students’
material and tried to choose and use the strategies that they thought would be
suitable for learning and retaining them. During this phase, I did not intervene
in the training process of the participating students. The teachers were
required to plan for strategy instruction, activate learners’ background
knowledge, and explain, model, and practise the strategies targeted. S2 in the
previous chapter thoroughly discusses the VLST programme design, the
participants’ roles and the procedures followed.
The post-implementation phase involved two stages: the post-VLS survey

and the delayed VLS survey. The latter survey was conducted three months
after the former so as to determine the extent to which the participants had
benefitted from the conducted programme in the course of time and to identify
the changes that had emerged in terms of use and perceived usefulness of
taught strategies. Had the participants’ awareness of the VLSs presented
increased or decreased during this time? And had the training yield the
expected results? All these questions will be discussed along with the main
research question stated at the outset of this chapter.
199
5.3.1 Results of questionnaire 2 (VLSQ2)
At the end of the student training phase, the participants (teachers and
students) were asked to fill in the same VLS questionnaire that they had
completed prior to the instructional programme being conducted. Again, the
mean and standard deviation were used as indicators for the central tendency.
For the sake of clarity, both pre- and post-survey results were presented in a
combined manner so that the difference in the means and standard deviation
could be noted easily. The next part compares the pre- and post-training
questionnaire results (i.e., VLSQ1 and VLSQ2), which are further divided into
two sections: the training’s influence on the frequency of strategy
promotion/use, and the training’s influence on the perceived usefulness of the
VLST programme.
5.3.1.1 Effects on frequency of promotion/use of VLSs

This section will discuss the effects of the training programme on frequency
of promotion/use of VLSs. The results obtained from the participants of the
experimental group will be discussed first, followed by the control group
outcomes. Therefore, discussing CG results, even briefly, may reveal some
insights into the impact of VLS teachability.
❖ The effects on frequency of promotion/use of VLSs on

EG participants
In order to determine whether any significant changes occurred in

participants’ reported adoption of VLSs after the strategy training, the initial
and post mean scores are presented and compared in Table 34 next page:
200
Experimental Groups
Teachers Students
Discovery strategy VLSQ1 VLSQ2 VLSQ1 VLSQ2

(Pre) (Post) (Pre) (Post)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
1. Analysing parts of speech 3.5 (1.29) 3.3 (0.96) 2.8 (1.19) 3.0 (1.33)
2. Analysing affixes and roots 3.0 (0.81) 3.0 (0.82) 2.9 (1.22) 3.1 (1.26)
3. Checking for L1 cognate 2.2 (0.95) 2.8 (1.26) 2.3 (1.15) 2.9 (1.36)
4. Analysing any available pictures 4.0 (0.81) 3.8 (0.96) 3.1 (1.36) 3.0 (1.47)
5. Guessing from textual context 4.5 (1.00) 4.8 (0.50) 3.5 (1.27) 3.7 (1.22)
6. Using dictionaries 2.0 (1.81) 2.8 (0.96) 3.8 (1.08) 3.9 (1.19)
7. Using word lists 4.2 (0.95) 4.8 (0.50) 3.0 (1.37) 2.9 (1.48)
8. Using L1 translation 2.2 (0.95) 2.8 (1.26) 3.5 (1.37) 3.4 (1.50)
9. Paraphrasing the new words 3.2 (1.25) 3.0 (0.82) 2.8 (1.18) 2.7 (1.44)
meaning
10. Giving sentences including the new 2.7 (0.95) 2.5 (1.29) 2.5 (0.96) 3.1 (1.42)
word
13. Using flash cards 1.5 (0.57) 2.0 (0.82) 2.1 (1.10) 2.8 (1.35)
19. Using semantic maps 2.0 (0.81) 2.8 (1.71) 2.6 (1.11) 2.9 (1.30)
Overall mean 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.1
11. Discovering the meaning through 2.2 (0.95) 2.8 (0.50) 2.4 (1.27) 2.7 (1.34)
group work activity
12. Associating the word with its 3.2 (1.25) 3.5 (1.29) 2.9 (1.26) 3.0 (1.39)
coordinates
14. Associating new words with their 2.0 (0.81) 3.0 (1.41) 2.8 (1.25) 3.2 (1.21)
synonyms or antonyms
15. Using the keyword method 1.5 (0.57) 2.8 (0.96) 1.8 (0.91) 2.1 (1.14)
16. Repeating a word (i.e. aloud, in 2.2 (1.50) 3.0 (1.83) 3.5 (1.37) 3.7 (1.19)
mind, by spelling it)
17. Using scales for gradable adjectives 2.9 (0.95) 2.5 (1.29) 2.6 (1.07) 2.8 (1.11)
18. Writing a word repeatedly 1.2 (0.50) 2.8 (0.96) 3.6 (1.10) 3.5 (1.07)
20. Placing new words in a group with 1.7 (0.95) 2.5 (1.29) 2.2 (1.00) 1.6 (0.80)
other items based on topic or
function etc.
21. Imagining the written form of a word 1.7 (0.95) 2.5 (8.58) 3.3 (1.17) 3.5 (1.24)
22. Taking notes in class. 2.5 (1.29) 3.0 (1.83) 3.0 (1.29) 3.3 (1.45)
23. Grouping words together spatially 1.2 (0.50) 1.5 (1.00) 2.3 (1.10) 2.5 (1.15)
on a page.
24. Learning words of an expression 2.0 (0.81) 2.5 (1.73) 3.0 (1.28) 3.2 (1.17)
together as if they were just one
word.
25. Writing new words in vocabulary 2.2 (1.25) 2.8 (0.96) 2.7 (1.21( 3.1 (1.30)
notebook.
26. Acting out or miming the new word. 2.0 (0.81) 2.5 (1.29) 2.8 (1.10) 3.0 (1.24)
Overall mean 2.0 2.7 2.8 2.9
The data shown in Table 34 demonstrate that the participants’ general

use/promotion of use for both discovery and consolidation strategies
increased by the end of the semester. The teachers’ overall score for the
201
discovery strategies rose by 0.3, from 2.9 to 3.2, and by 0.7 for the
consolidation strategies (pre 2.0; post 2.7). A paired t-test comparing the
teachers’ initial questionnaire (i.e., VLSQ1) scores with the final ones (i.e.,
VLSQ2), showed that there was a significant difference between teachers’
scores for the discovery strategies VLSQ1 (M = 2.9, SD = 0.97) and VLSQ2
(M = 3.2, SD = 0.86); t(11) = -2.364, p = 0.038. A similar observation holds true
for the consolidation strategies VLSQ1 (M = 0.2, SD = 0.57) and VLSQ2 (M =
2.0, SD = 0.44); t(13) = -5.175, p = 0.00. Almost all the discovery strategies
that scored low prior to implementing the strategy instruction showed a
noticeable increase in their mean scores, amounting to an increase of 0.6 and
0.8 by the end of the training programme. The strategies of using cognates
(item 3), dictionaries (item 6), L1 translation (item 8), and semantic maps all
received mean scores close to 3.0, which indicates that the training succeeded
in altering the teachers’ adoption of these strategies in their teaching practices.
Promoting the use of the word list strategy captured the second highest mean
value prior to the training (i.e. 4.2) and also received a significant rise,
amounting to an increase of 0.6, to be ranked first in terms of promotion along
with the strategy of guessing from textual context (item 5, +0.3). In accordance
with the results obtained from the initial questionnaire, amongst all the
discovery strategies, the encouraging the use of guessing strategy took first
place, while the ‘flash cards’ strategy (item 13) took last. However, considering
the previous mean score achieved for promoting the use of flash cards, its final
mean (i.e. 2.5, +0.5) was much improved. In contrast, the final value of other
discovery strategies that were reported to be more frequently promoted before
the training, such as items 1, 4, and 9 dropped by 0.2 after the training, which
is somewhat disappointing. However, despite this slight decrease, the mean
scores of the aforementioned strategies were still relatively high and they were
amongst the most frequently promoted strategies by the participating
teachers. Item 2 (to analyse affixes and roots), on the other hand, was the only
discovery strategy that stayed the same as before the training (pre 3.0; post
3.0), which may indicate that the training failed to change the teachers’ general
promotion of this strategy. All in all, although the reported progress overall was
rather small, as indicated previously, the general promotion level for using the
202
discovery strategies changed from medium-to-high, which is an encouraging
sign.
The overall mean for consolidation strategies also saw a general increase
amounting to 0.6, and thus altered the teachers’ general promotion of this
category to a moderate level (pre 2.0; post 2.6). Discrepancies were also found
within the mean scores attained by the individual strategies within this
category. The biggest increase noticed amounted to 1.6 (item 18, written
repetition), followed by strategy 15 (the keyword method, +1.3), and then
strategy 14 (to associate the word with its synonyms or antonyms, +1.0).
Interestingly, the mean score of the latter strategy was greatly increased to
rank highly in terms of promotion (pre 2.0; post 3.0), whereas the two other
strategies ranked in the moderate level. This suggests that training in raising
teachers’ awareness and developing their strategy application is efficient, and
thus, the time spent in training teachers was worthwhile. It seems clear that
there was a positive effect, not only on the surface strategies that do not
involve complicated steps, such as the use of rote memorisation and word
lists, but also on the deeper strategies, such as forming associations and the
keyword method.
Other consolidation strategies whose mean scores improved significantly

after conducting the training include strategies 16, 20 and 21; their increase
amounted to 0.8. Apart from item 17 (to use scales for gradable adjectives)
which decreased by 0.4, all the remaining consolidation strategies showed
progress in terms of promotion/application, which is a positive sign. Some
strategies rose considerably, such as strategies 16, 20, and 21, while others
improved slightly, as in items 12 and 23 (+0.3), but in general all these changes
resulted in altering the extent to which the use of those strategies was being
promoted. For example, the strategy of miming the learned words (item 26)
was amongst the least encouraged strategies before the training programme,
with an average of 2.0. Its final value rose to the moderate range (post 2.5).
Though this score did not reach 3.0, the progress made is much more
203
impressive than before (+0.5). Figures 20 and 21 clearly explain the above-
mentioned results.
6 4
3.5
5
3
4 2.5
3 2
1.5
2
1
1 0.5
0 0
Prior Post Prior Post
Figure 20: EG teachers’ prior and post

results in frequency of use of CON
results in frequency of use of DIS
strategies
strategies
As for the participating students, the overall average for the use of discovery
strategies also witnessed a general increase amounting to 0.2. Such an
increase is far from impressive, but when tested again by the use of the paired
t-test, a significant difference was noticed between students’ scores for VLSQ1
(M = 2.9, SD = 0.50) and VLSQ2 (M = 3.1, SD = 0.36); t(11) = -2.457, p =
0.032. Prior to conducting the training programme, some discovery strategies
were used to a low or medium extent (e.g. 13 and 19), but after the instruction
there were no low ranks, and moreover, most of those strategies that achieved
moderate averages improved to around 3.0, which is an encouraging sign.
This means that the training was effective and the EG students made progress
in terms of strategy use. These results provide further support for the
hypothesis that VLSs can be taught and that students’ awareness and
knowledge of such strategies can be enhanced as a result of strategy training.
However, there were cases where the application of discovery strategies
decreased by 0.1 (items 4, 7, 8 and 9), although they are still amongst the
most preferred strategies, as table 34 indicates.
204
As for the means achieved by EG students regarding the use of consolidation
strategies (Table 34 on page 201), one can observe a considerable
improvement in terms of strategy employment. However, although the mean
scores of individual consolidation strategies were higher than those obtained
initially, the overall usage of consolidation strategies still falls in the middle in
terms of strategy application (pre 2.8; post 2.9). Although the reported increase
was not that big (only 0.1 point), a significant increase was found between
VLSQ1 (M = 2.77, SD = 0.50) and VLSQ2 (M = 2.94, SD = 0.57) results; (t(13)
= -2.430, p = 0.030), which in turn suggests that the training succeeded in
changing the students’ general use of this type of strategy. However, it would
be useful here to discuss the results achieved by individual strategies so as to
find out the general trends as regards strategy application. Apart from item 20
(to place new words in groups based on the topic or function etc.), all the
consolidation strategies showed an increase in their mean scores. The biggest
rise amounted to 0.4 (items 14 and 25). The reported high use of strategies 14
and 15 was represented by scores of 2.8 and 2.7 respectively before the
training, while the final scores were around 3.2 after the strategy instruction.
This, in turn, means that the training did have some positive impact on the
students’ general use of these strategies, moving them from medium strategy
users (pre) to high strategy users (post). Similar findings were revealed
regarding items 12 (+0.1) and 26 (+0.2). Although the increase in these two
strategies appears small, it altered general strategy use from medium to high.
The remaining consolidation strategies also increased either by 0.3 points as
in items 11, 15, 22, or by 0.2 points as in statements 16, 17, 21, 23, and 24.
The reported increase for the individual strategies in this category is a positive
sign, though it was considerably lower compared to that achieved with the
discovery strategies. This may explain the small increase in the overall value
gained from the whole consolidation category. The following figures (i.e., 22
and 23, next page) better outline the aforesaid results concerning prior and
post consolidation strategies utilisation.
205
4
4.5
3.5
4
3
3.5
2.5
3
2
2.5
2 1.5
1.5 1
1 0.5
0.5 0
0
Prior Post
Prior Post
Figure 22: EG students’ prior and post results Figure 23: EG students’ prior and post
in frequency of use of DIS strategies results in frequency of use of CON
strategies
Having discussed the impact of strategy training on EG participants’ reported

use/promotion of use of VLSs, the next section will present the CG participants’
post-training results.
❖ The effects on frequency of use of VLSs on CG

participants
As indicated previously, the control group teachers, who were also enrolled
in the training sessions, were asked to follow the conventional way of teaching
vocabulary without consciousness raising or discussing any strategies. The
rationale behind this was to see whether accompanying the strategy
instruction with real practice in regular classrooms would have any impact on
teachers’ and students’ application/promotion and perceptions of usefulness
of VLSs in the long run, which, in turn, would answer the primary research
question of this study, stated at the outset of the current chapter. CG teachers
were periodically visited in their classes to ensure that they followed the
instruction as agreed.
206
Control Groups
Teachers Students

7. Using word lists 3.7 (1.50) 4.0 (1.41) 3.1 (1.29) 3.0 (1.34)
9. Paraphrasing the new words meaning 2.5 (0.57) 2.8 (1.26) 3.1 (1.32) 2.8 (1.22)
10. Giving sentences including the new 2.7 (0.95) 2.3 (0.96) 2.7 (1.05) 2.6 (1.28)
word
13. Using flash cards 1.7 (0.95) 1.3 (0.50) 2.3 (1.25) 2.0 (1.10)
19. Using semantic maps 1.7 (0.95) 1.8 (0.96) 2.4 (1.16) 2.1 (1.11)
Overall mean 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.8
11. Discovering the meaning through group 2.0 (0.81) 2.5 (0.50) 2.3 (1.33) 2.5 (1.16)
work activity
12. Associating the word with its 2.0 (1.41) 2.3 (0.43) 2.5 (0.97( 2.1 (1.11)
coordinates
16. Repeating a word (i.e. aloud, in mind, by 3.2 (1.25) 3.8 (1.09) 3.5 (1.35) 3.8 (1.09)
spelling it)
20. Placing new words in a group with other 1.7 (1.50) 1.5 (0.50) 2.2 (1.27) 2.0 (1.05)
items based on topic or function etc.
23. Grouping words together spatially on a 2.0 (1.41) 1.5 (0.50) 2.3 (1.02) 2.1 (1.04)
page.
24. Learning words of an expression 2.5 (0.57) 3.3 (0.83) 2.8 (1.38) 3.1 (1.21)
together as if they were just one word.
25. Writing new words in vocabulary 3.2 (1.70) 3.5 (1.12) 3.0 (1.42) 3.3 (1.25)
notebook.
Overall mean 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8
Like the EG participants, CG teachers and students were asked to fill in the
post-training questionnaire at the end of the programme. Although CG
teachers were not allowed to discuss any VLSs with their students, they had
to keep an eye on the strategies that they normally promoted and felt were
compatible with their vocabulary teaching strategies. Teachers during the
training sessions reported that they do implicitly model some compatible VLSs
207
(e.g., using synonyms, antonyms, and word lists) in their vocabulary teaching,
but in a subconscious way. Therefore, they were asked to pay attention for
such strategies. It seems obvious that when teachers knew more about the
different VLSs, their utilisation, and functions, they became more conscious of
the strategies they adopted in their teaching, and were thus able to provide
more definitive answers than before. That is say, when the participating
teachers fully understood the strategy of ‘using L1 cognates’ (item 3), its post-
training mean dropped to 1.5 points. The follow-up interviews revealed some
reasoning behind such a decline. When teachers were asked about the
possibility of using the aforementioned as a vocabulary teaching method, more
than half commented on the difficulty of finding Arabic/English associations,
and thus the fact that it would consume more time and effort in planning and
preparation. Although this view was also encoded by EG teachers, they
admitted that their students enjoyed using the method and found it beneficial
in remembering and retaining the learned words, which is corroborated by the
post-mean scores achieved (see Table 35) and the researcher's observations.
After having training, and compared to their initial thoughts, CG teachers
seemed to realise that they very rarely promote using the strategies of
‘including new words into sentences’ (item 10), ‘using flash cards’ (item 13),
and ‘asking students to check the meaning of a word in a dictionary’ (item 6).
In contrast, they noticed that the use of the strategies coded 1, 5, 2, 4, 7, and
8 were frequently promoted to their students in their teaching practices, with
the former two strategies (to analyse parts of speech and to guess from textual
context) being at the top of the list. It seems apparent that cognitive strategies
focusing on word formations and including repetition, either verbal or written,
are prevalent. These findings are perhaps rather predictable since there are
some strategies (e.g. to use L1 translation, word lists, and rote memorising)
that can be considered the core of VLSs due to their globality and applicability
for various learning contexts (Pavičić Takač, 2008).
As for consolidation strategies, most of the post-mean scores were close to

those initially attained. The consolidation strategies that were reported to be
very frequently promoted by CG teachers prior to the training (i.e. items 14,
208
16, 18, 21, 22, 25, and 26) were still predominant. Other strategies with low
initial mean scores (e.g. the keyword method and grouping words spatially on
a page) also maintained low values. Though informative, quantitative data
does not provide much detail, so with qualitative data one can assume that
some VLSs were not well known to Libyan EFL teachers and students, and
thus were rarely, if ever, adopted. This however, fits well with the data obtained
from S1 (see Chapter 3), as when asked about VLSs at the very beginning of
this research, few strategies were identified. Interestingly, the strategy of
studying idiomatic expressions together (item 24) received a big rise
amounting to 0.8 points, to be ranked 4th in terms of use. This may indicate
that the training programme made teachers more aware of the strategies that
they spontaneously promote the use of, which seems positive in terms of
raising teachers’ awareness of their strategic profile. Figures 24 and 25
illustrate the pre- and post- mean scores reported by EG teachers regarding
the use of VLSs.
5 5
4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Figure 24: CG teachers’ prior and post results Figure 25: CG teachers’ prior and post
in frequency of promoting the use of DIS results in frequency of promoting use of
strategies CON strategies
209
Finally, with CG teachers, the paired t-test generally showed no significant
difference for either discovery strategies (t(11) = -0.795, p = 0.443) or
consolidation strategies (t(13) = -1.775, p = 0.099). These results are rather
expected bearing in mind that CG teachers were asked to follow their normal
lessons without any strategy teaching, as indicated previously. This strongly
suggests that teachers did follow my instructions not to vary their usual
practice - i.e., teachers did not ‘accidentally’ teach different VLSs, and thereby
inadvertently affect the results of the study.
As for CG students, the results from Table 35 (p. 205) revealed that the
discovery strategies most used by students were items 1 (to study word
formation), 5 (to guess from textual context), 6 (to use language dictionaries),
7 (to study word lists), and 8 (to use L1 translation), with dictionary use
remaining the most used VLS, with its final mean value increasing by 0.3
points (pre-use 3.3; post-use 3.6). Notably, all the post-training results attained
regarding the use of discovery strategies were close to those achieved initially.
This suggests that without strategy instruction there would not be any
difference in VLSs use. Compared with before, and even though there were
some ups and downs in mean scores achieved, in general the strategies that
ranked highly in the initial survey remained high, and those scored that low
(e.g. the use of flash cards, and semantic maps) were still low by the end of
the semester. This in turn explains the overall mean score obtained for the
discovery category, which was very close to that achieved in the initial survey
(pre 2.9; post 2.8). Also, as might be expected, the paired t-test results of the
aforementioned means showed that there was no statistically significant
difference for the discovery strategies (t(11) = 0.832, p = 0.423).
A similar observation holds true for the consolidation category. Although the
general use of these type of strategies increased by 0.1 points, from 2.7 to 2.8,
the final score still falls in the moderate use range with no statistically
significant difference found (t(13) = -2.032, p = 0.063). The strategies that
enjoyed a high degree of use were ‘repetition’ (items 16 and 18), ‘note taking’
(items 22 and 25), ‘imagining the written form of a word’ (item 21), and
210
‘studying the words of an expression as a whole’ (item 24). In fact, a few
strategies made a small amount of progress in their mean scores, but in
general the strategies that were reported to be very often employed in the
initial survey were still predominantly used, and those requiring deeper
processing, such as item 15 (to use the keyword method) and item 23 (to group
words together spatially on a page) were underutilised. Bearing this in mind, it
could be concluded that without strategy training, CG students still mainly
utilised the same vocabulary learning strategies as before. This, in turn, shows
that the training was valuable. From Table 35, however, it is interesting to note
that most of the consolidation strategies that were reported to be very
frequently used by CG students were also mentioned by their teachers as the
most promoted ones. This result may indicate that students choose their VLSs
based on the VTSs employed by their teachers, which contradicts Pavičić
Takač’s (2008) study findings. Figures 26 and 27 demonstrate CG students’
prior and after-training results with regards to frequency of use of VLSs.
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Figure 26: CG students’ prior and post results Figure 27: CG students’ prior and post
in frequency of use of DIS strategies results in frequency of use of CON
strategies
As far as the participants’ prior and post use/promotion of VLSs are

considered, we will move on to discuss the influence on perceived helpfulness
so as to understand whether the training led to any changes in perceptions of
usefulness of the strategies introduced.
211
5.3.1.2 Effects on perceived usefulness of VLSs
❖ The effects on perceived usefulness of VLSs on EG

participants
Table 36 (below) presents the individual means of pre- and post-strategy
use/promotion with regards to their perceived helpfulness so as to understand
for which strategies an increase occurred.

Experimental Groups
Teachers Students

7. Using word lists 2.2 (0.95) 3.0 (1.41) 2.7 (0.95) 2.9 (1.07)
10.Giving sentences including the new word 3.0 (1.15) 3.3 (0.50) 2.8 (0.90) 3.0 (1.18)
13.Using flash cards 2.2 (0.50) 2.8 (1.26) 2.7 (0.84) 2.6 (1.11)
19.Using semantic maps 2.2 (1.50) 3.5 (0.58) 2.5 (0.93) 3.1 (1.03)
Overall mean 2.4 3.1 2.7 3.2
work activity
12. Associating the word with its coordinates 2.7 (0.95) 3.3 (0.96) 2.7 (1.07) 3.0 (0.99)
14. Associating new words with their synonyms 2.5 (0.57) 3.8 (0.50) 3.1 (0.75) 3.3 (0.88)
or antonyms
spelling it)
page.
24. Learning words of an expression together 2.2 (0.50) 2.8 (0.50) 2.5 (1.11) 2.9 (0.98)
as if they were just one word.
25. Writing new words in vocabulary notebook. 3.0 (0.81) 2.8 (0.96) 2.5 (0.98) 3.1 (1.02)
Overall mean 2.2 3.0 2.5 2.9
212
The results in Table 36 also reveal positive changes in the overall values of
perceived usefulness, with EG teachers making considerable progress
compared to their students. Compared with before, the final means achieved
by EG teachers as regards the usefulness of discovery strategies and
consolidation strategies stood at 3.1 and 3.0 respectively, which represents a
0.7 and 0.8 increase over the initial survey. When these scores were further
checked by the paired sample t-test, a significant difference was found, i.e.
discovery strategies (t(11) = -6.055, p = 0.00) and consolidation strategies
t(13) = -5.318, p = 0.00), which suggests that the training was useful in raising
teachers’ awareness of VLSs. EG students’ perceived usefulness of the
aforementioned strategies improved by 0.5 points for the discovery category
and 0.4 points for the consolidation category. Even though this increase is
somewhat small, it is a good sign (discovery, t(11) = -6.084, p = 0.00;
consolidation, t(13) = -6.450, p = 0.00).
The means achieved by the EG participants regarding individual strategies

were also rather encouraging. EG teachers, for example, perceived all 12
discovery strategies as useful (M ≥ 3.0), compared to 5 strategies initially. It
seems clear that after the strategy training, none of the discovery strategies
were considered as not being useful (see Table 36). This suggests that
strategy training had a positive effect in altering teachers’ perceptions
regarding the utility of encouraging the use of VLSs in their teaching practices.
The biggest increase noticed in this category amounted to 1.5 points (item 3,
to check for L1 cognates), followed by 1.3 points for items 9 (to paraphrase a
word’s meaning) and 19 (to use semantic maps), whereas the smallest rise
amounted to 0.3 point for items 1 and 10, which is also considered remarkable
progress. The only strategy where the mean value stayed exactly the same
throughout the training programme was discovery strategy 4 (to analyse any
available pictures, M= 3.0). Although the training succeeded in boosting the
teachers’ application of strategy 4, its perceived helpfulness score remained
steady to parallel its promotion in the final survey. Teachers, as will be
discussed next in the qualitative data analysis section, see this method as
time-consuming and not always possible, as some words are abstract and
213
cannot be presented in pictures. Besides, and as already mentioned in section
5.2, a four-point Likert scale was used to measure the participants’ perceived
helpfulness of VLSs compared to the five-point scale that was employed with
frequency of use, which may explain the results obtained. That is to say that
although the mean values for the promotion/use of some discovery strategies
in the final survey are still higher than in usefulness (e.g. item 5, post-use 4.8;
post-usefulness 3.8, and item 7 post-use 4.8; post-usefulness 3.0), they can
generally be considered as congruent. Roughly speaking, with these
strategies (i.e. items 5 and 7), the mean scores in terms of usefulness
increased by 0.8, which may imply that the training programme succeeded in
bridging the gap between preferences and perceptions of usefulness of these
discovery strategies, which is a rather promising result.
As for the consolidation category, EG teachers also made positive changes

in terms of perceived usefulness. When comparing the initial questionnaire
results with those of the post-, it seems obvious that all of the final rates of
consolidation strategies, except for two (items 20 and 25), improved, with their
increase ranging from 0.6 (items 12, 22,23 and 24) to 1.3 points (item 14 and
15). An improvement in the mean values reflects greater perceived usefulness
of the strategies taught amongst the participating teachers, this being one of
the desired goals of the conducted programme. However, there were a few
consolidation strategies (items 20 and 25) that showed a slight drop in average
amounting to 0.2 points. Although the reported decrease is rather small, it
affected the rank orders of the strategies. Before the training, the strategy of
‘writing new words in a vocabulary notebook’ (item 25), for example, was
ranked second in terms of usefulness with a mean score of 3.0, but fell later
to fourth place as the mean of 2.8 indicates. The decrease in perceived
usefulness could be attributed to the fact that helping students to keep a well-
organised vocabulary notebook requires teachers’ constant encouragement,
guidance, and regular checks, or marking and correcting the information noted
(Pavičić Takač, 2008), which in turn demands more strenuous effort and is
thus time-consuming, as some teachers commented in the interviews. A
similar argument holds true for item 20 (to place new words in a group with
214
other items based on topic or function etc.). However, as was the case in the
discovery category, the progress made in usefulness of consolidation
strategies is much more impressive when compared to the initial survey, which
reflects the positive effect of the training on the reported perceptions of
usefulness. Figures 28 and 29 (below) depict the EG teachers’ perceived
helpfulness of strategies before and after conducting the training.
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0

Figure 28: EG teachers’ prior and post results
results in usefulness of CON strategies
in usefulness of DIS strategies
With regard to EG students, the overall mean percentage for both categories
of VLSs also had a remarkable rise from 2.7 to 3.2 (+0.5) for discovery
strategies and from 2.5 to 2.9 (+0.4) for consolidation strategies. Such results
are indicative of the fact that the ten-week strategy instruction had a beneficial
influence on the students’ perceived usefulness of VLSs. For the former
category, all of the post-mean scores were noticeably higher than those
initially. The biggest improvement amounted to an increase of 0.8 (item 1, to
analyse parts of speech). The mean score achieved for this strategy was 3.6
and was much higher than previously, i.e. 2.8, to put it second by rank in
usefulness after the strategy of ‘using language dictionaries’ (item 6, +0.5).
The other mean scores obtained also appeared higher than those in the initial
questionnaire, with their increase ranging from 0.2 points, as in items 7 and
10, to 0.7 points, as in items 3 and 8. The only discovery strategy that showed
a slight decline, amounting to 0.1, was item 13 (use of flash cards). Apart from
215
this, there were no other cases of decreases in perceived usefulness, which
indicates that EG students’ belief in the utility of discovery strategies was
promoted further after learning more about and practising such strategies.
Another possible explanation for this might be that the students might have
been trying to reflect what they perceived as my (the researcher’s) intention -
people sometimes say what they think you want to hear or what they would
like you to believe (Cameron, 2001).
As for the consolidation strategies, compared with before, all mean scores
showed improvement; some of them were high in usefulness while others were
low. The strategies that reported a greater rise were strategy 21 (to imagine
the written for of a word, +0.7) and strategy 25 (to write new words in
vocabulary notebooks, +0.6), whereas those which showed a slight increase
(0.1) were items 16, 17, and 18. After the training programme, and like their
teachers, EG students were more convinced about the helpfulness of using
vocabulary notebooks as it captured fourth place in terms of use and
usefulness as well. It seems obvious that when students learned how to
properly deal with vocabulary notebooks, their potential value rose, and this in
turn, indicates that the explicit strategy training led to changes in use and
perceived usefulness of some VLSs. These changes though, seem to affect
the rank order of some strategies. That is to say that prior to conducting the
training, the mean score of only one consolidation strategy (item 14) exceeded
3.0 in usefulness, but after the treatment, strategies 21, 22, 25 and 26 were
listed among the most useful strategies, with item 14 (associating words with
synonyms or antonyms) still being at the top of the list with a mean score of
3.3.
In contrast, the participating students still do not find any utility in grouping
words together spatially on a page (item 23) in their vocabulary learning. Even
though the mean value of this strategy did slightly increase by 0.1, it fell into
the low range category in terms of usefulness (pre 2.1; post 2.2). When
comparing the post-use of this consolidation strategy with its post-perceived
usefulness, we can see that the rise that occurred in usage was much higher
than in usefulness (post-use 2.5; post-usefulness 2.2). This may indicate that
216
the training affected the general use of some strategies, but failed to create a
noticeable increase in participants' perceptions of usefulness. Students’
results here seem parallel to what their teachers reported in this regard, which
is an interesting finding. Apart from this, the mean increased for all the
remaining consolidation strategies, which may be attributed to the training
programme and raising awareness of VLSs available. Figures 30 and 31
illustrate the EG students’ perceived strategy usefulness prior to and after the
strategy instruction.
4 3.5
3.5 3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Figure 30: EG students’ prior and post results Figure 31: EG students’ prior and post
in usefulness of DIS strategies results in usefulness of CON strategies
❖ The effects on perceived usefulness of VLSs on CG

participants
Although CG teachers were not allowed to discuss any vocabulary learning

strategies with their students, their overall scores with regards to the
usefulness for both categories of VLSs were higher than those obtained in the
prior survey, which may indicate that the training was able to create an
increase in teachers’ awareness and perceptions of the efficiency of VLSs.
With discovery strategies, the mean achieved was 3.2 (see Table 37, page
219) and was much higher than the score prior to conducting the training (i.e.
2.6), making it fall into the high range in terms of usefulness. The final mean
regarding the utility of consolidation strategies meanwhile, also improved by
217
0.4 points to make it stand at 2.9 by the end of the semester. The paired
sample t-test results for the aforementioned mean scores showed a significant
difference for discovery strategies (t(11) = -5.846, p = 0.000) and consolidation
strategies (t(13) = -7.297, p = 0.000), which may be because CG teachers had
the training and thus became more aware of the utility of such strategies. Such
values, in general, are indicative of the fact that the strategy training
succeeded in raising teachers’ awareness of VLSs and positively changed
their beliefs about the advantages of vocabulary learning strategies. However,
to have a more comprehensive picture of the effects of the training on
participants’ beliefs, a closer examination of individual strategies will be
helpful.
218
Table 37: VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 results in perceived usefulness of VLSs: Control
Groups
Teachers Students

7. Using word lists 2.5 (1.29) 2.8 (1.26) 2.6 (1.08) 3.4 (0.88)
8. L1 translation 3.0 (0.81) 3.3 (0.96) 3.2 (1.05) 3.1 (1.04)
10.Giving sentences including the new word 2.7 (1.25) 3.0 (1.15) 2.6 (1.03) 2.7 (1.17)
13.Using flash cards 2.5 (1.29) 2.8 (1.26) 2.5 (1.12) 2.3 (0.97)
19.Using semantic maps 2.5 (0.57) 3.5 (0.58) 2.6 (0.85) 2.9 (1.09)
Overall mean 2.6 3.2 2.9 3.0
work activity
12. Associating the word with its coordinates 3.0 (1.15) 3.3 (1.50) 2.7 (1.10) 2.7 (0.99)
spelling it)
page.
24. Learning words of an expression together 2.7 (0.95) 2.8 (1.26) 2.4 (1.01) 2.7 (1.12)
as if they were just one word.
25. Writing new words in vocabulary 2.7 (1.25) 3.5 (0.58) 3.1 (1.11) 3.0 (0.97)
notebook.
Overall mean 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.7
When comparing the data in Table 37 with that in Table 36, we can see that
most of the strategies that were perceived as more helpful were generally
promoted to students more often. Teachers, for example, opt for promoting the
use of studying parts of speech (item 1), word formation (item 2), and using
the mother tongue (item 8) in their teaching practices and they find them
effective for learning and retaining vocabulary. After being trained on the
different VLSs, CG teachers seemed to value all the strategies taught more -
219
something clearly supported by the post-training results, which were
observably higher than those attained initially. There were no cases of a
decrease in usefulness within the categories, and all mean scores lay between
medium (2.5) to high (3.8), which is an optimistic and encouraging sign as it
indicates that even though CG teachers were not allowed to integrate strategy
instruction into their classes, their awareness of the utility of VLSs arose. Such
results, in general, positively affected the overall value of the categories, as
shown above. However, there were some strategies, which, though perceived
as helpful, were underused (e.g. items 3, 6, 13, and 19). The reason for this
may be that teachers in control groups were asked to follow their normal
teaching methods without any conscious increase of vocabulary learning
strategies. In fact, most of the interviewees, as we will see next, admitted that
VLSs would work best if they were integrated and practised in regular
classrooms, which is true for virtually every aspect of language learning.
Based on the data obtained, we can generally assume that the training was
profitable in creating a change in strategy promotion and perceived usefulness
amongst Libyan EFL teachers, with discovery strategies being favoured in
terms of promoting their use and usefulness. Figures 32 and 33 show the CG
teachers’ perceived strategy helpfulness prior to and after conducting the
strategy instruction.
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
Figure 32: CG teachers’ prior and post results Figure 33: CG teachers’ prior and post
220
As for CG students, the strategies that were reported to be very useful in the
before-training questionnaire (i.e. items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 18, 22 and 25) were
still predominantly used in the post-training questionnaire. Other strategies
ranged from low in usefulness, as in statement 20, to almost high, as in items
1 and 9 (M = 2.9). In general, there was not much difference in the students’
pre- and post-perceptions regarding the utility of VLSs, and most of the mean
scores attained were close to those reported initially. By contrast, the
strategies that were reported to be less efficient in learning and retaining
vocabulary, from the students’ point of view, such as items 15 (to use the
keyword method), 20 (to place words in a group with other items based on
topic or function etc.), and 23 (to group words together spatially on a page),
were still considered less helpful in the post-training survey. These findings
generally support the hypothesis that strategy instruction raises students’
awareness and utilisation of learning strategies. This is clearly supported when
comparing the results gathered from CG students to those obtained from the
experimental group. With the latter group for instance, the training was able to
create a change either in use and perceived helpfulness as was the case with
the keyword method (item 15), in utilisation only (e.g. item 23), or just in
helpfulness, as in item 20. Figures 34 and 35 present the CG students’
perceived strategy usefulness before and after the training.
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5
0.5
0
0
Figure 34: CG students’ prior and post results Figure 35: CG students’ prior and post
221
Contrary to expectations, the results of the paired sample t-test indicated a
significant difference between VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 mean scores of the
consolidation strategies (t(13) = -2.342, p = 0.036). This result does not tell us
much, and one possible explanation for it might be the fact that the VLSs
questionnaire was administered several times throughout the study, and thus
students became more acquainted with the questions. However, with
discovery strategies, there was no significant difference (t(11) = -0.852, p =
0.412), as might be expected due to the lack of strategy training.
Before moving on to discussing the qualitative data, i.e. semi-structured

interviews and observations, it should be mentioned that in order to better
verify whether Libyan EFL teachers and students profited in the long run from
the conducted programme, I also carried out a delayed survey. This survey
was administered three months after the training programme and contained
the same VLS questionnaire (i.e. VLSQ3) that the participants had filled out
previously along with some interviews (2 teachers and 2 students) and a
classroom observation. For the sake of organisation, and in order to easily
make comparisons between the prior (VLSQ1), post (VLSQ2), and delayed
(VLSQ3) surveys, the VLSQ3 results will be presented and discussed next.
5.4 Comparison of VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and VLSQ3 results
In this section, and for the sake of space and wording constrains, it is worth
mentioning that abbreviations based on the initial letters of words
accompanied with the item number indicating the ordinal number of the
statement in the questionnaire will be used to refer to the strategies taught,
instead of the statements in their entirety. To clarify further, DVLS1, for
example, will be used to refer to discovery strategy 1 (to analyse parts of
speech), and CVLS15 to consolidation strategy 15 (to use the keyword
method), and so on. To make the reader familiar with the taxonomy of the
present study, I did not follow this procedure throughout the whole paper (i.e.
in presenting VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 data). As language teachers were primarily
targeted in the current study, the data obtained from them will be thoroughly
discussed, whereas with their students, examples of their prior, post and
222
delayed data will be highlighted and the results will be included in Appendices
23 and 24. Figures 36 and 37 present the total means achieved by the
participating teachers in frequency of use of VLSs.
4 3
3.5
2.5
3
2
2.5
2 1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
PRIOR POST DELAYED PRIOR POST DELAYED
EG CG EG CG
Figure 36: Overall mean scores for frequency Figure 37: Overall mean scores for
of use of DIS strategies achieved by EG and frequency of use of CON strategies by EG
CG teachers prior, post and after the training and CG teachers prior, post and after the
training
Based on the results obtained it can be said that both the experimental and
control groups made progress in terms of use/promotion of use of VLSs, even
though the training was over. EG teachers, for example, reported higher mean
scores on the post (i.e. VLSQ2) and delayed (i.e. VLSQ3) surveys, and the
changes that occurred were remarkable as they amounted to 0.6 points for
discovery strategies when comparing the delayed average with the prior one,
and 0.7 points for consolidation strategies. The strategy application/promotion
for CG teachers had also improved over time. Indeed while their promotion of
the use of consolidation strategies slightly decreased by 0.1 point on the
delayed survey, it still scored higher than the one achieved initially (pre 2.6;
post 2.8; delayed 2.7). By contrast, with regards to the discovery strategies,
the increase was visible and amounted to 0.6 points when comparing the
delayed result with the initial one, and to 0.4 points when comparing it to the
post mean score. One possible explanation for such an increase, even though
teachers in the control groups were not obliged to teach their students any
vocabulary learning strategies, may be their full understanding of existing
VLSs and the skills they need in order to successfully teach them to their
learners, which in turn were gained via the teachers’ participation in the VLST
223
programme, as indicated previously. In order to better understand whether a
total of 12 weeks of strategy training led to an improvement in strategy
promotion/use and perceived usefulness over time, more in-depth
comparisons for individual strategies are presented in Table 38 below

frequency of promoting the use of VLSs
Type of the survey

Statement Initial (VLSQ1) Post (VLSQ2) Delayed (VLSQ3)
EG (T) CG (T) EG (T) CG (T) EG (T) CG (T)
M M M M M (SD) M (SD)
DVLS1 3.5 4.0 3.3 4.3 4.3 (0.96) 3.8 (1.26)
DVLS2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.8 (0.50) 3.8 (0.50)
DVLS3 2.2 2.5 2.8 1.5 3.3 (0.96) 2.0 (0.82)
DVLS4 4.0 2.7 3.8 3.0 4.3 (0.96) 3.3 (0.96)
DVLS5 4.5 3.5 4.8 4.3 4.5 (1.00) 4.5 (0.58)
DVLS6 2.0 2.2 2.8 1.8 4.0 (0.82) 3.0 (0.82)
DVLS7 4.2 3.7 4.8 4.0 3.8 (1.26) 4.3 (0.96)
DVLS8 2.2 2.7 2.8 4.0 2.0 (0.82) 3.8 (0.96)
DVLS9 3.2 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.3 (0.96) 3.0 (1.41)
DVLS10 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 3.0 (0.82) 2.8 (0.96)
DVLS13 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.8 (0.96) 2.0 (0.82)
DVLS19 2.0 1.7 2.8 1.8 3.3 (0.96) 3.0 (0.82)
OVERALL 2.9 2.7 3.2 2.9 3.5 3.3
CVLS11 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.5 2.5 (1.00) 2.3 (1.26)
CVLS12 3.2 2.0 3.5 2.3 3.0 (0.82) 2.5 (1.29)
CVLS14 2.0 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.8 (0.96) 3.5 (1.29)
CVLS15 1.5 1.7 2.8 1.8 2.0 (0.82) 2.3 (0.96)
CVLS16 2.2 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.3 (0.50) 4.0 (1.15)
CVLS17 2.9 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.8 (0.96) 2.0 (0.82)
CVLS18 1.2 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.0 (1.41) 3.3 (1.50)
CVLS20 1.7 1.7 2.5 1.5 1.3 (0.50) 1.5 (0.58)
CVLS21 1.7 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.3 (0.96) 2.8 (1.71)
CVLS22 2.5 4.0 3.0 4.3 4.0 (0.82) 3.8 (0.96)
CVLS23 1.2 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.8 (0.50) 1.3 (0.50)
CVLS24 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.3 3.0 (1.41) 2.8 (0.50)
CVLS25 2.2 3.2 2.8 3.5 3.5 (1.29) 3.3 (0.96)
CVLS26 2.0 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.8 (0.50) 3.0 (1.15)
OVERALL 2.0 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7
Table 38 shows an increase in all individual discovery strategies, except five

(three for EG teachers and two for CG teachers) regarding frequency of
promoting their use over time. As for EG teachers, the strategies that
decreased in the VLSQ3 were (DVLS7), (DVLS8), and (DVLS13). Despite the
fact that the former dropped by 1 point when compared with its post-training
result, it still falls in the high range in terms of promoting its use, as the mean
score of 3.8 indicates. Encouraging the use of the mother tongue and flash
224
card strategies, on the other hand, initially amounted to 2.2 and 1.5
respectively and then increased to 2.8 and 2.0 respectively, to finally drop to
reach 2.0 and 1.8 in the delayed survey. These results may seem somewhat
surprising bearing in mind the popularity of these strategies in an EFL/ESL
context, as mentioned in the literature - see for example Schmitt (1997), Kudo
(1999), and Pavičić Takač (2008). However, the strategy of using word lists is
often presented via L1 translation (Schmitt, 1997), which may explain the low
mean scores attained in these two strategies. It is also possible that after being
trained on the use and teaching of VLSs, making it possible for teachers to
implement what they had learned into their regular classrooms, new
vocabulary learning strategies came to light and were found to be more
effective than traditional methods. The single most striking observation to
emerge from data comparison though, was the sharp increase in the mean
score of strategy 6 (dictionary use), which amounted to 2 points when
comparing the delayed-training result with that achieved initially, and to 1.8
points when compared it to the result attained in the post-survey. What is
more, the impact of teaching this particular strategy was also lasting amongst
CG teachers, which is a positive sign as it shows the development of teachers’
awareness regarding the use/promotion of use, and usefulness of a strategy
that scholars consider ‘one of the key strategies for independent learning of a
foreign language’ (Pavičić Takač, 2008: 130). With CG teachers, the discovery
strategies that diminished in the VLSQ3 results were strategy 1 (to promote
the use of studying word formation) and strategy 8 (translation); the decrease
amounted to 0.2 and 0.4 points respectively. Despite the drop in mean values,
the earlier-mentioned techniques remained within the high promotion range
with an average of 3.8, making them acquire third place in terms of
encouraging their usage. All in all, except for strategy 3 and strategy 13, where
the mean averages remained low throughout the training, it is comforting to
learn that the overall mean score of discovery strategies improved, taking into
account the percentages obtained previously.
The training conducted was also able to promote more frequent use of
consolidation strategies amongst the experimental group's teachers, with the
225
strategy of note taking (CVLS22) maintaining good progress throughout the
training programme, as the mean scores of 2.5 (VLSQ1), 3.0 (VLSQ2), and
4.0 (VLSQ3) indicate. Other consolidation strategies where the mean values
improved were strategies 18, 24, 25, and 26, with strategy 18 (the use of
repetition method) achieving the biggest rise in the VLSQ3 results, amounting
to 1.8 points when compared with that obtained in the VLSQ1 survey.
However, there were some consolidation strategies for which promoting their
use to students declined noticeably after the training programme, such as
strategy 17 (to use scales for gradable adjectives) and strategy 20 (to use
group organisation). There were also other cases where although promoting
their use to students gradually increased, they still remained within the low
range in terms of promotion, as was the case with the method of ‘spatial page
organisation’ (CVLS23, pre 1.2; post 1.5; delayed 1.8). These strategies may
require deeper processing and that may be why some teachers find them
strenuous and thus avoid adopting them in their teaching practices. After the
strategy intervention, EG and CG teachers seemed to agree on promoting the
use of strategies 14, 16, 18, 22 and 25, with the repetition strategy (CVLS16,
M = 4.0) being the one most preferred by CG teachers, followed by the strategy
of note taking (CVLS22), as the delayed mean score of 3.8 indicates. The
consolidation strategies that were discouraged by EG teachers, such as
strategies 20 and 23 on the other hand, were also disregarded by the teachers
in the control groups, which may explain the overall results obtained for this
category.
If we now turn to comparing the initial, post and delayed-training results

concerning the perceived usefulness of VLSs, we can observe a general
increase over the course of time as the overall mean scores in Table 39
(below) indicate. The progress in percentages that was made by EG teachers
was higher than those reported by CG teachers; teachers in the control groups
reported much higher results in the post and delayed surveys, which implies
that the training was able to promote their awareness regarding the promotion
of use, and helpfulness of VLSs, even three months after the training
programme took place. As was the case with Table 38, in order to provide a
226
more comprehensive picture of perceived usefulness throughout, it would
advantageous to examine the changes in the pre-, post- and delayed means
for individual strategies.

perceived usefulness of VLSs
Type of the survey
Statement Prior (VLSQ1) Post (VLSQ2) Delayed (VLSQ3)
EG (T) CG (T) EG (T) CG (T) EG (T) CG (T)
DVLS1 3.0 2.5 3.3 3.5 3.8 (0.50) 3.3 (0.96)
DVLS2 2.2 3.2 3.0 3.8 3.5 (0.58) 3.5 (0.58)
DVLS3 2.0 2.2 3.5 3.0 3.3 (0.96) 3.0 (1.41)
DVLS4 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.8 (0.96) 3.3 (0.96)
DVLS5 3.0 3.0 3.8 3.3 3.5 (1.00) 3.5 (0.58)
DVLS6 2.5 2.2 3.3 3.5 3.3 (1.50) 3.3 (0.50)
DVLS7 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.8 (0.50) 3.5 (0.58)
DVLS8 2.0 3.0 2.8 3.3 3.0 (0.82) 3.0 (1.41)
DVLS9 1.5 2.0 2.8 2.8 3.0 (1.15) 3.0 (0.82)
DVLS10 3.0 2.7 3.3 3.0 3.5 (0.58) 3.5 (0.58)
DVLS13 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.8 (1.26) 3.0 (0.82)
DVLS19 2.2 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.8 (0.50) 3.8 (0.50)
OVERALL 2.4 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.3
CVLS11 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.3 (1.50) 3.3 (0.50)
CVLS12 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.5 (0.58) 3.0 (1.41)
CVLS14 2.5 3.0 3.8 3.5 3.8 (0.50) 3.8 (0.50)
CVLS15 1.7 2.0 3.0 2.8 3.5 (0.58) 3.0 (0.82)
CVLS16 2.2 2.5 3.3 3.0 3.3 (0.50) 3.3 (0.96)
CVLS17 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.0 (0.82) 2.8 (0.50)
CVLS18 2.2 2.7 3.5 3.0 3.3 (0.50) 3.5 (1.00)
CVLS20 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.8 2.8 (0.50) 2.8 (1.50)
CVLS21 2.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 (0.50) 2.8 (1.26)
CVLS22 3.2 2.7 3.8 3.3 3.5 (0.58) 3.5 (0.58)
CVLS23 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 (1.26) 2.5 (1.73)
CVLS24 2.2 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 (0.82) 3.3 (0.96)
CVLS25 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.5 3.8 (0.50) 3.5 (0.58)
CVLS26 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.0 (1.41) 2.5 (1.00)
OVERALL 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.1
As shown in Table 39, the discrepancy between the initial and the delayed-
training results was noticeable, as it reached 3.4 and 3.3 points for EG and
CG teachers respectively in the discovery category, and 3.3 and 3.1
respectively in the consolidation category. This is certainly a very encouraging
sign as it implies that the strategy intervention was able to bridge the gap
between frequency of use/promoting the use of learning strategies (see table
38), and perceptions of helpfulness.
With regard to individual strategies, Libyan EFL teachers generally

perceived all VLSs taught, especially those relating to the discovery category,
227
as useful (M = ≥ 3.0). The only strategy below 3.0 was the ‘use of flash cards’
(item 13, pre 2.2; post 2.8; delayed 2.8). Although, with this particular strategy,
there was no progress in mean score, when compared with other strategies
as over time, it did not decrease in terms of perceived usefulness. To CG
teachers, the most useful discovery strategies where the mean values
improved, even though the training was over, were strategies 1 (to study word
formation), 4 (to study any available pictures), 7 (to use word lists), and 19 (to
use semantic maps), with the latter two strategies showing the biggest rise,
which amounted to 1.6 points when compared with the results obtained
initially. Interestingly, although EG teachers still reported a low degree of
promoting the use of flash cards strategy, their beliefs in its utility in learning
vocabulary increased markedly, as the pre (2.2), post (2.8), and delayed (3.0)
training results indicate. However, the perceived usefulness of these strategies
was generally congruent with usage (see Table 38) and there were no cases
where VLSs were undervalued. A similar argument holds true for the CG
teachers’ results. The mean scores achieved in usefulness in the delayed
survey were much higher than those scored in the initial and post-training
surveys, which is indicative of the fact that the strategy training programme
positively affected the teachers’ attitudes towards the utility of vocabulary
learning strategies. Similarly to the results from EG teachers, semantic
mapping was the most useful discovery strategy (M = 3.8), followed by word
formation analysis, inferring from context, word lists, and using words in
sentences - all joint second in terms of perceived usefulness, with a mean
score of 3.5. It is interesting to note that although the strategy of guessing from
context is complicated, as it involves several steps (e.g. word formation
analysis, defining the word class, substitution), teachers still maintain that they
encourage its use and even find it efficient in vocabulary teaching and learning.
This is probably because of its applicability to different language tasks and
skills, making it, to quote Pavičić Takač, ‘One of the crucial strategies in the
framework of incidental implicit vocabulary learning’ (2008:80(. However, it
should be borne in mind that not every study supports the efficiency of using
guessing strategies in vocabulary teaching/learning. Gu’s (2003) study for
example, found that beginner learners are not successful in guessing due
228
either to the lack of quantity of lexis or skills of incidental learning. Therefore,
guessing from context, for many people, may mean nothing more than
‘ignoring the unknown item’ rather than actually going through the
aforementioned steps.
The progress made in the usefulness of consolidation strategies in the

delayed results was also much more impressive than that made between the
initial and post-training surveys, with EG teachers outperforming their
colleagues in the control groups. This is clearly evident by the percentages
presented in Table 39 above. These results are somewhat predictable bearing
in mind that teachers in the experimental groups had the opportunity to
practise what they learned about VLSs, whereas CG teachers did not. In fact,
some teachers, as we will see in the qualitative data analysis, admitted that
strategies became more frequently used and that they told their students about
the strategies that they themselves found effective, which is a very promising
result, indicating the increase in teachers’ awareness of VLSs. On average,
the strategies of using spatial grouping (CVLS23) and miming (CVLS26) were
ranked least useful by CG teachers. When compared with previous results
however, the mean score of the former strategy stayed the same as in post-
training, i.e. 2.5 points, whereas the mean value of the latter dropped by 0.3
points, although generally both scores are still in the moderate range. Figures
38 and 39 (next page) present the total means achieved by the participating
teachers with regard to perceived usefulness of VLSs.
229
4 3.5
3.5 3
3 2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
prior Post Delayed prior Post Delayed
EG CG EG CG
Figure 39: Overall mean scores for Figure 38: Overall mean scores for perceived
perceived usefulness of DIS strategies usefulness of CON strategies achieved by EG
achieved by EG and CG teachers prior, and CG teachers prior, post and after the
post and after the training. training.
All in all, the delayed survey results revealed noticeable progress in VLSs’
use/promotion and perceived usefulness, with EG teachers’ results
outperforming those in the control groups. Furthermore, the gap that existed
between frequency of encouraging students to use learning strategies, and
perceptions of helpfulness prior to the strategy instruction seemed to be
balanced after the training. That is to say that the strategies that were
perceived as more helpful were used/promoted more frequently. These
results, however, are in accordance with those of Schmitt (1997).
Having discussed the results obtained from the participating teachers, the
following is a brief description of students’ responses with regards the pre-,
post-, and delayed-training questionnaires (see Appendix 18 for more in-depth
information). Table 40 (next page) compares the statistics for the prior
(VLSQ1), post (VLSQ2), and delayed (VLSQ3) questionnaires in a combined
manner so as to clearly illustrate the differences occurring over the course of
time.
230
Table 40: Overall comparison of students’ prior, post and delayed-
questionnaires
Group of Group of Frequency of use Perceived usefulness
participants strategies Prior Post Delayed Prior Post Delayed
M M M M M M
EG students Discovery 2.9 3.1 (+2) 3.3 (+4) 2.8 3.2 (+4) 3.5 (+7)
Consolidation 2.8 2.9 (+1) 3.0 (+2) 2.6 2.9 (+4) 3.3 (+7)
CG students Discovery 2.9 2.8 (-1) 3.0 (+1) 2.9 3.0 (+1) 3.2 (+3)
Consolidation 2.7 2.8 (+1) 2.8 (+1) 2.6 2.8 (+2) 3.0 (+4)
As shown in table 40, there was a clear trend of an increase in terms of

preferences and perceptions regarding the use of VLSs by both groups of
students, with priority to EG students, as the mean scores indicate. It is
apparent from the table that there were no cases of any decrease in use or
perceived usefulness of vocabulary strategies. What is interesting about the
data obtained is that even though CG students were not subjected to strategy
training, their delayed mean scores rose. This could be attributed to the
increase of teachers’ awareness, as many became aware of the existing
strategies and began to apply them immediately after the training programme,
as acknowledged by some interviewee teachers. These results however, may
imply that raising teachers’ awareness of strategies reflects on students’ use
and perceived usefulness of such strategies. On closer inspection of the data
gathered though, we can see that despite the improvement in overall
percentages attained by CG students, a remarkable discrepancy is found on
an individual level. To clarify this further, the strategies that demand a deep
level of processing (e.g. spatial grouping, flash cards, using scales, and
looking for L1 cognates) are usually difficult for learners to apply unless they
have had training in them, which is supported by the results achieved when
compared with those from EG students. Because of this, the students may opt
for the strategies that are available to them, which are usually the traditional
ones (e.g. repetition methods), in order to help them attain a satisfactory mark
in their exams. Table 41(next page) highlights some examples of the
aforementioned observation.
231
frequency of use.
Type of the survey
Statement Prior (VLSQ1) Post (VLSQ2) Delayed (VLSQ3)
EG (S) CG (S) EG (S) CG (S) EG (S) CG (S)
DVLS3 (cognates) 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.1 (1.18) 2.2 (1.18)
DVLS13 (flash cards) 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.0 2.8 (1.42) 1.9 (0.96)
DVLS19 (semantic maps) 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.1 3.3 (1.16) 2.6 (1.20)
CVLS11 (group working) 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 3.0 (1.27) 2.1 (1.24)
CVLS16 (verbal repetition) 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.6 (1.18) 3.9 (0.99)
With perceived helpfulness on the other hand, it is important to note that the
data shows a gap existing between frequency of use and perceived usefulness
of some VLSs. Certain strategies, though considered as efficient in vocabulary
learning, were underutilised.

perceived usefulness.
Type of the survey
Statement Prior Post delayed
DVLS3 (cognates) 2.8 2.7 3.5 2.6 3.7 (1.36) 3.0 (0.98)
DVLS13 (flash cards) 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.7 (1.35) 2.9 (0.93)
DVLS19 (semantic maps) 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.3 (1.30) 3.1 (1.07)
CVLS11 (group working) 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.5 3.0 (1.34) 2.7 (1.09)
CVLS16 (verbal repetition) 2.9 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.8 (1.19) 3.3 (0.82)
While the quantitative data analysis revealed that the training had a
significant impact on the participants’ use and perceived usefulness of the
taught VLSs over time, before moving to a general conclusion, a discussion of
further qualitative data results is needed to provide a wider viewpoint from
which to consider S3’s research question, mentioned at the outset of this
chapter.
232
5.5 Study 3: qualitative data analysis, results and discussion
As was the case with the S1 investigations, some supplementary techniques
in the form of an evaluation sheet, semi-structured interview, and classroom
observation were used to elicit more relevant information regarding the
efficiency of the training programme.
5.5.1 The evaluation form
The evaluation form (Appendix 15) was distributed at the end of the training
programme to a total of eight teachers (four EG teachers and four CG
teachers) and 46 EG students. This form was divided into three parts, with
each part consisting of two questions that investigated a particular aspect prior
to, during, and after strategy instruction. Part (1) elicited the participants’
awareness of VLSs. In this part, the respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which they knew about VLSs before the treatment (Q1). In answering
this question, 26 students reported that they had had no knowledge of VLSs
before the training, whereas 17 opted for ‘a little’ and only three respondents
selected ‘somewhat’. Most of the participating teachers (5 teachers, 62.5%),
in their answer to this question, chose ‘somewhat’ to describe their knowledge
of VLSs, whilst three teachers reported that they knew ‘a lot’ about these
strategies due to their studies and conferences (some wrote comments next
to their choice). However, when asked to indicate the extent to which they
were aware of their own VLSs before the programme (Q2), all teachers were
less acquainted, as the percentages of (50%, 37.5%, and 12.5%) for ‘a little’,
‘not at all’, and ‘somewhat’ respectively, indicate. This appears to be the case
with EG students as well, since the majority (58.7%) replied that they had
never been aware of their own strategies before the training, whereas 32.6%
and 8.7% respectively, thought that they had been a ‘little’ or ‘somewhat’
aware of their learning strategies. Figure 40 (page 235) compares teachers’
and students’ responses with regard to their awareness of VLSs prior to and
after the VLST programme.
In the second part of the evaluation form the participants were asked what
they had learned most from the training (Q3), and whether they had
233
encountered any difficulties whilst applying the strategies taught (Q4). In
response to the third question, a variety of answers were given. For the sake
of precision and organisation, the frequency of how often themes occurred
was tabulated. Table 43 (below) presents teachers’ and students’ answers to
Q3.
Table 43: EG participants’ responses to question 3 on the evaluation form
Teachers’ responses to question 3 on the evaluation form No.
The VLST programme helped teachers in expanding their knowledge of VLSs. 6
… become more familiar with the notion of vocabulary learning strategies. 8
… becoming more familiar with VLSs and their compatible VTSs. 3
Teachers’ understanding to the concept of strategy training improved, and 7
become more acquainted with how to plan, prepare, and implement strategy 4
instruction.
Students’ responses to question 3 on the evaluation form
The training programme helped them in identifying their own learning strategies. 13
Explore new vocabulary learning strategies. 7
The programme was interesting / good in breaking classroom routine. 8
The sessions and activities were memorable. 2
Turning to the teachers’ responses to the fourth question, three out of four
EG teachers pointed out the insufficient time allotted for the students’ training.
They felt that 20 minutes of strategy instruction was inadequate to provide
students with ample opportunity to practise the strategies introduced,
especially complicated ones, taking into account the large class sizes. Such a
view however, was felt amongst less than half of the participating students
(around 41%). In addition, some strategies consumed more of the teachers’
free time due to preparation (mentioned by two instructors), since they had to
choose the relevant words from the students’ materials and apply the
strategies to them. For students, apart from the lack of time, there were no
negative comments about the programme. In fact, the vast majority of students
234
(67.3%) praised the training course and found it workable. For example, one
student said, ‘I enjoyed the training sessions very much’, and another reported
that 20 minutes of strategy training at the beginning of each lesson increased
her motivation and confidence to go through the different tasks and activities
required. Here, to be objective, we may need to consider the power of novelty
- the ‘something different’ effect. That is to say that if the VLST programme
were done regularly, it would soon be perceived as the ‘same old stuff’.
In the third part of the evaluation sheet, the participants were again required
to answer the question ‘How aware were you of your own vocabulary learning
strategies?’ (Q5), this time after they had been instructed on the different
vocabulary learning strategies. They also had to respond to, ‘What did you
most like about the training programme?’ (Q6) and could give reasons and
explanations where relevant. In answering the former question, both teachers
and students reported that they had become more acquainted with their own
learning strategies than beforehand, which is clearly supported by the data
obtained. When compared with before, all of the teachers (100%) and 39
(84.8%) students chose ‘a lot’ to describe their level of awareness after the
training. Figure 38 (below) compares the participants’ responses to question 5
with those obtained from question 1, mentioned earlier.
VLSs after the VLSs before the
awareness of awareness of
Participants' Participants'
Students
training
Teachers
Students
training
Teachers
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
A lot Somewhat A little Not at all
Figure 40: Participants’ awareness of VLSs before and after the VLST programme
235
In fact, it is a drawback usually associated with this type of survey, that
participants may give responses they think are expected of them, so to
overcome this potential shortcoming, question 6 in this section was designed
to elicit further insights with regard to the usefulness of the training
programme.
In general, the results gathered from Q5 in part 3, as mentioned above,

reflect positive changes in the participants’ attitudes, which is a very
encouraging sign. With Q6, the responses were varied and indicative of
teachers’ and students’ concentration levels during the training course.
Teachers, for example, pointed out the efficiency of the materials distributed
(reported by 6 teachers), and the clarity of the course objectives (reported by
4 teachers). Some instructors felt that the training was a good experience (3
teachers), while others were eager to know more about vocabulary learning
strategies and, furthermore, asked me for some resources to refer back to.
These findings further support those obtained in Ali’s (2008) study, which found
that Libyan EFL teachers were interested ‘to learn about more approaches,
the latest findings, and to understand the new techniques of EFL teaching’ (p.
152). Another teacher referred to the lack of such workshops in Libya. This is
an important issue in my opinion, and one that should be considered by the
Ministry of Education when arranging out- or in-service teacher-training
programmes. Students, in their answer to the second question, seemed to
agree that the training was interesting or enjoyable (reported by 21 students)
although 20 minutes devoted to strategy training, in their view, was insufficient
(mentioned by 19 students). This reflects the challenge described by Pavičić
Takač (2008: 77-78), who made the point that students, ‘need to first
understand the goal of strategy use, know in which conditions each of them is
efficient, have the knowledge necessary to apply the strategy and, finally,
practise their use in various tasks and activities’. This definitely consumes
time, and the more complicated the strategy is, the more the time needed to
meet the aforesaid goals. However, 38 students admitted that they benefited
from the training sessions and that the materials used were relevant. What is
more, seven students acknowledged that they had not realised that there were
236
so many strategies they could use in their vocabulary learning until they had
attended the sessions.
Overall, the data gathered from the course evaluation forms seem to be
consistent with those achieved in the surveys. That is to say, after the training
course there was a noticeable increase in the participants’ awareness of
learning strategies, which in turn assisted in promoting more frequent use.
However, to gain more precise responses, some post and delayed classroom
observations and follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted.
5.5.2 Study 3: Observation and semi-structured interview

analysis
As indicated in Chapter 4, section 4.5.2, I attended all the sessions in the

first six weeks of the students’ training phase so as to ensure that teachers in
both groups followed the instructions as agreed. The teachers observed were
eight in total (EG teachers = 4, CG teachers = 4), six of them were described
in Table 22 in Chapter 3, and an additional two teachers were used to teach
CG students. During the observations, more attention was paid to EG teachers
and their lesson plans because they were responsible for teaching the VLST
sessions to their learners (for sample pages of a lesson plan and training
session, see Appendices 20 and 25). As agreed, teachers introduced the
strategies that assisted in discovering the meaning of learned words before
presenting ones that helped in consolidating the meaning. The CALLA
framework of teaching learning strategies (refer back to Chapter 4, section 4.4
for information) was adapted, in which teachers began by describing the target
strategy, modelling it, and practising it. At the end of each week, the teachers
distributed checklists (Appendices 26 and 27), including the strategies that
were introduced during the week, and the students were required to tick the
VLSs that they found useful or applicable. Afterwards, follow-up interviews
were carried out with both the teachers and the students, who were ten in total
(six teachers and four students). Bearing S1 interview questions in mind (see
Chapter 3), and since the rationale behind S3 interviews was to explore the
subsequent impact of strategy intervention, only the questions concerning
237
strategy training (i.e. part 2) were administered (see Appendices 7 and 8 for a
sample of interview questions). In general, the results obtained from S3
interviews were used to interpret those gathered from the observations and
questionnaires.
Turning to the observational technique, and compared to what was

previously conducted, the focus of S3 observations was to provide in-depth
information about the training process, as well as indicating the immediate and
delayed influence of the strategy intervention on the participants’ use of VLSs.
Since many observations were carried out, as mentioned above, and for the
sake of space, I only highlighted and interpreted the important issues raised
and supported them with some excerpts taken from teacher and student
interviews.
At the very beginning of the students’ training phase, some teachers felt a
bit anxious and followed their lesson plans strictly, which usually happens due
to the fear of being observed (Pavičić Takač, 2008; Trendak, 2015). This
however, disappeared gradually as time passed and teachers became much
more confident compared with what had been observed previously, especially
when they encountered more interaction and enthusiasm from the students.
Besides, teachers and students were free to resort to L1 when explaining
difficult VLSs or facing problems in comprehension. This in turn resulted in
teachers and students becoming more comfortable and relaxed during the
sessions. At the end of each week, teachers revised the VLSs discussed
during the week and then engaged students in a short discussion about the
strategies that they found most/least useful. Any issues that they felt
uncomfortable with were also raised so as to resolve them in the upcoming
sessions.
With the students, although the 20 minutes allocated for strategy instruction
was short (an issue raised by both teachers and students), most of the them
enjoyed the new learning atmosphere, as some interviewees explained:
Student 1: ‘I liked the PowerPoint slide show [explanation] and I would

prefer to always start our lessons with things like these.’
238
Student 2: ‘In fact, I used to spontaneously use some learning strategies
before, and the activities were useful in alerting my use of these
strategies. Um… yes, some strategies were new but when the
teacher showed us how to use them, I found them useful. I
really liked the way of instruction and the material used.’
Student 4: ‘Change is good. I sometimes get bored, and I think it was
good to break up the classroom routine. Each time, I was
looking forward to learning the next strategy. Before the
training, I used to find out the meaning of new words from the
dictionary. I did not know that there are so many techniques to
use in vocabulary learning but now, I know these ways. They
are really useful.’
Students may truly have enjoyed the training sessions or, as mentioned
previously, perhaps the power of innovation affected their responses, which is
another explanation that may need to be considered. During the observations
however, it was clear that students enjoyed the short follow-up activities,
especially those related to the use of cognates and the keyword method, which
is worth exploring further in future research. Indeed, while the planning for
these two strategies consumed more of the teachers’ time, both teachers and
students enjoyed finding L1 equivalents. The teachers’ comments below
illustrate this:
Abdullah: ‘In fact, while preparing materials and activities to teach the
keyword method, I came to the lesson that I had to teach and I
thought a lot. It was difficult to find equivalents to the target
words chosen. Therefore, I had to think of other examples, not
related to the lesson taught, so as to explain the method to the
learners.’
Farah: ‘Um... I still remember my presenting of the keyword method.

We all enjoyed it, and the students came up with many
examples, some of them were so funny (hahaha). I worked a
239
lot on the examples and, actually, some of the words chosen
were familiar to students, such as the word feel = [fi:l] in Arabic
which means [elephant], but in general I explained that the aim
here is to know how the strategy works.’
However, there were a few negative comments raised during the

discussions, concerning the use and usefulness of some vocabulary learning
strategies. Based on the data obtained throughout the three studies, it was
apparent that discovery strategies were much more commonly used amongst
Libyan EFL teachers and students than consolidation strategies. Even though
the utilisation of the latter category improved after the training, the use of the
former strategies is still predominant. This can be attributed to the fact that
some consolidation strategies, from the students’ point of view, were either
difficult to employ or inefficient in promoting their vocabulary learning, as some
students commented:
Student 3: ‘… I do not fully understand the strategy of spatial grouping. It

might be useful for recalling words but I prefer more direct
methods. I don't think I will use it again. It is a bit complicated and
not as useful as some others.’
Student 1: ‘The strategy of acting out words is interesting and enjoyable
but not always practical. I used to use this strategy and often
encountered words that cannot be mimed, which is somewhat
frustrating!’
Student 4: ‘In my view, the strategy of grouping words under columns
would work better with young learners since we usually, at this
stage, do not learn words by themes, functions or topics. I often
paraphrase the word’s meaning to remember it and I find this
helpful. It is much easier than grouping strategies.’
Some strategies require regular revision and additional checking, such as

the keyword method and note taking, which may require teachers to re-
evaluate how they spend time in class. In this regard and from the teachers’
240
point of view, time and syllabus play an important role in strategic integration,
which are themes that came up in class discussions. Teachers were
consistently obliged to cover the topics that students needed for their exams,
and thus had little or no time left for strategy training. To gather further
information on this, teachers were asked during the follow-up interviews
whether, if the university organised free voluntary lessons in strategy
instruction in the future, would they like to take part. Interestingly, six out of
eight teachers welcomed the notion, especially when progress in students’
learning outcomes was noted throughout the semester, as the comments
below indicate:
Omer: ‘Oh, why not! It would be a good idea if it was conducted. It

is my pleasure helping my students become autonomous
learners.’
Alia: ‘Yes, of course… I personally noticed that to start a lesson
with teaching tips for vocabulary learning works well as a
warm-up. My students enjoyed it very much, and they
worked harder than usual, which is good! There were some
improvements in students’ exam marks, which may be
because students have found some useful learning
strategies.’
Abdul-razag: ‘Yes, I would gladly participate. To be honest, during
the training, I noticed that most of students were interested
in what was introduced. I also noticed that students’
implementation of learning strategies increased day by day.
I mean that the use of vocabulary notebooks, association,
and word formation strategies became more apparent
amongst students.’
The other two teachers, who found it difficult to answer the aforementioned
question with any certainty, had taught CG students. Their unwillingness to
participate probably stemmed from the fact that they did not themselves
experience how it felt to teach the VLST sessions, unlike their colleagues.
Because of this they may not believe in the feasibility of conducting such
241
training, or they may be unwilling to waste their free time in unpaid classes.
However, it is comforting to know that all teachers admitted that direct
instruction in vocabulary learning strategies can yield better results, especially
when it relates to the students’ syllabus and materials.
In the delayed observations, of which there were two in total, it was apparent
that teachers more frequently referred to VLSs in their vocabulary teaching.
When they come across unknown words, for example, they used compatible
VTSs (such as providing synonyms, antonyms, and using words in sentences)
and explained them to their students. Encouragingly, two teachers were still
following this same procedure in their lesson plans after I had showed it to
them in the training programme, which is a positive sign bearing in mind that
they did not expect there to be delayed observations after the training. In this
regard, when asked about the efficiency of the training sessions and the lesson
plan suggested as time passed by, Farah replied:
‘This is my first time attending such workshops. I feel more

satisfied with my teaching methods than before. In the last
semester, my students made progress in their reading and writing.
Before that, I used to see some poor writing, repetitive words and
phrases, but now their writing has become much more varied and
organised than before. Some students seemed to really benefit
from the strategy training. I feel happy with what has been
achieved.’
In the observed lesson, the strategy of word formation was discussed. Farah
started by explaining the strategy, and then ample examples and activities
were provided throughout the lesson. Both teacher and students seemed to
be enthusiastic and motivated. In the follow-up interview, Farah reported that
after the training, it had become a habit to allocate some lesson time to
discussing at least one or two VLSs where possible, depending on the lesson
being taught. Farah was the least experienced teacher when compared to her
colleagues (see Table 22 in Chapter 3, page 135), with four years spent
242
practising teaching. It has been suggested that the greater the work
experience, the more strategy training implemented (Trendak, 2015), however
this does not appear to be the case here.
Based on the above, it can generally be assumed that the strategy

instruction was effective in changing teachers’ attitudes, improving students’
learning skills and increasing their vocabulary repertoire. These results are in
agreement with those gathered from the quantitative data. However, to provide
clear answers to the research questions suggested, it would be useful to
summarise the results obtained and interpret them with relevant literature.
243
6.0 Summary of major findings
The current study examined the impact of vocabulary learning strategy
instruction on Libyan EFL teachers’ and learners’ use and perception of the
usefulness of these strategies. The research involved three studies - an
overview of the current situation (S1), the VLST programme (S2), and a trial
and evaluation of the training programme (S3). 96 students participated in the
study alongside 13 teachers from two English language faculties at the Al-jabal
Al-gharbi University in the cities of Tiji and Badr. The participating teachers
and students were given strategy training for 12 weeks. I instructed the former
for two weeks, while the latter were instructed by the trainee teachers for ten
weeks. A pre-, post- and delayed VLS questionnaire, along with semi-
structured interviews, classroom observations, checklists, and an end of
course evaluation sheet were administered in order to determine the possible
changes in the participants’ reported use and perceived usefulness of VLSs
after strategy instruction. In this section, the results of studies 1 and 3 will be
reviewed and summarised so as to provide definite answers to the research
questions stated at the outset of each study. For the sake of clarity and
organisation, the discussion of the results will be divided into two sub-sections
based on the studies mentioned above.
6.1 Study 1 results: an overview of the current situation
This sub-section will present the answers to the first three questions of this
study, starting with question 1:
➢ What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL teachers at a

university level know/promote to their students?
Libyan EFL teachers at the Al-jabal Al-gharbi University initially reported

moderate strategy use/promotion, as the overall mean score of 2.7 indicates
(see Table 8, page 98). When it comes to the rank order of the five categories
of vocabulary learning strategies discussed in Chapter 3, determination and
social strategies came first in terms of adoption in teachers’ teaching practices,
followed by cognitive strategies, then metacognitive strategies, and lastly
244
memory strategies. On an individual level, according to S1 results, the most
popular VLSs brought up by the participating teachers were as follows: word
formation, guessing, word lists, L1 translation, paraphrasing, using words in
sentences, using semantic maps, association, analysing pictures, note taking,
using the vocabulary section in textbooks, and lastly, skipping. Despite the
utility of the aforementioned strategies, mentioned in the literature, the
teachers seemed to be unaware of how to appropriately promote their
utilisation to students. Additionally, when taking into account the 58 VLSs
suggested by Schmitt (1997), Libyan EFL teachers seemed to know/promote
the use of a limited number of strategies in their teaching practices. Most of
the teachers, except the more experienced ones, had no knowledge of
vocabulary learning strategies and their corresponding teaching strategies.
Bearing the above in mind, it is likely that the teachers’ knowledge of VLSs
was based mainly on their personal learning experiences. According to the
data obtained, it was also apparent that teachers subconsciously resorted to
VLSs with the aim of helping students understand the meaning of newly
encountered words. This seemed to occur without teachers’ awareness of
such strategies. Bearing this in mind, it was necessary to conduct the
subsequent studies in order to develop the teachers’ expertise at integrating
VLSs into regular classroom instruction (i.e. S1) and to see whether there was
a difference in participants’ general strategy use/promotion and perceived
usefulness. Before doing so, it was also essential to identify the VLSs that
were utilised by the participating students, whether they were low or high
strategy users, and which type of VLSs they preferred in their vocabulary
learning.
➢ What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL learners at

university level use/know?
The study results have shown that Libyan EFL learners were also medium
strategy users (M = 2.8 as indicated in Table 8, page 98) with determination
strategies at the top of their preferences. This was followed by cognitive
strategies in second place, then social strategies, metacognitive strategies,
and finally memory strategies. Based on S1’s statistics, both Libyan EFL
245
teachers and students in the initial survey seemed to frequently use
determination strategies and resort to the other remaining strategies to a
medium extent. Although these findings are in agreement with those of Amirian
& Heshmatifar (2013), who found that determination and cognitive strategies
were at the top of Iranian EFL learners’ preferences, they seem to contradict
their results, as well as those of Kudo (1999) and Kafipour (2006), with regard
to using social strategies. In the current study, social strategies came third out
of five in terms of utilisation. This may mean that Libyan EFL learners do not
consider language learning an individual process since they do seek the help
of others, especially teachers, when encountering unknown words.
On an individual level, the most common vocabulary learning strategies

amongst Libyan EFL learners were: repetition, dictionary use, word formation,
analysing pictures, guessing, asking the teacher for L1 translation,
paraphrasing, note taking, using the vocabulary section in textbooks, and
finally, skipping. These results are generally in line with those of previous
studies (Gu & Johnson, 1996; Schmitt, 1997; Kudo, 1999; Marin, 2006; and
Amirian & Heshmatifar, 2013). When comparing students’ results with those
obtained from their teachers, we can observe a consensus towards employing
certain strategies, such as L1 translation, repetition, and word formation, which
is probably due to students’ unconsciously copying what their teachers do (i.e.
compatible VTSs). Such strategies, which are commonly established in many
parts of the world (Schmitt, 1997), were not only well known to the participants
studied but also highly practised in their language classes. However, using
vocabulary teaching strategies does not usually guarantee students’ use of
their compatible vocabulary learning strategies (Pavičić Takač, 2008), an
issue which was clearly verified in S3 results, as we will see throughout this
section.
➢ To what extent do Libyan EFL teachers believe that vocabulary learning

strategies can be taught?
According to the responses obtained from open-ended questions (TVLSQ,

Part C), more than half of the teachers studied in S1 did not believe in the
teachability of vocabulary learning strategies (see 3.6.2.1). The teachers
246
attributed the difficulty of teaching VLSs to many factors, such as time
constraints, students’ proficiency level, teaching materials, and a set syllabus
(see 3.6.2.1). In fact, such factors along with the impact of large class sizes,
lack of in-/out service training, and a teacher-centred approach, which were
revealed in S3’s results, do, to quote Richards and Pennington (1998: 187-
88), ‘discourage experimentation and innovation, and encourage [the] safe
strategy of sticking close to prescribed materials and familiar teaching
approaches’. The teachers’ previously adopted beliefs regarding the
teachability of VLSs seemed to impede their ability to implement strategy
instruction. However, this seemed to disappear when they had appropriate
strategy training, as we will see next. Their positive attitudes towards
involvement in the training programme (see 3.6.2.1) generally reflect their
dissatisfaction with the current teaching methods, and their willingness to find
alternative practices to apply in their vocabulary teaching.
In so far as the first three questions of the study were answered, the VLST
programme (see Chapter 4) was designed, trialled, and evaluated (see
Chapter 5) so as to establish a definite answer to S3’s question, as stated
below.
6.2 Study 3 results: trial and evaluation of the VLST

programme
This section summarises the answers to the main research question, which is:
➢ Does training Libyan EFL teachers in how to teach vocabulary learning

strategies play any significant role in vocabulary strategy use and
perceptions by either teachers or students?
The analysis of the pre-, post-, and delayed data obtained in this study
generally showed an increase in the overall mean scores for use and
usefulness in both discovery and consolidation categories, which resulted in
changing the participants’ general strategy use and perceptions of such
strategies. According to the results of the VLS questionnaires, there was a
247
significant difference between prior and post responses, suggesting that the
VLST programme was able to promote the participants’ awareness with regard
to the use and usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies. However, before
providing a more definitive answer to the research question, it would be useful
to remember some details that served as a basis for our final conclusion. For
the sake of clarity, teachers’ and students’ results will be discussed separately
in the two subsequent sections, beginning with those from the participating
teachers.
6.2.1 Effect on teachers’ promotion and perceived

usefulness of VLSs
The statistical outcomes showed that the training programme had a positive
impact on teachers’ usage of VLSs, which was clearly evident by the paired
sample t-test results achieved. When comparing VLSQ1 and VLSQ2 results,
a statistical difference was found in the results of the experimental groups’
teachers, while no such difference was found in the control groups. This in
turn, suggests that the two weeks of strategy training, which were followed by
ten weeks of classroom strategy integration, encouraged the teachers’
use/promotion of vocabulary learning strategies in their teaching practices.
Both discovery and consolidation strategies significantly improved by the end
of the semester, with the increase made in the former being much more
impressive than that in the latter. Bearing this in mind, the teachers seemed to
be more interested in assisting students on how to discover the meaning of
newly encountered words than consolidating their meaning. One possible
explanation for this might be the teachers’ consistent need to cover the
materials required, which may make it difficult for them to take further action
to help students to consolidate the meanings of words. Here, it should be
borne in mind that promoting the use of discovery strategies was initially
favoured when compared to promoting consolidation strategies, and the
conducted training served to enhance the promotion of using both categories,
with the former still being the most preferred type, not only among the
248
participating teachers, but also among their students, as will be discussed
next.
Encouragingly, the VLST programme also positively affected the teachers’

perceived usefulness of VLSs, which resulted in bridging the gap between
frequency of use/promoting the use of VLSs and perceptions of utility. This
was clearly supported by the paired sample t-test results discussed above in
this chapter. Another finding that emerged from the data analysis was that the
training programme seemed to [a certain extent] succeed in making teachers,
in both groups, see value in vocabulary learning strategies and their integration
into their classrooms.
Finally, when comparing teachers’ results with those of their learners it was
obvious the participants’ adoption of VLSs is independent. In other words,
there was no correlation between teachers’ and students’ use of vocabulary
learning strategies. This finding further supports that of Pavičić Takač (2008),
who concluded that students choose their own vocabulary learning strategies
regardless of the compatible VTSs utilised by their teachers.
6.2.2 Effects on students’ use and perceived usefulness on

VLSs
Positive changes had also occurred in students’ use and perceptions of the
usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies by the end of the semester.
Again, the use of discovery strategies was much higher than that of
consolidation, which might be attributed to the fact that students normally
restrict themselves to discovering the meaning in order to answer and
comprehend the questions. This finding however, is consistent with that of
Aljadee (2007). When analysing the average mean scores for the two
categories of VLSs, it can be seen that the gap between frequency of use and
perceptions was balanced after the training. In other words, almost all the
strategies that were considered effective were utilised more often, whereas
with CG students, who did not receive any strategy instruction, there were still
249
some learning strategies, though used frequently, that were undervalued, and
vice versa.
Prior to conducting the VLST programme, VLSs were used and perceived
useful to a medium extent, but this later changed to a high level in the delayed
survey (≥ 3, see Table 40). The ten weeks of training seem to have had an
impact on the students’ awareness of these strategies, and this impact seems
to have been durable. Most of the students became aware of learning
strategies and continued using them even though the training was over, which
in turn indicates that the students have benefited from the VLST programme.
To conclude, the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data reveals that
teaching vocabulary learning strategies plays a positive role in increasing
teachers’ and learners’ use, awareness, and perceptions of usefulness of such
strategies.
250
7.0 Conclusion
This thesis began by asking the following questions:
1. What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL teachers at

a university level know/promote to their students?
2. What vocabulary learning strategies do Libyan EFL learners at a
university level use/know?
3. To what extent do Libyan EFL teachers believe that vocabulary
learning strategies can be taught?
4. Does training Libyan EFL teachers on how to teach the
vocabulary learning strategies play any significant role in
vocabulary strategy use and perceptions by either teachers or
students?
In order to answer these questions, three studies were carried out in a

predetermined order. Firstly the data on what Libyan EFL teachers and
learners are doing in terms of VLSs promoted/utilised, teaching methods
adopted, and attitudes towards the teachability of VLSs were collected via a
multi-method approach in the form of a VLS questionnaire, a semi-structured
interview and classroom observations. Upon completing the analysis of study
1, the first three questions, as stated above, were answered, and based on the
results obtained alongside literature within the context of strategy instruction,
study 2, the Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training programme was designed.
This study comprised two main stages, with teachers targeted in the first stage
and students in the second one. After that the VLST programme was trialled
and then evaluated in study 3 so as to provide an answer to the fourth and
most important question in this research, as mentioned above.
In relation to question one, the results achieved suggest that Libyan EFL
teachers at the Al-jabal Al-gharbi University promote the use of vocabulary
learning strategies to their students to a medium extent, with determination
and social strategies being the most utilised, followed by cognitive strategies,
metacognitive strategies, and memory strategies. Out of the 58 VLSs
251
suggested by Schmitt (1997), i.e. the taxonomy of the present research, only
13 strategies (see section 5.6.1) were identified during the investigations as
being frequently reinforced by teachers. This number is certainly small when
compared with that mentioned above. It should be stressed that the empirical
research on the influence of introducing VLS training to language teachers, to
the best of my knowledge, is very limited, and most studies have concentrated
on examining the impact of strategy instruction on language learners’
achievements. That is why this thesis is devoted to gaining more insight into
the impact of strategic intervention on both teachers and learners. This
research can serve as the basis for further studies and can also be of use to
teachers who want to integrate strategic intervention into their classes. The
results of the study cannot be considered conclusive however, and thus calling
for more thorough research in this area is certainly advised.
With regard to question two, the research has shown that strategy use for
Libyan EFL learners before the training was moderate. Determination
strategies came first in terms of utilisation followed by cognitive strategies,
social strategies, metacognitive strategies, and lastly, memory strategies. The
use of various vocabulary learning strategies, based on the data obtained, is
not very common amongst the students since out of the 58 strategies, only ten
strategies (see section 5.6.1) were highly utilised. The VLSs that are used by
the students are mostly simple and direct, and this may explain why Libyan
EFL learners are more familiar with the use of determination strategies than
that of cognitive and metacognitive ones. Although these results differ from the
findings of Kafipour & Naveh (2011), they are broadly consistent with those of
Kasmani & Bengar (2013) and Amirian & Heshmatifar (2013). It is advisable
for language teachers to be aware of their students’ strategic profile (Pavičić
Takač, 2008) as the more conscious they are of the strategies employed by
their learners, the better they may plan for the introduction of effective strategy
instruction. The students’ utilisation of some shallow strategies (e.g., repetition
strategies) was still predominant after the VLST, which is perhaps due to their
ease of employment. The use of deep or complex strategies (e.g., word
formation and imagery) was also improved. According to the results achieved,
252
the strategies implemented by the experimental groups’ students
outnumbered those of the control groups, which probably explains the
achievements made throughout the semester (see section 5.5.2). In addition,
teachers and students seemed to make further use of VLSs (see section 5.4),
even though the training was over, which is a very encouraging sign.
Question three related to the teachability of vocabulary learning strategies.

In answering this question, several factors were identified. Some related to
educational policies and facilities (e.g., large class sizes and lack of in-/out
service training), while others related to language learners (e.g., proficiency
and learning style) and the teachers themselves (e.g., motivation and teaching
style). Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.6 mention some more obstacles that may
impede the introduction of the training in classrooms. It should be borne in
mind that these concerns were generally raised before the VLST programme
was conducted. It was my intention to identify the teachers’ prior and post-
assumptions with regard to the teachability of VLSs as well as to somehow
surmount any possible difficulties that could be encountered during the
implementation. Despite some constraints, many teachers reported that
integrating regular strategy training could yield satisfactory results for both
teachers and learners. Once the teachers became involved in the training
programme, their awareness, motivation, and promotion of the use of VLSs
were noticeably increased (see section 5.5.1). The training made a significant
difference to the teachers’ beliefs on the value of strategies and strategy
integration. Research conducted on the teachability of VLSs is fairly limited,
especially that dealing with the training of a great number of strategies
(Tassana-ngam, 2004). The findings of the current study show the success of
training in multiple strategies in a real EFL context. These results generally
support those observed in earlier studies (Cohen & Aphek, 1981; Avila &
Sadoski, 1996, Tassana-ngam, 2004; Aktekin & Guven, 2007; Tanyer &
Ozturk, 2014; Trendak, 2015). Notwithstanding the fact that the previously
mentioned studies are devoted to training a single type of VLS, all concluded
that language learning strategies are teachable.
253
In terms of question three, after VLST the experimental groups showed
better progress when it came to adoption, usage and perceptions of
usefulness than the control groups. This is clearly supported by the post- and
delayed results that were obtained (see previous Chapter). It was also
comforting to learn that strategic intervention succeeded in bridging the gap
between the frequency of use and the perceived usefulness of VLSs. For
example, teachers prior to the training encouraged students to implement
certain strategies, although they were not sure about their potential utility, but
when teachers had received the training, their perceptions regarding the
efficiency of most strategies became more positive. Learners are more likely
to depend on their teachers, or moreover, copy their strategic behaviour, and
in order to persuade students to use more VLSs, their teachers should firstly
be convinced of the value of working on such strategies, which this research
has succeeded in achieving. However, with the aforementioned discussion in
mind, it can be concluded that the findings of the present research generally
accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null one (see section 1.9). In
other words, this research suggests that VLS instruction has an impact on
teachers’ and students’ strategy adoption, use, and perceptions of helpfulness.
7.1 Research limitation
Despite the useful information presented in this research, it is not devoid of

some limitations. To start with, there were time constraints. Although the VLST
ran over a period of 12 weeks this might not have been enough time to
guarantee that teachers obtained a comprehensive picture of VLSs,
compatible VTSs, and strategy intervention. A similar argument holds true for
the students’ training. Twenty minutes of strategy instruction per day was
rather limiting in terms of being able to check students’ understanding and
provide ample opportunities to practise and evaluate the strategies introduced.
Therefore, it would be beneficial to regularly conduct similar programmes,
workshops, and courses specifically devoted to strategy instruction, by which
teachers and students would be provided with practical tips on how to integrate
VLSs into their vocabulary teaching/learning. The current study was also
254
limited by the small sample size of teachers, which may not allow for making
broader generalisations. The step that further research may take is to include
a greater number of language teachers in order to provide more
comprehensive information on strategic intervention. Another limitation
encountered was that the participants rejected being recorded visually. In
order to overcome this, I resorted to using pen and paper and an observation
sheet designed for the purpose. The use of pen and paper has its limitations
however, as it is not optimally efficient and prevented me from recording all of
what happened in the classroom. One final shortcoming was the translation of
data. All the instruments utilised in this research were initially translated into
Arabic, and extensive quantitative and qualitative data were gathered, which
then needed to be translated back into English. This required more time and
effort in order to check the translated data. Although Arabic-English linguistic
specialists from Manchester Metropolitan University and other colleagues
revised the translation done by the researcher, the process was not free from
its own inconveniences.
7.2 Research contribution and implications
Despite its limitations, the present study touches upon a significant issue, the
creation of a ‘strategic teacher’ who is equipped with theoretical and practical
knowledge of how to integrate strategic intervention into their regular classes.
Teachers need not only to teach learning strategies but also to learn more
about how to effectively prepare and introduce strategy instruction (Trendak,
2015). This study provides a framework for those who are interested in
implementing strategy training, as well as for the exploration of the impact of
strategy intervention on teachers. While it may be a study of students and
teachers in one Libyan university, it perhaps has implications for teacher
training in the whole country and beyond. The key strengths of this study are
not only its long duration and focus on providing strategy instruction for
multiple strategies in a real learning context, but also the fact that, for the first
time, it goes some way towards presenting new and in-depth insights into
teachers’ training, awareness and perceptions of usefulness in terms of VLSs.
255
The pressing need to switch attention from learners to teachers with regard
to being involved in strategy training has been successfully highlighted in this
study. It is perhaps now the decision-makers' and educators’ mission to
conduct professional strategy training for teachers in their universities, and
design, for example, strategy guidebooks or materials to assist teachers in
conducting strategic interventions in their classrooms.
256
8.0 APPENDICES
8.1 Appendix 1: S1 teachers’ questionnaire (TVLSQ)
Dear teacher…
This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information about how much Libyan
EFL teachers at university level know about vocabulary learning strategies.
Your answers are highly valued and your co-operation genuinely appreciated.
The data collected will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used to
serve this particular research. If you are interested in the results of this survey,
please do not hesitate to leave your e-mail address and a copy of the results
will be sent to you afterwards.
Structure of the questionnaire...
This questionnaire is split into two parts: the first part (a) is personal
information, whereas part (b) is the vocabulary learning strategy. The
questionnaire is an attempt to discover the strategies that teachers include in
their classes, so there are no right or wrong answers here.
I. Background Information
a) Gender: Male Female
b) How many years have you taught English? ______________
c) Have you received any training on how to teach vocabulary-learning
strategies? If yes (Please specify what type of training:
_____________________________________). If not please tick here
Note: If you are interested in the results, please leave your mail :
_______________________
257
II. Vocabulary Learning Strategies
❖ Please tick the appropriate response (no more than one for each
question)
Q: To what degree do you promote the use of the following
Sometimes
strategies in your class?
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
1. Analysing part of speech (e.g. noun, verb)
2. Analysing affixes and roots (e.g. un-predict-able)
‫تحليل لواحق الكلمة وجذورها‬
3. checking for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra-‫)الجبر‬
‫التحقق من شبيه أو مثيل الكلمة الجديدة في اللغة العربية‬
4. Analysing any available pictures or gestures
‫تحليل الصور واإليماءات المتاحة‬
5. Guessing from textual context
‫التخمين من خالل سياق النص المقروء أو المكتوب‬
6. Using a dictionary
‫استخدام القاموس‬
7. Using word lists
‫استخدام قوائم الكلمات‬
8. Using L1 (Arabic) translation
‫الترجمة للغة العربية‬
9. Paraphrasing the new words or giving synonyms
‫إعادة صياغة الكلمة أو إعطاء مرادفها‬
10. Giving sentences include the new word
‫إعطاء جملة تتضمن الكلمة الجديدة‬
11. Asking classmates for meaning
‫طلب المعنى من طالب الفصل‬
12. Discovering the meaning through group work activity
‫اكتشاف المعنى من خالل النشاط الجماعي‬
13. Drawing a picture of the new word
‫رسم صورة للكلمة الجديدة‬
14. Understanding the meaning of the new word by looking at the
‫فهم معنى الكلمة الجديدة من خالل النظر إلى الصور المصاحبة لها‬
258
Q: To what degree do you promote the use of the following
Sometimes
strategies in your class?
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
15. Connecting the word to a personal experience
‫ربط الكلمة بتجربة شخصية مررت بها‬
16. Associating the word with its coordinates (e.g. apple, pears,
peaches)
‫ خوخ‬،‫ كمثرى‬،‫ تفاح‬:‫جمع الكلمة مع مثيالتها مثال‬
17. Associating new words with their synonyms or antonymous
(e.g. quick – fast), (quick – slow)
‫جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع مرادفاتها أو أضدادها‬
18. Using semantic maps sunny  Weather  rainy
warm   cloudy
‫استخدام الخرائط الذهنية أو الداللية‬
19. Using scales for gradable adjectives (e.g. freezing, cold, hot,
boiling)
‫ متجمد‬،‫ بارد‬،‫ ساخن‬،‫ يغلي‬:‫استخدام جداول الصفات المتغيرة مثال‬
20. Placing the word in a group with other items based on topic,
theme or function
‫ الفكرة أو الوظيفة‬،‫وضع الكلمات في مجموعة حسب الموضوع‬
21. Using new words in sentences to remember them
‫استخدام الكلمات الجديدة في جمل ليسهل تذكرها‬
22. Writing a word repeatedly
‫كتابة الكلمة عدة مرات‬
23. Acting out or miming the new word
‫القيام بحركات جسدية لتمثيل الكلمة الجديدة‬
24. Repeating a word (i.e. aloud, in mind, by spelling it)
)‫ بتهجئتها‬،‫ في الذهن‬،‫تكرار الكلمة (بصوت عا ٍل‬
25. Imagining the written form of a word to remember it.
‫تخيل الشكل الكتابي للكلمة ليسهل تذكرها‬
26. Typing or listening to tapes of new words.
‫تسجيل أو االستماع ألشرطة للكلمات الجديدة‬
27. Taking notes in class
‫اخذ مالحظات في الفصل‬
28. Skipping or ignoring the unknown word
‫تخطي أو تجاهل الكلمة الغير معروفة‬
29. Using the vocabulary section or glossaries in the textbook
‫استخدام باب المفردات الموجود في الكتاب المدرسي‬
259
Q: To what degree do you promote the use of the
Sometimes
following strategies in your class?
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
30. Using English-language media (e.g. songs, movies,
newscasts, etc.)
‫استخدام وسائل االعالم الناطقة باللغة اإلنجليزية مثل األغاني واألفالم‬
31. Continuing to study word over time (i.e. revising it several
)‫االستمرار في دراسة الكلمة مع مرور الوقت (مراجعتها عدة مرات‬
32. Writing new words in vocabulary notebook
‫كتابة الكلمات الجديدة في دفتر المفردات‬
33. Using the keyword method (e.g., to connect the word
symbol to the picture of ‫ سُنبلة‬in Arabic)
‫سنبلة في اللغة العربية‬
ُ ‫ بكلمة‬symbol ‫ ربط كلمة‬:‫ مثال‬Keyword ‫استخدام طريقة‬
34. Grouping words together spatially on a page
‫ ولكن ليس في شكل‬،‫جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع معانيها في اللغة العربية في صفحة واحدة‬
‫ كأن تكتب على سبيل المثال الترجمة في أسفل الصفحة بشكل قطري‬،‫أعمدة‬
35. Paraphrasing the word’s meaning
‫إعادة صياغة معنى الكلمة الجديدة‬
36. Learning words of an expression together as if they were
just one word (e.g. what a shame!)
‫تعلم مفردات المصطلحات مع بعض كما لو أنها كلمة واحدة‬
37. Underlining initial letter of the word
‫تحديد أو وضع خط تحت الحرف األول من الكلمة‬
38. Outlining the word with lines (configuration) e.g.
'elephant'
‫تحديد الكلمة بخطوط فوق وتحت‬
39. Do you think VLSs can be taught?

Yes, because ______________________________________
No, because _______________________________________
40. How do you wish to help your students with vocabulary learning?
‫تتمنى ان تساعد طالبك في تعلم المفردات؟‬/‫كيف ترغب‬
…………………………………………………………………………………………
41. Would you be receptive to being trained in vocabulary-learning strategies?
‫ هل ترغب في المشاركة فيها؟‬،‫إذا تم اجراء دورة تدريبية للمعلمين في استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‬
………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for being helpful and cooperative
260
8.2 Appendix 2: S1 students’ questionnaire (SVLSQ)
Dear student....
I am working on a research project that studies the vocabulary learning
strategies among Libyan EFL learners. It will be greatly appreciated if you can
co-operate with me and spend some time on finishing the questionnaire. This
will probably take less than 35 minutes.
The questionnaire is an attempt to discover the strategies that students apply

to their vocabulary learning, so there are no right or wrong answers here.
Note: your answers will be kept strictly confidential.

information, whereas part (b) is the vocabulary learning strategy.
a) Background Information:
• Please, tick the suitable answer for you
a) Gender: Male Female
b) Age: 17-20 21-25 over 25
c) Level: year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4
261
b) Vocabulary Learning Strategies
question)
The statement (Think what you do when you
Sometimes
encounter a new word)
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
1. I try to analyse part of speech (e.g. noun, verb)
2. I try to analyse affixes and roots (e.g. un-predict-able)
3. I check for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra-
‫)الجبر‬
4. I try to analyse any available pictures or gestures.
5. I try to guess from textual context.
6. I use a dictionary.
7. I use a word list for studying new words.
8. I ask teacher for L1 translation.
9. I ask teacher for paraphrase or synonyms of new
words.
10. I ask teacher for a sentence including the new word.
11. I ask the meaning of an unknown word from my
classmates.
12. I try to discover the meaning through group work
activity.
13. I draw a picture of the new word.
14. I try to understand the meaning of the new word by
looking at the accompanying picture.
15. I try to connect the word to a personal experience.
16. I associate the word with its coordinates (e.g. apple,
pears, peaches)
17. I associate new words with their synonyms or
antonyms (e.g. quick – fast), (quick – slow)
18. I do a mind map sunny weather  rainy
19. I use scales for gradable adjectives (e.g. freezing, cold,

hot, boiling)
262
The statement (Think what you do when you encounter
Sometimes
Always
Rarely
Never
Often
a new word)
20. I place the word in a group with other items based on

topic, theme or function.
21. I use new words in sentences to remember them.
22. I write a word repeatedly.
23. I act out or mime the new word.
24. I repeat a word (aloud or whisper to myself, in my mind,
or by spelling it)
25. I try to imagine the written form of a word to remember
it.
26. I try to tape or listen to tapes of new words.
27. I take notes in class.
28. I skip or ignore the unknown word.
29. I use the vocabulary section or glossaries in my
textbook.
30. I use English-language media (e.g. songs, movies,
newscasts, etc.)
31. I continue to study word over time (i.e. revise it several
32. I write new words in vocabulary notebook.
33. I use the keyword method (e.g., to connect the word
symbol to the picture of ‫ سُنبلة‬in Arabic)
34. I try to group words together spatially on a page.
35. I try to paraphrase the word’s meaning.
36. I learn words of an expression together as if they were
just one word (e.g. what a shame!)
37. I try to underline initial letter of the word.
38. I try to outline the word with lines (configuration) e.g.
'elephant'
263
39. Do you use any other way of learning words that are not mentioned in this
questionnaire, if YES please write it here:
…………………………………………………………………………………………
40. What difficulties do you encounter when learning English vocabulary?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
41. Have you trained to learn about vocabulary learning strategies? If YES
when and how?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
42. How do you wish your English teacher to help you with vocabulary
learning?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
43. Would you be receptive to being taught vocabulary-learning strategies in
your classroom?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
264
‫‪8.3‬‬ ‫)‪Appendix 3: S1 students’ questionnaire (Arabic version‬‬
‫استبيان حول استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‬
‫عزيزي الطالب ‪....‬‬
‫أقوم بإجراء بحث حول االستراتيجيات التي يستخدمها طلبة قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية في تعلمهم لمفرداتها‪ ،‬وسأكون‬
‫ممتنةٌ جدا ً إذا تعاونتم معي في اإلجابة عن أسئلة االستبيان التي لن تستغرق الكثير من وقتكم‪.‬‬
‫مالحظة‪ :‬اجاباتكم عن أسئلة االستبيان سيتم حفظها بسرية تامة ‪.‬‬
‫بُنية االستبيان ‪...‬‬
‫ينقسم هذا االستبيان إلى قسمين‪:‬‬
‫أ) المعلومات الشخصية‬
‫ب) استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‪.‬‬
‫أ) المعلومات الشخصية‪:‬‬
‫❖ من فضلك ضع إشارة عن اإلجابة المناسبة‪:‬‬
‫انثى‬ ‫‪ .1‬الجنس‪ :‬ذكر‬
‫أكثر من ‪25‬‬ ‫‪25-20‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬العمر‪20-17 :‬‬
‫سنة رابعة‬ ‫سنة ثالثة‬ ‫سنة ثانية‬ ‫‪ .3‬المستوى‪ :‬سنة أولى‬
‫‪265‬‬
‫ب) استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‪:‬‬
‫❖ من فضلك‪ ،‬لكل سؤال من األسئلة االتية اختر إجابة واحدة فقط من الخيارات الخمسة‬
‫ماذا تفعل عندما تواجهك كلمة جديدة في اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬كيف تتعلمها؟‬
‫ابدا‬ ‫نادرا‬ ‫احيانا‬ ‫دائما عادة‬
‫أحاول ان احلل أجزاء الكالم (مثال‪ :‬اسم‪ ،‬فعل)‬ ‫‪.1‬‬

‫أحاول تحليل لواحق الكلمة وجذورها (مثل‪(un-predict-able :‬‬ ‫‪.2‬‬
‫أحاول إيجاد شبيه الكلمة في اللغة العربية مثال‪ :‬الكحول‬ ‫‪.3‬‬
‫)‪ )Alcohol‬الجبر (‪)Algebra‬‬
‫أحاول ان أخمن او احلل الصور واالشارات المتاحة (مثال‪ :‬الصور‬ ‫‪.4‬‬
‫المرفقة مع الدرس أو حركات المعلم)‬
‫أحاول ان أخمن معنى الكلمة من سياق النص‪.‬‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫استخدم القاموس‪.‬‬ ‫‪.6‬‬
‫‪ .7‬استخدم قائمة الكلمات (‪ )word lists‬لتعلم المفردات‪.‬‬
‫‪ .8‬اطلب من المعلم ترجمة الكلمة للغة العربية‪.‬‬
‫‪ .9‬اطلب من المعلم إعطاء مرادفا ً للكلمة الجديدة أو إعادة صياغتها‬
‫باستخدام كلمات أخرى مشابهة لها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .10‬اطلب من المعلم إعطاء جملة تتضمن الكلمة الجديدة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .11‬اطلب من زمالئي معنى الكلمة الجديدة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .12‬أحاول اكتشاف معنى الكلمة من خالل النشاط الجماعي مع الطلبة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .13‬ارسم صورة للكلمة الجديدة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .14‬افهم معنى الكلمة من خالل النظر إلى الصورة المرفقة معها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .15‬أحاول ربط معنى الكلمة الجديدة بتجربة شخصية مررت بها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .16‬أحاول ربط الكلمة الجديدة بمثيالتها (مثال‪ :‬خوخ‪ ،‬تفاح‪ ،‬إجاص)‬
‫‪ .17‬أحاول ربط معنى الكلمة الجديدة مع مرادفاتها أو اضدادها مثال‪:‬‬
‫)‪(quick – slow)،(quick – fast‬‬
‫‪ .18‬أقوم برسم خريطة ذهنية للكلمة‪:‬‬
‫دافئ‬ ‫مشمس‬
‫الجو‬
‫غائم‬ ‫ممطر‬
‫‪266‬‬
‫ماذا تفعل عندما تواجهك كلمة جديدة في اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬كيف‬
‫مطلقا‬ ‫نادرا‬ ‫احيانا‬ ‫عادة‬ ‫دائما‬
‫تتعلمها؟‬
‫‪ .19‬استخدم ميزان الكلمات أو الصفات‪:‬‬
‫‪Freezing‬‬ ‫‪cold‬‬ ‫‪hot boiling‬‬

‫‪ .20‬أحاول تصنيف الكلمة الجديدة في مجموعات حسب‬
‫الموضوع‪ ،‬الفكرة أو الوظيفة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .21‬استخدم الكلمات الجديدة في جمل ليسهل تذكرها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .22‬اكتب الكلمة الجديدة مرارا ً وتكرارا ً لكي أتعلمها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .23‬أحاول تمثيل او تقليد الكلمة الجديدة ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .24‬أُكرار الكلمة الجديدة‪( :‬لنفسي بصوت عا ٍل أو صوت خافت‪،‬‬
‫في ذهني‪ ،‬من خالل ته ُجاؤها)‬
‫احرف الكلمة ليس ُهل تذكرها‪.‬‬‫‪ .25‬أحاول تخيل ُ‬
‫‪ .26‬استخدم األشرطة لتسجيل أو سماع الكلمات الجديدة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .27‬أُدون مالحظات في الفصل‪.‬‬
‫‪ .28‬اتجاهل أو اتخطى الكلمة الجديدة التي ال اعرف معناها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .29‬استخدم باب المفردات الموجود في الكتاب المدرسي‪.‬‬
‫‪ .30‬استخدم وسائل اإلعالم الناطقة باللغة اإلنجليزية مثل‪:‬‬
‫األغاني‪ ،‬األفالم‪ ،‬نشرات األخبار إلخ‪...‬‬
‫‪ .31‬أُراجع الكلمة عدة مرات في اليوم‪.‬‬
‫‪ .32‬اكتب الكلمات الجديدة في دفتر المفردات‪.‬‬
‫‪ .33‬أحاول استخدام استراتيجية ‪ key method‬كأن تربط كلمة‬
‫سنبلة أو شيء من هذا القبيل‪.‬‬ ‫‪ symbol‬بصورة ُ‬
‫‪ .34‬جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع معانيها في اللغة العربية في صفحة‬
‫واحدة‪ ،‬ولكن ليس في شكل أعمدة‪ ،‬كأن تكتب على سبيل‬
‫المثال الترجمة في أسفل الصفحة بشكل قطري إلخ‪...‬‬
‫‪ .35‬أحاول إعادة صياغة معنى الكلمة ليسهل حفظها‪.‬‬
‫‪ .36‬تعلم كلمات المصطلحات معا ً كما لو أنها كلمة واحدة مثل‪:‬‬
‫!‪What a shame‬‬
‫‪ .37‬التركيز على الحرف األول من الكلمة أو وضع حط تحته‪.‬‬
‫‪ .38‬تحديد الكلمة من خالل وضع خطوط فوق وتحت الكلمة‪.‬‬
‫‪ .39‬هل تستخدم أي وسيلة أخرى لتعلم المفردات لم تُذكر في هذا االستبيان؟ إذا كانت اإلجابة بنعم‪ ،‬الرجاء‬
‫كتابة الوسيلة أو الطريقة هنا‪:‬‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪ .40‬ماهي الصعوبات التي تواجهك عند تعلُمك لمفردات اللغة اإلنجليزية؟‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪ .41‬هل سبق أن تدربت على استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات؟ إذا كانت إجابتك بنعم‪ ،‬الرجاء أن تكتب متى؟‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫وكيف؟ ‪...............................................................................................‬‬
‫‪267‬‬
‫‪ .42‬هل تتمنى أن يُساعدك مدرس اللغة اإلنجليزية في تعلم المفردات؟ ولماذا؟‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪............................................................................... ......................................‬‬
‫‪ .43‬هل توافق على فكرة تدريس استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات داخل الفصل؟‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫‪.....................................................................................................................‬‬
‫شكرا جزيال لتعاونكم‬
‫‪268‬‬
8.4 Appendix 4: Schmitt’s original questionnaire (SOQ)
Dear student....
I am working on a research project that studies the vocabulary learning
strategies among Libyan EFL learners. It will be greatly appreciated if you can
co-operate with me and spend some time on finishing the questionnaire. This
will probably take less than 35 minutes.
The questionnaire is an attempt to discover the strategies that students apply

to their vocabulary learning, so there are no right or wrong answers here.
Note: your answers will be kept strictly confidential.
information, whereas part (b) is the vocabulary learning strategy.
a) Background Information:
• Please, tick the suitable answer for you
1. Gender: Male Female
2. Age: 17-20 21-25 over 25
3. Level: year 1 year 2 year 3

year 4
269
b) Vocabulary Learning Strategies
question)
The statement (Think what you do Always Often Some Rarely Never
when you encounter a new word) -
times
1. I analyse parts of speech
2. I analyse affixes and roots
3. I check for L1 cognate
4. I analyse any available pictures or
gestures
5. I guess from textual context
6. I use bilingual dictionary
7. I use monolingual dictionary
8. I use word list
9. I use flash cards
10. I ask teacher for L1 translation
11. I ask teachers for paraphrase or
synonym of new word
12. I ask teachers for a sentence
including the new word
13. I ask classmates for meaning
14. I try to discover new meaning through
group work activity
15. I try to study and practise meaning in
a group
16. I ask teacher to check my flash cards
or word lists for accuracy.
17. I try to interact with native-speakers
18. I study word with a pictorial
representation of its meaning
19. I image words meaning
20. I connect the word to a personal
experience
21. I associate the word with its
coordinates
22. I connect the word to its synonyms
and antonyms
23. I use semantic maps
24. I use ‘scales’ for gradable adjective
270
The statement (Think what you do Always Often Some- Rarely Never
when you encounter a new word) times
25. I use the Peg Method
26. I use the Loci Method
27. I group words together to study
them
28. I group words together spatially on
a page
29. I use new word in sentences
30. I group words together within a
storyline
31. I study the spelling of a word
32. I study the sound of a word
33. I say new word aloud when
studying
34. I image word form
35. I underline initial letter of the word
36. I use configuration
37. I use the keyword method
38. I analyse affixes and roots to
remember the new word
39. I analyse parts of speech to
remember the new word
40. I paraphrase the word’s meaning
41. I use cognates in study
42. I learn the words of an idiom
together
43. I use physical action when learning
a word
44. I use semantic features grids
45. I say the word repeatedly
46. I write the word repeatedly
47. I use word list
48. I use flash cards
49. I take notes in class
50. I use the vocabulary section in my
textbook
51. I listen to tape of word lists
52. I put English labels on physical
objects
53. I keep a vocabulary notebook
54. I use English-language media
(songs, movies, newscasts, etc.)
55. I test myself with word tests
56. I use spaced word practice
57. I skip or pass new word
58. I continue to study word over time
(Thank you)
271
‫‪8.5‬‬ ‫)‪Appendix 5: Schmitt’s original questionnaire (SOQ‬‬
‫)‪(Arabic version‬‬
‫استبيان حول استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‬
‫عزيزي الطالب ‪....‬‬

‫أقوم بإجراء بحث حول االستراتيجيات التي يستخدمها طلبة قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية في تعلمهم‬
‫لمفرداتها‪ ،‬وسأكون ممتنةٌ جدا ً إذا تعاونتم معي في اإلجابة عن أسئلة االستبيان التي لن تستغرق‬
‫الكثير من وقتكم‪.‬‬
‫مالحظة‪ :‬اجاباتكم عن أسئلة االستبيان سيتم حفظها بسرية تامة ‪.‬‬
‫بُنية االستبيان ‪...‬‬
‫ينقسم هذا االستبيان إلى قسمين‪:‬‬

‫أ) المعلومات الشخصية‬
‫ب) استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‪.‬‬
‫أ) المعلومات الشخصية‪:‬‬

‫❖ من فضلك ضع إشارة عن اإلجابة المناسبة‪:‬‬
‫انثى‬ ‫ذكر‬ ‫‪ .1‬الجنس‪:‬‬
‫أكثر من ‪25‬‬ ‫‪25-20‬‬ ‫‪20-17‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬العمر‪:‬‬
‫سنة رابعة‬ ‫سنة ثالثة‬ ‫سنة ثانية‬ ‫سنة أولى‬ ‫‪ .3‬المستوى‪:‬‬
‫‪272‬‬
‫ب) استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات‪:‬‬
‫❖ من فضلك‪ ،‬لكل سؤال من األسئلة االتية اختر إجابة واحدة فقط من الخيارات الخمسة‬
‫ماذا تفعل عندما تواجهك كلمة جديدة في اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬كيف دائما عادة احيانا نادرا ابدا‬
‫‪ .1‬احلل أجزاء الكالم (مثال‪ :‬اسم‪ ،‬فعل‪ ،‬حرف إلخ‪)...‬‬
‫‪ .2‬أحلل لواحق الكلمة وجذورها (مثل‪(un-predict-able :‬‬
‫‪ .3‬أحاول إيجاد شبيه الكلمة في اللغة العربية مثال‪ :‬الكحول –‬
‫‪ / Alcohol‬الجبر ‪Algebra-‬‬
‫‪ .4‬أحاول ان أخمن او احلل الصور واالشارات المتاحة (مثال‪:‬‬
‫الصور المرفقة مع الدرس أو حركات وإيماءات المعلم)‬
‫‪ .5‬أخمن معنى الكلمة من سياق النص‬
‫‪ .6‬استخدم قاموس انجليزي – انجليزي‬
‫‪ .7‬استخدم قاموس عربي – انجليزي‬
‫‪ .8‬استخدم بطاقات العرض السريع (‪)flash cards‬‬
‫‪ .9‬استخدم قائمة الكلمات (‪ )word lists‬لتعلم المفردات الجديدة‬
‫‪ .10‬اطلب من المعلم ترجمة الكلمة للغة العربية‬
‫‪ .11‬اطلب من المعلم إعطاء مرادفا ً للكلمة الجديدة أو إعادة‬
‫صياغتها باستخدام كلمات أخرى مشابهة لها‬
‫‪ .12‬اطلب من المعلم إعطاء جملة تتضمن الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .13‬اطلب من زمالئي معنى الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .14‬أحاول اكتشاف معنى الكلمة من خالل النشاط الجماعي مع‬
‫الطلبة‬
‫‪ .15‬أحاول دراسة وممارسة الكلمة الجديدة في مجموعة‬
‫‪ .16‬أطلب من المعلم التحقق من بطاقات العرض السريع وقوائم‬
‫الكلمات الخاصة بي للتأكد من دقتها‬
‫‪ .17‬أتحدث مع اشخاص يجيدون اللغة اإلنجليزية‬
‫‪ .18‬أدرس الكلمة مع التمثيل التصويري لمعناها‬
‫‪ .19‬أحاول تخيل معنى الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .20‬أحاول ربط معنى الكلمة الجديدة بتجربة شخصية‬
‫مررت بها سابقا ً‬
‫‪ .21‬اربط الكلمة الجديدة مع مثيالتها (مثال‪ :‬خوخ‪ ،‬تفاح‪،‬‬
‫إجاص إلخ‪).‬‬
‫‪ .22‬اربط الكلمات الجديدة مع مرادفاتها أو اضدادها‬
‫مثال‪)quick -slow( ،)quick -fast( :‬‬
‫‪ .23‬أرسم خريطة ذهنية للكلمة الجديدة‪:‬‬
‫دافئ‬ ‫مشمس‬
‫الجو‬
‫غائم‬ ‫ممطر‬
‫‪273‬‬
‫ماذا تفعل عندما تواجهك كلمة جديدة في اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬كيف دائما عادة احيانا نادرا ابدا‬
‫‪ .24‬استخدم ميزان الكلمات أو الصفات‪:‬‬
‫‪Freezing - cold - hot - boiling‬‬
‫‪ .25‬أستخدم طريقة الربط أي ان اربط الكلمات بقافية ليسهل‬
‫حفظها‪ ،‬مثال‪:‬‬
‫‪One is bun, two is a shoe, three is a tree, four is a‬‬
‫…‪door etc‬‬
‫‪ .26‬أستخدم طريقة المواضع أو األماكن‪ ،‬أي ان تربط الكلمات‬
‫التي تريد تعلمها باماكن في غرفة مألوفة لك ومن ثم تحاول‬
‫تذكرالكلمات من خالل تصور موقعها‬
‫‪ .27‬اجمع الكلمات مع بعضها البعض لكي أدرسها‬
‫‪ .28‬جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع معانيها في اللغة العربية في‬
‫صفحة واحدة‪ ،‬ولكن ليس في شكل أعمدة‪ ،‬كأن تكتب على سبيل‬
‫المثال الترجمة في أسفل الصفحة بشكل قطري الخ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .29‬استخدم الكلمة الجديدة في جمل ليسهل تعلمها‬
‫‪ .30‬اجمع الكلمات مع بعضها البعض ضمن قصة أو كقصة‬
‫‪ .31‬ادرس احرف الكلمة الجديدة و اتهجؤها‬
‫‪ .32‬ادرس صوت الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .33‬أقول الكلمات الجديدة بصوت عالي عند دراستها‬
‫‪ .34‬أحاول تخيل شكل الكلمة‬
‫‪ .35‬اضع خط تحت الحرف األول من الكلمة‬
‫‪ .36‬أضع خطوط فوق وتحت الكلمة لسهل تذكرها‬
‫‪ .37‬استخدم (‪ )Keyword Method‬مثال‪ :‬ان تربط كلمة‬
‫‪ symbol‬بصورة سُنبلة في اللغة العربية‬
‫‪ .38‬ادرس لواحق الكلمة وجذورها ليسهل تذكرها‬
‫‪ .39‬احلل أجزاء الكالم ليسهل تذكر الكلمات الجديدة‬
‫‪ .40‬أقوم بإعادة صياغة معنى الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .41‬اصنف الكلمات الجديدة في مجموعات حسب الموضوع‪،‬‬
‫الفكرة أو الوظيفة‬
‫ً‬ ‫ً‬
‫‪ .42‬تعلم كلمات المصطلحات معا كما لو أنها كلمة واحدة ً مثال‪:‬‬
‫!‪What a shame‬‬
‫‪ .43‬أقوم بحركات أو إيماءات عند تعلم المفردات الجديدة‬
‫‪ .44‬استخدم استراتيجية جدول خصائص الكلمات‪ ،‬كأن‬
‫تكتب في أعمدة الحشرات التي لها ‪ 6‬أرجل =‬
‫النحل‪/‬النمل‪/‬الدبابير‪ .‬لها اجنحة = النحل‪/‬الدبابير‪ .‬تلسع =‬
‫النحل‪/‬الدبابير‬
‫‪ .45‬اكرر الكلمة الجديدة عدة مرات شفهيا ً‬
‫‪ .46‬اكتب الكلمة الجديدة عدة مرات ليسهل تذكرها‬
‫‪ .47‬استخدم قائمة الكلمات‬
‫‪ .48‬استخدم بطاقات العرض السريع )‪(flash cards‬‬
‫‪274‬‬
‫ماذا تفعل عندما تواجهك كلمة جديدة في اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬دائما عادة احيانا نادرا مطلقا‬
‫كيف تتعلمها؟‬
‫‪ .49‬أقوم بأخذ مالحظات في الفصل‬
‫‪ .50‬استخدم باب المفردات الموجود في نهاية الكتاب‬
‫المدرسي‬
‫‪ .51‬استمع الى قائمة المفردات المسجلة على شريط‬
‫التسجيل‬
‫‪ .52‬اضع التسميات اإلنجليزية في شكل حركات أو‬
‫ايماءات جسدية‬
‫‪ .53‬احتفظ بدفتر مالحظات خاص بالمفردات الجديدة‬
‫‪ .54‬استمع لوسائل االعالم الناطقة باللغة اإلنجليزية مثل‪:‬‬
‫األغاني‪ ،‬األفالم نشرات االخبار‪ ،‬الخ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .55‬امتحن نفسي باستخدام اختبار الكلمات‬
‫‪ .56‬ادرس الكلمات الجديدة على فترات خالل اليوم‬
‫‪ .57‬أحاول تجاهل أو تخطي الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫‪ .58‬استمر في دراسة الكلمة الجديدة مع مرور الوقت‬
‫شكرا جزيال لتعاونكم‬
‫‪275‬‬
8.6 Appendix 6: Observation sheet
Teacher: _______________________ Observer: _________________________University:
_______________________Class/level: _________ Lesson observed _________________ No. of students:
_____________ Date: ______________ Start: _______________ Finish: ____________
Type of vocabulary learning strategies Group Observed Not observed Comments

1. Determination
• Analysing affixes and roots

Discovery
• Guess meaning from textual context
Discovery
• Use a dictionary (bilingual or
monolingual) Discovery
• Analysing part of speech Discovery
• Check for L1 cognate Discovery
• Word lists Discovery
• Flash cards Discovery
Notes
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
276
Type of vocabulary learning Group observed Not Comment
strategies observed
2. Social
• Ask teacher for an L1 Discovery

translation
• Ask teachers for paraphrase or Discovery
synonyms of new word
• Ask teachers for sentence Discovery
including the new word
• Ask classmates for meaning Discovery
• Discover new meaning through Discovery
group work activity
• Study and practise meaning in Consolidation
a group
3. Metacognitive
• Use spaced word practise Consolidation
• Skip or pass new word Consolidation
• Use English language media Consolidation
(songs, movies, newscasts
etc…)
Notes:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
277
Type of vocabulary learning Group observed Not Comment
strategies observed
4. Cognitive
• Verbal repetition Consolidation
• Written repetition Consolidation
• Word lists Consolidation
• Take notes Consolidation
• Use vocabulary section in their Consolidation

textbook
• Listen to tape of word lists Consolidation
• Put English labels on physical Consolidation

objects
• Keep a vocabulary notebook Consolidation
Notes:
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
278
Type of vocabulary learning Group Observed Not Comment
strategies observed
5. Memory
• Image word’s meaning Consolidation

• Associate the word with its Consolidation
coordinates
• Connect the word to its synonyms Consolidation
and antonyms
• Use semantic maps Consolidation
• Use ‘scales’ for gradable adjectives Consolidation
• Group words together to study Consolidation

them
• Use new words in sentences Consolidation
• Study the spelling of a word Consolidation
• Study the sound of a word Consolidation
• Say new aloud when studying Consolidation
Notes:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
279
8.7 Appendix 7: Teachers’ interview questions
Hello, I am a PhD student at Manchester Metropolitan University, Faculty of

Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences. The purpose of the interview is
to explore the impact of vocabulary-learning strategy instruction on Libyan EFL
teachers and learners. You are not obligated to mention your name and the
information collected in the interview will be only used for this research. All the
participants’ details will be secret and confidential.
Institution: ________________ Time: __________ Date: __________
- Can you please tell me something about yourself? (e.g., your name, age
and qualifications)
1. How long have you been teaching English? During your personal
experience in the teaching field, do you find vocabulary useful? If yes,
why? If no, why not?
2. How do you normally teach vocabulary? Do you have a particular method
for you to teach in the class? What difficulties do you face in teaching
vocabulary?
3. What do you think of vocabulary learning strategies? Are they easy to
use/teach? How important are they (e.g., useful, not useful)? Should they
be taught? If yes, why? If no, why not?
4. Which strategies do you think can help your students to memorise
vocabulary?
5. Do you think training on Vocabulary Learning Strategies would make your
students more aware of vocabulary learning? If yes, in what way? If no,
why not?
6. How do you feel about the idea of conducting Vocabulary Learning
Strategies training? (e.g. good, bad idea?)
7. What would you like to see in vocabulary teaching in the future?
8. Here is your questionnaire; would you like to comment on?
THANK YOU
280
8.8 Appendix 8: Students’ interview questions
Hello, I am a PhD student at Manchester Metropolitan University, Faculty of

Humanities, languages and social sciences. The purpose of the interview is to
explore the vocabulary learning strategies among Libyan EFL learners. You
are not obligated to mention your name and the information collected in the
interview will be only used for this research. All the participants’ details will be
secret and confidential.
Institution: ________________Time: __________Date: _____________

This is “a mother’s letter to her son” could you please have a look on it?
My dear J,
I am in a well here and hoping you are also in a well there. I am writing this
letter slowly because I know you cannot read fast.
We changed our house. It is really nice. It even has a washing machine

situated right above the toilet. I am not sure it works too well. Last week I put
in three shirts, pulled the chain and not seen them still.
The weather here is not bad. It rained twice last week. The first time it rained
for three days and second time four days.
The coat you wanted me to send you, your aunt said it would be too heavy to
send in the mail with all the metal buttons. So we cut them off and put them in
the pocket.
Your father has another job. He has five hundred men under him. He is cutting
the grass at the cemetery.
Your sister had a baby, this morning, I have not found out whether it is a girl
or boy, so I do not know whether you are aunt or uncle.
Your uncle, fell in the nearby well. Some men tried to pull him out, but he
fought them off bravely and drowned. We cremated him and he burned for
three days.
There is not much more news. This time nothing much has happened.
With love
Mom.
281
1. OK now, what do you think about the letter? Is it clear to
understand? Are there any difficult words that you do not
understand? If yes, what did you do to figure out their meaning?
2. How do you normally study vocabulary?
3. What do you know about the so-called vocabulary-learning

strategies?
4. When you read, for example a book or a text, and come across a
word that you do not know, what do you do? Do you ever do things
like figuring out the word by looking at its structure (noun, verb) or
something like that?
5. How do you feel about the idea of training in vocabulary learning

strategies? (e.g. good, bad idea?)
6. Would you be receptive to being taught vocabulary-learning

strategies in your classroom?
7. Finally, here is your questionnaire; would you like to comment on?
THANK YOU
282
‫‪8.9‬‬ ‫‪Appendix 9: Students’ interview questions (Arabic‬‬
‫)‪version‬‬
‫أسئلة المقابلة (للطلبة)‬
‫مرحبا‪ ،‬أنا طالبة دكتوراه في جامعة مانشستر متروبوليتان‪ ،‬كلية اللغات والعلوم اإلنسانية واالجتماعية‪ .‬الغرض‬
‫من المقابلة هو استكشاف استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات بين الطالب الليبيين (قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية)‪ .‬لست ملزما ُ‬
‫أن تذكر اسمك والمعلومات التي سيتم جمعها في هذه المقابلة ستُستخدم فقط لغرض الدراسة‪ .‬كل البيانات التي‬
‫ستدلون بها ستُحفظ بسرية تامة‪.‬‬
‫الجامعة‪_______________ :‬التاريخ‪ __________ :‬الوقت‪______________ :‬‬
‫‪ .1‬حسناً‪ ،‬ما رأيك ف ي الرسالة؟ هل هي واضحة وسهلة الفهم؟ هل هناك أي كلمات صعبة لم تفهم معناها؟ إذا‬
‫كان الجواب بنعم‪ ،‬ماذا فعلت لتفهم معنى الكلمات الصعبة؟‬
‫‪ .2‬عادةً‪ ،‬كيف ُ‬
‫تدرس أو تتعلم مفردات اللغة اإلنجليزية؟‬
‫‪ .3‬ماذا تفعل في الفصل لتساعد نفسك في تعلم الكلمة الجديدة؟ ماهي االستراتيجيات أو اإلجراءات التي‬
‫تستخدمها؟‬
‫‪ .4‬ماذا تفعل عندما تقرأ على سبيل المثال كتاب أو نص وتصادف كلمة ال تعرف معناها؟ هل سبق لك أن قمت‬
‫بأشياء مثل معرفة معناها من خالل النظر في هيكليتها (اسم‪ ،‬فعل) أو شيء من هذا القبيل؟‬
‫‪ .5‬ما رأيك في فكرة إجراء دورة تدريبية في استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات؟ هل هي فكرة جيدة‪/‬سيئة إلخ؟‬
‫‪ .6‬هل ترغب في أن تُدرس هذه االستراتيجيات داخل الفصل؟‬
‫‪ .7‬اخيراً‪ ،‬هل لديك أي تعليق على أسئلة االستبيان؟‬
‫شكرا جزيال‬
‫‪283‬‬
8.10 Appendix 10: A letter of permission
A LETTER OF PERMISSION
To whom it may concern
I am the Head of the English Department of
____________________________________, University of Al-Jabil Al-
Gharbi. I give my permission to the researcher, Warda Rashed to gain
access to the English department lecturers and students.
I understand that the researcher access to the department is contributing to
the educational research. I also understand that the identity of the
participants will be anonymous and kept confidential.
Head of English Department

Name____________________________________________________
Signature __________________________________________________
Date ______________________________________________________
284
285
‫‪8.11 Appendix 11: A letter of permission‬‬
‫)‪(Arabic version‬‬
‫)‬ ‫تصريح‬ ‫(‬
‫إلى من يهمهُ األمر‪...‬‬
‫أنا رئيس قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية ________________________ بجامعة الجبل العربي‪ ،‬أسمح للباحثة‪:‬‬
‫وردة راشد ب ُحرية التواصل مع المحاضرين وطالب قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‪ .‬وأنا اتفهم بأن هذا التواصل هو عبارة‬
‫عن مساهمة في البحوث التربوية‪ ،‬وأن هوية المشاركين لن تُذكر حفاظا ً على سريتها‪.‬‬
‫رئيس قسم اللغة اإلنجليزية‬
‫االسم‪________________________________ :‬‬
‫التوقيع‪_______________________________ :‬‬
‫التاريخ‪_______________________________ :‬‬
‫‪286‬‬
8.12 Appendix 12: Information sheet
INFORMATION SHEET
I am currently doing a research in the effect of training in vocabulary-learning

strategies (VLSs) on Libyan EFL learners as a part of my PhD study at
Manchester Metropolitan University in the United Kingdom. The primary aim
of my research is to empower language learners with flexible ways or
techniques to facilitate their recall of learned words. This study will go through
running a training course of 12 weeks on vocabulary learning-strategies’
usage. During this course, students will be encouraged to discover and utilise
different VLSs that fit their learning. To provide access to things that cannot
be directly observed about the perceived effectiveness and ineffectiveness of
the designed course such as comments and attitudes, interviews will be also
carried out.
The lecturers who are participating in this study are going to teach the
designed model and encourage students to gain better understanding of
strategy use. The participants’ interview usually lasts between 25-35 minutes
for each one, and it is on a one-to-one basis. The interview timing will be held
before and at the end of the course. The interview should be at a time when it
is appropriate for the students and lecturers, and it does not disrupt their
ordinary class work. Finally, be assured of the following:
1) The gathered data will not be stored on shared drives, unless password
protected and backup data stores will be kept securely in a locked
cabinet.
2) Only the data that is necessary for the purposes of the research will be
collected. Personal names will only be kept in order that participants can
be tracked otherwise, all data will be anonymised and a ‘number’ or a
‘code’ will be used instead.
3) The data will be destroyed on completion of the research, and once the
thesis has been through the award process (or registration for award at
MMU is withdrawn).
Thank you.
287
8.13 Appendix 13: Consent form for participants
Consent form for participants in research projects
Title of Project
A study to examine the impact of teaching Vocabulary Learning Strategies

among Libyan EFL learners and the influence it casts on the students’ use of
those strategies
Name of researcher: Warda Ali Salem Rashed
Department: Languages, Information and Communications
Participant (volunteer)
Please read this and if you are happy to proceed, sign below.
The researcher has given me my own copy of the information sheet, which I
have read and understood. The information sheet explains the nature of the
research and what I would be asked to do as a participant. I understand that
the confidentiality of the information I provide will be safeguarded unless
subject to any legal requirements, and that the data will be stored securely.
The researcher has discussed the contents of the information sheet with me
and given me the opportunity to ask questions about it.
I agree to take part as a participant in this research and I understand that I

am free to withdraw at any time without giving any reason, and without
detriment to myself. I understand that I will not be paid for taking part in this
research.
Signed: __________________________________________
Print name: ____________________________________
Date: ____________________________________________
Researcher
I, the researcher, confirm that I have discussed with the participant the
contents of the information sheet.
Signed: ____________________________________
Date: _______________________________________
288
‫‪8.14 Appendix 14: Consent form for participants (Arabic‬‬
‫)‪version‬‬
‫استمارة موافقة المشاركين في المشاريع البحثية‬

‫عنوان المشروع‪:‬‬
‫دراسة أثر تدريس استراتيجيات تعلم المفردات بين الطلبة الليبيين (الدارسين للغة اإلنجليزية كلغة اجنبية) والنفوذ‬
‫الذي يضفيه على استخدام الطلبة لتللك االستراتيجيات‪.‬‬
‫اسم الباحثة‪ :‬وردة علي سالم راشد‬

‫القسم‪ :‬اللغات والمعلومات واالتصاالت‬
‫المشارك‪( :‬المتطوع)‬
‫يرجى قراءة هذا‪ ،‬وإن كنت سعيدا في المضي قُدماَ‪ ،‬وقع أدناه‪:‬‬
‫لقد اعطتني الباحثة ورقة المعلومات الخاصة بي ولقد قراءتها وفهمتها‪ .‬في ورقة المعلومات شرح لطبيعة البحث‬
‫وما قد يُطلب مني القيام به كمشارك‪ .‬أنا أفهم أن سرية المعلومات التي سأقدمها سيتم الحفاظ عليها ما لم تخضع‬
‫ألية شروط قانونية‪ ،‬وأن البيانات ستُخزن بشكل آمن‪ .‬وقد ناقشت الباحثة محتويات ورقة المعلومات معي‬
‫وسمحت لي بطرح األسئلة حول هذا الموضوع‪.‬‬
‫أنا أوافق على المشاركة في هذا البحث وأعلم أني حر في االنسحاب في أي وقت دون إبداء أي سبب‪ ،‬ودون‬
‫حساب لنفسي وأنه لن يُدفع لي للمشاركة في هذا البحث‪.‬‬
‫التوقيع‪___________________________ :‬‬
‫االسم‪____________________________ :‬‬
‫التاريخ‪_________________________ :‬‬
‫الباحثة‪:‬‬
‫أنا‪ ،‬الباحثة‪ ،‬أُقر بأنني قد ناقشتُ مع المشاركين محتويات ورقة المعلومات‪.‬‬
‫التوقيع‪__________________________ :‬‬
‫التاريخ‪_________________________ :‬‬
‫‪289‬‬
8.15 Appendix 15: End of course evaluation form
a) Before the training programme:

1. How much did you know about vocabulary learning strategies?
i. Not at all
ii. A little
iii. Somewhat
iv. A lot
2. How aware were you of your own vocabulary learning strategies?
i. Not at all
ii. A little
iii. Somewhat
iv. A lot
b) During the training programme:

1. What have you learned so far in the training programme?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
2. What difficulties have you faced while applying the strategies
taught?
……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
c) Now:
1. How aware were you of your own vocabulary learning strategies?
i. Not at all
ii. A little
iii. Somewhat
iv. A lot
2. What did you most like about the training programme?

……………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
➢ Please tick the appropriate answer

a) Occupation:
Teacher  student 
b) Class level:
Year 1  year 2 
c) Institution:
Tiji  Badr 
290
8.16 Appendix 16: VLSs most and least promoted by
teachers (S1)
Table 1: VLSs most and least promoted by teachers (S1)

Strategies Strategy M
group
Item 5: guessing from textual context Determination 3.8
Item 1: analysing part of speech Determination 3.6
Item 8: using L1 translation Social 3.5
Item 10: giving sentences include the new word Social 3.3
Item 32: writing new words in vocabulary notebook Cognitive
Item 29: using the vocabulary section in the textbook 3.2
Item 9: paraphrasing the new words or giving synonyms Social 3.1
Item 14: looking at the accompanying pictures Social
Item 21: using new words in sentences Memory
Item 2: analysing affixes and roots Determination 3.0
Item 7: using word lists Determination
Item 17: associating with synonyms or antonymous Memory
Item 18: using semantic maps Memory
Item 27: taking notes in class Cognitive
Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures Determination 2.8
Item 28: skipping or ignoring the unknown word Metacognitive
Item 12: discovering meaning through group work activity Social 2.7
Item 16: associating the word with its coordinates Memory
Item 35: paraphrasing the words’ meaning Metacognitive
Item 6: using dictionaries Determination 2.6
Item 24: repeating a word aloud, in mind or by spelling it Memory
Item 25: imagining the written form of a word Memory
Item 36: learning words of an expression together as one Memory
word Metacognitive
Item 31: continuing to study word over time
Item 15: connecting the word to a personal experience Memory
Item 19: using scales for gradable adjectives Memory 2.5
Item 23: acting out or miming the new word Cognitive
Item 30: using English language media Metacognitive
Item 22: writing a word repeatedly Memory 2.4
Item 3: checking for L1 cognate Determination
Item 20: placing words in a group based on topic, theme Memory
Item 26: taping or listening to tapes of new words Cognitive
Item 34: grouping words together spatially on a page Metacognitive 2.3
Item 37: underlining initial letter of the word Metacognitive
Item 38: configuration Memory
Item 13: drawing a picture of the new word Memory 1.8
Item 33: using the keyword method Memory 1.6
291
8.17 Appendix 17: VLSs most and least used by students
(S1)
Table 2: VLSs most and least used by students (S1)
Strategies Strategy M
group
Item 6: using dictionaries Determination 4.1
Item 24: repeating a word aloud, in mind or by spelling it Memory 3.7
Item 1: analysing part of speech Determination 3.6
Item 5: guessing from textual context Determination
Item 22: writing a word repeatedly Memory 3.5
Item 2: analysing affixes and roots Determination 3.4
Item 8: using L1 translation Social
Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures Determination 3.2
Item 27: taking notes in class Cognitive
Item 28: skipping or ignoring the unknown word Metacognitive 3.0
Item 29: using the vocabulary section in the textbook Cognitive
Item 32: writing new words in vocabulary notebook Cognitive
Item 35: paraphrasing the words’ meaning Memory
Item 17: associating with synonyms or antonymous Memory 2.9
Item 3: checking for L1 cognate Determination 2.8
Item 7: using word lists Determination
Item 9: paraphrasing the new words or giving synonyms Social
Item 10: giving sentences include the new word Social
Item 11: asking classmates for meaning Social
Item 14: looking at the accompanying pictures Memory
Item 15: connecting the word to a personal experience Memory
Item 36: learning words of an expression together as one word Memory
Item 16: associating the word with its coordinates Memory 2.7
Item 21: using new words in sentences Memory
Item 25: imagining the written form of a word Memory
Item 31: continuing to study word over time Metacognitive
Item 19: using scales for gradable adjectives Memory 2.6
Item 30: using English language media Metacognitive
Item 37: underlining initial letter of the word Memory
Item 18: using semantic maps Memory
Item 33: using the keyword method Memory 2.5
Item 38: configuration Memory
Item 13: drawing a picture of the new word Memory 2.4
Item 23: acting out or miming the new word Cognitive
Item 12: discovering meaning through group work activity Memory 2.3
Item 26: taping or listening to tapes of new words Cognitive
Item 34: grouping words together spatially on a page Memory 2.1
Item 20: placing words in a group based on topic, theme, etc. Memory 1.8
292
8.18 Appendix 18: Study 3’s VLSs questionnaire
Dear participant…
This questionnaire is an attempt to gather information concerning how you
learn / teach English words. Please do not neglect any questions and tick (✓)
the appropriate answer for you in both questions of each statement: one on
how often you use the particular strategy and the other on to what extent you
find it helpful. Your answers are highly valued and your co-operation genuinely
appreciated. The data collected will be kept strictly confidential and will only
be used to serve this particular research. If you are interested in the results of
this survey, please do not hesitate to leave your e-mail address and a copy of
the results will be sent to you afterwards.
• Background Information
a. Gender: Male Female
b. Occupation: Teacher Student
Note: If you are interested in the results, please leave your mail :
_______________________
293
question)
How frequently do To what extent

you use the strategy? is it useful?
Very useful
Sometimes
Not useful
Not sure
Always
Rarely
Useful
Never
Often
The strategy
1. Analysing part of speech (e.g.

noun, verb).
2. Analysing affixes and roots (e.g.
un-predict-able).
‫تحليل لواحق الكلمة وجذورها‬
3. Checking for L1 cognate (e.g.
Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra-‫)الجبر‬.
‫التحقق من شبيه أو مثيل الكلمة الجديدة في اللغة العربية‬
4. Analysing any available pictures or
gestures
‫ كالصور المرفقة مع‬،‫تحليل الصور واإليماءات المتاحة‬
‫الدرس أو إشارات المعلم‬
‫التخمين من خالل سياق النص المقروء أو المكتوب‬
6. Using a dictionary
‫استخدام القاموس‬
7. Using word lists
‫استخدام قوائم الكلمات‬
8. L1 (Arabic) translation
‫الترجمة للغة العربية‬
9. Paraphrasing the new words or
giving synonyms
‫إعادة صياغة الكلمة أو إعطاء مرادفها‬
10. Giving sentences include the new
word
‫إعطاء جملة تتضمن الكلمة الجديدة‬
11. Discovering the meaning through
group work activity
‫اكتشاف المعنى من خالل النشاط الجماعي‬
12. Associating the word with its
coordinates (e.g. apple, pears,
peaches)
‫ خوخ‬،‫ كمثرى‬،‫ تفاح‬:‫جمع الكلمة مع مثيالتها مثال‬
13. Using flash cards.
294
you use the strategy? is it useful?
Very useful
Sometimes
Not useful
Not sure
Always
Rarely
Useful
Never
Often
The strategy
14. Associating new words with their

synonyms or antonymous (e.g.
quick – fast), (quick – slow)
‫جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع مرادفاتها أو أضدادها‬
15. Using the keyword method (e.g., to
connect the word symbol to the
picture of ‫ سُنبلة‬in Arabic)
symbol ‫ ربط كلمة‬:‫ مثال‬Keyword ‫استخدام طريقة‬
‫سنبلة في اللغة العربية‬
ُ ‫بكلمة وصورة‬
16. Repeating a word (i.e. aloud, in
mind, by spelling it)
)‫ بتهجئتها‬، ‫ في الذهن‬، ‫تكرار الكلمة (بصوت عا ٍل‬
17. Using scales for gradable
adjectives (e.g. freezing, cold, hot,
boiling)
،‫ ساخن‬،‫ يغلي‬:‫استخدام جداول الصفات المتغيرة مثال‬
‫ متجمد‬،‫بارد‬
18. Writing a word repeatedly.
‫كتابة الكلمة عدة مرات‬
19. Using semantic maps
sunny  Weather  rainy

warm   cloudy
‫استخدام الخرائط الذهنية أو الداللية‬
20. Placing the word in a group with
other items based on topic, theme
or function
‫ الفكرة أو‬،‫وضع الكلمات في مجموعة حسب الموضوع‬
‫الوظيفة‬
21. Imagining the written form of a word
to remember it.
‫تخيل الشكل الكتابي للكلمة ليسهل تذكرها‬
22. Taking notes in class
‫اخذ مالحظات في الفصل‬
295
you use the is it useful?
strategy?
Very useful
Sometimes
Not useful
Not sure
Always
Rarely
Useful
Never
Often
The strategy
23. Grouping words together

spatially on a page
‫جمع الكلمات الجديدة مع معانيها في اللغة العربية‬
،‫ ولكن ليس في شكل أعمدة‬،‫في صفحة واحدة‬
‫كأن تكتب على سبيل المثال الترجمة في أسفل‬
‫الصفحة بشكل قطري‬
24. Learning words of an expression
together as if they were just one
word (e.g. What a shame!)
‫تعلم مفردات المصطلحات مع بعض كما لو أنها‬
‫كلمة واحدة‬
25. Writing new words in vocabulary
notebook
‫كتابة الكلمات الجديدة في دفتر المفردات‬
26. Acting out or miming the new
word
‫القيام بحركات جسدية لتمثيل الكلمة الجديدة‬
296
8.19 Appendix 19: A sample of handouts distributed in S3
Sample handout – session four: The strategy of checking for L1

cognates
❖ What is it?
Cognates are words that have the same pronunciation, meaning, and
sometimes spellings across two languages.
❖ Examples:
English word Arabic cognate
Sugar (sukkar) ‫سكر‬
Cotton (Qutn)‫قطن‬
Lemon (Laymuun)‫ليمون‬
Mummy (Mumiya) ‫موميا‬
Alcohol (Al-Kuhul)‫الكحول‬
Ghoul (Ghul)‫غول‬
Henna (hinna) ‫حناء‬
Tuna (Al-tunn)‫التّن‬
Garble (Gharbal)‫غربال‬
Hummus (Himmas)‫ح ّمص‬
❖ Practice:
In pairs, find other Arabic English cognates.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
297
8.20 Appendix 20: A sample of training sessions conducted
in S3
Sample session – session one:
I started the session by distributing the pre-VLS questionnaire in order to

identify the participants’ perceived usefulness and frequency of VLS use
before the training program began. The distribution of the questionnaire was
also to raise the teachers’ awareness about the introduced topic. I asked the
participants to complete the questionnaire and return it before starting the
lesson.
Asking questions was a way to raise the participants’ awareness and engage
them. I asked the participants to imagine there is a small cat stuck up high in
a tree and they want to help it, and asked which strategies they would use to
do so. The participants suggested several ideas such as climbing the tree,
getting some food and encouraging the cat to come down, and calling the fire
department, or local animal officer. Having discussed all these options, I wrote
the word ‘strategies’ on the board and asked the teachers for other situations
where they might come across this word during their daily life. The answers
provided were various such as, amongst others, military, language learning,
and playing games such as football. With language learning, the participants
were asked to explain more and give examples. Most of the examples
provided related to word formation, paraphrasing, and association. Based on
the discussions raised, I asked the teachers to define language learning
strategies. Some hints were provided to assist them to build their own
definition of learning strategies, and vocabulary learning strategies in
particular. During the discussion, the teachers’ opinions about the importance
of vocabulary learning strategies were elicited. They all came to the conclusion
that the use of VLSs were undeniably efficient for both language learning and
teaching.
Following this, I distributed handouts that included descriptions of VLSs and

the taxonomy that was going to be introduced in the upcoming sessions. Once
298
the handouts were explained and discussed, the participants were
encouraged to come up with their own examples for the different methods that
might help students better learn the vocabulary. The teachers’ lesson plans
and the possibility of including at least two to three learning strategies pre-
week in their lesson plans and integrating them in their classrooms were also
considered, which will be all dealt with in the upcoming sessions.
299
8.21 Appendix 21: Experimental groups’ results to VLSQ1 in
frequency of use/promotion of VLSs
Table 3: Experimental groups’ discovery strategies use [VLSQ1]

Frequency of use (1-5)
Discovery Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never M SD
strategies F % F % F % F % F %
1. Analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb)
Teacher 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.5 1.29
Students 5 10.9 9 19.6 14 30.4 12 26.1 6 13.0 2.8 1.19
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.81
Students 7 15.2 7 15.2 11 23.9 17 37.0 4 8.7 2.9 1.22
3. Checking for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra- ‫)الجبر‬
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 2 4.3 6 13.0 10 21.7 15 32.6 13 28.3 2.3 1.15
Teachers 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.0 0.81
Students 11 23.9 8 17.4 12 26.1 9 19.6 6 13.0 3.1 1.36
Teacher 3 75.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.5 1.00
Students 14 30.4 10 21.7 11 23.9 8 17.4 3 6.5 3.5 1.27
6. Using dictionaries
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 17 37.0 13 28.3 9 19.6 7 15.2 0 0.0 3.8 1.08
7. Using wordlists
Teachers 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4.2 0.95
Students 10 21.7 8 17.4 6 13.0 17 37.0 5 10.9 3.0 1.37
8. Using L1 translation
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 16 34.8 12 26.1 5 10.9 9 19.6 4 8.7 3.5 1.37
Teachers 1 25.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.2 1.25
Students 6 13.0 8 17.4 9 19.6 20 43.5 3 6.5 2.8 1.18
10. Giving sentences include the new word
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.7 0.95
Students 1 2.2 7 15.2 11 23.9 22 47.8 5 10.9 2.5 0.96
13. Using flash cards
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 1.5 0.57
Students 0 0.0 8 17.4 7 15.2 14 30.4 17 37.0 2.1 1.10
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 3 6.5 6 13.0 17 37.0 12 26.1 8 17.4 2.6 1.11
300
Table 4: Experimental groups’ consolidation strategies use [VLSQ1]
Frequency of use (1-5)
Consolidation Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never M SD
strategies F % F % F % F % F %
11. Discovering the meaning through group work activity
Teacher 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 6 13.0 3 6.5 8 17.4 19 41.3 10 21.7 2.4 1.27
12. Associating the word with its coordinates (e.g. apple, pears, peaches)
Teachers 1 25.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.2 1.25
Students 7 15.2 9 19.6 10 21.7 15 32.6 5 10.9 2.9 1.26
14. Associating new words with their synonyms or antonyms (e.g. quick – fast)
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 5 10.9 10 21.7 13 28.3 10 21.7 8 17.4 2.8 1.25
15. Using the keyword method
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 1.5 0.57
Students 0 0.0 3 6.5 7 15.2 16 34.8 20 43.5 1.8 0.91
Teacher 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 2.2 1.50
Students 15 32.6 12 26.1 5 10.9 10 21.7 4 8.7 3.5 1.37
17. Using scales for gradable adjectives (e.g. freezing, cold, hot, boiling)
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.9 0.95
Students 2 4.3 8 17.4 16 34.8 13 28.3 7 15.2 2.6 1.07
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 1.2 0.50
Students 12 26.1 14 30.4 10 21.7 10 21.7 0 0.0 3.6 1.10
20. Placing new words in a group with other items based on topic or function etc.
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1.7 0.95
Students 2 4.3 2 4.3 13 28.3 19 41.3 10 21.7 2.2 1.00
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1.7 0.95
Students 9 19.6 11 23.9 15 32.6 8 17.4 3 6.5 3.3 1.17
22. Taking notes in class.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.5 1.29
Students 7 15.2 12 26.1 6 13.0 16 34.8 5 10.9 3.0 1.29
23. Grouping words together spatially on a page.
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 1.2 0.50
Students 2 4.3 6 13.0 10 21.7 18 39.1 10 21.7 2.3 1.10
24. Learning words of an expression together as if they were just one word.
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 8 17.4 9 19.6 11 23.9 13 28.3 5 10.9 3.0 1.28
25. Writing new words in vocabulary notebook.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.2 1.25
Students 4 8.7 10 21.7 10 21.7 15 32.6 7 15.2 2.7 1.21
26. Acting out or miming the new word.
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 3 6.5 9 19.6 16 34.8 12 26.1 6 13.0 2.8 1.10
301
8.22 Appendix 22: Experimental groups’ results to VLSQ1 in
perceived usefulness of VLSs
Table 5: Experimental groups’ perceived usefulness of discovery strategies

[VLSQ1]
Perceived usefulness (1-4)
Discovery strategies Very useful Useful Not sure Not useful M SD
F % F % F % F %
1. Analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb)
Teachers 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.81
Students 14 30.4 15 32.6 11 23.9 6 13.0 2.8 1.02
Teachers 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 10 21.7 21 45.7 14 30.4 1 2.2 2.8 0.77
3. Checking for L1 cognate (e.g. Alcohol- ‫الكحول‬, Algebra- ‫)الجبر‬
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 2.0 0.81
Students 13 28.3 19 41.3 12 26.1 2 4.3 2.8 0.85
Teachers 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.81
Students 9 19.6 16 34.8 13 28.3 8 17.4 2.5 1.00
Teachers 2 50.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.57
Students 17 37.0 11 23.9 15 32.6 3 6.5 2.9 0.98
6. Using dictionaries
Teachers 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.5 1.29
Students 22 47.8 18 39.1 6 13.0 0 0.0 3.3 0.70
7. Using word lists
Teachers 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 12 26.1 14 30.4 16 34.8 4 8.7 2.7 0.95
8. Using L1 translation
Teachers 1 25.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 2.0 1.41
Students 11 23.9 18 39.1 7 15.2 10 21.7 2.6 1.07
Teachers 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 1.5 0.57
Students 9 19.6 15 32.6 17 37.0 5 10.9 2.6 0.93
10. Giving sentences including the new word
Teachers 2 50.0 0 0.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 3.0 1.15
Students 12 26.1 20 43.5 10 21.7 4 8.7 2.8 0.90
13. Using flash cards
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2.2 0.50
Students 9 19.6 21 45.7 13 28.3 3 6.5 2.7 0.84
Teachers 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.2 1.50
Students 5 10.9 22 47.8 10 21.7 9 19.6 2.5 0.93
302
Table 6: Experimental groups’ perceived usefulness of consolidation
strategies [VLSQ1]
Perceived usefulness (1-4)
Consolidation strategies Very useful Useful Not sure Not useful M SD
F % F % F % F %
11. Discovering the meaning through group work activity.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2.2 0.50
Students 6 13.0 19 41.3 8 17.4 13 28.3 2.3 1.04
12. Associating the word with its coordinates (e.g. apple, pears, peaches)
Teachers 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.7 0.95
Students 15 32.6 12 26.1 12 26.1 7 15.2 2.7 1.07
14. Associating new words with their synonyms or antonyms (e.g. quick – fast)
Teachers 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.5 0.57
Students 17 37.0 19 41.3 10 21.7 0 0.0 3.1 0.75
15. Using the keyword method.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1.7 0.95
Students 8 17.4 13 28.3 15 32.6 10 21.7 2.4 1.02
Teachers 0 0.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.2 0.95
Students 18 39.1 12 26.1 11 23.9 5 10.9 2.9 1.04
17. Using scales for gradable adjectives (e.g. freezing, cold, hot, boiling)
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2.2 0.50
Students 8 17.4 14 30.4 13 28.3 11 23.9 2.4 1.04
Teachers 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 0 0.0 2.2 1.50
Students 12 26.1 21 45.7 11 23.9 2 4.3 2.9 0.82
20. Placing new words in a group with other items based on topic or function etc.
Teachers 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2.5 1.29
Students 10 21.7 10 21.7 12 26.1 14 30.4 2.3 1.13
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2.2 0.50
Students 7 15.2 16 34.8 12 26.1 11 23.9 2.4 1.02
22. Taking notes in class.
Teachers 2 50.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.2 0.95
Students 9 19.6 23 50.0 10 21.7 4 8.7 2.8 0.85
23. Grouping words together spatially on a page.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1.7 0.95
Students 2 4.3 15 32.6 15 32.6 14 30.4 2.1 0.90
24. Learning words of an expression together as if they were just one word.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2.2 0.50
Students 12 26.1 10 21.7 14 30.4 10 21.7 2.5 1.11
25. Writing new words in vocabulary notebook.
Teachers 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 3.0 0.81
Students 7 15.2 19 41.3 11 23.9 9 19.6 2.5 0.98
26. Acting out or miming the new word.
Teachers 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0 1.7 0.95
Students 10 21.7 23 50.0 2 4.3 11 23.9 2.6 1.07
303
8.23 Appendix 23: Students’ results in frequency of use
[VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and VLSQ3]
Table 7: Comparison of students’ results in frequency of use of VLSs

Type of questionnaire
Statement VLSQ 1 VLSQ 2 VLSQ 3
DVLS1 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.2 (1.35) 3.3 (1.39)
DVLS2 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.2 (1.21) 3.4 (1.24)
DVLS3 2.3 2.3 2.9 2.5 3.1 (1.18) 2.2 (1.18)
DVLS4 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 (1.47) 3.2 (1.30)
DVLS5 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.0 3.6 (1.22) 3.5 (1.15)
DVLS6 3.8 3.3 3.9 3.6 4.1 (0.92) 3.7 (1.21)
DVLS7 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.0 (1.26) 3.3 (1.36)
DVLS8 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.7 (1.16) 3.5 (1.37)
DVLS9 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.8 3.0 (1.07) 2.9 (1.50)
DVLS10 2.5 2.7 3.1 2.6 3.1 (1.35) 2.9 (1.34)
DVLS13 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.0 2.8 (1.41) 1.9 (0.96)
DVLS19 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.1 3.3 (1.16) 2.6 (1.20)
OVERALL 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.0
CVLS11 2.4 2.3 2.7 2.5 3.0 (1.27) 2.1 (1.24)
CVLS12 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.1 3.1 (1.27) 2.8 (1.19)
CVLS14 2.8 2.3 3.2 2.6 3.5 (1.07) 2.7 (1.27)
CVLS15 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 (0.95) 2.2 (0.98)
CVLS16 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.6 (1.18) 3.9 (0.99)
CVLS17 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.3 3.0 (1.21) 2.5 (1.34)
CVLS18 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.4 (1.25) 3.8 (0.99)
CVLS20 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 2.0 (0.73) 2.0 (0.99)
CVLS21 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.4 (1.13) 3.2 (1.61)
CVLS22 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.4 3.6 (1.33) 3.5 (1.15)
CVLS23 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.0 (0.97) 2.4 (1.01)
CVLS24 3.0 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.0 (1.38) 3.0 (1.26)
CVLS25 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.3 (1.28) 2.8 (1.33)
CVLS26 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.9 (1.45) 2.9 (1.45)
OVERALL 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.8
304
8.24 Appendix 24: Students’ results in perceived usefulness
[VLSQ1, VLSQ2, and VLSQ3]
Table 8: Comparison of students’ results in perceived usefulness of VLSs

Type of questionnaire
Statement VLSQ1 VLSQ 2 VLSQ3
DVLS1 2.8 2.7 3.6 2.9 3.8 (0.48) 3.1 (0.99)
DVLS2 2.8 2.9 3.3 2.7 3.5 (0.72) 3.0 (1.07)
DVLS3 2.8 2.8 3.5 2.6 3.7 (0.55) 3.0 (0.98)
DVLS4 2.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.4 (0.72) 3.3 (0.92)
DVLS5 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.7 (0.57) 3.5 (0.86)
DVLS6 3.3 3.4 3.8 3.7 3.9 (0.25) 3.6 (0.57)
DVLS7 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.4 3.1 (0.88) 3.2 (1.03)
DVLS8 2.6 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.2 (0.79) 3.4 (0.88)
DVLS9 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.3 (0.89) 3.1 (0.99)
DVLS10 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.7 3.5 (1.42) 2.9 (1.02)
DVLS13 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.7 (1.35) 2.9 (0.93)
DVLS19 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.9 3.3 (0.92) 3.1 (1.07)
OVERALL 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.2
CVLS11 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.5 3.0 (0.99) 2.7 (1.09)
CVLS12 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.7 3.3 (0.69) 2.9 (1.10)
CVLS14 3.1 2.5 3.3 2.8 4.0 (0.21) 3.3 (0.83)
CVLS15 2.4 2.1 2.9 2.4 3.0 (0.93) 2.2 (1.04)
CVLS16 2.9 3.4 3.0 3.6 3.8 (1.19) 3.3 (0.82)
CVLS17 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.4 2.7 (1.02) 2.6 (1.05)
CVLS18 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.7 (0.47) 3.7 (0.66)
CVLS20 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.0 2.9 (0.98) 1.9 (0.96)
CVLS21 2.4 2.5 3.1 2.7 3.3 (0.76) 3.0 (1.04)
CVLS22 2.8 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.5 (0.69) 3.6 (0.67)
CVLS23 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 (0.89) 2.0 (1.11)
CVLS24 2.5 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.5 (0.59) 3.5 (0.84)
CVLS25 2.5 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.3 (0.94) 3.4 (0.92)
CVLS26 2.6 2.3 3.1 2.5 3.0 (0.91) 3.1 (1.06)
OVERALL 2.5 2.5 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.0
305
8.25 Appendix 25: A sample of lesson plan
Session one: Introductory and awareness-raising (Time: 2hrs)
Session aims:
- Familiarise teachers with the notion of language learning strategies (LLSs)
and vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs).
- Raising teachers’ awareness of the importance of such strategies and their
role in the process of language teaching/learning.
Preparation:
- Distribute the VLSQ1 and ask teachers to complete it and return it before
starting the lesson.
- Start the session with some warm-up activities [e.g. me: imagine there is a
small kitty stuck up high in a tree and you want to help her get down. What
would you use in doing so?]. Discuss and write the answers on board.
- Writing the word ‘strategies’ on the board and asking teachers to think
about it. Where may they come across such a word?
- After the discussion, teachers work in pairs and are encouraged to come
up with their own definition of ‘strategies’ and ‘vocabulary learning
strategies’.
Presentation and practice:

- Before distributing handouts including definition terms and the taxonomy
of VLSs (i.e. Schmitt’s taxonomy), teachers work in pairs and write down
as many learning strategies as possible before discussing the answers
together.
- Explain VLSs and how they can facilitate students’ learning. Show that
there are strategies used for discovering the meaning of unknown words
and strategies for consolidating their meaning, and some strategies which
may be used for both. Where appropriate, think about the compatible
vocabulary teaching strategies of these strategies.
306
- Discuss the teachability of VLSs [Are they teachable and learnable?]
- Discuss teachers’ lesson plans followed, and introduce a sample lesson
plan to be used in the training programme and see what teachers think of
it.
A sample of lesson plan for strategy intervention

Teacher:
Level: Subject: Class size: 8 Date: Duration:
Session objectives:
Time: Session phase: Strategy/ies Materials

targeted
307
8.26 Appendix 26: A sample of checklist
❖ Please tick the applicable response
1. When I encounter a new word, I … Yes No

- Ask teacher for Arabic translation
- Ask classmates for a meaning
- Look it up in my dictionary
- Look it up in a wordlist
- Look it up in existing flash cards
- Guess its meaning
- See if there is an Arabic cognate (sugar-sukkar;
cotton-Qutn)
- See whether it is noun, verb, pronoun etc..
- Analyse its parts (affixes, roots, suffixes etc…)
- Analyse any available picture or gesture
- Repeat it verbally several times
- Write it down several times
- Ask teacher for a sentence includes the word
- Ask teacher for synonyms or antonymous
- Write it in my notebook
- Discover its meaning through group work
activities
- Associate the word with its coordinates
- Use semantic maps
- Ignore it.
308
‫)‪8.27 Appendix 27: A sample of checklist (Arabic version‬‬
‫ال‬ ‫نعم‬ ‫عندما تواجهني كلمة جديدة ‪...‬‬

‫أسأل األستاذ على معناها بالعربي‬
‫أسأل زمالئي على المعنى‬
‫ابحث عن معناها في القاموس‬
‫ابحث عن معناها في قائمة الكلمات‬
‫ابحث عن معناها في بطاقات العرض السريع الموجودة‬
‫اخمن معناها‬
‫انظر ما إذا كان لها مشابه في النطق والكتابة في اللغة‬
‫العربية‬
‫انظر ما إذا كانت اسم‪ ،‬فعل أو ضمير إلخ‪...‬‬
‫احلل اجزائها (لواحقها وجذورها إلخ‪)...‬‬
‫احلل االيماءات والصور المتوفرة‬
‫اكررها شفهيا ً عدة مرات‬
‫اكتبها عدة مرات‬
‫اطلب من األستاذ جملة تتضمن الكلمة الجديدة‬
‫اطلب من األستاذ مرادف الكلمة أو عكسها‬
‫اكتب الكلمة في دفتر مالحضاتي‬
‫أحاول اكتشاف معناها من خالل األنشطة الجماعية‬
‫أحاول جمع الكلمة مع نظائرها مثل‪ :‬تفاح‪ ،‬إجاص‪ ،‬خوخ إلخ‪...‬‬
‫استخدم الخرائط الذهنية‬
‫اتجاهلها‬
‫‪309‬‬
8.28 Appendix 28: VLSs most promoted/perceived
usefulness by EG teachers (Study 3)
Table 9: VLSs most promoted by EG teachers
Table 10: VLSs most perceived useful by EG teachers
Vocabulary learning strategy Type M
Vocabulary learning strategies Type M
Item 5: guessing from textual context DIS 4.5
Item 22: taking notes in class. CON 3.2
Item 7: using word lists DIS 4.2
Item 1: analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb) DIS
Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures DIS 4.0
Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures. DIS
Item 1: analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb) DIS 3.5
Item 5: guessing from textual context. DIS 3.0
Item 9: paraphrasing the new words DIS 3.2
Item 10: giving sentences including the new word. DIS
Item 11: associating the word with its coordinates CON
Item 25: writing new words in vocabulary notebook. CON
Item 2: analysing affixes and roots DIS 3.0
Item 12: associating the word with its coordinates. CON 2.7
Item 17: using scales for gradable adjectives CON 2.9
Item 6: using dictionaries DIS
Item 10: giving sentences including the new word DIS 2.7
Item 14: association. CON 2.5
Item 22: taking notes in class. CON 2.5
Item 20: grouping words based on topic or function etc. CON
Item 3: checking for l1 cognates. DIS
Item 2: analysing affixes and roots. DIS
Item 8: using l1 translation. DIS
Item 7: using word lists. DIS
Item 11: group work activity. CON 2.2
Item 13: using flash cards. DIS
Item 16: verbal repetition. CON
Item 19: using semantic maps. DIS
Item 25: writing new words in vocabulary notebook. CON
Item 11: associating the word with its coordinates. CON
Item 6: using dictionaries. DIS Item 16: verbal repetition. CON 2.2
Item 19: using semantic maps. DIS Item 17: using scales for gradable adjectives. CON
Item 14: association. CON 2.0 Item 18: written repetition. CON
Item 24: learning words of an expression together. CON Item 21: imagining the written form of a word. CON
Item 26: acting out or miming the new word. CON Item 24: learning words of an expression together. CON
Item 20: group words based on topic or function etc. CON 1.7 Item 3: checking for l1 cognates. DIS 2.0
Item 21: imagining the written form of a word. CON Item 8: using l1 translation. DIS
Item 13: using flash cards. DIS 1.5 Item 15: using the keyword method. CON
Item 15: using the keyword method. CON Item 23: grouping words together spatially. CON 1.7
Item 18: written repetition. CON 1.2 Item 26: acting out or miming the word meaning. CON
Item 23: grouping words together spatially. CON Item 9: paraphrasing the new words. DIS 1.5
310
8.29 Appendix 29: VLSs most used/perceived useful by EG students
Table 11: VLSs most used by EG students Table 12: VLSs most perceived useful by EG students
Vocabulary learning strategies Type M Vocabulary learning strategies Type M
Item 6: using dictionaries DIS 3.8 Item 6: using dictionaries. DIS 3.3
Item 18: written repetition. CON 3.6 Item 14: associating new words with their synonyms etc. CON 3.1
Item 5: guessing from textual context. DIS Item 5: guessing from textual context. DIS
Item 8: using l1 translation. DIS 3.5 Item 16: verbal repetition. CON 2.9
Item 16: verbal repetition. CON Item 19: written repetition. CON
Item 21: imagining the written form of a word. CON 3.3 Item 1: analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb) DIS
Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures. DIS 3.1 Item 2: analysing affixes and roots (e.g. Un-predict-able) DIS
Item 7: using word lists. DIS Item 3: checking for l1 cognates. DIS 2.8
Item 22: taking notes in class. CON 3.0 Item 10: giving sentences including the new word. DIS
Item 24: learning words of an expression together. CON Item 22: taking notes in class. CON
Item 2: analysing affixes and roots. DIS 2.9 Item 13: using flash cards. DIS
Item 12: associating the word with its coordinates. CON Item 12: associating the word with its coordinates. CON 2.7
Item 1: analysing parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb) DIS Item 7: using word lists. DIS
Item 9: paraphrasing the new words. CON 2.8 Item 8: using l1 translation. DIS
Item 14: association. CON Item 9: paraphrasing the new words. DIS 2.6
Item 26: acting out or miming the new word. CON Item 26: acting out or miming the new word. CON
Item 25: writing new words in vocabulary notebook. CON 2.7 Item 4: analysing any available pictures or gestures. DIS
Item 19: using semantic maps. DIS 2.6 Item 19: using semantic maps. DIS 2.5
Item 17: using scales for gradable adjectives. CON Item 24: learning words of an expression together. CON
Item 10: giving sentences including the new word. DIS 2.5 Item 25: writing new words in vocabulary notebook. CON
Item 11: group work activity. CON 2.4 Item 15: using keyword method. CON
Item 3: checking for l1 cognates. DIS 2.3 Item 17: using scales for gradable adjectives. CON 2.4
Item 23: grouping words together spatially. CON Item 21: imagining the written form of a word. CON
Item 20: group words based on topic or function etc. CON 2.2 Item 11: group work activity. CON 2.3
Item 13: using flash cards. DIS 2.1 Item 20: group words based on topic or function etc. CON
Item 15: using the keyword method. CON 1.8 Item 23: grouping words together spatially on a page. CON 2.1
311
REFERENCES
Abukhattala, I. (2016) The Use of Technology in Language Classrooms in

Libya. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6 (4) pp.
262-267.
Ahmed, M. O. (1988) Vocabulary Learning Strategies: A Case Study of

Sudanese Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis. Wales:
Bangor.
Akbari, Z. (2015) Key Vocabulary Learning Strategies in ESP and EGP Course
Books. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English
Literature, 4 (1) pp. 1-7.
Aktekin, N. Ç. and Güven, S. (2007) Raising learners’ and teachers’
awareness of vocabulary strategy learning. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 13 pp. 72.
Al-Ghamdi, H. M. (2012) The ‘Teachability’ of English Language Learning

Strategies: A Concise Review of Empirical and Theoretical Views.
Umm Al-Qura University Journal of Educational & Psychologic
Sciences, 4(2) pp. 10-43.
Alhaysony, M. (2012) Vocabulary discovery strategy used by Saudi EFL

students in an intensive English language learning context.
International journal of linguistics, 4(2) pp. 518-535.
Ali, M. A. A. (2008) The Oral Error Correction Techniques Used by Libyan

Secondary School Teachers of English. Ph.D. University of
Sunderland.
Aljdee, A. A. (2007) The vocabulary learning strategies of Libyan university

students of English and vocabulary knowledge. University of
Newcastle Upon Tyne.
Al-Khasawneh, F. M. and Huwari, I. F. (2014) The effect of metacognitive

strategies instruction on vocabulary learning among Jordanian
312
University students. International Journal of English Education, 3(3)
pp. 102-113.
Allen, V. F. (1983) Techniques in teaching vocabulary. New York: Oxford

University Press.
Al-Nammoura, M. (2011) The Impact of Using Vocabulary Learning Strategies

on Vocabulary Learning. M.A. Hebron University.
Alseweed, M. A. (2000) The effects of proficiency and training on the word-

solving strategies of Arab EFL readers. Dissertation/Thesis.
ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Al-Tabib, M. (1997) An Investigation to the Impact of Family Socio-Economic

Factors on Pupils’ Overall Academic Achievement. Unpublished MSc.
Dissertation. Tripoli: Al-Fateh University.
Amirian, S. M. R. and Heshmatifar, Z. (2013) A survey on vocabulary learning

strategies: A case of Iranian EFL university students. Journal of
Language Teaching and Research, 4(3) pp. 636-641.
Ángel, R. D. (2008) More and less trained learners in vocabulary learning

strategies: A comparison of product scores. Memorias des iv Foro
Nacional de Estudios en Lenuas (FONAEL).
Arjomand, M. and Sharififar, M. (2011) The most and least frequently used
vocabulary learning strategies among Iranian EFL freshman students
and its relationship to gender. Iranian EFL Journal, 7(1) pp. 90-100.
Asgari, A. and Mustapha, G. B. (2011) The Type of Vocabulary Learning

Strategies Used by ESL Students in University Putra Malaysia.
English language teaching, 4(2) pp. 84-90.
Avila, E. and Sadoski, M. (1996) Exploring New Applications of the Keyword

Method to Acquire English Vocabulary. Language Learning, 46(3) pp.
379-395.
Bastanfar, A. and Hashemi, T. (2010) Vocabulary learning strategies and ELT

material a study of the extent to which VLS research informs local
313
coursebooks in Iran. International Education Studies, 3(3) pp. 158-
166.
Bornay, N. (2011) Explicit strategy training in vocabulary learning for beginning

Spanish students. FULGOR: Finders University Language Group
Online Review, 4(3)
Brown, C., and Payne, M. E. (1994) Five essential steps of processes in

vocabulary learning. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention,
Baltimore, M. D.
Brown, D. (2010) Building on your book: Vocabulary activities to enhance your
textbook. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings.
Tokyo: JALT.
Brown, H. D. (2001) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. 2nd ed.: White Plains, N.Y: Pearson Education.
Brown, J. (2001) Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge University

Press.
Brown, J. D. (2016) Introducing needs analysis and English for specific
purposes. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY; Routledge.
Brown, T. S. and Perry Jr, F. L. (1991) A Comparison of Three Learning

Strategies for ESL Vocabulary Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4)
pp. 655-670.
Bunn V.J., Watling R.M., Ashby D. & Smyth R.L. (1998) Feasibility Study for a
Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Calorie Supplements in Children
with Cystic Fibrosis. Proceedings of 22nd European Cystic Fibrosis
Conference Berlin, 13–19 June 1998.
Bureau of Statistics and Census Libya. (2008) [Online] [Accessed on 25th

February 2014] http://bsc.ly/?P=5&sec_Id=18&dep_Id=6#29
Cameron, D. (2001) Working with spoken discourse. Sage.
Catalan, R. M. J. (2003) Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1) pp. 54-77.
314
Chamot, A. U. (2004) Issues in language learning strategy research and
teaching. Electronic journal of foreign language teaching, 1(1) pp. 14-
26.
Chamot, A. U. (2011) Preparing language teachers to teach learning

strategies. Foreign language teaching in Asia and beyond: Current
perspectives and future directions, 3 pp. 29.
Chamot, A. U. and Rubin, J. (1994) Comments on Janie Rees-Miller's "A

critical appraisal of learner training: theoretical bases and teaching
implications". TESOL Quarterly, 28 pp. 771.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, M. (1987) The cognitive academic language

learning approach: A Bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly,
21(2), pp. 227-250.
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E. and Ecclestone, K. (2004) Learning styles
and pedagogy in post-16 learning: A systematic and critical review.
Learning and Skills Research Centre London.
Cohen, A. D. (1990) Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and

Researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Cohen, A. D. (2014) Strategies in learning and using a second language. 2nd.

Harlow: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. and Aphek, E. (1981) Easifying second language learning.

Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3(2) pp. 221-236.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T. Y. (1996) The impact of strategies-based
instruction on speaking a foreign language. Center for Advanced
Research in Language Acquisition.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000) Research methods in

education. 5th. Abingdon, New York: Routledge Farmer.
Cook, V. J. (2008) Second language learning and language teaching. London:

Hodder Education.
315
Coskun, A. (2010) The effect of metacognitive strategy training on the listening
performance of beginner students. Novitas ROYAL (Research on
Youth and Language), 4(1) pp. 35-50.
Country Profile: Libya (2005) Library of Congress Federal Research Division,

accessed from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Libya.pdf on 11th
February 2014.
Crow, J. T. and Quigley, J. R. (1985) A semantic field approach to passive

vocabulary acquisition for reading comprehension.' TESOL Quarterly,
19(3) pp. 497-513.
Dadour, E. S., & Robbins, J. (1996) University-level studies using strategy

instruction to improve speaking ability in Egypt and Japan. Language
learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives, In
R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around the World:
Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 157-166). Manoa: University of
Hawaii Press.
Deeb, K., M., and Deeb, J., M. (1982) Libya Since the Revolution: Aspects of
Social and Political Development. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Deng, Q. and Trainin, G. (2015) Learning Vocabulary with Apps: From Theory
to Practice. The Nebraska Educator: A Student-Led Journal. Paper
29. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebeducator/29
Dornyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research.
Construction, Administration and Processing. New Jersey. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Dornyei, Z. (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual

differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z. (2014) The psychology of the language learner: Individual

differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
316
EL aouri, Z. and Zerhouni, B. (2017) Motivation and language learning
strategies used by Moroccan university EFL science students: A
correlational study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 8(2) pp. 52-
73.
Ellis, N. C. (1994) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London:

Academic.
Ellis, R. (1997) Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elmbruk, M. (1998) Libyan human geography. The Popular Establishment for

Publishing. Libya.
Elmbruk, R. (2008) Using the internet to support Libyan in-service EFL

teachers' professional development. Unpublished Ph.D thesis.
University of Nottingham.
Emhamed, E. D. H., and Krishnan, K. S. D. (2011) Investigating Libyan

teachers' attitude towards integrating technology in teaching English
in Sebha secondary schools. Academic Research International, 1(3),
pp. 182.
Erkan, Y. D., & Saban, A. I. (2011) Writing performance relative to writing

apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A
correlational study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL
Journal Quarterly, 13(1), pp. 163-191.
Fan M. Y. (2000). Language beliefs and strategies of high and low achievers.
In G. S. Hu (Ed.), Proceedings of the ‘98 International Conference on
Teaching English at Tertiary Level in the Chinese Context. Beijing:
Tsinghua University Press.
Fan, M. Y. (1999) An investigation into the beliefs and strategies of Hong Kong
students in the learning of English. Education Journal, 27(2), pp. 65–
82.
317
Fan, M. Y. (2003) Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual
usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong
Kong learners. Modern Language Journal, 87(2) pp. 222-241.
Flower, J. (2000) Start building your vocabulary. Hove: Language Teaching.
Ghazal, L. (2007) Learning vocabulary in EFL context through vocabulary

learning strategies. Novitas-ROYAL. 1(2) pp. 84-91.
Grenfell, M., and Harris, V. (1999) Modern languages and learning strategies:
In theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Gu, P. Y. (2003) Vocabulary learning in a second language: person, task,

context and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2) pp. 1-28.
Gu, Y. and Johnson, R. K. (1996) Vocabulary learning strategies and language

learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4) pp. 643-679.
Guduru, R. (2014) An overview of Saudi EFL learners' self-assessment of

vocabulary learning strategies.' Language in India, 14(5)
Harley, B. (1996) Introduction: Vocabulary Learning and Teaching in a Second

Language. Canadian modern language review, 53(1) pp. 3-12.
Harmer, J. (1997) The practice of English language teaching. London: New

York.
Hashemi, M., and Aziznezhad, M. (2011) Etymology: A word attack strategy

for learning the English vocabulary. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 28, pp. 102-106.
Hatch, E. and Brown, C. (2000) Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language

Education (3rd printing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hsiao, T. Y., and Oxford, R. L. (2002) Comparing theories of language learning

strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language
Journal, 86(3), pp. 368-383. Chicago
Ismail, S., and Al-Khatib, A. (2013) Investigating the Language Learning

Strategies of Students in the Foundation Program of United Arab
318
Emirates University. International Education Studies, 6 (9), pp. 135-
149.
Kafipour, R. and Naveh, M. H. (2011) Vocabulary Learning Strategies and their

Contribution to Reading Comprehension of EFL Undergraduate
Students in Kerman Province. European Journal of Social Sciences.
23(4) pp. 226-248.
Kalajahi, S. A. R. and Pourshahian, B. (2012) Vocabulary Learning Strategies
and Vocabulary Size of ELT Students at EMU in Northern Cyprus.
English Language Teaching, 5(4) pp. 138-149.
Kasmani, M. B. and Bengar, A. S. (2013) The effect of vocabulary learning

strategies of efl undergraduate students on their listening
comprehension ability. Asian Journal of Social Sciences &
Humanities. 2(1) pp. 253-259.
Kellerman, E. (1991) Compensatory strategies in second language research:
A critique, a revision and some (non-) implications for the classroom.
In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M.
Swain (Eds.), Foreign and second language pedagogy research (pp.
142–161). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
Kudo, Y. (1999) Second language vocabulary learning strategies. Second

Language Teaching and Curriculum Center-On WWW at
http:/www.nflrc. hawaii.edu/networks/NW14/NW14.pdf. Accessed
10.6.2014.
Lawson, M. J. and Hogben, D. (1996) The Vocabulary‐Learning Strategies of

Foreign‐Language Students. Language Learning, 46(1) pp. 101-135.
Marin, A. (2006) The vocabulary learning strategies of university EFL learners.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Essex, Essex,
England.
Mei, P. E. N. G. (2013) An empirical study on the effectiveness of language

learning strategy training for Chinese adult English learners. Sino-US
English Teaching, 10(1), pp. 41-52.
319
Meriwether, N. (2001) 12 easy steps to successful research papers. 2nd Ed.
Lincolnwood IL: National Textbook Co.
Naeimi, M. and Yaqubi, M. (2013) The study of direct vocabulary learning

strategy on EFL Iranians’ reading comprehension: The case of
structure reviewing. Elixir International Journal, 57, pp. 14067-14070.
Najeeb, S. S. (2013) The business of teaching English as a second language:

A Libyan case study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70,
pp. 1243-1253.
Nandy, M. (1994) Vocabulary and grammar for GCE ‘O’level English.

Singapore: Composite Study Aids.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990) Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle &

Heinle.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001) Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (2013) Learning vocabulary in another language. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. and Newton, J. (1997). Teaching Vocabulary. In Coady, J. and

Huckin, T. (Eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (pp. 238-
254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
National Authority for Information and Documentation (1999) Report on

Human Development in Libya. Tripoli [in Arabic] [Online] [Accessed on
3rd March 2014] http://www.hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/libya-hdr-
a.pdf
National Reading Panel (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel:

Teaching children to read. Retrieved from
http:/www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.
Neuman, W. L. (1997) Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches. 3rd Ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
320
O’Malley, J. M. (1987) The effects of training in the use of learning strategies
on learning English as a second language. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 133–144).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. U. (1990) Learning strategies in second

language acquisition. illustrated, reprinted., Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P. and

Kupper, L. (1985) Learning Strategy Applications with Students of
English as a Second Language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3) pp. 557-584.
Orafi, S. and Borg, S. (2009) Intentions and Realities in Implementing

Communicative Curriculum Reform. System, 37, pp. 243-253.
Orafi, S. M. S. (2008) Investigating teachers' practices and beliefs in relation

to curriculum innovation in English language teaching in Libya. Ph.D.
University of Leeds.
Ostovar-Namaghi, S. A. and Rajaee, M. (2013) Effect of strategy training on

vocabulary in EFL contexts. Online Submission.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED543392
Oxford, R. (2013) Teaching and Researching: Language Learning Strategies.

Christopher, N. and David, R. (eds.): Routledge.
Oxford, R. and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables Affecting Choice of Language

Learning Strategies by University Students. The Modern Language
Journal, 73(3) pp. 291-300.
Oxford, R. L. (1989) Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of

studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17(2), pp. 235-
247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: what every teacher should

know. Boston, Mass: Heinle & Heinle.
321
Oxford, R. L. (1994) Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics, Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Oxford, R. L. (1996) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-

cultural Perspectives. Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa.
Oxford, R. L. (2002) Language learning strategies in a nutshell: Update and

ESL suggestions. Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of
current practice, pp. 124-132.
Oxford, R.L. and Scarcella, R.C. (1994) Second Language Vocabulary

Learning Among Adults: State of the Art in Vocabulary Instruction.
System. 22(2), pp. 231-243.
Pavičić Takač, V. (2008) Vocabulary learning strategies and foreign language

acquisition. Vol. 27. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Politzer, R. L., and McGroarty, M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning

behaviours and their relationship to gains in linguistic and
communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), pp.103–123.
Rahimi, S. (2014) The effect of vocabulary learning strategy instruction on the

depth of vocabulary knowledge. International Journal of Language
Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5 (4), pp. 91-102.
Rasekh, Z. E. and Ranjbary, R. (2003) Metacognitive Strategy Training for

Vocabulary Learning. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language, 7(2) pp. 15-15 pages.
Rezaei, F. S., Karbalaei, A. and Afraz, S. (2013) The Effect of Vocabulary

Strategy Training among Autonomous and Non-Autonomous
Learners in Iranian EFL Context. European Online Journal of Natural
and Social Sciences, 2(2) pp. 35-49
Riazi, A. (2007) Language learning strategy use: Perceptions of female Arab

English majors. Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), pp. 433-440.
322
Riazi, A. and Rahimi, M. (2005) Iranian EFL Learners' Pattern of Language
Learning Strategy Use. Online Submission, 2(1) pp. 103-129.
Richards, J. C. and Renandya, W. A. (Ed.). (2002) Methodology in language

teaching: An anthology of current practice. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Robson, C. (2002) Real world research: A resource for social scientist and
practitioner-researcher. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rossiter, M.J. (2003) The effects of Affective Strategy Training in the ESL
Classroom. TESL-EJ. 7(2): 1-21. http://www-
writing.berkeley.edu/TESLEJ/ ej26/a2.html (09/11/2015).
Rubin, J. (1975) What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9(1) pp. 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history

and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies and
Language Learning (pp. 15-29). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, J. (2003) Diary writing as a process: Simple, useful, powerful.
Guidelines, 25(2) pp. 10-14.
Rubin, J. and Thompson, I. (1994) How to be a more successful language

learner. Boston: MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Saaid. N. (2010) The use of Technology (Audiovisual Aids) in teaching English

as a foreign language in Benghazi secondary schools. Unpublished
M. A. Leicester University.
Saengpakdeejit, R. (2014) Strategies for dealing with vocabulary learning

problems by Thai university students. Silpakorn University Journal of
Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts, 14(1) pp. 147-168.
Sanaoui, R. (1995) Adult learners' approaches to learning vocabulary in

second languages. The Modern Language Journal, 79(1) pp. 15-28.
323
Sardroud, S. J. (2013) Impact of training deep vocabulary learning strategies
on vocabulary retention of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal
of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(3) pp. 75-82.
Schmitt, N. (1997) Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt, and M.

McCarthy (eds) Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy
(pp. 198-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Seal, B.D. (1991) Vocabulary Learning and Teaching. In Murcia, M.C. (Ed.),
Teaching English as a Second Language or Foreign Language (pp.
296-311). Boston: New Bury House.
Sedita, J. (2005) Effective vocabulary instruction. Insights on Learning

Disabilities, 2(1) pp. 33-45.
Shen, W. (2003) Current trends of vocabulary teaching and learning strategies

for EFL settings. Feng Chia Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences, (7) pp. 187-224.
Stern, H. H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner?
Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(4) pp. 304-318.
Stern, H. H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching. (Ed.

Posthumously, Allen, P. and Harley, B.) Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Stoffer, I. (1995) University foreign language students’ choice of vocabulary

learning strategies as related to individual difference variables.
Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Alabama.
Storch, N. and Wigglesworth, G. (2003) Is there a role for the use of the L1 in
an L2 setting? TESOL Quarterly 37(4), pp. 760-769.
Taki, S. and Khazaei, S. (2011) Learning Vocabulary via Mobile Phone:

Persian EFL Learners in Focus. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research. 2(6) pp. 1252-1258.
324
Tanyer, S. and Ozturk, Y. (2014) Pre-service English Teachers' Vocabulary
Learning Strategy Use and Vocabulary Size: A Cross-sectional
Evaluation. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(1) pp. 37-
45.
Tassana-ngam, I. (2004) The effect of vocabulary learning strategies training

on Thai university students' word retention in the second language
classroom. Dissertation/Thesis. ProQuest, UMI Dissertations
Publishing
Taylor, L. (1992) Vocabulary in action. New York: Prentice Hall.
The United Nations Report (1998) Education in Libya. Geneva: United Nations
Trendak, O. E. (2015) Exploring the role of strategic intervention in form-

focused instruction. Cham, Switzerland : Springer.
Tseng, W. T. and Schmitt, N. (2008) Toward a Model of Motivated Vocabulary
Learning: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Language
Learning, 58(2) pp. 357-400.
Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies in language learning.

London: Prentice-Hall International.
Wilkins, D. (1972) Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold.
Winke, P. M., and Abbuhl, R. (2007) Taking a closer look at vocabulary

learning strategies: A case study of a Chinese foreign language class.
Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), pp. 697-712.
Yang, C. and Liu, X. (2014) Vocabulary Learning Strategy Instruction with

Chinese EFL Learners: An Intervention Study. International Review of
Social Sciences and Humanities. 6(2) pp. 186-200.
Youssef, A. M. S. (2012) Role of motivation and attitude in introduction and
learning of English as a foreign language in Libyan high schools.
International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), pp. 366-375.
Zare-ee, A., and Salami, M. (2014) A close study of the effects of ESP learners’
beliefs on the choice of language learning strategies. International
325
Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 7(1) pp.
119-130.
Zhang, B. and Li, C. (2011) Classification of L2 vocabulary learning strategies:

Evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. RELC
Journal, 42 (2) pp. 141-54.
Zhao, N. (2009) Metacognitive Strategy Training and Vocabulary Learning of

Chinese College Students. English Language Teaching, 2(4) pp. 123-
129.
326

Impact of Vocabulary Learning Strat Instruction On Libyan EFL Teachers and Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Vocabulary Learning Strat Instruction On Libyan EFL Teachers and Learners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Vocabulary Learning Strat Instruction On Libyan EFL Teachers and Learners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rashed, Warda Ali Salem (2018) The impact of vocabulary learning strat-

Downloaded from: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/620466/

Please cite the published version

WARDA ALI SALEM RASHED

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

Department of Languages, Information and

1.2 General compendium of Libyan education .................................... 19

1.3 Prosperity of education and achieving literacy for all .................... 20

1.4 Schooling system in Libya ............................................................. 21

1.5 Development of university schooling system ................................ 22

1.5.1 Al-jabal Al-gharbi University ...................................................... 23

1.6 Learning and teaching English in Libya ......................................... 24

1.7 Teacher training in Libya ............................................................... 25

1.8 Goals of the present research ....................................................... 27

1.9 Research questions, design, and hypothesis ................................ 27

1.10 Organisation of the thesis ............................................................. 29

2.0: Literature Review ............................................................................... 31

2.2 Vocabulary importance ................................................................. 33

2.3 Language learning strategies (LLSs) ............................................ 35

2.3.1 Language learning strategies classification .............................. 37

2.4 Vocabulary learning strategies (VLSs) .......................................... 39

2.4.1 Classifications of vocabulary learning strategies....................... 41

2.4.2 Factors influencing the choice of VLSs ..................................... 49

2.5 Teaching language learning strategies ......................................... 55

2.5.1 Vocabulary instruction ............................................................... 56

2.5.2 Vocabulary teaching strategies (VTSs) ..................................... 59

2.6 Vocabulary learning strategy training (VLST) ................................ 62

2.6.1 Previous research in the field of strategy training ..................... 63

2.6.2 Vocabulary learning strategy training frameworks .................... 66

3.0: STUDY 1: Overview of the current situation....................................... 72

3.1.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ) .............. 74

3.1.2 Classroom observation ............................................................. 76

3.1.3 Semi-structured interview ......................................................... 78

3.1.4 Diaries ....................................................................................... 79

3.1.5 Think-aloud protocols................................................................ 80

3.2 Study 1 population and location .................................................... 80

3.3 Ethical considerations ................................................................... 82

3.4 Study 1 instrumentation ................................................................ 83

3.4.1 Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ) .............. 83

3.4.2 Classroom observation ............................................................. 86

3.4.3 Semi-structured interview ......................................................... 87

3.5 Pilot study...................................................................................... 87

3.5.1 The procedures for piloting instruments .................................... 88

3.5.2 Piloting the questionnaire .......................................................... 89

3.5.3 Piloting the interview ................................................................. 90

3.5.4 Piloting the observation ............................................................. 91

3.5.5 Pilot study results ...................................................................... 92

3.6 Study 1 analysis ............................................................................ 94

3.6.1 Study 1: quantitative data analysis, results and discussion ...... 95

3.6.1.1 Teachers’ VLSs questionnaire (TVLSQ) .......................... 100

3.6.2.1 Open-ended questionnaire items ..................................... 124

4.2 Language choice ......................................................................... 154

4.3 Selection of strategies ................................................................. 154

4.4 Design ......................................................................................... 156

4.4.1 Teachers’ training phase ......................................................... 159

4.4.2 Students’ training phase ......................................................... 162

5.2.1 Results of questionnaire 1 (VLSQ1)........................................ 167

5.2.1.1 VLSQ1: strategy use by experimental groups’ participants