HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE



DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS REPORT

ON VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY

Instructor: Dang Tan Tin, Ph.D

Student: Phan Nguyen Thao Nguyen

Student ID: 17131034

Course: Research Methodology

Ho Chi Minh city, 06/2021

HCMC University of Technology and Education Faculty of

Foreign Languages

*****

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS REPORT ON

VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGY

Submitted by

Phan Nguyen Thao Nguyen

Supervised by

Tin Tan Dang, PhD

Ho Chi Minh City, June 2021

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Instrument development..........................................................................................................................1

1.1. Schmitt’s VLS questionnaire............................................................................................................1

1.2. VLS questionnaire in the present study............................................................................................1

2. Methodology...........................................................................................................................................3

2.1. Participant.........................................................................................................................................3

2.2. Instrument.........................................................................................................................................3

2.3. Data collection..................................................................................................................................3

3. Data analysis...........................................................................................................................................4

3.1. Data Screening..................................................................................................................................4

3.2. Result of Reliability test...................................................................................................................4

3.3. Result of descriptive statistics...........................................................................................................5

3.3. Result of Independent Sample T Test...............................................................................................6

4. Limitation and suggestion........................................................................................................................8

References...................................................................................................................................................9

Appendices................................................................................................................................................10

Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................10

Appendix 2............................................................................................................................................17

Appendix 3............................................................................................................................................23

Appendix 4............................................................................................................................................27
 1. Instrument development

1.1. Schmitt’s Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire

This study employed the Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS) taxonomy proposed by

Schmitt (1997) because although there have been many attempts to categorize language learning

strategies, Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy remains more comprehensive and popular among

researchers (Al-Bidawi & Sultanahv, 2018).

There are two groups in Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy. The first group is Discovery

strategies, in which students determine the meaning when they first meet new words. The second

group is Consolidation strategies, in which students consolidate meaning when they encounter

words again (Kovanen, 2014, p.26). The former group comprises of determination and social

strategies, and the latter contains cognitive, metacognitive, memory and social strategies

(Schmitt, 1997). According to Schmitt, social strategies are present in both groups because they

can be used to discover the word meanings as well as to reinforce the learned words.

1.2. VLS questionnaire in the present study

My finalized questionnaire mostly based on three articles, in which all of them used

questionnaires based on Schmitt’s (1997) VLS taxonomy. The first one was “Vocabulary

Learning Strategies and their Contribution to Reading Comprehension of EFL Undergraduate

Students in Kerman Province” of Kafipour and Naveh (2011). The questionnaire used in this

research was itself adopted from Bennett (2006), which included 41 Likert-scale items. Most of

the items were picked from the original questionnaire of Schmitt, but some overlapped items

were reduced. The second article was “Vocabulary Learning Strategies Employed by
Undergraduate EFL Jordanian Students” conducted by Rabadi and Reem Ibrahin (2016). In this

study’s questionnaire, some changes such as the number of total items and wording have been

made to suit the background and learning capacity of the participants. The third article was “The

Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies in Teaching Turkish as a Second Language” carried by

Baskin et al. (2017). The questionnaire employed in this study was adopted from the Natpassorn

Riankamol's (2008) VLS questionnaire including 25 items. The number of items was reduced

due to the deletion of similar strategies such as “analyze part of speech” and “analyze affixes and

roots” in the original questionnaire. Moreover, some items which were not relevant to the

learning environment and language proficiency of the participant were not employed such as

seeking helps from native speakers or using semantic map for memorizing words.

After a thorough consideration of the three articles, the final questionnaire consisting of

18 items was created. It was mostly based on items used in the third article as it suited best with

the learning condition and the language competence of participants in the present study.

However, there were still some wordy items and less suitable for the purpose of the present

research, so some items and wordings were replaced by more suitable ones from the other two

articles (See appendix 1 for more detail).

 2. Methodology

2.1. Participant

The study gathered data from two sets of participants at HCMC University of

Technology and Education. They were 151 undergraduate EFL students, including 76 English

major students and 75 non-English major ones. All of them participated on a voluntary basis.

2.2. Instrument

The VLS Questionnaire used to get data consisted of two sections. The first section was

to gather demographic information, including two double choice questions asking the attendants’

majors and genders. The second section which included 18 five-point Likert-scale items was to

collect their answers on vocabulary learning strategies. The scale of frequency ranged from 1 to

5, which are “Never use it”, “Seldom use it”, “Sometimes use it”, “Often use it”, and “Always

use it”, respectively. All the items were sub-classes of 5 VLS categories proposed by Schmitt

(1997), specifically: Determination (items 1-3), Social (items 4-8), Memory (items 9-11),

Cognitive (items 12-15), and Metacognitive (items 16-18). Because the attendants of the study

included non-English major ones, so the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese to

minimize chances of misunderstanding.

2.3. Data collection

The researcher employed the Google form to deliver the questionnaire to the target

participants. It was posted on the researcher’s Facebook account with the attachment of the

purpose of the survey and instruction to do it. After four days, 151 random students participated

in the survey and all the data gained were appropriate.

 3. Data analysis

3.1. Data Screening

After running the descriptive statistics to detect any outliners existing in the database, the

Boxplot section revealed that there were potential outliers in the items 3, 5, and 11. However,

there were no significant differences between the mean and 5% trim mean values (<0.3) (See

table 2.1), showing that these outliers had low capability to affect future analysis. Therefore,

none of the outliners was deleted.

3.2. Result of Reliability test

The Cronbach’s Alpha was run to see whether all the items in the questionnaire measure

the same construct. For all the items, α = 0.862, which reached the acceptable reliability (See

table 1.1). The Social, Memory, and Cognitive categories had the Cronbach’s alpha of 0.728,

0.749, and 0.793, respectively, which were eligible. Moreover, each item in every

aforementioned sub-construct showed a decrease in Cronbach's alpha score if it was deleted, so

there was no reason to remove them (See table 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4). However, it was not the case

regarding Determination and Cognitive Strategies. The Cronhbach’s Alpha of Determination

group was 0.338, indicating low internal consistency. Looking at table 1.5, we can see that the

item “I use a dictionary to translate English words into Vietnamese or vice versa”, was the least

correlate with the other two items as its corrected item-total correlation was only 0.015 (<0.3)

and the Cronhbach’s Alpha would increase to 0.638 if this item was removed. However, there

were only three items in this component, so its deletion was impossible. The Cronbach’s Alpha

score of Metacognitive Category was 0.670, which was still in acceptable scale. It, however,

could be raised to 0.721 if the item “I learn new words by watching English-speaking programs”
was removed (See table 1.6). However, this construct had only three items, so there was also no

change in this sub-class.

3.3. Result of descriptive statistics

Among five categories, determination strategies were the most used strategies by the

research subjects with a mean score of 3.9890. Memory strategies (mean= 3.5541) came in the

second place, followed by metacognitive strategies (mean= 3.3091) and cognitive strategies

(mean= 3.2781). Social strategies were determined as the least used strategies by all the research

attendants, with a mean score of 3.0795 (See table 2.2).

Regarding the Determination category, the most frequently used item (mean= 4.0662)

was to guess the meanings of words from the context of the text. With the mean score of 3.8675,

analyzing pictures that describe a word to guess its meaning was the least used strategies among

three determination items (See table 2.3).

According to table 2.4, the most used item in the Social category was to ask classmates

for the meaning of the word (mean=3.6689), while the two least employed items were to ask a

teacher to translate the words into Vietnamese and to make a sentence by using the new word

(mean=2.6556 and 2.6424, respectively). This indicated that the students prefer to turn to their

friends for asking help while learning, and there is a lack of essential interaction between the

students and their teachers.

It can be seen from table 2.5 that “I study a spelling of new words” (mean=3.7815) was

preferred most in Memory Strategies, and the least used item belonged to “I categorize new

words according to their synonyms and antonyms” (mean=3.3179). This result proved that

memorizing a word’s spelling was more emphasized than the grouping method among the

participants.
 Table 2.6 represented the frequency use of Cognitive strategies. It was reported that

saying a new word repeatedly was the most frequently used items (mean=3.6821), which

contradicted with the flashcards method (mean=2.4702). From this result, it can be inferred that

verbal practice was more used than written form by the participants in the word consolidation

process.

Look at table 2.7, which showed the frequency use of Metacognitive strategies, it is seen

that “learning new words by watching English-speaking programs” was highly used by all the

participants (M=4.0331). The other two items were just moderately used, in which “practice by

doing vocabulary exercises” came in the last place with the mean score of 3.1060. This result

showed that the students were more motivated to learn words through watching English-speaking

videos rather than sitting there and did boring word exercises.

3.3. Result of Independent Sample T Test

The independent sample T-test was run to figure out whether there are statistical

differences between English major students and non-English major ones in their use of

vocabulary learning strategies. Regarding the use of overall strategies, there was a significant

difference between the former group (M=3.6107, SD=.46407) and the latter group (M=3.2471,

SD=.68715) because the Sig. and the Sig. (2-Tailed) values were both less than 0.05. Moreover,

since the mean of the “English” group was greater than that of the “Others” group, so it could be

concluded that the English major students were higher VLS users compared with non-English

major ones (See table 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).

Regarding Determination Strategies, the Sig. (2-tailed) value was 0.002, which was less

than the significance level α = 0.05. In addition, the mean difference between the two groups
was 0.29596, so we could conclude that there was a significant statistical difference between the

two groups in the frequency of Determination strategies usage (See table 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3).

When the Social strategies were considered, it could be seen from table 5.2 and 5.3 that

the sig. value was .120 and the Sig. (2-tailed) value was .469 (>0.05). Besides, the mean score

difference between the two groups was only .09432 (table 5.1). Therefore, there was no

significant difference found between the two groups in the use of the Social strategies.

In terms of Memory strategies, its sig. and Sig. (2-tailed) values were .001 and .000,

respectively, which were both less than 0.05 (See table 6.2, 6.3). In addition, the mean difference

between the 2 groups was .52690. Therefore, there was a significantly statistical difference

between the two groups in the use of Memory strategies.

Regarding Cognitive strategies, table 7.2 and 7.3 reported that both the sig. and the Sig.

(2-tailed) values were less than 0.05. Additionally, the English major students ‘mean and the

standard deviation were 3.5855 and .77841, while those of the non-English major students were

2.9467 and 1.02031, respectively. Thus, there was a significant statistical difference between the

two groups in the use of Cognitive strategies.

Concerning Metacognitive strategies, the sig. value was .036 (>0.05) and the Sig. (2-

tailed) value was .087(>0.05) (See table 8.2, 8.3). Moreover, the mean difference between the

two groups was only .24532, so there was no significant difference in the frequency usage of

Metacognitive strategies.
 4. Limitation and suggestion

The questionnaire of the present study was quite reliable as the Cronbach’s Alpha values

of almost all constructs reach the acceptable level. The only exception was Determination

strategies which had a very low Cronbach’s Alpha value. Therefore, future researchers need to

reconsider the items in this component so that all of them correlate well with each other. With

the purpose of reducing the risk that the participants might feel bored because of abundant

questions and ended up choosing the scales randomly without reading the statements, the total

number of items was reduced to 18 strategies, meaning that they did not cover all the strategies.

Future researchers should notice this point in order to get reliable data. The items put in the

survey were translated into Vietnamese to minimize the misunderstanding; however, the

translated version has not gone through any verification of experienced translators to ensure the

translation equivalence. Therefore, future researchers should check with translation expert if they

want to administrate the translated version of the questionnaire.

 References

Al-Bidawi, S. A. (2018). Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLSs) Preferred by Saudi EFL

Students. English Language Teaching, 11(12), 211. doi: 10.5539/elt.v11n12p211

Baskin, S., Iscan, A., Karagoz, B., & Birol, G. (2017). The Use of Vocabulary Learning

Strategies in Teaching Turkish as a Second Language. Journal of education and practice,

8(9), 126-134.

Kafipour, R., & 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), 626-647.

Kovanen, M. J. (2014). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by Finnish high school EFL

students. 26.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know: Heinle

& Heinle.

Rabadi, R. I. (2016). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by undergraduate EFL Jordanian

students. English Language and Literature Studies, 6(1), 47-58.

Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy:

Cambridge university press.

 Appendices

Appendix 1
The vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire of Natpassorn Riankamol's (2008)

Questions

1. I use a bilingual dictionary to help me translate Turkish words into native language

2. I use pictures illustrated in the textbook to find the word meanings

3. I learn meaning of words by identifying its part of speech

4. I ask the teacher to translate the words into Turkish

5. I ask the teacher to put an unknown word into a sentence to help me understand the

word meaning

6. I ask my classmate for meaning

7. I know some new words when working in group works

8. I practice Turkish in group work activities

9. I ask native speakers for help

10. I learn words about the culture of Turkish-speaking countries

11. I write a new word in a sentence so I can remember it

12. I study a spelling of new words

13. I use physical actions when learning words

14. I speak words out loud when studying

15. I repeatedly practice new words

16. I write a new word on a flash card so I can remember it

17. I learn words by listening to vocabulary CDs

18. I record vocabulary from Turkish soundtrack movies in my notebook.

19. When I try to remember a word, I write or say it repeatedly

20. I make vocabulary cards and take them with me wherever I go.

21. I listen to Turkish songs and news

22. I memorize word from Turkish magazines

23. I review my own Turkish vocabulary cards for reviewing before the next lesson starts

24. I am not worry very much about the difficult words found when reading or listening, I

pass them

25. I use on-line exercise to test my vocabulary knowledge

Research Questionnaire (English version)

Dear respondents,

My name is Phan Nguyen Thao Nguyen. I am currently a senior at University of Technology and

Education majoring in English linguistics. This survey is to get data about the Vocabulary

Learning Strategies that students at UTE usually employ in the English learning process. The

data collected will be used to analyze as a part of an assignment of the subject “Research

Methodology”. All the data will be kept confidentially and used only for studying purpose.

I really appreciate your contribution. Thank you so much.

What is your sex?

a. Male
b. Female

What is your major?

a. English major

b. Others

Basing on your own English vocabulary learning experience, choose the level of frequency

use that suits you best

1 = Never use it, 2 = Seldom use it, 3 = Sometimes use it, 4= Often use it, SD = Always use it

Questions 1 2 3 4 5

1. I use a dictionary to translate English words into Vietnamese or

vice versa.

2. I guess word meanings through pictures that describe it.

3. I guess the meanings of words from the context of the text.

4. I ask the teacher to translate the words into Vietnamese.

5. I ask the teacher to make a sentence by using the new word.

6. I ask my classmates for the meaning of the word.

7. I discover the meaning through group work activity (such as

scrabble, crossword puzzles).

8. I practice meaning of new vocabulary with my friends.

9. I categorize new words according to their synonyms and

antonyms.

10. I study a spelling of new words.

11. I write a new word in a sentence

12. I say a new word repeatedly.

13. I write a new word repeatedly.

14. I write new words on flash cards and take them with me

wherever I go.

15. I take note any new words that I learn in class.

16. I practice by doing vocabulary exercises (e.g. filling words in

the spaces)

17. I test yourself with word tests

18. I learn new words by watching English-speaking programs

Research Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)

Xin chào các bạn,

Mình tên là Phan Nguyễn Thảo Nguyên, hiện đang là sinh viên năm tư tại trường Đại Học Sư

Phạm Kỹ Thuật Tp. Hồ Chí Minh, ngành ngôn ngữ Anh. Bảng khảo sát này nhằm mục đích thu

thập dữ liệu về chủ đề các chiến lược học từ vựng của sinh viên UTE sau đó phân tích nhằm

phục vụ cho bài tập cuối kỳ môn “Phương pháp nghiên cứu khoa học” của mình. Tất cả dữ liệu

sẽ được bảo mật và chỉ phục vụ cho mục đích học tập.

Mình rất biết ơn sự đóng góp của các bạn. Cám ơn các bạn nhiều.

Giới tính của bạn là gì?

a. Nam

b. Nữ
Ngành học của bạn là gì?

a. Ngành Tiếng Anh

b. Ngành khác

Dựa vào kinh nghiệm học Tiếng Anh của bản thân, các bạn hãy chọn mức độ thường xuyện sử

dụng phù hợp với bản thân nhé.

1= Không bao giờ dùng, 2= Hiếm khi dùng, 3= Thỉnh thoảng dùng, 4= Thường xuyên dùng, 5=

Thỉnh thoảng dùng

Câu hỏi 1 2 3 4 5

1. Tôi sử dụng một cuốn từ điển để dịch từ mới từ Tiếng Anh

sang Tiếng Việt hoặc ngược lại.

2. Tôi đoán nghĩa của từ thông qua hình ảnh mô tả nó.

3. Tôi đoán nghĩa của từ thông qua ngữ cảnh của đoạn văn.

4. Tôi nhờ giáo viên dịch từ mới từ Tiếng Anh sang Tiếng Việt.

5. Tôi nhờ giáo viên đặt câu bằng cách sử dụng từ mới.

6. Tôi hỏi bạn cùng lớp nghĩa của của từ.

7. Tôi khám phá nghĩa của từ thông qua hoạt động làm việc nhóm

(chẳng hạn như xếp hình, giải ô chữ).

8. Tôi luyện tập nghĩa của từ vựng mới với bạn của tôi.

9. Tôi phân loại các từ mới theo từ đồng nghĩa và trái nghĩa của

chúng.

10. Tôi học chính tả của từ mới.

11. Tôi viết một câu có sử dụng một từ mới

12. Tôi luyện nói từ mới nhiều lần

13. Tôi luyện viết từ mới nhiều lần

14. Tôi viết từ mới trên flash card và luôn mang theo chúng bên

mình.

15. Tôi ghi chú lại bất cứ từ mới nào mà tôi học được trên lớp

16. Tôi thực hành bằng cách làm các bài tập từ vựng (ví dụ: điền

từ vào chỗ trống).

17. Tôi tự kiểm tra bản thân với bài kiểm tra từ vựng

18. Tôi học từ mới bằng cách xem các chương trình bằng Tiếng

Anh

Appendix 2

Result of reliability test

Table 1.1: Reliability Statistics of total items

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.862 18

Table 1.2: Reliability Statistics of Social Strategies

Cronbach's N of Items

Alpha

.728 5

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's

Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item

Correlation Deleted

I ask the teacher to

translate the words into 12.74 10.313 .563 .651

Vietnamese
I ask the teacher to make

a sentence by using the 12.75 10.346 .526 .666

new word..
I ask my classmates for
11.73 11.506 .409 .711
the meaning of the word.
I discover the meaning

through group work

activity (such as 12.19 10.783 .522 .668

scrabble, crossword

puzzles).
I study and practice

meaning of new
12.17 11.237 .424 .706
vocabulary with my

friends.

Table 1.3: Reliability Statistics of Memory Strategies

Cronbach's N of Items

Alpha

.749 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's

Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item

Correlation Deleted

I categorize new words

according to their 7.34 3.934 .574 .668

synonyms and antonyms.

I study a spelling of new
6.88 4.039 .564 .680
words.
I write a new word in a
7.10 3.730 .592 .647
sentence

Table 1.4: Reliability Statistics of Cognitive Strategies

Cronbach's N of Items

Alpha

.793 4

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's

Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item

Correlation Deleted

I say a new word

9.39 9.373 .648 .726
repeatedly
I write a new word
9.68 8.247 .723 .680
repeatedly.
I write new words on

flash cards and take them 10.60 8.494 .532 .786

with me wherever I go.

I take note any new
9.55 9.263 .540 .772
words that I learn in class

Table 1.5: Reliability Statistics of Determination Strategies

Cronbach' N of

s Alpha Items
.338 3
Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item

Deleted
I use a dictionary

to translate

English words 7.93 2.102 .015 .638

into Vietnamese

or vice versa.
I guess word

meanings
8.10 1.730 .303 .026
through pictures

that describe it.

I guess the

meanings of

words from the 7.90 1.810 .313 .024

context of the

text.

Table 1.6: Reliability Statistics of Metacognitive Strategies

Cronbach' N of
s Alpha Items
.670 3

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Cronbach's

Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Alpha if Item

Deleted
I practice by doing

vocabulary

exercises (e.g. 7.33 3.570 .512 .534

filling words in the

spaces)
I test myself with
7.14 2.961 .594 .410
word tests
I learn new words

by watching
6.40 4.336 .357 .721
English-speaking

programs.

Appendix 3

Result of Descriptive Statistics

Table 2.1: Descriptive Statistics

Items Mean 5% Trimmed Mean Skewness Kurtosis

1 4.0331 4.1071 -.879 .013

2 3.8675 3.9231 -.850 .879
3 4.0662 4.1251 -.635 -.064
4 2.6556 2.6174 .263 -.851
5 2.6424 2.6026 .278 -.942
6 3.6689 3.7432 -.824 .126
7 3.2053 3.2281 -.386 -.557
8 3.2252 3.2502 -.320 -.601
9 3.3179 3.3532 -.318 -.704
10 3.7815 3.8642 -.851 .031
11 3.5629 3.6255 -.715 -.293
12 3.6821 3.7465 -.692 -.052
13 3.3974 3.4415 -.322 -.908
14 2.4702 2.4113 437 -1.148
15 3.5232 3.5813 -.455 -.748
16 3.1060 3.1177 -.096 -.869
17 3.2980 3.3311 -.305 -.917
18 4.0331 4.0997 -.771 .463

Table 2.2: Descriptive Statistics for Overall Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation

DETERMINATION 151 3.9890 .59432
SOCIAL 151 3.0795 .79635
MEMORY 151 3.5541 .93086
COGNITIVE 151 3.2781 .95984
METACOGNITIVE 151 3.3091 .95692
Total 151 3.4187 .61573

Table 2.3: Descriptive Statistics for Determination Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation

I use a dictionary to translate English
151 4.0331 1.01599
words into Vietnamese or vice versa.
I guess word meanings through
151 3.8675 .86929
pictures that describe it.
I guess the meanings of words from
151 4.0662 .82194
the context of the text.
Valid N (listwise) 151

Table 2.4: Descriptive Statistics for Social Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation
I ask the teacher to translate the
151 2.6556 1.16073
words into Vietnamese.
I ask the teacher to make a sentence
151 2.6424 1.20191
by using the new word.
I ask my classmates for the meaning
151 3.6689 1.11787
of the word.
I discover the meaning through
group work activity (such as 151 3.2053 1.11545
scrabble, crossword puzzles).
I study and practice meaning of new
151 3.2252 1.15569
vocabulary with my friends.
Valid N (listwise) 151

Table 2.5: Descriptive Statistics for Memory Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation

I categorize new words according to

151 3.3179 1.13355
their synonyms and antonyms.

I study a spelling of new words. 151 3.7815 1.11292

I write a new word in a sentence. 151 3.5629 1.17517

Valid N (listwise) 151

Table 2.6: Descriptive Statistics for Cognitive Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation

I say a new word repeatedly 151 3.6821 1.06063

I write a new word repeatedly. 151 3.3974 1.20598

I write new words on flash cards and
151 2.4702 1.38472
take them with me wherever I go.

I take note any new words that I

151 3.5232 1.21015
learn in class

Valid N (listwise) 151

Table 2.7. Descriptive Statistics for Metacognitive Strategies

N Mean Std. Deviation

I practice by doing vocabulary

exercises (e.g. filling words in the 151 3.1060 1.12043
spaces)

I test yourself with word tests 151 3.2980 1.23177

I learn new words by watching

151 4.0331 1.04828
English-speaking programs.

Valid N (listwise) 151

Appendix 4

Result of Independent Sample T-test

Table 3.1: Group Statistics of Overall Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

English 76 3.6107 .46407 .05323
Total
75 3.2471 .68715 .07935
Others

Table 3.2: Independent Samples Test of Overall Strategies

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances Means

F Sig. T df

Equal variances assumed 15.121 .000 3.815 149

Total
Equal variances not assumed 3.806 129.684

Table 3.3: Independent Samples Test of Overall Strategies

 t-test for Equality of Means
Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference
Equal variances assumed .000 .36362 .09531
Equal variances not
Total
.000 .36362 .09555
assumed

Table 4.1: Group Statistics of Determination Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
Determinatio 76 4.1360 .51403 .05896
English
n
75 3.8400 .63520 .07335
Others
Strategies

Table 4.2: Independent Samples Test of Determination Strategies

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances Means

F Sig. T Df

Equal variances
Determinatio 2.191 .141 3.149 149
assumed
n
Equal variances not
Strategies 3.145 142.026
assumed

Table 4.3: Independent Samples Test of Determination Strategies

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error

Difference Difference
 Equal variances
.002 .29596 .09398
Determination
assumed
Equal variances not
Strategies
.002 .29596 .09411
assumed

Table 5.1. Group Statistics of Social Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean

Social English 76 3.1263 .71393 .08189

Strategies Others 75 3.0320 .87428 .10095

Table 5.2: Independent Samples Test of Social Strategies

Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality

Variances of Means

F Sig. t df

Equal variances
2.439 .120 .727 149
Social assumed

Strategies Equal variances not

.726 142.536
assumed

Table 5.3: Independent Samples Test of Social Strategies

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error

tailed) Difference Difference

Social Equal variances assumed .469 .09432 .12982

 Equal variances not
Strategies .469 .09432 .12999
assumed

Table 6.1. Group Statistics of Memory Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean

Memory English 76 3.8158 .69152 .07932

Strategies Others 75 3.2889 1.06308 .12275

Table 6.3: Independent Samples Test of Memory Strategies

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference

tailed) Difference

Memory Equal variances .000 .52690 .14576

assumed
Strategi Equal variances not
.000 .52690 .14615
es assumed
Table 7.1: Group Statistics of Cognitive Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
Cognitive English 76 3.5855 .77841 .08929
75 2.9467 1.02031 .11782
Strategies Others

7.2. Independent Samples Test of Cognitive Strategies

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances Means

F Sig. T Df

Equal variances
9.387 .003 4.329 149
Cognitive assumed

Strategies Equal variances not

4.322 138.378
assumed

7.3. Independent Samples Test of Cognitive Strategies

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error

Difference Difference
Equal variances
.000 .63886 .14757
Cognitive
assumed
Equal variances not
Strategies
.000 .63886 .14783
assumed
8.1. Group Statistics of Metacognitive Strategies

Major N Mean Std. Std. Error

Deviation Mean
English 76 3.6009 .78130 .08962
Metacognitive
75 3.3556 .96225 .11111
Others

8.2. Independent Samples Test of Metacognitive Strategies

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of

Equality of Variances Means

F Sig. T Df

Equal variances
4.463 .036 1.721 149
Metacognitive assumed

Strategies Equal variances not

1.719 142.216
assumed

8.3. Independent Samples Test of Metacognitive Strategies

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error

Difference Difference
Equal variances
.087 .24532 .14255
Metacognitive
assumed
Equal variances not
Strategies
.088 .24532 .14275
assumed