A Study of Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Vocabulary Size

of First-YearEnglish Major Students at Maejo University1

Aunchana Punnarungsee2

Received: March 11, 2022

Revised: April 18, 2023
Accepted: May 29, 2023

Abstract
The aims of this study were to study the vocabulary learning strategies used
by students who are at different frequency word levels and to find a significant
correlation between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size. The
participants were undergraduate English major students at Maejo University in the
academic year 2019. Two instruments were used to collect data: the vocabulary size
test designed by Nation (2012) and the vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire
(VLSQ) designed by Schmitt (1997). For the qualitative data, the semi-structured
interview method was chosen to obtain in-depth data from the students. The results
revealed that the most preferable vocabulary learning strategy for the students was
cognitive strategies while the least preferable strategy was metacognitive strategies.
When considering the results of all 40 strategies, the most frequently used strategy
was the students asking their classmates for the meaning of unknown vocabulary in
the social strategies section. Also, the results showed that the students of different
levels had diverse preferable vocabulary learning strategies. Lastly, the results of
correlation analysis suggested that memory strategies correlated with the scores of
the vocabulary size test at 0.10 while other strategies had no correlation.
Keywords: Vocabulary Learning Strategies, Vocabulary Size

Introduction
Vocabulary is considered one of the essential components that leads to
effective communication of language learners. Any learners of a foreign language
1
The research proposal was developed in 2018 and was approved and fully funded by Faculty
of Liberal Arts, Maejo University in 2019.
2
Lecturer, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Maejo University. Email: aunchana.p@gmail.com

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 197

 know and realize that vocabulary is essential, and the lack of sufficient words leads
to difficulties in communication (Maley 1986, p. 3). Vocabulary is directly related
to understanding and producing messages, thus learners with limited vocabulary
will not be able to conduct successful communication and tend to struggle more
in learning English language. Therefore, a learner should know as much vocabulary
as he or she can. Vocabulary plays a crucial role in English language acquisition,
particularly for college students (He, 2010). Also, the language competence of
language learners can be assessed as skillful if learners know target language
vocabulary and can use it correctly and appropriately in all four skills. Decarrico
(2001, p. 285) points out that vocabulary learning is central to language acquisition
whether it is a second, or a foreign language.
The word “vocabulary” is defined as the “total number of words we know
and are able to use” (Nandy 1994, p. 1; Sesnan 2001, p. 123). It is the basic language
component that a learner needs to know, and to which not only teachers but also
learners need to pay attention. At present, many researchers, material designers,
and language teachers have realized the great importance of vocabulary learning
(Hedge 2000, p. 111; Read 2000, p. 1). In Thailand, even though vocabulary is
essential when learning a foreign language, Thai students often face problems
remembering and using correct vocabulary. Another point related to vocabulary
learning is vocabulary size. This can be assessed through a vocabulary size test.
The test measures knowledge of written word forms, form-meaning connection,
and to a smaller degree concept knowledge (Nation, 2006). Test results can show
how many words each learner knows and whether their previous vocabulary
learning was effective.

Research Questions
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the vocabulary learning strategies used by students who are in
different frequency words levels?
2. Is there a significant correlation between vocabulary learning strategies
and vocabulary size?

Objectives
The study purposed:
1. To study the vocabulary learning strategies used by students who have

198 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
different frequency words level.
2. To determine whether there is a significant correlation between vocabulary
learning strategies and vocabulary size.

Literature Review
Definition of Vocabulary
Vocabulary is “the total number of words which make up a language; and a
range of words known to, or used by a person” (Hornby et al., 1984). Richards et al.
(1992) define vocabulary, as “a set of lexemes which includes single words, compound
words and idioms” (p. 400). Vocabulary consists of more than just single words (Read
2000, p. 20; Richards 2000, p. xi), and is furthermore not only concerned with simple
words in all their aspects, but also complex and compound words, as well as the
meaningful units of language (Jackson and Amvela 2000, pp. 1-2). Vocabulary is a
necessary part in language learning because each learner can create correct use of
language from vocabulary knowledge. Therefore, it can be concluded that vocabulary
learning can be defined as the way one learns a group of words and as well as the
strategies used to find meaning or comprehension of unknown words.
The Importance of Vocabulary
Effective communication not only comes from the comprehensible language
produced by language users but also from the correct vocabulary they use. The
more vocabulary language learners or users know, the more effective and fluent
they become. Vocabulary is a small but vital part in language learning because
knowing vocabulary helps produce accurate and appropriate communication.
Bowen et al. (1985, p. 322) and McCarthy (1990, p. iix) indicate that the single,
biggest component of any language course is vocabulary. Nation (1990, p. 2) also
affirms that learners also see vocabulary as being a very necessary, if not essential
element in language learning. All skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing, will
not be understandable if learners do not know vocabulary or express their ideas
through correct words. “The more words one is able to use correctly, the better
one will be able to express oneself easily and with self-confidence and to
understand the world one lives in” (Nandy 1994, p. 1). Additionally, in language
learning, Flower (2000, p. 5) states, “Words are the most important things students
must learn. Grammar is important, but vocabulary is much more important” Also,
Davies and Pearse (2000, p. 59) point out that vocabulary is often more important
than grammar. It is frustrating for language learners when they discover that they

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 199

 cannot communicate effectively because they do not know many of the words
they need. Correspondingly, Ling (2005) stated that words are interwoven in a
complex system in which knowledge of various levels of a lexical item is required
in order to achieve adequate understanding in listening and reading or produce
ideas successfully in speaking and writing. The idea that vocabulary is important
also supported by Nation (2006). It is possible to quantify the relationship between
a learner’s vocabulary size and the percentage of words that the learner is likely
to be familiar with in a reading text (Nation, 2006). Vocabulary is essential in
learning English, according to Nation (2012), and initial studies using the test indicate
that successful undergraduate non-native speakers at an English-speaking
university have a vocabulary of around 5,000-6,000 word families. Similarly,
competent non-native speaking doctoral students have around a 9,000-word
vocabulary. Therefore, it can be concluded that the more vocabulary learners
know, the better their ability to advance their knowledge.
Definition of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Researchers define vocabulary learning strategies differently. Vocabulary
learning strategies can be seen as any action taken by learners in order to help
themselves understand and remember new words (Cameron, 2001; Nation, 2001;
Schmitt, 1997). In addition, Nation (2001, p. 217) stated that vocabulary learning
strategies are a part of language learning strategies which in turn are a part of
general learning strategies. Correspondingly, Intaraprasert (2004, p. 9) defined
vocabulary learning strategies as “any set of techniques or learning behaviors, which
language learners reported using in order to discover the meaning of a new word,
to retain the knowledge of newly-learned words, and to expand their knowledge
of vocabulary.” Nation (1990) believes that one of the most important techniques
in learning language is knowing and using vocabulary learning strategies and Schmitt
(1995) stresses the importance of vocabulary learning strategies knowledge. Both
researchers stated that educational programs and syllabuses must contain teaching
VLS. In addition, Catalan (2003, p.56) sees vocabulary learning strategies as
“knowledge about the mechanisms (process, strategies) used in order to learn
vocabulary as well as steps or actions taken by students (a) to find out the
meaning of unknown words, (b) to retain them in long-term memory, (c) to recall
them at will, and (d) to use them in oral or written mode.” Furthermore, Eleni G.,
Stavros K., Athina G., (2009) stated that according to Ruutmets (2005) and Abibah
Halilah binti A. Mutalib et al. (2014) vocabulary learning strategies constitute

200 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
knowledge about what learners do to find out the meaning of new words, retain
them in long-term memory, recall them when needed in comprehension and use
them in language production.
Although a number of studies have been done on vocabulary learning
strategies, the most widely used taxonomy was developed by Schmitt (1997). The
five strategies are (1) determination strategies-the strategies employed by guessing
from background knowledge, L1 cognate, context clues, references or asking
someone else, (2) social strategies-ways to know the meaning of words by asking
someone, (3) memory strategies-students use background knowledge combined
with mental processes that allow them to recall vocabulary and meanings,
(4) cognitive strategies-quite similar to memory strategies with repetition of writing
and speaking as the main focus, and (5) metacognitive strategies-students plan,
control and expose themselves to foreign language media and native speakers
(Schmitt and McCarthy,1997).
It can thus be concluded that vocabulary learning strategies are highly
preferred with individual tools assisting leaners in finding the meaning of new or
unknown words.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire
Although there are various taxonomies created by numerous researchers,
Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy is widely-used by researchers in many countries,
including Thailand. Saengpakdeejit (2014) stated that, on the whole, the
classifications proposed by Rubin and Thompson (1994), Gu and Johnson (1996),
Lawson and Hogben (1996), Schmitt (1997), and Nation (2001) are often cited in
studies on vocabulary learning strategies. Each study differs in the categorizations,
but the most utilized one was of that developed by Schmitt (1997). The taxonomy
of Schmitt (1997) was divided into two main strategies: the discovery and the
consolidation strategies. Also, the questionnaire of 40 vocabulary learning strategies
(VLSs) is divided into 5 main strategies; (1) determination strategies consisting of
7 strategies, (2) social strategies consisting of 7 strategies, (3) memory strategies
consisting 18 strategies, (4) cognitive strategies consisting of 6 strategies, and
(5) metacognitive strategies consisting of 2 strategies (Schmitt and McCarthy,1997).
Vocabulary Size
Vocabulary size refers to the number of words that learners know, and is
also known as vocabulary breadth (Daller, Milton & Treffers-Daller, 2007). Learners’
vocabulary size is directly related to their language proficiency, as many

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 201

 researchers have found. For example, studies have shown that a vocabulary of
3,000 word families provides coverage of between 90% and 95% of any text, while
a vocabulary of at least 5,000 words is necessary for reading advanced, authentic,
academic texts (Hirsh & Nation, 1992). Additionally, Nation (1990) stated that all
learners need to know about 2,000 to 3,000 words in order to function effectively
in English. Furthermore, Nation (2006) argued that an adequate vocabulary size can
assist L2 learners in comprehending and using spoken and written language
effectively. Studies have also found that learners with a vocabulary size below
3,000 word families performed poorly on reading tests, regardless of their
academic ability (Laufer, 1997). Scholars generally agree that 2,000 key words are
a minimum requirement (Nation, 2005), while Nation (2012) has asserted that a
vocabulary size of around 8,000 word families is a critical goal for EFL learners to
understand authentic written and spoken texts, such as newspapers.
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Related Research
There have been several studies conducted around the world on the
relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and other factors in language
learning. Wu (2005) examined the vocabulary learning strategies used by Taiwanese
EFL students and their perceived helpfulness. The study involved students from
junior high school, senior high school, and university, and found that the three most
popular strategies were using electronic dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries, and
guessing from context. Celik and Toptas (2010) investigated the helpfulness of
strategy use and patterns, including how strategies changed for students with
different language capabilities or academic years. The findings revealed insufficient
use of vocabulary learning strategies and related perceptions of their usefulness.
Easterbrook (2013) studied vocabulary learning strategies and beliefs about language
and language learning in China, and found that guessing meaning, looking up words
in a dictionary, learning spelling, writing words down, learning pronunciation, saying
words aloud, and connecting words with their Chinese meaning were frequently
used strategies. In 2016, Behbahani surveyed knowledge of vocabulary learning
strategies and influential factors among Eastern Mediterranean University students,
finding that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used, while social
strategies were the least common. Cho and Ahn (2016) explored the relationship
between vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary size, and Korean EFL college
students, and found that both high- and low-proficiency students preferred using
cognitive strategies. Finally, Mahmood and Arslan (2017) examined the relationship

202 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
between Iraqi EFL learners’ vocabulary learning strategy use and their receptive
vocabulary size, finding that the most frequently used strategy was studying the
sounds of new words, while the least frequently used was working in groups to
discover the meanings of new words.
In Thailand, there are many studies of vocabulary learning strategies and
other factors. Siriwan (2007) investigated English vocabulary learning strategies
employed by Rajabhat University students. The findings revealed that the meaning
discovery of new vocabulary items, the retention of the knowledge of newly-learned
vocabulary items, and the expansion of the knowledge of vocabulary varied
significantly. Also, all strategies were related to the students’ gender, major field
of study, learning experiences, and levels of proficiency. Furthermore, Nirattisai
(2014) conducted research on the vocabulary size and vocabulary learning
strategies of Prince of Songkla university students. The study found that the
students’ receptive and productive vocabulary size were at low proficiency levels
and there were correlations between the subjects’ use of vocabulary learning
strategies and their receptive and productive vocabulary size. Lastly,
Thanannatthaphak & Palanukulwong (2017) investigated Thai business English
students’ receptive vocabulary size and its relationship to the use of vocabulary
learning strategies. The findings revealed that determination strategies were the
most frequently used by the students.
Numerous studies have been conducted globally and in Thailand on various
factors affecting vocabulary learning, including gender and receptive and productive
vocabulary size. However, no such study has been conducted at Maejo University.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the vocabulary learning strategies
and vocabulary size of Maejo University students to inform future development in
educational aspects.

Research Methodology
Data Collection and Data Generation
The data collection consisted of three phases; the vocabulary size test, the
vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire, and semi-structured interview. For the
quantitative part, the vocabulary size test in an English-Thai version was taken by
104 first-year English major students at Maejo University in academic year 2019.
After that, the written vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire (VLSQ), which was
translated into Thai for effective and better understanding, was given to the

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 203

 students. And for the qualitative part, the use of semi-structured interview was
chosen to obtain in-depth data from students.
The vocabulary size test and the vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire
are the main instruments which were used to determine the correlation between
the scores of the vocabulary size test and students’ vocabulary learning strategies.
Vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire (VLSQ) was adapted from Schmitt
(1997). There were 2 parts: demographic information of the students and 40
questions asking about the frequency of use of each strategy. The questions were
divided into 5 main categories: determination, social, memory, cognitive, and
metacognitive strategies. The vocabulary size test was developed by Nation (2012).
There is also a Thai language version in order to help Thai students with low English
proficiency have better understanding.
Moreover, a Thai translation version of VSLQ was used to make it easy to
understand for Thai students. The researcher translated the questionnaire and had
all questions checked for validity by 3 experienced lecturers teaching at the
university. After validation, the questionnaires were distributed to first-year English
major students.
Lastly, the semi-structured interview was conducted after the students
completed the vocabulary size test and VSLQ. There were 5 questions regarding
background information, attitude towards English language, how they learn and
improve their English and what they normally do when they want to know new
vocabulary.
Data Analysis
For the vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire, Likert Scale was used
to categorize the frequency of each strategy as follows:
- Mean score at 1.00-1.80 refers to students who never use that strategy.
- Mean score at 1.81-2.6 refers to students who seldom use the strategy.
- Mean score at 2.61-3.4 refers to students who sometimes use the strategy.
- Mean score at 3.41-4.2 refers to students who generally use the strategy.
- Mean score at 4.21-5 refers to students who always use the strategy.
The frequency of each vocabulary learning strategy was used to analyze
the most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies. After that, the
score of the vocabulary size test of each student was tallied according to Nation
(2012). A learner’s total score on the 140-item test is multiplied by 100 to find the
learner's total vocabulary size. To understand what learners should be doing to

204 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
increase their vocabulary size, we can relate the vocabulary size score to the three
main frequency levels of high-frequency, mid-frequency, and low-frequency words.
After that, all data were compared to see the differences between the students
with high-frequency, mid-frequency, and low-frequency word levels.
Moreover, to explore whether there was a significant correlation between
vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size, Chi-square was used to analyze
the mean score of each vocabulary learning strategy and the score of the
vocabulary size test.

Research Findings
The vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire asked students to indicate
how often they use each strategy when they wanted to know the meaning of
unknown words. After analyzing the VLSQ results from 104 students, the most
preferable vocabulary learning strategy of first-year English major students at
Maejo University was cognitive strategies (mean score 3.48) while the least
preferable strategy was metacognitive strategies (mean score 2.85). Cognitive
strategies focus on verbal repetition, written repetition, word lists, flash cards,
taking notes in class, and using the vocabulary section in the textbook. Among six
strategies in cognitive section, the students preferred written repetition strategy
(mean score 3.88). Conversely, the metacognitive strategies section was the least
preferable. The students generally study words over time by themselves. Passing
new words is a strategy that students never used (mean score 2.11).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics About Vocabulary Learning Strategies Questionnaire.

Vocabulary Learning Strategies Standard Degree of
Mean Deviation Usage
Determination Strategies
1. Analyze part of the speech 3.11 1.02 sometimes
2. Analyze affixes and roots 2.81 0.98 sometimes
3. Check for L1 cognate 2.47 1.02 never
4. Analyze any available pictures or gestures 3.55 1.01 generally
5. Guess from textual context 3.99 0.89 generally
6. Bilingual dictionary 3.96 1.04 generally
7. Monolingual dictionary 2.84 1.17 sometimes
Total 3.25 1.02 sometimes

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 205

 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Standard Degree of
Mean Deviation Usage
Social Strategies
8. Ask teacher for an L1 translation 3.57 1.09 generally
9. Ask teacher for paraphrase or synonym of 3.45 1.04 generally
new word
10. Ask teacher for a sentence including the new 3.2 1.1 sometimes
word
11. Ask classmates for meaning 4.16 0.87 generally
12. Discover new meaning through group work 3.59 0.96 generally
activity
13. Study and practice meaning in a group 2.95 0.94 sometimes
14. Teacher checks students’ flash cards or word 3.04 1.01 sometimes
lists for accuracy.
Total 3.42 1.00 generally
Memory Strategies
15. Visualize word’s meaning 3.89 0.94 generally
16. Connect word to a personal experience 3.93 0.9 generally
17. Associate the word with its coordinates 3.77 0.87 generally
18. Connect the word to its synonyms or 3.47 0.95 generally
antonyms
19. Use semantic maps 2.77 1.13 sometimes
20. Use ‘scales’ for gradable adjectives 3.05 1.05 sometimes
21. Use new word in sentences 2.93 0.82 sometimes
22. Study the spelling of a word 3.21 1.01 sometimes
23. Study the sound of the word 3.69 0.93 generally
24. Say new word aloud when studying 3.68 0.99 generally
25. Visualize word form 3.67 0.9 generally
26. Use keyword Method 3.57 0.95 generally
27. Affixes and roots (Remembering) 3.01 0.96 sometimes
28. Part of the speech (Remembering) 3.04 0.99 sometimes
29. Paraphrase the word’s meaning 4.13 0.92 generally
30. Use cognates in study 2.91 1.10 sometimes
31. Learn the words of an idiom together 3.3 1.07 sometimes
32. Use physical action when learning a word 3.09 1.11 sometimes
Total 3.40 0.98 sometimes

206 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Standard Degree of
Mean Deviation Usage
Cognitive strategies
33. Verbal repetition 3.82 0.94 generally
34. Written repetition 3.88 1.01 generally
35. Word lists 3.40 1.00 sometimes
36. Flash cards 2.6 1.03 never
37. Take notes in class 3.93 0.92 generally
38. Use the vocabulary section in your textbook 3.26 1.03 sometimes
Total 3.48 0.99 generally
Metacognitive strategies
39. Skip or pass new word 2.11 0.95 never
40. Continue to study word over time 3.58 0.99 generally
Total 2.85 0.97 generally

Regarding the vocabulary size test scores, students scoring the highest
vocabulary size held a range of 7,800-8,000 word families while the students
scoring the lowest held a range of 1,800-2,000 word families. The average score
indicated a vocabulary size of around 4,700 word families. In correlating the
vocabulary size score to the three main frequency level according to Nation (2012),
the students hold between 3,000-9,000 word families and can be considered as
mid-frequency readers who are deliberate learners. It can therefore be concluded
that most firs year English major students of Maejo university were at the
mid-frequency word level.
Returning to the research question, differences were found among students
of high-frequency, mid-frequency, and low-frequency word levels in terms of the
use of vocabulary learning strategies. Firstly, there were two students with high
vocabulary size. One student who held around 8,000 word families, preferred using
memory strategies (mean score 3.61). Another who held around 7,800 word
families also preferred using memory strategies (mean score 4.12). The majority of
students held around 3,000-7,000 word families and preferred using social strategies
(mean score 4.20). Students held around 2,000-3,000 word families preferred using
cognitive strategies (mean score 4.42). And the students who held around
1,800-1,900 word families preferred using metacognitive strategies (mean score
4.00). This clearly shows that students at different levels have diverse preferences
of vocabulary learning strategies.
วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 207
 For the interview, five questions were asked to gather information about
the participants' background, their attitude towards the English language, how they
learn and improve their English, and what techniques they use to learn new
vocabulary. All the students reported that they had started learning English in
kindergarten or primary school, and they maintained a positive attitude towards
English language learning. When asked about the importance of English, all students
agreed that it was an essential tool for their future career and communication.
Regarding their learning techniques, students reported that they enjoyed
practicing their speaking and listening skills by listening to English songs and
watching movies. Some of them also read books and memorized vocabulary to
improve their skills. Additionally, the students shared their preferred strategies for
learning new vocabulary. Most students reported using Google Translate, followed
by the Cambridge Dictionary mobile application and website, Dict Box mobile
application, and Longdo mobile application. Only one student reported using the
Thesaurus website to find meanings and usage of new vocabulary.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Regarding Correlation of Vocabulary Learning Strategies

and the Scores of the Vocabulary Size Test.
Score
Vocabulary Learning
Strategies Chi-Square Test P-Value Summary
(χ2)
1. Determination Strategies 0.852 0.356 no correlation
2. Social Strategies 1.954 0.381 no correlation
3. Memory Strategies 5.930 0.052 correlation
4. Cognitive Strategies 0.148 0.700 no correlation
5. Metacognitive Strategies 0.852 0.356 no correlation

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics regarding the correlation between

vocabulary learning strategies and the scores of the vocabulary size test. The
researcher used the Chi-Square Test and P-Value to determine the correlation. The
results indicated that there was a correlation between memory strategies and the
scores of the vocabulary size test. However, determination strategies, social
strategies, cognitive strategies, and metacognitive strategies showed no significant
correlation with the scores of the vocabulary size test.

208 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
Discussions and conclusion
The goal of this study was to investigate frequency of vocabulary learning
strategies in relation to students’ vocabulary size. The results showed that first-year
English major students at Maejo University preferred cognitive strategies the most
while the least preferable strategy was metacognitive. Cognitive strategies are
similar to memory strategies, but are not specifically focused on manipulative
mental processing; they include repetition and use of mechanical means to study
vocabulary (Schmitt and McCarthy, 1997). The study by Cho and Ahn (2016) found
that both high- and low-level proficiency students preferred using cognitive
strategies, which is consistent with the findings of the current study. In this study,
participants were first-year students with varying levels of English proficiency. It is
also worth noting that the students at a high-frequency word level preferred using
memory strategies while the students at a low-frequency word level preferred
using metacognitive strategies. This is common as most students prefer relying on
memory, especially during tests when the use of dictionaries is not allowed.
Contrastively, students at a low-frequency word level prefer using metacognitive
strategies which include skipping and passing to guess new word and studying word
over time. This is because when they could not guess the meaning of vocabulary,
they skipped the word and tried to find other clues. These findings differ from
previous studies conducted in Thailand. Studies by Komol and Sripetpun (2011),
Nirattisai and Chiramanee (2014), and Thanannatthaphak and Palanukulwong (2017)
found that Thai university students preferred determination strategies. According
to Schmitt and McCarthy (1997), metacognitive strategies-learning and
decision-making processes involving planning, controlling, and evaluating effective
ways of learning. This leads to the conclusion that Maejo university students’
learning style and preferable vocabulary learning strategies were much different
from that of students at other universities. The students at a low-frequency word
level may misuse the strategies and lack knowledge about the effective tools to
learn new vocabulary. Another reason the results of this study differed from
previous studies may be because participating students were in their first year of
university and may not have been familiar with other learning tools or strategies
other than the dictionary.
Moreover, from the score of the vocabulary size, it can be concluded that
the students were of mid-frequency and preferred learning by asking their
classmates. When asked how they find the meaning of unknown vocabulary, the

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 209

 students showed a preference of searching for the meaning of vocabulary from
Google Translate, Cambridge Dictionary, Dict Box, and Longdo mobile application.
Using a bilingual dictionary to translate words into Thai aligned with the study done
by Panduangkaew (2018) which found that Thai EFL undergraduates preferred using
a bilingual dictionary to other vocabulary strategies.
When considering the results of 40 specific strategies that students used,
the most frequently used was that in which students ask their classmates for the
meaning of unknown vocabulary in social strategies section. This was also the
fastest way to know the meaning of words. Conversely, a study by Behbahani (2016)
revealed that the students in Middle East used social strategies the least. The
difference may come from the culture and learning styles of the students in their
respective countries. Thai students are more sociable and they may prefer talking
to each other, working in groups and asking people around them. Another reason
could be the students do not know other effective ways to find the meaning and
learn new vocabulary by themselves.
Lastly, among five vocabulary learning strategies, only memory strategies had
a correlation with the scores of vocabulary size. For memory strategies, the students
memorized vocabulary and recalled it when needed. This result corresponds with
the study by Mahmood and Yaicin Arsland (2017) as the results of correlation
analysis revealed that there exist positive, negative and sometimes no relationships
between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size. However, the findings of
this study are dissimilar to other studies for the reason that the high proficiency level
students preferred using metacognitive strategies. Schmitt’s (1997) and Ellis’s (1995)
studies concluded that high proficiency learners prefer more complex metacognitive
knowledge that allows them to choose suitable learning strategies which were
appropriate to their vocabulary tasks, rather than relying on mechanical learning
strategies. The student participants of this study were not familiar with other
vocabulary learning strategies and only used dictionaries to find the meaning of each
word. Responses from this study showed a need for further development. Learning
methods and training should be introduced so that students have better alternatives
of learning English as a foreign language.

Pedagogical Implementations
Students require further training on how to use a dictionary effectively and
other vocabulary learning strategies. According to Nation (2012), initial studies using

210 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
the test indicate that non-native undergraduate speakers coping successfully with
study at an English-speaking university have a vocabulary of around 5,000-6,000
word families. Similarly, competent non-native-speaking doctoral students have a
vocabulary of around 9,000 words. Therefore, it is crucial that English teachers
provide students with useful tools to broaden their knowledge of vocabulary
learning strategies, enabling them to increase their vocabulary size at higher levels.
This training should include information about useful applications and effective
vocabulary learning strategies. Moreover, teachers should assign tasks and activities
in class that allow students to practice these strategies and ensure they
comprehend and use them correctly and effectively. These efforts are expected
to enhance the vocabulary size and proficiency level of Thai students, which is a
lifelong learning goal. Students will then be able to explore new vocabulary, not
only in class but also in real-life communication

Suggestions for the future research

Future research should involve a larger number of participants to measure
their vocabulary size and learning strategies. Students from different faculties and
academic years could be included in the study. In addition, the analysis of
vocabulary learning strategies should consider other variables such as listening and
reading skills, as well as attitudes towards learning a foreign language. This would
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the participants' language
proficiency level and enable the development of effective tools for language
learning. Moreover, the findings from future studies could be used to develop
programs or applications for English learning that cater to the preferences of
individual students.

References
Behbahani, A. R. (2016). A Survey of University Students’ Knowledge of
Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Influential Factors in Middle East.
Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 7(4), 646. doi:10.17507/
jltr.0704.03
Beglar, D., & Nation, P. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher.
31(7), 9-13.
Bowen, J. D., Madsen, H., & Hilfery, A. (1985). TESOL techniques and procedures.
(1st ed) Massachustts: Newbury House Publishers, INC.

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 211

 Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. (1st ed). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Catalan, R. M. (2003). Sex differences in L2 vocabulary learning strategies.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 13(1), 54-77.
doi:10.1111/1473-4192.00037
Çelik, S., & Toptaş, V. (2010). Vocabulary learning strategy use of Turkish EFL
learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 3, 62-71.
Cho, Y. A., & Ahn, S. (2016). The Relationship between Vocabulary Learning
Strategies and Vocabulary Size with Korean EFL College Students.
English21. 29 (4), 367-388.
Chumworatayee, T., & Pitakpong, T. (2017). The Relationships between the Use
of Vocabulary Learning Strategies and their Usefulness as Perceived by
English Major Students in a Thai University. LEARN Journal: Language
Education and Acquisition Research Network. 10(2), 155-167.
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Editors’ introduction:
Conventions, terminology and an overview of the book. In H. Daller, J.
Milton, & J. TreffersDaller (Eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary
knowledge (pp. 1-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English Teaching: A Complete
Introduction to Teaching English at Secondary School Level and
Above. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Decarrico, J. S. (2001). Vocabulary learning and teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.),
Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Easterbrook, R. M. (2013). The process of vocabulary learning: Vocabulary
learning strategies and beliefs about language and language learning
(Doctoral dissertation). Canberra: University of Canberra.
Eleni G., Stavros K., Athina G. (2009). Young learners’ vocabulary strategies.
Retrieved on September 2013 from http://ressources-cla.univ-fcomte.fr/
gerflint/SE_europeen2 /griva.pdf.
Ellis, N. (1995). The psychology of foreign language vocabulary acquisition:
Implications for CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 8(2-3),
103-128.
Flower, J. R. (2000). Start building your vocabulary. LTP Language.

212 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
Ying He, K. (2010). A Study of L2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies. (Thesis).
Kristianstad: Kristianstad University.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified
texts for pleasure?. Reading in a foreign language. 8(2), 689-696.
Hornby, A.S., Cowie, A.P., and Gimson, A.C. (1984). Oxford advanced dictionary
of current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language
learning outcomes. Language Learning. 46(4), 643-679.
Intaraprasert, C. (2004). EST students and vocabulary learning strategies:
A preliminary investigation. Nakhon Ratchasima: Suranaree University of
Technology.
Ismaiel, N. M., & Al Asmari, A. A. (2017). The Effectiveness of a programme-based
Vocabulary Learning Strategies for Developing English Vocabulary for EFL
Female Students at Taif University. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies. 8(3), 113-125.
Jackson, H., & Amvela, Z. (2000). Etienne. Words, Meaning, and Vocabulary:
an Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. London: Continuum.
Kalajahi, S. A. R., & Pourshahian, B. (2012). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and
Vocabulary Size of ELT Students at EMU in Northern Cyprus. English
Language Teaching. 5(4), 138-149.
Komol, T. & Sripetpun, W. (2011). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by
undergraduate students and its relationship to their vocabulary
knowledge. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on
Humanities and Social Sciences. Songkla: Prince of Songkla University.
Laufer, B. (1997). The Lexical Plight in Second Language Reading: Words You
Don't Know, words You Think You Know, and Words You Can't Guess.
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: a Rationale for Pedagogy
(pp.20-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary learning strategies of
foreign-language students. Language Learning journal. 46, 101-135.
Ling, L. Y. (2005). Teaching Vocabulary Learning Strategies: Awareness, Beliefs,
and Practices. A Survey of Taiwanese EFL Senior High School
Teachers (Master Thesis). Essex: The University of Essex.

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 213

 Mahmood, A., & Arslan, F. (2017). The Relationship between Iraqi EFL Learners’
Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use and Their Receptive Vocabulary Size.
Arab World English Journal. 8(4), 303-317. doi:10.24093/awej/vol8no4.21
Maley, A. (1986). Series editors’ preface. In J. Morgan, and M. Rinvolucri (Eds.),
Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mayuree, S. (2007). English vocabulary learning strategies employed by
Rajabhat university students. (Doctoral dissertation). Nakhon
Ratchasima: Suranaree University of Technology.
McCarthy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mutalib, A. H., Kadir, R. B., Robani, R. B., & Majid, F. A. (2014). Vocabulary Learning
Strategies among Malaysian TEVT Students in German-Malaysian Institute
(GMI). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. (123), 361-368.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1434
Nandy, M. (1994). Vocabulary and grammar for GCE ‘O’level English.
Singapore: Composite Study Aids.
Nation, P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?.
Canadian Modern Language Review. 63(1), 59-81.
Nation, P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research.
RELC journal. 13(1), 14-36.
Nation, P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Nation, P. (2005). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning. (1st ed). New York: Routledge.
Nation, I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A Vocabulary Size Test. The Language Teacher.
31 (7), 9-13.
Nation P. (2012). The Vocabulary Size Test - wgtn.ac.nz. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/lals/resources/paul-nations-resources/
vocabulary-tests/the-vocabulary-size-test/Vocabulary-Size-Test-
information-and-specifications.pdf
Nirattisai, S., & Chiramanee, T. (2014). Vocabulary learning strategies of Thai
university students and its relationship to vocabulary size. International
Journal of English Language Education, 2(1), 273-287.

214 Journal of Liberal Arts, Maejo University Vol.11 No.1 January-June 2023
Panduangkaew, R. (2018). An Analysis of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Employed by Thai EFL Undergraduates: Dictionary Use. REFLections,
25(1), 116-125. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/
reflections/article/view/136270
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary (pp. 1-85). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. (1992). Language teaching and applied
linguistics. (2nd ed.). Essex: Longman.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. T., & Platt, H. (2000). Longman dictionary of language
teaching & applied linguistics. Essex, England: Longman.
Read, J., & Chapelle, C. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary
assessment. Language Testing. 18(1), 3-32.
Rubin, J., and Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language
learner: Toward learner autonomy. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle &
Heinle.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (1995). Vocabulary notebooks: Theoretical
underpinnings and practical suggestions. ELT journal. 49(2), 133-143.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and
pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saengpakdeejit, R. (2014). Strategies for Dealing with Vocabulary Learning
Problems by Thai University Students. Journal of Social Sciences,
Humanities, and Arts, 14(1), 147-167.
Sesnan, B. (2001). How to teach English. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Siriwan, M. (2007). English vocabulary learning strategies employed. (Doctoral
Dissertation, Suranaree University of Technology) Retrieved from
http://sutir.sut.ac.th:8080/sutir/bitstream/ 123456789/284/1/mayuree_
fulltext.pdf
Thanannatthaphak, P., & Palanukulwong, T. (2017). Thai Business English
Students’ Receptive Vocabulary Size and Its Relationship to the Use of
Vocabulary Learning Strategies. Kasem Bundit Journal, 1(01), 38-52.
Wu, W. (2005). Use and Helpfulness Rankings of Vocabulary Learning Strategies
Employed by EFL Learners in Taiwan. Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences. 1(2), 7-13.

วารสารศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยแม่โจ้ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 1 ประจ�ำเดือน มกราคม-มิถุนายน 2566 215