18

Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

Peter Yongqi Gu

Introduction
Vocabulary learning is a daunting task. There is a massive number of single words and mul-
tiword units to be learned in any language. This is especially true for English vocabulary
that is growing by the day. The latest Oxford English Dictionary contains more than 600,000
words (Oxford English Dictionary, 2017). Most people know a fraction of these words only.
Goulden, Nation, and Read (1990) estimated that “the average educated native speaker has
a vocabulary of around 17,000 base words” (p. 376). Native-speaker children are exposed
to vocabulary in use and “pick up” most useful words as they grow up. For learners of
English as a second (ESL) or foreign language (EFL), however, deciding which words are
most needed, where to access these words, and how to treat the learning of each of these
words are very much strategic tasks. Although not specifically addressing vocabulary learn-
ing strategies (VLS) in the learning of any specific language, this article will use EFL/ESL
vocabulary learning examples.
Strategic vocabulary learning is an intentional, dynamic and iterative process for the
effective, efficient, and even enjoyable learning of vocabulary. It is normally triggered by a
difficult or new vocabulary learning task. We first notice an item and then focus our attention
on it. Next, we do a quick analysis of the learning task, of ourselves as learners and of the
learning environment, and move on to form an attack plan. The plan is then executed, and
we monitor its effectiveness along the way and evaluate its success in achieving the learning
goal. Very often this evaluation will necessitate a re-analysis of the task and reconfiguration
of strategies, turning it into a spiraling and complex problem-solving process.
To be specific, learners of vocabulary are faced with an array of questions. Strategic deci-
sions in answering these questions will lead to various degrees of success in learning. Some
of these questions include, among others:

Questions Task type

• Which words do I need to learn? Picking and choosing

• When and where can I find the words that I need? Sources
(Continued )

271
Peter Yongqi Gu

(Continued)

• What are the task demands and difficulties in learning each Task analysis
vocabulary item?
• To what extent should I learn this item? Learning aim
• How should I deal with the different types of vocabulary that I Tactics
decide to learn?
• Which tactic out of my bag of tricks is my best bet in learning Person analysis and
this item? strategy analysis
• What contextual resources or constraints are there for me to Context analysis
learn this item?

Strategic learning will help direct the learner to the most needed and crucially
important vocabulary, as opposed to focusing on any words the student encounters, or
studying words in alphabetical order in dictionaries and some vocabulary lists. It will
also help the learner decide when and where to find and engage the needed vocabulary.
Strategic vocabulary learning also means that the learner distinguishes among different
types of vocabulary and allocates appropriate strategies for each type. Strategic learn-
ers monitor the degree of usefulness of the strategies they choose to use and flexibly
change and coordinate the use of clusters of strategies until the task is completed to
their satisfaction.
Every time a new, important, or difficult task is identified, strategic learners go through
the choice, use, and evaluation of strategic learning cycles. In other words, the nature of the
learning task is crucially important in determining what strategies are the most appropriate
and most effective. In addition, what strategies are triggered is also dependent on who the
learner is and what strategy repertoire is available. The need and effectiveness of a strategy
are also influenced by contextual affordances and constraints.

Critical Issues and Topics

Strategies for Vocabulary Learning Tasks

The learning, teaching, assessment, and research of any topic are as good as our understand-
ing of the construct in question. In other words, our conceptions of the target construct
and the task involved in learning, teaching, assessing, and in researching the construct are
crucially important. They determine what we pay attention to, how we do it, and also what
we get at the end. As the saying goes, we reap what we sow. What is it that we sow in the
learning of vocabulary then?
Vocabulary as a learning target and/or learning outcome can be seen in different ways;
and each perspective of the vocabulary learning task will demand the use of different strate-
gies. For example, if learners realize that some words are more frequently used than oth-
ers, they would direct their strategic attention to the most frequent words, and those that
fall within the appropriate frequency bands at their own proficiency level. When learners
become aware that vocabulary knowledge can be viewed from different dimensions such as
breadth, depth, automaticity, and appropriateness, they would understand the need for dif-
ferent strategies to tackle each dimension. Likewise, if learners aim for the receptive rather
than productive knowledge of a word, they should know that these two types of vocabulary
knowledge are best learned in different ways.

272
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

Strategies for Vocabulary Breadth, Depth, Automaticity, and Appropriateness

For learners, teachers, and researchers alike, vocabulary was traditionally understood as how
many words one knows (size or breadth). We realized later that for each word we know, there
are different shades and richness of meaning and various degrees of relatedness to other
words (depth) (Richards, 1976). Only starting from the mid-1990s did researchers begin
to see the importance of a “third dimension” (Meara, 1996) of vocabulary knowledge, i.e.,
automaticity of use. In addition, I would single out a fourth dimension of vocabulary knowl-
edge as needing attention, appropriateness in use, because real competency in vocabulary
would entail not only knowing enough items with a rich knowledge of them, and being able
to use these items automatically when needed, but it also entails the ability to know when to
use what with whom in what context. If the first two dimensions (size and depth) describe
vocabulary as “knowledge”, the next two dimensions (automaticity and appropriateness)
describe vocabulary as “skill” and “use”.
By far, the lion’s share of attention on VLS has been on the expansion of vocabulary size.
The widespread availability of vocabulary size tests, e.g., the Vocabulary Levels Test (VLT)
(Nation, 1990; Schmitt, Schmitt, & Clapham, 2001; Webb, Sasao, & Ballance, 2017),
Vocabulary Size Test (VST) (Coxhead, Nation, & Sim, 2015; Nation & Beglar, 2007), and
the Yes/No Test (Meara & Buxton, 1987) has made it practical to observe the effects of
VLS on vocabulary size (e.g., Gu & Johnson, 1996; Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999). Most
studies on this research question take either a survey approach or an experimental approach.
Survey studies normally make use of a questionnaire that covers a range of VLS and relate
these strategies to a vocabulary size measure. With only very few strategies (e.g., visual
repetition) that are negatively related to vocabulary size, most other strategies from initial
handling of new words (e.g., guessing, dictionary use) to reinforcement (rehearsal, encod-
ing) and productive use (activation) have been found to correlate positively to vocabulary
size. The highest correlations in Gu and Johnson were 0.35 (self-initiation) and 0.31 (acti-
vation); while Kojic-Sabo and Lightbown obtained higher correlations (0.36 for review,
0.47 for dictionary use, and 0.61 for independence). In general, like in most other studies
on language learning strategies, quantitative patterns reveal that the larger repertoire of
strategies learners use, and the more often these strategies are used, the larger the vocabu-
lary size.
In order to obtain a cause and effect relationship between VLS and vocabulary size, a
number of studies have been conducted to train learners with a combination of vocabulary
strategies. Mizumoto and Takeuchi (2009) examined the effectiveness of strategy instruc-
tion among a group of EFL learners at a Japanese university. A range of metacognitive and
cognitive strategies for vocabulary learning were taught explicitly for a period of ten weeks.
Their results showed that “strategy training was effective for both changing the repertoire
of strategies used and improving their frequency of use” (p. 425). The study also showed
that initial low strategy users benefited the most from the training, and that the learners
were picking and choosing rather than taking in all strategies being trained. Some studies
focused on the instruction of metacognitive strategies (Rasekh & Ranjbary, 2003), and some
on specific cognitive strategies such as memory strategies (Atay & Ozbulgan, 2007) and
guessing in context (Craigo, Ehri, & Hart, 2017). All strategy instruction studies showed
effectiveness in improving the retention of vocabulary and in increasing the vocabulary size
of the learners involved.
Strategies aiming directly at the learning of vocabulary depth have been studied. How-
ever, compared to those for vocabulary size, research on vocabulary depth strategies has

273
Peter Yongqi Gu

barely scratched the surface. This is partly due to the relatively late interest in depth and
partly due to the difficulty in measuring vocabulary depth precisely. For example, a widely
used test of vocabulary depth is the Word Associates Test (WAT) (Read, 1993); and it doesn’t
cover many areas of depth (Read, 2000). Another known test that covers depth is the Vocabu-
lary Knowledge Scale (Paribakht & Wesche, 1993; Wesche & Paribakht, 1996). But as a
research tool, it lacks the focus and precision needed for research purposes (Bruton, 2009).
Despite these difficulties, research and pedagogical efforts have been directly aimed at learn-
ing strategies for vocabulary depth in recent years. Zhang and Lu (2015) used Schmitt’s
(1997) questionnaire to elicit VLS, and asked the participants to complete two vocabulary
breadth tests, i.e., Schmitt et al.’s (2001) version of the VLT for meaning recognition and a
meaning recall test based on the same words in the VLT, plus Read’s (2000) WAT as a depth
test. Structural equation modeling indicated that strategies for learning the form of words
and association strategies benefited both vocabulary breadth and depth. However, word list
strategies negatively predicted both breadth and depth measures. Ranalli (2013a, 2013b)
designed an innovative strategy instruction package for personalized training of diction-
ary strategies online. The online platform also included just-in-time information for “deep
vocabulary knowledge”. Error identification and error correction tasks were performed as
pretest and posttests. The results indicated that the online strategy instruction package was
effective in improving both dictionary strategies and error identification and correction.
Practically no research can be found investigating how learners aim at improving the
automaticity and appropriateness of their vocabulary. While the “skill” and “use” dimen-
sions of vocabulary might not surface in the learner’s awareness to warrant deliberate stra-
tegic learning, at least not as often as the breadth and depth “knowledge” dimensions, the
lack of research on the strategic learning of these dimensions reveals researchers’ lack of
awareness as well.

Frequency Bands and Learning Strategies

Not all words are equally used. In fact, some words are used so often that they appear in
virtually all texts and contexts; while some other words are rarely encountered, if at all.
Nation (2001) distinguished four types of vocabulary: high-frequency vocabulary, academic
vocabulary, technical vocabulary, and low-frequency vocabulary (see also chapters by Liu
and Lei, Coxhead, Vilkaitė-Lozdienė and Schmitt in this volume). The first 2,000 most
frequent word families account for about 85% of any text. Clearly these words are the most
important words to be learned as early as possible, using whatever strategic resources. The
most frequent words represent the core meaning system in any language, without which a
functional working language, no matter how rudimentary, will be impossible to establish.
Direct, intentional learning of form-meaning pairs making use of word cards or smartphone
apps should be very efficient in the initial learning of these words. The nature of the high
frequency category normally ensures multiple, context-based further encounters in natural
language acquisition contexts. However, in input-poor environments where the classroom
and the textbook constitute the major forms of input, deliberately looking for and adding
opportunities to encounter these words would also be needed for the incidental acquisition
of depth, automaticity, and contextual appropriateness.
Academic words are words often used across a range of academic disciplines. Cox-
head’s (2000) Academic Word List (AWL) contains only 570 of these words; and yet this
small group of words constitutes about 8% to 10% of academic texts. Learners aiming to
study beyond the secondary school level will find this list strategically useful. Like the high

274
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

frequency list, it is highly cost-effective to allocate attentional resources to the learning of

academic vocabulary. Again, direct and list learning would be a useful strategy for initial
learning, followed by both deliberate and more natural exposures to these words in academic
reading and listening exercises.
Technical vocabulary refers to the words closely related to a specific technical topic area
such as chemistry, mathematics, engineering, or education. There are about 2,000 words
in this category under each of these areas. These words cover up to 30% of technical texts
depending on different subjects. They are a must for students of a particular field, and can
be ignored by other language learners. Learners of technical words are normally learning the
subject matter at the same time, and therefore are already functional users of the language.
As such, direct list learning would be enough to quickly add the new words (mostly nouns
and verbs) to their existing system to form the conceptual disciplinary background for fur-
ther learning.
The low-frequency group, which broadly includes all remaining words, make up only
about 5% of academic texts. If we remove mid-frequency vocabulary (the 4th to 9th 1,000
frequency bands) (Schmitt & Schmitt, 2014), the low-frequency group’s coverage of texts
would be so low that they become dispensable. Learners would not be making the best
use of their time if considerable attention is paid to learn low-frequency words. The over-
whelming majority of these words, if encountered in text, would be easily guessable through
vocabulary guessing strategies (Gu, 2015). The most appropriate strategies for learning these
words would be incidental learning, i.e., deliberately leaving the acquisition of these words
to potential natural encounters, with the hope of picking them up with or without even the
conscious awareness of the learner when enough repetitions occur.
It should be noted that no empirical research can be found as to what strategies learn-
ers naturally use for the learning of each type of vocabulary illustrated in this section. This
lack of research again reflects the VLS researchers’ lack of awareness of the importance
of analyzing learning goals. Of course, a simple awareness of the statistical distribution of
vocabulary by learners and teachers should not only trigger differentiated strategic treat-
ment of vocabulary learning, but also empower learners to selectively allocate their learning
resources for the most relevant kinds of vocabulary they need.

Strategies for Receptive and Productive Vocabulary

Vocabulary knowledge can be seen as either receptive (passive) or productive (active).
Receptive knowledge represents the ability to recognize the form, meaning, and use of a
vocabulary item, whereas productive knowledge enables the learner to use the item in the
right form, meaning, and use (Nation, 2001). In natural language acquisition situations,
most words are learned receptively through extensive exposure. Only a small proportion of
words become productive. In other words, most scholars believe that there is a continuum
and progression from receptive to productive vocabulary, and that the receptive vocabulary
of any learner would be much larger than his or her productive vocabulary (Laufer & Parib-
akht, 1998). For example, the productive/receptive ratio for a group of 10th grader Israeli
high school students was 89%, and that for the 11th graders was 73% (Laufer, 1998). Webb
(2008) examined the vocabulary of a group of Japanese university EFL learners and played
with two types of scoring methods (sensitive vs. strict). The ratio for the sensitive scoring
method was 93% and that for strict scoring was 77%. The gap between productive and recep-
tive vocabulary is relatively small at high-frequency levels, but becomes increasingly wider
as the frequency level decreases (Laufer & Paribakht, 1998; Zhong & Hirsh, 2009).

275
Peter Yongqi Gu

Empirical research on receptive and productive vocabulary has mainly focused on vocab-
ulary tests. Due to the possibility of a relatively finite vocabulary in English for sampling
purposes, receptive vocabulary tests that require recognition and recall are relatively easy
to design. The same cannot be said of productive vocabulary, although a number of fruitful
attempts at measuring productive vocabulary have been explored. One such attempt is the
Lexical Frequency Profile (Laufer & Nation, 1995); another is Lex30 (Meara & Fitzpatrick,
2000).
Researchers have also explored the learning of receptive and productive vocabulary in
recent years. Waring (1997) explored the learning of receptive vs. productive vocabulary by
a group of Japanese learners of English, and concluded that receptive learning is easier than
productive learning, in that productive learning takes more time and is retained less well than
receptive learning. Waring also found that words learned receptively can become productive
or vice versa. Likewise, Webb (2005) also found that both reading (receptive) and writing
(productive) tasks led to multiple aspects of vocabulary knowledge, although, when time
on task was not controlled, productive tasks were more effective than receptive tasks for all
aspects of vocabulary knowledge measured.
Most studies on VLS have focused on receptive vocabulary. An explicit distinction is
rarely made between strategies for receptive or productive vocabulary, and the overwhelm-
ing dependent variables in these studies are typically receptive vocabulary size measures.
Two studies did look at the strategies related to both receptive and productive vocabulary.
Fan (2000) examined the gap between the receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge
among a group of first-year students at a university in Hong Kong. She also used a ques-
tionnaire to elicit VLS from these learners. Notably, Fan defined passive vocabulary in her
study as the ability to recognize an item when presented, and active vocabulary as the abil-
ity to recall the target word when presented with some sort of stimuli. In this sense, the
active vocabulary test in this study is similar to the “controlled production vocabulary levels
test” (Laufer & Nation, 1999). Fan found that the ratio between active and passive vocabu-
lary among different groups of students ranged from 81.3% to 53%, with an average ratio
of 69.2%. Interestingly, the seven strategies found significantly correlated with the active
vocabulary scores in this study were not actually aimed at the development of productive
vocabulary. Gu (2010) studied the productive vocabulary of a group of Chinese ESL learn-
ers preparing for university study in Singapore, and correlated the strategies elicited in a
questionnaire with measures of the lexical frequency profile in a composition. An interest-
ing finding was the negative correlations between VLS and the proportion of the first 1,000
most frequent words found in the compositions. In other words, if the students used VLS
more often, they would have used less of the first 1,000 words and more sophisticated words
beyond the first 1,000 level. Beyond the 1,000-band level, the picture was much more com-
plex.
It should be noted that despite recent interest in helping learners bridge the gap between
receptive and productive vocabulary (Lee & Muncie, 2006; Yamamoto, 2011), VLS research-
ers have so far not paid explicit attention to the strategies for learning productive vocabu-
lary. The most often seen taxonomies of VLS have either ignored these strategies (Schmitt,
1997) or paid cursory attention to them (Gu, 2013b). Given the importance of productive
vocabulary and our knowledge of the divergent routes for the development of receptive and
productive vocabularies, future research should examine how learners deal with the learning
of productive vocabulary.
The way a learner perceives the vocabulary learning task not only influences what strate-
gies will be chosen, but also whether strategic learning of vocabulary will become useful

276
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

at all. For example, if a learner tries to increase her vocabulary size (breadth), there is a
high probability that she will see the vocabulary learning task as mainly a memory task.
Accordingly, her attention would probably be allocated to the addition of form-meaning
pairs without due consideration for the depth of knowledge, the automaticity of use, and the
appropriateness of using each word. As a consequence, the learner may be able to increase
her vocabulary size successfully, but this does not mean that her language proficiency would
be improved proportionally. This was borne out in Gu and Johnson (1996) where the strate-
gies that were significantly correlated with vocabulary size did not always correlate highly
with a general proficiency measure. In extreme situations, the fixated aim of “size” may even
prevent the learner from succeeding in developing a functional level of competence that can
be described as vocabulary in use.

Strategic Self-Regulation in Vocabulary Learning

Strategic learning of vocabulary is, by nature, a matter of human agency, and not just a mat-
ter of the learning task demanding different strategies. Learners themselves bring with them
cultural and educational backgrounds that perceive certain types of strategies more favor-
ably than others. Learners also differ along an array of individual difference factors such as
motivation, personality, aptitude, and preferred learning styles. In other words, which strate-
gies are used and how useful they become are very much not just a function of what tasks
are being attended to and what strategies are needed, but also what strategies are available,
preferred, and whether a learner proactively engages in the whole process at all (Gu, 2003b).
Learner factors in strategic vocabulary learning has always been a central concern. Over
the years, empirical research has explored quantitative grouping of learners into types by
examining their use of VLS (Ahmed, 1989; Gu & Johnson, 1996). There are also many
insightful qualitative accounts of how cultural and individual difference factors combine to
influence the choice, use, and effectiveness of VLS (Gu, 2003a; Parry, 1997; Sanaoui, 1995).
Ahmed (1989) used a think-aloud task supported by observations and interviews to
elicit the VLS among 300 Sudanese learners of English. Cluster analysis of these strategies
revealed three types of good learners and two types of underachieving learners. The good
learners used more strategies more often; and were found to be clearly aware of what they
could learn about new words. They chose when to ask teachers and peers for help and when
to use the dictionary as a source of information. They knew the importance of learning words
in context and were conscious of the relationship between new words and known words. The
underachieving groups were not aware of what they could learn about new words; and did
not show interest in learning new words in context. One group was characterized by a limited
number of strategies. They overlooked or ignored unknown words, did not use the diction-
ary and did not use the L2 at all. The other group of underachievers used very few practice
strategies, although some of them did take notes about the new word meanings.
Gu and Johnson’s (1996) cluster analysis also revealed five types of learners based on the
VLS these learners used. One small group of highly successful learners used context-based
strategies almost exclusively and were labeled “readers”. Another group of very successful
learners actively used most of the strategies more often than others and were labeled “active
strategy users”. A mirror image of the active strategy users was a group of learners who
used only the visual repetition strategy up to a medium level; and used all other strategies
much less than other learners. This group was labeled “passive strategy users”. This was a
group who were probably not interested in learning, exerted minimum effort, and had much
lower results in both vocabulary size and general English proficiency. Two other groups

277
Peter Yongqi Gu

only differed between themselves in terms of the amount of effort they spent on encoding
strategies. They were both medium-level strategy users and achieved medium-level learning
results. It is interesting to note that the five groups of learners had been indistinguishable
in terms of their English proficiency level at university entry. The dramatic differences in
vocabulary size and general proficiency a year later when the study took place could well
have been due to the different configurations of their VLS.
The importance of learner factors in strategic vocabulary learning is well documented
in a number of case studies. For example, the two types of good learners and their strategic
learning efforts in Gu and Johnson (1996) were illustrated in detail in Gu (2003a) in terms
learning style differences. Earlier, Gu (1994) also showed striking contrasts between the
strategic learning efforts of a successful learner and an unsuccessful learner in learning
vocabulary.
It is interesting to note that most case studies have discovered different approaches or
styles in vocabulary learning, e.g., holistic vs. analytic (Parry, 1991, 1997), structured vs.
unstructured (Sanaoui, 1995), or fine-brush vs. free-hand (Gu, 2003a). These case studies
were not able to conclude if any approach was better than any other approach. Sanaoui
(1995) indicated that the structured approach was more effective than the unstructured
approach. Parry (1997) advocated for flexibility because “both approaches are necessary
but that neither is appropriate at all times” (p. 67).
Another way of examining learner-related factors in strategic learning is looking at the
learner’s self-regulation of motivation. Rather than focusing on the “skill” of self-regulated
learning of vocabulary, this line of research has focused on the “will” side of self-regula-
tion in vocabulary learning. Based on Kuhl’s (1987) motivation theory of “action control”,
Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) developed a “Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary
Learning” scale which included five “volition control strategies”: commitment, metacogni-
tive, satiation, emotion, and environment control. Essentially “volition control strategies”
are meta-level strategies for controlling cognition (metacognitive), motivation, and emotion
in making sure that desirable goals are achieved after the goals are set (Corno & Kanfer,
1993). They can, therefore, be seen as a type of learning strategies for the management of
cognitive, motivational, and emotional tasks in vocabulary learning.

Learning Context and Vocabulary Learning Strategies

Learning vocabulary in different places and environments naturally means different affor-
dances and constraints in terms of input frequency, modality, authenticity and output
demands and opportunities, among other things. When faced with new or difficult learning
tasks presented by varied contexts of learning, learners normally need to adjust their learning
strategies in order to maximize opportunities and increase efficiency of the learning process.
Commonly observed learning context differences include English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL), L1 learning vs. the learning of English
Language Learners (ELL) or the learning of English as an Additional Language (EAL). With
rapid globalization, migration, and international moves and transitions being a common
phenomenon of today’s world, language learning strategies for study abroad and immersion
or CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) programs warrant serious attention.
Likewise, vocabulary strategies for learning inside vs. outside classrooms, especially online
learning environments, need to be studied as well.
When learners move from one learning context to another, the sudden change of input
or output affordances may provide enough of an impetus to prompt the adoption of new

278
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

VLS. One typical scenario is the study abroad context, mostly a move from an EFL to an
ESL learning environment. Gao (2003) interviewed 13 Chinese EFL learners’ uses of VLS
after they moved from mainland China to Britain. Three major changes in strategies were
reported: (1) The participants became more selective in choosing which words to focus on.
In particular, attention was paid mostly to words that were related to academic and social
needs. (2) Dictionaries (which had been the primary source of meaning when they were in
China) became a last resort that was used only for the discovery of meaning. Contextual
guessing and occasionally asking for clarification became the primary strategies for mean-
ing-making. (3) Consolidation of newly learned words which had been done mainly through
rote repetitions before their arrival in the UK were now being done mainly through authentic
language use in reading and writing. Out of the ten factors identified in the interviews as
having influenced the changes in VLS, four factors were grouped under “learner factors” and
the other six “contextual factors”. The learner factors included changes in motivation and in
beliefs about vocabulary learning, and improvement of language proficiency. For a couple
of learners with prior experience of language use, they simply continued and reinforced what
they used to do after they arrived in the UK. In a sense, even these “learner factors” were
closely related to contextual factors. Understandably, the contextual factors included mostly
affordances and needs such as input and output opportunities, academic needs, priorities,
culture, and the use of technology.
The out-of-class language needs and task demands in a study abroad context were
examined in Briggs’ (2015) study of 241 adult English language learners residing in the
UK. Twenty-eight statements were included in a questionnaire asking about out-of-class
language contact. Exploratory factor analysis identified three major types of out-of-class
language activities: (1) “interactive” activities included listening to and speaking English;
(2) “literate” activities involved reading and writing; and (3) “narrative” activities mainly
focused on comprehending or producing the narration of experiences. Notably, only a long
stay group (16–20 weeks) achieved an overall gain in vocabulary size with a large effect size.
Wang (2015) went further and described how exactly two Chinese learners of English
at foundation programs in the UK selected strategies to learn vocabulary and how they
combined strategies into sequences or clusters to tackle vocabulary learning tasks. Some of
these tasks and strategies might be appropriate for an in-class context; and some of them
were more relevant to out-of-class contexts, such as learning at home to check out the details
of word meanings in a dictionary after a class encounter, or talking to a shop assistant to
find out if the guessed meaning of “cleansing lotion” was correct. This way, the learning of
each vocabulary item was shown to be contextualized and situated. The dynamic process
of vocabulary learning was seen in motion as the strategies were selected, combined, used,
and evaluated.
Another contextual dimension for vocabulary learning is the difference between first
language (L1) and second language (L2). Most research so far on VLS has focused on L2
contexts, partly due to the difficult nature of L2 vocabulary learning, and partly due to the
common perception that L1 vocabulary develops easily. Task demands and learning con-
text differences constitute the major differences between vocabulary learning in L1 and L2.
Learning the vocabulary of a foreign language especially at an early stage is very much part
of establishing the foreign language system as a working linguistic system. In L1 vocabulary
learning contexts, on the other hand, children’s vocabulary development is heavily depen-
dent on the functioning language system that has already been established to a certain extent.
It is also dependent on the widespread ease of exposure and to language use opportunities.
Under such circumstances, the most natural strategies for vocabulary learning would focus

279
Peter Yongqi Gu

on mapping new or existing concepts to new word forms. As such, strategies for inciden-
tal vocabulary learning that make full use of the existing linguistic functions become not
only possible but also desired. Strategies for intentional learning, when needed, can afford
to focus on mapping meaning to form. With multiple exposure opportunities, contextual
nuances and depth of meaning will be gradually added.
There might be a Matthew effect for incidental acquisition of vocabulary, i.e., higher
proficiency level students with a higher level of reading/listening ability acquire more
vocabulary through reading and listening than their lower level counterparts (Penno,
Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002). This means that those who need strategic incidental learning
most may not be equipped with the right skills to do it. Contextual guessing and word
learning has been a long-standing research issue (e.g., Ames, 1966; McKeown, 1985),
although strategic vocabulary learning in general has remained in the side lines of L1
vocabulary research.
The issue of Matthew effect demands more attention in L1 vocabulary learning in view
of the enormous “vocabulary gap” found in early childhood development and the “achieve-
ment gap” in later schooling between children of different socioeconomic status groups
(Hart & Risley, 2003). In addition to the quantity and quality of exposure to words, there
has to be other intervention efforts including “purposeful, strategic conversations” with chil-
dren (Wasik & Hindman, 2015; Wasik & Iannone-Campbell, 2012), strategic selection of
vocabulary (Biemiller, 2005), and the instruction of VLS (Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005).
A related and equally pressing issue is the vocabulary and achievement gap between local
children and a substantial number of immigrant children in schools (August, Carlo, Dressler,
& Snow, 2005). Surprisingly, besides efforts on contextual guessing and other vocabulary
intervention programs (Kelley, Lesaux, Kieffer, & Faller, 2010; Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986),
empirical research on the strategic learning of vocabulary by ELLs or even L1 children
remains nonexistent, or at best sporadic (Gu, 2013a).

Future Directions
Strategies for vocabulary learning are in widespread demand. Empirical studies on the
topic abound. Nevertheless, a quick examination of research efforts reveals a surprisingly
narrow focus. Most studies tend to view VLS as stable gimmicks that can be discovered
and tallied, through a quick tool such as a questionnaire. Vocabulary is mostly seen as a
collection of words in isolation; and frequently, vocabulary learning is measured by some
sort of a vocabulary size measure that captures only the receptive recognition of form-
meaning pairs.
Future research on VLS should go further than replications of strategy tally studies or
reinventing the wheel by designing more questionnaires that capture the same construct (Gu,
2018b). One point to start at is the need to develop a much more sophisticated understanding
of vocabulary. For example, seeing vocabulary as contextualized and dynamic competence
that is situated in authentic language use requires strikingly different strategic treatment
from seeing vocabulary as the recognition of form-meaning pairs, and learning as being
able to recognize the same pairs in a week or two. Much more should also be done from a
learner perspective to fully appreciate the skill, will, and co-construction of strategies and
self- and co-regulation of vocabulary learning. Future research can also explicate the com-
plex and dynamic nature of strategic learning. If we view VLS as moving pictures rather
than static single shots, empirical studies should demand very different research methods
which in turn should produce hitherto unseen insights. In addition, there should be more

280
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

contextually responsive research. Wherever a spotlight is shone upon a socio-educational

issue that involves vocabulary learning as a major problem, VLS researchers should be seen
there taking up the challenge. For example, further VLS studies of L1 acquisition, ELL
achievement, immersion, CLIL, or EMI (English as a medium of instruction) programs are
warranted. Most importantly, VLS researchers should take practical usefulness as the target
of their ultimate research objective, and make sure that their findings are understandable and
useful for those who need their help.
In 2003, I summarized vocabulary acquisition research into ten points and presented
my hopes for future research (Gu, 2003b, pp. 17–18). Although a lot has happened since
then in vocabulary studies and in language learning strategies research, an overwhelm-
ing number of these observations remains the same today. In the following section, I will
briefly highlight three foci that I see as absolutely necessary and urgent for future research
on strategic vocabulary learning. These are vocabulary, strategic learning, and usefulness
of research findings.

Focusing on Vocabulary
Task analysis is a defining feature of strategic behavior. It is a crucial first step of strategic
learning. In addition to generic strategies for vocabulary learning, future research should
aim to investigate the strategies required for learning different types of multiword units, and
different types and components of knowledge of single words.
Applied linguists have long realized the importance of multiword units. The first of Rod
Ellis’s (2005) ten “principles of instructed language learning” highlights the need “to ensure
that learners develop both a rich repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based com-
petence” (p. 210). Vocabulary experts’ attention to multiword units has also lasted for at least
two decades (Schmitt, 2004). It is surprising to see that research on VLS has not caught up
with the development of the vocabulary construct.
Early research on VLS did point to the importance of multiword units. For example,
the two good learners in Gu (2003a) both “consciously emphasized multiword units such
as phrasal verbs and idiomatic expressions” (p. 96). Ding’s (2007) successful learners also
deliberately recited texts to learn collocations and sequences. Nevertheless, rarely has effort
been directed to explicitly studying the strategic learning of multiword units. Studies on the
teaching of multiword units are beginning to emerge. Eyckmans, Boers, and Lindstrom-
berg (2016) compared two often suggested instruction strategies for the learning of lexical
phrases, i.e., (1) contrastive analysis between L1 and L2 to check if the target L2 lexical
phrase shares a similar lexical composition with its L1 counterpart; and (2) analysis of the
lexical makeup of L2 phrases to draw learners’ attention to phonological patterns such as
alliteration or assonance. Their findings suggested that the first strategy did not work; while
the second strategy of attending to alliteration was found to be useful for retention. More
effort along these lines with an explicit focus on the strategies used for learning lexical
chunks is urgently needed.
Continued research is also needed on the strategic learning of single words, although
more effort should be directed to the learning of productive vocabulary, and on the strategic
learning of the depth, automaticity and appropriateness dimensions of vocabulary knowl-
edge. In addition, English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) have become more and more important. It will be very useful to examine the strate-
gies best suited for the learning of discipline-specific “technical vocabulary” and discipline-
general “academic vocabulary”.

281
Peter Yongqi Gu

Focusing on Strategic Learning in Action

Strategies are verbs, not nouns. When we talk about learning strategies, what we are actu-
ally referring to are strategic actions. In fact, an ideal strategy involves at least the following
procedures (Gu, 2012, pp. 336–337):

• Attending selectively to learning problems and tasks

• Analyzing the task at hand, analyzing the self as learner, and analyzing the learning
context
• Making decisions and choices
• Executing plans
• Monitoring progress and modifying plans
• Evaluating results
• Coordinating an orchestrating strategic behavior

Furthermore, this process happens in spiraling cycles and can be modified based on the
learner’s on-the-spot judgment of its effectiveness in solving the learning problem or com-
pleting the learning task, contingent upon contextual demands at the same time.
This conception of learning strategies demands a much more situated and dynamic exami-
nation of VLS than the strategy tally approach that has been dominant. For example, when
counting the presence or absence of a strategy, any of the above steps involved could go astray.
Research tasks that help elicit and observe strategic learning in action will need to be explored.
Some new research tools that document the complex and dynamic nature of strategy execution
and growth are beginning to emerge (e.g., Dong, 2016). More effort could be directed towards
uncovering the dynamics of each stage of a strategic event and determining how different
configurations and coordination of the stages could influence the effectiveness of the strategy.
A related direction for future research is the study of multiple strategies in sync. This
would involve looking at the simultaneous use of strategy clusters or strings. For example,
metacognitive strategies can be deployed before (planning), during (monitoring), and after
(evaluating) the completion of a learning task when a number of cognitive strategies can be
used. This entails another complex and dynamic view of strategy choice and use, in which
multiple strategies are being used consecutively, synchronously, or in a combined fashion
and coordinated in sync. Wang (2015) showed how VLS were combined and coordinated for
successful learning and how these changed over time before and after the learners’ arrival in
the UK. Cohen and Wang (2018) illustrated how the multiple functions of a single strategy
could shift from moment to moment and how learners combined multiple strategies for a
vocabulary learning task. Much more effort along similar lines should be invested before we
could reach another level of understanding for the choice, use, coordination, and effective-
ness of multiple strategies in use.

Focusing on Usefulness
For learners and teachers in language classrooms, VLS must be among the hottest perennial
topics. Language learning strategies as a field of research also started with the practical aim of
helping learners become more effective and efficient in their language learning. Nevertheless,
it is frustrating to see that very few research findings on VLS find their way into the language
classroom (Gu, 2018a). Part of the disconnect between research and practice must be blamed
on the research community for not being consciously aware of our consuming audience,

282
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

and therefore not making enough effort in communicating research findings to the learners
and teachers in need. Despite the narrow focus of research, I have discussed in this chapter,
decades of research on VLS have produced many insights into strategic vocabulary learning
that deserve the cross-over from journal articles to the language classroom.
The research-to-practice pathway is, of course, a proverbial problem for educational
research in general (Levin, 2004), and for the social sciences as well (Wittrock, 1991).
Schneider (2014) analyzed the characteristics of “boundary-crossing scholarship” (p. 34)
and summarized them into four simple characteristics: research ideas need to be visible,
believable, practical, and sharable before they can “make the long leap from the ivory tower
to the schoolhouse” (p. 31). Put against these criteria, it is not too hard to make VLS research
findings believable. However, we do need extra effort to make our research practically use-
ful and sharable, and to go beyond academia to reach out to learners and teachers in order
to make our findings visible as well. Specifically, I believe action research that involves
teachers adopting innovative ways of incorporating VLS training into their classrooms is
warranted. As part of the innovation, formative assessment of VLS should be a link between
language diagnosis and differentiated instruction that would help learners improve their use
of VLS (Gu, 2017).
If we count Ahmed (1989) and his PhD study a year earlier as the first study exclusively
focusing on VLS in second language acquisition, the topic has been explored for exactly
three decades. During these last three decades, we have accomplished the task of exploring
which naturally occurring VLS second language learners normally use, and determin-
ing how these strategies are related to the development of vocabulary size and general lan-
guage proficiency. We have also discovered that the choice, use, and effectiveness of VLS
are mediated by task, learner, and contextual factors, and that the configurations of factors
and relationships are complex, dynamic, and situated. It is now high time to do less surface-
level explorations and more in-depth examinations. It is also time to look beyond our own
empirical studies and extend our practical help to the learners and teachers in classrooms
who need to learn from our insights.

Further Reading
Gu, Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-
EJ, 7(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a4.html
This is a comprehensive review of research on vocabulary learning strategies. The review is based
on a tetrahedral model of language learning strategies that sees VLS being influenced by learners,
tasks, and learning contexts.
Nyikos, M., & Fan, M. (2007). A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language pro-
ficiency and learner voice. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: 30
years of research and practice (pp. 251–273). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
This is another review of VLS research. It appears in an influential volume that reviews 30 years of
research on various aspects of language learning strategies.

Related Topics
The different aspects of vocabulary knowledge, factors affecting the learning of single-word items,
factors affecting the learning of multiword items, incidental vocabulary learning, deliberate vocabulary
learning, approaches to learning vocabulary inside the classroom, learning words through flash cards
and word cards, resources for learning single-word items, resources for learning multiword items

283
Peter Yongqi Gu

References
Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), Beyond words (pp. 3–14).
London, UK: British Association for Applied Linguistics, in association with Centre for Informa-
tion on Language Teaching and Research.
Ames, W. S. (1966). The development of a classification scheme of contextual aids. Reading Research
Quarterly, 2(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/747039
Atay, D., & Ozbulgan, C. (2007). Memory strategy instruction, contextual learning and ESP vocabu-
lary recall. English for Specific Purposes, 26(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.01.002
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary development for
English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(1), 50–57.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words
for primary grade vocabulary instruction. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and
learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Briggs, J. G. (2015). Out-of-class language contact and vocabulary gain in a study abroad context.
System, 53, 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.07.007
Bruton, A. (2009). The vocabulary knowledge scale: A critical analysis. Language Assessment Quar-
terly, 6(4), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434300902801909
Carlo, M. S., August, D., & Snow, C. E. (2005). Sustained vocabulary-learning strategy instruction for
English-language learners. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabu-
lary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 137–153). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2018). Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies.
System, 74, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.011
Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and performance. Review of Research
in Education, 19(1), 301–341. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X019001301
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213–238.
Coxhead, A., Nation, I. S. P., & Sim, D. (2015). Measuring the vocabulary size of native speakers of
English in New Zealand secondary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1),
121–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0002-3
Craigo, L., Ehri, L. C., & Hart, M. (2017). Teaching community college students strategies for learning
unknown words as they read expository text. Higher Learning Research Communications, 7(1),
43–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v7i1.350
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of
English. System, 35(2), 271–280.
Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use
and listening performance. System, 63(Supplement C), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
system.2016.10.004
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209–224.
Eyckmans, J., Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2016). The impact of imposing processing strategies on
L2 learners’ deliberate study of lexical phrases. System, 56(Supplement C), 127–139. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.001
Fan, M. Y. (2000). How big is the gap and how to narrow it? An investigation into the active and pas-
sive vocabulary knowledge of L2 learners. RELC Journal, 31(2), 105–119.
Gao, X. (2003). Changes in Chinese students’ learner strategy use after arrival in the UK: A qualitative
enquiry. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 41–57).
Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.
Goulden, R., Nation, I. S. P., & Read, J. (1990). How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied
Linguistics, 11(4), 341–363.
Gu, Y. (1994). Vocabulary learning strategies of good and poor Chinese EFL learners. In N. Bird, P.
Falvey, A. B. M. Tsui, D. M. Allison, & A. McNeill (Eds.), Language and learning (pp. 376–401).
Hong Kong: The Education Department.

284
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

Gu, Y. (2003a). Fine brush and freehand: The vocabulary learning art of two successful Chinese EFL
learners. TESOL Quarterly, 37(1), 73–104.
Gu, Y. (2003b). Vocabulary learning in a second language: Person, task, context and strategies. TESL-
EJ, 7(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej26/a4.html
Gu, Y. (2010). Learning strategies for vocabulary development. Reflections on English Language
Teaching, 9(2), 105–118.
Gu, Y. (2012). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Studies in Self-
Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 330–356.
Gu, Y. (2013a). Second language vocabulary. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International
guide to student achievement (pp. 307–309). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gu, Y. (2013b). Vocabulary learning strategies. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.
wbeal1329
Gu, Y. (2015). Vocabulary guessing strategies. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics (pp. 1–7). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.
wbeal1469
Gu, Y. (2017). Formative assessment of language learning strategies. 英语学习（教师版）English
Language Learning (Teacher Edition), 2017(9), 16–24.
Gu, Y. (2018a). Making language learning strategies research useful: Insights from China for the
world. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual
learner characteristics: Situating strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 143–163). New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Academic.
Gu, Y. (2018b). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies for ESL learn-
ers. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 325–350. https://doi.org/10.14746/
ssllt.2018.8.2.7
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes.
Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American
Educator, Spring, 4–9.
Kelley, J. G., Lesaux, N. K., Kieffer, M. J., & Faller, S. E. (2010). Effective academic vocabulary instruc-
tion in the urban middle school. The Reading Teacher, 64(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.64.1.1
Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students’ approaches to vocabulary learning and their
relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(ii), 176–192.
Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The maintenance of motivational states. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.),
Motivation, intention, and volition (pp. 279–291). Berlin: Springer.
Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or
different. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255–271.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written produc-
tion. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 307–322.
Laufer, B., & Nation, I. S. P. (1999). A vocabulary-size test of controlled productive ability. Language
Testing, 16(1), 33–51.
Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects
of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365–391.
Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabu-
lary in a postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 295–320.
Levin, B. (2004). Making research matter more. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(56). http://
dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n56.2004
McKeown, M. G. (1985). The acquisition of word meaning from context by children of high and low
ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/747855
Meara, P. (1996). The third dimension of vocabulary knowledge. AILA 96, the 11th World Congress of
Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, Finland.

285
Peter Yongqi Gu

Meara, P., & Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing,
4(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228700400202
Meara, P., & Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Lex30: An improved method of assessing productive vocabulary
in an L2. System, 28(1), 19–30.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocab-
ulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching Research,
13(4), 425–449.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2017). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development
in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 09–29.
Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 629–653.
Parry, K. (1997). Vocabulary and comprehension: Two portraits. In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.),
Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy (pp. 55–68). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explana-
tion and repeated listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(1), 23–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.23
Ranalli, J. (2013a). Designing online strategy instruction for teaching knowledge of English word
patterns as a complex cognitive skill. CALICO Journal, 30(1), n/a. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/
cj.30.1.16-43
Ranalli, J. (2013b). Online strategy instruction for integrating dictionary skills and language aware-
ness. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 75–99.
Rasekh, Z. E., & Ranjbary, R. (2003). Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-
EJ, 7(2), A-5.
Read, J. (1993). The development of a new measure of L2 vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing,
10, 355–371.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 77–89.
Sanaoui, R. (1995). Adult learners’ approaches to learning vocabulary in second languages. The Mod-
ern Language Journal, 79, 15–28.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary:
Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 199–227). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (Ed.). (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. (2014). A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary
teaching. Language Teaching, 47(4), 484–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000018
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new
versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test. Language Testing, 18(1), 55–88.
Schneider, J. (2014). Closing the gap . . . between the university and schoolhouse. Phi Delta Kappan,
96(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721714547859
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 72–110.
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The
case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–102.
Wang, K.-H. (Isobel). (2015). The use of dialogic strategy clusters for vocabulary learning by Chinese
students in the UK. System, 51, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.004
Waring, R. (1997). A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards. Studies in Foreign
Languages and Literature, 21, 94–114.

286
 Strategies for Learning Vocabulary

Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2015). Talk alone won’t close the 30-million word gap. Phi Delta
Kappan, 96(6), 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715575300
Wasik, B. A., & Iannone-Campbell, C. (2012). Developing vocabulary through purposeful, strategic
conversations. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01095
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on
word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 33–52.
Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, 30, 79–95.
Webb, S., Sasao, Y., & Ballance, O. (2017). The updated Vocabulary Levels Test. ITL – International
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 33–69. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.02web
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth
versus breadth. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13–40.
Wittrock, B. (1991). Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction. In P. Wagner,
C. H. Weiss, B. Wittrock, & H. Wollman (Eds.), Social sciences and modern states (pp. 333–354).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983993.015
Yamamoto, M. (2011). Bridging the gap between receptive and productive vocabulary size through
extensive reading. The Reading Matrix, 11(3), 226–242.
Zhang, X., & Lu, X. (2015). The relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and breadth
and depth of vocabulary knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 740–753. https://doi.
org/10.1111/modl.12277
Zhong, H., & Hirsh, D. (2009). Vocabulary growth in an English as a foreign language context. Uni-
versity of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 4, 85–113.

287