FL vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size Comparing

FL vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size: Comparing Spanish Heritage & non-Heritage students Lt Col Dieter A. Waldvogel, Ph. D Department of Foreign Languages U. S. Air Force Academy Introduction Since the 1980 s, the U. S. has seen a significant growth in Spanish Heritage Language (SHL) students at schools across the nation, a fourfold increase since 1980 (8 -10% of USAFA cadets are SHLs). Traditionally, SHL and nonheritage students with similar proficiencies have been assigned to the same Spanish courses, but many foreign language (FL) departments are seeing the need to offer Spanish FL courses specifically designed for these SHLs, but why? Do SHL students learn Spanish differently than non-heritage learners? The vocabulary of a FL is arguably the most difficult aspect of FL learning. Do heritage and non-heritage Spanish students with similar levels of proficiency differ on how they learn new vocabulary? If so, why? No study to date has explored the differences in vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) between Spanish heritage and non-heritage students, until now. Goals / Research Questions The goal of this exploratory study is to examine the differences in vocabulary size and VLS between heritage and nonheritage students with similar (advanced) overall Spanish FL proficiency. Research Questions: Do advanced SHLs and advanced non-heritage Spanish FL students differ significantly in the types of VLS they claim to use? If so, what are the main patterns of variation? Research Design Quantitative study designed to investigate the relationships between students’ sight vocabulary size and THE VLSs they claim to use. The data from both groups was compared and differences were analysed. Participants: USAFA Spanish students Ø Ø Non-Heritage Advanced Spanish FL students (300+ level): n = 105 SHL Advanced (300+ level) Spanish students: n = 26 Tools: 1. Spanish Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (VLQ) Ø Ø 60 VLS within 6 categories (table) Using Schmitt’s (1997) Taxonomy of L 2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Discovery Strategies Determination Strategies Social Strategies Consolidation Strategies Memory Strategies Cognitive Strategies Metacognitive Strategies Schmitt’s (1997) Taxonomy of L 2 Vocabulary Learning 2. Spanish Vocabulary Size test Ø Adapted from Meara and Buxton’s (1987) and DIALANG’s Spanish vocabulary size test (Alderson, 2005) Data Analyses: Data was analyzed using ANOVAs, multiple linear regression and Pearson correlation analyses. Results Vocabulary size test mean scores: 1. Non-Heritage Advanced Spanish FL students: 105. 7 out of 150 2. SHL ad Spanish students: 132. 9/150 The vocabulary test‘s Cronbach Alpha internal reliability coefficient was. 967 which suggests highly reliable results. One-way ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in vocabulary score means between the two groups (<. 001). Multiple linear regression analyzes results show significant relationships between 3 types of VLS and the vocabulary test scores in the non-heritage group (F = 4. 1, p <. 001) Ø Consolidation Social learning strategies (p <. 004) Ø Cognitive learning strategies (p <. 002) Ø Metacognitive learning strategies (p <. 02) Ø 23% of the variance (R-Square. 229) in the vocabulary test scores among the advanced non-SHL students can be attributed to the use of these three types of strategies Multiple linear regression analyzes results show significant relationships between one type of VLS (Cognitive Strategies) and vocabulary test scores in the SHL group (<. 01), however, it was a strong negative correlation (-. 479) between Cognitive learning strategies and vocabulary size. Meaning SHL students with the highest vocabulary size scores claim to use the fewest cognitive learning strategies. ü Advanced non-heritage Spanish FL students rely on Social, Cognitive and Metacognitive vocabulary learning strategies which have significant positive correlations with vocabulary scores. ü Advanced SHL students rely more on Social learning strategies, but only Cognitive VLS were found to have a significant but negative relationship with their vocabulary size. ü Advanced non-heritage Spanish FL students on average use 25 different learning strategies while SHL students average 20. Discussion Based on the results from this small sample (n = 26) of Advanced SHL students: A. Adv SHL students have a much larger Spanish FL sight vocabulary than Adv non-heritage students. B. Adv non-heritage Spanish FL students focus on explicit, social, cognitive and metacognitive VLS to acquire new vocabulary. C. SHL students do not focus on explicit Spanish vocabulary learning; instead, they learn vocabulary implicitly through Social interactions with other Spanish speakers Pedagogical Implications Teachers must help non-heritage Spanish students develop effective Social, Cognitive and Metacognitive learning skills to acquire new vocabulary – an explicit focus on vocabulary learning is important for non-heritage students in order to grow their sight vocabulary. Advanced SHL students acquire new vocabulary implicitly through social learning strategies, in the same way as people acquire their native language vocabulary. Providing both advanced heritage and non-heritage students ample opportunities to engage in social learning strategies is vital for both groups of learners. References Alderson, J. (2005). Diagnosing foreign language proficiency: The interface between learning and assessment. New York: Continuum. Meara, P. and Buxton, B. (1987). An alternative to multiple choice vocabulary tests. Language Testing, 4(2), 142. Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. Mc. Carthy (Eds. ), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.