Using Vocabulary Games to Increase the Use of Language Learning Strategy

Margaret Chen
Associate Professor of Graduate Institute of Foreign Languages Education and Cultural Industries Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Ying Ting, Hsiao

Research Assistant of Language Diagnostic and Consulting Center Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate how a 20-hour-vocabulary-game training program affected the participants use of language learning strategies. The participants in the experiment were 46 EFL college students who voluntarily joined the program either from July 14th to 25th or from August 11th to 22nd, 2008, two hours a day. The vocabulary training program adopted three types of games, invented by Chen, M. (2008) in the form of Poker cards, Chinese Chess and Gobang. The three games were consisted of 153 words which, through the games regulations could generate another 454 compound words. After playing the three types of games for approximately 20 hours, the participants were expected to learn 607 words altogether. Oxfords Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) was used to find out if the use of learning strategies differed before and after the training program. A vocabulary test written by the authors was employed to investigate the gains of vocabulary size, but its result is not included in this paper. SPSS was used for data analysis. The paired-sample t-test result showed that there were significant differences between pretest and post-test in the use of all strategies, and direct strategies in particular. It is suggested that a further series of researches be conducted with more participants from different groups of learners so that a norm of this designed vocabulary training program can be established. Moreover, the retention rate of the words can be measured again with the same participants so to find out if the games help long-term memory. Finally, studies of comparison between an experiment group and a control group can be conducted for further investigation regarding the result of the three types of vocabulary learning games with those of other vocabulary learning methods. Key words: Language learning strategies, vocabulary learning strategies, educational games, vocabulary games

Introduction and Background of the Study

In Taiwan, English is a compulsory language subject from the third grade of elementary school to the end of high school. Looking back over the time that Taiwanese students have spent in learning English, excluding attending supplementary classes in cram schools, they have learned English for almost 10 years, or 20 semesters, equivalent to 360 school weeks, or 1080 hours (averaging three hours a week). If we take the CEFR as an index, anyone who spends1080 hours learning a language would have achieved at least B1 level with the following competence: Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment, p.24 However, observing from the facts and existing phenomena, Taiwanese TOEFL-iBT average scores in 2006-2007 increased from 71 to 72 out of a full score of 120 (www.toefl.org). Granted that progress exists, Taiwan still ranked a considerable distance behind both China and South Korea (or with an average score of 78 and 77 respectively). In addition, most university students, on average should be able to reach the intermediate level of the national testGeneral English Proficiency Test (GEPT). The Department of Technological and Vocational Education of the Ministry of Education (MOE) tested the English language proficiency of 11,205 students in technological and vocational colleges and universities over three consecutive annual tests from 2001 to 2003. These tests revealed that only 18.1% (2026 students) achieved the basic level of the GEPT. More than 80% of students from the technological and vocational system were not even able to comprehend or use the simplest phrases of daily English language in the tests established by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC, 2004). A year later, according to data collected in 2005 by the Integrated Higher Education Database System in Taiwan, among 71,104 university and technological and vocational freshmen, only 35.94% of them had passed the basic level of the GEPT test, which means that more than 64% of university freshmen failed to achieve the basic level of the GEPT. The results of the above mentioned proficiency tests reveal the Taiwanese students levels of English proficiency. However, in a test-oriented country such as Taiwan, test scores are often used as indicators influencing the objectives of English courses. Most of the English learned in schools is for test purposes and not for communication, nor for career preparation. Therefore,

if one looks at the English curriculum, most objectives are related to teaching content, not strategies. Researches in fields pertaining to language learning strategy application in Taiwan also reflect a scarcity in teaching strategies. Even when reviewing researches on learning strategies in second language acquisition, studies intended to validate strategy effectiveness and how they help students become good language learners still require further exploration. Thus, a brief introduction to the background of this study will be further set out in the following section.

Language Learning Strategy

In the past 30 years, attempts to investigate language learning strategies in both ESL and EFL have been prolific. Starting from Rubins (1975) investigation on how good language learners learned to understanding the learning processes of good language learners (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern & Todesco (1978), they spearheaded the exploration in this field, and led other researchers in the 1980s to identify and classify language learning strategies (OMalley, Chamot, Stewner-manazares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, Nyikos, & Crookall, 1987; Rubin, 1981, 1987). Meanwhile, researchers also proposed language learning techniques for specific language skills and tasks (Naiman, et al, 1978; Rubin & Thompson, 1994) and compiled inventories for Language learning strategies for both ESL and EFL learners (Brown, 2002; Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary & Robbins, 1999; Cohen & Chi, 2001; Cohen & Oxford, 200l; Ehrman, 1998; Oxford, 1986, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). Efforts done in the past few decades all presented their intentions to find the most effective methods for language learners. Thus, following the trend, more and more efforts have been dedicated to examining factors that affect the choices (Oxford & Bury-stock, 1995; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), frequency (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Chamot & OMalley, 1987; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995) and variety (Cohen, 1990; OMalley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, & Kupper, 1985; OMalley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1989, 1990, 1992; Wenden & Rubin, 1987) of language learning strategies and their correlation with language proficiency and effectiveness among different groups (Green, 1991; Green & Oxford, 1995; Ho, 1999; Mangubhai, 1991; Okada, Oxford & Abo, 1996; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Park, 1997; Purpura, 1998).

Language Learning Strategy in Taiwan

Researchers on Taiwan were no exception in their intention of identifying language learners frequent use of language learning strategies (Chang, 2002; Chen, Y. C., 2005; Chen, M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002; Huang, 2002; Teng, 2000; Yang, N. D., 1993; Yang, S. C., 1997). In addition, investigating factors that affected the use of language learning strategies was also a major area for researches in this field: language proficiency level (Chen, Y. C., 2005; Chen, M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002; Fan, 2003; Ho, 1999; Ku, 2003; Teng, 2000; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1997, 1999), motivation (Yang, N. D, 1996), gender (Chen, M., 2007; Chang & Chang,1998; Teng, 2000; Sy, 1996; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1997,

1999), years of study English and the participants major (Chen, 2007; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1997, 1999). However, in Yang S. C.s major study done in 1999, she also attempted to investigate how learning type, psychological types, listening, vocabulary and reading related with language learning strategies. Yang N. D. (2003, 2005), however, after conducting a systematic research with respect to factors affecting the use of language learning strategies, revised her focus on the implementation of Learning Strategy-Based instruction in the language classroom by using both paper and web-based portfolios that promoted independent learning and a tailor-made program for each individual learner. Huang (2001) also implemented an English learning strategy training course and assessed its impacts on college-level students learning achievement, attitudes, anxiety, and proficiency. The training program showed significant improvement in English proficiency, motivational intensity, strategy use, and a significant decrease in English learning anxiety.

Vocabulary Learning Strategies

As a major sub-field in language learning strategies, vocabulary learning strategy, investigated by researchers in the 1970s, was derived from fields related to good learners (Schmitt, 1997). Despite the fact that a great majority of studies related to language learning strategies had concentrated on vocabulary, possibly for its discrete point tasks and ease of experiment execution (Schmitt & Schmitt, 1993), few studies, if not dealing with individual or small numbers of learning strategies, emphasized vocabulary learning strategies as a whole (Schmitt & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt, 1997). Individual vocabulary learning strategies such as contextual guessing, association, note-taking, use of a dictionary, and rote repetition among different groups of learners were widely investigated. For instance, repetition was regarded as the most commonly mentioned strategy while strategies that require complex manipulation of information were used less frequently (OMalley, et al., 1985). Rote memory tools such as word lists were considered effective to enhance the acquisition of a great deal of vocabulary in a short period of time (Nation, 1982). On the other hand, Cohen and Aphek (1980) found that proficient students tended to be better at applying association skills.

Vocabulary Learning Strategy Training Program

While abundant studies have shed light on understanding learners vocabulary learning strategies, it is argued that a lack of application of vocabulary strategy training must be complemented by further investigation. Fan (2003) investigated the frequency, perceived and actual usefulness of vocabulary learning strategies, as well as the strategies students applied to learn the high- and low-frequency words among 1067 Hong Kong ESL students. It was reported that students have a predilection for applying guessing strategies to high-frequency words while they tend to use source strategy, such as using the known words, to learn the low-frequency words. The result of the study reflected Asian students vocabulary strategy use and its perceived usefulness. However, the study failed to incorporate a more structured training course or a designed training program in order to further support its findings.

In Taiwan, Yen & Chuo (2007) incorporated Memory Trigger Instruction (MTI) techniques into reading classes which consisted of Oxfords SILL, and mnemonic devices (including keyword method, discourse and music application, and association). The study concluded that MTI significantly enhanced learners use of memory strategy and overall English proficiency, while it made no impact on other language learning strategies. Though MTI mainly focused on vocabulary learning strategies, the study did not measure learners vocabulary gains. The notion of integrating strategy into the classroom or advocating strategy training programs is not new, OMalley, et al. (1985), Oxford & Burry-Stock (1995), and other Taiwanese researchers advocated it for further studies (Chiang & Liao, 2002; Ku, 1998; Ku, 2003; Teng, 2000; Yang, N. D., 1996; Yang, S. C., 1999). However, regarding researches done either in Taiwan for EFL students or in other countries for ESL students, the above described literature review indicates that up to now, the focus has still been placed on identifying, classifying and finding the factors of the use of language learning strategies. Particular programs created for increasing learning strategies for language learning both inside and outside the language classroom are, as yet, insufficient, not to mention using games for enhancing learning strategies, so substantial measures can still be taken to enhance learning effectiveness. Responding to the necessity, this study, the 20-hour-vocabulary-game-training program was purposely designed to follow up the research results and recommendation of Chen, M. (2007), Chen & Hsiao (2007), and Chen & Hsu (2006). In her 2007 study, Chen, M. surveyed 1090 participants use of language learning strategies and found that, over the whole group, memory strategy was used the least frequently in comparison with cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive, affective, and social strategies based on Oxfords Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL, 1990). Even reviewing the order of strategies used from the perspective of the participants gender, proficiency levels, major study, different year levels, or educational system, memory strategy still ranked the least often used strategy among others. In Chen & Hsus case study (2006), the authors tried to identify the most effective learning strategies used by 77 students who made progress and students who regressed greatly in their English proficiency scores taken in 2004 and 2005. Although the result reinforced many predecessors research results that language learning strategies were positively related to language proficiency, the study corresponded again with the result of Chens study (2007). Regardless of the two groups proficiency levels, memory strategies which help learners store and retrieve new information, including creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, reviewing well, and employing action were the least used among the other five categories of language learning strategies. In order to increase the usage rate, the Language Diagnostic & Consulting Center (LDCC), a center established for helping students in the authors workplace, constantly provides courses for a small group of students with the same need or difficulty, training learners to incorporate learning strategies into their learning (Chen & Hsiao, 2007). In short, a major portion of the paper is devoted to introducing types of vocabulary

games and their application in a strategy learning program in the hope that through playing games, the fun, challenges, and stimulation can influence the participants towards a novel way of learning vocabulary. The study also includes an initial small scale of experiment on the acceptance level.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to test the following two hypotheses: 1. 2. The designed vocabulary learning games will increase overall use of the participants language learning strategies after completing the 20-hour program. The designed vocabulary learning games will particularly increase the use of direct strategies especially memory and compensation strategies.

Limitations
1. 2. The experiment was limited to a small number of participants who came from the same college. Therefore, it may limit the relevance of the finding. The vocabulary training program covered 20 hours. Whether the gain of the vocabulary size and increase use of learning strategy have a long term effect requires further study with the same group of the participants for validating the programs and the designed games.

Definition of Terms
Language Diagnostic & Consulting Center (LDCC)
Established in 2005 at Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, the LDCC integrates diversified language learning resources under systematic but distinctive processes. It provides multi-functional and multi-disciplinary resources for students, hoping to trigger learners motivation and cultivate learning autonomy. Through diagnosis of language learning strategies and learning styles, advisors in the LDCC offer customized learning programs to individual students. Meanwhile, the LDCC constantly invents and brings in short-term intensive programs for learners. Detailed information regarding this center is presented in Chen & Hsiaos work (2007).

Poker cards
Unlike universally recognized Poker games, the game rule from which our designed vocabulary poker card game derived is from a popular variation in Taiwan PickRed. PickRed is a type of game in which players are given up to six cards, depending on the

number of the players. The rest of the cards are put aside and four cards are put face-up on the table. Players begin to play by making a pair either from their hand or from the table to make the sum of their two cards to be 10. Only the red cards (hearts and diamonds) count.

Chinese Chess
Chinese Chess (Xiang-qi), originating from China, is one of the most popular board games in the world. Distinct from the traditional Chinese Chess which is set up on the board with certain restraints, a simpler variation called Blind Chess (An-qi) is adapted for the designed vocabulary games. Blind Chess is played with all pieces upside down on only one half of the board. The powerful pieces beat the weaker ones. There are 16 red pieces and 16 black pieces. Each piece has its own restraints of moving; pieces may move horizontally, vertically and diagonally; they may leap over another piece to capture their target or directly capture their target in any non-diagonal direction. The game ends when one player successfully takes the general, or checkmates the other player.

Gobang
Gobang, also known as 5-in-a-Row, is a traditional oriental game played with black and white pieces on a 19x19 go board. The pieces can be lined vertically, horizontally and diagonally. The first one who has lined up five pieces of the same color wins. The designed vocabulary games adopted game rules from the above mentioned game types and their designed content is introduced in the following section.

The Study
Subjects
Forty-six students voluntarily registered for the vocabulary learning program. The participants were students from a language college in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Republic of China. Except for one male student who majored in Translation and Interpreting, the group was formed of 45 female students whose majors were in English (9), French (3) German (10), Spanish (2), Japanese (14) , Applied Chinese (1), Foreign Language Instruction (1), Translation and Interpreting (1), International Affairs (1), International Business (1), and Communication Arts (2). Among the 46 students, 17 students were from the 4-year college, and the remaining 29 were from the 5-year junior college. All of them had learned English for at least eight to ten years. Their average English proficiency score was 143.65 based on the test result of the College Students English Proficiency Test (CSEPT), administered in September, 2007 by the Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC) in Taiwan. The average score is equivalent to the level of CEFR A1 (Common European Framework Reference). During the training program, the 46 participants (15 from the July program and 31 from the August program) were divided into groups based on the nature of the games.

However, to make the learning process equally competitive and challenging, the participants were also divided into groups based on their proficiency scores. All the participants completed the 20-hour program and tests. Four staff members from the Language Diagnostic and Consulting Center (LDCC) where the activity took place were recruited to act as game dealers. All the four dealers were female with a bachelor degree in English or Foreign Language Instruction. Three other student tutors also majored in English or Foreign Language Instruction were recruited and trained to be game dealers. One college student from another university in Southern Taiwan who was doing internship in the LDCC also received training to be a game dealer.

Instruments
In this study, three instruments were used. First, three types of vocabulary games: Poker cards, Chinese Chess and Gobang comprising 153 original single words (all nouns) which could be matched among each other to create up to 454 compound nouns were selected. Second, a vocabulary test written by the authors was administered before the program started. The same test was given again after completion of each type of game. Oxfords SILL was also employed before and after the program. Details about the construct of the instruments are provided as follows.

Vocabulary games
1. Poker cards Three types of vocabulary games had been invented by Chen, M. (2008, Patent No. 097101167), and were adopted in this study. Two sets of Poker cards were created for the training program. Each set has 54 cards just like the regular deck of poker cards, but the first set uses 42 words and while the other uses 45 words. That means words with higher frequency to be matched appear on more than one card. All words used are nouns and only compound nouns are designated to be matched. The first set of Poker cards ultimately can generate 159 compound nouns by matching every two cards within the set. The second set of Poker cards (made of 45 words) can be matched to produce 147 compound nouns. However, if the two sets are put together to play, players can match up to at least 306 compound nouns, although 21 noun words and 61 compound nouns may be repeated. As well as the printed word on each card, a picture indicating the meaning of the word is also provided and the Chinese translation of the word appears below the picture in relatively small print to avoid interference for players who already know the meaning of the word, or know the word by looking at the picture. For those who do not know the word even with the aid of the picture, the Chinese translation of the specific word will help smooth learning. Moreover, the Poker cards, if not used to play the matching game, can be used as flash cards for learning vocabulary.

The following cards are real examples which the authors used to conduct the program.

Figure1. Invented Poker cards (P1)

Figure2. Invented Poker cards (P2)

The above examples illustrate some words on the cards played in the first four to five hours of the program. All the words used on the Poker cards range between Level A1 to A2 based on the CEFR, and a majority of them also appear in Taiwanese elementary and junior high school English textbooks. For instance, man can be matched with power and become manpower or powerman. Power can also be matched with lifter thus become powerlifter. Ship can be matched with either friend or wreck to form friendship or shipwreck. 2. Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) Unlike the Poker cards created with illustrations to indicate the meaning of the word on

each card, the Chinese Chess is made of 32 word pieces with eight red core words and 24 black words to be matched. The eight red pieces are the key words which can be matched with at least three black ones to form compound nouns. Four sets of the Chinese Chess were used in the training program. Each set can generate another 33 to 58 compound nouns. Totally, if repeated noun words within these four sets are deducted, 107 noun words are used to compose the four sets of the Chinese Chess and another 161 compound nouns can be generated all together. The following picture shows what the Chinese Chess looks like.

Figure3. Invented Chinese Chess game

3.

Gobang Gobang is a popular game played in Asian countries. Chen, M. (2008) adopted the game

rule and invented a new instrument for vocabulary matching games. In this game, there are 60 noun words which can be matched to create up to 221 compound nouns. This game can be played by two individual players or by two groups of learners against each other. Each player/team has the same 60 noun words in two different colors in his/her own bowl. Whoever lines up five compound nouns in the same color from any direction wins the game.

Figure4. Invented Gobang If calculated, the total number of noun words and the created compound nouns in the two sets of Poker cards, four sets of Chinese Chess and one set of Gobang based on the noun words and compound nouns appearing in Gobang, there are 153 noun words and approximately 454 compound nouns that can be matched excluding the repeated matched pairs in different types of games. Most noun words chosen to compose the games are between the beginning and lower intermediate levels, but the derived compound nouns are one to two levels higher. The following table shows the noun word counts and the repeating compound nouns in each game based on the total number of noun words and compound nouns in Gobang. Table 1 The word counts and repeating words in each game Unrepeated Game Original word original word Coding count type count Poker P1 42 18 Cards Chinese Chess Gobang Total Total compound P2t C1 C2 C3 C4 G 45 31 31 32 32 60 273 19 4 14 18 20 60 153

Compound noun count 159 147 58 38 34 33 221 690

Unrepeated compound noun count 88 67 7 17 26 28 221 454

607 words after these games

nouns obtained Vocabulary Test A vocabulary test made by the authors comprising 174 matching questions was used for pre and post tests to measure the participants vocabulary gains from the training program. The 174 questions were written in Chinese and 348 English compound nouns were used for matching the 174 questions. The authors adopted the format of Vocabulary Level Test developed by Schmitt, Schmitt & Clapham (2001), using six test items to match with three definition items. In Vocabulary Level Test, English definitions were used. However, instead of using English definitions, the authors chose Chinese translations so as to allow more items to be taken within a given period of time. All the words were taken from the three types of games. Among 348 English compound nouns, except for the 19 repeated test items, 187 words appeared from the two sets of Poker cards, 76 words from the four sets of Chinese Chess and 66 from the set of Gobang. The test was administered four times after finishing each set of games including a pretest and a post-test. The order of the test items was altered once to prevent students from memorizing the answers. The following example illustrates the format of the test, and the complete test can be obtained from the authors upon request. Table 2 Excerpt from the vocabulary test 1. airman 2. headman 3. houseman 4. skylark 5. skyscraper 6. workman 1. airtime 2. lifetime 3. rainbelt 4. raincheck 5. sandbox 6. sandstorm 1. airhead 2. backroom 3. ballroom 4. boardroom 5. headman 6. headroom _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

The Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) In order to find out whether learners use of language learning strategies would increase after the 20-hour vocabulary training program or not, Oxfords SILL (50-item, Version 7.0 for ESL/EFL) was used for data collection. According to Oxford (1990), the SILL is comprised of six categories of language learning strategies, namely, memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, meta-cognitive strategies, affective strategies and social strategies; of which the first three categories belong to the direct strategies and the other three belong to indirect strategies. CSEPT Score The participants College Students English Proficiency Test (CSEPT) scores were used to identify their English proficiency levels for grouping purpose. The full score is 360 and the test comprises listening, reading comprehension and grammar usage sections scoring 120 each. The test is designed and administered by LTTC in Taipei, Taiwan for two levels. The test is administered annually to students at the request of this particular college. For the purpose of this study, only the total score of the CSEPT administered in September, 2007 was used for grouping and quantitative data analysis.

Procedures
Pretest The vocabulary learning program began from July 14th to July 25th, and August 11th to August 22nd during which the participants met two hours a day except for the weekends. On the first day of the program, the participants filled in SILL, did the vocabulary test and were given the course syllabus so as to know what kind of games would be played and how much time would be used for each game. Activities took place inside the Language Diagnostic and Consulting Center (LDCC). Requirement of the training course relating to punctuality, issue of certificate upon the completion of the course, and grouping were explained at the outset of the program, and before each meeting, one of the dealers would announce the types of games to be played and explain the rules. Game Length & Rounds Equal amounts of time were allocated among the three different types of games, approximately five to six hours. For instance, for each type of game, the participants had about five hours to play at least three to four rounds for each set (two sets of Poker cards, four sets of Chinese chess and one set of Gobang). Some of the groups took longer time to finish a round, but all groups were controlled to play an equal number of rounds for each game and the same amount of time to review the word list of the vocabulary game after each round. After completing five to six hours for one type of game and before playing the next type of game, the participants took the vocabulary test. Totally, the participants wrote the vocabulary tests four times.

The detailed time used for each game set and the number of rounds played are listed in the table below.

Table 3 Time used and the rounds played in the program

Game type Game set Time used (hr) No. of round played P1 1.5 5 (1) Poker P2 1.5 5 P1+P2 Vocab. 1.5 3 Test (0.5hr) 3 3 3 3 C1 (2) Chess C2 C3 C4 1.5 Vocab. Test (0.5hr) 3 5-6 1.5 1.5 1.5 (3) Gobang G 1.5 Contest 2 2

Game Grouping The players were grouped according to the nature of the game. Poker cards were played by three to four and the Chinese Chess was played by two to three. However, Gobang was played by two and when there were odd numbers of participants, the student intern would join the game and play with the participants. During the last four hours of the program, a Gobang tournament was designed to create fun and competitiveness. The champion and the group winners were awarded prizes. Game Rule During the process of the games, the participants were requested to say out loud the word in their hands which they intended to match with the words on the table, and also read the formed compound noun they successfully matched out loud too so that the other players would know which words had been matched. The request to read out loud the words during the play was to enhance memorization. If a wrong match occurred, the dealer would caution the player by withdrawing the cards and returning them to the player without saying the correct answer. Not until the end of each round, would the players be provided with the word list of the vocabulary game for review. However, during the recess between rounds, the players were allowed to ask questions related to the games, word meaning and pronunciation of the words. Moreover, during the recess, the players were encouraged to write down the compound nouns they or other players had matched. Basically, all games used in this research were designed to encourage players to match as many compound nouns as they could. Therefore, whoever could match the most compound nouns won the game and the dealer recorded each players score. During the play, the dealers would repeatedly encourage the players to match different compound nouns which they had not matched in the previous rounds. Game dealer Each group had a dealer to supervise the game process and regulations. Before the program started, all dealers received approximately five-hours of training to conduct the experiment and met with the researchers every day after the game session for discussion about the flow of the games and the problems that needed to be adjusted or solved.

The following chart gives brief introduction to illustrate the procedure of the program. The Procedure

1st hour: Administering Pretest

1. Strategies Inventory of Language learning (SILL) 2. Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) 3. 174-items Vocabulary Matching Test

Grouping: Participants were grouped based on their proficiency level and regrouped according to the nature of the game during the program

Start to play Number of rounds played: Poker (13); Chinese Chess (12); Gobang (8-9)
Game type

(1) Poker Cards

(2) Chinese Chess

(3) Gobang

A complete round

Rule Explanation at the outset of each type of game

Arrange cards/ chessboard Start playing game /Play next round Game over Write down matched compound nouns (10 mins) Review word list of the vocabulary game (10 mins)

Wrap-up Class 10~15mins

1. Correcting pronunciation 2. Explaining unfamiliar words raised by participants

Administering Post-test

1. Strategies Inventory of Language Learning (SILL) 2. Perceptual Learning Style Preference (PLSP) 3. 174-item Vocabulary Matching Test Figure4. 4. 24-item questionnaire with 4 open-ended questions

Data Collection SILL results and vocabulary test results were recorded and computed for data analysis. Questions raised by students during the program, as well as class observations recorded by each dealer and meeting minutes after everydays lessons were collected for future program modification. The time used in each round, records of winners and losers, as well as compound nouns they matched in each game were also filed for further studies and modification of the program. Data Analysis SPSS was applied to calculate the mean scores, standard deviations of the vocabulary tests, questionnaire and students use of language learning strategies. One-way ANOVA and paired-sample t-test were used to investigate if the implementation of the training program affected language learning strategies among different language proficiency groups.

Results and Discussion

The paper set out to test two hypotheses. To respond to the first hypothesis, The designed vocabulary learning games will increase the use of the participants overall language learning strategies after playing the games for 20 hours, the results correspond positively if we compare the results of pretest and post-test by applying paired-sample t-test to the strategy uses as a whole (see Table 4). The result can be explained from the following two aspects. For the whole group of 46 participants, the mean of their overall language learning strategies use before attending the program was 3.09 (SD=.64) out of the full score 5. According to Oxfords SILL Profile of Result (1990), the statistical average shown in this study was at a medium level of frequency (2.5 to 3.4). That means the participants believed that they sometimes apply language learning strategy in the process of learning. The mean of their individual language learning strategies use is shown in Table 4 as well. After 20 hours of training, the participants mean of SILL as a whole had increased to 3.31 (SD=.63), and the use of every language learning strategy had increased as well. The order of frequency use of language learning strategy discovered from the two results, remained almost identical in that affective strategy was used the least frequently and compensation strategy the most. Table 4 The participants use of strategy before and after the program (Paired-sample t-test) Overall Pre-mean Post-mean t p 3.09 3.31 -5.801 .000*** Memory 2.86 3.22 -6.475 .000*** Cognitive Compensation Meta-cognitive Affective 3.16 3.34 -4.324 .000*** 3.29 3.49 -2.895 .006** 3.18 3.39 -3.408 .001*** 2.79 3.03 -3.013 .004** Social 3.19 3.37 -2.225 .031*

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

The above mentioned result (Table 4) shows that participants language learning strategy use had increased after the 20-hour training program, and significant difference was found in each strategy use. Examining from the t-value, memory strategy was reported to show the most significant difference, followed by cognitive, meta-cognitive, affective, compensation and social strategies. In order to determine whether proficiency, as numerous studies had indicated, was related to the frequent use of language learning strategy or not (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Chamot & OMalley, 1987; Chen, Y. C., 2005; Chen, M., 2007; Chiang & Liao, 2002; OMalley, et. al., 1985; Yang, S. C., 1997), 46 participants were divided into three proficiency groups based on their CSEPT scores for the purpose of examining each groups strategy use after implementing the program. Table 5 presents the grouping information. Table 5 The participants grouping information Group Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Overall No. of subjects 7 30 9 46 CSEPT Range 114 Avg. CSEPT of each group 96.86 142.43 184.11 143.65 Pretest Overall strategy Means 3.07 2.95 3.57 3.09

SD 8.84 17.37 9.31 29.82

115~172

173

86~198

The average CSEPT score among 46 participants was 143.65 (SD=29.82). Group 1 consisted of seven students who scored the lowest (below 114), Group 2 included 30 students whose score were about the average, and there were nine students in Group 3 whose scores were above 173. To find out the use of the SILL among different groups, the pretest SILL score of different groups were compared, the authors found that, as predicted, Group 3 applied the highest frequency of overall strategy use. However, participants in Group 2 reported least strategy use. The result corresponds with most of the studies that higher language proficiency students tend to apply language learning strategies more frequently. Although from the statistics, Group 2 used the strategies less frequently than Group 1, the lowest proficiency group, the phenomenon required further examination from the aspect of the numbers of participants which might affect the results. Group 2 had the largest number of participants and their standard deviation of the proficiency score happened to be in a wide range (SD=17.37). However, since the paper did not aim at investigating the correlation between the students proficiency level and their use of strategy, the following section will center on identifying each groups increased use of strategy before and after the program. In order to examine if significant difference exists in pretest and post-test within different proficient groups, a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis were applied within the three proficiency groups. The following tables explain the results of one-way ANOVA and post-hoc in pretest and post-test among the three groups.

Table 6 Comparison of three groups usage of language learning strategies (One-way ANOVA) Pretest Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 p. f-ratio Post - hoc Overall M SD 3.07 .57 2.95 .62 3.57 .55 .033* 3.69 G3>G2* Memory M SD 2.80 .64 2.67 .67 3.52 .55 .005** 6.05 G3>G2** Cognitive M SD 3.10 .60 3.04 .65 3.63 .50 .048* 3.26 G3>G2* Compensation Meta-cognitive M SD M SD 3.23 .71 3.16 .69 3.74 .56 .081 2.66 3.27 .66 3.03 .83 3.63 .59 .121 2.22 Affective M SD Social M SD before the program

2.96 .67 3.13 .78 2.66 .72 3.04 .75 3.09 .68 3.72 .87 .228 .082 1.53 2.65

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

Table 7 Comparison of three groups usage of language learning strategies after the program (One-way ANOVA)
Post-test Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 p. f-ratio Post - hoc Overall M SD Memory M SD 3.17 3.08 3.72 .61 .67 .45 Cognitive M 3.33 3.21 3.78 SD .53 .64 .59 Compensation Meta-cognitive M 3.49 3.32 4.06 SD .58 .68 .44 M 3.39 3.27 3.80 SD .45 .88 .65 Affective M 3.26 2.82 3.53 SD .40 .75 .45 Social M 3.17 3.26 3.89 SD .73 .93 .75

3.30 .37 3.17 .66 3.79 .48

.033* 3.71
G3>G2*

.033* 3.7
G3>G2*

.061 3.0

.014* 4.76
G3>G2*

.232 1.51

.016* 4.53
G3>G2*

.145 2.01

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

According to Table 6, one-way ANOVA indicates that the most significant difference was found in memory strategy and a slight difference was found in both overall strategy use and cognitive strategy use in the pretest. Group 3 used the memory strategy more frequently than the other two groups, and there was a slight difference in memory strategy use between Group 2 and Group 3. No significant difference was found between Group 1 and Group 2. As for the post-test (see Table 7), significant differences were found in overall, memory, compensation and affective strategy use. But when comparing the results of the two tests, the discrepancy gap in memory strategy among the groups becomes smaller. Upon further inspection, it is clearly evident that the discrepancy among direct strategies such as memory and cognitive strategy use narrowed after the program probably on account of the strategy training that learners had received. The gap between proficient learners and less proficient learners decreased. Paired-sample t-test was applied to investigate differences between pretest and posttest within each proficiency group. The result is set out in the following table.

Table 8 Comparison of participants use of language learning strategies in pretest and post-test within each group (Paired-sample t-test)
Mean Group 1 Pretest Group 1 Posttest t p Group 2 Pretest Group 2 Posttest t p Group 3 Pretest Group 3 Posttest t p Overall Memory Cognitive Compensation Meta-cognitive Affective Social

3.07 3.30 -1.96 .098 2.95 3.17 -4.67

2.80 3.17 -3.83 .009** 2.67 3.08 -5.14

3.10 3.33 -3.20 .019* 3.04 3.21 -3.14 .004** 3.63 3.78 -1.64 .141

3.23 3.49 -.938 .385 3.16 3.32 -1.95 .060 3.74 4.06 -2.44 .040*

3.27 3.39 -.868 .419 3.03 3.27 -3.16 .004** 3.63 3.80 -1.06 .320

2.96 3.26 -1.76 .129 2.66 2.82 -1.65 .109 3.09 3.53 -2.29 .051

3.13 3.17 -.206 .844 3.04 3.26 -2.18 .037* 3.72 3.89 -.811 .441

.000*** .000*** 3.57 3.79 -2.63 .030* 3.52 3.72 -3.32 .010**

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

A significant difference was found in overall strategy for Group 2 and a slight difference for Group 3 when inspecting the results of pretest and post-test, while no significant difference was detected for Group 1. This demonstrates that participants in Group 2 and Group 3 applied their use of language learning strategy more often after the training program. Observing from p-value in Table 8, one can see that participants with the lowest proficiency merely increased their use of memory and cognitive strategy after the program, participants in Group 2 increased their use of nearly every strategy except for compensation and affective, while participants with the highest proficiency augmented their use of memory, compensation and overall strategy. From examining individual language learning strategy use, a significant difference was found particularly in memory strategy for all groups (Group 1, p=.009, Group 2, p=.000, Group 3, p=.010) which indicates participants applied memory strategy more frequently after the training program. The result corresponds to the objectives of this series of vocabulary learning games which aimed to enhance learners memory strategy use. Other direct strategies such as cognitive and compensation strategies are assumed to have increased after the program. The result shows that students with high proficiency, though reported to have increased use, were found to show insignificant language use between pretest and post-test in cognitive strategy but a slight difference in compensation strategy. However, when looking into different proficiency groups, participants in Groups 1 and 2 were found to

show significant differences between pretest and the post-test in cognitive strategies, but no difference in compensation strategy. Such complementary distribution might suggest that slow learners could improve cognitive strategy use and lessen the gap between proficient learners provided that they were exposed to this kind of learning method, for proficient learners might have already applied cognitive strategies very often before the program. Yet, the use of compensation and affective strategy revealed a slight difference after the program. The difference of compensation strategy, mainly found in Group 3 (See Table 8), connotes that higher proficiency learners were inclined to apply guessing, using resources and linguistic clues to learn vocabulary with higher frequency than others after the program. As for indirect strategies, only Group 2 reported a slight difference in using meta-cognitive strategy. Referring from the statistics in the one-way ANOVA analysis (See Table 6, 7) which showed insignificant difference in meta-cognitive strategy use, one may conclude that the difference in Group 2 is rather limited. As for affective strategy use, though slight difference was found among three groups in the post-test in one-way ANOVA analysis (See Table 7), none of the groups showed significance in using the strategy when viewing the results from paired-sample t-test (As listed in Table 8). In general, participants increased the average use of affective strategy, which means that they were less anxious and more encouraged to learning vocabulary after the program. However, even though the program was executed in groups, no difference was found when examining the result in one-way ANOVA analysis (See Table 6, 7), while a slight difference was shown for participants increase in social strategy use merely in Group 2 (See Table 8). The scale of difference is yet limited, but it could be implied that learners were used to cooperative learning methods before they came to this program. Coming from a language college in which collaborative learning, group work and discussions are often applied, it was not surprising that social strategy use remained at medium level.

In brief, after the 20-hour training program, each group had increased its use of every language learning strategy. Significant difference has been found in direct strategies, and in some of the indirect strategies, which positively corresponds to the second hypothesis.
The second hypothesis postulated by the authors argues that the designed vocabulary learning games will increase learners use of direct learning strategies such as memory, cognitive and compensation strategies. According to the aforementioned statistics, regardless of data interpreted as a whole group or as different proficiency groups, memory strategy has increased dramatically during the training program. A significant difference has been detected in memory strategy for both paired-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA methods. Cognitive strategy has been proved significantly increased when scrutinizing participants frequency as a whole, but it is not the case for high proficiency students when interpreting the data based on different proficiency groups. On the other hand, compensation strategy was found significantly increased among participants in Group 3 when observing statistics based on distinct proficiency groups, and a significant difference was also found when comparing participants results as a whole. Table 9 synthesizes the paired-sample t-test results of pretest and post-test when examining participants as a whole and as different proficiency groups. Table 9

Comparison of direct strategies use between pretest and post-test Paired-sample t-test
Memory paired t-test:Whole pretest posttest paired t-test:Group Group 1-pre Group 1-post Group 2-pre Group 2-post Group 3-pre Group 3-post Mean p-value Cognitive Mean p-value Compensation Mean p-value

2.86 3.22
Mean

.000***
p-value

3.16 3.34
Mean

.000***
p-value

3.29 3.49
Mean

.006**
p-value

2.80 3.17 2.67 3.08 3.52 3.72

.009** .000*** .010*

3.10 3.33 3.04 3.21 3.63 3.78

.019* .004** .141

3.23 3.49 3.16 3.32 3.74 4.06

.385 .060 .040*

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

Other than direct strategies, indirect strategies such as meta-cognitive and social strategies were found significant among Group 2 when exploring participants strategy use as different groups, while all the indirect strategies are considered significant when viewing the result as a whole. Table 10 lists the detailed statistics variation for indirect strategies. Table 10 Comparison of indirect strategies use between pretest and post-testPaired-sample t-test
Meta-cognitive paired t-test:Whole pretest posttest paired t-test:Group Group 1-pre Group 1-post Group 2-pre Group 2-post Group 3-pre Group 3-post Mean p-value Mean Affective p-value Mean Social p-value

3.18 3.39
Mean

.001***
p-value

2.79 3.03
Mean

.004**
p-value

3.19 3.37
Mean

.031*
p-value

3.27 3.39 3.03 3.27 3.63 3.80

.419 .004** .320

2.96 3.26 2.66 2.82 3.09 3.53

.129 .109 .051

3.13 3.17 3.04 3.26 3.72 3.89

.844 .037* .441

Note: *= p<.05, **= p<.01, ***=p<.001

Conclusion

To sum up, the study validates the effectiveness of using games to enhance the participants use of language learning strategies, most significantly of memory strategy. Although in this paper, a report on vocabulary gains is not the main focus, the training program has achieved its initial purpose. Participants in this study enjoyed the fun and the competitiveness in their learning process, and at the same time, increased their use of language learning strategies. We rather believe that after the 20-hour program, the participants will not be limited to a few approaches of language learning strategies. When they read, they will not be afraid of guessing the meaning of compound words or longer words, and their curiosity towards new words will be enhanced as well.

Recommendation
The authors would like to propose pragmatic recommendations in order to shed light on future studies. They are stated as follows: 1. As we stated earlier, the number of participants in this study is not representative and balanced enough, for there were only 45 female students and one male student involved in the study. Therefore it is recommended that a greater number and a greater variety of participants need to be investigated under this training program so as to strengthen the claim that effectiveness in the game-based vocabulary learning method works among different groups of people. Ultimately, a norm of this kind of training program could be established. 2. Four vocabulary tests were administered during the program, and the result in the post-test outperformed that in the pretest which indicates that the designed vocabulary learning games effectively facilitate participants short-term memory. However, the question Do the designed vocabulary games facilitate learners long-term memory? is left unanswered. For this reason, an interim vocabulary test is needed in order to evaluate the retention rate. 3. With regard to the program design, this study was conducted in circumstances where students registered into the program voluntarily. It is suggested a quasi-experiment be conducted in which participants in a experimental group learn vocabulary through the designed vocabulary games in the training program while participants in a control group are given word lists for rote memorization. Learning effectiveness could be compared and analyzed after 20 hours. 4. The training program began with Poker cards, followed by Chinese Chess and ending with Gobang. Thus, it is envisaged that the order of the games might influence the vocabulary gains. This needs further investigation into the effect of order, arrangement, and the possible learning effectiveness they lead to. It is suggested that participants can be divided into various groups, who play the games

in a different order. 5. Currently, the designed vocabulary games put their emphasis on English vocabulary, and it is argued that pedagogical implications are needed to prove their effectiveness. Researches using these series of games in language classrooms can be generated prolifically and further designs in other languages can be adapted from the English ones. 6. Whether the particular sets of games help improve reading comprehension ability is a question worth of exploration to increase the value of the invented games. It is suggested that an integrated learning task with reading can be implemented in the training program.

References
Brown, H. D. (2002). Strategies for Success. NY: Longman/Pearson Education. Chamot, A. U. & OMalley, J. M. (1987). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 227-249. Chamot, A. U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24. Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The Learning Strategies Handbook. NY: Addison-Wesley Longman. Chang, J. (2002). A study of vocabulary learning strategies of college students in Taiwan-Fortune College as an example, Journal of Fortune Institute of Technology,9, 53-63. Chang, J. S & Chang, Y. J. (1998). A study of English learning achievement in relation to English learning strategy of junior high school students in Taiwan, Educational Review, 14, 115-154. Chen, Y. C. (2005). The research history and trend of language learning strategies, Chaoyang Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 3(2), 57-98. Chen, M. (2007). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Taiwan language college students, Languages, Literary Studies and International Studies: An International Journal, 4, 97-115. Chen, M. (2008). Taiwan. Patent No. 097101167. Taiwan. Intellectual Property Office. Chen, M. & Hsiao, Y. T. (2007). Language diagnostic and consulting centerA structured access to successful language learning, Proceedings of the 4th Annual Cross Straight Conference on Foreign Languages Teaching, Beijing Foreign Studies University, China. Chen, M., & Hsu, C. J. (2006). The usage of learning strategies and its effects on English language proficiency, Paper Presented at 3rd Annual Cross Straight Conference on Foreign Languages Teaching, Taipei, Taiwan. Chiang, M. Y & Liao, P. S. (2002).The study of Learning Strategies used by Applied English Majors in Junior College. The Journal of Chungchou, 16, 309-325. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row. Cohen, A.D. & Aphek, E. (1980). Retention of second language vocabulary over time: investigating the role of mnemonic associations, System, 8, 221-235. Ehrman, M. (1998). Motivation and Strategies Questionnaire (MSQ), In Reid, J. M., (Ed.) Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents, 169-70. Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners, The Modern Language

Journal, 87(2), 222-241. Green, J. (1991).Language learning strategies of Puerto Rican university students.Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. L. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297. Ho, I. P. (1999). Relationships between motivation/attitude, effort, and English National Taipei University of Technology, 32(1), 611-674. Huang, E. (2002). A study on English Learning Strategies Comparison, Journal of Chungchou, 16, 293-308. Huang, S. C. (2001). Effects of language learning strategy training on English learning. ERIC number: ED466628. Ku, I. J. (2003). The correlations of English performance with learning strategies of college students in Taiwan, Journal of the Overseas Chinese Institute of Technology, 21, 31-44. Ku, P. Y. (1998). Strategies associated with listening comprehension of EFL students Teaching, Taipei: The Crance Publishing Co. Mangubhai, F. (1991). The processing behaviours of adult second language learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 268-298. Nation, I. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: a review of the research. RELC Journal, 13(1), 14-37. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Studies in Education. Okada, M., Oxford, R.L. & Abo, S. (1996). Not all alike: Motivation and learning strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In Oxford, R.L. (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century, 107-119. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. OMalley, J. M., Chamot, A. U, Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46 O'Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Manzanares, G. S., Russo, R. P., & Kupper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly,19(3), 557-584. Oxford, R.L. (1986). Strategy Inventory for Language Learning: Various Versions. Tuscaloosa, AL: Oxford Associates. Oxford, R.L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with in Taiwan. The proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on English proficiency and Taiwan technological university students English learning strategy use. Journal of

implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247. Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R.L. (1992). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 175-187. Oxford, R. L. & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning. System, 23(2), 1-23. Oxford, R. L.,& Ehrman, M. E. (1995). Adults' language learning strategies in an intensive foreign language program in the United States. System, 23(3), 359-386. Oxford, R. L., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73(2), 291-300. Oxford, R.L., Nyikos, M. & Crookall, D. (1987). Learning Strategies of University Foreign Language Students: A Large-scale Study. Unpublished Paper, TESOL Annual Meeting, Miami, 1987 Park, G. P. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean University students, Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 211-221. Politzer, R. L. & McGroarty, M. (1985). An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationships to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 103-124. Purpura, J. E. (1998). Investigating the effects of strategy use and second language test performance with high-and low ability test takers: a structural equation modelling approach. Language Testing, 15(3), 333-379. Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Rubin, J. (1981). Study of Cognitive Processes in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 117-131. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history, and typology. InWenden, A. & Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 15-30. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rubin, J.,& Thompson, I. (1994). Assessment of strategy use. In How to be a More Successful Language Learner, 70-78. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Sy, B. M. (1996). Sex differences and language learning strategies, Papers from the 11th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 19-51. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.. Schmitt, N., (1997). 199-227. Vocabulary learning strategies. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.) Vocabulary Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, Cambridge University Press,

Schmitt, N. & Schmitt, D., (1993). Identifying and assessing vocabulary learning strategies, Thai TESOL Bulletin, 5(4), 22-33. Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D. & Clapham, C. (2001). Developing and exploring the behavior of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test, Language Testing, 18(1), 55-88. Teng, H. C. (2000). An investigation of EFL learning strategies used by technology college students,

, 169-177.

Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language, 3-13. New York: Prentice Hall. Yang, N.D. (1993). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use: a study of college students of English in Taiwan. Papers from the Tenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 193-219. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Yang, N. D. (1996). A study of factors affecting college EFL students use of learning strategies. Paper from the Eleventh Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 53-82. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Yang, N. D. (2003). Integrating portfolios into learning-strategy-based instruction for EFL college student, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4), 293-317. Yang, N. D. (2005). Building a Web-Based Learning Portfolio System. Paper Presented at Yang, S. C. (1997). the 2005 World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 24-29.

, 8(3), 119-140

Yang, S. C. (1999). A relationship study of English learning strategies, learning style and English proficiency. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Part C:Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(1), 35-59. Yen, S. C. & Chuo, T. W. (2007). The effect of MTI on L2 proficiency and learning strategies, Proceeding of 2007 International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Instruction, 13-29. Wenzao Ursuline College of Languages, Taiwan. [WWW document] Cohen, A. D., & Chi, J. C. (2001). Language Strategy Use Survey. Minneapolis, MN:Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Downloadable from the CARLA website: http://www.carla.umn.edu/about/profiles/Cohen Cohen, A. D. & Oxford, Rebecca L. (2001). Learning Style Survey for Young Learners: ssessing Your Own Learning Styles. http://www.carla.umn.edu/about/profi les/Cohen.html Kaohsiung,

Council of Europe (1996). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Retrieved July, 2008, from: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/ Framework_EN.pdf Integrated Higher Education Database System in Taiwan Retrieved September, &tab=4# 2008 from: http://www.cher.ed.ntnu.edu.tw/analyze.php? submenu=1

(2005)

Language Training and Testing Center

(2004) Retrieved July, 2008 from: http://www.lttc.ntu.edu.tw/research/92 .pdf

Pintrich, R. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ), Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813. http:// www.ulc.arizona.edu/ mslq.php TOEFL Homepage (2007) Retrieved September, 2008 from: http://www.ets.org /Media/ Research/pdf/71943web.pdf

153 454 607 2008 7 14 7 25 8 11 8 22 46 Oxford (SILL) SPSS 1) 2) (Retention rate)3)