The present study investigated whether there were any differences between the vocabulary acquisition and retention level of female and male students with regard to two conditions: 1) formal instruction and feedback on vocabulary notebook keeping; and 2) the amount of information recorded in the vocabulary notebooks. Five groups of second year university students participated in the study (n = 147). Four of the groups kept vocabulary notebooks, two of which (Experimental group 1 and Experimental group 2) received formal instruction and feedback on the words recorded and how to keep vocabulary notebooks, while other two groups (Control group 2 and Control group 3) did not receive any instruction or feedback. And, the fifth group neither received any instruction or feedback nor kept vocabulary notebooks. The data conduction tools were a questionnaire of vocabulary knowledge and retention that was administered prior to the study and a test of receptive and productive vocabulary, which was administered as a post-test. The data analyses revealed that extra information recording related to the unknown words and regular feedback provided by the instructor improves vocabulary acquisition and the effect of vocabulary notebook keeping. Nonetheless, no significant difference was observed between the impact of treatment on female and male students.
Key words: vocabulary notebook, feedback, acquisition, retention, gender differences
1. INTRODUCTION
Vocabulary has always been a significant component in foreign language learning (FLL), and it is not surprising why it has attracted the interest of many researchers, especially in the last thirty years. One important aspect, among others, has been 'vocabulary learning strategies' (VLS). Ellis (2001) expressed that the research on VLS is a promising field of investigation since the findings might help to define the learning targets and strategies (p.554). Likewise, Hatch and Brown (1995) remarked that understanding how learners acquire vocabulary and knowing about which methods work better could help teachers in assisting learners in adopting more profitable strategies (p.372). Similarly, Nation (1990) commented that if teachers want to help their learners to cope with unknown words, it would be better to spend more time on VLS rather than spending time on individual words (p.159).
Various and detailed taxonomies of VLS have been offered by many researchers that try to identify and categorise them (see Schmitt, 1997; Nation, 2001; Gu and Johnson, 1996). And, there are more than fifty sub-strategies comprised by the proposed taxonomies, such as 'analysing part of speech', 'guessing meaning from context', 'asking classmates for meaning', 'interacting with native speakers', 'imaging word form', 'using keyword method', 'verbal repetition', 'keeping a vocabulary notebook', 'expanding rehearsal', etc. Nonetheless, Schmitt (1997) reported that only 'guessing from context' and 'key word method' have been investigated in depth (in Schmitt and McCarthy, 200). So, there is need for more research on VLS, strategy training, and related pedagogical implications that will certainly contribute to the field of FLL.
1.1. Keeping Vocabulary Notebooks
Schmitt (2000) claimed that the most often preferred VLS were the most 'shallow' ones, although they might be less effective than 'deeper' strategies. He also asserted that the commonly used VLS were 'memorization', 'repetitio n', and 'keeping vocabulary notebooks' (p.132). Keeping a vocabulary notebook is classified as a 'cognitive strategy' among the 58 vocabulary learning strategies included in the Schmitt's list (Schmitt and McCarthy, 207-8). Schmitt (op. cit.) described the cognitive strategies as follows:
They are similar to memory strategies, but are not focused so specifically on manipulative mental processing; they include repetition and using mechanical means to study vocabulary, including the keeping of vocabulary notebooks. (p.136)
Vocabulary notebooks are often considered as a useful way for learners to become more conscious about their vocabulary learning process (Schmitt and Schmitt, 1995; Fowle, 2002; Leeke and Shaw, 2000; Ghazal, 2007; Lessard-Clouston, 1994; Yongqi Gu, 2003; Bailey and Onwuegbuzie, 2002; Horst, 2005; Tang, 1997). Keeping vocabulary notebooks requires learners to note down the unknown words, while also writing their meanings and a variety of aspects, such as synonyms, antonyms, collocations, sample sentences, etc.. Therefore, it would be possible to articulate that keeping a vocabulary notebook would activate a complicated mental process that is carried out during the action of recording words. In support of this, Fowle (2002) maintained that while discovering the meaning and other aspects of an unknown word, learners might use strategies that involve using dictionaries, guessing from context, or consulting their teachers or classmates. Furthermore, researchers agree that keeping vocabulary notebooks would necessitate learners to take more responsibility of their own learning process and become more autonomous. Although autonomy is not always favoured by all scholars (e.g. Laufer, 2005), it is generally regarded as beneficial addition in FLL. Oxford (1990) indicated that independent learners would take the advantage of becoming more confident and increasing their involvement and proficiency. Again, Nation (1990) remarked that strategies that learners can use autonomously are the most significant of all ways of acquiring vocabulary (p.174). Therefore, learners should be trained in the VLS they need most (Ghazal, 2007). McCrostie (2007) concluded that vocabulary notebooks are potentially beneficial means for vocabulary acquisition, but students need more guiding and training on this. So, since vocabulary notebooks provide learners with the opportunity to expand their repertoire of vocabulary, help them enhance vocabulary learning strategies, and encourage individual learning, the effectiveness of vocabulary notebooks should be investigated more closely.
The present study aims at investigating to what extent vocabulary notebooks assist learners in retaining the unknown words that they have come across during their classes at school and readings at home. Two aspects of keeping vocabulary notebooks are investigated: 1. the effect of instructing learners on vocabulary notebook keeping (VNK), and 2. the effect of VNK type, that is, keeping just the equivalents in the two languages versus noting down additional information about the words other than their meaning in L1, such as synonyms, antonyms, collocations, and examples in sentences. The present research seeks the answers of the following questions:
Is there any difference between the vocabulary retention level of the students who receive feedback on vocabulary notebook keeping, and who do not receive any feedback?
Is there any difference between the vocabulary retention level of the students who record only the L1 equivalent(s) of the unknown L2 words, and who note down additional information related to the unknown words, such as synonyms, antonyms, collocations, and sentences that include the unknown word?
Are there any gender differences with regard to vocabulary notebook keeping types and L2 vocabulary retention level?
METHOD
The present study was conducted at X University, Faculty of Education, English Language Teaching (ELT) Department, Turkey. Students enrolled in the ELT Department receive formal education, usually for a period of eight semesters, during which they attend classes that are related to language and linguistics, education, history and general knowledge, and computing. About 60% of the courses are delivered in English, while the remaining courses are held in Turkish. Students are randomly placed in one of the ten classes of about 30 persons. The same books and materials are used and followed for the classes conducted in English. The present study was carried out during the Linguistics classes of the fourth semester. The present study adopted a postmodern approach and investigated all factors in their natural conditions. Since classrooms and also life under natural conditions are not homogenous, I did not pursue a deliberate effort to create laboratory-alike conditions where certain students would be put in certain groups. Instead, subjects were included as they were and in their natural environments. So, the design of the current study is naturalistic rather than positivistic. However, the study also included quantitative data collection and analyses. This is a quasi-experimental study.
2.1. Participants
The subjects of the present study were 147 university students (62 male and 85 female) from five randomly attained classes. The students' ages ranged between 20 and 25. One of the classes (Experimental group 1) consisted of 24 students (12 male and 12 female) who received formal instruction and feedback on VNK and were asked to record the L1 equivalents of the unknown words that they come across within the Linguistics course. Another class (Experimental group 2) comprised 28 students (12 male and 16 female) who received instruction and feedback on VNK and were asked to note down, if available, also the synonym(s), antonym(s), and the collocation(s) of the unknown word as well as the L1 equivalent(s) and a sentence in which the word existed. The third class (Control group 1) consisted of 35 students (12 male and 23 female) and they neither received instruction on how to keep vocabulary notebooks nor were they asked to keep a record of the unknown words that they meet. The fourth class (Control group 2) comprised 30 students (12 male and 18 female) who did not receive any instruction or feedback on VNK but were asked to note down the L1 equivalents of the unknown words that they face. And, the last class (Control group 3) comprised 30 students (14 male and 16 female) who did not receive any instruction and feedback on VNK but were asked to note down the L1 equivalents of the unknown words that they face, together with other possible detail such as synonym(s), antonym(s), the collocation(s) and an example sentence. Table 1 presents all the groups along with the procedure appointed to each group and the number of students in each group.
Table 1. The student groups, numbers, and the procedure to follow.
Group
Number of students
Procedure to follow
Experimental 1
24
(12 male + 12 female)
Instruction and feedback on VNK + L1
equivalent recording
Experimental 2
28
(12 male + 16 female)
Instruction and feedback on VNK + L1
equivalent recording + extra info recording
Control 1
35
(12 male + 23 female)
No instruction and feedback on VNK + No
deliberate vocabulary recording
Control 2
30
(12 male + 18 female)
No instruction and feedback on VNK + L1
equivalent recording
Control 3
30
(14 male + 16 female)
No instruction and feedback on VNK + L1
equivalent recording + extra info recording
2.2. Materials
Meara (1996) indicated that the need for reliable and valid tests of vocabulary knowledge is an important matter in vocabulary acquisition, and that the Nation's Vocabulary Levels Test is the closest one to a standard vocabulary test, which was also revised and validated by Beglar and Hunt (1999). The materials that were used in the present study consist of 1) a vocabulary knowledge and retention questionnaire (VKRQ) which was used prior to the study (see Appendix 1), and contained 50 words from the academic words list (AWL) of Coxhead (2000); and 2) a test of receptive and productive vocabulary (TRPV) which included two parts: a receptive test that was based on the Vocabulary Levels Test of Nation (1983, 1990), and a productive test that was modeled on the controlled Productive Vocabulary Levels Test of Laufer and Nation (1999) (see Appendix 2). The VKRQ included 50 words that appeared in the units of the students' text materials covering a period of 8 weeks. From these words 28 were unknown to all of the subjects (the unknown category) and 22 were known either by most subjects or by some (the known category). The TRPV was applied as a post-test, while the VKRQ was administered as a pre-test. The TRPV aimed at the target words (21 in the receptive part and 7 in the productive part) of the unknown category, which were detected to be unknown as a result of the VKRQ session.
In each item of the receptive part, the students were expected to match the provided definitions with the target words. There were three definitions and six words in each item (in the seventh item there were seven words), and there were seven items in total. Three of the six words in each item were from the unknown category and three from the known category (in the seventh item there were four words, so that all words from the known category were included). And, in the controlled productive part, the students were required to complete the words, the initial letters of which were provided, so that they would complete the given sentences. In this part there were the remaining seven words from the unknown category. The complete test was composed of 14 items (7 items in the receptive part and 7 items in the productive part). The data collection tools were prepared and implemented by the researcher who also delivered the Linguistics course. In order to validate the materials, two external professionals controlled the tools and applied these on a group of students who showed similar characteristics with the subjects.
2.3. Procedure
The present study was implemented through a period of 10 weeks and in three phases. In Phase 1, the subjects and the words that would be included and afterwards tested were determined (in the first week of the study). In Phase 2, the instruction and feedback on and implementation of vocabulary notebooks as well as the preparation and application of the data collection tools were carried out (in the second to ninth weeks of the study). And, in Phase 3, the investigation of subjects' vocabulary notebooks and evaluation of the results obtained from the pre-testing and post-testing sessions were accomplished (in the tenth week). In the following, these three phases are going to be explained in detail:
2.3.1. Phase 1 - Determination of the subjects and words
Prior to the implementation of the procedures, I determined about which participants to be included and which words to be tested within the scope of the present study. For this reason, from among the ten classes in the ELT department at X University, five classes were randomly selected and again they were randomly appointed to one of the specified groups (experimental or control groups).
To determine about the words to be tested in the present study, I decided to concentrate on the academic words list (AWL) of Coxhead (2000), as I anticipated that many of these words were rarely used and known but very frequently faced by the students during their readings. Therefore, I scanned the eight reading texts/chapters which had been forwarded to students at the beginning of the semester, and covered a period of eight weeks of the Linguistics course. From these texts, I selected 50 English words (see Appendix 1), which were all in the AWL and gave them as a questionnaire to all subjects to check whether they know the words or not. In this questionnaire I asked subjects to mark the words that they knew and to provide any related information for each word either in L1 or in L2. I discouraged students from giving positive answers for the words that they were not sure whether they knew or not. After this session, I detected that 28 words (see Appendix 3) were unknown by all subjects. So, I decided to focus on the acquisition and retention of these words through the implementation of VNK as a strategy for vocabulary acquisition.
2.3.2. Phase 2 - Instruction and feedback on and implementation of vocabulary notebooks, and preparation and application of data collection tools
This phase comprised two tasks. Task one was to inform subjects about the use of VNK, to provide weekly feedback on their vocabulary notebooks, and to inspire them for systematic word recording while also deliberately taking their attention to the focused 28 words, and explaining them how to keep their vocabulary notebooks. Therefore, all of the groups, except Control group 1, were directed towards recording the unknown words that they face during their readings of the course texts. So, the Experimental groups 1 and 2, and the Control group 2 and 3 had vocabulary notebooks during the classes. However, only the Experimental group 1 and the Experimental group 2 were provided feedback on their vocabulary notebooks throughout the period of eight weeks. All groups, except Control group 1, were deliberately instructed to follow one specific type of word recording (recording just the L1 equivalents versus recording the L1 equivalents and extra information). I took the attention of the subjects' to the target words during the classes by writing them on the board as some extra words besides the other words that subjects noted. The subjects were also informed that the words that they would record in their notebooks would be useful during their exams and studies and throughout their entire academic lives as well. They were also reminded that the richer the repertoire of words is the better would be the comprehension and production of the L2. So, all the four groups were enthusiastic and voluntarily participated in the study and its procedures. The words that were in the reading texts of the following week were written on the board two times, that is, before the classes were held and during the classes. The only difference for the Control group 1 was that although they were also given the words, they were told that the given words were just some of the unknown words from the texts that they would have to read, but that they did not have to record them as they would already need to look up them while reading.
When I checked the notes and text papers of the students in Control group 1, I could hardly see any of the target words or others noted, which suggested that the subjects in Control group 1 concentrated mostly on general meaning rather than individual words. I have noticed that they still wrote the L1 equivalents of some of the words that they probably didn't know while reading the texts, but again, many of these were just like reminders and illegible. On the other hand, when the vocabulary notebooks of the subjects in the other four groups were checked, it was seen that each subject noted at least ten words for each week, and thus, the student that had recorded the least number of words had a vocabulary data bank of 80 words, while this number went up to 160 words. The mean number of recorded words was 136 for the Experimental group 1, 96 for Experimental group 2, 112 for the Control group 2, and 87 for the Control group 3. Throughout the period of eight weeks, the researcher checked the vocabulary notebooks of the subjects weekly, and provided feedback so that each student kept on the correct track that was predetermined for each group. The researcher also made sure that all of the 28 target words were recorded by each subject. Wrongly recorded words (spelling or meaning or inappropriate usage) were corrected. The students who were in the Experimental group 2 and recorded just the L1 equivalent were encouraged and required to add more relevant information for each recorded word, such as synonym, antonym, or collocation if available, and an example sentence. For the Experimental group 1 there was no need for much extra interference by the researcher, except reminding about the target words if they were not on the vocabulary notebooks of the students. The Control group 2 and the Control group 3, on the other hand, were instructed to record the words, as specified in Table 1, at the beginning of the study. They were informed that their vocabulary notebooks would be collected and controlled in the end of the ninth week. So, unlike the Experimental group 1 and the Experimental group 2, they did not receive weekly instruction or feedback on their recordings. Even so, it was observed that all subjects in the Control group 2 and 3 had recorded all of the 28 target words that were provided before and during the classes by the researcher along with other words. It was also observed that most of the students in the Controlled group 3 preferred to record the words together with their L1 equivalents and just an example sentence, or just a synonym or an antonym. Few students recorded synonyms, antonyms, collocations, and example sentence together with the L1 equivalent.
Task two was to prepare and apply the data collection tools. I had specified 28 unknown words in the administration session of VKRQ, and deliberately focused on these during the VNK procedures. So, I randomly selected 21 of these words for the receptive part, and again randomly appointed the remaining 7 of these to the productive part of the TRPV. The items in the receptive part were designed in such a way that besides the three target words, there were three other words in each item which were taken from among the remaining 22 words that were in the VKRQ. Definitions of the three target words in each item were given in mixed order while the definitions of the remaining words were not included. Three words in each (four words in the seventh item) item were added just to increase the difficulty of the items. In this part students were asked to match the given words with their definitions.
On the other hand, the productive part included fill- in-the gap sentences, which necessitated students to complete the words the initials of which were provided and so to complete the given sentences with the correct words. The definitions of the words in the receptive part, and the example sentences in the productive part were adopted or adapted from Longman Exams Dictionary (2006). In order to decide about how many letters of the words in the productive part should be provided as initials, the same two external professionals who controlled the tools and applied these on a group of students were consulted. One letter was provided each time until the consultants were able to identify and complete the words.
2.3.3. Phase 3 - Investigation of subjects' vocabulary notebooks and evaluation of the results obtained from the pre-testing and post-testing sessions
As a primary step in this phase, I implemented the TRPV in the end of the semester that was the tenth week. Students were handed the test during their usual class hour and were allocated as much time as they needed to complete the test. Although there was no time limitation, all subjects finished the test within thirty minutes. Besides this, all subjects sat in quite isolated way that they did not have any opportunity to talk among one another or to look at one another's papers. The scoring was done by giving 1 point to each correctly answered word in the items of both receptive and productive parts.
In this phase I also collected the vocabulary notebooks of all subjects that were in the four groups (Experimental 1 and 2, and Control 2 and 3) and investigated them thoroughly. The results of this investigation are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. The overview of genders and their vocabulary notebooks
Group
Gender
Mean number
of recorded words
Total
mean
Number of students
who recorded extra info
Experimental 1
female
140
136
0
male
132
Experimental 2
female
105
96
28
male
87
Control 2
female
113
112
0
male
111
Control 3
female
93
87
30
male
81
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The VKRQ that was applied at the beginning of the study revealed that all groups were almost the same level regarding their knowledge of the presented words from the AWL (see Table 3). It was observed that the mean number of words known by female subjects of the Experimental group 1 was 17 (34 %) out of 50, while the mean score of male subjects was 16 (32 %). Likewise, while female students in the Experimental group 2 scored a mean of 18 (36 %) words out of 50; the male students' mean was 19 (38 %). The mean score of female and male students in the Control group 1 was same and 18 (36 %) words out of 50. And, the mean score of female students in the Control group 2 was 16 (32 %), while it was 19 (38 %) for male subjects.
On the other hand, according to the results of the TRPV, it was observed that the mean score of the Experimental group 1 was 23 out of 28 which means that 82 % of the target words were acquired by both female and male subjects. Similarly, the female students in the Experimental group 2 correctly answered the 24 of the 28 target words, which was the highest score of approximately 86 %, while the male students scored exactly the same 23 (82 %) as the subjects in the Experimental group 1. The mean scores of the Control group 1 were 11 (39 %) out of 28 for female subjects, and 9 (32 %) for male subjects. On the other hand, the mean score of female students in the Control group 2 was 19 (68 %) words out of 28, while male students' mean score was 17 (61 %) words. And, for the Control group 3 the mean score of both female and male subjects was 21 (75 %) words out of total 28.
Table 3. The VKRQ and TRPV results of the groups and genders
Group
Gender
VKRQ
Mean Score and
(%)
TRPV
Mean Score and
(%)
Total mean
TRPV (%)
Experimental 1
female
17 - 34 %
23 - 82 %
82 %
male
16 - 32 %
23 - 82 %
Experimental 2
female
18 - 36 %
24 - 86 %
84 %
male
19 - 38 %
23 - 82 %
Control 1
female
18 - 36 %
11 - 39 %
35,5 %
male
18 - 36 %
9 - 32 %
Control 2
female
16 - 32 %
19 - 68 %
64,5 %
male
19 - 38 %
17 - 61 %
Control 3
female
19 - 38 %
21 - 75 %
75 %
male
17 - 34 %
21 - 75 %
These findings suggest that although the vocabulary knowledge (regarding the presented words from the AWL) of all subjects was almost equal at the beginning of the study, significant differences appeared after the treatment, especially between the Control group 1 and other three groups.
In relation to the research questions 1, it was observed that the Experimental group 1 (82%) and the Experimental group 2 (84%) that received feedback on their vocabulary notebooks and word recording, provided a total mean of 83 %, which was 13 % higher than the total mean of 70 % of the Control group 2 (65 %) and the Control group 3 (75 %). This difference of 13 % means that the feedback provided by the instructor added about 4 words to the vocabulary knowledge of the students. Since the two experimental groups and the two control groups showed similar characteristics related to age, gender, and linguistic background as well as similar vocabulary knowledge levels from the VKRQ, prior to the treatment; it might be concluded that the only different factor that should be considered here was the availability of weekly feedback or lack of it. The observed difference suggests that students become more motivated and willing to keep their work at the best that they can do, and actually that was informally and clearly observed by the researcher during the study. The comparison of the total mean percentage of the Experimental group 1 and 2 and the Control group 1 revealed much stunning results. The difference here was about 47 %, which means that approximately 13 more words out of 28 were acquired by the experimental words. Nevertheless, this difference should not be interpreted just by the existence or lack of feedback but also by the whole treatment procedure which also involved the recording of the unknown words and extra information related to these words.
Regarding the research question 2, it seems that recording extra information related to the unknown words creates positive addition to the knowledge and retention of the students. It was observed that the Experimental group 2 scored 2 % higher compared to the Experimental group 1. Likewise, the Control group 3 scored 10 % higher than the Control group 2. So, it was stunning that the lack of control and feedback increased the difference between the two control groups. Therefore, recording extra information related to the unknown words, apparently, created 10 % difference between the group of students who recorded just the L1 equivalent of the words and the group of students who noted down more and varied information about the unknown words, in favor of the latter. However, this difference seemed to decrease by 8 % when weekly and regular feedback and control was provided to the students. On the other hand, comparing the Experimental group 1 and the Control group 3, which recorded extra information related to the unknown words, with the Control group 1 revealed differences of approximately 48 % and 39 % respectively. So, these findings suggest that keeping vocabulary notebooks makes a considerable contribution to the acquisition and knowledge of the students.
With regard to research question 3, no significant difference was observed between the female and male subjects. It was revealed that the treatment procedures affected both genders similarly and equally, although there was a slight superiority in favor of female students. The female and male subjects in the Control group 1 had equal vocabulary knowledge (18/50) at the beginning of the study (VKRQ), while in the end of the study (TRPV) the mean score was (11/28) for female students and (9/28) for male students. For the Experimental group 1, the VKRQ revealed that 17/50 words were known by female students, while male students knew 16/50 of the words, and the TRPV revealed that both female and male subjects knew 25 of the 28 target words that they didn't know at the beginning of the study. Likewise, the TRPV of the Experimental group 2 revealed that female students knew 25 of the unknown words, while male students knew 26 of the words, while in the VKRQ female students knew 18/50 of the words and male subjects knew 19/50 of the words. Again, it was observed that while both female and male students in the Control group 3 scored 21 out of 28 in the TRPV, in the VKRQ female subjects had scored 19/50 and male subjects had scored 17/50. And, while the female subjects in the Control group 2 had scored 16/50 in the VKRQ, the male subjects had scored 19/50. In the TRPV the mean score of female subjects was 19 and 17 for male students. So, more or less, it was determined that the improvement of male and female subjects in each group progressed similarly, and there were no sharp or attention catching results.
3.1 Pedagogical Implications
The present study suggests that vocabulary notebook keeping contributes positively to the vocabulary acquisition and retention of the students. Nevertheless, it also reveals that there is need for systematic and regular control and feedback by the teachers, which seems to improve the motivation and strenuousness of the students. What is more, apparently, recording the unknown words together with as much related information as possible cultivates better results rather than recording the L1 equivalents. Thus, it would be beneficial if teachers encourage students to work on the unknown words and to search for synonyms, antonyms, collocations, etc. and to use the words in sentences. It might be also useful if teachers make students to regularly exchange their vocabulary notebooks to check and study the words that their peers record. Furthermore, the teachers might check the vocabulary notebooks of the students and prepare or organize some specific exercises and games besides other usual language learning activities.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study has demonstrated that the use of vocabulary notebooks might be quite effective and beneficial in vocabulary acquisition. However, it seems that students also need formal instruction and encouragement and regular feedback as well in order to keep their motivation fresh and to improve their work. In addition, it should be stated that the implementation of vocabulary notebooks requires that sufficient extra time and effort be allocated and put by the teachers. The present study has provided empirical support for the claim that vocabulary notebooks are potentially quite beneficial in terms of vocabulary acquisition. Actually, it was observed that students showed positive attitudes to keeping and working with vocabulary notebooks.
The following studies might contribute significantly to the field of FLL if they provide evidence for the most effective vocabulary learning strategies, and to what percentage each strategy adds to vocabulary knowledge or acquisition. It would be also interesting to research whether there is difference between the strategy preferences of male and female learners, as well as, the efficiency of the strategies in certain linguistic proficiency levels. There is also need to practice VLS more often in language learning environments to derive concrete pedagogical conclusions in order to catch the attention of teachers and learners and help them more efficiently.
