A SURVEY OF VOCABULARY LEARNING

STRATEGIES USED BY THAI GRADUATE EFL

LEARNERS

BY

MS. WIRASUDA SUKPINIT

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN CAREER ENGLISH FOR
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2018
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 A SURVEY OF VOCABULARY LEARNING
STRATEGIES USED BY THAI GRADUATE EFL
LEARNERS

BY

MS. WIRASUDA SUKPINIT

AN INDEPENDENT STUDY PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
ARTS IN CAREER ENGLISH FOR INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATION
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2018
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 i

Independent Study Paper Title A SURVEY OF VOCABULARY LEARNING

STRATEGIES USED BY THAI GRADUATE
EFL LEARNERS
Author MS. WIRASUDA SUKPINIT
Degree Master of Arts
Major Field/Faculty/University Career English for International
Communication
Language Institute
Thammasat University
Independent Study Paper Advisor Assoc. Prof. Supong Tangkiengsirisin, Ph.D.
Academic Years 2018

ABSTRACT
This study investigates the English vocabulary learning strategies used by Thai
graduate EFL learners when acquiring English vocabulary. The research seeks to help
EFL learners recognize their own behaviors while developing their vocabulary
knowledge as well as determine which learning strategies are most appropriate for Thai
graduate EFL students. The sample was 54 Career English for International
Communication (CEIC) students during the academic year 2018 – 2019 who responded
to a self-report questionnaire adapted from Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy to gather
information about (1) background information and (2) vocabulary learning strategies
used by the participants. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive statistical
methods.
The findings of the study revealed that ‘guessing from context’ was the most
frequently employed strategy for finding a new word’s meaning, along with ‘watching
English movies and TV programs’ for consolidating vocabulary. The least commonly
used strategies were ‘putting English labels on physical objects’, ‘playing word
building games’, and ‘keeping a vocabulary notebook’. The results showed that
vocabulary learning strategies were employed more frequently by higher achieving
students in general. It is notable that higher achievers used a ‘bilingual dictionary’ more
than lower achievers, whereas lower achievers preferred employing social strategies

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 ii

like ‘asking the teacher or a classmate for the meaning’. Further results showed that the
lower achieving students tended to use the least popular cognitive strategies like ‘using
flash cards’, ‘keeping a vocabulary notebook’ or ‘putting English labels on physical
objects’ considerably more than higher achievers did.

Keywords: Vocabulary learning strategies, Schmitt’s (1997) taxonomy, Vocabulary

acquisition, Thai graduate EFL learners

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor Assoc.

Prof. Dr. Supong Tangkiengsirisin for his valuable assistance and academic guidance,
as well as his patience, encouragement, and immense support throughout this
independent study. In addition to my advisor, my deepest gratitude also goes to my
independent study committee members for their helpful comments and kind support.

My sincere gratitude also goes to all my research participants for their

cooperation and time spent filling out the questionnaire. The study could not have been
completed without the assistance from the participants.

Furthermore, I must express my gratitude to all the instructors in the Career

English for International Communication for the knowledge and kind assistance while
I was studying for my master’s degree. I am also grateful to my fellow classmates and
friends for their encouragement and the fun we had together throughout the last two
years.

Finally, I am especially thankful to my parents, my younger brother, and sister

for their love, dedication, and for always being supportive in every way.

Wirasuda Sukpinit

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and Rationale 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 1
1.3 Research Questions 2
1.4 Objectives of the Study 2
1.5 Scope of the Study 2
1.6 Definition of Terms 2
1.7 Significance of the Study 3
1.8 Organization of the Study 3

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4

2.1 Vocabulary 4
2.1.1 Definition of Vocabulary 4
2.1.2 Types of Vocabulary 4
2.2 Learning Strategies 5
2.3 Language Learning Strategies 5
2.3.1 Definition of Language Learning Strategies 5
2.3.2 Classification of Language Learning Strategies 6
2.4 Vocabulary Learning 8
2.4.1 Definition of Vocabulary Learning 8
2.4.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies 9
2.4.3 Classification of Vocabulary Learning Strategies 9
2.5 Related Research 12

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 v

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15

3.1 Participants 15
3.2 Data Collection and Procedure 15
3.3 Instrumentation 15
3.4 Data Analysis 16

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 17

4.1 Personal Information 17

4.2 The Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies 18
4.2.1 Overall Strategies Use of Six Vocabulary Learning Strategies 18
Sub-Categories
4.2.2 Use of Individual Vocabulary Learning Strategies Items 19
4.2.3 Differences Between Vocabulary Learning Strategies Used 24
by Higher and Lower Achievers

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 30

5.1 Summary of the Study 30

5.2 Summary of the Findings 30
5.3 Discussion 31
5.3.1 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use Frequency 31
5.3.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use of Lower and Higher 32
Achievers
5.4 Conclusions 34
5.5 Recommendations for Further Research 35

REFERENCES 37

APPENDIX 41

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 vi

BIOGRAPHY 43

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Rationale

English is the most widely used language among foreign language speakers,
since there are many countries that use English as the official language. It is the primary
language used in international affairs. In Thailand, students are obliged to attend
English classes from primary school onwards. English is necessary as it is the
international language used for acquiring academic knowledge (Akkakoson, 2012).
Vocabulary acquisition is very important, since vocabulary is central to learning
the four main English skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. This also applies
to Thai graduate EFL learners. Mastery of the required knowledge of vocabulary can
make an EFL learner an effective reader, writer, listener and speaker. In general, the
reading ability of learners can be affected by individual’s vocabulary knowledge in
foreign language (Anderson, 2000). Therefore, special attention from both teachers and
learners is required in the vocabulary acquisition process.
Most Thai EFL learners generally encounter problems and difficulties in
English learning, which are caused by an insufficient knowledge of vocabulary. The
awareness of the vocabulary learning strategies adopted by Thai EFL learners during
the process of vocabulary development and mastery is very important, so that
vocabulary learning strategies can be used appropriately by Thai EFL learners.
Therefore, more insights into vocabulary learning strategies used by Thai EFL learners
when acquiring new vocabulary is essential for their English proficiency improvement.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

There are several causes for the lack of efficiency in English language learning
of Thai EFL learners in all levels of their education; learning strategies, teaching
strategies, educational background and so forth. As stated previously in the background
of the study, lack of vocabulary knowledge can lead to less competency in using all the
main English skills: reading, writing, listening and speaking. According to Nyikos &

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 2

Oxford (1993), using language learning strategies can improve students’ learning speed
and efficiency.

1.3 Research Questions

1. What are the most and least frequently used vocabulary learning strategies
among Thai EFL learners?
2. Are there any differences with regard to the use of vocabulary learning
strategies between higher and lower achieving students?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

The objective of this study is to investigate the use of vocabulary learning
strategies that are most and least frequently used by CEIC students. It also aims to
explore the differences between the vocabulary learning strategies used by higher and
lower achieving students to determine the most effective vocabulary learning strategies
for Thai graduate EFL learners.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The study focuses on the use of vocabulary learning strategies of 54 CEIC
students during the 2018 – 2019 academic year, a population that could be considered
Thai graduate EFL learners. The participants were asked to answer items using a 5-
point Likert scale adapted from Schmitt’s (1997) questionnaire.

1.6 Definition of Terms

1. Learning strategies refers to general procedure or learning practice that
support learners’ acquisition of knowledge
2. Vocabulary Learning Strategies refers to a learning strategy; “the process by
which information is obtained, stored, retrieved, and used” (Rubin 1987 in Schmitt,
1997)
3. Vocabulary Acquisition refers to learning and comprehending new word in
such a way that they can be used precisely in verbal and written conversation.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 3

4. Thai Graduate EFL Learners refers to master’s degree students enrolled in

the Career English for International Communication (CEIC) program at Thammasat
University.

1.7 Significance of the Study

The acquisition of vocabulary is considered as one of the most difficult aspects
of English proficiency development. The current research seeks to study the adoption
of vocabulary learning strategies employed by Thai graduate EFL learners. Therefore,
this study will benefit both Thai EFL learners in higher education and instructors. In
particular, learners will be able to recognize their own behaviors in vocabulary learning.
This study will also help learners by providing a guideline regarding the aspects that
learners should focus on and what learning strategies are most effective and appropriate
for developing vocabulary knowledge.

1.8 Organization of the Study

This paper consists of five chapters. The first chapter contains the general
background of the study, research questions, objective, definition of terms, scope of the
study, significance of the study, and organization of the study. In chapter two the
literature, relating to the study of vocabulary and vocabulary learning strategies is
reviewed. Chapter three presents the methodology used in this survey study. Chapter
four details the statistical results of the study. Chapter five comprises the summary and
the discussions of the findings, the conclusions, and recommendations for further
studies.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 4

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Vocabulary
2.1.1 Definition of Vocabulary
Vocabulary refers to words used in a particular language or a group of
words that are used by individual users of a specific language (Hatch & Brown, 1995).
Vocabulary an integral part of developing proficiency in a second language and
knowledge of a word meaning is one of the main purposes of language learning. Hornby
(1995) proposes that vocabulary is the complete collection of the words that comprise
a language. Burns and Broman (1975) stated that vocabulary is the collection of words
used by an individual, societal group or expert. Vocabulary acquisition is a primary
element of learning a language. According to Nunan (1998), sufficient vocabulary
acquisition is crucial for effective employment of a second language because the usage
of structures and functions for comprehensible communication requires extensive
vocabulary knowledge. Furthermore, expansion of vocabulary knowledge is needed for
second language mastery.
Another definition of vocabulary is learners’ comprehension of spoken
and written words. It takes a long time for learners to combine groups of words and
then be capable to employ them in the right contexts (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005).

2.1.2 Types of Vocabulary

Shepherd (1980) classifies vocabulary into two types: receptive
vocabulary and productive vocabulary (expressive vocabulary). Receptive vocabulary
relates to words that are perceived when a learner listens or reads. This is a passive
process, since the learner only receives information. Receptive vocabulary is seen as
primary vocabulary. Productive vocabulary, on the other hand, refers to the words that
are used when a learner speaks or writes. According to Harmer (1998), active
vocabulary refers to words that learners have been taught or learned but will probably
not be able to produce. It is believed that learners’ receptive vocabulary is typically
larger than productive vocabulary.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 5

2.2 Learning Strategies

Weinstein and Mayer’s research (as cited in Lessard - Clouston, 1997)
determined that learning strategies (LS) are generally the actions and notions that a
person concentrates on while learning, which are "intended to influence the learner's
encoding process." LS are involved in all contexts of learning and applied in all
subjects, and learning environments (i.e., classrooms; informal learning groups) Rubin
(as cited in Griffiths, 2003) describes learning strategies as “the techniques or devices
which a learner may use to acquire knowledge”. Meanwhile, Rubin (1987) categorizes
learning strategies into: (1) those directly assisting learning, and (2) those indirectly
assisting learning. The researcher divides direct learning strategies into (1)
clarification/verification, (2) monitoring, (3) memorization, (4) guessing/inductive
inference, (5) deductive reasoning, and (6) practice; and the indirect learning strategies
are categorized into (1) generating possibilities for practice and (2) developing tricks.

2.3 Language Learning Strategies

Gu (2003) suggests that learners adopt strategies that contribute to solving
problems when they are faced with in difficult assignments. Language learning
strategies are a subcategory of common learning strategies (Pitukwong, 2012 p.26).
According to Gu (2003), the area of vocabulary acquisition, which is part of language
learning strategies, is also seen as type of problem solving like other strategies. Attitude,
motivation, and the prior knowledge of a learner along with the nature and environment
of a learning task all contribute to the selection of the strategies used and their
effectiveness.

2.3.1 Definition of Language Learning Strategies

A language learning strategy involves designing and executing actions
taken to accomplish an objective, as well as observing and assessing the action in regard
to an estimated outcome (Gu, 2005). Cohen (1998) sees language learning strategies as
“processes which are consciously selected by learners, and which may result in action
taken to enhance the learning or use of a second or a foreign language, through the
storage, retention, recall, and application of information about this language” (p. 5),
which can be divided to conscious and unconscious actions. Cohen (1998) views that

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 6

only conscious actions can be referred to as strategic. Nation (2001) views that language
learning strategies have four important characteristics: (1) they are adopted by the
learner, (2) they are complicated and contained a number of steps, (3) they demand
knowledge and are enhanced by practice, and (4) they increase the proficiency of
learners. On the contrary, Wenden (1987) claims that strategies may be used
unconsciously, and he divides them into six categories: (1) strategies are particular
activities or methods, not an ordinary behavior of learners; (2) some are noticeable and
others not as noticeable; (3) strategies are aimed at solving problems; (4) they may
assist to learners indirectly or directly; (5) strategies may be intentionally used or
develop into natural actions and stay under perception; and (6) strategies are flexible to
transform. They can be studied, adapted, or abandoned.
Research studies have suggested various classifications of language
learning strategies. Some researchers argue that learning strategies should be grouped
as (1) language strategies and (2) skill strategies (Ellis, 1995; Tarone, 1981). Ellis
(1995) and Cohen (1998) agree that language learning strategies and language use
strategies should be separated from each other; on the contrary, McDonough (1995)
believes that language use and language learning strategies may be used together, which
makes it difficult to differenciate language learning strategies from language use
strategies. The majority of researchers view that language learning and language use
strategies may be used together, since any strategy or technique used in L2 can also
help L2 learning like Oxford (2011). When learning L2 by employing both language
learning and language use strategies, the material that is used will be transferred to long-
term memory. Learners have more opportunities to practice and learn with the help of
language use strategies (p. 91-92).

2.3.2 Classification of Language Learning Strategies

Researchers have been classifying language learning strategies since the
late 1970’s and have proposed several taxonomies. Much of the previous research has
focused on finding connections between strategy use and language efficiency to
determine the most efficient strategies adopted by the most successful second language
learners. Most of the early studies only examined a few strategies: Naiman et al. (1975,
as cited in Oxford, 1990) recommend six strategies, Rubin (1975) suggests seven, and

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 7

Stern (1975) proposes ten. Learning strategies have been classified into learning,
communication, and social strategies (Rubin, 1987). Learning strategies including
cognitive and metacognitive strategies directly influence learning, while social and
communication strategies have an indirect influence on learning as they can provide
learners with exposure to the target language. More recently, Rubin (1994) included
both general strategies and sub-skill strategies, similar to the studies of Oxford (1990)
and O’Malley and Chamot (1990).
Rubin (1994) divides language learning strategies into: (1) direct, (2)
indirect. The direct strategies are comprised of (1) cognitive strategies, which include
clarification, guessing, deductive reasoning, practice, memorizing, and monitoring and
(2) metacognitive strategies include self-directed strategies like planning, prioritizing,
setting goals, and self-management. The second group, indirect strategies, involves (1)
communicative strategies, which are strategies used during conversations and (2) social
strategies that help learners to practice and gain exposure to the target language.

Table 2.1 Classification of language learning strategies proposed by Rubin (1994)

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies
1. Cognitive strategies 1. Communicative strategies
2. Metacognitive strategies 2. Social strategies

Oxford (1990a) proposes a similar classification of language learning

strategies as Rubin (1994), which can be classified into direct and indirect strategies.
However, Oxford classifies the sub-strategies into more categories including both direct
and indirect strategies, this system is acknowledged as one of the most extensive to date
(Schmitt, 1997). Direct strategies include memory, cognitive, and compensation
strategies. (1) Memory strategies are strategies that create mental linkages, apply
pictures and voices, retrieve information, and engage activity. (2) Cognitive strategies
relate to performing, accepting and delivering information and strategies, analyzing and
rationale thinking, and generating structure for input and output. (3) Compensation
strategies involve guessing logically and surmounting obstructions. Oxford (1990)’s
indirect strategies are composed of metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. (1)
Metacognitive strategies focus on individuals’ learning process, determining and

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 8

organizing the learning procedure and figuring out learning outcomes. (2) Affective
strategies comprise reducing anxiety and managing emotions. (3) Social strategies
pertain to asking questions, coordinating with people, and understanding people.

Table 2.2 Classification of language learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990a)

Direct Strategies Indirect Strategies
1. Memory strategies 1. Metacognitive strategies
2. Cognitive strategies 2. Affective strategies
3. Compensation strategies 3. Social strategies

Language learning is integrally related to conscious learning; as a

consequence, applying language learning strategies also supports learners in L2
acquisition (O’Malley and Chamot 1990) classify language learning strategies into
three categories: metacognitive, cognitive, and social/ affective strategies, each of
which includes several sub-strategies. (1) Metacognitive strategies involve the
processes of planning, monitoring, and evaluation; (2) cognitive strategies involve
direct operation of incoming information and employing it while learning to improve
efficiency. The third category, (3) social/ affective strategies, comprises cooperating
with others, for example, asking for explanations and self-talk.

Table 2.3 Classification of language learning strategies proposed by O’Malley and

Chamot (1990)
Language learning strategies by 1. Metacognitive strategies
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) 2. Cognitive strategies
3. Social/ affective strategies

2.4 Vocabulary Learning

2.4.1 Definition of Vocabulary Learning
According to Harmer (2007), learners continuously observe how much
their vocabulary knowledge has increased in the process of vocabulary acquisition.
When reading, learners will face obstacles to understanding the text and will not

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 9

continue if they do not possess sufficient vocabulary knowledge. Stahl (1983) argues
that foreign language learning and vocabulary knowledge are connected, and this is also
applicable to learning English as a foreign language. Vocabulary learning is unlike
grammar learning, since the process is time consuming, requiring consistent study and
repetition in order to acquire vocabulary knowledge (Nakata, 2006). Yongqi Gu (2003)
propose that vocabulary learning through context is an approach that can be applied in
the learning process. Nation (2005) contends that high frequency vocabulary as well as
low frequency vocabulary should be taught to EFL learners.
According to Wallace (1988), the fundamental aspects of vocabulary
leaning are (1) the intention of vocabulary learning, (2) the necessities of vocabulary
learning, (3) the recurrence of vocabulary learning, (4) the demonstration of vocabulary
learning should be purposeful and understandable. Harmer (1993) claims that learners
should be able to identify the following factors when learning new vocabulary: (1) the
meaning of the word, (2) how to use the word with a suitable degree of formality, (3)
the structure of the word and how to use the word in a suitable grammatical structure.

2.4.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies

In vocabulary learning, the strategies used by learners are very important.
Brown & Payne (1995) list five important measures in vocabulary learning that learners
must carry out; (1) accessing sources to come across new vocabulary, (2) having clear
pictures and sounds for the structure of the new vocabulary, (3) studying the definition
of the vocabulary, (4) creating a firm memory relationship between the structures and
the definitions of the vocabulary, (5) applying the vocabulary.
A further significant taxonomy of vocabulary learning strategies was
proposed by Schmitt & McCharty (1997). They divided the strategies into four
categories, which are (1) discovery strategies, (2) social strategies, (3) memory
strategies, (4) cognitive strategies.

2.4.3 Classification of Vocabulary Learning Strategies

Vocabulary learning strategies are part of language learning strategies.
Ahmed (1989) divides learning strategies into two sets; (1) macro-strategies that
include using memory, practicing, taking notes, and using various knowledge materials

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 10

and (2) micro strategies that consist of particular actions that are part of one of the
macro-strategies.
Another significant collection of vocabulary learning strategies in a 108-
item vocabulary learning questionnaire (VLQ) was presented by Gu and Johnson
(1996). The questionnaire was generated in reference to an earlier study of Oxford
(1990). It is comprised of three sections: vocabulary learning beliefs, metacognitive
strategies, and cognitive strategies, which were classified into (1) vocabulary learning
beliefs, (2) Metacognitive regulations, (3) Guessing strategies, (4) Dictionary
strategies, (5) Note-taking strategies, (6) Memory strategies (rehearsal), (7) Memory
strategies (encoding), and (8) Activation strategies.

Table 2.4 Vocabulary learning strategies proposed by Gu & Johnson (1996)

Vocabulary 1. Vocabulary should be memorized
learning beliefs 2. Vocabulary should be picked up naturally (4 items)
3. Vocabulary should be studied and used (5 items)
Metacognitive 1. Selective attention (7 items)
strategies 2. Self-initiation (5 items)
Cognitive 1. Guessing strategies (12 items)
strategies 2. Dictionary strategies (17 items)
3. Note-taking strategies (9 items)
4. Memory strategies: rehearsal (12 items)
5. Memory strategies: encoding (24 items)
6. Activation strategies (5 items)

Schmitt (1997) classifies vocabulary learning strategies into two groups:

strategies used to find the definition of new vocabulary and strategies for retaining a
vocabulary once it has been encountered, which is based on the broadly formed
language learning strategies’ taxonomy of Oxford (1990) that involves social, memory,
cognitive, and metacognitive strategies as follows.
Category 1: Strategies used to find the definition of a new vocabulary

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 11

Determination Strategies (DET), including (1) analyzing word type, (2)

analyzing affixes and roots, (3) checking for native language similarity, (4) analyzing
any provided images or sign language, (5) guessing the definition based on the textual
context, (6) using a dictionary. Social strategies (SOC) include (1) asking the instructor
for a synonym, rephrasing, or native language interpretation of new vocabulary and (2)
asking a classmate for the translation.
Category 2: Strategies used to retain a previously learned vocabulary
Social strategies (SOC), including (1) studying and practicing translation in a
group and (2) interacting with native speakers. The second group of strategies are
memory strategies (MEM), which includes (1) linking vocabulary to individual
background, (2) associating the vocabulary with its coordinates, (3) linking the
vocabulary in its synonyms and antonyms, (4) using semantic maps, (5) understanding
word forms, (6) guessing new vocabulary’s meaning, (7) employing the keyword
method, (8) grouping words together to learn them, (9) learning how to spell a new
vocabulary, (10) saying new vocabulary out loud when studying and (11) using gestures
when learning vocabulary. The third group is cognitive strategies (COG), which consist
of (1) verbal repetition, (2) written repetition, (3) vocabulary lists, (4) putting English
labels on physical objects and (5) keeping a vocabulary notebook. The last group is
metacognitive strategies (MET), which are (1) using English-language media (i.e., TV
programs, movies, music) (2) testing oneself with word tests, (3) skipping new words
and 4) continuing to study words over time.

Table 2.5 Vocabulary learning strategies proposed by Schmitt (1997)

Strategies for the discovery of a 1. Determination strategies (9 items)
new word’s meaning 2. Social strategies (5 items)
Strategies for consolidating a 1. Social strategies (3 items)
word once it has been 2. Memory strategies (27 items)
encountered 3. Cognitive strategies (9 items)
4. Metacognitive strategies (5 items)

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 12

2.5 Related Research

A questionnaire was created by Gu & Johnson (1996), which was based on a
former study (Oxford, 1990). A 108-item questionnaire divided into three parts,
namely, vocabulary learning beliefs, metacognitive strategies, and cognitive strategies
was distributed to 850 non-English major Chinese students at Beijing University. The
study focused on the correlation between strategies, vocabulary size and language
proficiency. After data analysis, it was determined that vocabulary size had a positive
correlation with general English efficiency. Other strategies that correlated positively
with vocabulary size language proficiency were contextual guessing, use of dictionary,
use of freshly learned words, and attention toward word formation. It was found that
memorizing vocabulary was helpful only when used together with additional strategies.
The study proposed that learners should focus on learning language skills instead of
trying to memorize the translation of equivalent Chinese words.
Schmitt (1997) conducted a study in Japan using a 58-item questionnaire
including 40 strategies that he created and distributed to 600 EFL learners of different
grades classified into four groups by learners’ English proficiency. Schmitt surveyed
the vocabulary learning strategies applied by learners and how VLS could aid their
vocabulary acquisition. The subjects were asked to state their most often used strategies
and the strategies they perceived as most useful. The results indicated that bilingual
dictionary use, contextual guessing, verbal and written repetition, and spelling words
aloud were the most commonly used strategies for discovering and consolidating
English words. The survey also showed that the VLS use tended to change when
learners grew up. The use of bilingual dictionaries was most adopted among all
strategies, although it is arguable whether the monolingual or the bilingual dictionaries
were more helpful.
In research similar to Schmitt (1997), Fan (2003) studied the correlation of VLS
use frequency and how the VLS actually helped learners’ vocabulary acquisition in
Hong Kong. The survey explored 1,067 freshman university students from seven
institutes who employed English as L2 and found that guessing, dictionary and analysis
were the most frequently used strategies. The results also showed that most students
only sometimes used VLS despite considering them useful.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 13

Further research based on Schmitt (1997) was conducted by Wu (2005) to

identify the vocabulary learning strategies employed by 303 Taiwanese EFL learners.
Respondents were required to indicate strategies use and how different age groups of
students perceived the helpfulness of vocabulary learning strategies. The most
commonly applied strategies by all the different age groups were the use of electronic
dictionaries, bilingual dictionaries, and guessing from context.
Also in a Taiwanese context, Yang (2005) investigated vocabulary learning
strategies use with medical terminology. The study included 89 Taiwanese college
nursing majors who responded to medical terminology learning strategies
questionnaires that were analyzed together with the mid-term scores of the participants.
The findings of the study suggested that written repetition, verbal repetition, and
bilingual dictionary strategies were most frequently used by students. The results also
indicated that a wider range of strategies were used by the most efficient participants.
Sahbazian (2004) conducted a study examining the use of VLS and new English
words learning procedures of 934 Turkish university students using a 35-item
questionnaire. The findings showed that most of the Turkish students had quite low to
medium frequency of using VLS intentionally. The most commonly used strategies
were using bilingual dictionaries, memorizing, and listing new words. On the contrary,
strategies that required deeper cognitive processing were used with a low frequency.
The results also showed that memory and simple cognitive strategies were most used,
since the Turkish education system encouraged learners to use routine learning methods
in a traditional way in all subjects, including foreign languages.
Several studies have looked vocabulary learning strategies in a Thai context.
Mongkol (2008) studied vocabulary learning strategies adopted by first and second-
year English major students at Phetchaburi Rajabhat University. The participants
included 54 first-year students and 46 second-year students. The results collected from
questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and think-aloud methods indicated that an
English-Thai dictionary was reported as the most commonly used strategy by the
majority of the first-year participants; on the contrary, a monolingual dictionary was
least popular among the students. Regarding the second-year students, all participants
employed the ‘analyzing suffix and roots’ strategy, while ‘listening to a tape of word
list’ was reported as least frequently used.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 14

Komol (2011) investigated 192 second-year students divided into two groups
according to their vocabulary size. The research aimed to identify the vocabulary
learning strategies use and to identify the differences in the vocabulary learning
strategies utilized by the students with high and low vocabulary sizes. The results
revealed that students employed determination strategies with the highest frequency,
whereas social strategies were used with the lowest frequency.
Pitukwong (2012) explored vocabulary learning strategies used by 40
undergraduate students grouped into high and low English proficiency students. A
questionnaire based on Schmitt (1997) and semi-structured interviews were used as the
data collection methods. Students with high English proficiency reported higher use of
vocabulary learning strategies than low proficiency participants.
Petchsrignam (2014) investigated the use of vocabulary learning strategies by
fourth-year English program students at Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University. The 95
participants were divided into three groups by major: (1) English, (2) business English,
and (3) English education. The data collection included a questionnaire adapted from
Schmitt (1997) and interviews to crosscheck the results. The study found that ‘using a
bilingual dictionary’ was most frequently used to find out the definition of a word,
whereas ‘using English media’ was reported as the most frequently used for
consolidating vocabulary.
In summary, this chapter reviewed the literature related to vocabulary, learning
strategies, language learning strategies, vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary
learning strategies classification, as well as related research studies.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 15

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter contains the methodological framework of the study. The research
questions, participants, data collection and procedure, and data analysis will be
presented.

3.1 Participants
The participants for this study were Thai graduate EFL students enrolled in the
Language Institute of Thammasat University in the major of Career English for
International Communication (CEIC). Their ages ranged from 20 – 60 and they had
EFL experience at the higher education level. The total sample of students that involved
in the study was 54 which was chosen by convenience sampling. More than 90% of the
participants were Thai native speakers and all participants used English as L2.

3.2 Data Collection and Procedure

The data collection for this study was a self-report questionnaire gathering the
demographic information of the participants (CEIC students). For the frequency of
vocabulary learning strategies use, the researcher adapted questionnaire items from
Schmitt (1997) questionnaire that used a 5-point Likert scales (0=Never, 1=Rarely,
2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Always).
The researcher distributed the questionnaires to the participants in the classroom
and explained the questions in detail.

3.3 Instrumentation
The questionnaire used in this study was a modified version of the survey used
by Schmitt (1997) containing 35 items regarding vocabulary learning strategies. The
questionnaire used in this study included two parts. Part 1 contained questions gathering
participants’ demographic information and past language-learning experience. Part 2
detailed two categories of vocabulary learning strategies: (1) strategies for discovery of

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 16

a new word’s meaning (2) strategies for consolidating a word once it has been
encountered.
The questionnaire is presented in Appendix A

3.4 Data Analysis

This quantitative research investigated data gathered from the questionnaire
about vocabulary learning strategies use while learning vocabulary, which was then
analyzed by using descriptive statistics. The mean scores and standard deviations of the
ratings of use frequency were calculated and compared to examine the most commonly
used strategies and how various the strategies choices related to the group the students
belonged to.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 17

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of this study obtained from the questionnaire
divided into two parts: (1) participants’ personal information and (2) differences in the
use of vocabulary learning strategies in terms of gender, vocabulary knowledge
perception, and TU-GET score.

4.1 Personal Information of the Participants

Table 4.1 Personal Information of the Participants

Demographic Information Frequency Percentage
1. Gender Male 12 21%
Female 42 79%
Total Participants 54 100%
2. Age 20 – 30 43 78%
31 – 40 8 16%
41 – 50 2 3%
51 – 60 1 3%
3. Vocabulary Excellent 3 5%
Knowledge Perception Good 15 26%
Fair 33 64%
Poor 3 5%
4. TU-GET Score 300 – 440 2 4%
450 – 590 30 55%
600 – 740 15 28%
750 – 900 7 13%

The total number of Career English for International Communication (CEIC)

students that participated in the 35-item self-report questionnaire was 54. In the first
part of the questionnaire, the respondents were asked to provide personal information,
including, gender, age, vocabulary knowledge perception, and TU-GET score. As

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 18

shown in table 4.1, 42 (79%) of the participants were female. The ages of most of the
students (78%) ranged between 20 – 30 years of age, followed by 31 – 40 years old
(16%), while only two students (3%) were 41 – 50 years old and only one student (3%)
was over 50 years old. The majority of the respondents (64%) considered their
vocabulary knowledge as fair, followed by good (26%); meanwhile, only three students
(5%) considered their vocabulary knowledge as excellent and three students (5%)
reported their vocabulary knowledge as poor. Approximately half of the respondents
(55%) had a TU-GET scores between 450 – 590 points, followed by 600 – 740 points
(28%); at the same time, 13% reported their score between 750 – 900 points, only two
students (4%) had scores between 300 – 440 points.

4.2 The Use of Vocabulary Learning Strategies

The second part of the questionnaire explored the frequency of vocabulary
learning strategies use of the participants measured by a five-point Likert rating scale,
ranging from never – always (0=never, 1=rarely, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=always).

4.2.1 Overall Strategies Use of Six Vocabulary Learning Strategies Sub-

Categories
The vocabulary learning strategies in the present research, were divided
into two main categories: (1) discovery strategies and (2) consolidation strategies,
which were grouped into six sub-categories; (1) Determination – DET, (2) Social
(Discovery) – SOC, (3) Social (Consolidation) – SOC, (4) Memory – MEM, (5)
Cognitive – COG, and (6) Metacognitive – MET

Table 4.2 Overall Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use (Schmitt’s Taxonomy)

Category Mean SD Frequency

Discovery Strategies:
Determination – DET (item 1 – 6) 2.85 0.97 High
Social – SOC (item 7 – 10) 2.07 1.07 Medium
Overall Discovery Strategies 2.54 1.08 Medium

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 19

Category Mean SD Frequency

Consolidation Strategies:
Social – SOC (item 11) 2.68 0.83 Medium
Memory – MEM (item 12-20) 2.69 0.89 Medium
Cognitive – COG (item 21-28) 2.19 1.17 Medium
Metacognitive – MET (item 29-35) 2.99 0.97 High
Overall Consolidation Strategies 2.61 1.06 Medium
Overall VLS Use 2.59 1.06 Medium

According to table 4.2, the overall use of vocabulary learning strategies

included in the current study of all participants was at the degree of medium (M=2.59,
SD=1.06). The most frequently used VLS category was metacognitive strategies
(M=2.99, SD=0.97), followed by determination strategies (M=2.85, SD=0.97),
memory strategies (M=2.69, SD=0.89), social (consolidation) strategies (M=2.68,
SD=0.83), cognitive strategies (M=2.19, SD=1.17), and the least frequently used
category was social (discovery) strategies (M=2.07, SD=1.07).

4.2.2 Use of Individual Vocabulary Learning Strategy Items

As mentioned in the previous section, the VLS were divided into two main
categories and six sub-categories. This section presents all 35 individual VLS items of
discovery strategies (item 1-10) and consolidation strategies (item 11-35).

Table 4.3 Means, Standard Deviations, Percentage and Frequency Regarding the
Use of Vocabulary Discovery Strategies by Individual Item
Frequency of Discovery Strategies Use
Sometimes
Always

Never
Rarely
Often

Items Mean SD Frequency

Discovery – DET
1. I analyze part of 20 20 10 2 1 3.06 0.95 High
speech in sentences. 37% 37% 19% 4% 2%

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 20

Frequency of Discovery Strategies Use

Sometimes
Always

Never
Rarely
Often
Items Mean SD Frequency

2. I analyze suffixes 11 19 17 7 0 2.63 0.96 Medium

and roots. 20% 35% 31% 13% 0%
3. I analyze any 19 24 7 4 0 3.07 0.89 High
available picture 35% 44% 13% 7% 0%
and gestures.
4. I guess based on 19 25 9 1 0 3.15 0.76 High
textual context. 35% 46% 17% 2% 0%
5. I use bilingual 16 19 14 2 3 2.80 1.09 High
dictionary. 30% 35% 26% 4% 6%
6. I use 5 20 21 6 2 2.37 0.94 Medium
monolingual 9% 37% 39% 11% 4%
dictionary.
Discovery – SOC
7. I ask the teacher 5 9 21 13 6 1.89 1.11 Medium
for L1 translation. 9% 17% 39% 24% 11%
8. I ask the teacher 3 11 21 15 4 1.89 1.00 Medium
for synonym of a 6% 20% 39% 28% 7%
new word.
9. I ask the teacher 6 8 22 13 4 1.98 1.08 Medium
for a sentence 11% 15% 41% 24% 7%
including the new
word.
10. I ask classmate 7 24 13 5 3 2.52 1.04 Medium
for the meaning. 13% 44% 24% 9% 6%
Total 2.54 1.08 Medium
Note. n=54

Table 4.3 presents the results of ten VLS items under the discovery
category: six items of determination category – DET, and four items of social category
– SOC.
The results showed that the most used determination strategy – DET for
learning the meaning of a new word, was item 4 ‘I guess based on textual context.’

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 21

(M=3.15, SD=0.76), and the least used strategy was item 6 ‘I use monolingual
dictionary.’ (M=2.37, SD=0.94). According to the findings, social strategy – SOC, item
10 ‘I ask classmate for the meaning’ (M=2.52, SD=1.04) was most used for learning a
new word meaning, while item 7 ‘I ask the teacher for L1 translation.’ and item 8 ‘I ask
the teacher for synonym of a word.’ were the least used strategies with the same mean
score at 1.89 (SD=1.11, 1.00).
The results also showed that the overall use of determination strategies –
DET (M=2.85, SD=0.97) was considerably higher than the social strategies – SOC
(M=2.07, SD=1.07); four items out of six DET strategies had high frequency of use,
while all four items of SOC strategies fell under medium use in terms of frequency.

Table 4.4 Means, Standard Deviations, Percentage and Frequency Regarding the
Use of Vocabulary Consolidation Strategies by Individual Item
Frequency of Consolidation Strategies Use
Sometimes
Always

Never
Rarely
Often

Items Mean SD Frequency

Consolidation – SOC
11. I interact with 8 24 17 4 0 2.68 0.83 Medium
native speakers. 15% 44% 31% 7% 0%
Consolidation - MEM
12. I connect the 18 24 7 5 0 3.02 0.92 High
word to a personal 33% 44% 13% 9% 0%
experience.
13.I connect the 9 27 17 1 0 2.81 0.73 High
word to its 17% 50% 31% 2% 0%
synonyms and
antonyms.
14. I use the new 3 27 21 3 0 2.56 0.69 Medium
word in sentences. 6% 50% 39% 6% 0%
15. I group words 4 21 22 7 0 2.41 0.81 Medium
together to study 7% 39% 41% 13% 0%
them.
16. I study the 11 27 14 2 0 2.87 0.78 High
spelling of a word. 20% 50% 26% 4% 0%

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 22

Frequency of Consolidation Strategies Use

Sometimes
Always

Never
Rarely
Often
Items Mean SD Frequency

17. I study the 20 18 15 0 1 3.04 0.91 High

sound of a word. 37% 33% 28% 0% 2%
18. I say the new 8 16 22 8 0 2.44 0.92 Medium
word aloud when 15% 30% 41% 15% 0%
studying.
19. I remember the 14 22 14 3 1 2.83 0.95 High
part of speech. 26% 41% 26% 6% 2%
20. I use physical 4 17 23 7 3 2.22 0.96 Medium
action when 7% 31% 43% 13% 6%
learning a word.
Consolidation - COG
21. I use verbal 9 25 17 3 0 2.74 0.81 Medium
repetition. 17% 46% 31% 6% 0%
22. I use written 8 22 22 2 0 2.67 0.78 Medium
repetition. 15% 41% 41% 4% 0%
23. I study word 3 20 20 8 3 2.22 0.96 Medium
lists. 6% 37% 37% 15% 6%
24. I use flash 2 5 17 17 13 1.37 1.07 Medium
cards. 4% 9% 31% 31% 24%
25. I take notes in 27 20 3 4 0 3.30 0.88 High
class. 50% 37% 6% 7% 0%
26. I put English 1 14 18 10 11 1.70 1.13 Medium
labels on physical 2% 26% 33% 19% 20%
objects.
27. I keep a 6 9 18 11 10 1.81 1.24 Medium
vocabulary 11% 17% 33% 20% 19%
notebook.
28. I play word 2 10 21 12 9 1.70 1.08 Medium
building games. 4% 19% 39% 22% 17%
Consolidation - MET
29. I listen to 29 20 4 1 0 3.43 0.72 High
English songs. 54% 37% 7% 2% 0%

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 23

Frequency of Consolidation Strategies Use

Sometimes
Always

Never
Rarely
Often
Items Mean SD Frequency

30. I watch and 18 18 14 3 1 2.91 1.00 High

listen to English 33% 33% 26% 6% 2%
news.
31. I read English 9 15 18 8 4 2.31 1.15 Medium
newspapers. 17% 28% 33% 5% 7%
32. I read English 10 22 16 5 1 2.65 0.95 Medium
novels or 19% 41% 30% 9% 2%
magazines.
33. I watch English 33 14 7 0 0 3.48 0.72 High
movies and TV 61% 26% 13% 0% 0%
programs.
34. I browse 22 25 7 0 0 3.28 0.68 High
through English 41% 46% 13% 0% 0%
language web sites.
35. I chat using 15 20 15 4 0 2.85 0.92 High
English on the 28% 37% 28% 7% 0%
Internet.
Total 2.61 1.06 Medium
Note. n=54

Table 4.4 presents the results of 25 VLS items under the consolidation
category: one items of social category – SOC, nine items of memory category – MEM,
eight items of cognitive category – COG, and seven items of metacognitive category –
MET.
The most used strategy for consolidating a word once it has been
encountered was item 33 ‘I watch English movies and TV programs.’ (M=3.48,
SD=0.72). Regarding the least used consolidation strategy overall, item 24 ‘I use flash
card.’ was reported at medium use frequency (M=1.37, SD=1.07). Concerning the
memory strategies – MEM, item 17 ‘I study the sound of the word.’ (M=3.04, SD=0.91)
was the most used strategy, whereas item 20 ‘I use physical action when learning a

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 24

word.’ (M=2.22, SD=0.96) was the least used strategy of MEM. The table also shows
that regarding the cognitive strategies – COG, item 25 ‘I take notes in class.’ (M=3.30,
SD=0.88) was reported as highest frequency and the least used strategy was item 24 ‘I
use flash card.’ With the lowest mean score at 1.37. For metacognitive strategies –
MET, item 33 ‘I watch English movies and TV programs.’ (M=3.48, SD=0.72) was the
most frequently used, which also had the highest overall use frequency of consolidation
strategies; on the contrary, the least frequently used among MET strategies was item 31
‘I read English newspapers.’ (M=2.31, SD=1.15).
The findings showed that metacognitive strategies – MET had the most
use frequency in comparison to all consolidation sub-categories, with five out of seven
items listed as high-frequency use; on the contrary, cognitive strategies – COG were
the least commonly used category with only one high-frequency use out of eight items.

4.2.3 The Differences Between Vocabulary Learning Strategies Used by

Higher and Lower Achievers
The present study also aimed to investigate the vocabulary used by CEIC
students and observe the differences between higher and lower achieving students’
strategies use when acquiring new vocabulary. The two groups were classified by their
reported TU-GET score. Participants who reported a TU-GET score lower than 600
points were considered the lower achieving students (32 subjects), while higher
achieving students (22 subjects) were participants who reported TU-Get scores of 600
points and above.

Table 4.5 Differences in Overall Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use Between

Higher and Lower Achieving Students (Schmitt’s Taxonomy)
Higher Achievers Lower Achievers
Category Mean SD Frequency Mean SD Frequency
Discovery – DET 2.95 1.13 High 2.77 0.84 Medium
Discovery – SOC 1.91 1.21 Medium 2.18 0.98 Medium
Consolidation – SOC 2.86 1.01 High 2.56 0.67 Medium
Consolidation – MEM 2.83 1.04 High 2.59 0.77 Medium

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 25

Consolidation – COG 2.04 1.33 Medium 2.29 1.04 Medium

Consolidation – MET 3.18 0.96 High 2.85 0.96 High
Overall VLS 2.63 1.22 Medium 2.57 0.94 Medium
Note. Higher Achiever n=22 / Lower Achiever n=32

Table 4.5 presents the differences between the vocabulary learning

strategies used by higher and lower achieving students. The most frequently used
category for higher achievers was metacognitive – MET (M=3.18, SD=0.96), while the
least frequently used category was social – SOC for discovering the meaning of a new
word (M=1.91, SD=1.21). The results for the lower achievers also showed that the most
frequently used category was metacognitive – MET (M=2.85, SD=0.96) and the least
frequently used category was also social (discovery) – SOC (M=2.18, SD=0.98) like
higher achievers. However, it is notable that higher achievers tended to apply more
vocabulary learning strategies overall (M=2.63, SD=1.22) than lower achievers
(M=2.57, SD=0.94). The results from table 4.5 indicate that four out of six categories
were reported at high frequency use for higher achievers, while only one out of six
categories were reported as high frequency use for lower achievers.

Table 4.6 Means, Standard Deviations and Frequency Use of Vocabulary Discovery
Strategies Differences Between Higher and Lower Achieving Students by
Individual Item
Higher Achievers Lower Achievers
Category
Mean SD Frequency Mean SD Frequency
Discovery – DET
1. I analyze part of 3.18 1.14 High 2.97 0.80 High
speech in sentences.
2. I analyze affixes and 2.77 1.11 Medium 2.53 0.84 Medium
roots.
3. I analyze any 3.14 1.08 High 3.03 0.74 High
available pictures and
gestures.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 26

Higher Achievers Lower Achievers

Category
Mean SD Frequency Mean SD Frequency
4. I guess based on 3.41 0.80 High 2.97 0.69 High
textual context.
5. I use bilingual 2.86 1.39 High 2.75 0.84 Medium
dictionary
6. I use monolingual 2.32 0.95 Medium 2.41 0.95 Medium
dictionary.
Discovery – SOC
7. I ask the teacher for 1.95 1.21 Medium 1.84 1.05 Medium
L1 translation.
8. I ask the teacher for a 1.77 1.23 Medium 1.97 0.82 Medium
synonym of a word.
9. I ask the teacher for a 1.77 1.31 Medium 2.13 0.88 Medium
sentence including the
new word.
10. I ask a classmate for 2.14 1.13 Medium 2.80 0.89 High
the meaning.
Overall Discovery 2.53 1.27 Medium 2.54 0.94 Medium

The results of the ten individual items under discovery strategies are
presented in table 4.6. Item 4 ‘I guess based on textual context.’ (M=3.41, SD=0.80)
was reported to be most frequently used by higher achievers, whereas item 3 ‘I analyze
any available picture and gestures.’ (M=3.03, SD=0.74) was applied most frequently
by lower achievers when determining the meaning of a new word. Concerning social
strategies, item 10 ‘I ask classmate for the meaning.’ was the most commonly used
strategy by both higher (M=2.14, SD=1.13) and lower achievers (M=2.80, SD=0.89).
On the subject of least frequently used social strategy for discovering a word’s meaning,
item 8 ‘I ask the teacher for a synonym of a word.’ (M=1.77, SD=1.23) and item 9 ‘I
ask the teacher for a sentence including the new word.’ (M=1.77, SD=1.31) had the
same mean score for higher achieving students. As for lower achieving students, item

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 27

7 ‘I ask the teacher for L1 translation.’ (M=1.84, SD=1.05) was reported to be the least
commonly used strategy.

Table 4.7 Differences in the Means, Standard Deviations and Frequency Regarding
the Use of Vocabulary Consolidation Strategies Between Higher and Lower
Achieving Students by Individual Item
Higher Achievers Lower Achievers
Category
Mean SD Frequency Mean SD Frequency
Consolidation – SOC
11. I interact with native 2.86 1.01 High 2.56 0.67 Medium
speakers.
Consolidation – MEM
12. I connect the word to 3.32 0.99 High 2.81 0.82 High
a personal experience.
13. I connect the word to 3.09 0.75 High 2.63 0.66 Medium
its synonyms and
antonyms.
14. I use the new word in 2.91 0.61 High 2.31 0.64 Medium
sentences.
15. I group words 2.41 1.01 Medium 2.41 0.67 Medium
together to study them.
16. I study the spelling 3.14 0.83 High 2.69 0.69 Medium
of a word.
17. I study the sound of a 3.14 1.04 High 2.97 0.82 High
word.
18. I say the new word 2.36 1.09 Medium 2.50 0.80 Medium
aloud when studying.
19. I remember the part 3.05 1.09 High 2.69 0.82 Medium
of speech.
20. I use physical action 2.05 1.17 Medium 2.34 0.79 Medium
when learning a word.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 28

Higher Achievers Lower Achievers

Category
Mean SD Frequency Mean SD Frequency
Consolidation – COG
21. I use verbal 2.86 0.89 High 2.66 0.75 Medium
repetition.
22. I use written 2.86 0.89 High 2.53 0.67 Medium
repetition.
23. I study word lists. 2.00 1.07 Medium 2.38 0.87 Medium
24. I use flash cards. 0.82 0.80 Low 1.75 1.08 Medium
25. I take notes in class. 3.27 0.98 High 3.31 0.82 High
26. I put English labels 1.50 1.34 Medium 1.84 0.95 Medium
on physical objects.
27. I keep a vocabulary 1.45 1.26 Medium 2.06 1.19 Medium
notebook.
28. I play word building 1.55 1.22 Medium 1.81 0.97 Medium
games.
Consolidation – MET
29. I listen to English 3.55 0.80 High 3.34 0.65 High
songs.
30. I watch and listen to 3.00 1.11 High 2.84 0.92 High
English news.
31. I read English 2.50 1.06 Medium 2.19 1.20 Medium
newspaper.
32. I read English novels 2.86 1.04 High 2.50 0.88 Medium
or magazines.
33. I watch English 3.59 0.73 High 3.41 0.71 High
movies and TV
programs.
34. I browse through 3.55 0.60 High 3.09 0.69 High
English language
websites.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 29

35. I chat using English 3.23 0.81 High 2.59 0.91 Medium
on the Internet.
Overall Consolidation 2.63 1.22 Medium 2.57 0.92 Medium

Table 4.7 shows the findings on the differences between the consolidation
strategies use between higher and lower achievers by individual item in four sub-
categories. Only one item in the social category – SOC, item 11 ‘I interact with native
speakers.’, was indicated by higher achievers (M=2.86, SD=1.01) to be a strategy
employed when extending their vocabulary knowledge more often than lower achievers
(M=2.56, SD=0.67). Considering memory strategies – MEM, item 12 ‘I connect the
word to a personal experience’ (M=3.32, SD=0.99) was the most frequently used
strategy for the higher achievers compared to item 17 ‘I study the sound of a word.’
(M=2.97, SD=0.82) for the lower achievers; on the other hand, the least frequently used
strategy for higher achievers was item 20 ‘I use physical action when learning a word.’
(M=2.05, SD=1.17) and item 14 ‘I use the new word in sentences.’ (M=2.31, SD=0.64)
for lower achievers. Regarding cognitive strategies – COG, item 25 ‘I take notes in
class.’ was the most frequently used strategy for both higher and lower achievers. The
least frequently employed strategy for both groups was item 24 ‘I use flashcards.’. This
was the only item that fell to the degree of low use for the higher achievers (M=0.82,
SD=0.80), while it was still considered as medium use for the lower achievers (M=1.75,
SD=1.08). With regard to metacognitive strategies – MET reported by both higher and
lower achieving students, the highest mean score was item 33 ‘I watch English movies
and TV programs.’ (M=3.59, SD=0.73 and M=3.41, SD=0.71 respectively). The lowest
mean belonged to item 31 ‘I read English newspapers.’ for both the higher (M=2.50,
SD=1.06) and lower achieving students (M=2.19, SD=1.20).

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 30

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of the Study

This research study aimed to investigate the vocabulary learning strategies
commonly used by first and second year graduate students of the Master of Arts in
Career English for International Communication (CEIC) program at Thammasat
University as well as explore the differences with regard to the vocabulary learning
strategies applied by higher and lower achieving students. In addition, it sought to
determine the most effective vocabulary learning strategies for Thai graduate EFL
learners.
The subjects of the study included 54 CEIC students, who could be considered
as Thai graduate EFL learners enrolled in an international department. The students
were classified into higher and lower achieving students based on their reported TU-
GET scores. The participants who reached the TU-GET score ranging from 600 – 900
points were classified as higher achieving students, and those who obtained a score
under 600 points were grouped as lower achieving students. There were 22 students
who had obtained the score of 600 and above and 32 students were classified as lower
achievers. A questionnaire adapted from Schmitt’s (1997) vocabulary learning strategy
taxonomy was used as the research instrument to obtain information on VLS use
frequency and determine the differences between the two groups of students. The
questionnaire was divided into: (1) personal information and (2) Vocabulary Learning
Strategies, which were divided into two main categories: (1) Discovery, (2)
Consolidation, and six sub-categories: (1) Determination, (2) Social – discovery, (3)
Social – consolidation, (4) Memory, (5) Cognitive, and (6) Metacognitive.

5.2 Summary of the Findings

As reported in chapter four, there were 12 male (21%) and 42 female (79%)
participants, with their ages ranging from 20 – 60 years old. The majority of the
participants were between 20 – 30 years old (78%), followed by 31 – 40 years old
(16%). More than half of the participants (64%) considered their vocabulary knowledge

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 31

level as fair, 26% perceived it as good; meanwhile, only 5% thought that they were at
the excellent level and 5% considered their vocabulary knowledge as poor. Concerning
TU-GET scores, 41% had obtained a score over 600 points, while the remaining 59%
had scores under 600 points, which were considered lower achievers.

5.3 Discussion
This section presents the discussion related to the research questions stated in
chapter one and the findings presented in chapter four concerning the most and least
commonly used vocabulary learning strategies and the comparison of the vocabulary
learning strategies use of higher and lower achieving students.

5.3.1 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use Frequency

The findings revealed that four out of ten vocabulary learning strategies
were reported as high-level use for discovering a new word’s meaning. These included
item 4 ‘I guess based on textual context’ (DET), item 3 ‘I analyze any available
pictures’ (DET), item 1 ‘I analyze part of speech’ (DET), and item 5 ‘I use bilingual
dictionary’ (DET). These findings are in good agreement with Schmitt (1997), Fan
(2003), Wu (2005), Pitukwong (2012), Mongkol (2008), and Petchsringam (2014).
Their studies revealed that ‘bilingual dictionaries’ and ‘guessing from context’ were
most frequently used by EFL learners. Despite the fact that Mongkol (2008) and Wu
(2005) found that ‘asking the teacher for the word’s meaning and synonyms’ were high
frequency use discovery strategies, this research found that item 7 ‘I ask the teacher for
L1 translation’ and item 8 ‘I ask the teacher for synonym of a new word’ had the lowest
mean score (M=1.89) for discovery strategies employed by the CEIC students. The
reason for the low frequency of interacting with teachers may be due to the limited time
in class, as this program provides only weekend courses. It is notable that all vocabulary
learning strategies reported as high frequency use were determination strategies – DET.
The findings also showed that ten out of twenty-five vocabulary learning
strategies were reported as high-level use for consolidating a word once it has been
encountered. They were item 33 ‘I watch English movies and TV programs’(MET),
item 29 ‘I listen to English songs’ (MET), item 34 ‘I browse through English language
websites’(MET), item 25 ‘I take notes in class’ (COG), item 17 ‘I study the sound of a

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 32

word’ (MEM), item 12 ‘I connect the word to a personal experience’ (MEM), item 30
‘I watch and listen to English news’ (MET), item 16 ‘I study the spelling of a word’
(MEM), item 35 ‘I chat using English on the Internet’ (MET), item 19 ‘I remember the
part of speech’ (MEM), and item 13 ‘I connect the word to its synonyms and antonyms’
(MEM) respectively. The results are in partial agreement with Mongkol (2008) and
Petchsringam (2014) who found that ‘using English language media’ had the highest
mean score for the metacognitive strategies used by students.
As proposed by Pitukwong (2012) and Petchsringam (2014) concerning
memory strategies – MEM, the results of the current study also point to high-frequency
use of ‘connecting words to a personal experience’. Considering other high-frequency
use of memory strategies – MEM, the findings share a number of similarities with Wu
(2005) and Petchsringam (2014) who found ‘studying the sound of word’ and ‘studying
the spelling of word’ to be the most frequently used memory strategies.
In contrast to earlier findings (Schmitt, 1997; Wu, 2005; Mongkol, 2008;
Pitukwong, 2012; Petchsringam, 2014), the results of the current study show that
‘taking notes in class’ was the only cognitive strategy – COG reported as high-
frequency use by respondents. According to Schmitt (1997), Wu (2005), and
Petchsrignam (2014), ‘written repetition’ and ‘verbal repetition’ were both reported as
most frequently used cognitive strategies. The reason for the contrasting outcomes may
be because students in graduate schools nowadays are no longer encouraged to perform
verbal and written repetition by teachers like in primary and secondary schools.

5.3.2 Vocabulary Learning Strategies Use of Lower and Higher Achievers

Based on the results in chapter four (table 4.5), the overall mean score of
all six sub-categories use reported by the higher achieving students was 2.63, whereas
the overall mean score of the lower achieving students was 2.57. The results also
showed that higher achievers reported using four out of six sub-categories at a high
frequency (DET, Consolidation – SOC, MEM, and MET), whereas only metacognitive
strategy was used at high frequency by the lower achievers. This indicates that the
higher achieving students generally used vocabulary learning strategies more
frequently than the lower achieving students did. This finding accords with several

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 33

research studies (Yang, 2005; Komol, 2011; Pitukwong, 2012), which found greater
overall use of language strategies by higher achievers compared to lower achievers.
With regard to strategies use when learning the meaning of a new word,
the results revealed some noticeable differences between the two group of students. The
first difference was seen on item 5 ‘I use bilingual dictionary’, which was employed at
high-frequency by higher achievers (M=2.86, SD=1.39), but with medium frequency
by lower achievers (M=2.75, SD=0.84). On the other hand, Pitukwong (2012) found
that an English-Thai and a Thai-English dictionary were the strategies used most and
second most frequently by lower achieving students. The second obvious difference
with regard to the use of discovery strategies between the higher and lower achievers
was item 10 ‘I ask classmate for the meaning’, which was employed at medium-
frequency by higher achievers (M=2.14, SD=1.13), while the lower achievers reported
using this strategy at a high frequency (M=2.80, SD=0.89). This supports the findings
of Yang (2005) which showed that ‘asking classmate for the meaning’ was the strategy
that ranked first among all the discovery strategies used by lower achieving students.
Concerning consolidation strategies, the only category that was not used
at a high frequency by the higher achievers was the cognitive strategy – COG (M=2.04,
SD=1.33); however, the results demonstrated that item 21 ‘I use verbal repetition’, item
22 ‘I use written repetition’ and item 25 ‘I take notes in class’ were employed by higher
achievers at a high frequency, which is in accordance with the results of Yang (2005)
and Pitukwong (2012). In relation to ‘taking notes in class, Komol’s (2011) study
indicated that it was the most commonly used cognitive strategy by both high and low
vocabulary size groups. This findings of the current study confirm that both higher and
lower achievers employed this strategy at a high frequency; moreover, it should be
noted that this was the only strategy under the cognitive strategies – COG that lower
achievers reported using at a high frequency (M=3.31, SD=0.82).
The metacognitive strategies – MET was the only sub-category that lower
achievers applied at a high frequency when consolidating vocabulary that had been
encountered. The most frequently used strategies under this category for both higher
and lower achievers were item 29 ‘I listen to English songs’, item 30 ‘I watch and listen
to English news’, item 33 ‘I watch English movies and TV programs’ and item 34 ‘I
browse through English language websites’. The findings correlate fairly well to those

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 34

of Komol (2011), which suggested that students with both high and low vocabulary
sizes reported ‘using English media’ as the most frequently used metacognitive
strategy. In contrast to Komol, Pitukwong (2012) determined that ‘using English
media’ was the most frequently used strategy by high proficiency students, but it was
ranked as the least frequently used metacognitive strategy by low proficiency students.
In terms of memory strategies – MEM, the mean score of both the higher
(M=2.83, SD=1.04) and lower achievers (M=2.59, SD=0.77) showed that the higher
group generally employed this category at a higher frequency, despite the fac that there
were some strategies that both groups reported using at a high frequency, i.e., item 12
‘I connect the word to a personal experience’ and item 17 ‘I study the sound of a word’.
This partially supports the work of Pitukwong (2012), who found that ‘connecting word
to personal experience’ was the second most used memory strategy by both high and
low proficiency students. It is notable that higher achievers rated six out of nine memory
strategies as frequently used strategies, whereas only two out of nine strategies were
reported as commonly used by lower achievers.
It was also determined that social strategy was commonly used by higher
achieving students to consolidate vocabulary through ‘interacting with native speakers’,
while lower achieving students reported interacting with native speakers at medium
level. These findings contradict the previous results reported by Yang (2005) and
Pitukwong (2012), who both found that high and low proficiency students considered
social strategies as the least frequently employed strategies among all vocabulary
learning strategies when acquiring vocabulary knowledge.
The explanation for the high frequency use of interacting with native
speakers may be the effect of the Internet and social media, which are now used
extensively in Thailand. Furthermore, there are more applications that are easily
accessible anytime and anywhere compared to the time when earlier research was
undertaken.

5.4 Conclusions
The present study focused on the vocabulary learning strategies use of 54 Thai
graduate EFL learners to determine the strategies most frequently used by higher and
lower achieving students. According to the findings of this study, the determination

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 35

strategy – DET ‘guessing from context’ was the most frequently employed strategy for
finding the definition of a new word, along with the metacognitive strategy – MET
‘watching English movies and TV programs’ for consolidating vocabulary. The least
commonly used strategies were cognitive strategies – COG, for example, ‘putting
English labels on physical objects’, ‘playing word building games’, and ‘keeping a
vocabulary notebook’.
Furthermore, vocabulary learning strategies were adopted more frequently by
higher achieving students in general. It is notable that higher achievers used the popular
determination strategy – DET like ‘bilingual dictionary’ more than lower achievers,
whereas lower achievers preferred employing social strategies – SOC, like ‘asking the
teacher or a classmate for the meaning’ more than higher achievers did. The results
further showed that the lower achieving students tended to use the least popular
cognitive strategies – COG like ‘using flash cards’, ‘keeping a vocabulary notebook’
or ‘putting English labels on physical objects’ considerably more than higher achievers
did.
With regard to the findings, encouraging more use of monolingual dictionaries
could be helpful, since higher achievers already apply the strategy of ‘using bilingual
dictionaries’ at a high frequency; hence, extending the use should be beneficial.
Teachers may also encourage students to initiate communications between teachers and
students, as social strategies – SOC that involve interacting with teachers are among
the least used strategies by both higher and lower achieving students.

5.5 Recommendations for Further Research

In regard to the limitations of the current research conducted using a self-report
questionnaire to access VLS applied by 54 Career English for International
Communications (CEIC) students at Thammasat University, further research should
explore the relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and other variables such
as gender, learning environment, and attitude and beliefs. The data collection should
include open-ended questionnaire items and qualitative data obtained from interviews
to achieve a more extensive understanding of the use of strategies for vocabulary
acquisition. Additionally, further research examining the use of the vocabulary learning
strategies employed by graduate EFL leaners from other academic fields such as

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 36

political science, law, nursing, and management, along with English major students
from different universities could increase the understanding of the strategies applied by
Thai graduate EFL learners.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 37

REFERENCES

Ahmed, M. D. (1989). Vocabulary learning strategies. In P. Meara (Ed.), British

studies in applied linguistics: Vol. 4. Beyond words (pp.3–14). London:
British Association of Applied Linguistics/Centre for Language Teaching.
Akkakoson, S. (2013). The relationship between strategic reading instruction, student
learning of L2-based reading strategies and L2 reading achievement. Journal
of Research in Reading.
Anderson, K. A., & Anderson, L. E. (2000). Springer Lexikon Pflege.
Brown, C., & Payne, M. E. (1994). Five essential steps of processes in vocabulary
learning. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Baltimore, M. D.
Burns, Paul C. and Broman, Betty L. (1975). The Language Arts in Childhood.
Chicago. Rand Mcnally.
Cohen, A.D. (1998, 2000). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language.
Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Ellis, N. C. (1995). The cognitive psychology of foreign language vocabulary
learning. The Language Teacher, 19, 12-16.
Fan, M (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, 222–241.
Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System, 31, 367–383.
Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language
Learning Outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.
Harmer, J. (1993). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Longman Group
UK Limited.
Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. England. Pearson Education limited.
Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English (Second Edition). ELT Journal, 62(3), 313-
316.
Hatch, E., and C. Brown. (1995). Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hornby, M. S. (1995). The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting
Viewpoints?. John Benjamins Pub Co.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 38

Komol, T. & Sripetpun, W. (2011). Vocabulary learning strategies employed by

undergraduate students and its relationship to their vocabulary knowledge.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social
Sciences, Prince of Songkla University.
Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language learning strategies: An overview for L2
teachers. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(12), 69-80.
McDonough, S. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London:
Edward Arnold.
Mongkol, N. (2008). A Study of Vocabulary Learning Strategies of the First and
Second Year Students from English Department at Phetchaburi Rajabhat
University (Master’s thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok). Retrieved from
[Link]
Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learning for English vocabulary
learning: Towards improvement of the low-first method derived from the
reactivation theory. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2), 3-18.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Nation, P. (2005). Teaching vocabulary. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 47-54.
Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language‐learning
strategy use: Interpretations from information‐processing theory and social
psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 11-22.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. UK. Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52(2), 101-109.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies (Vol. 210). New York: Newbury
House.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching: Language learning strategies.
Oxford: Pearson Linguistics.
Petchsrignam, P. (2014). Vocabulary Learning Strategies Among 4th Year Thai
Students Studying in Three Different English Majors. Unpublished master’s

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 39

thesis, Thammasat University, Language Institute, Career English for

International Communication.
Pitukwong, K. (2012). An Investigation of Vocabulary Learning Strategies Employed
by High and Low English Proficiency University Students Based on Selected
Vocabulary from a Business Corpus (Master’s thesis, Mahidol University,
Nakhonpathom). Retrieved from [Link]
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can each us? TESOL Quarterly,
9, 41–51.
Rubin, J. (Ed.). (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Macmillan College.
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner
(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sahbazian, S. (2004). Perceived Vocabulary Learning Strategiesof Turkish University
Students. (Unpublished doctoraldissertation). Oklahoma State University,
USA.
Schmitt, N. & Mc Charty, M. (1997). Vocabulary: Description Acquisition and
Pedagogy. Cambridge University Press.
Shephard, R. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 156-163.
Stahl, S. A., (1983). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL
Quarterly, 15, 285–295.
Wallace, M. (1988). Teaching vocabulary. Oxford. Heinemann.
Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and
prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner
Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 103–118). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Wu, W. S. (2005). Use and helpfulness rankings of vocabulary learning strategies
employed by EFL learners in Taiwan. Journal of Humanities and Social
Sciences, 1(2), 7–13.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 40

Yang, M. N. Y. (2005). Nursing Pre-Professionals’ Medical terminology Learning

Strategies. Asian Business Journal, 1 (1).
Yongqi Gu, P. (2003). Vocabulary learning in second language: Person, task, context
and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrieved October 3, 2006, from [Link]
[Link]/ TESL-EJ/ej26/[Link]

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 41

APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE OF ENGLISH VOCABULARY LEARNING

STRATEGIES
This questionnaire is designed to gather information about vocabulary learning
strategies used by CEIC students for a research paper as a partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Career English for International
Communication, Language Institute, Thammasat University.

Part 1: Personal Information

1. Gender ☐ Male ☐ Female

2. Age ☐ 20 – 30 ☐ 31 – 40 ☐ 41 – 50 ☐ 51 – 60

3. Your vocabulary knowledge

☐ Excellent ☐ Good ☐ Fair ☐ Poor

4. TU-GET score _______ points

Part 2: Vocabulary learning strategies

Directions: Read the following statements carefully and mark an ‘X’ in the box
(0,1,2,3,4) that describes how often you have used each strategy in order to learn
English vocabulary.

0 = never
1 = rarely
2 = sometimes
3 = often
4 = always

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 42

Strategies used when learning English vocabulary Degree of Use

Item
4 3 2 1 0
Strategies for the discovery of a new word’s meaning
1 I analyze part of speech in sentences.
2 I analyze affixes and roots.
3 I analyze any available pictures or gestures.
4 I guess based on textual context.
5 I use bilingual dictionary.
6 I use monolingual dictionary.
7 I ask the teacher for L1 translation.
8 I ask the teacher for a synonym of a new word.
9 I ask the teacher for a sentence including the new word.
10 I ask classmates for meaning.
Strategies for consolidating a word once it has been
encountered
11 I interact with native speakers.
12 I connect word to a personal experience.
13 I connect word to its synonyms and antonyms.
14 I use the new word in sentences.
15 I group words together to study them.
16 I study the spelling of a word.
17 I study the sound of a word.
18 I say the new word aloud when studying.
19 I remember the part of speech.
20 I use physical action when learning a word.
21 I use verbal repetition.
22 I use written repetition.
23 I study word lists.
24 I use flashcards.
25 I take notes in class.
26 I put English labels on physical objects.
27 I keep a vocabulary notebook.
28 I play word building games.
29 I listen to English songs.
30 I watch and listen to English news.
31 I read English newspapers.
32 I read English novels or magazines.
33 I watch English movies and TV programs.
34 I browse through English language web sites.
35 I chat using English on the Internet.

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX

 43

BIOGRAPHY

Name Ms. Wirasuda Sukpinit

Date of Birth November 12, 1988
Educational Attainment 2011: Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
(Public Administration), Thammasat University
Work Position Market Manager
[Link]
Work Experiences Market Manager
[Link]
Area Sales Executive
Unilever Thai Trading
Business Development
RGF HR Agent Recruitment

Ref. code: 25615821040523WYX