本研究主要探討台北市國中生的單字能力及性別差異是否影響其英語單字策略的使用。主要目標欲(1)探究三組單字能力組別在單字策略使用上的差異；(2)探討男女生使用單字策略的頻率；(3)發現單字策略使用上的性別差異；(4)確認單字能力組別內，在單字策略使用上的性別差異；以及(5)從性別的角度來說明單字策略使用的規則。 共有來自台北市區一所國中的203位學生參與本研究。研究工具為單字策略使用問卷及英語單字能力測驗。前者用來引出學生所認為的單字策略使用方式，而後者則是用來將學生依單字能力分成高中低三組。資料分析採用SPSS 12.0版本，分析工具包含描述性統計、單因子變異數分析、及獨立樣本t檢定。本研究結果指出(1)單字能力越高的學生，傾向使用較多的單字策略，尤以決定策略、社會策略、記憶策略、及後設認知策略最為顯著。(2)整體而言，男生及女生使用單字策略的頻率皆不高。男女生皆最常使用決定策略，最少使用後設認知策略。(3)除在整體策略、決定策略、記憶策略、認知策略有顯著較高的使用頻率外，女生也比男生較常使用與歸類相關單字、運用學習工具作手寫練習、及聽力練習等相關的單一策略。(4)單字能力組別內，亦發現十七個單一策略具有顯著的性別差異。大部份策略顯示女生運用的頻率較高。然而高分組男生使用聽英文廣播及想像單字畫面比高分組女生較頻繁，且中間組別的男生較女生常使用分析字根字首。(5)對男女生而言，發音及意思是學習單字中最難的兩部份。雙方在有效的策略上有所共識，但在無效果的策略上意見有些分歧。至於教師協助的需求方面，男生偏好動態的單字練習，女生則較喜歡靜態的學業練習。 最後，本研究建議教師應該(1)介紹學生更多元的單字策略，尤其是低成就的學生；(2)進行以策略為主的教學時，將性別差異納入考量；(3)就單字能力及性別差異的交互關係，進一步了解學生單字策略的偏好。 / This study investigated vocabulary proficiency and gender differences in English vocabulary learning strategies (VLS) used by junior high school students in Taipei. The goals were to (1) explore the differences in VLS use among three vocabulary scoring levels, (2) to investigate the frequencies use of VLS by male and female students, (3) to find out gender differences in VLS use, (4) to indentify gender difference in VLS use in terms of vocabulary scoring level, and (5) to illustrate the patterns of VLS use in gender perspectives. A total of 203 junior high school students from an urban school in Taipei City were involved in the study. A vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire (VLSQ) and an English vocabulary proficiency test (EVPT) were administered as instruments. The former was used to elicit the self-report strategy use by the students and the latter was utilized to categorize the participants into three vocabulary levels. The data was analyzed by employing SPSS version 12.0, including descriptive analysis, one-way analysis of variance, and independent t-Tests. A summary of the results are as follows. (1) The higher vocabulary level students belonged to, the more VLS they tended to apply, especially determination strategies, social strategies, memory strategies and metacognitvie strategies. (2) Both male and female students could be regarded as moderate users of VLS. Both groups favored determination strategies the most and metacognitive strategies the least. (3) Besides a significantly more frequent use of overall strategies, determination strategies, memory strategies and cognitive strategies, female students also tended to use more often individual strategies concerning grouping related words together, writing practice with study aids and auditory practice. (4) Significances found in each scoring group seemed to favor female students in strategy use, except three strategies, analyzed affixes and roots by the Intermediate-Scoring group, listening to English broadcast and image word’s meanings by the High-Scoring group. (5) To both genders, the most difficult aspects in learning vocabulary are pronunciation and meanings. As for the effectiveness of VLS, male and female students had the same opinions on the most five but thought slightly differently on the least five. Besides, sharing some similar needs for teachers’ assistance, male students preferred dynamic vocabulary activities but female students favored academic vocabulary practice. The findings suggest teachers should (1) introduce a variety of VLS to students, particularly those of lower levels, (2) take gender differences into consideration when administering strategies-based instruction, and (3) be aware of students’ preferences of VLS use with both gender and vocabulary level perspectives.