CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 18Second Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningReading and Literacy Development

EFL VOCABULARY LEARNING STRATEGIES USED BY SAUDI ARABIA UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Open access
Alshammari, Sahal R.·2020·Advanced Education
DOI 10.20535/2410-8286.202436
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Language skills depend on the meaning of words and the knowledge of the subject/context. The meanings of words that shape the true understanding of contexts are needed to experience language as a real-life activity. College students in Saudi Arabia struggle to develop desired proficiency in the English language that is required to further advance in their academic endeavours. It has been observed that even the minimum vocabulary level is far to be realised as reality, which consequently has posed a challenge for the various stakeholders to find the most effective strategies for Saudi learners. The present study tries to unfold the basic components which are needed to be in order first before considering the other related factors. In this study, a total of 85 male and female students were asked first appear for the vocabulary test, required to assess if they have achieved their desired levels. Their academic achievement in the specialised vocabulary course and their achievement in the standardised test have been compared with their strategies for language learning. The differences in the responses of the high achievers and the low achievers observed and found that high achievers give importance to all the strategies equally well, whereas the low achievers just focus on meta-cognitive and memory strategies. The results open up new dimensions for the teachers as well as the learners to choose and implement the best practices suited as per their academic and non-academic needs. Besides this, the other stakeholders like material developers, curriculum designers, educators and trainers will also have a macro picture of inside and outside of classrooms so that they could narrow down on the associated elements (motivation, learners’ autonomy, socio-cultural contexts etc.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.20535/2410-8286.202436

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Saudi EFL learners have been found to favor passive learning strategies over more cognitively demanding techniques.

    “Saudi EFL learners have been found to favor passive learning strategies (e.g., rote memorization and repetition) over more cognitively demanding techniques (Ali, 2020;Alshammari, 2020).”

    From Integrating ChatGPT for vocabulary learning and retention: A classroom-based study of Saudi EFL learners (2025) · cites this paper as Alshammari, 2020

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that Saudi students with larger vocabularies used all strategy types equally, while those with smaller vocabularies used metacognitive strategies most. It attributes a preference for repetition over deeper cognitive strategies to studies of Chinese and Australian learners, not to its Saudi participants. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • English instruction in Saudi Arabia remains largely teacher-centered, emphasizing rote memorization over interactive learning.

    “English instruction remains largely teacher-centered, emphasizing rote memorization over interactive learning (Alshammari, 2020).”

    From Integrating ChatGPT for vocabulary learning and retention: A classroom-based study of Saudi EFL learners (2025) · cites this paper as Alshammari, 2020

    The Introduction and ‘Vocabulary learning in the Saudi context’ section discuss limited progress and a gap between learners’ needs and school pedagogy, but do not describe English instruction as teacher-centered or reliant on rote memorization. The Abstract reports that lower-achieving students focus on memory strategies; that is a finding about learners, not teaching practice. Searches for teacher-centered instruction, rote memorization, and interactive learning found no passage establishing the claimed contrast. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 71 · Cited by 18

Research works printed but not linked: 59

  1. Ahmad, J. (2012). Intentional vs incidental vocabulary learning. International Association of Research in Foreign Language Education and Applied Linguistics, ELT Research Journal, 1(1), 71-79. Retrieved from http://www.udead.org.tr/journal
  2. Ahmed, A. H. (2010). Students' problems with cohesion and coherence in EFL essay writing in Egypt : different perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal (LICEJ), 1(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2010.0030 · DOI
  3. Al-Darayseh, A. M., & Tassi. A. (2014). The impact of using explicit/implicit vocabulary teaching strategies on improving students' vocabulary and reading comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(6), 1109-1118. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.6.1109-1118 · DOI
  4. Al-Masrai, A., & Milton, J. (2012). The vocabulary knowledge of university students in Saudi Arabia. TESOL Arabia Perspectives, 19(3), 13-19. https://uksacb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Research-Paper-1.pdf
  5. Al-Qahtani, A. A. (2016). Why do Saudi EFL readers exhibit poor reading abilities? English Language and Literature Studies, 6(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v6n1p1 · DOI
  6. Alhaisoni, E. (2012a). Language learning strategy use of Saudi EFL students in an intensive English learning context. Asian Social Science, 8(13), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n13p115 · DOI
  7. Alhaisoni, E. (2012b). The effect of writing proficiency on writing planning strategy use: a case study of Saudi learners of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 78-100. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i3.1808 · DOI
  8. Alhaysony, M. (2012). Vocabulary discovery strategy used by Saudi EFL students in an intensive English language learning context. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(2), 518-535. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1724 · DOI
  9. Alnefaie, S. K. (2016). Teachers' role in the development of EFL curriculum in Saudi Arabia: The marginalised status, Cogent Education, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1240008 · DOI
  10. Alsaif, A., & Milton, J. (2012). Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small vocabulary uptake gained by English as foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658221 · DOI
  11. Alshammari, S. R. (2016). Improving Saudi English learners' second-language acquisition in argumentative writing through self- regulated strategy development. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas -Kansas. Retrieved from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/21995/ Alshammari_ku_0099D_14579_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  12. Ansarin, A. A., Zohrabi, M., & Zeynali, S. (2012). Language learning strategies and vocabulary size of Iranian EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(9), 1841-1848. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.9.1841-1848 · DOI
  13. Baniabdelrahman, A. A., & Al-Shumaimeri, Y. (2013). Strategies used by Saudi EFL students to determine the meaning of English words. English Language Teaching, 7(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt. · DOI
  14. Berry, A. B., & Mason, L. H. (2012). The effects of self-regulated strategy development on the writing of expository essays for adults with written expression difficulties: Preparing for the GED. Remedial and Special Education, 33(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510375469 · DOI
  15. Cheng, Hsing-Fu & Dörnyei, Zoltán. (2007). The Use of Motivational Strategies in Language Instruction: The Case of EFL Teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 153-174. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt048. · DOI · Paper page
  16. De La Paz, S. (2005). Effects of historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.97.2.139 · DOI
  17. De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687-698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.687 · DOI
  18. Doushaq, H. H. (1986). An investigation into stylistic errors of Arab students learning English for academic purposes. English for Specific Purposes, 5(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(86)90005-0 · DOI
  19. Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian educational history: impacts on English language teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(2), 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/17537981011047961 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Fan, Y. 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(2), 222-241.
  21. Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills: effects of strategy instruction and self- regulation procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.297 · DOI
  22. Grami, G. M. A. (2010). The effects of integrating peer feedback into the university-level ESL writing curriculum: A comparative study in a Saudi context. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
  23. Gu, Y., & Johnson, R. K. .(1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning out-comes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679.
  24. Hajebi, M., SeddiQ. T., Fahandezh, F., & Salari, H. (2018). The role of web-based language teaching on vocabulary retention of adult pre-intermediate. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(2), 372-378.
  25. Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: an empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 145-163. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.2.145 · DOI
  26. Hirsh, D., & Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure?. Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-699. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12560417.v1 · DOI
  27. Hu, M., & Nation, P. (2000). Unknown vocabulary density and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(1), 403- 430. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12560354.v1 · DOI
  28. Huckin, T., Haynes, M., & Coady, J. (Eds.). (1993). Second language reading and vocabulary learning.
  29. Ishtiaq, M., Ali, Z., & Salem, M. (2017). An experimental study of the effect of Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) on vocabulary learning of EFL adult learners. Arab World English Journal, 8(3), 356-375. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no3. · DOI
  30. Jones, R. (2006). Vocabulary learning strategy use among tertiary students in the United Arab Emirates. Perspective, 14(1), 4-8.
  31. Kansızoğlu, H. B. (2017). The comparison of Vocabulary Teaching Methods in terms of their effect on vocabulary development: A Meta-Analytic Review. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences (IOJES), 9(3), 821-841. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2017.03.017 · DOI
  32. Kazamia, V. (2016). Gender and age impact on language learning strategy use: A research on Greek EFL learners. In Z. Gavriilidou & K. Petrogiannis (eds), Language Learning Strategies in the Greek setting: Research outcomes of a largescale project (pp. 76-100). Kavala: Saita Publications.
  33. Köse, T. Çimen, E. & Mede, E. (2016). Perceptions of EFL learners about using an online tool for vocabulary learning in EFL classrooms: A pilot Project in Turkey. International Conference Teaching and Learning English as an Additional Language GlobELT 2016, Nisan 2016, Türkiye: Antalya, Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 362-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.051 · DOI
  34. Lavasani, Masoud & Mirhosseini, Fatemeh & Hejazi, Elaheh & Davoodi, Maryam. (2011). The Effect of Self-regulation Learning Strategies Training on the Academic Motivation and Self-efficacy. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 627- 632. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.285. · DOI
  35. Lawson, M. J., & Hogben, D. (1996). The vocabulary-learning strategies of foreign-language students. Language Learning, 46(1), 101-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00642.x · DOI
  36. Masrai, A. (2019). Exploring the impact of individual differences in aural vocabulary knowledge, written vocabulary knowledge and working memory capacity on explaining L2 learners' listening comprehension. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2018-0106 · DOI
  37. Mitits, L. (2014). Language learning strategy use by early adolescent monolingual EFL and multilingual EFL/L2 Greek learners in the Greek educational context. PhD dissertation, Department of Greek Philology, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece, Published in Saita Publications available at http://www.saitabooks.eu/2015/03/ebook.147.html
  38. Mitits, L. & Gavriilidou, Z. (2014). Effects of gender, age, proficiency level and motivation differences on monolingual and multilingual students' language learning strategies. Studies in Greek linguistics, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics (pp.285-299). School of Philology, Faculty of Philology,.
  39. Mohamed, M., & Mahmoud, A. (2014). The effectiveness of using the cooperative language learning approach to enhance EFL writing skills among Saudi university students. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 616-625. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.3.616-625 · DOI
  40. Mohammad, T., & Hazarika, Z. (2016). Difficulties of learning EFL in KSA: writing skills in context. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(3), 105. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v6n3p105 · DOI
  41. O' Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  42. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle.
  43. Oxford, R. L., & Gkonou, C. (2018). Interwoven: culture, language, and learning strategies. SSLLT, 8 (2), 403-426. https://doi.org/ 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.10 · DOI
  44. Patterson, D. (2017). Vocabulary-building activities for the EFL classroom. 13 th & 14 th Annual LaoTESOL Conference Proceedings: Selected Papers (2016-2017) (pp. 164-171) National University of Laos, Vientiane, Laos.
  45. Ping, A. M. & Siraj, S. (2012). Exploring selfregulatory strategies for vocabulary learning among Chinese EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1211-1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.802 · DOI
  46. Platsidou, M., & Sipitanou, A. (2015). Exploring relationships with grade level, gender and language proficiency in the foreign language learning strategy use of children and early adolescents. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(1), 76-101.
  47. Rababah, G. (2002). Communication problems facing Arab learners of English. Journal of Language and Learning, 3(1), 180-197.
  48. Reed, J. T. & Hooper, D. (2018). Student perceptions of mobile learning of high frequency vocabulary using the "Memrise" app. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 30, 351-371. http://id.nii.ac.jp/1092/00001486/
  49. Rossell-Aguilar, F. (2018). Autonomous language learning through a mobile application: A user evaluation of the Busuu app. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 854-881.
  50. Sarani, A., & Shirzaei, H. (2016). A comparative study of vocabulary learning strategies employed by Iranian undergraduate and postgraduate EFL learners with a focus on motivation. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Lingusitics, 1(1), 33-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.21462/ijefll.v1i1. · DOI
  51. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  52. Schmitt, N. (2008). Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 329- 363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089921 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Stæhr, L. S. (2008). Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal, 36(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571730802389975 · DOI
  55. Soleimani, H., Aghayani, B., & Ashari, N. (2018). The relationship among EFL learners' self-regulation, locus of control, and preference for vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(1), 14-24. https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2018.08208 · DOI
  56. Sozler, S. (2012). The Effect of Memory Strategy Training on Vocabulary Development of Austrian Secondary School Students. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1348-1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.300 · DOI
  57. Sutarsyah, C., Nation, P., & Kennedy, G. (1994). How Useful Is Eap Vocabulary for Esp? a Corpus Based Case Study. RELC Journal, 25(2), 34-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829402500203 · DOI
  58. Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92(1-2), 231-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Wang, B.-T., Teng, C.-W., & Chen, H.-T. (2015). Using iPad to facilitate English vocabulary learning. International Journal of Information and Educational Technology, 5(2), 100-104. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2015.v5.484 · DOI

Authors
Alshammari, S. R.
Affiliations
Northern Border University (SA)
Corresponding author
Alshammari, Sahal R.
ORCID
Alshammari, Sahal R.
Venue
Advanced Education
Publisher
Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute
Published
2020-12-20
Volume
7
Issue
16
Pages
28-38
ISSN
  • 2409-3351 (ISSN-L)
  • 2410-8286
DOI
10.20535/2410-8286.202436
OpenAlex
W3113951875
Cited by
18
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Advanced Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • The Scientific Issues of Ternopil Volodymyr Hnatiuk National Pedagogical University Series pedagogy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Електронний архів наукових та освітніх матеріалів КПІ ім. Ігоря Сікорського (КПІ ім. Ігоря Сікорського) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Northern Border University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
vocabulary learning strategies, EFL learners, Saudi university students, academic vocabulary, vocabulary achievement, high and low achievers, metacognitive strategies, memory strategies, learner autonomy, English proficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review