The Relationship between Saudi English Major University Students’ Writing Performance and Their Learning Style and Strategy Use
Open accessAbstract
This study investigates the link between writing tasks, learners’ learning style preference, and writing strategy use. It also investigates if students with various proficiency levels stem from different learning style preference and use different writing strategies. This research attempts to answer the following research questions: what are the most common learning style preferences of Saudi undergraduate students majoring in English? what are the most common writing strategies used by Saudi students when writing an essay? Is the choice of writing strategy related to a learner’s learning style preference and writing task, and how might they be linked with one another? And finally does the use of writing strategies contribute to students’ writing performance? The sample of the study consisted of 74 Saudi female undergraduate students in their final year of their bachelor degree in King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Two questionnaires were used: (a) the Perceptual Learning Style Preference by Reid (1987), and (b) a writing strategy questionnaire by Petri and Czárl (2003). Moreover, students were asked to choose one of the two TOEFL writing prompts to write an essay. The data received from the returned questionnaires and writing tests were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics using SPSS19. Results indicated that Saudi female students were mostly auditory and group learners. As for the writing strategies, Saudi learners used more “before writing” strategies than “during writing” strategies and “reviewing writing” strategies. Results revealed that there was no correlation between the participants’ learning style preference and writing strategies, nor their use of writing strategies and their writing proficiency. As a whole, this study contributed to the ESL/EFL field by providing information on Saudi undergraduate female learners in terms of their preferred perceptual learning style, their level of writing proficiency, and indeed their use of writing strategies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Because of inappropriate teaching methods, EFL students develop inappropriate learning mechanisms, such as memorization and rote learning.
“Because of these inappropriate teaching methods, EFL students develop inappropriate learning mechanisms, such as memorization and rote learning”
From Factors Underlying Low Achievement of Saudi EFL Learners (2016) · cites this paper as Alkubaidi, 2014
Section 1.1 (page unavailable) says Saudi students develop memorization as a sole strategy for learning English and describes it as ineffective. Section 1.2 (page unavailable) describes teacher-led instruction in which students are told to memorize writing for tests. These passages support the link in the Saudi context, but not the claim as phrased about EFL students generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA teacher-centered learning environment tends to prevent students from developing satisfactory language competence.
“This teacher-centered (as opposed to student-centered) learning environment tends to prevent students from developing satisfactory language competence”
From Factors Underlying Low Achievement of Saudi EFL Learners (2016) · cites this paper as Alkubaidi, 2014
Sections 1.1 and 1.2 describe Saudi English instruction as teacher-reliant and memorization-focused, and say memorization is ineffective for the skills university students need. Section 7.3 reports poor writing performance and suggests that low language proficiency could be a factor. The paper does not establish the broader causal claim that teacher-centered environments prevent students in general from developing satisfactory language competence. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLearners in the Saudi context rely on their teachers as the main source of knowledge and are typically considered passive observers.
“Consequently, learners in this context rely on their teachers as the main source of knowledge (Alkubaidi, 2014) and are typically considered passive observers.”
From Factors Underlying Low Achievement of Saudi EFL Learners (2016) · cites this paper as Alkubaidi, 2014
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 32 · Cited by 70
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Al-Haq, F., & Smadi, O. (1996). Spread of English and westernization in Saudi Arabia. World Englishes, 15(3), 307-317.
- Alderson, J. C. (2009). Test review: Test of English as a Foreign Language TM : Internet-based Test (TOEFL iBT®). Language Testing, 26(4), 621.
- Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner's side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? IRAL, 41(4), 279-292.
- Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311-327.
- Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Khalil, A. (2005). Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 108-117.
- Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2003). Factors affecting second language learning. In C. N. Candlin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (pp. 28-43). London: Routledge.
- McKay, S. (2006). Researching second language classrooms. Routledge.
- McMullen, M. G. (2009). Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills of Saudi EFL students: Will it really work? System, 37(3), 418-433.
- Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2003). Second language learning: Key concepts and issues. In C. N. Candlin, & N. Mercer (Eds.), English language teaching in its social context: A reader (pp. 11-27). London: Routledge.
- Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic Motivation in Saudi Learners of English as a Foreign Language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2(1), 1-10.
- Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 404-419.
- Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House.
- Oxford, R. L. (2008). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 174-187.
- Park, G. P. (2010). Investigation into Learning Strategies Used by Effective and Less Effective EFL Learners in Korea. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 3.
- Petri, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2), 187-215.
- Reid, J. M. (1987). The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 21(1), 87-111.
- Reid, J. M. (1990). The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly, 323-338.
- Reid, J. M. (1998). Teachers as perceptual learning styles researchers. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom. Prentice Hall Regents.
- Riazi, A. (2007). Language Learning Strategy Use: Perceptions of Female Arab English Majors. Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 433-440.
- Vann, R. J., & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. Tesol Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.
- Wong, L. L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2), 144-163.
- Authors
- A. Alkubaidi, M.
- Venue
- English Language Teaching
- Published
- 2014-03-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 1916-4742 (ISSN-L)
- 1916-4750
- OpenAlex
- W2101385652
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 44.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- English Language Teaching (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Learning Styles and Cognitive Differences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- learning styles, writing strategies, writing performance, English as a foreign language, perceptual learning styles, writing skills, essay writing, pre-writing strategies, revision strategies
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
