Assessing language learning strategies employed by university English major students in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This study sought to explore the frequency and type of language learning strategies employed by university students. It also investigated the impact of proficiency levels, gender and year of study on the use of language learning strategies. The study participants were 256 English major students enrolled in three universities in Saudi Arabia. This study employed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning questionnaire for data collection. The results reported that language learning strategies were used at a high level. Metacognitive strategies were the most commonly used, whereas memory strategies were the least commonly used. In addition, the higher their proficiency levels, the more the students used language learning strategies. Female students tended to use memory, cognitive, metacognitive, compensation and affective strategies more frequently than did male students. No significant differences were found in the use of language learning strategies in relation to year of study.

Keywords:

• Language learning strategies
• proficiency
• year of study
• gender
• Saudi Arabia

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Learning a foreign language successfully requires the use of divers and effective language learning strategies. Research indicates that various factors affect the use and choice of these strategies. This research study investigated the frequency and type of language learning strategies used by Saudi undergraduate students majoring in English. It also explored the relations between the use of these strategies and proficiency levels, gender and year of study. The results reported that students used these strategies at a high frequency level. Metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used, whereas memory strategies where the least frequently used. High achiever students reported higher use of these strategies. In addition, female students used these strategies more often than male students. Year of study had no significant effect on the use of these strategies. In general, the findings have important implications for both educational practices and future research.

1. Introduction

English is considered a dominant language and an international lingua franca in the twenty-first century. This dominant status of English has encouraged educators and researchers to find out methods or ways to develop good language learners (Amir, 2018; Chuin & Kaur, 2015). Over the past few decades, researchers and educators have emphasised that there is no particular teaching method or technique that may guarantee complete success in foreign language teaching (Abdul-Ghafour & Alrefaee, 2019; Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Teachers may believe that when they do their best in teaching, students can definitely learn the foreign language. Yet, research indicates that if students do not learn or do not have the desire to learn, how well the teachers are teaching may not be a matter of concern (Al-Buainain, 2010; Ellis, 1994). Therefore, a gradual but significant shift has occurred in the teaching and learning process during the past three decades, resulting in greater emphasis on learning and learners and less emphasis on teaching and teachers. Consequently, efforts have been devoted to improving language teaching approaches by shifting the language teaching scope to centre on the learners (Al-Buainain, 2010; Gerami & Baighlou, 2011; Hardan, 2013; Lessard-Clouston, 1997).

The growing emphasis on student-centred learning approaches among educators and researchers has led to numerous studies exploring individual learner differences (Al-Buainain, 2010; Gregersen, 2000; Griffiths, 2008). Various variables were recognised, such as those associated with the learning context, the learning goal and the individual characteristics of the learners. Among the variables relating to learners’ characteristics, strategies of language learning have emerged as among the significant variables influencing foreign language proficiency (McDonough, 1995; Oxford, 1990).

2. Overview of the literature

Successfully learning a foreign language involves the use of effective and diverse learning strategies (Meschyan & Hernandez, 2002). These are typically employed by foreign language learners to improve their competence in the target language. Over the last several decades, the use of language learning strategies has received great attention in the field of foreign language learning and teaching (e.g., Aghaie & Zhang, 2012; Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003; Liu, 2004; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Ehrman, 1995; Wenden, 1991; Wu, 2008). Among the salient conclusions of these researchers is that the use of suitable language learning strategies can result in enhanced competence in general, or better performance in a particular language skill. Fedderholdt (1997) explained that English learners who are able to employ a broad range of learning strategies appropriately can advance their English skills more effectively than others because they are better equipped. Researchers (Lee & Oxford, 2008; Oxford, 1990) have also argued that the effective use of language learning strategies allows learners to be responsible for their own learning by promoting their self-direction, autonomy and independence.

2.1. Definitions of language learning strategies

Researchers have provided various definitions of the term language learning strategies. Chamot (1987) defined them as ways, deliberate actions or techniques that learners implement to help them learn and recall both content and linguistics information. In addition, Oxford (1990) regarded these strategies as particular actions that learners employ to make their learning faster, effective, easier, more self-directed, more enjoyable and more transferable to fresh contexts. Similarly, Wenden (1991) defined them as mental operations or steps that a leaner uses to learn a foreign language and to coordinate his effort to do so. Further, Maclntyre (1994) described these strategies as the intended actions that language learners select to facilitate their language communication and acquisition. Likewise, Richards et al. (1992) referred to them as intended thoughts and behaviours that learners employ during learning to better assist them to learn, remember and understand new information. Embi (2000), in turn, viewed these strategies as actions or plans that a learner employs to develop his learning of foreign language. Thus, these definitions emphasise the essential role of these strategies in learning a target language. In general, although researchers have provided a variety of definitions for these strategies, it can be concluded that these definitions centre around a similar fundamental theme: these strategies are procedures, techniques, steps, actions or approaches that learners deliberately use in the foreign language learning process.

2.2. Classifications of language learning strategies

Various classifications of language learning strategies have been proposed by different researchers, including Rubin’s (1987) taxonomy, O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) taxonomy, Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy and Stern’s (1992) taxonomy. Rubin (1987) classified language learning strategies into three types, which contribute directly or indirectly to second language learning. These three types classified by Rubin (1987) are learning strategies, social strategies and communication strategies. In addition, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) identified three main categories of strategies: socio-affective, cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Stern’s (1992) classification included five major categories: cognitive strategies, planning and management strategies, interpersonal strategies, communicative-experiential strategies and affective strategies.

Oxford’s (1990) classification, which is the classification used in the present study, divided language learning strategies into two categories: direct and indirect. Direct strategies assist a learner to directly learn the foreign language, whereas indirect strategies assist a learner to manage and support learning without the direct involvement of the foreign language. Although the focus of each category differs, both compensate and support each other in assisting learners to learn a foreign language (Oxford, 1990).

Direct strategies consist of memory strategies, compensation strategies and cognitive strategies. Memory strategies are defined as techniques to assist a learner to enter information into memory and retrieve new information, such as imaginary, structured review and grouping. Compensation strategies are defined as techniques that assist a learner to overcome a limitation in his existing knowledge, such as using synonyms in writing, gestures in speaking and guessing wisely in listening and reading. Cognitive strategies are defined as techniques a learner uses to manipulate the reception of language and the production of meaning, such as summarising, scanning and analysing.

Indirect strategies comprise metacognitive, affective and social strategies. Metacognitive strategies are techniques that assist a learner to organise and evaluate learning, such as organising and planning for learning tasks, evaluating learning and concentrating on learning. Affective strategies are defined as techniques that assist a learner to manage attitudes and emotions, such as engaging in anxiety reduction, discussing feelings with others and self-encouragement. Social strategies are defined as techniques and behaviours that involve other people, such as communicating with higher proficiency learners or native speakers, asking for clarification and increasing knowledge of the culture associated with the target language (Oxford, 1990).

Many researchers have emphasised the taxonomy of Oxford (1990) as the most comprehensive taxonomy of language learning strategies (e.g., Alfian, 2018; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Ellis, 1994). For example, Ellis (1994) contended that Oxford’s classification is the most influential and is employed in research on these strategies. In general, Oxford’s (1990) classification covers all the strategies included in previous theoretical models on language learning strategies (see, Hsiao & Oxford, 2002 for a more detailed comparison of these prominent classifications of language learning strategies).

2.3. Studies on language learning strategies

Since the 1970s, language learning strategies have gained a considerable amount of attention for their positive effects on language learning. The related earlier studies have attempted to discover the strategies that successful foreign language learners employ, with the aim of teaching the identified strategies to poor learners (Reiss, 1985; Rubin, 1975, 1981; Rubin et al., 1982; Stern, 1975). Following Rubin’s (1975) seminal work, many studies have investigated language learning strategies and the variables associated with the use and choice of these strategies, such as gender, learning styles, proficiency levels, affective factors (e.g., motivation, attitude and learning goals), nationality and number of years of language study.

Many studies have uncovered a positive relationship between proficiency and language learning strategy use (e.g., Alfian, 2016; Ali & Paramasivam, 2016; Green & Oxford, 1995; Liu, 2004; Radwan, 2011; Wu, 2008). For example, Wu (2008) showed that the higher the learners’ proficiency, the more they employ various combinations of language learning strategies. Moreover, gender affects the use and choice of these strategies (Green & Oxford, 1995; Ho & Ng, 2016; Khalil, 2005; Liu, 2004; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Tam, 2013). For example, Tam (2013) reported that female learners employed these strategies more often than did male learners. Studies have also investigated these strategies and the number of years taken for language study (e.g., Al-Buainain, 2010; Chen, 2009; Griffiths, 2003; Khalil, 2005). For example, Al-Buainain (2010) indicated that advanced learners used more language learning strategies than did beginner learners.

3. Purpose of the study

Although language learning strategies have received considerable attention from researchers, most studies have focused on the Western context (Al-Buainain, 2010; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2006). Thus, studies on these strategies in the Middle Eastern context, and particularly in the Saudi context, are scarce. However, there has been a small but growing body of studies on language learning strategies in the Saudi context in recent years (e.g., Al-Khaza’leh, 2020; Alnujaidi, 2019). This study attempts to extend this line of research by providing more evidence for the use of language learning strategies in the Saudi context. In particular, it seeks to answer the following four research questions:

1. What are the most and least commonly employed language learning strategies among Saudi university English major students?

2. Are there any significant differences in students’ use of language learning strategies in terms of proficiency levels (i.e., high-, medium- and low-proficiency levels)?

3. Are there any significant differences in students’ use of language learning strategies in terms of gender?

4. Are there any significant differences in students’ use of language learning strategies in terms of year of study?

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 256 (185 female and 71 male) English major students from three universities in the northern part of Saudi Arabia. The total cohort encompassed students from Year 1 (99 students), Year 2 (44 students), Year 3 (47 students) and Year 4 (66 students). After approval to conduct this study was obtained, students completed an online questionnaire, delivered from 8 March 2021 to 29 March 2021. The online questionnaire also included an invitation letter containing information regarding the purpose, confidentiality and anonymity.

4.2. Research instrument

In this study, the instrument employed for collecting the data was the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) survey (Oxford, 1990). SILL is a widely accepted tool to assess language learning strategies and has been translated into various languages (Chuin & Kaur, 2015; Oxford, 1999). In addition, this instrument has been extensively tested for internal content validity, reliability and consistency of the items, on a large number of university students learning English as a foreign language in different contexts (Chen, 2009; Green & Oxford, 1995; Tam, 2013).

The instrument has six subscales: memory (items 1–9), cognitive (items 10–23), compensation (items 24–29), metacognitive (items 30–38), affective (items 39–44) and social (items 45–50) strategies. Students responded to each item statement using a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). According to Oxford (1990), learners with the mean of 3.5–5.0 are considered high-strategy users, learners with the mean of 2.5–3.4 are considered medium-strategy users and learners with the mean of 1.0–2.4 are considered low-strategy users. The instrument also included background questions on students’ gender, year of study and university grade point average (GPA; obtained up to the point of doing the survey). Students were classified according to their GPA into three groups: high proficiency (3.75–5.00), medium proficiency (2.75–3.74) and low proficiency (less than 2.74). Last, the instrument was translated into Arabic, the participants’ native language, to minimise the interference of their English capabilities and to allow them to easily understand each statement in the instrument.

5. Results

All data collected in the survey were analysed statistically through Statistical Package for the Social Science. Descriptive statistics were conducted to observe the means, standard deviations and the ranks of the language learning strategies used by the students (see, Table 1). Then, a t-test was run to assess whether the strategies used by male and female students differ. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also employed to explore the effects of proficiency levels and year of study on the use of these strategies.

Table 1. Language learning strategy use by Saudi English students

Strategy category	Mean	SD	Rank
Memory strategies	3.62	0.98	6
Cognitive strategies	3.99	0.85	3
Compensation strategies	4.08	0.84	2
Metacognitive strategies	4.16	0.87	1
Affective strategies	3.88	0.97	5
Social strategies	3.93	1.02	4

Table 1 shows that students used language learning strategies at a high frequency level (means ranged from 3.62 to 4.16). In addition, as can be observed in Table 1, metacognitive strategies were ranked as the most frequently used strategies (M = 4.16, SD = 0.87), followed by compensation strategies (M = 4.08, SD = 0.84), cognitive strategies (M = 3.99, SD = 0.85), social strategies (M = 3.93, SD = 1.02), affective strategies (M = 3.88, SD = 0.97) and, last, memory strategies (M = 3.62. SD = 0.98).

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for each item of the six categories of language learning strategies. In particular, for memory strategies, item 9 “I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign” (M = 4.01) was the most frequently used memory strategy. Item 6, “I use flashcards to remember new English words” (M = 3.24) was the least frequently used memory strategy. For cognitive strategies, item 15 “I watch English language television shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English” (M = 4.30) was observed to be the highest reported cognitive strategy. Item 16, “I read for pleasure in English” (M = 3.53) was the lowest used cognitive strategy. For compensation strategies, item 29 “If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing” (M = 4.34) was the most preferred compensation strategy, whereas item 25 “When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures” (M = 3.84) was the least preferred compensation strategy. For metacognitive strategies, the mean ranged from (M = 4.39) for item 33, “I try to find out how to be a better learner of English”, to (M = 3.83) for item 34, “I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English”. For affective strategies, the most commonly employed strategy was item 40: “I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making mistakes” (M = 4.28). The least commonly employed strategy was item 43, “I write down my feelings in a language learning diary” (M = 3.32). Last, for social strategies, the highest mean score was related to item 50, “I try to learn about the culture of English speakers” (M = 4.16), whereas the lowest mean score related to item 47, “I practice English with other students” (M = 3.58).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the items

Item	Statement	Mean	SD
	Memory
1	I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English.	3.87	1.21
2	I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.	3.72	1.14
3	I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help me remember the word.	3.50	1.37
4	I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used.	3.85	1.24
5	I use rhymes to remember new English words.	3.34	1.47
6	I use flashcards to remember new English words.	3.24	1.49
7	I physically act out new English words.	3.41	1.48
8	I review English lessons often.	3.62	1.27
9	I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign.	4.01	1.19
	Cognitive
10	I say or write new English words several times.	4.03	1.13
11	I try to talk like native English speakers.	4.29	1.02
12	I practice the sounds of English.	4.21	1.07
13	I use the English words I know in different ways.	4.12	1.12
14	I start conversations in English.	3.90	1.22
15	I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English.	4.30	1.07
16	I read for pleasure in English.	3.53	1.45
17	I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English.	3.72	1.33
18	I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read it carefully.	3.97	1.22
19	I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English.	4.07	1.23
20	I try to find patterns in English.	3.86	1.27
21	I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand.	4.18	1.11
22	I try not to translate word-for-word.	4.00	1.21
23	I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English.	3.61	1.40
	Compensation
24	To understand unfamiliar words, I make guesses.	4.21	1.10
25	When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures.	3.84	1.21
26	I make up new words if I don’t know the right ones in English.	4.18	1.04
27	I read English without looking up every new word.	3.93	1.25
28	I try to guess what the other person will say next in English.	3.95	1.21
29	If I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing.	4.34	0.98
	Metacognitive
30	I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English.	4.20	1.06
31	I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better.	4.35	0.99
32	I pay attention when someone is speaking English.	4.36	0.93
33	I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.	4.39	0.99
34	I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English.	3.83	1.28
35	I look for people I can talk to in English.	4.04	1.22
36	I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English.	3.91	1.27
37	I have clear goals for improving my English skills.	4.07	1.15
38	I think about my progress in learning English.	4.27	1.00
	Affective
39	I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English.	4.16	1.14
40	I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making mistakes.	4.28	1.02
41	I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.	3.75	1.43
42	I notice if I am tense or nervous when I am studying or using English.	4.05	1.17
43	I write down my feelings in a language learning diary.	3.32	1.59
44	I talk to someone else about how I feel when I am learning English.	3.70	1.44
	Social
45	If I don’t understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.	3.97	1.28
46	I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk.	3.87	1.29
47	I practice English with other students.	3.58	1.46
48	I ask for help from English speakers.	3.87	1.36
49	I ask questions in English.	4.07	1.10
50	I try to learn about the culture of English speakers.	4.16	1.20

An independent sample t-test was undertaken to examine differences in language learning strategy use between male and female students (see, Table 3). The findings indicated that, apart from social strategies, female students used these language learning strategies more often than male students. In particular, the results showed that female students (M = 3.72, SD = 0.89) had significantly higher scores than did male students (M = 3.36, SD = 1.14) on memory strategies, t(104.56) = —2.44, P = .016. In addition, female students (M = 4.06, SD = 0.80) had significantly higher scores than male students (M = 3.80, SD = 0.95) on cognitive strategies, t(254) = —2.19, P = .029. Further, female students (M = 4.15, SD = 0.82) had significantly higher scores than did male students (M = 3.89, SD = 0.88) on compensation strategies, t(254) = —2.22, P = .028. Similarly, female students (M = 4.24, SD = 0.80) had significantly higher scores than did male students (M = 3.97, SD = 0.99) on metacognitive strategies, t(107.19) = —2.09, P = .039. Last, female students (M = 3.96, SD = 0.93) had significantly higher scores than male students (M = 3.66, SD = 1.06) on affective strategies, t(254) = —2.24, P = .026. However, there was no significant effect for gender on social strategies t(254) = —1.22, P = .225, despite female students (M = 3.97, SD = 1.01) attaining higher scores than male students (M = 3.80, SD = 1.04).

Table 3. T-test findings for language learning strategies use based on gender

Strategies	Male(n = 71)		Female(n = 185)		t	df	p
	M	SD	M	SD
Memory	3.36	1.14	3.72	0.89	–2.44	104.56	.016
Cognitive	3.80	0.95	4.06	0.80	–2.19	254.00	.029
Compensation	3.89	0.88	4.15	0.82	–2.22	254.00	.028
Metacognitive	3.97	0.99	4.24	0.80	–2.09	107.19	.039
Affective	3.66	1.06	3.96	0.93	–2.24	254.00	.026
Social	3.80	1.04	3.97	1.01	–1.22	254.00	.225

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to assess whether proficiency levels (high, medium and low) had a significant effect on the use of language learning strategies (see, Table 4). A post-hoc Tukey test was also employed to locate where any significant differences occurred. The ANOVA results indicated statistically significant mean differences across proficiency levels on memory strategies, F(2,253) = 12.51, p = .000. Post-hoc analyses indicated that high-proficiency students (M = 3.82, SD = 0.89) reported higher use of memory strategies than did medium- (M = 3.46, SD = 0.91) and low-proficiency students (M = 3.00, SD = 1.18) and that medium-proficiency students exhibited higher use of memory strategies than did low-proficiency students.

Table 4. Mean, standard deviation and one-way ANOVA in language learning strategies across proficiency levels (high, medium, low)

Strategy	High(n = 161)		Medium(n = 58)		Low(n = 37)		F(2,253)	P	Post-hoc(Tukey)
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Memory	3.82	0.89	3.46	0.91	3.00	1.18	12.51	.000	1 > 2, 1 > 3, 2 > 3
Cognitive	4.22	0.67	3.72	0.86	3.42	1.16	19.12	.000	1 > 2, 1 > 3
Compensation	4.26	0.71	3.99	0.82	3.45	1.06	15.85	.000	1 > 3, 2 > 3
Metacognitive	4.37	0.69	4.02	0.77	3.47	1.23	20.14	.000	1 > 2, 1 > 3, 2 > 3
Affective	4.02	0.88	3.77	0.91	3.45	1.29	5.94	.003	1 > 3
Social	4.16	0.87	3.70	0.97	3.26	1.32	14.93	.000	1 > 2, 1 > 3

For cognitive strategies, the findings revealed statistically significant mean differences across proficiency levels on cognitive strategies, F(2,253) = 19.12, p = .000. Post-hoc analyses revealed that high-proficiency students (M = 4.22, SD = 0.67) reported higher use of cognitive strategies than did medium- (M = 3.72, SD = 0.86) and low-proficiency students (M = 3.42, SD = 1.16).

For compensation strategies, there were statistically significant mean differences across proficiency levels, F(2,253) = 15.85, p = .000. Post-hoc analyses reported that high-proficiency students (M = 4.26, SD = 0.71) indicated higher use of compensation strategies than did low-proficiency students (M = 3.45, SD = 1.06). In addition, medium-proficiency students (M = 3.99, SD = 0.82) indicated higher use of compensation strategies than did low-proficiency students.

For metacognitive strategies as well, there were statistically significant mean differences across proficiency levels, F(2,253) = 20.14, p = .000. Post-hoc analyses showed that the mean score of high-proficiency students (M = 4.37, SD = 0.69) was significantly higher than those of medium- (M = 4.02, SD = 0.77) and low-proficiency students (M = 3.47, SD = 1.23). The results also indicated that the scores of medium-proficiency students differed significantly from that of low-proficiency students.

For affective strategies, there was a statistically significant difference between proficiency levels, F(2,253) = 5.94, p = .003. Post-hoc comparisons revealed that only the mean score for high-proficiency students (M = 4.02, SD = 0.88) was significantly different from the mean score of low-proficiency students (M = 3.45, SD = 1.29).

For social strategies, the findings showed statistically significant mean differences across proficiency levels, F(2,253) = 14.93, p = .000. Post-hoc analyses revealed that high-proficiency students (M = 4.16, SD = 0.87) reported greater use of cognitive strategies than did medium- (M = 3.70, SD = 0.97) and low-proficiency students (M = 3.26, SD = 1.32).

Generally, these findings suggest that the higher the proficiency level of students, the more frequently they use language learning strategies.

Table 5 shows the results of one-way ANOVA for language learning strategy use across year of study (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4), which reported that there were no statistically significant mean differences across year of study on strategy use.

Table 5. Mean, standard deviation and one-way ANOVA for language learning strategies across year of study (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4)

Strategy	Year 1(n = 99)		Year 2(n = 44)		Year 3(n = 47)		Year 4(n = 66)		F(2,253)	P
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Memory	3.74	0.84	3.44	1.05	3.56	1.12	3.61	1.02	1.10	.351
Cognitive	4.09	0.77	3.68	0.92	3.95	0.92	4.08	0.86	2.72	.054
Compensation	4.15	0.79	3.89	0.88	4.02	0.96	4.15	0.80	1.22	.304
Metacognitive	4.28	0.72	4.11	0.94	4.01	1.12	4.14	0.80	1.13	.338
Affective	3.96	0.88	3.76	1.08	3.77	1.02	3.92	1.01	0.72	.542
Social	4.02	0.90	3.72	1.13	3.84	1.11	3.97	1.04	1.06	.368

6. Discussion

6.1. Use of language learning strategies

A key result of this study is the high frequency use of all the six types of language learning strategies by students. This result is consistent with that of previous studies, which have revealed a high frequency use of these strategies by foreign language learners (Aliakbari & Hayatzadeh, 2008; Anugkakul & Yordchim, 2014; Razak et al., 2012; Seng & Khleang, 2014). The high use of these strategies by the students in this study might be because they are university students majoring in English programs. Unlike learners who may enrol to learn English for self-advancement or fun, these students are learning English to pass their program and improve their academic performance and professional expertise. Fear of failing the program could be a significant motivation for using these strategies to intensify their efforts to be equipped with the command of English.

The findings of this study also indicated that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used among the six categories, followed by compensation, cognitive, social, affective and memory strategies, respectively. The result of high frequent use of metacognitive strategies and least frequent use of memory strategies is in line with the findings of prior studies (Aliakbari & Hayatzadeh, 2008; Ismail & Al Khatib, 2013; Liu, 2004; Melvina et al., 2020; Radwan, 2011; Tanjung, 2018). Metacognitive strategies assist students to organise, evaluate, monitor and plan their learning process (Oxford, 1990). The reason metacognitive strategies were the most commonly employed by the students could be related to the Saudi educational system, which is exam-oriented. Because students want to pass their exams, they are indirectly stimulated to organise, monitor and plan their process of learning.

The least frequently used strategies in this study were memory strategies. Although they were in the high range use, they were near to the medium use (M = 3.62). The lower frequency use of memory strategies, as compared with the other strategies, was unexpected. Similar studies conducted in the Saudi context (Al-Khaza’leh, 2020; Alnujaidi, 2019) have also reported that memory strategies were the least frequently used strategies amongst students. This finding might be because memory strategies included in SILL were different from the traditional rote memorisation strategies that students frequently use in the Saudi context. Memory strategies in SILL include strategies such as using rhymes to remember unfamiliar words, connecting new words with mental pictures and grouping new words into antonyms, synonym, verbs and nouns. It is possible that the students were not fully familiar with these techniques; hence, they reported less use of memory strategies on SILL compared with the other strategies. This explanation also supports Lee and Oxford’s (2008) contention that memory items in the SILL were formed to involve memory strategies based on kinaesthetic, visual and auditory modalities, which may not be related to memory strategies used in non-Western contexts.

6.2. Proficiency and language learning strategies

The current study revealed a positive relationship between proficiency levels and the use of language learning strategies. In particular, the results indicated the higher the proficiency levels of students, the more frequently they use these strategies. These results support Oxford and Nyikos’s (1989) and Green and Oxford’s (1995) contention that proficiency level affects the usage and choice of these strategies. In addition, these results coincide with those of prior studies, which have revealed that students with high levels of proficiency showed greater use of these strategies than did students with low levels of proficiency (Alfian, 2016; Ali & Paramasivam, 2016; Green & Oxford, 1995; Liu, 2004; Radwan, 2011; Wu, 2008).

6.3. Gender and language learning strategies

A substantial number of studies have reported that female learners tend to use more language learning strategies than do male learners (e.g., Green & Oxford, 1995; Ho & Ng, 2016; Khalil, 2005; Liu, 2004; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Tam, 2013). The present study’s results support these results. In particular, the findings of this study indicated that, other than for social strategies, there were significant differences in the use of learning strategies between males and females, with females reporting higher use of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and affective strategies. The lack of gender impact on social strategies was unexpected. It is worth mentioning that similar results were reported in Melvina et al. (2020) and Ismail and Al Khatib (2013). This result may be attributed to the importance of social strategies for both male and female students. Both groups might realise the importance to cooperate, communicate, interact and empathise with others to maximise their learning.

6.4. Year of study and language learning strategies

The present study found that year of study had no significant impact on language learning strategy use. This finding is inconsistent with that of other studies, which have shown that the longer the duration of language learning, the more the students use these strategies (Al-Buainain, 2010; Chen, 2009; Griffiths, 2003; Khalil, 2005). This result might be because the participants in the current study were university students majoring in English who are mindful of their language needs and recognise the importance of these strategies on their academic performance regardless of whether they are in Year 1 or Year 4. Of note, a similar study conducted in the same context (Alhaysony, 2017) has shown the absence of year of study effect on strategy use.

7. Conclusion, implications and directions for future research

This study sought to explore the use of language learning strategies among Saudi university English major students. The study also examined the relationships between the use of these strategies and proficiency levels, gender and year of study. A version of Oxford’s (1990) SILL translated into Arabic was used to collect data. The results showed that students used these strategies at a high frequency level and that metacognitive strategies were the most frequently employed strategies by the students, followed by compensation, cognitive, social, affective and memory strategies, respectively. In addition, the results revealed a positive relationship between proficiency levels and language learning strategy use. That is, students with high levels of proficiency showed greater use of these strategies than did students with intermediate and low levels of proficiency. Further, the findings showed significant differences in the use of these strategies between males and females, with females reporting higher use of memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive and affective strategies. Last, the findings revealed that year of study had no significant effects on strategy use.

The findings of the present study suggest important implications for classroom instruction and learning content design. Students, especially those with low proficiency levels, can be assisted to improve their competence in English through strategy instruction. Language learning strategies are teachable (Anderson, 2005; Chamot, 2008), and recent research has produced positive evidence that strategy instruction raised students’ strategic awareness and subsequent strategy use (Aghaie & Zhang, 2012; Tavakoli, 2018). Aghaie and Zhang (2012) argued that the routine teaching of foreign languages should have a dual emphasis, focusing on both teaching language content and developing language learning strategies. For strategy instruction to be effective, teachers might use the strategy-based instruction model introduced by Rubin et al. (2007). This model highlights four core features of strategy instruction, including raising students’ knowledge of the strategies, modelling of the strategies by teachers, providing students with ample practice opportunities and prompting students to evaluate the strategies and transfer them to new tasks (for more details, see, Rubin et al., 2007). In a similar vein, curriculum designers should play an important role in developing and integrating activities and tasks that prompt the use of a broad range of language learning strategies so that students can apply these strategies autonomously. Finally, teachers should be aware of students’ various learning preferences and styles and use a variety of strategies that suit these styles (Ma & Oxford, 2014).

Nevertheless, this study has several limitations that need to be considered in future studies. First, its findings were developed using a self-reporting questionnaire. Self-reporting questionnaires cannot assure that participants are actually employing language learning strategies as consistent as they report doing so (Mokhtari et al., 2008). Therefore, it is recommended that future studies use qualitative data (e.g., classroom observations, interviews, diary analysis and thinking aloud) for more accurate, ample and comprehensive results. Second, the findings of the current study also need to be interpreted with caution since most of the students who volunteered to participate in this study were high achievers. This factor may have contributed to their overall high usage of language learning strategies. Hence, further research is needed to replicate the findings of this study with a more balanced sample size of students of low-, medium- and high-proficiency levels. Third, the participants of this study were restricted to English major students at university level. Therefore, future studies should explore these strategies among Saudi students at various educational levels and ages (e.g., intermediate school, high school and university). Fourth, undergraduate students who are studying other subjects in English, or studying English as a supplementary subject, were excluded. These students may have different language learning strategy profiles. Making this comparison is another possible area for future research. Fifth, the present study only emphasised the use of these strategies in relation to three factors (i.e., proficiency levels, gender and year of study). It did not consider all possible variables that could affect the use of these strategies. Thus, more studies are needed to explore the possible effects of other individual variables, such as learning styles, learning goals, beliefs, motivation, age and previous educational experience. Last, future studies may also examine language learning strategy use for various language skills (writing, reading, listening and speaking).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Oqab Alrashidi

Oqab Alrashidi is an assistant professor at the University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia. He got his master’s and PhD in TESOL from the University of New England, Australia. He published several research articles in international peer-reviewed journals. His research interests include English as foreign language teaching and learning, L2 motivation, foreign language teaching anxiety, language learning strategies, academic engagement and teachers’ reflective practices.