Collocational depth,L1 interference,and strategic engagement: A longitudinal study

Abstract

This study examined how Saudi learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) developed collocational competence through strategic engagement, and how institutional context and Arabic first language (L1) interference mediated this process. A total of 120 male English majors from public and private universities participated in a two-semester longitudinal mixed-methods design. Instruments included CEFR-aligned vocabulary tests, collocation tasks, strategy inventories, reflective logs, and essay analysis. Quantitative findings revealed significant gains in vocabulary knowledge and strategy use, with B2 learners demonstrating a marked shift toward metacognitive regulation. Regression analyses showed that collocational depth, measured by accuracy and sophistication, was a stronger predictor of CEFR-rated writing quality than vocabulary size. Error analysis indicated persistent first language (L1)-based interference (literal translation, verb overgeneralization, idiomatic transfer), though these errors declined with proficiency and were less frequent among private-university learners, likely due to stronger digital exposure and feedback mechanisms. Qualitative data underscored motivation, teacher/peer feedback, and digital engagement as key drivers of cognitive and affective involvement in collocational learning. Together, the results highlighted the dynamic interplay between lexical depth, L1 transfer, and engagement, showing that collocational competence evolved through both individual strategies and institutional affordances. By integrating CEFR-based assessment, collocational analysis, and engagement theory, this study extended vocabulary research in Saudi contexts. Pedagogically, it called for collocation-focused strategy instruction, affective support to mitigate L1 interference, and equitable institutional resources aligned with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 educational agenda.

Keywords

academic writing Arabic L1 interference collocational depth engagement institutional context Saudi EFL vocabulary learning strategies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alrabai

(2018). Learning English in Saudi Arabia. In Shaaban

K.E.

Al-Issa

A.Y.

(Eds.), English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 117–133). Springer.

Alsaif

Milton

(2012). Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small vocabulary uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. The Language Learning Journal, 40, 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658221

Al-Seghayer

(2022). The realities and myths of English language teaching in Saudi Arabia: A response to critique. World Englishes, 41, 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12555

Al-Zahrani

M.S.

(1998). Knowledge of English lexical collocations among male Saudi college students majoring in English at a Saudi university. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Dabbagh

Janebi Enayat

(2017). Collocational competence in English: A corpus-based study of Iranian EFL learners’ writing. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.22034/elt.2017.11933

Farghal

Obiedat

(1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33, 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1995.33.4.315

P.Y.

(2018). Modeling the relationships between vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary size, and depth. Language Learning, 68, 730–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12291

Hajebi

Lavasani

M.G.

Amani

(2018). The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in fostering EFL learners’ autonomy. Journal of Language and Education, 4, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.17323/2411-7390-2018-4-3-82-91

10.

Hamano-Bunce

(2025). The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research, 29, 2460–2479. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221127643

11.

Huang

Crossley

S.A.

Kyle

(2022). Lexical sophistication: A multidimensional analysis of second language writing. Language Testing, 39, 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/02655322211040713

12.

Kyle

Crossley

S.A.

(2016). The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 34, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003

13.

Lindberg

McDonough

Ammar

(2022). The sociocognitive functions of English use during L2 French collaborative writing tasks. Language Teaching Research, 30, 829–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221127647

14.

Milton

(2009). Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Multilingual Matters.

15.

Nassaji

(2025). Learner psychology in second language teaching and learning. Language Teaching Research, 30, 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688251405491

16.

Nation

I.S.P.

(2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.

17.

Oxford

R.L.

(1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury House/HarperCollins.

18.

Oxford

R.L.

(2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge.

19.

Oxford

R.L.

Gkonou

(2018). Interwoven: Culture, language, and learning strategies. In Oxford

R.L.

Gkonou

(Eds.), Interwoven: Culture, language, and learning strategies (pp. 1–12). Springer.

20.

Paquot

Crossley

S.A.

(2012). Using lexical indices to predict academic writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.07.002

21.

Paquot

Granger

(2012). Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098

22.

Qian

D.D.

(1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282–307. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.2.282

23.

Qian

D.D.

(2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning, 52, 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00193

24.

Read

(2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined? In Bogaards

Laufer

(Eds.), Vocabulary in a second language: Selection, acquisition, and testing (pp. 209–227). John Benjamins.

25.

Schmitt

(2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077

26.

Siyanova-Chanturia

Pellicer-Sánchez

(2019). Eye-tracking in applied linguistics and second language acquisition: Research methodology, challenges, and opportunities. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000020

27.

Stewart

Batty

A.O.

Bovee

(2012). Comparing three approaches to measuring depth of vocabulary knowledge. Language Testing, 29, 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212438915

28.

Teng

(2020). Vocabulary learning strategies, vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00752

29.

Teng

Zhang

L.J.

(2018). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Students’ voices on the application of self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.09.002

30.

Uchihara

Saito

(2019). Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. Language Learning, 69, 479–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12324

31.

van Lier

. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7912-5

32.

Wang

Mercer

(2020). Learner engagement in the language classroom: What it is and why it matters. Language Teaching, 53, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000240

33.

Webb

(2020). The effects of vocabulary knowledge on second language listening comprehension: A latent variable approach. Applied Linguistics, 41, 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz022

34.

Zhang

L.J.

(2022). Metacognitive knowledge, self-regulated learning, and L2 vocabulary learning: Insights from the Chinese EFL context. System, 105, Article 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102708

35.

Zimmerman

B.J.

(2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2