Metacognition and modality: Exploring gender disparity in the frequency of vocabulary learning strategies among university ESL students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22373/equality.v11i2.32046Keywords:
Vocabulary Learning Strategies (VLS), Gender Disparity, Second Language Acquisition (SLA), English Education Students, Metacognitive StrategyAbstract
Vocabulary plays a crucial role in second language acquisition, and effective vocabulary learning strategies can significantly enhance language proficiency. However, while various strategies have been studied extensively, the influence of gender on vocabulary learning preferences remains insufficiently explored. This study addresses that gap by examining the types of vocabulary learning strategies used by male and female students in the English Language Education Department and analysing how these strategies are implemented in their learning processes. The purpose of this study, which employed a mixed-method approach using quantitative and qualitative techniques, is to identify the dominant strategies used by each gender and determine whether significant differences exist between male and female learners in their approach to vocabulary development. Thirty students (15 males and 15 females) participated by completing a vocabulary learning strategy questionnaire, followed by in-depth interviews with three male and three female students to gain richer insights into their practical strategy use. The results indicate that both male and female students predominantly use metacognitive strategies to build their vocabulary. Female students, however, consistently showed higher engagement across all five categories of strategies: metacognitive, determination, social, memory, and cognitive. Interview responses supported these findings and revealed that both genders commonly utilized strategies such as watching movies, reading, practicing speaking, and group discussions. Interestingly, only male students reported using vocabulary games as a learning tool. This study contributes to the field of second language learning by highlighting gender-based tendencies in strategy use, which can help educators design more inclusive and effective teaching approaches.
References
Alahmadi, N. (2020). Gender-based preferences in vocabulary learning strategies. Arab World English Journal, 11(3), 328–345.
Alamer, A. (2025). Revisiting the validity of the vocabulary learning strategies questionnaire using confirmatory composite analysis: Setting new directions for the field. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 193-217.
Almalki, S. (2022). Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 16(2), 123–140.
Alsharif, R. (2022). Relationship between vocabulary learning strategies and vocabulary size: Evidence from Saudi female EFL learners. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 10(1), 188-197.
Amirjalili, F., & Jabbari, A. A. (2018). The impact of morphological instruction on morphological awareness and reading comprehension of EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1523975.
Chou, M. H. (2024). Validating the vocabulary learning strategies used by English as a foreign language university students in Taiwan. RELC Journal, 55(1), 128-143
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
Dan, Q., Bai, B., & Huang, Q. (2024). Gender differences in the relations between EFL students’ classroom relationships and English language proficiency: The mediating role of self-regulated learning strategy use. System, 123, 103311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103311
Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2020). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: Principles for bringing in the new and divesting of the old language of the field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(1), 3–10.
Griffiths, C. (2018). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gu, P. Y. (2018). Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies for ESL learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 325–350.
Guetterman, T. C., & Fetters, M. D. (2018). Two methodological approaches to the integration of mixed methods and case study designs. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 900–918.
Johns, R. (2005). One size doesn’t fit all: Selecting response scales for attitude items. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 15(2), 237-264.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2019). Mixed methods research: A paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Joshi, A., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403.
Lee, J. W., Wolters, A., & Grace Kim, Y. S. (2023). The relations of morphological awareness with language and literacy skills vary depending on orthographic depth and nature of morphological awareness. Review of Educational Research, 93(4), 528-558.
Lei, Y., & Reynolds, B. L. (2022). Learning English vocabulary from word cards: A research synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 984211.
Montero-Saiz, M. C. (2025). Gender-based differences in EFL learners’ language learning strategies and productive vocabulary. System, 123, 103276.
Mustafa, F. (2019). English vocabulary size of Indonesian high school graduates: Curriculum expectation and reality. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 357–371.
Nation, P. (2007). The four strands. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 2-13.
Nur, R. M., & Jusoh, Z. (2022). Vocabulary learning strategies of Indonesian EFL learners in Malaysia: A focus on gender. International Journal of English and Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 431–445.
Oxford, R. (1990). Strategy inventory for language learners (SILL). In R. Oxford (Ed.) Language strategies: What every teacher should know. Berkshire, England: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (2020). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. London: Routledge.
Pawlak, M., & Kiermasz, Z. (2018). The use of language learning strategies in a second and third language: The case of foreign language majors. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 427-443.
Ridwan, S., & Jusoh, Z. (2022). Vocabulary learning strategies of Indonesian EFL learners in Malaysia: A focus on gender. Arab World English Journal, 13(4), 431–445.
Shorten, A., & Smith, J. (2017). Mixed methods research: Expanding the evidence base. Evidence-Based Nursing, 20(3), 74–75.
Teng, M. F. (2023). Exploring self-regulated vocabulary learning strategies, proficiency, working memory, and vocabulary learning through word-focused exercises. The Language Learning Journal, 51(5), 567–580.
Teng, M. F., Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2024). Understanding growth mindset, self-regulated vocabulary learning, and vocabulary knowledge. System, 122, 103255.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. UK: Pearson.
Tong, Y., Hasim, Z., & Abdul Halim, H. (2023). The relationship between L2 vocabulary knowledge and reading proficiency: The moderating effects of vocabulary fluency. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-14.
Webb, S., Uchihara, T., & Yanagisawa, A. (2023). How effective is second language incidental vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Teaching, 56(2), 161–180.
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2021). To what extent does the involvement load hypothesis predict incidental L2 vocabulary learning? A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 71(3), 631–675.
Yanagisawa, A., & Webb, S. (2022). Involvement load hypothesis PLUS: An improved predictive model of incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(5), 1234–1259.
Zarrati, Z., Zohrabi, M., Abedini, H., & Xodabande, I. (2024). Learning academic vocabulary with digital flashcards: Comparing the outcomes from computers and smartphones. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100900
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Khairiah Syahabuddin, Sa’i Sa’i, Alfiatunnur Alfiatunnur, Nashriyah Nashriyah, Ricky Sriyanda, Tijan Al-Darary
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
GENDER EQUALITY: International Journal of Child and Gender Studies allows the author(s) to hold the copyright and to retain the publishing rights without restrictions. Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
