Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Online version available in : http://arbitrer.
JURNAL ARBITRER
| 2339-1162 (Prin.
| 2550-1011 (Onlin.
| Article Traditional Strategies and AI-Integrated Strategies in Learning English among EFL Omani Students Nayef Jomaa1*.
Badri Abdulhakim Mudhsh2.
Khalid AlGhafri3 Preparatory Studies Center.
University of Technology and Applied Sciences-Salalah.
Dhofar.
Sultanate of Oman Submission Track
A B S T R A C T
Received: May 23, 2025 Final Revision: August 30, 2025 Accepted: September 02, 2025 Available Online: September 25, 2025 This study examines the impact of gender and academic levels on using both traditional and AI-integrated learning strategies among EFL Omani This quantitative study utilized a questionnaire with a fivepoint Likert scale based on OxfordAos Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and other AI-related items adapted from current studies, including 152 students from a public Omani university.
The research instrument was expert-reviewed, followed by a pilot study, and the main data were analyzed using SPSS, namely t-tests and ANOVA.
Out of 35 question items related to traditional learning strategies.
Omani female learners outperformed male students in 26 items, significantly in writing new words (F= 4.
M= 3.
, online English classes (F= 3.
M= 2.
practice grammar (F= 3.
M= 3.
, and learn pronunciation (F= 4.
M= 3.
Similarly.
Omani female learners outperformed male learners in all nine AI-based strategies, namely AI tools to enhance speaking (F= 44.
M= 3.
, learn pronunciation (F= 3.
M= 3.
, and improve writing (F= 3.
M= 3.
StudentsAo academic levels also affected some strategies like listening, speaking, and pronunciation.
higher-level students preferred interactive approaches related to AI compared with lower-level However.
AI tools for learning grammar and writing were less commonly used.
These findings suggest that integrating traditional and AIassisted strategies could support learning foreign languages.
Consequently, educators should encourage active engagement in AI-based learning while addressing studentsAo dependence on traditional strategies.
Keywords Language learning strategies.
AI, gender, academic levels.
Omani students Correspondence *E-mail: nayef.
jomaa@utas.
INTRODUCTION
Learning English could be achieved through language learning strategies (Jomaa.
Attamimi, & AlGhafri, 2025b.
Oxford, 1990.
Rahimi & Katal.
In this regard, various factors can affect these strategies, such as gender, proficiency levels, and areas of studying .
franj, 2013.
Tamimi & Razeq, 2.
Higher-achieving students utilize more strategies, namely metacognitive ones, in comparison with lower-achieving students (Jomaa et al.
, 2025b.
Santihastuti & Wahjuningsih, 2.
However, though some studies have suggested that gender significantly influences these strategies (Zeynali, 2012.
Montero-SaizAja, 2.
, others, such as Behforouz and Al Ghaithi .
, have found no relationship.
Similarly, studies that have DOI: https://doi.
org/10.
25077/ar.
examined the influence of age and levels of study have yielded contrasting results (Rahimi & Katal.
Jomaa.
Attamimi, & Al Mahri, 2.
For instance, some studies have revealed that the level of proficiency affects the use of strategies.
in other words, highly proficient learners prefer metacognitive and cognitive strategies (Ping & Luan, 2017.
Park, 1.
, whereas other studies argue that external factors, including teaching methods and motivation, have a decisive role in language learning (Ghafournia, 2014.
Jomaa.
Attamimi, & Al Mahri, 2025a.
Tahriri & Divsar.
These inconsistencies in the results imply a need for more examinations among EFL Arab students, particularly in Omani public universities, to obtain further insights into their LLSs (Alrashidi.
Under License of Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.
0 International.
Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
correlation between LLSs use and productive vocabulary acquisition (Montero-SaizAja, 2.
Despite these findings, strategy use among learners typically ranges from low to medium (Alhaysony.
Overall, learners across different studies have been found to be medium strategy users, with metacognitive strategies being the most frequently employed (Tahriri & Divsar, 2.
These inconsistencies highlight the need for further research into how gender influences LLSs use in In this complicated process, multiple issues different learning contexts.
The level of study also significantly impacts have been shown to influence using LLSs and their possible effectiveness, including age, gender.
LLSs use.
To demonstrate, higher proficiency proficiency levels, and the possible influence of learners tend to employ more cognitive, artificial intelligence (AI) (Al-Raimi et al.
, 2024.
metacognitive, and social strategies (Khosravi.
Al-Saiari et al.
, 2024.
Jomaa et al.
, 2024, 2025a, 2012.
Ghafournia, 2014.
Sulthan et al.
, 2.
, with For instance, younger learners tend to be metacognitive strategies being particularly favored more proficient due to greater brain plasticity (Dey by advanced learners (Sulthan et al.
, 2018.
Rahimi et al.
, 2.
, whereas older learners may face more et al.
, 2.
Additionally, the year of study plays a challenges but often exhibit higher motivation role, as first-year students use more metacognitive (Chen, 2014.
Dey et al.
, 2.
In other words, and indirect strategies (Kashefian-Naeeini & different age groups prefer distinct strategies.
Maarof, 2.
, whereas seniors employ a broader with compensation strategies being more common range of strategies (Alrashidi, 2022.
Sedighi & among older students (Sepasdar & Soori, 2014.
Zarafshan, 2.
Motivation also influences Chen, 2.
Social and affective strategies are also strategy use, with integrative motivated students frequently used by university students (Sepasdar utilizing more strategies (Sedighi & Zarafshan, & Soori, 2014.
Chen, 2.
Additionally, the 2006.
Rahimi et al.
, 2.
However, in their study, relationship between LLSs and course grades is Jomaa.
Attamimi, and AlGhafri .
revealed stronger in younger students (Tragant & Victori, that levels of study have no effect on VLSs among Cognitive strategy use increases with age.
Omani EFL students.
whereas social and contextual strategy use decreases The integration of AI in language learning has (Riazi et al.
, 2.
Other influencing factors introduced new dimensions to LLSs use (Lavidas include the nature of tasks, course methodology, et al.
, 2.
That is, learning languages is no and parental support (Suesca Torres & Torres longer associated only with the classroom as it Pyrez, 2.
These findings underscore the need was in the past.
Nowadays, learners can use varied for age-specific language teaching methods (Dey et applications and AI tools to learn any language at , 2024.
Tanjung, 2.
any time outside the classroom.
More specifically.
Tamimi & Razeq, 2.
In Oman.
English is learned as a third language after acquiring various Omani local languages, followed by Arabic, and then English (Alkathiri.
Jomaa.
Mudhsh.
Al Saqr, & Ali, 2.
Investigating these strategies could enable teachers, educators, and university management to adopt more effective teaching methods and policies as well as enhance studentsAo learning experiences (Mahayanti.
Putro.
Widodo, & Alonzo, 2022.
Susanto, 2.
Further, research on gender differences in LLSs use has yielded mixed results (Alhaysony, 2017.
Aliakbari & Hayatzadeh, 2008.
Zeynali, 2012.
Montero-SaizAja, 2.
The most commonly used strategies among both genders are cognitive, metacognitive, and compensation strategies (Alhaysony, 2017.
Ariyani et al.
, 2.
Although some studies have found gender differences in strategy use, others have not found such differences (Kashefian-Naeeini & Maarof, 2016.
Tahriri & Divsar, 2.
Furthermore, the proficiency level affects strategy use, with more successful learners employing strategies more frequently (Green & Oxford, 1.
Research has also shown a positive recent studies have indicated that AI tools are commonly used for vocabulary learning strategies (Al-Raimi et al.
, 2024.
Jomaa et al.
, 2024, 2025.
The most frequently used AI-based strategy is translating the meaning of new words, followed by acquiring new vocabulary, translating entire sentences, and mastering pronunciation (Jomaa.
Attamimi, & Al Mahri, 2.
However, strategies related to grammar learning, writing, and reading skills are less frequently used.
This suggests that while AI is beneficial in some areas, its role in overall language acquisition strategies requires further exploration.
Additionally.
Jomaa et al.
found that age, gender, and levels of study Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
do not significantly affect EFL Omani studentsAo use of AI tools for English vocabulary learning.
These findings highlight the growing influence of AI in language education and suggest a need for further research to maximize its potential in improving LLSs use.
through Google Forms to EFL Omani students enrolled in the General Foundation Program (GFP) at the Preparatory Studies Center of a public university in Oman.
Out of 500 students, a total of 153 students completed the questionnaire, and after a validation process, 152 responses were deemed These insights emphasize the significance of suitable for the analysis.
modified education approaches to improve foreign The respondents exhibited diversity in terms language learning.
Therefore, this study aims to of gender .
male students, 80 female student.
address two research questions:
and proficiency levels (Level One: 30.
Level Two:
What are the perspectives of EFL Omani 29.
Level Three: 36.
Level Four: .
students on using both traditional and AIintegrated methods in learning the English Table 1.
Number of respondents based on gender and levels of study Category Gender Male Female Level of study Level one Level two Level three Level four Total To what extent do gender and levels of study affect the use of traditional methods and AI-integrated methods in learning English among EFL Omani students? II.
METHODS
This study adopted a quantitative research design to gain an efficient understanding of the language learning strategies employed by EFL Omani students in learning English in the Omani This approach facilitates the systematic collection and analysis of numerical data.
The questionnaire consists of 44 items adopted from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) established by Oxford .
, which is a widely recognized instrument in language learning More specifically, items from 1 to 35 were adopted from the SILL, since they are related to traditional methods of learning English.
Meanwhile, items from 36 to 44 were recently developed based on the results of several studies (Jomaa.
Attamimi, & Al Mahri, 2024.
Al-Raimi.
Mudhsh.
Al-Yafaei.
Al-Maashani, 2.
to measure AI-integrated language learning strategies, thus revealing emerging trends related to the possible effect of artificial intelligence on foreign language learning.
The research instrument was expert-reviewed, followed by a pilot study.
To effectively gauge studentsAo responses, the questionnaire employed a five-point Likert scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Seldom, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, and 5 = Always.
This scale provided a structured framework to measure the frequency and extent of strategy use among the Respondents Number of students The respondents were enrolled in one of four levels (Levels 1 to .
, each corresponding to an academic semester lasting four months.
Upon university admission, students undertook an English Placement Test, which determined whether they needed to enroll in the Foundation Program and at which level they should begin.
The majority of the respondents fell within the 17-21 age range, with only one student classified within the 22-26 age category.
therefore, this student was excluded from the sampling, since age is a significant variable, and respondents with different ages may use varied strategies.
Data Analysis The collected data were analyzed using SPSS version 26, ensuring accuracy and precision in statistical assessment.
The internal consistency of the questionnaire was evaluated using CronbachAos Alpha, yielding a high-reliability score of 0.
thereby signifying excellent reliability.
Key statistical measures, such as means, standard deviations, frequencies, and the highest and lowest mean values, were reported to summarize studentsAo The survey was randomly disseminated online Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Table 2.
Reliability statistics of the main study Reliability Statistics CronbachAos CronbachAos Alpha Based on No of Items Alpha Standardized Items Inferential statistical analyses were conducted, including two types of tests.
First, an Independent Sample t-test was conducted to examine potential differences in English learning strategies based on Second, a One-way ANOVA was performed to assess the potential impact of studentsAo academic level .
our levels were examine.
on their choice of English learning strategies.
RESULTS
In Table 3, the effect of gender on using traditional methods of learning English is Overall, female learners consistently outperformed male students in most English learning strategies, particularly in grammar practice, writing, and structured study habits.
The largest gender variations were in employing Google Translate for pronunciation, grammar exercises, and maintaining study schedules.
all of which were favored by female students.
In contrast, male learners showed only slight advantages in a few areas .
, watching movies, group discussions, chatting with peopl.
, but the differences were minimal.
This analysis examines the differences and similarities between male and female students in their use of traditional methods in learning English.
Concerning writing and vocabulary strategies, female students are significantly more likely to write new English words in a notebook (Mean:
29 vs.
96, p = 0.
Both genders frequently translate new words into their native language, with little difference (Mean: 4.
33 for females, 4.
for male.
However, females are slightly more inclined to use new English words in sentences (Mean: 3.
75 vs.
Regarding grammar and practice exercises, females engage significantly more in grammar exercises (Mean: 3.
56 vs.
p = 0.
They also follow online English lessons for grammar more frequently (Mean: 3.
Further, the use of mental visualization for remembering grammar rules is slightly more common among females (Mean: 3.
40 vs.
for listening and pronunciation practices, female students listen to word pronunciations using Google Translate at a significantly higher rate than male students (Mean: 4.
44 vs.
Listening to English texts to learn grammar is also slightly more frequent among females (Mean: 3.
48 vs.
Both genders exhibit a similar tendency to listen to English songs (Mean: 3.
23 for females, 3.
03 for male.
and watch movies or TV shows in English (Mean: 3.
74 for females, 3.
81 for male.
Regarding Table 3.
The effect of gender on traditional methods of English language learning Gender Mean Male Female 2- Write the new words on paper or in a notebook.
Male Female 3- Repeat the new words to myself.
Male Female 4- Translate the new words into my native language.
Male Female 5- Follow online English lessons to learn grammar.
Male Female 6- Visualize mental images to remember grammar rules.
Male Female 7- Observe my mistakes and use the information to improve.
Male Female 8- Practice grammar exercises.
Male Female 9- Read English texts to learn grammar.
Male Female 10- Listen to English texts to learn grammar.
Male Female 11- Listen to word pronunciations on Google Translate.
Male Female Question items 1- Use new English words in a sentence.
Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
12- Try to speak with native English speakers.
13- Practice pronunciation with English speakers or other 14- Read newspapers, stories, or books in English.
15- Read for enjoyment in English.
16- Skim the English text quickly first, then reread it 17- Focus on main headings and subheadings in English 18- Listen to English songs.
19- Watch movies or TV shows in English.
20- Pay attention to people speaking English.
21- Chat with people online in English.
22- Discuss English learning materials and information with 23- Participate in group discussions in English.
24- Write essays and short stories in English in my free time.
25- Write notes, text messages, and reports in English.
26- Write simple, uncomplicated words in meaningful 27- Try to finish English homework before the deadline.
28- Set a specific study schedule for exams.
29- Try various methods for studying English.
30- Maintain a balance between my life and learning English.
31- Motivate myself with positive self-talk.
32- Seek help from experienced individuals to correct my English mistakes.
33- Record my progress in learning English in a notebook.
34- Compare my English learning progress with my prior 35- Evaluate myself through tests.
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female speaking and interaction strategies, both genders show comparable engagement in speaking with native English speakers (Mean: 3.
50 for females, 36 for male.
They also practice pronunciation with peers at nearly the same level (Mean: 3.
29 for females, 3.
35 for male.
Further, participating in group discussions in English is equally common (Mean: 3.
00 for females, 3.
10 for male.
As for reading and writing practices, females are slightly more engaged in reading for enjoyment in English (Mean: 3.
05 vs.
82 for male.
Further, both genders read newspapers, stories, or books in English at a similar rate (Mean: 2.
78 for females, 58 for male.
However, writing essays and short stories in free time is more common among males, but this difference is not statistically significant (Mean: 2.
43 vs.
05, p = 0.
Other strategies related to study habits and self- Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
regulation showed both variations and similarities.
To demonstrate, female students tend to set a study schedule for exams more frequently than males (Mean: 4.
03 vs.
, though this difference is not statistically significant .
= 0.
Both genders show similar levels of motivation through positive self-talk (Mean: 4.
13 for females, 4.
03 for male.
Besides, comparing English learning progress with prior knowledge is almost identical across genders (Mean: 3.
55 for females, 3.
56 for male.
Keeping track of learning progress in a notebook is also equally common (Mean: 3.
23 for bot.
These results show that female students are more likely to engage in structured learning methods, such as writing new words in a notebook, practicing grammar exercises, and using pronunciation tools .
-values < 0.
In contrast, male students show slightly higher engagement in freewriting activities, but the difference is not This insight can help educators tailor teaching methods to accommodate different learning preferences.
Female students have a slightly higher mean score .
than male students .
in using traditional methods.
However, the difference is small, and standard deviations are similar, indicating some overlap in The F-value is 1.
917, and the p-value (Sig.
) is 0.
168, which is greater than 0.
This indicates no statistically significant difference between male and female students in their use of traditional learning methods.
language learning strategies is explained.
The data reveal that both male and female students use AI applications for learning English, with mean scores generally ranging between 3.
88 on a 5-point scale.
This suggests that AI is moderately utilized in language learning but has not yet become the dominant approach.
While students engage with AI across different language skills, their usage varies based on specific learning needs.
A notable trend is the slight gender difference in AI usage, with female students consistently reporting higher mean scores than male students across all categories.
The most significant differences appear in AI use for strengthening speaking skills (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
and enhancing pronunciation accuracy (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
This suggests that female learners may be more inclined to use AI for oral communication and pronunciation improvement, possibly indicating greater confidence or willingness to engage with technology for interactive language learning.
When examining the most and least used AI applications, the data show that AI for translating new words is the most widely adopted strategy (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
This suggests that learners primarily use AI as a translation tool rather than for productive language skills like writing or Conversely.
AI for learning grammar had the lowest mean scores (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
implying that students may still prefer traditional grammar-learning methods over AI-based tools.
In Table 4, the effect of gender on AI-integrated possibly due to the structured nature of grammar Table 4.
The effect of gender on AI-integrated language learning strategies Questionnaire items 36- Use language AI applications to learn English.
37- Use AI applications to acquire new vocabulary.
38- Use language AI applications to improve writing 39- Use language AI applications to strengthen speaking 40- Use language AI applications to enhance reading 41- Use language AI applications to improve listening 42- Use language AI applications to learn English Use language AI applications pronunciation accuracy.
44- Use language AI applications to translate the meanings of new words.
Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Mean Std.
Deviation Std.
Error Mean Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
Looking at AI usage across different language skills, the findings indicate that AI applications are well-used for vocabulary learning (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
, showing that students find AI helpful in expanding their word bank.
AIassisted writing improvement is also moderately used (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
, suggesting that while students turn to AI for writing support, it is not their primary resource.
In contrast.
AI use for reading (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
and listening (Male: 3.
Female: 3.
suggests a moderate reliance on AI for comprehension-based skills.
The analysis of results shows that the significance (Sig.
) values for all the variables are above 0.
indicating no statistically significant differences between genders in the use of AI applications for learning English.
The eta squared values, which measure the strength of association, are all quite low .
anging from 0.
000 to 0.
This suggests that gender explains little to no variation in AI usage patterns.
Since all p-values (Sig.
) exceed 05, there is no statistically significant genderbased difference in AI-assisted English learning.
Table 5 reveals the effect of levels of study on learning English following the traditional methods.
This analysis examines the traditional methods of learning English among EFL Omani students across four academic levels (Level 1.
Level 2.
Level 3, and Level .
using an ANOVA The key findings are grouped into several categories based on their strategy.
First, regarding writing and memorization strategies, using new words in a sentence based on the ANOVA result show F.
= 1.
509, p = .
215, indicating no statistically significant difference across levels.
Writing new words in a notebook: F.
= 718, p = .
047 suggests a significant difference among levels, meaning that students at different levels vary in their tendency to write new words for memorization.
Repeating new words to oneself resulted in F.
= 3.
014, p = .
032, indicating a significant difference, whereby higher-level students might use this method more effectively than lower-level ones.
While writing down words is significantly different across levels, repetition also shows a difference, suggesting that higher-level Table 5.
The effect of the level of study on traditional methods of learning English 1- Use new English words in a sentence.
2- Write the new words on paper or in a 3- Repeat the new words to myself.
4- Translate the new words into my native 5- Follow online English lessons to learn 6- Visualize mental images to remember grammar rules.
7- Observe my mistakes and use the information to improve.
8- Practice grammar exercises.
9- Read English texts to learn grammar.
Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total (Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
Sum of Squares Mean Sig.
Square Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
10- Listen to English texts to learn grammar.
11- Listen to word pronunciations on Google Translate.
12- Try to speak with native English speakers.
13- Practice pronunciation with English speakers or other learners.
14- Read newspapers, stories, or books in English.
15- Read for enjoyment in English.
16- Skim the English text quickly first, then reread it carefully.
17- Focus on main headings and subheadings in English texts.
18- Listen to English songs.
19- Watch movies or TV shows in English.
20- Pay attention to people speaking English.
21- Chat with people online in English.
22- Discuss English learning materials and information with others.
23- Participate in group discussions in English.
24- Write essays and short stories in English in my free time.
25- Write notes, text messages, and reports in English.
26- Write simple, uncomplicated words in meaningful sentences.
27- Try to finish English homework before the 28- Set a specific study schedule for exams.
Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total (Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
29- Try various methods for studying English.
30- Maintain a balance between my life and learning English.
31- Motivate myself with positive self-talk.
32- Seek help from experienced individuals to correct my English mistakes.
33- Record my progress in learning English in a 34- Compare my English learning progress with my prior knowledge.
35- Evaluate myself through tests.
Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups (Combine.
Fourth, concerning reading and listening strategies, listening to English texts to learn grammar: F.
= 4.
359, p = .
006 is significant.
Though reading English texts for grammar:
= 1.
205, p = .
310 is not significant, (Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
(Combine.
Within Groups Total Second, translating new words into the native language: F .
= 0.
154, p = .
927, indicates no significant difference across levels.
This suggests that translation remains a common method among all levels, implying that EFL Omani students continue relying on their native language to support their English learning regardless of proficiency.
Third, grammar learning strategies following online English grammar lessons showed F.
= 047, p = .
374, which is not significant.
Visualizing mental images for grammar rules: F.
= 1.
p = .
352 is also not significant.
Similarly, observing mistakes for improvement: F.
= 1.
913, p = 130 and practicing grammar exercises: F.
= 1.
294, p = .
279 are not significant.
In general, no significant differences were found across levels, suggesting that students at all levels use similar grammar learning methods.
This may indicate a lack of differentiation in how grammar is taught or studied, implying that grammar learning remains uniform across academic progression.
(Combine.
Within Groups Total Between Groups students rely more on these strategies compared to beginners.
Lower-level students may not be as disciplined in noting new words, while advanced students might integrate writing and repetition more effectively.
(Combine.
listening to English songs: F.
= 3.
840, p = .
011, and watching movies or TV shows in English: F.
= 3.
078, p = .
029 are significant.
It can be reported that listening-based strategies are significantly different across levels, suggesting that higher-level students engage with these activities more frequently than beginners.
contrast, reading strategies did not show significant differences, which may suggest that reading habits are more stable across different levels of Fifth, speaking and pronunciation strategies showed significant differences.
More specifically, speaking with native speakers: F.
= 4.
p = .
008, practicing pronunciation with others:
= 3.
319, p = .
022, and participating in group discussions: F.
= 3.
045, p = .
are significant.
This can reveal that speaking and pronunciation-related strategies show significant differences across levels, suggesting that higherlevel students engage in active communication more frequently than lower-level students.
This may indicate that confidence and proficiency increase with level progression, leading students to seek more interaction with native and fluent The dataset examines whether the level of study significantly affects traditional methods of learning English.
The analysis is based on ANOVA, with statistical significance .
-value.
and effect sizes (Eta Square.
Statistically Significant Differences .
< 0.
were found in the following traditional methods of learning English among Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
EFL Omani students.
writing new words on paper .
= 0.
, repeating new words to oneself .
= .
, listening to English texts to learn grammar .
= 0.
, speaking with native English speakers .
= 0.
, practicing pronunciation with others .
= 0.
, listening to English songs .
= 0.
watching movies or TV shows in participating in group discussions .
= 0.
These results indicate that the level of study significantly affects the use of these traditional methods.
In contrast, most of the other traditional methods, including translating words, reading English texts, following online lessons, and using grammar exercises, showed no significant differences across levels of study.
However, the largest Effect Size (Eta Square.
were found in the following traditional methods of learning English by EFL Omani students:
listening to English texts to learn grammar .
speaking with native speakers .
, listening to English songs .
, practicing pronunciation .
, watching movies/TV shows .
and group discussions .
These indicate moderate effects, meaning the level of study plays a meaningful role in these learning behaviors.
English learning activities among EFL Omani The mean scores of general AI use in learning English range from 3.
11 (Level Thre.
49 (Level Fou.
, suggesting that higher-level students use AI applications slightly more, but the differences are small.
Concerning vocabulary learning.
Level Two .
and Level Four .
students report higher AI use, whereas Level Three students show the lowest .
As for writing skills improvement.
Level Two students .
use AI more, whereas Level Three students report the least .
Regarding speaking skills strengthening.
Levels One.
Two, and Four have similar usage .
30Ae3.
, whereas Level Three is the lowest .
However, in reading and listening skills enhancement, minor variations exist, with means ranging from 3.
06 to 3.
Regarding grammar learning and pronunciation accuracy.
Levels Two and Four students show slightly higher means than other levels.
The strategy related to the translation of new words showed that the highest usage is observed in Level One .
, decreasing slightly in higher levels.
It could be concluded that In Table 6, the dataset provides mean scores the means suggest that AI-integrated methods are across four study levels for various AI-integrated used across all study levels, but there is no clear Table 6.
The effect of the level of study on AI-integrated language learning strategies Mean St.
Dev.
St.
Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 38- Use language AI applications to improve writing Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Descriptives 36- Use language AI applications to learn English.
37- Use AI applications to acquire new vocabulary.
39- Use language AI applications to strengthen Level 1 speaking skills.
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
40- Use language AI applications to enhance reading Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 41- Use language AI applications to improve Level 1 listening skills.
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 42- Use language AI applications to learn English Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 43- Use language AI applications to enhance Level 1 pronunciation accuracy.
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total 44- Use language AI applications to translate the Level 1 meanings of new words.
Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Total linear trend showing increased usage with study AI-assisted vocabulary learning and writing improvement show the most differences between levels, suggesting that specific skills may influence AI adoption more than general proficiency levels.
However.
EFL Omani students in Level Three consistently report the lowest AI usage, which could indicate external factors .
, curriculum difficulty, engagement level.
In contrast, the highest AI use is seen in word translation, especially among Level One students, suggesting beginners rely more on AI for direct translation rather than deeper language learning.
The ANOVA tests show that none of the differences in AI usage across study levels are statistically significant .
-values > 0.
among EFL Omani students.
This indicates that the level of study does not have a significant effect on AIintegrated learning methods for English.
Although some variations exist in AI usage patterns across study levels, these differences are not statistically This suggests that AI-integrated learning is used relatively consistently regardless of the studentsAo level of study.
IV.
DISCUSSION
This study employed quantitative research to examine English learning strategies among EFL Omani students, comparing traditional and AI-assisted methods.
The findings revealed that traditional methods, particularly vocabulary memorization, translation, and structured learning, were dominant.
These three strategies form the basis of learning foreign languages.
On the other hand.
AI tools were moderately used, mainly for translation, vocabulary learning, and pronunciation, but less so for grammar and writing.
In both groups of foreign language learning strategies, vocabulary learning and translation are fundamental.
Gender differences showed that female students were more engaged in structured learning strategies.
However, the study finds no statistically significant gender differences in the use of AI-integrated applications for learning English.
Further, the findings reveal that lower-level students rely heavily on structured techniques like writing new words, repetition, and translation, whereas higher-level students gradually shift toward interactive and communicative strategies.
Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
such as speaking with native speakers, listening to English media, and engaging in discussions.
This shows the linear track of learning foreign languages among non-native speakers of English, starting with learning new words and ending with speaking and listening.
That is.
Arab learners including EFL Omani students learn reading and writing skills first, followed by speaking and listening skills in contrast with the natural order of acquiring However, strategies of learning grammar seem to be consistent across all studentsAo levels, thereby demonstrating a standardized instructional approach.
A key observation is that vocabulary learning and translation of new words are the most common AI-assisted learning strategies, with higher mean scores compared to AI usage for writing, reading, and grammar.
This aligns with Souriyavongsa et al.
, who found that students relied on vocabulary books and electronic dictionaries.
These findings imply that as students advance in their language learning process, they are willing to implement more active learning methods, which may boost both fluency and confidence in using English.
Moreover, studentsAo level of study does not significantly influence studentsAo use of AI-integrated methods for learning English.
This result aligns with Tamimi and RazeqAos .
study, which emphasizes that though students adopt several strategies for learning English, their awareness and effective utilization of these strategies require further improvement and enhancement.
However, this result contradicts previous findings (KashefianNaeeini & Maarof, 2.
that showed senior students utilize more strategies than freshmen.
The findings also point out that students in level three reported the lowest usage of AIintegrated language learning strategies.
This result contrasts with Sedighi and Zarafshan .
, who revealed that senior students adopt more strategies than freshmen.
A possible reason can be associated with the greater academic pressure faced by students at this level, thus reducing their engagement with AI-integrated language learning The inconsistency in these studies implies that external factors like curriculum demands or studentsAo comfort with AI technology could impact AI adoption more than the level of study Pedagogically, these findings advocate AIintegrated methods as a complement rather than a replacement of the traditional learning strategies.
These results are in line with Rubaai et al.
who highlighted the significance of adjusting teaching strategies based on studentsAo preferred learning styles.
The variations in adopting AI tools across studentsAo skills and levels highlight the need for educators to provide targeted guidance on effective AI usage in the teaching and learning CONCLUSIONS The findings illustrated that both traditional and AI-integrated methods of foreign language learning are utilized with distinct patterns of preference among EFL Omani students.
Traditional methods, namely translating words into Arabic, writing new words in notebooks, and practicing pronunciation, are dominant.
On the other hand.
AI-integrated language learning strategies are gaining traction, especially in vocabulary learning, pronunciation improvement, and listening comprehension.
Consequently, these findings imply that AI is predominantly used as a supplementary tool rather than a replacement for traditional language learning Overall, though the findings imply that AI is a valuable resource in English language learning, its impact is not significantly influenced by studentsAo academic levels.
However, this study has several limitations that should be considered while interpreting the results.
First, the dependence on self-reported data might lead to response bias, since students may either overestimate or underestimate their use of AI and traditional learning strategies.
Second, the sample consists of only students from one public university in Oman, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.
Additionally, the study did not consider employing qualitative insights into studentsAo experiences and perspectives of AI integration in language learning, which could provide a deeper understanding of the challenges and benefits associated with AI-based learning.
Future studies could also explore the possible effect of specific instructional interventions on enhancing AI adoption rates across varied levels.
This implies encouraging lower-level students to utilize writing and repetition methods early to increase their vocabulary retention.
Moreover, longitudinal studies tracing studentsAo development over time with AI-assisted foreign language learning could provide valuable insights into the long-term benefits and limitations of integrating AI Nayef Jomaa / Jurnal Arbitrer - Vol.
12 No.
into English language instruction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
AuThis research was funded by the Ministry of The relevant informed consent was obtained from Higher Education.
Research and Innovation the university, the Preparatory Studies Center, and (Sultanate of Oma.
, grant number (MoHERI/ BFP/UTAS/2.
, and The APC was funded by (MoHERI/BFP/UTAS/2023 Ay
CREDIT AUTHOR STATEMENT
DECLARATION OF COMPETING
Nayef Jomaa: Designed the whole study, prepared INTERESTS the questionnaire, analysed the data, wrote the Badri Mudhsh: helped in designing The authors declare that they have no known the questionnaire, collecting the data, and writing competing financial interests or personal the literature review.
Khalid AlGhafri: helped relationships that could have appeared to influence in collecting the data, overall proofreading, and the work reported in this paper.
writing the discussion.
ETHICS STATEMENT
REFERENCES