Exploring Vocabulary Use During English Writing Among First-Year EFL Students: A Qualitative Study
Keywords:
vocabulary use, EFL writing, Lexical Decision-Making, think aloud protocol, qualitative case studyAbstract
Vocabulary use is essential in English writing because learners must make continuous lexical decisions to express ideas accurately and appropriately. Previous studies have primarily examined vocabulary mastery, lexical diversity, and writing quality as measurable outcomes, providing limited insight into how learners use vocabulary during the writing process. This study explored how first-year EFL students used vocabulary while composing English descriptive texts. A qualitative case study was conducted with 30 first-year English Education students at Universitas Islam Lamongan, Indonesia. Data were collected through descriptive writing tasks, think-aloud protocols, and stimulated recall interviews, and analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Following preliminary coding of all writing products, six information-rich cases were purposively selected for in-depth analysis. The findings revealed that vocabulary use was a dynamic and recursive process involving five interconnected stages: lexical retrieval, lexical search, lexical selection, lexical evaluation, and lexical revision. The integration of multiple data sources showed that students continuously negotiated between their lexical knowledge, cultural meanings, communicative intentions, and contextual demands while composing texts. These findings reconceptualize vocabulary as a strategic process rather than merely a linguistic product. The study suggests that vocabulary instruction should emphasize process-oriented lexical strategies, including searching, evaluating, and revising vocabulary, to foster more effective writing development in EFL contexts.
References
Ait Hammou, B., Larouz, M., Fagroud, M., & Akki, F. (2023). Aspects of EFL University Learners’ Lexical and Phraseological Proficiency as Predictors of Writing Quality.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2023.32726
Albelihi, H. H. M. (2022). Lexical and cohesive links in EFL learners’ writing: Exploring the use of task based language teaching. Frontiers in Education, 7, 996171. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.996171
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications.
Buschle, C., Reiter, H., & Bethmann, A. (2022). The qualitative pretest interview for questionnaire development: Outline of programme and practice. Quality & Quantity, 56(2), 823–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01156-0
Byrne, D. (2022). A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & Quantity, 56(3), 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
Choemue, S., & Bram, B. (2021). Lexical Richness in Scientific Journal Articles: A Comparison between ESL and EFL Writers. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 147–167. https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v6i1.349
Granados, A., López-Jiménez, M. D., & Lorenzo, F. (2022). A longitudinal study of L2 historical writing: Lexical richness and writing proficiency in Content and Language Integrated Learning. Ibérica, (43), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.17398/2340-2784.43.129
Hartini, L. W., & Suri Ardini, A. (2024). Relationship Between Indonesian EFL Learners’ Vocabulary Knowledge and English Competencies. Journal of English and Education (JEE), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.20885/jee.v10i1.33651
Kang, E. Y. (2024). Model-based feedback for L2 writing revision: The role of vocabulary size and language aptitude. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12480
Kwanghyun Park, & Colin walker. (2022). Lexical richness in L2 students’ writing and the native-speaker teacher’s revision: A descriptive study. The Journal of Humanities, 43(3), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.22947/IHMJU.2022.43.3.004
McKim, C. (2023). Using the literature to create a scale: An innovative qualitative methodological piece. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 26(3), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2022.2026138
Min, C., & Li, D. (2025). From Words to Writing: Vocabulary Growth and Its Impact on L2 Composition Over Time. Sage Open, 15(4), 21582440251412208. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251412208
Mishra, D. (2025). Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: An Overview. Dalam D. Mishra (Ed.), Technology Driven Language Learning: Innovations and Applications (hlm. 7–16). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-77232-0_2
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 16094069231205789. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Naji, A., & Rawshdeh, I. (2024). Writing Competence and Lexical Diversity in EFL Context of Hungarian and Jordanian University Students. IJOLTL (Indonesian Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics), 9(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.30957/ijoltl.v9i1.769
Puspitasari, M., Ratminingsih, N. M., & Santosa, M. H. (2024). The Contribution of EFL Students’ Vocabulary Mastery and Motivation to Writing Ability of Eighth-Grade Students at Smpn 5 Denpasar. J-SHMIC : Journal of English for Academic, 11(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.25299/jshmic.2024.vol11(1).16038
Qian, L. (2023). Use of lexical features in high-stakes tests: Evidence from the perspectives of complexity, accuracy and fluency. Assessing Writing, 57, 100758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2023.100758
Raufi, B. S., Mulyono, H., Ilyas, H. P., & Zulaiha, S. (2024a). Exploring Indonesian EFL students’ lexical diversity and its correlation with academic vocabulary use in an online academic writing environment. Ampersand, 13, 100196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2024.100196
Raufi, B. S., Mulyono, H., Ilyas, H. P., & Zulaiha, S. (2024b). Exploring Indonesian EFL students’ lexical diversity and its correlation with academic vocabulary use in an online academic writing environment. Ampersand, 13, 100196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2024.100196
Setyorini, A., Susanto, D. A., A.B. Prabowo K.A., & Andi Priyolistiyanto. (2026). Discourse Analysis of Students’ Writing: The Interplay Between Critical Thinking and Academic Vocabulary Use in Two Indonesian EFL Universities. ETERNAL (English Teaching Journal), 7(1), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.26877/eternal.v7i1.3155
Spring, R., & Johnson, M. (2022). The possibility of improving automated calculation of measures of lexical richness for EFL writing: A comparison of the LCA, NLTK and SpaCy tools. System, 106, 102770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102770
Suhandoko, Ningrum, D. R., Wardani, A. D., Nobair, Ach., & Intan, P. K. (2024). Academic Vocabulary Distribution in Applied Linguistics Journal Research Articles: Do SINTA Rankings Matter? Journal of Language and Education, 10(3), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2024.18411
Teng, M., & Xu, J. (2025). Pushing vocabulary knowledge from receptive to productive mastery: Effects of task type and repetition frequency. Language Teaching Research, 29(2), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221077028
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed). SAGE Publications.
Zhang, C., & Kang, S. (2022). A comparative study on lexical and syntactic features of ESL versus EFL learners’ writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1002090.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002090
Zhang, M. (2025). Exploring Reading-to-Write Strategies in Senior High School English Teaching. Frontiers in Science and Engineering, 5(4), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.54691/bm6cxb23
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
1. Copyright of this journal is possession of Editorial Board and Journal Manager, by the knowledge of author, whilst the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
2. Legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Atribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA), implies that this license lets others remix, adapt, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses.
3. Every publications (printed/electronic) are open access for educational purposes, research, and library. Other that the aims mentioned above, editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation
