TheStrategy Factor in Successful Language Learning: The Tornado Effect 9781783099757

Citation preview

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Associate Professor Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Salzburg, Austria This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical fi ndings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes fi nal-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policy-makers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 121

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning The Tornado Effect 2nd Edition

Carol Griffiths

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/GRIFFI9740 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Griffiths, Carol - author. Title: The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning: The Tornado Effect/ Carol Griffiths. Description: 2nd edition. |Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, [2018] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 121 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017054914| ISBN 9781783099733 (pbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783099740 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783099771 (kindle) | ISBN 9781783099757 (pdf) | ISBN 9781783099764 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages—Study and teaching. Classification: LCC P51.G733 2018 | DDC 418.0071—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017054914 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-974-0 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-973-3 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31–34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2018 Carol Griffiths. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Nova Techset Private Limited, Bengaluru and Chennai, India. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Acknowledgements Introduction Personal Perspectives Overview How this Book is Different

vii ix ix xii xiv

1

A Conceptual Perspective 1.1 Terminology 1.2 Defi nition 1.3 Effectiveness 1.4 Theoretical Underpinnings 1.5 Classification 1.6 Issues in Research Methodology 1.7 Conclusion 1.8 Conceptual Areas for Further Research

1 2 6 20 48 59 64 88 89

2

A Quantitative Perspective 2.1 Is Frequency of Strategy Use Related to Successful Learning? 2.2 Is Quantity of Language Learning Strategy Use Related to Successful Language Learning? 2.3 Are Some Strategy Types More Related to Successful Learning than Others? 2.4 Are Learner Variables Related to Strategy Use? 2.5 Are Contextual Variables Related to Strategy Use? 2.6 Are Target Variables Related to Strategy Use? 2.7 Do Strategies Change over Time? 2.8 How do Strategy Changes Relate to Progress? 2.9 Which is the Chicken and which the Egg? The Tornado Hypothesis 2.10 Conclusion 2.11 Quantitative Areas for Further Research

90

121 122 123

A Qualitative Perspective 3.1 The Individual Language Learner 3.2 What Can we Learn from the Interviews?

125 125 147

3

v

91 92 98 102 110 112 114 117

vi

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

3.3 Conclusion 3.4 Qualitative Areas for Further Research 4

5

160 161

A Pedagogical Perspective 4.1 The Place of Strategies in Overall Theories of Teaching 4.2 Teachability 4.3 Previous Research into Strategy Instruction 4.4 Strategy Instruction Programmes 4.5 Teachers’ Perceptions 4.6 The Classroom Experience 4.7 How Should Strategy Instruction be Conducted? 4.8 What Should be Included in Strategy Instruction? 4.9 The Issue of Confidence and the Tornado Effect 4.10 Learner Variables 4.11 Situational Variables 4.12 Target Variables 4.13 Teacher Training 4.14 Conclusion 4.15 Pedagogical Areas for Further Research

163 166 168 172 176 177 179 181 184 186 189 190 203 205 206

Conclusion 5.1 The Strategy Concept 5.2 Quantitative Research 5.3 Qualitative Research 5.4 Pedagogical Research 5.5 Conclusion

207 207 208 209 210 211

Appendix 1: Language Skills Development Strategy Questionnaire Appendix 2 : English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI) Appendix 3 : Interview Guide Appendix 4 : The English Language Development Strategy Inventory (ELLSI - Teachers’ Version) Appendix 5 : Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory (TaLLSI) – 2016 Glossary References Index

162

212 215 216 217 218 221 235 261

Acknowledgements

As anyone who has written a book will know full well, a book doesn’t just write itself. It requires family who give you the space to get on with it, so thanks and love to my patient family. And it requires understanding friends who forgive your many refusals of their kind invitations, and who are still friends at the end of it: my heartfelt thanks to them for their muchvalued forbearance and support. And thanks to the reviewers of the previous edition of this book, most of whose comments are treasured for their complimentary and positive nature. But the insightful and constructive comments were also useful, and have, I hope, contributed to improvements in this edition. And thanks to my many lovely colleagues and students who have generously adopted the ‘guinea pig’ role and patiently fi lled out questionnaires or answered interview questions. The whole process of data-gathering would be impossible without them. Especially worthy of mention in this regard is my colleague Dr Adem Soruç, who went to a lot of time and trouble to gather the data which forms the main basis for the new quantitative data in Chapter 2. Thanks also to Auckland Institute of Studies in New Zealand, where I currently hold the position of Adjunct Research Professor. I have worked for AIS several times over the years, and always feel as though I am coming ‘home’ when I am back there. Thanks are especially due to Y.S., John Wood and Richard Smith, all of whom have been there since the beginning. Thanks for your support over many years. And fi nally, I would like to thank the people at Multilingual Matters. MM is a very easy, efficient, courteous company to work with, and I would like to thank them for making the production of this book as smooth and stress-free as writing and publishing a book can ever be. Many thanks to all, Carol

vii

Introduction

Personal Perspectives

In 2005, Zoltan Dörnyei asked the provocative question ‘Do learning strategies exist?’ Of course they do! We need strategies for everything we do in life, from arranging a holiday, to passing the exams we need, to managing our job, to buying a house or a car (or anything, for that matter), to planning for a comfortable retirement, down to the most mundane things such as how to sort our rubbish. Why should developing a language be any different? Personally, I learnt about the importance of strategies at a relatively early age. Up until the time I was about twelve years old, my school life had been very happy. I had been blessed with kind and patient teachers who encouraged me with praise and good advice. Therefore, I had done well at school and had enjoyed my time there. Shortly after my twelfth birthday, however, my father changed his job. My new school was very different from my old one. Instead of the kindly teachers I was used to, Miss Campbell was a strict disciplinarian who seemed to take great delight in finding fault with anything I did. She never called me by my name: I was always ‘the New Girl’ to her. Discipline could be extremely punitive, from writing out many pages of repetitive lines to long periods of detention, though only the boys got the strap, for which, at least, I was grateful. Although I found the whole atmosphere of the school repressive, this was not my major difficulty. The main problem was the curriculum. My previous school had emphasized creativity and self-expression, whereas my new school had a much more formal approach. I found myself being expected to answer questions on nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, articles, prepositions, subjects, objects, complements, predicates. I had never even heard these terms, and had absolutely no understanding of what they meant. If Miss Campbell had been talking Martian I could hardly have been more bewildered. My grammatical ignorance proved to be fertile ground for Miss Campbell’s ridicule, since she knew almost for certain that if she asked me a question I would get it wrong.

ix

x

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

The time came for a big test which, it was announced, would be held the following Monday. Forlornly, I went to Miss Campbell to ask for help. With a sweeping gesture of impatience, she told me to ask one of the other pupils. The other kids, however, had better things to do than spend their lunchtime tutoring a newcomer. I took my textbook home on Friday night, and, without too much expectation of success, set to work to try to make sense of its contents. I read the defi nitions of the unfamiliar concepts, wrote them out to help myself remember them, read the examples, did the exercises and checked my answers from the back of the book. By means of these strategies I found myself gradually achieving some understanding of the alien subject matter. By Sunday night, I found I could do the exercises and get most of them right. And on Monday I got full marks in the test. Miss Campbell seemed surprised and even a little disappointed: she now had to fi nd someone else to serve as the object of her scorn. Although she never paid me the compliment of calling me by my name, I suppose I earned from her a kind of grudging respect for having achieved beyond her expectations. And although we never actually liked each other, at least she more or less left me alone after that. This was a most uncomfortable experience, and a most unhappy time. However, it taught me a valuable lesson which I have never forgotten: in this life we are ultimately responsible for our own success or failure. Although other people, such as good teachers, can be very helpful, and can make the task easier and more enjoyable, in the end it is we who do the learning. If we develop sound strategies which are helpful to us, which suit our individual characteristics, and which are appropriate for the situation and the task at hand, there is almost nothing we cannot achieve with sufficient effort and determination. A number of other personal perspectives are narrated in Oxford, Griffiths et al. (2014) in the special strategies issue of System. In this issue, Rebecca Oxford describes how, as a teenager, she used many strategies to help learn Latin. For instance, she created grammar charts and wrote vocabulary lists which she later clustered into meaningful groups. However, she found that these strategies were not very helpful when it came to developing oral communication skills in Russian, so she developed a different strategy to fill this gap: drinking beer with her Russian teacher and fellow students at a local bar while chatting in Russian. She found that strategies involving rhythm and visual imagery helped her considerably in learning languages, such as Latin and German. When learning Spanish, she read newspapers, eavesdropped on conversations, and used strategies such as guessing from context and analysing words and sentences. When she went to Brazil, she found she could transfer these strategies to reading newspapers and listening to conversations in Portuguese. As Oxford, Griffiths et al. (2014) puts it: ‘strategies can help people go places they could not otherwise go and accomplish things they could not otherwise accomplish’ (2014: 16).

Introduction xi

In the same issue of System (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014), Ana Longhini writes about her experience of teaching in Argentina, where about half of the students in public high schools do not graduate. Although this high drop-out rate is officially attributed to students not having the ‘disposition’ to learn, Ana believes that the real reason is that students do not know how to learn. When Ana exposes her graduate students to these ideas, ‘they look as if the veil on their eyes had been lifted’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 18) and they become enthusiastic about the possibility of empowering their less successful students. She finds that some strategies have to be slightly adapted to fit the Argentinian/Spanish culture, and they are complemented with others that emerge from the context, always considering the particular task for which they are intended. Ana teaches her students about the nature and significance of strategies, and how to use, monitor, evaluate and transfer them. Strategies are integrated into course materials and students are encouraged to discuss and reflect on their use and how to transfer them to other tasks. She takes examples from everyday life by getting students to reflect on the development of their L1 language skills before getting them to consider how to develop their target language. In order to illustrate, Ana finds it useful to talk about her own language learning experiences. In this way, students know that she shares their feelings. Andrew Cohen also shares his experiences in the 2014 special strategies issue of System. As he puts it, by the age of 26 he had already studied seven foreign languages (Latin, French, Spanish, Aymara, Italian, Quechua, Portuguese). He was, therefore, obviously already a strategy user, but, in his own words, ‘not an enlightened one’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 20), when he met Joan Rubin. Joan was in the process of conducting her pioneering research into strategies, and Andrew became interested in looking for ways to support learners to become more strategic, which has continued as a life-long preoccupation. Over the years since he has also trained teachers and published widely on the subject of strategies. In addition, he continues to walk the talk himself by learning his 13th language (Mandarin Chinese). In the same special strategies issue (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014), Ernesto Macaro describes how he coped when, at the age of seven, his Italian parents decided to move to England. Although, as he puts it, he didn’t speak a word of English, he was obviously already (at age seven) very strategically aware: ‘I just sat in the classroom and listened to this stream of sound (mostly from the teacher!) and tried to visualize where the gaps might be. Later, when the gaps had become more obvious, I used my Italian to try and remember English spelling’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 22). By the age of 13, when he was allowed to learn French, he amazed the other kids in his class by being able to work out (to them) unfamiliar words using his Italian cognates. Later still, when studying in Provence, he used the strategies of doing everything he could to meet and live with French people, to keep communicating, and ‘lubricating any articulation difficulties with vin ordinaire’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al.,

xii

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

2014: 22). Later again, when he became a language teacher in secondary schools, he ‘had this large palette of strategies at my disposal’ (2014: 22). As Ernesto nicely puts it, ‘strategies are the essential ingredients in the language learning sandwich. If the filling is the linguistic knowledge, strategies are the bread that stops the filling from spreading uselessly all over your hands. The important thing is that without strategies, your linguistic knowledge (basically vocabulary and grammar) is pretty useless. It’s what you do with your linguistic knowledge that counts’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 22). And Vee Harris provides another personal perspective in the System special strategies issue (2014). As she describes it, the impetus to set off  on the strategy journey came when she ran a teacher training course for modern language post-graduate students in London. Working alongside experienced teachers who were experimenting with promoting learner independence, Vee was struck by the pupils’ lack of strategic awareness, which left them ‘ill-equipped to make the most of their learning opportunities’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 23). At about the same time, she went to Kenya on holiday. As she describes it, she ‘struggled to remember how to say “see you later” in Swahili. I wrote down what it sounded like: “tutuanabadeye” and decided to try out strategies like association and imagery to help me remember it. So I drew a picture of a banana in a tutu with a black eye. The phrase stuck … So I was hooked!’ (Oxford, Griffiths et al., 2014: 23). So, as these personal narratives clearly illustrate, strategies do exist, and they are important, and language learners do use them whether they are actually aware of doing so, or whether they actually use the term ‘strategy’ or not. Overview

The strategy concept was first brought to wide attention with the publication of Joan Rubin’s seminal article ‘What the “good language learner” can teach us’ (1975). In the same year, Stern’s (1975) similarly titled ‘What can we learn from the good language learner?’ was also published. At the time, probably few expected that these articles would sow the seeds of controversies which would still be unresolved or only partly resolved several decades later. Objectives

In the hope of resolving some of the remaining controversies, the objectives of this book are therefore to: • •

clarify basic concepts, especially of terminology, definition, effectiveness, theoretical underpinnings, classification and research methodology; address fundamental questions regarding the relationships among successful language development and strategy frequency and quantity,

Introduction xiii

• • •

strategy type, strategy use according to learner, situational or target variables and strategy development; consider strategy effectiveness from an individual point of view, particularly in relation to a range of learner variables; discuss pedagogical issues, especially relating to teacher perceptions and training, classroom and learner factors, methodology and content, as well as considering situational and target variables; identify areas still requiring research clarification, and provide suggestion and guidance for data collection and analysis.

Aims

The book aims to achieve these objectives by means of: • • • • •

an extensive review, analysis and re-interpretation of the existing literature; providing quantitative research evidence for the fundamental questions noted above by means of empirical studies; providing qualitative research evidence regarding individual strategy use by means of interviews; providing pedagogical research and drawing implications for classroom practice and teacher education; recommending areas still requiring further research and providing guidance in data collection and analysis.

Audience

The strategy concept is of interest to a potentially wide range of readers, but this book is especially intended for an audience of: • • •

students working on a variety of diploma or degree programmes in the language development area for whom the discussion and references would be extremely useful when completing assignments or theses; teacher educators, practising teachers or teacher trainees for whom the pedagogical implications of the numerous fi ndings described in the book are especially relevant; researchers, for whom the numerous under-researched areas pointed out may help to indicate directions for future useful studies. In addition, guidance is given for the collection and analysis of data.

Organization

The topics of the book are organized into four main chapters. •

Chapter 1 deals with the essential concepts of terminology, effectiveness, underlying theory, classification and research methodology, and attempts a defi nitive defi nition based on essential elements extracted from the literature.

xiv

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

•

Chapter 2 looks at the answers to some basic questions regarding strategy use and the relationship to other variables and to successful language development outcomes. It reports a number of studies which address some of the vexed issues involved. Chapter 3 approaches the strategy issue from the individual student’s point of view. Although quantitative fi ndings such as those presented in Chapter 2 are valuable, and may well be used to inform teaching practice, individuals never quite conform to statistical expectations, and it is essential to allow for individual variation when considering effective language development and strategy use. Chapter 4 looks at the pedagogical research. Studies of teacher perceptions and of strategy based instruction are reviewed, along with fi ndings regarding methodology and content. Learner, situational and target variables are considered as well as issues for teacher training.

•

•

How this Book is Different

•

• • • •

The strategy field has at times been criticized for being atheoretical (for instance, Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 1994, 2008; Macaro, 2006). This book addresses underlying theoretical issues in the first chapter by looking at terminology, defi nition, theoretical underpinnings and classification systems. This book also takes a look at issues in research methodology and provides suggestions and guidance for collecting and analysing data. Rather than merely discuss the concepts, this book presents evidence from empirical studies for each of the fundamental questions posed in Chapter 2. In addition to the quantitative view taken in Chapter 2, the book takes a qualitative look at strategy use by individuals in Chapter 3 and considers the implications of the interview data. Finally, in Chapter 4, rather than looking at strategies divorced from the ‘real world’ of the classroom, this book looks at the issues from the teaching/learning point of view.

In addition, the book contains:

• • • • • •

multiple suggestions for further research; guidance for how to collect and analyse research data; a glossary which explains essential terms; an extensive bibliography; appendices containing the instruments used in the studies which might be useful for replication studies; an index for ease of reference.

Introduction xv

How this edition is different

• • • • • • • • • • •

The existing literature has been updated. Additional personal narratives have been added to reinforce the message that strategies are important in successful target language development. Conceptual perspectives have been refi ned and extended. New studies have been added. Quantitative data have been re-analysed. Information about data collection methods has been added. Guidance on data analysis methods has been added. Qualitative data has been updated and extended. Recent pedagogical developments have been added. The glossary has been extended. References have been updated.

It is my own fi rm belief that effective strategies are an essential tool for learners who want to succeed at developing language. I therefore hope that this book may contribute to this success, and help to spare learners the stress, frustration and potential discouragement which may come with lack of knowledge of how to go about their language development.

1 A Conceptual Perspective

There is an old proverb which states: ‘Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him how to fish and he eats for a lifetime’. Applied to the language field, this proverb might be interpreted to mean that if students are provided with answers, the immediate problem is solved. But if they are taught the strategies to work out the answers for themselves, they may be empowered to manage their own language development. It is this fundamental premise on which this book is based. Over the years, a great deal of effort has gone into developing theories, methods and approaches for teaching language (such as the Grammar Translation Method, Audiolingualism and the Communicative Approach). However, for many years, issues relating to the learner were treated with ‘relative neglect’ (Dansereau, 1978: 78) and much less attention was paid to the language development process from the learner’s point of view (Tarone & Yule, 1989). Although valuable work was done on questions of how language is acquired/learnt/developed (for instance, Eckman et al., 1984; Ellis, 1986; Krashen, 1981; Winitz, 1981), when it is considered that the learner forms one half of the teacher/learner partnership, it might be considered surprising that, in general, the signifi cance of the learner’s role was so long ‘underestimated’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2001: 12). In more recent years, however, the learner perspective has received much more attention, an early example of this trend being Nunan’s (1988) The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Indeed, we might suggest that the learner-focused perspective had begun in the 1970s, when the possibility that success in language development might be related to how students go about the task was explored by writers such as Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), Hosenfeld (1976) and Naiman et al. (1978). Writers such as O’Malley (1987), Oxford (1990, 2011), Wenden (1991), Cohen (1998, 2011), Chamot (2001, 2008), Harris (2001), Macaro (2006), Gu (2012) and Griffiths (2008b, 2013) have continued to suggest that learners might be able to develop language more effectively by the use of strategies, which have the potential to be ‘an extremely powerful learning tool’ (O’Malley et al., 1985: 43). O’Malley et al. noted, however, that there was ‘no consensus’

1

2

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

(1985: 22) regarding basic concepts such as terminology, defi nition, classification and underpinning theory, which was creating ‘confusion’ (1985: 22) and impeding research. Although this was written more than 30 years ago, ‘differences of opinion still exist’ (Oxford, 2017: 51). This book hopes to contribute to furthering the cause of consensus in the interests of promoting more productive research. 1.1 Terminology

Some of this ambiguity arises at the very basic level of terminology. This applies especially to the language development tool phenomenon itself, to the language being developed, to the learning/acquisition/ development distinction and to those who are trying to develop a new language. Strategy

Although promising in terms of its potential to facilitate successful language development, there has been ‘considerable confusion’ (O’Malley et al., 1985: 22) in the strategy field; indeed there has been a great deal of controversy over the very term strategy itself, before we even begin to think about defi nition, classification and theory. Consensus is not assisted by some writers’ use of conflicting terminology such as learning behaviours (Politzer, 1983; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985; Wesche, 1977), tactics (Seliger, 1984) and techniques (Stern, 1992). These rival terms are often used more or less (but not always exactly) synonymously with the term strategy as used elsewhere in the literature. Strategy, of course, is originally a military term, as some (for instance, Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Oxford, 1990, 2011a) point out, and there are those who fi nd the somewhat bellicose overtones of the term unfortunate. A military strategy tends to be an overall plan of attack or ‘plans for winning a war’ (Oxford, 2011b: 168); the term tactics tends to be applied to smaller manoeuvres within the overall strategy. Perhaps, however, we do not need to concern ourselves too much with the way the term was used in battle when we are applying it to language development, although it is an interesting comparison!

Terminology – Strategy

Of all the competing terms which might be chosen, the term strategy would seem to have the longest history and to have been used most frequently and consistently over the years. For this reason, strategy is the term which will be used for the purposes of the present book.

A Conceptual Perspective

3

According to Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991: 199), the term strategy was used by Rubin (1975) ‘in perhaps the earliest study in this area and it enjoys the widest currency today’ (for instance, among many others, Chamot, 1987; Cohen, 1991, 2011; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Harris, 2001; Lam & Wong, 2000; O’Neil, 1978; Oxford, 1990, 2011a; Pearson, 1988; Purpura, 1999; Wenden, 1985; Weinstein, 1978). It is acknowledged, however, that strategy is not the only term which has been, or which might be, used to cover the behaviours involved. Although the term tactics is employed by some writers to denote a specific activity within an overall strategy (for instance, Oxford, 2011a), the point at which a given behaviour ceases to be a tactic and becomes a strategy or vice versa is not entirely easy to pinpoint. Is an action such as asking a more knowledgeable classmate for help with words I don’t understand, for instance, a tactic or a strategy? If it is considered a tactic within, say, a broader strategy such as using resources, what then would writing down the classmate’s explanation become – a subtactic? And what about repeating it to myself to remember what I have written down? In view of its well-established use in the field, and the difficulty of determining the boundaries between layers of activity if other terms are introduced, the term strategy, as defi ned in Section 1.2, will be used throughout this book in preference to alternative terms. Target language (TL)

No less controversial than the term strategy itself is the term for the language the strategies are being used to develop. Many writers opt for the term second language (SL or L2) (for instance, among many others, Ausubel, 1964; Chaudron, 1995; Cook, 1991; Donato, 2000; Harley et al., 1990; Hylenstam & Pienemann, 1985; Krashen, 1982; Phillipson et al., 1991; Schumann, 1978; Sharwood Smith, 1994; Spolsky, 1989; Wolfson & Judd, 1983), even though it may be used ‘somewhat confusingly’ (Ellis, 1994: 12). The term is confusing because it does not allow for the many students who may already be multilingual and who may be in the process of developing a third, fourth or subsequent language, and therefore it does not reflect or acknowledge the resource that learners may already possess. There is also frequently confusion between the terms second language (SL) (studied in the environment where the language is spoken, for instance international students studying English in New Zealand or USA), foreign language (FL) (studied in an environment other than where it is spoken, for instance French as it is taught in England or Turkey) and heritage language (the language derived from a particular cultural heritage spoken in a dominant language environment, for instance Hebrew as spoken in USA).

4

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Terminology – Target Language (TL)

Photo: © Colourbox.com

The language the students are trying to develop will be termed the target language for the purposes of this book, since this term encapsulates the idea of an aim or goal and is applicable irrespective of how many languages the learner already speaks, where the development is taking place or what the heritage/native/primary language may be. Other terms such as non-native language (NNL) and non-primary language (NPL), where native and primary are usually defi ned as the one spoken in the home, are not always as straightforward as might initially be supposed, since many homes and backgrounds around the world operate in more than one language. Still other terms which have been suggested, such as additional language or additive language, tend to make the language sound either marginalized or like a brand of food or petrol! In the face of these debates, the term used in this book will be target language (TL) – the one the students are aiming to develop. Acquisition/learning/development

The acquisition/learning distinction was introduced to the literature by Krashen (1976, 1981), according to whom acquisition occurs where language is absorbed in naturalistic settings (such as children in the home, or students in immersion environments); learning, on the other hand, occurs in more formal settings (such as somewhat older students in a classroom), and tends to involve purposeful effort to internalize language items, rules, and/or skills. In fact, the two terms are often used

A Conceptual Perspective

5

more-or-less interchangeably in the literature. A degree of confusion exists, however, between those who continue to make this distinction and those who use acquisition as the umbrella term (e.g. Ellis, 1986, 1994, 2008; VanPatten & Williams, 2015).

Terminology – Acquisition/Learning/Development

Krashen’s (1976, 1981) distinction between acquisition and learning has remained contentious over the years, and these terms have sometimes been used with differing meanings, at other times interchangeably in the literature. In order to avoid this confusion, the more inclusive term development will be preferred throughout this book to denote both acquisition and learning, except where there might be some specific reason to make a distinction, or where the point under discussion clearly refers either to natural acquisition or to purposeful attempts to learn. In the latter case, the terms learning and learner may be used.

There are others, however, who use the alternative term development (e.g. De Bot, 2008; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Lantolf et al., 2015; Mackey & Philp, 1998). Since this term avoids the acquisition/learning controversy, the term development will be favoured throughout this book. However, since strategy research and literature has tended more commonly to involve those trying to develop a language other than the first by means of a purposeful choice of activities (in other words, what Krashen would have called learning), and since this kind of activity is mostly what this book is about, learning (and, therefore, learners) will also be used. Speakers of other languages (SOL)

Yet another controversial term is that used for those who are trying to develop a target language. The term SOL (speakers of other languages), as favoured by publications such as TESOL Quarterly, TESOL Matters and TESOLANZ Journal, although somewhat long and clumsy, has arisen partly to avoid the second/foreign language confusion. Descriptors such as non-native, non-primary and non-English-speaking-background (NESB) have been used, but the intrinsically negative perspective of these terms make them less than universally approved. Unfortunately, the universally acceptable term for those who already speak other languages and are trying to develop a new one has yet to be coined. For the purposes of the present work, however, the term speakers of other languages (SOL) will be used.

6

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Terminology – Speakers of Other Languages (SOL)

The term speakers of other languages (SOL) will be used for this book to describe those who are trying to develop a language other than the one/s they already know, since it is well established in the field (for instance with publications such as TESOL Quarterly), avoids the confusion between second and foreign language, allows for the possibility that the student may speak any number of other languages and avoids the negative connotations of terms such as nonnative, non-primary and non-English-speaking background.

1.2 Definition

Strategies for developing language have been notoriously difficult to defi ne (for instance, Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Cohen, 1992). One of the earliest researchers in this field, Rubin (1975) provided a very broad definition of learning strategies as ‘the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge’ (Rubin, 1975: 43). By means of observing students in classrooms, observing herself, talking to good language learners and eliciting observations from teachers, Rubin isolated seven strategies characteristic of good language learners, namely: • • • • • • •

guessing/inferring (by using clues); communicating (for instance, by means of circumlocution, gestures etc.); managing inhibitions (for instance, of appearing foolish); attending to form (for instance, by looking for patterns); practising (for instance, pronunciation); monitoring one’s own and the speech of others; attending to meaning (for instance, by noticing context).

At around the same time as Rubin published her ‘good learner’ study, Stern (1975) produced a list of ten language learning strategies used by good language learners. He believed that good language learners are characterized by positive learning strategies, among which he included: • • • • • • • • • •

experimenting; planning; developing the new language into an ordered system; revising progressively; searching for meaning; practising; using the language in real communication; self-monitoring; developing the target language into a separate reference system; learning to think in the target language.

A Conceptual Perspective

7

Although Stern’s work was an important addition to the developing body of research on the relationship between language learning strategies and the successful language learner, these strategies were listed in a rather confused mixture with ‘characteristics’, such as ‘active’, ‘tolerant’, ‘outgoing’ (Stern, 1975: 316). In another pioneering piece of research at around the same time, Naiman and his colleagues (1978) also tried to find out what people known to be good at languages had in common. Identified as ‘essential for successful language learning’ (Naiman et al., 1978: 225) were strategies for: • • • • •

coming to grips with the language as a system; using the language in real communication; monitoring the interlanguage; coming to terms with the affective demands of language learning; coping with ambiguity.

As we can see, there is little agreement among these three important early studies, causing O’Malley et al. (1985: 22) to lament: ‘there is no consensus on what constitutes a learning strategy in second language learning’. Subsequently, Wenden and Rubin (1987) talk of ‘the elusive nature of the term’ (1987: 7), Ellis (1994) describes the concept as ‘fuzzy’ (1994: 529), while Cohen (1998) talks of ‘conflicting views’ (1998: 3). Ellis (1985) compares the task of defi ning strategies to stumbling blindfold round a room trying to fi nd a hidden object, or trying to work out the classification system of a whole library when you only have one or two books to go on. As Grenfell and Harris (1999) put it, ‘it is not a straight-forward matter to get inside the “black box” of the human brain and see what is going on’ (1999: 36–37). My own personal simile for this undertaking is to compare it to trying to get an octopus into a box: you no sooner think you have got it all neatly and tidily tucked away than you fi nd some bit of it has wriggled out without you noticing and is threatening to sabotage the whole endeavour.

Photo: Colourbox.com

8

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Difficulties such as those noted above led Macaro (2006) to opt against ‘offering an all-encompassing defi nition’ (2006: 320) in favour of identifying ‘a series of features essential to describing a strategy’ (2006: 320). These features included: • • • • • •

location; size; abstractness; relationship to other strategies; explicitness of goal orientation; transferability.

Gu (2012) also concludes that language learning strategy ‘is not a clearly defi nable concept’ (2012: 330), and he argues instead for a ‘prototypical core and dimensions of variation’ (2012: 330). According to Gu (2012), ‘the prototypical core of a strategy is a dynamic process with problem solving as its central aim’ (2012: 330). Meanwhile, Dörnyei and Skehan (2003: 610) had gone even further and advised abandoning the strategy concept altogether in the face of a ‘theoretical muddle’ which had never been ‘cleared away’. They recommended the adoption of the ‘more versatile’ concept of self-regulation, which ‘refers to the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 611). Others also (e.g. Boekaerts et al., 2000; Brown, 2009; Brown & White, 2010; Kormos & Csizér, 2013; Moyer, 2014; Oxford, 2011a; Ranalli, 2012; Tseng et al., 2006; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011), took up the self-regulation idea, prompting Gao (2007) to ask the somewhat desperate question: ‘Has language learning strategy research come to an end?’ (2007: 615). Winne (1995: 173), however, included strategies as one of the means used by learners to self-regulate, arguing that ‘more effective learners are self-regulating’; however, he also makes the point that self-regulating learners make ‘strategic plans for studying’. Viewed this way, rather than being replaced by the self-regulation concept, strategies become a tool, pro-actively employed by learners in the process of regulating their own learning. Rose (2012: 92) also advises against ‘throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater’, since, although there may be some ‘defi nitional fuzziness’ in relation to strategies, the self-regulation concept is no less ‘fuzzy’ (a point also acknowledged by Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Rose suggests that ‘movements towards self-regulation are not incompatible with language learning strategies. That is, it is possible to examine strategic learning both in terms of a learner’s self-regulation of the learning task, but also in terms of the cognitive and behavioural strategies they employ’ (2015: 97). So, the slippery strategy concept has hung on tenaciously, and refused to be so easily dismissed. This is evidenced by an ongoing stream of

A Conceptual Perspective

9

publications on the subject (for instance, Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Chamot, 2008; Griffiths, 2013, 2015; Cohen, 2011; Oxford, 2011a, 2017). One reason suggested by Ranalli (2012) for this enduring interest is that strategies are ‘the raw material of learner agency, and a key to understanding achievement, or the lack thereof’ (2012: 373). Recently, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) have declared strategies ‘alive and kicking’ (2015: 141) and concluded that there is potential for ‘linking up learning strategies meaningfully with the broader self-regulation concept’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015: 168). If we look carefully at the literature of the last several decades, I would like to suggest that it is possible to identify the essential characteristics of language learning strategies and to incorporate them into a workable definition. Not only this, but is essential that we should do so, since it is impossible to conduct meaningful research if we cannot even agree about what it is that we are researching. This inability to achieve defi nitional consensus has, over the years, often resulted in inconclusive or contestable findings which are frequently impossible to compare across studies, resulting in a lack of defi nite conclusions more than 40 years after the strategy concept was introduced to the language learning field. My own defi nition has, itself, evolved somewhat over the years, as I have discussed the issues and negotiated the options with others in the strategy community. But currently (and, hopefully, fi nally) my strategy defi nition has the following four basic elements: Action orientation

For students to be considered strategic, they have to exert agency and take some action (e.g. Oxford, 1990). Rubin (1975) stressed the active nature of strategies – they are what learners do. Larsen-Freeman (2001) is another who argues that the learner is not ‘merely a passive recipient’ (2001: 12) and that language learning is not merely a ‘unilateral process … dependent on some benevolent, skilful, more proficient interlocutor’ (2001: 12). Gu’s (2012) choice of the adjective ‘dynamic’ (2012: 330) might also be taken to imply an active approach. It needs to be understood, however, that although there is a considerable degree of consensus that strategies are active, not all writers agree on the nature of the activity. Macaro (2006), for instance, argues that strategies are a mental activity. Oxford (for instance, 1990, 2017), however, would include physical activities, such as writing in a notebook or physically acting out new words, as examples of strategic behaviour, although she concedes that even physical behaviour originates in the brain, so it is, therefore, originally mental (Oxford, 2017). Since these two well-known experts have somewhat divergent views on this question, researchers need to be aware that they will need to make their own decision about where they stand on the issue, to select strategy items according to their own

10

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

contexts, participants, research purpose and understanding of the concept, and to be prepared to justify their choices. Macaro and Oxford’s mental/physical divergence notwithstanding, there seems to be fairly general agreement in the literature about the activity dimension of strategies. For this reason, verbs (especially gerunds) are often used to specify strategic actions, for instance: • • • •

revising regularly; controlling schedules so that study is done; studying grammar; learning from mistakes.

and so on (taken from the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory or ELLSI, Griffiths, 2003b, 2013). Oxford (1990) in the well-known Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL chooses to express the strategic activity in terms of first person verbs, such as: • • • •

I use rhymes to remember new words; I try to find patterns; I think about my progress; I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words.

As we can see from these two inventories, the active nature of strategies tends to be reflected in the very nature of the grammar which is used to itemize them. It is this action component which distinguishes strategies from style, a closely related concept with which the strategy concept is frequently confused. The confusion began early in the literature. Working at much the same time as Rubin in the mid-seventies, Stern (1975) produced a list of ten language learning strategies which he believed to be characteristic of good language learners. At the top of the list he put ‘personal learning style’ (1975: 311), thereby confusing the concepts of learning style and learning strategy and contributing to difficulties with definition which remain to this day. The key distinction drawn by Wenden (1991) between styles and strategies is that styles are ‘the learner’s characteristic, and consistent way of perceiving, interacting with and responding to the learning environment’ (1991: 36). Styles are relatively enduring, whereas strategies are ‘amenable to change’ (Wenden, 1991: 18, author’s italics). According to Reid (1998b), learning styles are ‘internally based characteristics’ (1998b: ix), whereas learning strategies are activities which students use to promote their learning. Because of this distinction, whereas strategies are usually expressed by means of verbs (practising, using, planning and so on), learning styles are commonly identified either in adjectival terms, such as • • •

Aural Visual Kinaesthetic

(Fleming & Mills, 1992)

A Conceptual Perspective

11

or as nouns, such as • • • •

Converger Accommodator Assimilator Diverger (Kolb, 1976)

Learning styles, or ‘general approaches to learning’ (Cohen, 1998: 15) are therefore related to, but distinct from, language learning strategies, although strategy choice may be influenced by learning style (Cohen, 2012a; Griffiths, 2012; Wenden, 1991). We might expect, for instance, that a student who prefers an aural style would tend to choose strategic activities which involve the sense of hearing, a converger might select strategies which synthesize information and so on. Although strategies are sometimes defi ned as activities (e.g. Griffiths, 2008a, 2013), this term has potential for confusion with ‘Activity Theory’: according to Leont’ev (1978) human activity is complex, socioculturally mediated and goal-oriented, which represents a somewhat different perspective from what is meant by the term in relation to learning strategies. Using the term actions, which can refer to either mental (e.g. visualizing, memorizing) or physical (e.g. highlighting, note-taking) behaviour may help to avoid this possible ambiguity. Choice

In her model of language learning, Bialystok (1978) described strategies as ‘optional means for exploiting available information to improve competence in a second language’ (1978: 71). Cohen (1998) is another who argued that a basic characteristic of strategies is that they are voluntarily selected by learners. It would seem self-evident that strategies are chosen by learners, since it would, in any practical sense, be impossible to force them to employ strategies against their will. Furthermore, given the emphasis on active learner involvement which underpins the strategy concept, students who passively accept learning activities from others (e.g. the teacher) can hardly be considered strategic. Another highly contentious question has been whether or not this choice is conscious. Bialystok (1978), Oxford (1990, 2017) and Cohen (1998, 2011) among others, argue for the inclusion of the dimension of consciousness in a defi nition of language learning strategies. However, even in a medical environment, using sophisticated equipment, deciding whether a person is conscious or unconscious is far from as straightforward as it might seem. In relation to language learning, even the muchquoted Schmidt (1990) points out that conscious or unconscious have a variety of meanings, including whether the learner is aware or not, or whether something has been noticed or not, and he suggests that it is important to be clear what is meant by the terms when using them. These

12

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

ambiguities led McLaughlin (1990) to recommend that the terms should be abandoned, since they have ‘acquired too much surplus meaning’ (1990: 617). Although the term ‘conscious’ is often used in connection with strategies, it has rarely, if ever, been precisely defi ned. Surely it is impossible to learn anything if you are not conscious (used in the sense of ‘awake, thinking and knowing what is happening around you’, www.dictionary.cambridge.org): consciousness is a pre-condition for any kind of learning. The question therefore gets to be not so much ‘are strategies conscious?’, but ‘what, exactly, does ‘conscious’ mean?’. A somewhat similar difficulty exists with the concept of ‘habit’, which Oxford (2011a, 2017) applies to automatic behaviour. If, however, we are to propose that an action that a learner uses habitually is no longer a strategy, how are we to identify the point at which a strategy morphs into a habit? This is an impossibility, surely, meaning that the distinction is unfalsifiable or ‘prescientific’ (McLaughlin, 1990: 617). Or, if this distinction is to be used, it needs to be carefully defi ned and the distinctions carefully identified. The meaning of ‘habit’, or any other term, cannot be simply taken for granted in rigorous research. After all, I personally like to think that I am in control of my ‘habits’ rather than them in control of me. I choose my habitual behaviours, and I choose to continue these behaviours or not, although they may be so woven into the fabric of my lifestyle that I do not need to intentionally select them every time. Indeed, I consider my habits to be carefully orchestrated strategic behaviours, judiciously chosen and fi led away in the default section of my brain, therefore requiring minimal cognitive energy to activate, and essential to functioning as I do; and I believe this would be true of most of us. An example might be one’s morning behaviour. Personally, I tend to have a routine time to get up, I go to the kitchen to get my cornflakes and tea for breakfast (in carefully pre-selected locations so I don’t have to waste time looking for them), and while I am eating/drinking I turn on my computer to check my emails to see if anything I need to know about happened overnight. Then I go to the bathroom, have a shower, go back to the bedroom to get dressed and make the bed (so it is nice and tidy when I get home again later, providing a comfortable illusion of being in control), fi x my hair and makeup (all in familiar places), get my coat and handbag from the cupboard, put on my shoes, and leave for work – all without really thinking about it very much (but I am conscious, if only just!). The degree to which all of this is habitual only really comes home to us when we move house, and suddenly it takes twice as long to get ready in the morning, simply because the normal habitual patterns are disrupted, and new habits need to be established. But the important point is that we CAN and sometimes we DO choose new habits. Surely this is true of most of us, except where the habit has become an addiction (e.g. drugs

A Conceptual Perspective

13

or obsessive hygiene behaviours). We might even suggest that strategic habits are essential for coping with busy lifestyles (or even for any lifestyle, perhaps). Perhaps the deliberate/automatic continuum introduced by Wenden (1991) is more useful to the strategy debate. Novice learners, for instance, often need to select their strategies carefully and deliberately. As they become more expert, this selection process may become so automatic that they may be scarcely aware of it. A number of strategy experts make this point. • • •

As Gu (2012) explains, although the initial strategy selection is ‘intentionally done … the skilful execution of a strategy is done automatically’ (2012: 312). Gregersen and MacIntyre (2014) agree that strategies ‘operate somewhere on a continuum between being intentionally deliberate and fully automatic’ (2014: 148). According to Purpura (2014), strategies can be used either deliberately or automatically.

Expert learners may automatically select the strategies that they know from experience work for them given the context and the learning target, although they may also be able to switch back to deliberate selection if they strike problems which require more focused strategic attention, in other words, they can move backwards and forwards along the continuum. They can usually also verbalize their strategies if required (e.g. during think-aloud procedures), indicating that, although expert learners may not need to deliberately choose their familiar strategies most of the time, and although they may even self-report less frequent strategy use than lower level learners (e.g. Green & Oxford, 1995), this does not necessarily mean that they are not strategically active, as Leaver (2003) found with her highly proficient learners who continued to report a high level of strategy use. Strategy selection will depend on a variety of factors, especially: •

•

Individual – strategy choice is likely to vary according to a wide range of personal characteristics such as motivation, personality, style, age, gender, beliefs, nationality/ethnicity/culture, autonomy, aptitude, investment, affect (including anxiety, attribution, self-efficacy, selfconcept), proficiency level, identity and so on. Contextual – learning situation is another variable which has a strong influence on strategy selection. For instance, a student studying in a distance-education environment which is physically isolated from teachers, peers and library resources might be expected to need different strategies from a student in a well-equipped urban school or university with library resources readily-available (for instance, White, 2003). Other contextual factors which might potentially affect

14

•

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

strategy choices might include whether students are full-time or studying at night class after work (such as Alberto in the classic study by Schumann, 1975); whether they are local or whether they must cope abroad in a non-native language (for instance, Irie & Ryan, 2015); whether they are studying in their first language, or whether they must study in a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning, e.g. Dalton-Puffer & Smit, 2013), CBI (Content-based Instruction, e.g. Cammarata et al., 2016) or EMI (English as a Medium of Instruction, e.g. Doiz et al., 2012) environment. Teaching/learning method might be considered another contextual factor which students would need to consider when making effective choices regarding the strategies they wish to use: for instance, students learning in a traditional grammartranslation environment may well need different strategies if they are to be successful from those learning in a communicative environment (for instance, Griffiths, 2008e). Purpose/goal/target – the purpose for which students are studying also affects strategy choice. If, for instance, students are in the fortunate position of being able to study for their own interest or personal satisfaction, they will be able to choose those strategies which best suit their own individual or situational needs. However, students studying for an exam or a specific qualification will need to focus on whatever it is that the exam or the qualification requires, and ‘successful’ students (that is, those who pass the exam or achieve the qualification) will select strategies which help to achieve this goal. Students who are studying in some ESP (English for Specific Purposes) course (e.g. Belcher, 2009) such as Business English or English for Pilots, Doctors or Lawyers, or one of the numerous other special purpose courses which have been established to cater for particular requirements, will need to choose strategies appropriate to their learning target if they are to achieve success.

The element of choice may help to answer Dörnyei’s (2005) question: ‘what exactly is the difference between engaging in an ordinary learning activity and a strategic learning activity?’ (2005: 164) for which he gives learning vocabulary by means of a bilingual vocabulary list as an example. As Nation (1990) suggests, using a bilingual list to learn vocabulary might be a very effective way to learn a lot of vocabulary quickly. Whether or not it is a learning strategy depends on whether the learners choose it for themselves, or whether the teacher or someone else prescribes it. In other words, there is nothing about using a bilingual vocabulary list (or any other action for that matter) that identifies it as ‘ordinary’ or otherwise in itself. If students actively choose such an activity in order to learn, it is, by defi nition, a learning strategy. Having said this, and although it might sound like a straightforward theoretical distinction, in the ‘real world’ things are rarely so simple. If,

A Conceptual Perspective

15

for instance, a teacher sets a class the task of learning a vocabulary list for the weekly test, we might say this is an ‘ordinary’ learning activity, if you like. This does not, however, preclude learners (especially motivated ones) from also applying their own strategies (such as looking for cognates in the L1, contextualizing the vocabulary by using it in sentences, etc.) which then overlap with the teacher’s ‘ordinary’ activity, so that it is difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. Like most human behaviour, it is actually very complex. Nevertheless, in theory, the difference between an ‘ordinary’ activity and a ‘strategic’ one rests with the question: ‘Did the learner choose it him/herself in order to learn?’ Goal orientation

According to a number of writers and researchers (for instance, Chamot, 2001; Cohen, 2003; Oxford, 2001, 2011a) strategic behaviour implies goal-oriented, purposeful activity on the part of the learner, aiming at a particular learning target. Goals, of course, vary considerably according to the individual and the situation. But for a particular activity to be considered strategic, it must be purposefully related to a goal, and not just some kind of aimless behaviour which is undertaken in a random, haphazard fashion for no particular purpose. The specification of a goal or purpose is also listed by Macaro (2006) among his identifying features of strategies. As he points out: ‘Human action is normally considered to be directed by purpose and dependent on the pursuance of goals… . Therefore, a key feature of a strategy should be the explicitness of its goal orientation’ (2006: 328). The purposeful/goal-oriented dimension is what distinguishes strategies from skills, another concept with which strategies are commonly confused. Skills relate to the way language is used (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, emphasis added), and they are usually conceptualized in terms of reading, writing, listening and speaking. These may be further broken down into sub-skills such as skimming and scanning (for reading); paragraphing and cohesion (for writing); inferring and listening for gist (for listening); fluency and turn-taking (for speaking). All of these relate to the way students use the language they have learnt in order to send or receive messages. If we accept that language use is the key distinguishing feature of skills, we might say that, whereas learning strategies are engaged in the learning process, skills are employed to use what has been learnt. In addition, however, to their essential function to facilitate language use, I would like to argue that skills may be employed as a strategy to promote a learning goal. For instance, students may decide to use reading not merely for pleasure or to obtain information, but in order to learn idioms or to expand vocabulary (a language learning goal). They may decide to use writing in order to practise grammar; listening in order to improve

16

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Table 1.1 The dynamic interrelationship between strategies and skills Strategies: actions chosen for the purpose of achieving a goal

Strategies can be used to develop skills → Skills can be used as actions chosen for the purpose of promoting learning, i.e. as strategies ←

Skills: how language is used to communicate: Reading Writing Listening Speaking

pronunciation; or speaking in order to develop vocabulary and/or fluency. In other words, used this way, skills are being actively chosen as a tool to achieve a goal, that is, they are, by definition, strategies. Although this may be considered a rather circular argument, there is increasing contemporary recognition that language development is not a linear process (e.g. Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman, 2015). On the contrary, one aspect of language development can promote development in other areas in a highly dynamic, cyclical, productive, and mutually supportive fashion. This interrelationship is portrayed diagrammatically in Table 1.1. In practice, of course, the distinction between learning/using is not so clear-cut. For instance, if a student comes to me, as his teacher, and asks me a question about a weekend activity, how am I to know if he really wants to use his language to gain information, or if this is a strategy to practise his grammar, or if he just wants someone to talk to? Maybe he wants all of these, and maybe he achieves one or the other, all or none – human relations and intentions are rarely so cut-and-dried in real life! For the purposes of definition, however, it is important to keep the distinction clear: • •

skills are related to how language is used; strategies are actions chosen by learners in order to achieve a goal.

But aspects of language which are usually thought of as skills or sub-skills may be used for a strategic purpose, although this involves a change in the basic nature of the skill: they are being used as a means to an end rather than as an end in itself. Another complicating factor which it is important to keep in mind is that the nature of the goal itself may affect the strategies chosen and how effective the chosen strategies may be in achieving the goal in question. This issue will be further discussed in Section 1.3. Learning orientation

Language learning strategies are used by learners in order to learn. This learning may be achieved either by means of direct cognitive engagement with the material to be learnt (whether it be vocabulary, grammar,

A Conceptual Perspective

17

pronunciation, skills or whatever) or by regulating or managing this cognitive engagement (e.g. by means of planning, evaluating, time management, environmental manipulation, social interaction, affective control etc.). These different levels of strategies will be further discussed under ‘Classification’. This target distinguishes learning strategies from other types of learner strategies, such as communication strategies, whose purpose is to deal with an immediate communicative need (e.g. Tarone, 1980, 1981), compensation strategies, whose purpose is to make up for missing knowledge (Oxford, 1990) or language use strategies, whose purpose is to facilitate the deployment of already known language in real life situations (Cohen, 2011). Although these other types of learner strategies may provide learning opportunities, actual learning will only occur if learners employ learning strategies either simultaneously (e.g. by repeating the language to which they have been exposed to themselves) or subsequently (e.g. by checking a dictionary when they get home). Otherwise, it is quite possible to communicate quite effectively (e.g. by means of gestures), to obtain what one needs, but to learn nothing. Although Faerch and Kasper (1983) acknowledge that it is not always easy to differentiate between these different types of strategies, I would like to suggest that it is possible to identify the point at which a communication/compensation/use strategy becomes a learning strategy. For instance, recently when I was travelling in Turkey, I wanted to have a photo of myself with a particular set of magnificent ruins in the background (not to mention the foreground!), so I appealed to a couple of locals for help. I communicated in gestures what it was that I wanted, pointing to said ancient ruins, and handed them my camera. ‘Ah,’ they said, ‘Çok güzel fotoğraf makinesi’.

So they took my photo and handed the camera back to me with smiles all round. ‘Teşekkür ederim,’ I said, taking the opportunity to use my very limited Turkish

And there it might have ended – photo taken, inadequate linguistic resource compensated for, communication achieved, limited existing resource used. But what had they said? Now I know çok güzel – it means ‘very good’. As for the rest, cognates were sufficient for me to recognize fotoğraf – indeed, it sounds very similar to the English word when spoken. And makinesi is sufficiently close to the English ‘machine’ for me to be able to put the two together as ‘photograph machine’, therefore ‘camera’.

18

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

So, I repeated it to myself several times to help me to remember it, and checked the spelling in the dog-eared little pocket dictionary that I always carry in my bag, and wrote it down in my notebook of useful words and phrases when I could fi nd a pencil with which to do so. And recently I used fotoğraf makinesi in conversation, which impressed everyone with how much my Turkish has improved! So, in fact, a number of strategies were involved in this rather minimal piece of learning, including: • • • • •

using cognates; repeating new language to myself to activate memory; using a dictionary; recording new language in a notebook; using new language in order to practise it.

The key point is that I did not have to carry the communicative experience described above through to a learning experience: I could have left it at the point where communication had been achieved. The point at which the communication strategies changed into learning strategies really was quite clear: it was the point where I deliberately chose to learn from the encounter rather than settling for merely having communicated and got what I wanted. Another important point to note is that the list of strategies above includes only cognitive strategies, that is, those used to interact directly with the language to be learnt. Underpinning these, however, but no less important, are a range of metacognitive strategies, used to regulate or manage this interaction. In the case of the above strategy list, metacognitive strategies might include: • • • • •

planning/preparing: making sure my dictionary, pencil and notebook were in my bag; selecting: choosing appropriate strategies for the given task; monitoring: checking that the strategies I have chosen are the best ones for the task; orchestrating: making sure the strategies I have chosen work well together; evaluating: checking whether my chosen strategies have achieved the goal, and making changes as necessary.

We can say, therefore, that • •

communication/compensation/use strategies are used to convey a message and facilitate interaction, to make up for inadequate knowledge, or to deploy already known language. language learning strategies are used to learn, to commit the new material to memory, and to be able to use it when the opportunity arises.

A Conceptual Perspective

19

Synthesis

In the light of the essential elements explained above, I would like to suggest an updated basic definition of language learning strategies as follows:

Definition of language learning strategies

Language learning strategies are: *actions

(the learner has to DO something); by learners (as distinct from being imposed by someone else, e.g. the teacher); *for the purpose of (they are goal-oriented); *learning language (as distinct from e.g. communicating). *chosen

It may be noted that the defi nition suggested here varies in three specific aspects from the defi nition offered in Griffiths (2008a, 2013). •

•

•

Activities have been replaced with actions in order to avoid possible confusion with the way the former term is used in Activity Theory (Leont’ev, 1978). These actions are sometimes conceived as exclusively mental (e.g. Macaro, 2006), while other strategy specialists (e.g. Oxford, 1990, 2011a, 2017) also include behavioural manifestations of mental processes. Since there is some divergence on this question, it is important that researchers clarify what they include in the term for the purposes of any particular study. Following much further thought and discussion, the conscious element included in the previous definition has been omitted, since, as Schmidt (1990) himself points out, the term has a variety of meanings, leading McLaughlin to recommend that it ‘should be abandoned’ (1990: 617). In the light of this recommendation, Wenden’s (1991) deliberate/automatic distinction is preferred. It is important to remember, however, that deliberate and automatic are not dichotomous, but operate on a continuum somewhere between one and the other. Inexperienced learners, for instance, often need to be quite deliberate about their strategy choices, but these choices tend to become more automatic or habitual with experience (e.g. Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Gu, 2012; Purpura, 2014). Nevertheless, if expert learners encounter problems, or a new learning challenge, it is quite possible for them to revert to a more deliberate selection mode somewhere along the continuum. The idea of regulating, which refers to managing or controlling the learning process has also been omitted. Regulation is an important idea which has created much debate since it was first introduced to the strategy arena by Dörnyei and Skehan (2003). But not all strategies can be classified as regulatory. In particular, cognitive strategies, which are

20

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

aimed at direct involvement with the material to be learnt, are intended not so much to regulate (for instance by means of planning, controlling the learning environment, or managing the available time) as to remember, understand and gain knowledge of the target material. Furthermore, regulation is not actually the purpose – the purpose is learning, and all strategies (including regulatory strategies), are aimed at that goal. Therefore, regulation, although it may be an important aspect of strategy use, is not actually a basic part of the definition. These different levels of strategies will be further discussed under ‘Classification’. Dimensions of variation

Overall, it is important to remember, that although the definition suggested here offers a parsimonious definition, a ‘prototypical core’ of actions which might be considered strategies, ‘dimensions of variation’ (Gu, 2012: 330) are still possible according to the particular purposes and perspectives of specific studies. For instance, Macaro (2006) adds his six identifying characteristics; the idea of duration is added by Cohen (2011); and the element of enjoyment is added by Oxford (2011a). It is also possible that some researchers might wish to include only deliberate actions without considering actions which have become automatic or habitual. Others might want to consider only direct mental actions without including physical actions or those aimed at the regulation of learning, or vice versa. There is room for some flexibility and inclusivity here!! As Oxford (2017: 52) puts it, ‘consensus means agreement or harmony, not necessarily on every point, but in general’. The important thing is that the particular purposes of a given study should be carefully specified and justified theoretically and the basic definition tailored and explained accordingly. 1.3 Effectiveness

The issue of defi nition should be kept separate from the question of strategy effectiveness. A defi nition (see above) aims to identify and describe a phenomenon and should not imply any kind of value judgement, for instance, whether it is good or bad or more or less effective (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). The same point is made by Ehrman et al. (2003), according to whom ‘a given learning strategy is neither good nor bad; it is essentially neutral’ (2003: 315). If the action is chosen by learners for the purpose of learning, it is, by defi nition, a strategy. When considering how effective a strategy, maybe we need also to consider: • • • •

‘Why?’ (aim/objective/target/goal); ‘Where?’ (situation/context/environment); ‘How?’ (selection/co-ordination/orchestration); ‘For whom?’ (individual/personal).

A Conceptual Perspective

21

The nature of the learning aim/objective/goal/target

As the heading for this section implies, the underlying concept of what it is that a learner is trying to achieve goes by a number of names: sometimes it is referred to in terms of aims and objectives; sometimes it  is the learning goal; sometimes the learning target. And these aims or objectives, goals or targets may vary from the general to something quite specifi c (e.g. Hutchinson & Waters, 1987). As discussed previously, goal-orientation or purpose is a defi ning characteristic of a strategy, but the defi nition should be independent of how eff ective a chosen strategy may or may not be in terms of achieving a particular goal. As an example, at one of the universities where I used to work, it was common for the students when preparing for a writing exam to memorize huge tracts of text. To do them justice, they had very good memories, but for some reason that I still do not completely understand, the argument that this was not an effective strategy when it came to having to write on an unfamiliar topic, and that there were other much more effective strategies that they might have employed which would have taken no more time and produced better results, failed to impress them or to greatly change their behaviour in most cases. So can we say that memorizing these texts was not a strategy? Or was the behaviour not strategic? I would like to argue ‘No’. What they were doing was an example of an action which they chose for the purpose of learning: therefore, it was, by definition, a strategy. The fact that it was not effective is another matter. It might, after all, have been effective for a different purpose – a perfectly good strategy for learning lines for a play, for instance (which, sometimes, they did). Or it might be effective in a different situation. Learning situation/context/environment

Though long overlooked or ignored as a factor which influences learning, learning situation (also often referred to as context or environment) has in more recent years been recognized as having a major effect on learning outcomes and/or strategy choices (for instance, Norton & Toohey, 2001; Gao, 2010; Oxford, 1996). Indeed, as Ushioda (2015: 47) puts it: ‘there is a dynamically evolving relationship between learner and context, as each responds and adapts to the other’. This issue has been discussed previously and will be dealt with again later in the book, but suffice it here to say that learning context must obviously be a factor when considering strategy effectiveness. For instance: •

It would seem to be of little use to debate the effectiveness of a strategy such as using computers to develop grammatical accuracy in a poor

22

•

•

•

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

rural school where the possibility of obtaining and maintaining such expensive hi-tech equipment and software is minimal. Family and/or cultural environments are also likely to have a strong influence on the strategies which given individuals are able to choose and which may or may not be effective for them given the contexts in which their lives are conducted. A strategy such as reading for pleasure in the target language, for instance, is unlikely to be an option for a girl in a situation where the women of the family are not expected/ allowed to be educated. Students studying in a distance-learning environment are likely to need different strategies from those used by students who are attending face-to-face lessons in a conventional classroom. White (1993) discovered that the successful learners in a distance learning situation were those most adept at using metacognitive strategies. Students who are studying the target language in their own countries surrounded by those who speak their own language (sometimes referred to as an EFL/foreign language environment) have wellrecognized difficulties (e.g. Kawai, 2008). In such an environment, strategies such as: watching TV in the target language to learn idioms; listening to people talking in the target language on the bus to practise understanding ‘natural’ speech; reading target language newspapers to expand vocabulary. will probably not be easy or even possible. However, although students often expect that the mere fact of studying in a target language environment (sometimes referred to as an ESL/second language environment) will somehow make the learning easier (Skyrme, 2005), the rather naïve belief in some kind of linguistic osmosis has not always proven to be well founded (for instance, Isabelli-Garcia, 2003; Pellegrino, 1998; Regan, 1998; Wilkinson, 1998). In reality, students often fi nd it difficult to cope in learning and living situations which may be very different from those they are used to, and where they are linguistically, culturally and socially challenged in ways which may threaten their very sense of identity (Kline, 1998) and severely affect motivation (e.g. Irie & Ryan, 2015). Studying in a target language environment, therefore, is not in itself sufficient to guarantee successful learning, as described by Schumann (1976) in his classic study of Alberto, a 33-year-old Costa Rican living and working in the USA. During a 10-month period, Alberto showed very little progress with learning English, in spite of being in an input-rich environment. Since Alberto did not appear to lack ability, and his age was not considered enough reason for his slow progress, Schumann ascribed the lack of progress to ‘social and psychological distance from speakers of the target language’ (Schumann, 1976: 391).

○ ○

○

•

A Conceptual Perspective

23

Students urgently need strategies to help them cope with their learning environment, whatever it may be, and there are different types of strategies, all of which may play a part in the armoury of the self-regulating learner: strategies for maintaining motivation, communication and social strategies, strategies for managing the learning/living situation and so on. Students who leave their own familiar environments to study in a target language situation, or, for that matter, students who face challenges in their own familiar contexts, may well need all of these in addition to language learning strategies. To return to the example of memorizing texts noted previously, in some environments, the ability to memorize is highly valued. Some religions, for instance, place strong emphasis on the importance of remembering and reciting, and those who can do this well are considered to be successful, and rewarded and given status accordingly. In these kinds of situations, then, an effective strategy might be quite different from the kind of activity a learner might choose to achieve success in a more ‘creative’ or ‘communicative’ environment. In other words, the very defi nition of ‘success’ itself is context-dependent. How strategies are employed

A third factor which affects how effective strategy choices may be is how they are used. Frequently mentioned in this regard is the individual learner’s ability to coordinate strategy use. Language learning is a very complex activity, and effective learners do not use strategies in isolation (Anderson, 2008). Rather, successful learners use strategies in ‘clusters’ or ‘chains’ (Cohen, 2011: 27), and are able to choose from a repertoire of strategies those which best suit their own goals, situations and individual characteristics. The orchestration metaphor is often employed to convey the idea that strategies need to be harmonized with each other if they are to produce the desired learning outcome: strategies are not used effectively in isolation.

Photo: Colourbox.com

24

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Anderson (2008: 103) describes a student engaged in a think-aloud protocol who verbalizes his strategies while listening to a radio announcement: [He] uses his background knowledge of radio call-in contests, he identifies vocabulary that he does not know, he guesses at that unknown vocabulary, he expresses doubts about his comprehension. In short, [he] can identify what he knows as well as what he does not know by orchestrating various strategies.

The importance of being able to select and orchestrate appropriate strategies is underlined by two well-known studies of unsuccessful learners. Both Porte (1988) and Vann and Abraham (1990) discovered that their unsuccessful learners in fact used many strategies: the problem was not so much with the quantity or with the frequency. However, these students were not always able to select strategies appropriate for themselves, their situation or the task at hand, and they were not able to use them effectively in combination. Yet, although orchestration is recognized as important for effective strategy deployment, it remains conspicuous by its absence from most writing and discussion on the subject. When Oxford (2017) conducted an exhaustive review of strategy defi nitions, she found no reference to orchestration; as she comments: ‘the absence of any mention of strategy orchestration is surprising, given that orchestration is one of the classic metaphors for strategy use’ (Oxford, 2017: 46). This lacuna suggests a potentially useful area for future research. Individual/personal variables

The range of individual variables which might affect strategy choice is almost limitless. In recent years, interest in the influence of individual factors on language learning has been strong (for instance, Skehan, 1989; Dörnyei, 2005; Pawlak, 2012a; Takeuchi et al., 2007), resulting in what Ellis (1994: 472) has called a ‘veritable plethora’ of such factors in the literature. Some of the most commonly researched of these individual variables include: Motivation

The importance of motivation in language learning has been dealt with by many. Brown (1994), for instance, claims that motivation is ‘a key to learning’ (1994: 152), while Williams and Burden (1997) suggest that ‘it seems only sensible to assume that learning is most likely to occur when we want to learn’ (1997: 111, authors’ italics). Cohen and Dörnyei (2002), put forward the intuitively logical argument that ‘motivation is often seen as the key learner variable because without it, nothing much happens’ (2002: 172).

A Conceptual Perspective 25

Ushioda (2008: 19) defi nes motivation as ‘what moves a person to make certain choices, to engage in action, and to persist in action’. From a human point of view, it is difficult to disagree with the basic premise that motivation is important if students are to learn language successfully. Over the years, motivation has been viewed from a variety of perspectives. In one of the earliest distinctions, Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) identified two different motivational orientations: • •

integrative (arising from a desire to identify with those who speak the  language, perhaps in a social context, in a workplace or as an immigrant); instrumental (arising from a desire to benefit practically from acquiring the language, for instance by gaining access to desired educational institutions, by getting a better job, higher salary etc.).

Using a general measure of motivation (including both integrative and instrumental orientations) with students of French in Canada, Gardner (1985) found that motivation (especially integrative motivation) was significantly positively related to achievement. In a later study, Gardner and MacIntyre (1991) found that students did significantly better on a vocabulary task when offered a reward (instrumental motivation). Other studies, however, (such as Chihara & Oller, 1978) have failed to show a significant relationship between motivation and achievement. Taking a somewhat different perspective, based on Self-Determination Theory, Deci and Ryan (1980) and Ryan and Deci (2000) typified motivation as: • •

intrinsic (originating from within the learner – it is something the learner wants for his/her own satisfaction); extrinsic (arising from outside the learner, for instance from a parent, a teacher/school system or an employer).

In a study based on the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Noels et  al. (2000) surveyed Anglophone learners of French in Canada. They discovered that intrinsic motivation was more strongly correlated with the criterion measures than extrinsic motivation. Although the two dichotomous models of motivation (integrative versus instrumental and intrinsic versus extrinsic) have proven to be enduring, they may be overly simplistic: motivation is actually a highly complex phenomenon. For one thing, as Ushioda (2008) points out, the different concepts may not necessarily be mutually exclusive, but may be ‘working in concert with one another’ (2008: 22). Also, as Cohen (2011: 42) colourfully puts it: The problem with this approach is that it is pitched at too macro a level to capture those moment-to-moment decisions based on actual language experiences. It is these in-the-trenches experiences that may make or break a learner’s desire to stick with a language or call it quits.

26

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

The complex nature of motivation is illustrated by a small-scale study by Griffiths and Özgür (2013). In this study, 44 students at a private language school in Istanbul, Turkey were asked to complete a short (eightitem) questionnaire which included statements relating to intrinsic, extrinsic, instrumental and integrative motivation (two items for each motivational type). The students were asked to rate each statement from 1 to 5 according to how strongly they agreed or disagreed with it. According to the results, agreement was strongest for instrumental motivation (getting a good job). However, the statement which had the strongest correlation with successful course results was intrinsic (I study for my own satisfaction). These results suggest a certain degree of ambivalence: students may think they are studying in order to obtain some future goal, they may even tell others (e.g. friends, parents) that this is their reason, but it is actually those who really want to study who do best. Drawing on Sociocultural Theory (for instance, Lantolf, 2000a; Vygotsky, 1978), Norton and Toohey (2001) draw attention to the social context of motivation by describing the experiences of two Polish immigrants (Eva and Julie) who both managed to negotiate well-respected identities for themselves within their respective social situations. The point here is that it is impossible to assess motivation except in relation to the context with which it interacts. If Eva and Julie had not managed to gain acceptance by their communities, their level of motivation might well have suffered accordingly. Rather than viewing motivation as a static phenomenon which can be described according to integrative/instrumental, intrinsic/extrinsic criteria, Dörnyei (2001) presents motivation as dynamic and constantly changing. According to this view, language learners are complex individuals whose motivation derives from their ideal vision of themselves, from social pressures, and the effects of prior learning experiences (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). The view of motivation as a highly dynamic phenomenon is further developed by Dörnyei et al. (2015). An example from my own experience of the potentially dynamic nature of motivation relates to a student I had, whom I will call J. When he fi rst arrived at the school, J., obviously from a rich family, had absolutely no interest in studying – all he wanted was to attend parties and have a ‘good time’. He scored a very low mark in the mid-term exam, which alarmed his father greatly. So his father said: ‘If you get an “A”, I will give you a brand-new sports car. If you get a “B”, I will give you a small, cheap, second-hand car. If you get a “C”, I will give you a motorbike.’ Faced with this strong extrinsic motivation, J. worked hard for the rest of the semester, and by the end he did, indeed, pass with an ‘A’ and got his flashy new sports car which he enjoyed showing off to all his envious classmates. But, perhaps even more interestingly, he found he actually enjoyed being successful, and from that point on he continued to be intrinsically motivated to work at his studies, thereby demonstrating that

A Conceptual Perspective 27

motivation can change, and that one kind of motivation can, indeed, morph into another. As far as the relationship between language learning strategies and motivation goes, Oxford (2011a: 74) points out, ‘strategies can be fruitfully used to support a number of motivational orientations’. Studies which investigate the relationships between/among strategies, motivation and successful learning are not common, however, suggesting a potentially fruitful area for future research. Nationality

Not always an easy concept to define, nationality is frequently confused with the often closely related concepts of culture and ethnicity. Defined as ‘the software of the mind’ (Hofstede, 1997: 4), culture is usually considered to include the customs, attitudes, family organization, social systems, and other day-to-day practices of a people which identify them as a distinctive group, and it may also include language (Scollon & Scollon, 2000). Ethnicity relates to race, whereas nationality is essentially a political concept (what goes on the passport) which may or may not be identified with a typical culture (ways of behaving), ethnicity (racial origin) or language. It is, of course, not always easy to classify people in terms of culture, ethnicity, language or nationality in absolute terms. In New Zealand, for instance, there is a large community of ethnic Chinese. Many of these people’s families have been in New Zealand since the gold rushes of the late 1800s, were born in New Zealand and have New Zealand nationality. Although most of this community would speak English as their fi rst language (that is, the language that is spoken in the home), there are varying degrees to which individuals adhere to the heritage language and cultural practices (such as food preferences) and family celebrations (such as wedding or funeral rituals). The same applies to ethnic Indians in Fiji, ethnic Koreans in Japan or Russia, ethnic Africans in America, ethnic Japanese in Brazil and so on, a picture which becomes even more complex if we consider inter-marriage, bi-lingualism and those who have dual or multiple nationalities. In the 1950s and 1960s, two quite influential hypotheses became popular. Contrastive Analysis hypothesized that students will fi nd characteristics of a target language which are similar to their native language easier to learn than those which are different (Lado, 1957). Contrastive Rhetoric considered culture in addition to the linguistic aspects (Kaplan, 1966). These two hypotheses seemed to hold promise of helping to guide students of varying national/linguistic/cultural backgrounds to learn a target language more effectively. In the years since, a number of studies have produced fi ndings on nationality-related differences in language learning strategies. It is a common observation that students from different backgrounds do not always learn language in the same ways (for instance, Connor, 1996;

28

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Finkbeiner, 2008; Griffiths & Parr, 2000; Kaplan, 1966; Lado, 1957; Lavine, 2001; Oxford, 1996a; Pennycook, 1997; Pierson, 1996; White, 1989). Some students, for instance, come from very ‘talkative’ backgrounds where they are brought up from an early age to express ideas freely; others come from backgrounds where they are taught to think carefully before speaking and where imposing one’s ideas on others is considered extremely impolite (Corbett, 1999). Some students are brought up in an environment where people communicate naturally without worrying too much about correctness; others are brought up to feel keenly the loss of face which comes from being seen to make mistakes (Ching, 1992; Clarke, 1996). Some students are encouraged to be active in their approach to their learning; others are traditionally passive (Usuki, 2000). These kinds of general national characteristics may well affect the different ways students of varying nationalities behave and interact in a teaching/learning situation and the kinds of learning strategies they typically employ. As Bedell and Oxford (1996), following a review of 36 studies in a variety of different backgrounds, conclude: ‘Cultural influences on the selection of language learning strategies is clear. Learners often – though not always – behave in certain culturally approved and socially encouraged ways as they learn’ (1996: 60). Politzer and McGroarty (1985) administered a strategy survey to 19 Hispanic and 18 Asian graduate students in the US. They found that the Asian students made significantly greater progress in their language acquisition over the period of the study although they exhibited fewer of the strategies expected of ‘good’ language learners than did Hispanic students. In order to investigate the role of language learning strategies in successful learning, O’Malley (1987) and his colleagues randomly assigned 75 students to one of three instructional groups, two of which received instruction in various listening, speaking and vocabulary strategies while the third group served as the control. They discovered a significant difference in favour of the treatment groups for speaking, but not for listening, whereas the control group actually scored slightly higher for vocabulary than the treatment groups, an unexpected fi nding which O’Malley attributes to the persistence of familiar strategies among Asian students who were unwilling to adopt the strategies presented in training especially when a test was imminent. The language learning strategies of a large number of Indian college students (n = 1261) were investigated by Sheorey (1999). Results of the study indicated that Indian college students use learning strategies with high to moderate frequency, and that strategy use is influenced by cultural background. Results also indicated that Indian students seemed to favour functional practice strategies to promote communicative performance in English, while at the same time they used examination-oriented memory strategies which would help them to be successful in the examinationdriven educational system.

A Conceptual Perspective

29

Acknowledging that Japanese learners are typically believed to be passive, Usuki (2000) undertook a study in a Japanese university. After discussing the psychological barriers to the adoption of effective language learning strategies by Japanese students, Usuki (2000) recommends more cooperation between students and teachers. Mokuedi Magogwe and Oliver (2007) conducted a study in Botswana which, in accord with a number of other studies (e.g. Dreyer & Oxford, 1996; Green & Oxford, 1995; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) found that, overall, more proficient students used more strategies than less proficient students. However, they also concluded that ‘particular strategies may be culturally more appropriate, and therefore preferred, or it may that the educational experience of Botswana students leads them to prefer some strategies (e.g., social strategies) over others’ (Mokuedi Magogwe & Oliver, 2007: 352). In Indonesia, Anam and Stracke (2016) examined 522 primary school students’ language learning strategy use using a version of the SILL specially adapted for Indonesian children. Students reported high use of socio-affective and metacognitive strategies and moderate use of cognitive strategies. The preferred strategies involved learning with or from others and regulating their own learning, while the less favoured strategies mainly dealt with memorizing words and practising outside the classroom. Wach (2016) examined the use of students’ L1 (Polish) as a strategy when learning English and Russian. A questionnaire was used to elicit information from 85 university students, followed by nine interviews. According to the results, the L1 was an important resource in learning the new languages, and significant differences in strategy use were found. The studies noted above tend to lend support to the idea that national/ cultural background does have an effect on strategy choice and successful learning. The results are, however, not entirely consistent with each other, reinforcing the importance of avoiding national stereotypes. Age

Issues associated with the age of students who are speakers of other languages learning a new language have been long and sometimes hotly debated (for instance, Ausubel, 1964; Bialystok, 1999; Birdsong, 1999b; Griffiths, 2008c; Hylenstam & Abrahamsson, 2003; Singleton, 1989; Singleton & Lesniewska, 2012). Popular wisdom generally has it that children are better at learning languages than adults (for instance, Bellingham, 2000; Littlewood, 1984). In one of the earliest studies into age-related differences in language development by speakers of other languages, Oyama (1976) discovered that the younger people were when they started learning English the more native-like was their pronunciation. Other studies have shown that, although adults may learn more quickly initially, younger learners are often more successful in the long run

30

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

(Snow & Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978). Harley (1986) also discovered that, although older students demonstrated greater overall control of the verb system than younger students after 1000 hours of instruction, those students who started younger were ultimately more successful. Other studies, however, suggest that the benefits of early instruction for language development may not be long-term (Burstall et al., 1974). Although Fathman (1975) found that younger students did better than older students on learning phonology, older students did better on morphology. Neufeld (1978) produced results which seemed to indicate that adults could acquire native-like pronunciation; and a study of Canadian immersion programmes by Swain (1981) concluded that an earlier start had much less effect than might have been expected. A well-known case study which supports the idea that older learners can learn language successfully is that of Julie (Ioup et al., 1994). At the age of 21, Julie moved from England to Cairo with her Egyptian husband who was called away for military service soon after their arrival. Left with non-English speaking relatives in a situation of total immersion until her husband’s return, Julie kept a note book in which she recorded vocabulary, idioms, and what she observed regarding the structure of the language. According to Ioup et  al. (1994), after six months, Julie was communicating well, and after two and a half years she could pass as a native speaker. However, by no means all adults are as successful as Julie. Schumann (1975), for instance, describes a 10-month study of a 33-year-old Costa Rican living in the USA. Although Alberto appeared to have good motivation and positive attitudes towards America, he socialized mainly with speakers of Spanish, and chose to work at night, limiting his opportunities to interact in and study English. As a result, his linguistic development was slow. Like Alberto, Wes, a Japanese artist living in Hawaii, was also 33 years old. According to Schmidt (1983), when Wes fi rst arrived in Hawaii, his ability to communicate in English was minimal, although he was extroverted with a strong drive to communicate. As a result, during a three-year observation period, Wes’s ability to communicate orally in English increased impressively, but his grammatical control of English improved very little. A variety of possible theories has been put forward to explain apparent age-related differences in language learning, including the Critical Period Hypothesis (for instance, Birdsong, 1999a; Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959). Brown (1980: 46) defi nes the critical period as ‘a biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired most easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire’. According to Long (1990), another possible biological explanation might be the process of myelination which progressively wraps the nerves of the brain in myelin sheaths as the brain matures. Myelination

A Conceptual Perspective

31

means that learning pathways are delineated in the brain, thereby preserving previous learning, but it reduces flexibility. Like concrete pathways in a garden, the myelin sheaths facilitate movement to and from a point, but also make it more difficult to deviate from set patterns. None of the biological explanations for age-related diff erences is without controversy, however (for instance, Singleton & Munoz, 2011); and Dulay et al. (1982) believe that we must look elsewhere for an explanation for observed age-related differences in second language development. For this reason, the term ‘sensitive’ period rather than ‘critical’ period has been proposed in order to indicate that there is no ‘abrupt or absolute criterion after which L2 acquisition is impossible but rather a gradual process within which the ultimate level of L2 attainment becomes variable’ (Ioup et  al., 1994: 74). Indeed, there have been a number of recent studies which have thrown considerable doubt on the idea that older learners cannot learn language. Reichle (2010), for instance, discovered high levels of native-like proficiency among some of the adult participants in his study, leading him to conclude that his results were incompatible with a concept of a critical period. When Kinsella and Singleton (2014) investigated adult Anglophone near-native users of French, several of them scored within the native speaker range, causing the authors to conclude that ‘native-likeness remains attainable until quite late in life’ (2014: 458). In the light of such fi ndings, Munoz and Singleton (2011: 1) argue for a ‘loosening of the association’ between biological age and the ability to learn language. The fact probably remains, however, that most who do manage to learn a new language to a high level usually do so when they are younger. If biological age cannot explain this, we need to consider other possible factors. Socio-affective variables are considered by some to be the most powerful influences on the differences in language learning ability according to age. Burling (1981), describing his own ‘distinctly unsatisfactory’ attempts to learn Swedish when he spent a year as guest professor in Sweden, is in no doubt that ‘generalized social changes’ (1981: 290) are the main cause of age-related differences in language development, which mean ‘an adult is likely to give up and conclude that he has lost the capacity to learn a language’ (1981: 284). Schumann (1976) proposed the concept of social distance to refer to the similarity or dissimilarity of cultures which come into contact with each other, resulting in greater or lesser degrees of culture shock, and Brown (1980) suggests that social distance is a factor in the difficulty the learner will have in learning a target language. According to Ellis (1986: 109), socio-affective factors are often less inhibiting for younger learners since they tend to be ‘less culture bound than adults’. Cognitive variables may be another factor contributing to age-related differences in language development. Krashen (1985) explains older learners’ faster initial progress in terms of their ability to obtain more

32

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

comprehensible input by means of their greater experience, knowledge and ability to negotiate communication. According to Ellis (1986), older learners are able to learn language by consciously thinking about the rules; and cognitive factors could help to explain Snow and HoefnagelHohle’s (1978) findings that older students are initially faster than younger students since they are capable of rationalizing the systems of the target language and of comparing them with existing knowledge. Older students might be expected to be able to exercise better metacognitive control over their learning, for instance by means of time management, and by planning, monitoring and evaluating their own progress. In addition, more mature students might also be expected to have a larger and wellestablished strategy repertoire, from which they can select and orchestrate appropriate learning activities to regulate their own learning. According to their age, it is possible that learning context may affect students differently. Learning situation can vary considerably from a formal classroom, to naturalistic environments (where students learn by being immersed in the target language), to distance learning. Classrooms can also vary greatly, and classes may be conducted during the day or at night. Methods may vary from structure-based Grammar-Translation, to Behaviourist Audiolingualism, to interactive communicative approaches, and may include some of the lesser known methods such as Total Physical Response (TPR), the Silent Way or Suggestopedia. Marinova-Todd (2003) found that the most proficient students in her study all lived with native speakers of the target language; Muńoz and Singleton (2007) also found that the most proficient learners were living with native speakers of the target language; similarly, Moyer (2009) discovered that opportunity to interact in the target language was the most important factor influencing acquisition. In other words, in all three of these studies, the most important factor was the context. It would seem, then, that various situations may suit older or younger students depending on variables such as previous learning experience, learning style, metacognitive ability, motivation, autonomy, personal circumstances, and, of course, the strategies they choose to employ. However, although there is a considerable body of research into the relationship between age and successful language learning, studies which explore the relationships among age, strategies, and successful language learning are not easy to find. One of the few is the one by Ehrman and Oxford (1990) who investigated the strategies used by adult language learners in an intensive training setting. They concluded that there may be ‘optimism for older learners’ (1990: 317), since, although they discovered that performance ratings corresponded roughly inversely to age, they found that the oldest student was not the weakest, nor was the youngest the best. Sex/gender

This is another learner variable sometimes thought to affect success in language learning. The concept of sex is usually used to mean a biological

A Conceptual Perspective

33

attribute, whereas the concept of gender refers more to a culturally determined characteristic, although the two terms are often used more-or-less interchangeably in the literature, with ‘gender’ often being preferred as the ‘softer’ term. On a biological level, research appears to indicate that women have more nerve cells in the left half of the brain where language is centred, and, in addition, women often use both sides of the brain (Legato, 2005). However, it is also possible that girls’ linguistic development may be as much a social phenomenon as it is a biological one, since, as Nyikos (2008: 75) notes: ‘much of the perceived female superiority in language capability may be due to the added effort which adults tend to lavish on baby girls compared with baby boys’. Oxford et al. (1988) argued that women have an advantage over men with regard to language development because they are more likely to be interactive; in addition, they are more likely to strive for higher grades and to use language learning strategies more frequently because of a stronger desire for social approval. Research has consistently found that females are prepared to invest more time and effort in studying language because of greater perceived benefits for their future (Gu, 2002), and girls’ culture appears to be more study-oriented and supportive of academic achievement (Van Houtte, 2004). In contrast, men are often believed to be interested only in the ultimate goal (Nyikos, 1990), and according to Kiziltepe (2003) male students tend to be less attentive to their studies than female students. Young and Oxford (1997) observed that men also tend to work alone more, thereby missing out on the benefits of interactive strategies, while Nyikos (1987) noted that males tend to make more frequent use of rote memorization, repetition and translation, all of which are more likely to be used more often by less successful language learners. There are, in fact, a number of studies which investigate the relationship between language learning and sex (for instance, Bacon, 1992; Boyle, 1987; Burstall, 1975; Eisenstein, 1982; Farhady, 1982; Nyikos, 1990, 2008; Sunderland, 1998, 2000). However, studies which explore language learning strategy use according to sex are not common. Nevertheless, there are a few. Most studies in this area seem to have reported a greater use of language learning strategies by women. After studying the language learning strategies used by more than 1200 undergraduate university students, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) concluded that sex differences had a ‘profound influence’ (1989: 296): these differences indicated that females used strategies more frequently than males. Reporting on an exploratory study undertaken as part of a larger study at the Foreign Service Institute, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) concluded that women reported defi nitely more use of strategies than men. The same authors in a later article (1995) again reported that females tended to use language learning strategies

34

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

more often than males. At the University of Puerto Rico, Green and Oxford (1995) investigated the language learning strategy use of 374 students; they also concluded that females used strategies significantly more often than males, and that different environments can influence the use of specific strategies by the two sexes, since men used television and movies to learn English far more than women because English language programming, especially sport, appealed more to men than women. Tran (1988), however, discovered that Vietnamese women use fewer language learning strategies than men. Some studies have looked at language learning strategies and sex in relation to a third variable. One such study explored the relationships among sex, strategies and visual style (Nyikos, 1990). Women were found to be significantly more successful when utilizing colour association than men, while the men were more successful when combining visual linking and colour association. When drawing distinctions along sex/gender lines, care needs to be taken to avoid ‘oversimplification and unproductive generalizations’ (Sunderland, 2000: 149). Although women are often believed to be better language learners than men (Ellis, 1994; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), according to Nyikos (1990: 285), results showed that men and women who used ‘learning strategies that are in tune with their socialized learning style’ were equally successful. Personality

Personality is generally considered to be a relatively stable characteristic of an individual and has been defi ned as ‘those aspects of an individual’s behaviour, attitudes, beliefs, thought, actions and feelings which are seen as typical and distinctive of that person’ (Richards & Schmidt, 2010: 431). A well-known instrument to measure personality is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI – Myers, 1962), a widely used personality inventory based on Jung’s (1921) theories of psychological types. The MBTI measures personality according to four dichotomous scales. •

•

•

Extraversion-Introversion: extraverts are focused primarily toward the outer world whereas introverts are focused primarily inwards – they are commonly abbreviated E and I respectively (note that the spelling ‘extravert’ was used by Isabel Myers in the original 1962 version). Sensing-Intuition: a person who relies primarily on sensing (S) uses one or more of the five senses to attend to observable facts or happenings whereas someone who relies on intuition (N) attends to meanings, relationships and/or possibilities beyond what is observable. Thinking-Feeling: thinkers (T) rely on logical consequences whereas feelers (F) tend to make decisions on the basis of their emotions.

A Conceptual Perspective 35

•

Judging-Perceiving: someone with a judging personality (J) tends to use rational processes to deal with the world whereas a perceiver (P) relies more on instinct when interacting with others or making decisions

The four MBTI scales combine into 16 possible four-letter personality types: ISTJ

ISFJ

INFJ

INTJ

ISTP

ISFP

INFP

INTP

ESTP

ESFP

ENFP

ENTP

ESTJ

ESFJ

ENFJ

ENTJ

KEY: I = introversion; E = extraversion; S = sensing; N = intuition; F = feeling; T = thinking; J = judging; P = perceiving

In 1975, Hans and Sybil Eysenck published the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. The EPQ is based on three dimensions and their opposites: psychoticism/socialization, neuroticism/stability and extroversion/ introversion. According to these conceptualizations: • • •

psychotics are aggressive, egotistical, assertive, unsympathetic, manipulative, achievement-oriented and dogmatic; neurotics are anxious, depressed, moody, tense, obsessive, suffer from guilt, tend to be hypochondriacs and suffer from low self-esteem; extroverts are sociable, dominant, prone to taking risks, irresponsible, active, impulsive and attention-seeking.

Another common framework for conceptualizing personality is known as the Big Five Model (McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (OCEAN): • • • • •

those with an open personality are intellectually curious and enjoy variety; conscientious individuals are disciplined, organized and achievement-oriented; extroverts are sociable and talkative and enjoy interacting with others; agreeable personalities are helpful, cooperative, friendly and sympathetic; neurotics display anxiety, nervousness, insecurity and lack of confidence.

The salient common factor of the MBTI, the EPQ and the Big Five models is the extrovert/introvert dimension, fi rst introduced to the literature by Jung (1921). Extroverts tend to be gregarious, interested in interacting

36

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

with others, and, therefore, likely to use social strategies in order to learn language. Perhaps unsurprisingly, extroverts have been found to score more highly on oral fluency measures (Dewaele, 2012), and to be more willing to communicate (WTC), a dimension of personality which has attracted considerable attention in recent years (e.g. Burgoon, 1976; MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987; Yashima, 2012). Introverts, on the other hand, tend to be less sociable, quite happy to spend time on their own, and may tend to favour cognitive strategies (such as reading for pleasure) or metacognitive strategies (such as time management). Although extroverted personalities are commonly believed to be the best language learners, Ehrman (2008) discovered that, contrary to expectations, the really high-level learners in her study had introverted personalities and were overrepresented among the top learners. Ehrman (2008) concludes that according to the results of her research good language learners tend to be characterized by introverted personalities, which, as she comments is a fi nding which runs contrary to much of the literature, and, even, to pedagogical intuition … However, it is clear from the fact that there are high-level language learners in a wide variety of personality categories that motivated individuals can become good language learners whatever their personalities. (Ehrman, 2008: 70) Learning style

Learning style, sometimes thought to be an aspect of personality, is another possible contributor to variations in individual language learning strategy use. Although care should be taken to keep the concept of learning style separate from the concept of language learning strategy (see Section 1.2), it is well recognized that learning style can have a major influence on the way students learn and on the types of language learning strategies which they choose (for instance, Carrell et al., 1989; Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002; Griffiths, 2012; Nel, 2008; Reid, 1987, 1995, 1998a; Rossi-Le, 1995; Willing, 1987). Reid (1995) provided a definition of learning styles which has proven to be enduring: according to this definition, learning styles are ‘an individual’s natural, habitual and preferred way(s) of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills’ (Reid, 1995: viii). This definition helps to draw a distinction between learning styles and the broader concept of cognitive style, defined by Armstrong et al. (2012) as ‘individual differences in people’s preferred way of processing … information using cognitive brain-based mechanisms and structures’ (2012: 451). In other words, cognitive styles are a general way of thinking, whereas learning styles refer specifically to how learners learn. The learning style concept has been recognized since at least the mid70s. One of the earliest instruments was the Learning Style Inventory by

A Conceptual Perspective 37

Dunn et al. (1975) which divided learning style into five domains of preference: environmental, emotional, sociological, physiological and psychological. Around the same time, another influential inventory appeared: Kolb’s (1976) Learning Style Inventory. According to Kolb’s model, learning preferences can be described using two intersecting continua: active versus reflective, and abstract versus concrete, resulting in four types of learners: converger (active/abstract), accommodator (active/concrete), assimilator (reflective/abstract) and diverger (reflective/concrete). Three years later, Gregorc (1979) continued the quadrant model for conceptualizing learning style when he produced The Gregorc Style Delineator with two axes (concrete versus abstract, and sequential versus random) which delineated four styles: concrete sequential, concrete random, abstract sequential and abstract random. In the early eighties, Honey and Mumford (1982) published their Learning Styles Questionnaire, which retained Kolb’s quadrant model but added some new categories: reflector, theorist, pragmatist and activist. Then in 1983, Curry (1983) conceived of style in terms of a metaphorical onion where the outer cognitive/personality layer influences the information processing layer which then contributes to instructional preferences. One of the first applications of the style concept to language learning was by Reid (1987) who developed the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ) which was based on five modalities: visual (learning by seeing), auditory (learning by hearing), tactile (learning by touching), kinaesthetic (learning by moving) and individual/group preference. In the same year, Willing (1987) conducted a large-scale survey of immigrants to Australia using a Kolb-style quadrant model with a twin-axis framework (passive-active and analytic-holistic) which produced four more learner types: convergers, conformists, concrete learners and communicative learners. Using a modified version of Reid’s perceptual learning style model, Fleming and Mills (1992) produced the VARK (Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic). The Style Analysis Survey (Oxford, 1993) analysed learning style according to other preferences including intuitive/random, concrete/sequential, closure-oriented/open and global/analytic. In addition, Oxford also contributed to the Learning Style Survey (Cohen et al., 2002) with yet more style dimensions, including sharpener/leveller, global/particular, synthesizing/analytic, deductive/ inductive, impulsive/reflective, metaphoric/literal, field dependent/independent and memorization. A year later, Ehrman and Leaver (2003) produced the Learning Style Questionnaire, which operates between the two poles of ectasis (exercising conscious control) versus synopsis (relying on subconscious processing) and employs style concepts including random/ sequential, analogue/digital and concrete/abstract. As one considers the multitude of style inventories and dimensions noted above (which is by no means exhaustive), it is difficult not to feel intimidated by the ‘quagmire’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 120) they represent. Nevertheless, the style

38

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

concept has continued to hold intuitive appeal, perhaps because it represents a ‘value-neutral approach for understanding individual differences among linguistically and culturally diverse students’ (Kinsella, 1995: 171). Furthermore, ‘this intuitive appeal tends to resonate strongly with the classroom experience of educational practitioners’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015: 107). Although there have been many attempts over the years to identify, label and categorize learning styles and to develop inventories, studies that empirically investigate the concept are surprisingly difficult to find. Perhaps the aspect of style which has been most thoroughly researched has been field in/dependence (for instance, Chapelle, 1988; Witkin, 1962). Field dependent learners are unable to separate details from the background, are more holistic or global in their approach, and more concerned with the overall picture than with particulars. Field independent learners, on the other hand, are able to analyse tasks into sections and focus on discrete aspects. Field in/dependence is usually assessed by means of Witkin’s Embedded Figures Test (1971), which requires students to discern patterns among more complicated shapes. This inevitably raises questions about its relevance to language learning and renders the role of field in/dependence as an aspect of language learning style somewhat dubious. Another style dimension which is, perhaps, under-researched, is tolerance of ambiguity, recognized as a characteristic of the good language learner by Naiman et al. (1978). Ely (1995), who developed the Second Language Tolerance of Ambiguity Scale, recommends strategy training to help students cope with the linguistic uncertainties involved in learning a new language. Indeed, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990) does contain items which explore students’ ability to cope with ambiguity (e.g. I try not to translate word for word), and Griffiths (2003b, 2003c) found that the ability to cope with a degree of ambiguity was typical of the higher level students in her study. Although much controversy remains regarding the learning style concept, Nel (2008: 57) reminds us that ‘every learner does have a learning style’. Although, as Nel (2008) points out, learning style is generally considered to be a relatively stable learner characteristic, according to Oxford (2011: 40) learning styles ‘are not set in stone’. Reid (1987: 100) agrees that learning styles ‘can be modified and extended’, and Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) also suggest that the ability to remain somewhat flexible with regard to learning style preferences is a characteristic of successful learners. More recently, Griffiths and Inceçay (2016a) discovered that the more successful students in their study used many more styles (that is, they were more willing to style-stretch) than the less successful students. Since style preference may influence strategy choices, we can, perhaps, infer that students who can style-stretch are more likely to have a large repertoire of strategies on which they can call to suit the various styles that they employ to suit the demands of different learning tasks.

A Conceptual Perspective

39

Autonomy

It is generally Henri Holec (1979, 1981) who is credited with fi rst applying the term autonomy to language learning, defi ning it as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec, 1981: 3). Since then, the autonomy concept has been widely discussed (for instance, among many others, Aoki & Smith, 1999; Benson, 2007; Benson & Voller, 1997; Chik et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2011; Pemberton et al., 1996; Pawlak et al., 2017; Sturtridge, 1997). According to Huang and Benson (2013), autonomy minimally includes ability, desire and freedom. Benson (2001: 47) describes autonomy as ‘a multidimensional capacity that will take different forms for different individuals, and even for the same individual in different contexts or at different times’. Cotterall (2008) makes a similar point: ‘A defining characteristic of autonomous learners is their ability to make decisions about their learning which take account of the context in which they are learning’ (2008: 118). Autonomy is a complex phenomenon, which interacts with many other factors such as context and relationships with others (Tatzl, 2016). It is also dynamic, that is it develops according to factors such as learner agency and identity (Huang, 2011). Learner autonomy is generally assumed to be advantageous (for instance, Dam, 1995) and ‘a desirable objective’ (Jones, 1995: 228). According to Crabbe (1993: 443) ‘learning is more meaningful, more permanent, more focused on the processes and schemata of the individual when the individual is in charge’. Jones (1995), however, is not so certain that autonomy is always beneficial, since, he claims ‘the concept of autonomy is laden with cultural values’ which may not be relevant to less individualistic societies. Little (1999), nevertheless, argues that the capacity for autonomy is universal, while according to Murray (2014) ‘autonomy is socially mediated’ (2014: 4), and the idea that autonomy means learning in isolation is a ‘misconception’ (2014: 6). Recognition of the importance of the role of autonomy in language learning is evidenced by the proliferation of self-access centres in language schools or departments. In these centres, which often provide computers and a range of books, CDs, DVDs and other materials and equipment, students are encouraged and supported to pursue their own studies according to their own interests or needs, thereby demonstrating autonomous learning behaviours which they exercise independently of teacher supervision (e.g. Cotterall & Reinders, 2000). Indeed, with the ongoing development and easy-availability of internet-based learning opportunities, even such centres are no longer entirely necessary for learners with high levels of autonomy. A study which demonstrated this clearly was a recent one by Cole and Vanderplank (2016). In this study, 50 classroombased learners and 34 independent learners were compared. The learners were matched for socio-economic status, age, educational level and years

40

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

of English learning, and they were assessed on seven aspects of language proficiency. The researchers found that the independent learners scored significantly higher on all assessments, and they concluded that the new affordances for autonomous learning have enabled well-motivated learners to achieve a high level of proficiency independent of a formal classroom environment. In recent years, the term autonomy has sometimes been replaced by the term self-regulation, a term driven by psychologists such as Boekaerts et  al. (2000), Winne (1995) and Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997), according to whom, research has shown that self-regulation is ‘an important source of achievement differences among students … [and] … an effective means to improve achievement of students that range greatly in proficiency’ (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997: 1). Dörnyei and Skehan (2003: 611) defi ne self-regulation as ‘the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning’, and Oxford (2011a, 2017) develops the self-regulatory concept into what she calls Strategic Self Regulation (S2 R). As for the question of ‘what is the difference between ‘autonomy’ and ‘self-regulation’?’, the literature lacks any clear distinction. In the absence of such a distinction, might I suggest that ‘autonomy’ is the superordinate term, which ‘self-regulation’ aims to achieve: students selfregulate in order to become autonomous. In turn, self-regulation has been seen as resulting at least in part from volition (Corno, 2001), defi ned by Oxford (2011a) as ‘persistence after initial motivation is over’ (2011a: 74). According to Kuhl (1984), volitional competence is responsible for controlling intention, attention, action, arousal, motivation, emotion, encoding, self-reflection, thinking and planning. Volitional strategies are ‘designed to help the learner keep learning despite many kinds of difficulties’ (Oxford & Lee, 2008: 313), and they represent the antithesis of learned helplessness where individuals do not believe they can control their situations (Seligman, 1975). These terms should probably be seen as complementary rather than as competitors, since they all represent a slightly different perspective on the issue of the management of learning by learners themselves (or not, as in the case of the last term). And, of course, they all depend on strategies: actions chosen by the learner for the purpose of learning. According to Wenden, 1991, strategies are an important element of learner autonomy, since it is by using strategies that learners are able to become autonomous and able to regulate their own learning. This view is in accord with those of the psychologists noted above (Boekaerts et al., 2000; Winne, 1995; Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997), all of whom include strategies as a means of achieving self-regulation/autonomy. Autonomous behaviour is especially likely to involve metacognitive strategies, such as planning, monitoring, evaluating, etc. (for instance Anderson, 2008, 2012) to enable learners to regulate their own learning.

A Conceptual Perspective

41

Beliefs

Beliefs might be defined as ‘the psychological state in which a person holds a premise to be true’ (Oxford, 2011a: 277). An important development in the field of learner beliefs was Horwitz’s (1987) Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI), an instrument which has been used in much of the research into learners’ beliefs since that date. The BALLI was developed as a result of a brain-storming session with 25 language teachers from which Horwitz constructed a list of beliefs to which participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Items in the BALLI include beliefs such as: • • • • • • • •

children learn language more easily than adults; some people are naturally better at learning language than others; women are better than men at learning language; some languages are easier than others; vocabulary is the most important part of learning a new language; grammar is the most important part of learning a new language; pronunciation is important when learning a new language; students who are allowed to make mistakes will have difficulty speaking correctly later.

In turn, these items were divided into five belief areas: • • • • •

aptitude; language learning difficulties; the nature of language learning; strategies; motivation.

A year after publishing the BALLI, Horwitz (1988) commented: ‘Although student beliefs about language learning would seem to have obvious relevance to the understanding of student expectations of, commitment to, success in, and satisfaction with their language courses, they have remained relatively unexplored’ (1988: 283). And, indeed, even in the years since, beliefs have been a relatively under-researched area of language learning. Nevertheless, there have been some belief-focused studies, of which a number are reviewed by Horwitz (1999). A number of other researchers have investigated learner beliefs in language learning over the years. When Wenden (1987b) interviewed learners, she found that in addition to describing their strategy use they were able to articulate beliefs about how best to learn language. Abraham and Vann (1987) discovered that learners’ beliefs affect how they approach learning, which, in turn, influences how successful they will be in their studies. Barcelos (2003) undertook a critical review of learner beliefs, while Kalaja et al. (2015) argue for the interconnectedness of beliefs with other learner attributes such as agency and identity. According to White

42

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

(2008a), good language learners believe in themselves as able to learn and they also believe that the language they are studying is worth leaning. Although an individual’s beliefs are often assumed to be a relatively stable individual characteristic, White (2008a) reports that, according to a longitudinal study which she conducted (White 1999, 2003) good language learners are not ‘those who have particular sets of beliefs but [those] who succeed in sensing out the affordances of a particular learning context, and developing a productive interface between their beliefs and attributes and different possibilities and experiences within that context’ (White, 2008a: 125). Zhong (2015) also found changes in her participants’ beliefs about language learning as a result of exposure to new approaches in their new environment. According to Ehrman and Oxford (1989, 1990), the use of effective learning strategies is related to beliefs about the language learning process. When Zhong (1999) conducted a study among college students in Taiwan, she found that learners’ ‘beliefs about learning English were strongly related to their use of all types of learning strategies’ (1999: 515). And according to Oxford (2011a), beliefs are connected to strategy use since ‘beliefs influence the selection of and use of learning strategies [because] learners try to use strategies they believe will be helpful’ (2011: 71). Aptitude

The concept of language learning aptitude has usually been taken to refer to ability or talent for learning language, and also to include the idea of the speed with which this learning takes place; however, for some time, the idea that natural aptitude might contribute to success in language learning has been rather unfashionable (Ranta, 2008). For some reason, we are often quite comfortable with the idea that some people are naturally better at sport, or music, or maybe even subjects like maths. But the possibility that some might be innately better at language, to be able to learn language more rapidly and easily than others is somehow ‘undemocratic’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 601). Nevertheless, the question of language aptitude is actually an important one (Diller, 1981) in order that less able students may be adequately supported (Ranta, 2008; Wesche, 1981). Perhaps the instrument which is most strongly connected with the aptitude concept is the Modern Language Aptitude Test (Carroll & Sapon, 1959). The MLAT is a commercial product which has been used to select promising language learners, to place them in the most beneficial environment, and to diagnose learning difficulties. Carroll (1965) suggested that aptitude consisted of four areas of ability: • •

phonemic coding ability – the ability to identify and remember distinct sounds; grammatical sensitivity – the ability to recognize grammatical relationships;

A Conceptual Perspective

• •

43

rote learning ability – the ability to remember linguistic information; inductive language learning ability – the ability to infer rules.

Other tests of aptitude include the Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (PLAB) aimed at high school students (Pimsleur, 1966), and the Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language – Foreign (CANAL – F) based on the premise that successful language learners are able to cope with new ideas (Grigorenko et al., 2000). However, according to Williams and Burden (1997) the predictive value of aptitude tests is not particularly high, and they run the risk of ‘placing limitations on the way in which we view learners and consequently the way we treat them’ (1997: 18). Nevertheless, in the course of a meta-analysis involving 66 studies and 13,035 learners, Li (2016) concluded that aptitude tests were ‘a strong predictor’ (2016: 801) of language proficiency. Aptitude has been investigated in relation to other variables such as working memory, which refers to the area of memory used to receive, process and manipulate information on a short-term basis before either discarding it or sending it on to long-term memory (for instance, Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Juff s & Harrington, 2011). Another interesting area of research is based on the idea that rather than being a unitary phenomenon, aptitude involves utilizing combinations of cognitive abilities or aptitude complexes, including pattern recognition, phonological capacity, semantic inferencing, grammatical sensitivity and rote memory (for instance, DeKeyser & Koeth, 2011; Robinson, 2012; Snow, 1987). Ranta (2008) makes the important point that rather than being merely a score on a test … a learner’s aptitude reflects strengths and weaknesses in a range of cognitive abilities that underlie the language development process and which interact with other factors such as motivation and opportunity. (Ranta, 2008: 151)

But the possibility that low aptitude might be compensated for by means of effective strategies, and how, exactly, this might be put into practice in the teaching/learning situation, remains surprisingly under researched, suggesting another useful area for fruitful research. Affect

The role of affect (feelings or emotions) in language learning has long been recognized. Schumann (1975) investigated the factors which created problems for his subject, Alberto, a Puerto Rican immigrant to the USA who failed to progress in his English, which Schumann ascribed to affective difficulties. Lozanov (1978) developed Suggestopedia, a teaching method which aims to use a pleasant environment to promote positive emotions, around the idea that feelings play a key role in language development. Krashen (1982) introduced the Affective Filter Hypothesis,

44

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

explaining that the higher the affective filter (that is, the more negative the emotions), the more difficulty the learner will experience. And Arnold (1999) has devoted a book to various aspects of affect in language learning. Affect can itself be broken down into a number of areas, each of which tends to have its own literature: •

•

•

Anxiety – According to Oxford (1999), ‘Language anxiety is fear or apprehension occurring when a learner is expected to perform in a second or foreign language’ (1999: 59). As Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) explain, language anxiety is sometimes divided according to whether it is considered a state (that is, a response to a specific situation or event which will pass when the situation or event is no longer a threat) or a trait (that is, a person’s characteristic reaction to experiences which is more likely to be enduring). Although anxiety is often assumed to be negative in its effects on behaviour (debilitating), it may not always be unproductive. Indeed, a certain level of anxiety may be facilitating and spur learners to achieve beyond the level that they might have otherwise achieved (for instance, Scovel, 1978). A well-known measure of anxiety is the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale or (FLCAS) by Horwitz et al. (1986), which divides anxiety into three types: communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Oxford (2011a) recommends strategies such as positive self-talk as a means of coping with anxiety. An example of this might be: I must stop worrying and concentrate on what I need to learn. Attitude – According to Baker (1988), attitudes are learnt and have feelings and emotions attached to them. Furthermore, they are related to motivation (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972), which, in turn, is related to successful language learning (for instance, Ushioda, 2008). Oxford (2011a) suggests that ‘attitudes are generally viewed as either positive or negative and can strongly affect L2 learning’ (2011a: 71), and she goes on to recommend the use of strategies to modify attitudes. For instance, learners can replace negative ideas about the subject, the teacher, the learning environment or classmates with positive ones. Attribution – Attribution theory relates to an individual’s perception of the causes for successes or failures (Weiner, 1974, 1985). These causes can vary according to three dimensions: internal or external, stable or unstable, and controllable or uncontrollable. Failure attributed to internal factors (such as aptitude, age, nationality or sex) tend to be much more limiting than failure attributed to external factors (such as the learning situation, luck, or teacher limitations) which do not devalue the self; failure which is unstable can be changed (e.g. I can do better next time); and if learners accept that failure was something over which they have control, it is possible to improve a past unsatisfactory performance. When learners’ attributions are unhelpful, it might be worthwhile to suggest strategies such as positive

A Conceptual Perspective

•

•

•

45

self-talk (e.g. I did not do well because I did not study enough, so I need to spend more time preparing for the next test). Empathy – Empathy refers to the ability to identify with another, the ability to understand (though not necessarily agree with) another’s point of view. Hogan (1969) and Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) published empathy measures which have been used in a number of studies in the years since. However, although ‘there is strong intuitive support’ for believing that empathy would facilitate the language learning process ‘the jury is still out on the question of the degree of correlation between empathy and success in language learning’ (Arnold & Brown, 1999: 19). Guiora et  al. (1972: 111), nevertheless, do report that, according to their study, empathy ‘is positively related to the ability to authentically pronounce a second language’. Oxford (2011a) suggests re-telling personal narratives as a strategy for developing empathy. Inhibition – One of the first to note the effect of inhibition on successful language learning was Rubin (1975) who writes that the good language learner ‘is willing to appear foolish if reasonable communication results … [and] willing to make mistakes in order to learn to communicate’ (1975: 47). As Arnold and Brown (1999) explain, inhibitions relate to ‘the need to protect a fragile ego’ (1999: 10). Inhibitions are what individuals use to protect their ego boundaries (Ehrman, 1999; Federn, 1928; Hartmann, 1991). In a language classroom, perhaps the area where inhibitions are most obvious, as Rubin (1975) suggests, relates to error correction. Students therefore need to remind themselves that mistakes are natural when learning a new language, and they should use feedback as a learning opportunity rather than a cause for embarrassment, and develop strategies to learn from their mistakes. Self-concept – ‘A person’s self-concept consists of the beliefs one has about oneself’ (Mercer, 2011: 14), and it can in turn be broken down into a number of sub-fields, each of which has a literature of its own, although there are numerous points at which the sub-fields overlap, making them difficult to separate into totally mutually exclusive categories. –

– –

Self-confidence – self-confidence relates to the degree to which an in individual believes in him or her self. According to Williams and Burden (1997) ‘teachers should see one of their primary functions as encouraging … self-confidence’ (1997: 72). Self-efficacy – self-efficacy relates to the belief that one can achieve a particular goal (Bandura, 1997). As such, it is a more targeted concept than the more general concept of self-confidence. Self-esteem – self-esteem is another closely related concept which Coppersmith (1967) defi nes as ‘a personal judgement of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself’ (1967: 5). According to de Andres (1999) there is a ‘strong link’ (1999: 87) between self-esteem and learning.

46

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

–

Self-image – self-image relates to the way one views oneself, and it is likely to be closely linked to motivation, which has been previously discussed as a strong predictor of language learning outcomes. If students see themselves as good language learners, they are likely to be motivated to invest time and effort in fulfilling their own vision of themselves as proficient speakers of the target language (e.g. Ryan & Irie, 2014).

Strategies for strengthening self-concept might include positive selftalk (I can do it!, I am a good language learner) and maintaining a focus on their imagined ideal target-language self. Investment

The concept of investment was introduced to the language learning literature by Norton Peirce (1995), drawing on the economic metaphors of Bourdieu (1977) in which he describes linguistic development as cultural capital. According to Norton Peirce (1995), when learners invest in language learning, they expect to get an identity-enhancing return on their investment. As Ushioda (2008) further explains: When learners invest in learning a new language, they do so with the understanding that they will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which will enhance their cultural capital, their conception of themselves, and their desires for the future. (Ushioda, 2008: 24)

In order for learners to maintain the motivation to continue to invest, they need to be able to see the benefits of their investment, and how the capital they possess can serve as affordances for learning (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Grenfell, 2009). Kim (2014), for instance, found that expectations of a return on their investment guided her participants’ pragmatic choices. In addition to a possible fi nancial input, investment can take the form of time, attention and effort. When Griffiths (2018) surveyed a number of successful learners of English, she found that the majority of her participants gave responses in the ‘agree’ (rating = 4) to ‘strongly agree’ (rating = 5) range for the items on investment. As one of the participants commented for the item on time commitment: Yes, I consulted dictionaries, referred to grammar books, and spent a lot of time doing assignments and reading recommended and supplementary materials (p. 63).

With regard to the investment of effort, one of the participants commented: I regarded learning English as my utmost goal and dedicated myself to it (p. 64).

A Conceptual Perspective

47

And another elaborated: I was diligent at what I was doing and gave much attention (p. 64).

One indicator of the amount of effort learners are willing to invest may well be the level of strategic activity which they report, since uncommitted students would seem likely to be less strategically involved than more committed learners who could be expected to be more pro-actively seeking ways to promote their learning. Identity

All of the individual factors noted above (and perhaps others) contribute to learner identity, which has been recognized in recent years for the pivotal role that it plays in language learning (for instance, Cummins, 1996, 2001; Lo Bianco et al., 2009; Murray et al., 2011; Norton, 1997, 2000, 2010, 2013; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2003; Norton Peirce, 1995; Toohey, 2000). Definitions of identity vary: it is what defines an individual, and it is complex rather than unitary (e.g. Nunan & Choi, 2010; Toohey & Norton, 2010); it is dynamic rather than fi xed (e.g. Miller, 2003) and developed in context through social interaction (e.g. Morgan & Clarke, 2011). Norton (2014) defines identity as: multiple, changing, and a site of struggle, frequently negotiated in the context of inequitable relations of power. Identity signals the way a person understands her or his relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how that person understands possibilities for the future. It is the importance of the future that is central to the lives of many language learners, and is integral to an understanding of the sociological construct of investment. (Norton, 2014: 60–61)

Norton Peirce (1995) suggested that many learners already have a very well-established sense of their own identity, and the degree to which they feel that this is respected may affect the motivation that they have to invest in learning the new language. Other variables such as gender, personality and ethnicity, contribute in turn to learner identity. Norton and Toohey (2011) draw attention to ‘the powerful relationship between identity and language learning’ (2011: 413), which can contribute to learner motivation, or the lack of it, as well as to learners’ willingness or otherwise to adopt appropriate strategies. However, perhaps because the concept of learner identity ranges over such a wide variety of factors, contributing to a potentially infinite number of permutations of variables producing unique identities, debates on the issue are often ‘inconclusive and indeterminate’ (Norton, 1997: 409). Nevertheless, although slippery, the identity concept remains important in the field of language learning. For one thing, students may resist learning language which conflicts with their identity, as Canagarajah (2004)

48

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

reports when he found students creating ‘pedagogical safe houses’ (2004: 116) in their classroom. Kim (2014) is another who found students resisting adopting target language pragmatic norms which they felt conflicted with their own sense of identity. And Soruç and Griffiths (2015) found something similar when researching the teachability of various features of spoken grammar (SGE). Although there was some uptake of the target features by the time of the post-test, little of this remained by the time of the delayed post-test just three weeks later. When asked for their reasons, students explained that they felt the spoken grammar features conflicted with their own sense of identity, contributing to embarrassment and a sense of artificiality. It is important to remember that learners are not, after all, idealized theoretical clones of each other. They are unique individuals who interact with one another and with their environment in distinctive ways and employ combinations of strategies which are all different, but influenced by their individual needs and goals. Strategy effectiveness

A strategy or cluster of strategies is neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’ in itself. Its effectiveness can only be judged in relation to a particular individual in a particular learning situation working towards a particular goal. This complex scenario is further complicated by its dynamic nature, which may change according to individual fluctuations, contextual variations, or re-alignment of learning target.

1.4 Theoretical Underpinnings

Although the learning strategy concept is ‘intuitively appealing’ and has been ‘embraced with enthusiasm’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 166), Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) believe that strategy research has often been carried out in a ‘theoretical muddle’ which has resulted in a great deal of ‘conceptual ambiguity’ (2003: 610). Although Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) concede that there has been a great deal of research activity in the strategy field in the last decade, they believe ‘a fully satisfactory solution has not been achieved yet’ (2015: 168). In the face of such criticism, it is important to examine the theoretical underpinnings of the concept before proceeding further. Behaviourism

The origins of Behaviourism are generally attributed to the work of the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov, who developed a theory of conditioned reflex to explain salivation phenomena in his experimental dogs early in the 20th century. In the west, the theory is, perhaps, most strongly

A Conceptual Perspective

49

associated with the psychologist John Watson, who introduced his ‘Psychology as the Behaviourist Views it’ in an address at Columbia University in 1913. But in terms of education, and language education in particular, it was psychologist B.F. Skinner who had the strongest influence with his books Behavior of Organisms (1938) and later Verbal Behavior (1957). Skinner introduced the idea of operant conditioning, according to which behaviour is determined according to its consequences: if a particular behaviour attracts positive reinforcement it is likely to be repeated, if the response is negative, the behaviour is likely to discontinue. According to Skinner (1957), there is no reason to believe ‘that verbal behaviour differs in any fundamental respect from non-verbal behaviour’ (1957: 10). With the onset of war in the late 30s, Behaviourist ideas were taken up in order to fill the urgent need for military personnel who were fluent in other languages. They were trained according to the stimulus, response and reinforcement ideas promoted by the Behaviourists, which came to be known as the Army Method. In fact, this method, under intensive wartime conditions, proved to be very successful, so that, by the end of the war it was adopted by civilians and became known as the Audiolingual method. However, with the urgent motivating force of wartime needs no longer acting as a driving force, Audiolingualism failed to provide the promised miracle learning method. As Hutchinson and Waters (1987) put it ‘language learners would not conform to the behaviourist stereotype: they insisted on translating things, asked for rules of grammar, and somehow failed to learn something no matter how often they repeated it’ (1987: 42). In general, Behaviourism did not encourage initiative because learners might make mistakes which would then fossilize. There was, therefore, little emphasis on learning strategies, because of the underlying assumption that all learners had to do was attend to the stimulus and respond until it became habitual. Chomsky (e.g. 1957, 1959) was scathingly critical of the Behaviourist paradigm, insisting that learners are thinking individuals capable of novel and unique linguistic creativity which cannot be explained in terms of mere habit formation by means of stimulus and response as the Behaviourists suggested. In fact, Behaviourism (Audiolingualism) never really recovered from Chomsky’s attack, but some vestiges remain in the form of strategies such as repeating new vocabulary to myself until I can remember it. Structuralism

Developing at much the same time as Behaviourism in the early 20th century, Structuralism is most closely associated with the French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and his Course in General Linguistics (1916). Structuralism views language as a static system of fi xed units, such as phonemes, morphemes, grammatical units (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs,

50

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

etc.), words and sentences. A Structuralist view of language was later promoted in America by people such as Bloomfield (Language, 1933) and Fries (Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language, 1945). Lado and Fries amalgamated Structuralism and Behaviourism in their book English Pattern Practices: Establishing the Patterns as Habits (1967). As he did with Behaviourism, Chomsky (1957, 1959) argued against the Structuralist ideas prevailing at the time by maintaining that learning language is not merely a matter of absorbing a static system of unvarying structures. On the contrary, he argued, learners are capable of generating their own rules to construct previously unencountered utterances. Structuralism, however, retains a presence in our contemporary world of language learning and teaching in the form of the Grammar-Translation Method, still widely used throughout the world, and in the form of the structural syllabi which form the basic framework for many textbooks. As for strategy theory, Structuralism is present in the form of strategies such as looking for patterns, which would seem to assume that there are stable patterns in the target language to be discovered. Poststructuralism

Poststructuralism as an idea has actually been around quite a long time (e.g. Foucault, 1961), having developed as a reaction to the rigid ideas of the Structuralists. According to the Poststructuralists, rather than just an inflexible set of stable patterns, language consists of ‘situated utterances in which speakers, in dialogue with others, struggle to create meaning’ (Norton, 2014: 63). Given this emphasis on semantics rather than structure, we might consider strategies which emphasize the communication of meaning to have a Poststructuralist dimension. Cognitivism

Cognitivism, of course, was introduced by Chomsky (e.g. 1957, 1959), sometimes known as ‘the father of Cognitive Linguistics’. The awareness of the importance of cognition in language learning led to the interest in the strategies used by ‘good language learners’ in the mid to late 70s (for instance, Hosenfeld, 1976; Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Other important, essentially Cognitivist ideas soon followed, including those outlined below. •

Corder’s (1967) views about the role of error. Under the Behaviourists, error was viewed very negatively, requiring immediate correction in order to avoid fossilization, when incorrect forms become fi xed and cannot be changed. Corder, however, pointed out that errors are a natural part of the language learning process, and they can provide useful information about language development. Corder’s ideas are

A Conceptual Perspective

•

•

51

evident in strategy theory in the form of strategies such as I notice my mistakes and use that information to help me do better (SILL, Oxford, 1990). Interlanguage was the term coined by Selinker (1972) to describe the stage when a learner already has an established language but is in the process of developing a new one. This stage is characterized by the learner drawing on elements of both languages in order to communicate. During this process, errors such as overgeneralization (e.g. where the learner knows that the past tense of jump is jumped, so applies the same rule to sit and produces sitted) and language transfer (e.g. the use of the present continuous with a stative verb – I am liking ice cream – by students who have this pattern in their L1) tend to occur. Learners at the Interlanguage stage often code-switch with their L1 (e.g. if I want to reply in the affirmative in Turkish, but temporarily cannot remember evet, and so say yes instead). The concept of metacognition. From an etymological point of view, metacognition simply means above cognition. Although it is Flavell (1976) who is credited with first introducing metacognition to the psychological literature, among the first to apply the concept to learning strategies were O’Malley et al. (1985), when they described metacognition as ‘knowledge about cognition … [and] … regulation of cognition’ (1985: 24). According to O’Malley et al. (1985), ‘students without metacognitive approaches are essentially learners without direction and ability to review their progress, accomplishment, and future learning directions’ (1985: 24). The recognition of the important role of metacognition has continued in the years since. Oxford (1990) dedicated a section of the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) to metacognitive strategies, such as I plan my schedule so that I have enough time to study and I have clear goals for improving my skills. According to Wenden (1998) metacognitive knowledge is important for language learning since it can ‘assign an active role to the learner’ (1998: 515). Anderson (2008) points out that: metacognition results in critical but healthy reflection and evaluation of thinking that may result in making specific changes in how learning is managed, and in the strategies chosen for this purpose. (Anderson, 2008: 99)

•

In a later article, Anderson (2012) stresses the importance of metacognition when he states: ‘Strong metacognitive skills empower learners’ (2012: 182). Schema Theory was another essentially cognitive idea about the establishment of mental schemata (Anderson, 1977). According to Schema Theory, as we learn, we construct mental frameworks for ourselves, fitting new knowledge into this existing pattern as we go, perhaps reconstructing if we come across something that needs changing. These

52

•

•

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

schemata can be especially useful when we are faced with a task involving new information, such as being given a reading comprehension exercise based on an unfamiliar topic. When this kind of thing happens, we tend to draw on existing schemata in order to help make sense of the new material. This is reflected in strategies such as I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn (SILL, Oxford, 1990). Information Processing Theory developed alongside computer technology in the 80s, based on the metaphor of the human brain as a computer. In the forefront of this movement were people such as McLaughlin et al. (1983) and Bialystok (1991). According to the information processing metaphor, strategies are chosen by learners for the purpose of cognitively processing incoming stimuli. Schmidt’s (1990) Noticing Hypothesis was yet another basically cognitive idea, according to which, in order to learn, learners must pay attention, and they must notice the target feature. In order to learn from error correction, for instance, learners must fi rst notice the correction, and pay attention to the correct form. This idea is evident in strategies such as I pay attention when someone is speaking in English (SILL, Oxford, 1990).

These views of cognitively active learners paved the way for the introduction and development of the strategy concept. Indeed, many of the early strategists (such as Chamot & O’Malley, 1986, who produced the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach or CALLA) were firmly grounded in Cognitivism, a view which was developed at length by O’Malley and Chamot (1990), drawing on the work of cognitive psychologist J. Anderson (for instance, 1980). According to a cognitive perspective, the learner is seen as ‘an active participant in the learning process’ (Williams & Burden, 1997: 13), capable of thinking through the language learning process until the required knowledge to understand the new language system is achieved. This conception, according to which the student must actively process information, ‘places great responsibility on the learner’ (Bialystok, 1991: 77). As Larsen-Freeman (2001: 12) argues, the learner is not ‘merely a passive recipient’ and learning is not merely a ‘unilateral process … dependent on some benevolent, skilful, more proficient interlocutor’. In order to learn effectively, learners must become thinking participants who can influence their own learning and who share responsibility for that learning. This implies that learners are capable of choosing strategies for the purpose of actively regulating their own learning according to their own individual characteristics, goals and situations. The importance of cognition in language learning has been widely recognized (for instance, among many others, Anderson, 1980; Ausubel, 1968; Chamot, 2005). From a cognitive point of view, learning language is not merely a matter of habit formation as the Behaviourists believed,

A Conceptual Perspective

53

but, like any other kind of learning, involves taking in information which is then processed and acted upon (Bialystok, 1978, 1881, 1991; Dörnyei, 2005; McLaughlin, 1978; McLaughlin et al., 1983; Rubin, 1981; Skehan, 1998). From a cognitive perspective, learners are viewed as capable of generating rules (Chomsky, 1959, 1965, 1968), learning from errors (Corder, 1967), developing an interlanguage system (Selinker, 1972), establishing schemata (Anderson, 1977) and managing their own learning (Anderson, 2008) in a way which ultimately brings order into a complex (some say chaotic!) system (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). Cognitivism remains especially conspicuous in areas such as: •

•

•

•

cognitive load, a concept originally introduced by Sweller (1988), which refers to the amount of mental effort required to operate working memory and how this may affect various learners differently, for instance according to their age (e.g. Si & Kim, 2011); aptitude, for instance DeKeyser and Koeth (2011) who examine cognitive aptitudes for language learning. Rather than viewing aptitude as a unitary concept, contemporary perspectives tend to look for aptitude complexes, which ‘draw in subtly differentiated clusters of abilities and other personal factors’ (Robinson, 2012: 57); cognitive style (e.g. Armstrong et  al., 2012; Peterson et  al., 2009; Riding, 2000; Riding & Rayner, 1998) which is differentiated from the more specific term learning style, since it refers more generally to a preferred way of thinking, whereas learning style refers specifically to the way learners prefer to learn; studies involving neurolinguistics (e.g. Abutalebi, 2008; Green, 2003; Paradis, 2004; Perani & Abutalebi, 2005; Stowe & Sabourin, 2005; Ullman, 2004), which relate to mental activity occurring in the brain.

All of these cognition-based concepts have potential implications for strategy theory, in terms, perhaps, of selecting effective actions to cope with errors, to manage interlanguage, to establish and be able to access useful schemata, to process incoming information, to be able to maintain attention and notice important details, to manage the learning process, to minimize cognitive load or compensate for aptitude deficits, or to choose the most effective strategies to suit a particular cognitive style or neurolinguistic characteristics. Cognitivism remains an important influence in the field of applied linguistics (e.g. Chamot, 2009; Littlemore, 2009). Nevertheless, as the 1970s progressed, another very important theoretical influence was beginning to make itself felt. Socioculturalism

The Sociocultural term is perhaps most associated with Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who worked in the Soviet Union before his death

54

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

in 1934, but whose Mind in Society was not available in translation in the West until 1978. Perhaps Vygotsky’s most important contribution to theories of language learning is the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which is described as the area between what a learner already knows and the area he or she can achieve with assistance from a more knowledgeable mediator (e.g. a parent, a teacher or a more expert peer). In other words, learning is achieved by means of social communication with others, and this is reflected in the importance ascribed to social strategies by writers such as O’Malley et al. (1985) and Oxford (1990). At about the same time as Vygotsky’s work first became known, the work of one of his colleagues (Leont’ev, 1978) also became available. Activity Theory proposes the idea of human activity as a socioculturally situated and tool-mediated phenomenon, which consists of the following elements: • • • • •

a subject – e.g. a learner; an object – e.g. a learning goal; an action – what the subject does to achieve the object; operations – the specific ways the activities are carried out; the conditions – the context in which the action must be conducted.

Activity Theory aligns with strategy theory in the sense that strategies are the tools used to carry out the activities, but they are dependent on the learner’s characteristics, the goal and the context. Among the fi rst to contribute to the sociocultural movement in the west was Hymes (1972) with his theory of Communicative Competence, which emphasized the importance of both linguistic knowledge and the ability to use the language in socially and contextually appropriate ways. Communicative Competence was later divided by Canale and Swain (1980) into three distinct areas: • • •

grammatical competence (which relates to the learner’s knowledge of the vocabulary, phonology and rules of the language); sociolinguistic competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to use language appropriately); strategic competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to employ strategies to compensate for imperfect knowledge). Three years later, Canale (1983) added an extra dimension:

•

discourse competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to connect utterances into a cohesive and coherent whole).

Communicative Competence remains an important concept in applied linguistics, and it forms a basic underpinning construct for Communicative Language Teaching (CLT, e.g. Littlewood, 1981; Widdowson, 1978) and the concept of the communicative functions of language which feature in many textbooks and are a central element of many target language syllabi (e.g. Tajeddin, 2008).

A Conceptual Perspective

55

Another influential sociocultural theory from around the same time was Schumann’s Acculturation Model (1978). This model was proposed to account for the lack of progress in learning the target language by a Puerto Rican immigrant to the USA. Since Alberto seemed to have normal intelligence and his age (33) did not appear to provide sufficient explanation for this lack of progress, Schumann looked elsewhere for an explanation and suggested that Alberto suffered from social distance; that is, on a social level, he did not feel a need to integrate with the new society, and he did not feel comfortable in the new context; therefore he did not learn the language. Sociocultural context has long been recognized as an important factor relating to the strategies that learners choose to use, or which they have available to them in particular environments. For instance: • • • •

Oxford (1996b) investigated language learning strategies around the world from a cross-cultural perspective; Takeuchi et al. (2007) also looked at the ways context affected strategy use on both an individual and a group level; reflecting an increasing awareness of the importance of strategies in a Chinese context, studies were conducted in this environment by Gao (2010); in a more broadly Asian context, Griffiths et al. (2014) investigated strategies using a narrative methodology.

Conclusions from these studies seem to suggest that context has a profound influence on learners’ strategies. For instance: •

•

since Japan is a very monolingual society and there is little opportunity to practise a target language outside the classroom, Kawai and Kawai (in Griffiths et al., 2014) report building a ‘language use’ (2014: 53) environment; they report that ‘the impact of this strategy was phenomenal [and] learner confidence in using English was increased considerably’ (2014: 54); such a strategy would not be required in a study abroad context where students go to study where the language is spoken, such as reported by Park in the same article; she, however, required different strategies to cope with her new environment, beginning with the need to explain the contents of her suitcase at customs.

Sociocultural Theory has had a major effect on the teaching and learning of language (e.g. Gkonou, 2014; Lantolf, 2000a; Swain, 2000; Toohey & Norton, 2010, among many others). In terms of language learning strategy theory, socioculturalism is evident in the form of social strategies such as seeking conversation partners or asking for help, activities which are chosen as tools for the purpose of achieving a language learning goal within a sociocultural context. In addition, however, yet another theoretical tradition has been developing.

56

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Humanism

Although recognition of the importance of both cognition (e.g. Chamot, 2009) and the sociocultural environment (e.g. Toohey & Norton, 2010) have remained strong, awareness of the learner as an individual is also well-established (e.g. Skehan, 1989) and has also been steadily growing (e.g. Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014; Pawlak, 2012a; Rinvolucri, 2007). Learners, after all, are not just detached minds which exist in some context determined by the society and the culture in which they live. Learners are themselves, uniquely individual and different from each other, even within the same sociocultural context. Learners are not merely cognitive machines, driven by some neurological mechanism known as the brain (however wonderful that may be). As Krashen (1982) pointed out with the Affective Filter Hypothesis, learners also have emotions, and these are capable of blocking comprehensible input if they are negative. In fact, every learner is an immensely complex being which begins to exert its human agency from the moment he/she is born (if not before!). From this moment, individual differences will begin to shape his/her destiny. • • •

Gender will be a powerful factor contributing to opportunities which will be open or closed. Nationality/ethnicity/culture will also contribute to where this individual may go, what they can do, and other affordances or constraints which may be allowed or imposed. Inevitably, this individual will get older, and age is another potent variable which helps to determine the prospects which may or may not be available.

Gender, nationality and age are factors over which a learner has little or no choice or control, although good strategies may help to manage such differences (e.g. Griffiths, 2008a, 2013. See Section 1.3 for more details on these three variables). Other individual learner variables, however, especially those that might be considered psychological (that is, they originate in the mind) are more malleable. For instance: • • • • • •

motivation is seen as very dynamic in most contemporary literature, that is, it can be changed (e.g. Dörnyei et al., 2015); autonomy can be developed (e.g. Gao, 2013); style can be stretched (e.g. Griffiths & Inceçay, 2016a); beliefs can be adapted (e.g. Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014); more positive affective states can be fostered (e.g. Keblowska, 2012); self-concept can be enhanced (e.g. Mercer, 2012).

Even psychological characteristics which might once have been regarded as relatively stable, such as personality (e.g. Dewaele, 2012) and aptitude (e.g. de Keyser & Koeth, 2011) tend now to be regarded as more

A Conceptual Perspective

57

potentially amenable to modification. One means of achieving this flexibility may be by means of appropriate strategies. A psychological characteristic which has aroused a lot of interest in the last few years has been self-regulation (e.g. Boekaerts et al., 2000) with its emphasis on human agency during the learning process. Selfregulation ‘refers to the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning’ (Dörnyei, 2005: 191). Although according to Dörnyei and Skehan (2003), the term ‘learning strategy’ had been abandoned by educational psychologists ‘in favour of the more versatile concept of “self-regulation”’ (2003: 610), according to Winne (1995) ‘diverse strategies for problem solving are virtues of self-regulated learners’ (1995: 173). Zimmerman and Risemberg (1997) also defi ne self-regulation in terms of learners’ ‘strategic efforts to manage their own achievement’ (1997: 105). In other words, educational psychologists themselves tend to defi ne self-regulation in terms of strategies, suggesting that ‘self-regulation [is] not incompatible with language learning strategies’ (Rose, 2012: 97), leading Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) to suggest that there is potential for ‘linking up learning strategies meaningfully with the broader self-regulation concept’ (2015: 168). Complexity theory

In recent years, theories developed in other disciplines (such as the physical sciences) have been adapted to explain language development. An example of this phenomenon is Complexity Theory. Larsen-Freeman (1997) explains that language can be described as a complex system in that language consists of many different subsystems (grammar, vocabulary, phonology, semantics, etc.) which are interdependent. This means that: A change in any one of them can result in a change in the others … In other words, the behaviour of the whole emerges out of the interaction of the subsystems. Thus, describing each subsystem tells us about the subsystems, it does not do justice to the whole of language. (Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 149)

As a result of this complexity ‘we cannot get a true measure of the influence of a factor if we isolate it from the others and examine it one at a time’ (Larsen-Freeman, 2015: 14). Mercer (2014) further explains: ‘the collective functioning of the system as one organic whole cannot be deduced from an understanding of the individual components. Thus, the properties of the system as a whole are more than merely the sum of its separate parts’ (2014: 163). In an article by Griffiths and Inceçay (2016b), the complex nature of language learning strategy use, which ‘depends on relationships with the

58

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

learning situation, the learning target and individual learner differences – all of which interact with each other in extremely complex patterns’ (2016b: 26) is discussed. The authors conclude by suggesting that, given these complexities, a holistic view of strategy use is required. Dynamic systems theory

Although complex systems and dynamic systems are often considered together (indeed, the two terms are often put together as complex/dynamic systems), in fact, they are not entirely the same, since complex systems are concerned with multiple, interdependent subsystems, whereas the concept of dynamic refers to how phenomena change over time. In other words, we may or may not be interested in how a complex system changes (if, for instance, we are doing a cross-sectional study of a number of variables); or we may or may not want to explore the complex interrelationships of a particular dynamic phenomenon (if, for instance, we are doing a longitudinal study of a specific variable). Dynamic Systems Theory has been employed to stress that language development is not static but rather consists of ‘fi ne-grained patterns of change over time’ (de Bot et al., 2007: 7). A recent book by Dörnyei et al. (2015) focuses on the dynamic nature of factors such as motivation, context, anxiety, self-efficacy, affect, cognition, human agency and social networks. A study by Griffiths (2006) looked at the way strategy use by students developed over a period of three months and compared this with progress through the levels of the school. The results suggested that, in general, the students who made the fastest progress were those who most increased their strategy use over the period under investigation. Eclecticism

A holistic view suggests the need for an eclectic theory of language learning strategies which views the learner as a complex, dynamic, cognitively active, contextualized, goal-oriented individual who operates within a social environment, and whose learning is mediated by interaction with various others according to his or her own individual needs and characteristics. And all of these various factors influence the strategies that learners are willing or able to choose. As we can see, strategy theory has developed a somewhat eclectic theoretical base, including elements of Behaviourism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Cognitivism, Sociocultural Theory, Humanism, Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory. Within these broader theoretical umbrellas, we have Interlanguage, Schemata Theory, Information Processing Theory, the Noticing Hypothesis, metacognition,

A Conceptual Perspective 59

Communicative Competence, Activity Theory, the Acculturation Model, the Affective Filter Hypothesis, self-regulation, and, perhaps, others. This has produced a ‘web of interlocking theories’ (Oxford, 2011a: 60) which may help to explain why language learning strategy theory has been so resistant to theoretical clarification for so long. Language learning strategies: Theoretical underpinnings

Photo: Colourbox.com

Language learning strategy theory draws on an eclectic variety of other theories of learning, including Behaviourism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Cognitivism, Socioculturalism, Humanism, Complexity Theory and Dynamic Systems Theory, plus numerous sub-theories within these broader paradigms, producing an extremely complex and inclusive theoretical scenario. Since the theory underpinning language learning strategies is highly eclectic, drawing on and utilizing insights from many different theoretical traditions, I am tempted to call it the ‘Magpie Theory’. Because it has picked up so many bits and pieces from so many different places, it can appear rather ‘muddled’ (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003: 610). But this is the reality of our human condition: none of us is simple, and to attempt to oversimplify the picture is to risk trivializing the rich complexity that is inherent in us all. However, because this complexity has the potential to create ambiguity, it is essential that the theoretical basis of any particular study is clearly stated.

1.5 Classification

If defi nition of and establishing a theoretical base for language learning strategies has been difficult, classification has certainly been no less so. Over the years there have been numerous attempts to itemize and label

60

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

strategic activities and to list them in inventories or organize them into taxonomies. Rubin (1981) identified two kinds of learning strategies: those which contribute directly to learning, and those which contribute indirectly to learning. The direct learning strategies, which involve the learner interacting directly with the material to be learnt, she divided into six types: • • • • • •

clarification/verification; monitoring; memorization; guessing/inductive inferencing; deductive reasoning; practice. The indirect learning strategies she divided into two types:

• •

creating opportunities for practice; production tricks.

Of the indirect strategies, the first would probably be called metacognitive by some (for instance, Anderson, 2008), while the inclusion of strategies related to communication under ‘production tricks’ (Rubin, 1981: 12) is controversial in a list of learning strategies since, as discussed previously, communication strategies do not necessarily lead to learning. When O’Malley et al. (1985) came to conduct their research, 10 years after Rubin’s (1975) original landmark article, they based their defi nition on Rigney’s (1978) defi nition of learning strategies as procedures which facilitate acquisition, retention, retrieval and performance. In an attempt to produce a classification scheme with mutually exclusive categories, O’Malley and his colleagues developed a taxonomy of their own, identifying 26 strategies which they divided into three groups: • • •

metacognitive (knowing about learning); cognitive (involving mental engagement with the target material); social (relating to interaction with others).

The metacognitive and cognitive categories correspond approximately to Rubin’s indirect and direct strategies. However, the addition of the social mediation category was an important step in the direction of acknowledging the importance of interactional strategies in language learning, and reflected the growing interest in socioculturalism at the time. Oxford (1990) took this process a step further. Like O’Malley et al. (1985), Oxford (1990) also began with Rigney’s (1978) original defi nition which she expanded to defi ne language learning strategies as ‘specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations’ (Oxford, 1990: 8). From an extensive review of the literature,

A Conceptual Perspective

61

Oxford (1990) gathered a large number of strategic activities, producing a very comprehensive inventory, although it is still, of necessity, somewhat selective since ‘dozens and perhaps hundreds of such strategies exist’ (Oxford et al., 1989: 29). On the basis of factor analyses, Oxford (1990) divided the strategy items into six groups: • • • • • •

memory strategies (which relate to how students remember language, such as using flashcards or visualizing); cognitive strategies (which relate to how students acquire knowledge and understanding about language, such as formulating rules or looking for cognates); compensation strategies (which enable students to make up for limited knowledge, such as guessing or gesturing); metacognitive strategies (relating to how students manage the learning process, such as planning or evaluating); affective strategies (relating to students’ feelings, such as trying to relax or talking about feelings); social strategies (which involve learning by interaction with others, such as asking for help or talking to classmates).

These six categories underlie the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Oxford, 1990) used by Oxford and others for a great deal of research in the learning strategy field. However, agreement on the validity of classifying strategies according to these kinds of groupings is by no means universal, as Oxford herself (2011) acknowledges. Stern (1992: 264), for instance, points to ‘a certain arbitrariness in the classification of learning strategies’. LoCastro (1994) questions the grouping of memory strategies as separate from cognitive strategies in the SILL, since memory involves mental (cognitive) processing, and memory and cognitive strategies might therefore be considered as belonging to the same group. Another classification difficulty relates to the SILL’s compensation group of strategies which, according to Ellis (1994: 539), are included ‘somewhat confusingly’, since they might be considered communication strategies rather than learning strategies. Since memory may be considered an aspect of cognition and the items in the SILL’s compensation group may be classified as communication rather than learning strategies, Cohen and Dörnyei (2002) recommend reducing the SILL’s six groups to four (cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social). If we extend this argument still further, however, and accept that metacognitive strategies are those used to ‘supervise or manage … language learning’ as A. Cohen and Dörnyei (2002: 181) themselves defi ne them, it might be suggested that social and affective strategies are themselves used metacognitively to manage social interaction and affective states, which, in turn, contribute to the management of cognitive engagement. This leaves a more general but well-recognized group of metacognitive strategies such as planning, preparing, selecting, monitoring,

62

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

organizing, orchestrating, evaluating, which we might, perhaps call general supervisory strategies aimed at regulating learning. This line of argument would reduce the basic strategy categories to two. •

Cognitive strategies – those activities that a learner chooses to engage directly with the material to be learnt in order to develop knowledge or understanding. There are several different ways learners can engage cognitively with the target material, in particular: meaning-focused; rule focused; skills-focused; vocabulary-focused; phonology-focused; fluency-focused; pragmatics-focused; discourse-focused. Metacognitive strategies (meaning, literally, above cognitive) – used to regulate this interaction. These strategies are concerned with managing, supervising or controlling the learning process and operate at an indirect level above direct cognitive strategies (Oxford, 2011a, calls them metastrategies). These kinds of strategies may themselves be divided into three different types: Supervisory strategies are used to manage or control the learning process. They include planning, preparing, evaluating, selecting, organizing, monitoring, obtaining and using resources, strategy orchestration, goal setting, time management, etc. Affective strategies help the learner create positive emotions and attitudes and stay motivated. These strategies include managing mood, motivation, attitude, anxiety, inhibition, beliefs, relaxation, avoiding stress or worry, etc. Social strategies include managing interaction with others, cultural and identity issues, seeking compatible partners, etc. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

•

○

○

○

This classification scheme is set out diagrammatically in Table 1.2. If we accept this kind of binary view, which kind of strategy is more important? Cognitive or metacognitive? According to O’Malley et  al. (1985), students who do not have metacognitive strategies are like ships without rudders: they cannot direct their own learning and risk drifting aimlessly and achieving very little. Anderson (2008) is another who firmly advocates the importance of metacognition since the ability to manage their own learning makes students less dependent ‘on the vicissitudes of the learning situation’ (2008: 108). It is, perhaps, impossible to disagree that the ability to manage, control, organize and regulate their own learning is an essential feature of good language learners. However, we might also argue that students who organize themselves to take books out of the self-study room but then

A Conceptual Perspective

63

Table 1.2 Classification system of language learning strategies METACOGNITIVE/REGULATORY STRATEGIES AFFECTIVE

SUPERVISORY

SOCIAL

Maintaining motivation

Planning

Managing interaction

Reducing anxiety

Monitoring

Seeking partners

Rewarding oneself, etc.

Assessing, etc.

Asking for help, etc.

COGNITIVE/DIRECT STRATEGIES Meaning-focused

Skills-focused

Phonology-focused

Pragmatics-focused

Rule-focused

Vocabulary-focused

Fluency-focused

Discourse-focused

never read them, who plan a vocabulary-learning schedule but then never actually do it, who select grammar-learning strategies but then never actually apply them to their own learning, who buy themselves some chocolate to serve as a reward once they have fi nished a given learning task, eat the chocolate, but do not actually complete the task – such students are unlikely to achieve a great deal in spite of a well-developed repertoire of metacognitive strategies. It really isn’t until these learners engage cognitively by reading the books they have taken out, by remembering the vocabulary they have listed, by internalizing and applying the grammar rules they have written down, by completing the task for which the chocolate was intended as a reward, that learning actually takes place. We can conclude, then, that metacognitive strategies and cognitive strategies really go hand-in-hand. It is no use planning unless there is follow-up action – it is like the plan of a house that never gets built. At the same time, acting without a sound plan is likely to be much less effective, and to result in much more wasted time, frustration and a less successful outcome than action which is well managed and supported by sound metacognitive strategies. Another of the difficulties with classification is that, in practice, it is often not easy to exclusively classify a particular strategy into one group or another. This difficulty is acknowledged by Green and Oxford (1995), who concede that the SILL’s sub-groups do not always correspond to a posteriori factor analyses. For instance, is a strategy such as reading books I have got from the self-study room cognitive or metacognitive? Is listening to songs in order to relax myself cognitive or affective? Is I look for people I can talk to in the TL metacognitive or social? Although a framework such as that suggested in Table 1.2 might go some way to resolving some theoretical issues, when constructing a valid instrument for research purposes we are still left with the practical difficulties of deciding on appropriate item selection and assigning the selected items to appropriate categories. In the case of the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory or ELLSI, Griffiths (2003b), after repeated attempts at factor analysis (a statistical procedure which aims to identify

64

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

common underlying characteristics), gave up trying to assign strategy items to statistically justifiable categories and dealt with the items individually rather than in groups. However, data obtained from large numbers of unrelated strategies can be indigestible, unwieldy and difficult to interpret. Such data, therefore, risk ending up as just a meaningless jumble, without some means of classifying them into some sorts of meaningful clusters. Perhaps the best advice (at least for the present until further research might manage to achieve some enlightenment) might be that if strategies need to be grouped for a particular research project, the grouping should be done on a case-by-case basis and justified according to the particular learners, situations and goals involved and the purpose for which the research is being carried out. Pre-existing classification systems should be considered with care in the light of the intended participants, the learning purpose and the context in which they are to be used. They should, perhaps, be customized and tailored to the needs and characteristics of the group with which they are to be employed, and results should be interpreted with care and with due consideration of the research participants, their goals and the learning environment factored into the analysis. Classification of language learning strategies

The classification system suggested here includes just two categories, cognitive/direct and metacognitive/regulatory, each of which has subcategories. In fact, issues regarding the classification of strategies remain an unresolved source of controversy and a focus of research effort right up to the present and efforts to classify strategies into neat and universally agreed categories have met with only limited success. Therefore, this is something that researchers need to consider carefully when planning a study, and it requires careful clarification during the presentation process.

1.6 Issues in Research Methodology

One of the difficulties with researching language learning strategies has been that only a few (such as writing vocabulary in a notebook or using a dictionary) can be observed directly: most can only be inferred from language learner behaviour or elicited by means of learner reports. As Ellis (1986) rather colourfully puts it: ‘It is a bit like trying to work out the classification system of a library when the only evidence to go on consists of the few books you have been allowed to take out’ (1986: 14). Given the difficulties of such a task, the challenge has been to devise a means fi rst of all to record and subsequently to interpret the phenomena involved, a process which Ellis (1986) likens to ‘stumbling blindfold round a room to

A Conceptual Perspective

65

fi nd a hidden object’ (1986: 188). Grenfell and Harris (1999: 54) agree that ‘it is not easy to get inside the “black box” of the human brain and fi nd out what is going on there. We work with what we can get’. Data collection

Over the years, numerous methods for collecting data from the ‘black box’ have been employed in strategy research, the most notable of which we will review here. Ethical issues

Before we get into details of data collection methods, let us fi rst of all look at an area which is easy to overlook and often neglected. But increasingly journals are requiring evidence that ethical procedures have been followed, so failing to comply with this can have serious consequences for publishability. In fact, ethical requirements vary from place to place, and researchers should comply with whatever it is that is required, but these requirements usually minimally include the points outlined below. (a) Informed consent: Participants must be informed of the purpose of the research, why they are being asked to provide this information, so that they can make an informed decision about whether they want to participate or not. In the case of a dual-purpose activity (e.g. a questionnaire aimed to stimulate classroom discussion and also to be used for a research project), students have a right to be informed about this and to decide whether they wish to participate in it or not. The best way to provide this information is on a separate sheet of paper, or other form which is separate from the data collection instrument. (b) Voluntary participation: Participants must be informed that their participation is voluntary, they do not have to participate, and they may withdraw at any time and for any reason. (c) Confidentiality: Participants must be assured that the data they will provide will be kept confidential. They may remain anonymous if they wish to do so (in other words, they do not have to provide names, emails or other identifying details). This may be problematic if the researcher wants, for instance, to compare questionnaire ratings with test scores. Nevertheless, it is the participants’ right, and the researcher might just have to work with a slightly smaller data set than might otherwise have been available. (d) Absence of threat: Participants need to be assured that the information they provide will not be problematic for them in any way. If, for instance, the participants are students, they must be assured that the data collection procedure is in no way connected with their scores for the course, or that any information they provide or opinions they express will not create bias against them.

66

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Questionnaires

A common method used in strategy research to collect data has been the Likert-type questionnaire, introduced by Likert (1932). The use of this kind of instrument, however, has been widely debated (for instance, Aldridge & Levine, 2001; Dörnyei, 2003; Gillam, 2000; Oxford, 1996, 2011a; Reid, 1990; Turner, 1993). Reid (1990), for instance, talks of the ‘dirty laundry of ESL survey research’ (1990: 87). Gu et al. (1995) question the degree to which student self-report ratings on Likert-type instruments such as the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning – Oxford, 1990) can be relied on to be an accurate reflection of actual use, since what is ‘often’ to one respondent may be rated quite differently by another. And according to Dörnyei (2007), questionnaires have ‘some serious limitations, and it is all too easy to produce unreliable and invalid data’ (2007: 115). However, Gu et al. (1995) point out that such instruments can be useful if chosen, administered and interpreted with care. Dörnyei (2007) also concedes that ‘the popularity of questionnaires is due to the fact that they are relatively easy to construct, extremely versatile and uniquely capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processible’ (2007: 101–102). Many major studies of language learning strategy use have employed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990). Although issues related to the SILL have been discussed in the previous section, Oxford’s taxonomy is possibly the most comprehensive currently available (Ellis, 1994). According to Oxford (1996b) many major strategy studies have used the SILL which has appeared in several different versions and in a number of different languages. The SILL is a self-scoring, paper-and-pencil survey which consists of statements such as I review lessons often or I ask questions to which students are asked to respond on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (always or almost always) according to perceived frequency of use. According to Green and Oxford (1995), reliability is generally high for the SILL, and is quoted as ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 (Cronbach alpha) depending on whether the students take the survey in their own language or in the target language, a level which, according to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 6), is ‘very acceptable’. Oxford (1996b) also argues that the construct validity (how well the theoretical construct is measured), the criterion-related validity (demonstrated in the relationship between the SILL and performance), and the content validity (the degree to which the content is appropriate) are all very high. In addition, according to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 6) the SILL has utility (defi ned as ‘the usefulness of an instrument in real-world settings for making decisions relevant to people’s lives’) and low fakability. As Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 11) point out: ‘If people are not honest in their answers, validity is destroyed’. Dishonest answers are ascribed

A Conceptual Perspective

67

to two main reasons: to please the researcher, or to make the respondent appear in a more favourable light. Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995) claim that repeated studies have failed to discover any social desirability response bias, a result which Oxford (1996b: 33) ascribes to the ‘nonthreatening’ nature of the SILL. Oxford (2011a) acknowledges, however, that the SILL may not be appropriate for all students in all contexts, as suggested by Woodrow (2005). For instance, in the study by Griffiths (2003b), there were some strategy items (such as using rhymes or flashcards) which did not seem to be rated highly by any of the students – indeed students often had difficulty understanding what these strategies involved. Conversely, there were other strategies which students mentioned during discussions, or identified as key strategies during interviews, or were commonly observed using which are not included in the SILL (as noted also by Lunt, 2000). Examples of these ‘missing’ strategies might be: • • • • • •

looking up a dictionary; referring to the teacher; using a self-study room; keeping a notebook; listening to radio; reading newspapers.

Other problems with the SILL include the 6–factor classification system discussed previously in Section 1.5 (e.g. Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002; Ellis, 1994; LoCastro, 1994; Stern, 1992). Acknowledging these potential problem areas, Oxford (2011a) encourages researchers to make adaptations to suit their particular learners in their specific situations. And a pragmatic difficulty with the SILL can be its length. Although the 50-item version is considerably shorter than other versions, it nonetheless takes students up to an hour to complete which, at times, can lead to some impatience among students who are keen to proceed with learning rather than bothering too much with HOW to learn. Students (who often believe they know all they need to know about learning strategies anyway) will often tolerate a certain amount of strategies-focused material, but fail to see the relevance of extended exercises or discussions. One instrument which was intended to be shorter is the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI) (Griffiths, 2003b, 2008b) which was constructed using a ‘bottom up’ approach including only the strategies students actually said they used. These were gathered over a period of several weeks into an original questionnaire consisting of strategy items such as: • •

keeping a language learning notebook (Item 17); making friends with native speakers (Item 28).

68

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

An attempt was made to divide the items of the ELLSI into sub-groups using a factor analysis before administering it in class (further discussion and exemplification of the factor analysis procedure will be presented in the Data analysis section). However, the same difficulties with assigning strategies to mutually exclusive categories experienced with the SILL also applied to the ELLSI (see the discussion of issues with strategy classification in Section 1.5). A strategy such as Item 8: Listening to songs in English, for instance, might be considered to relate to the use of resources or to the management of feelings. A strategy such as Item 13: Using a dictionary might relate to the management of learning or to the use of resources. Because of difficulties with deciding on appropriate sub-groupings for the strategy items, the ELLSI was initially not sub-divided. Instead it was decided to use a factor analysis procedure to identify groupings on the first batch of questionnaires as a possible guide to establishing sub-groups for subsequent versions of the survey. When a Principal Component Analysis was carried out, however, 18 of the 32 ELLSI items were found to form a unified group which could not be statistically sub-divided. The strategies in this group included such conceptually diverse items as Reading books in English (Item 4), Talking to other students in English (Item 12), Preplanning language learning encounters (Item 21), Listening to the radio in English (Item 31) and Writing a diary in English (Item 32). In the face of this thematic diversity, attempts to establish fi xed groupings for the ELLSI were abandoned. Since the original 32-item ELLSI (Griffiths, 2003c) was constructed, it has been updated several times to fit the needs of particular contexts (the original was written for a target language context, so several of those items were not appropriate for EFL environments) or to reflect technological advances (such as online programmes) which were not available in 2003. Issues for researchers to consider when thinking of using the ELLSI (or any other pre-existing questionnaire) might be whether the participants need to identify themselves or whether the survey is to be anonymous (there might be ethical issues involved here), whether it is necessary to know gender, age, nationality etc. and whether the questionnaire data will need to be matched with any other data (such as test results). These considerations may require adaptations to the questionnaire form, but, from experience, it is better to think about these things in advance: it is too late afterwards. Another instrument developed to suit the needs of a particular group is the Language Skills Development (LSD) survey (Griffiths, 2004), modelled on established instruments by Oxford (1990), Cohen et al. (2003) and Griffiths (2003b). Since this survey focused on skills development, strategy items which relate to more general language learning behaviour (such as strategies for learning vocabulary or grammar or for organizing the learning environment) were not included. Although these more

A Conceptual Perspective

69

general strategies may, of course, lead on to skills development (for instance, strategies which expand vocabulary may help students to write or speak more effectively, or to understand what they read or hear), they are somewhat removed from strategies which directly address the skill under development, and to have included them would have created a questionnaire of daunting length. The LSD strategy survey was divided into four sections according to the traditional four skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking). Ten statements were made regarding each skill, for instance: • • • •

I make summaries of what I read; I plan my writing before I start; I listen for key words; I plan in advance what I want to say.

When constructing the LSD questionnaire, every effort was made to consider the issues raised by de Vaus (1995) regarding questionnaire construction. The language was kept as unambiguous and as simple as possible, and items were kept as short as possible. Double-barrelled items were avoided, although at times similar elements (such as radio, TV, movies) were combined in order to avoid making the questionnaire unduly lengthy. Negative questions (which can be difficult to understand, answer and interpret appropriately) were also avoided. The LSD questionnaire was trialled with three groups of trainee teachers whose suggestions were noted and changes made as appropriate. The LSD questionnaire can be found, for those who might care to use it, in Appendix 1. The same comments as made above about the ELLSI also apply to the LSD questionnaire. Interviews

Another commonly used technique for researching strategy use has been the interview. Valuable as figures may be for indicating trends and general truths, we must bear in mind that they can never represent more than paper profiles of flesh and blood learners in all their complexities. As Wong Fillmore (1982: 157) points out: ‘Anyone who works with second language learners, whether in teaching or in research, discovers quickly how much individual variation there is’. Learners, in fact, cannot be reduced to mere animated columns of data. As Horwitz (1999: 558) reminds us: ‘language learners are individuals approaching language learning in their own unique way’. In reality, individual language learners are often full of statistically inconvenient contradictions which an analysis of the aggregated data can never portray. Over a sufficient number of cases, these contradictions tend to become levelled out, but this does not alter the fact that, on an individual level, learner characteristics of one kind or another can be a real force to be

70 The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

reckoned with, and it is here that qualitative research methods can be useful (for instance, Emery, 1986). Interviews have been used by many researchers to probe the complexities of the individual learner which helps to ‘capture the richness of learners’ constructions’ (Oxford, 2001: 94) and produces insights ‘that are at once broadly applicable and rich in observed detail’ (Green & Oxford, 1995: 293). Interviewing real learners can help to contextualize depersonalized statistics and add ‘qualitative refi nement’ to quantitative analysis of data (Chaudron, 1986: 714). In support of the advantages of using the interview as a research method, Wenden (1987b: 103) presents the common-sense point of view that ‘the best way to get at what strategies learners actually use as they go about their learning tasks is to ask them’. As explained by Nunan (1992), interviews vary from structured, through semi-structured to unstructured. According to Gillham (2000: 65), the semi-structured interview is ‘the richest single source of data’. In a semi-structured interview, ‘although there is a set of pre-prepared guiding questions and prompts, the format is open-ended and the interviewee is encouraged to elaborate on the issues raised in an exploratory manner [which does not] limit the depth and breadth of the respondent’s story’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 136). The interview technique has been used successfully by many strategy researchers. These include Naiman et al. (1978: 37) who comment that ‘the interview proved to be a useful research technique’, O’Malley et al. (1985: 35) who report that ‘generally we had considerable success in identifying learning strategies through interviews’, and Griffiths (2003b) who used interviews to add depth to questionnaire data. A sample interview guide is provided in Appendix 3. Observation

A problem with observation is the idea that much of learner behaviour is internal: it occurs inside the head, and is therefore unobservable. A further difficulty is the phenomenon of observer paradox (Labov, 1972), which expresses the idea that, although an observer may go into a situation in order to observe natural behaviour, the very fact of being there is likely to change normal patterns of behaviour (also known as the Hawthorne Effect, Landsberger, 1958) after the place where it was fi rst documented. Nevertheless, in spite of these difficulties, observation can provide some interesting insights. When observing, it is useful to use observation rubrics or checklists and to take notes which can provide a basis for later feedback and help to ensure potentially important details are not overlooked or forgotten. Examples of studies which have used observation include the wellknown study by Rubin (1975), when she observed students in classrooms, herself, and teachers. Another more recent observation study is one by

A Conceptual Perspective

71

Soruç and Griffiths (2015) which investigated issues involved with the teaching of features of spoken English when students were observed and video-recorded during the lessons. Experiment

A true experiment employs an intervention with randomly selected participants assigned to control and experimental groups and uses a pretest and post-test to determine the effect of the intervention. If any of these elements is absent (most typically the random selection requirement, since this can be difficult in a real teaching situation), it is called a quasiexperiment. These kinds of studies are not common in strategy research, but there are a few, such as the one by O’Malley (1987) which divided students into three randomly assigned groups in order to investigate the effects of strategy training on language learning. Think-aloud

This involves getting participants to do a particular task (such as reading or an inferencing exercise) and to vocalizing their thought processes while they are doing it. A well-known study which used this technique is the one by Vann and Abraham (1990) which investigated the strategies used by a pair of unsuccessful language learners. More recently, Hu and Nassaji (2014) used think-aloud procedures with 11 Chinese learners of English to explore their inferential strategies. They found that successful inferencers made frequent use of evaluation and monitoring strategies. Case studies

Case studies use individual cases to generalize about a wider population. ‘Individual’, however, does not necessarily imply just one person: it may refer to a group, a class, a school or an even larger unit: the essential thing is that the ‘case’ forms an identifiable entity. Case studies are most commonly longitudinal and often generate qualitative rather than quantitative data which tends to be ‘thick’ (that is, there is a great deal of it). Strengths of the case study include the sense of human involvement, while the main weakness is the level of subjectivity involved. The four students surveyed in the second section of a study which aimed at investigating the way a small group of successful students used writing strategies (Griffiths, 2016) is an example of a case study. Narratives

Narratives have become a popular method of researching learner behaviour because they allow learners to tell their own stories. As with case studies, however, subjectivity may threaten reliability, so results need to be interpreted with care. The study by Oxford, Griffiths et al. (2014), in which six narrators tell their personal experiences of strategy use, is an example of a narrative study.

72

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Ethnography

Ethnographic studies are those which are situated in a specific cultural context which influences the nature of the study and the specific fi ndings. Although not actually labelled as ethnographic, a study which might be considered to fall within this paradigm, because the context in which it was conducted is an integral feature of the study, is the one by Harish (2014) which investigates the use of strategies by Malayalee students in India. Phenomenology

Although not actually a new approach, phenomenology (that is, as the name precisely means, the study of a particular phenomenon) has recently become popular. We might say, therefore, that any of the numerous studies which examine the phenomenon of strategy use are, by defi nition, phenomenological, whether or not they actually label themselves as such. Mixed methods

Since it is often impossible to gain a reliable view of any particular phenomenon on the basis of just one method, mixed method studies have become increasingly popular. By using more than one method (e.g. a questionnaire followed-up by think-aloud procedures) we can obtain triangulation, which can be used to cross-check conclusions drawn from any one method. Data analysis

The kind of data analysis required will depend on the kind of data collected. Broadly speaking we might say that there are two main kinds of data: quantitative and qualitative, and they require different approaches to analysis. Quantitative data analysis

By far the most common type of instrument used in strategy studies for gathering quantitative data has been the Likert-type questionnaire. This popularity is attributed by Dörnyei (2007) to the fact that questionnaires are ‘relatively easy to construct, extremely versatile and uniquely capable of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processible’ (2007: 101–102). But, as Jamieson (2004) points out, although ‘it has become common practice to assume that Likert-type categories constitute interval-level measurement,’ this is not the case, since ‘intervals between values cannot be presumed equal’ (2004: 1217). This type of instrument produces ordinal data, which, as Dikilitaş and Griffiths (2017) explain, refers to data where particular attitudes (such as level of agreement or

A Conceptual Perspective

73

disagreement) or subjective assessment of a particular phenomenon (e.g. degree of frequency, level of importance) etc. are given numbers for the sake of convenience in that this allows the data to be analysed by computer. Clearly, however, these figures are not really numbers. For example: • •

if someone gives a questionnaire item a rating of 4 for importance, we cannot say s/he thinks it is twice as important as someone who only gives it a 2; it makes no sense to say that the average of seldom (2) and often (4) is seldom-and-a-half!

Even further removed from ‘real’ numbers than ordinal data are nominal data. These kinds of data are generated when non-numerical variables are given numbers in order to be able to enter them into a computer. For example (Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017: 131): (a) Males = 1, females = 2; (b) Chinese = 1, Europeans = 2, Africans = 3, Americans = 4. How could we make any sense of trying to analyse this kind of data numerically? If we add males (=1) and females (=2) together, do we get 3? Would the average of a European and an American in example (b) above be an African? Since Likert-type instruments produce ordinal data, they should be analysed using non-parametric tests such as medians (Mdn), Spearman’s correlation (rs), Mann-Whitney U (U) or Kruskall-Wallis H (H) tests of diff erence rather than the parametric equivalents (Pearson productmoment correlations, Student’s t-test of difference, ANOVA, MANOVA, regression, etc.). This point is made clearly by Dörnyei (2007), who states that since Likert-type ratings are ordinal, ‘parametric tests are not appropriate’ (2007: 227). Cohen et al. (2007) make the same point: ‘it is incorrect to apply parametric statistics to nonparametric data’ (2007: 503). So how do we get these statistics? It is beyond the scope of this book to get too technical about statistics, and those who want to know more should check a research methods book such as Dikilitaş and Griffiths (2017), Cohen et al. (2007) or Dörnyei (2007). Much of this information is also available online these days. But since it is such a common question, and researchers really need to know how to do it, briefly, it is quite an easy procedure on SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). It involves first of all entering your data onto SPSS, then opening your SPSS file (for the purpose of exemplification we will use an abbreviated version of the file used for the study reported in Section 2.1) and following the steps outlined below.

74

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Reliability

An important issue with the use of questionnaires for researching strategies relates to reliability. It should be remembered that, even when an instrument (such as the SILL, Oxford, 1990, or the ELLSI, Griffiths, 2003b) has been published with a reliability coefficient quoted, that coefficient refers to that study with that particular sample, and it may or may not be equally reliable with another sample. In other words, we should be careful to avoid ‘the false understanding that reliability is a characteristic of the instrument’ (Dörnyei, 2007: 51) when in fact it is a property of the results for a specific sample. This means that reliability must be calculated for each study. Fortunately, this is not difficult on SPSS: Analyse → scale → Reliability analysis → transfer target variables → OK Cronbach’s alpha will appear in the box labelled ‘Reliability Statistics’. Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha

No of Items

0.918

50

An alpha coefficient of less than 0.7 is generally considered fairly low (e.g. Dörnyei, 2007), while anything above 0.9 is usually considered high. We can conclude, therefore, that the SILL was a reliable instrument for assessing the frequency of strategy use of the students in this sample. Factor analysis

A factor analysis is most commonly performed when validating a new instrument to see if the items ‘hang together’. It is not always considered necessary for an established instrument such as the SILL, but if you want to examine the underlying factor structure of your data, and how the items group together, here is how: Analyse → dimension reduction → factor → transfer target variables → descriptives. Check anything you want, or, if you are happy with the default options automatically selected, click continue → extraction Again, if the defaults are OK for you, click continue → rotation The default is ‘principal component’, so unless you want something else, click continue → options If defaults are OK, click continue → OK Among the matrices on the page, a component matrix will appear. From this we can see that the first nine items of the SILL (the memory strategies) can be divided into three factors. This, however, presents us with a bit of

A Conceptual Perspective

75

a problem, since the SILL is already divided into six factors (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective and social), and if we have to deal with multiple sub-factors for each of these, we are going to end up with a rather massive list of unrelated items, none of which ‘hang together’ with anything much else. Component Matrixa Component

a1

1

2

3

0.488

0.558

−0.155

a2

0.643

0.165

−0.282

a3

0.665

−0.215

−0.125

a4

0.649

−0.229

−0.313

a5

0.467

−0.402

−0.002

a6

0.344

−0.276

0.749

a7

0.527

−0.285

0.041

a8

0.382

0.469

0.187

a9

0.445

0.376

0.436

So, perhaps if we try a one-factor solution to see what happens? The procedure is the same except at the ‘extraction’ stage, when, instead of leaving the default ‘Eigenvalues greater than 1’, we unclick that, click ‘fi xed number of factors’, put 1 in the box and click continue. The following component matrix is produced (actually, in this case, it is the same as column 1 in the matrix above, but it may be less confusing to see it isolated). Component Matrixa Component 1 a1

0.488

a2

0.643

a3

0.665

a4

0.649

a5

0.467

a6

0.344

a7

0.527

a8

0.382

a9

0.445

76

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

From this we can see that all of the component coeffi cients are greater than 0.3 (often considered the lower threshold), so we may feel justified in continuing to treat the memory strategy group as one unified category. In fact, there are many different options for conducting a factor analysis, and people tend to develop their own ‘favourites’, but the procedure described above is adequate as a basic modus operandi for those who are not too mathematically inclined (which probably applies to most language teachers!). Median

Analyse → descriptives → frequencies → transfer target variables to variables box → statistics → click ‘median’ box (there are also other things in this box such as ‘mean’, ‘mode’, ‘sum’, ‘standard deviation’ etc. which you can get if you want them) → continue → OK. You will get a box like the following (just the fi rst seven items are shown here because of space constraints). From this we can see that there are 348 participants, nothing is missing, and the medians for 5 of the variables is 3 (somewhat true of me) while the medians for the other two items is 2 (usually not true of me). In other words, we can tell from these figures that this group of strategy items is not used frequently on the whole. Statistics

Valid

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

a7

348

348

348

348

348

348

348

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3.0000

3.0000

3.0000

3.0000

2.0000

2.0000

3.0000

N Missing Median

Correlation

If we want to fi nd out how the strategy items relate to achievement in terms of level, we need to use a test of correlation. Since the fi le we are working with consists of non-parametric data obtained from a Likert-type questionnaire, a non-parametric test of correlation is appropriate: Analyse → correlate → bivariate → move ‘level’ and target items to variable box → untick ‘Pearson’ (the default) → tick Spearman → OK. A box like the one below (seriously truncated for the sake of space) will appear.

A Conceptual Perspective

77

Correlations

Spearman’s rho

level

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

a1

a4

1.000

0.172**

0.116*

−0.101

0.001

0.031

0.060

348

348

348

– 348 0.172**

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.001

1.000 –

348

348

Correlation Coefficient

0.116*

0.185**

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.031

0.001

N a6

a1

Correlation Coefficient

N a4

level

Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N

a6

0.185**

0.038

0.001

0.484

348

348

1.000

0.109*

–

0.042

348

348

−0.101

0.038

0.109*

348

0.060

0.484

0.042

348

348

348

348 1.000 – 348

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

What does it mean? This box tells us that strategy a1 (I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn) is significantly correlated with course level. The two asterisks (**) tell us that the correlation is at the 0.01 level, which means that there is a 99% probability that the result is more than mere chance (also expressed as p < 0.01). The matrix also tells us that strategy a4 (I remember a new word by making a mental picture) is also significantly related to course level, but only at the 0.05 level (*), which means that we can only be 95% confident that the result is more than mere chance (p < 0.05). Since these two strategies are positively correlated, it means that they are used more frequently by the higher level students. But notice that the result for strategy a6 (I use flashcards) is negative. This means that it is used more frequently by the lower level students. However, it is not significant (there are no asterisks, and the p value is more than 0.05), so this result might just be by chance. Difference

The tests required for this will vary according to whether there are just two variables or several.

78

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Mann-Whitney U test of difference for two independent samples

If we want to fi nd out whether, for instance, males and females use strategies differently, we will need to use a Mann-Whitney U test with our non-parametric data: Analyse → nonparametric tests → legacy dialogs → 2 independent samples → move target variables to the ‘Test variable list’ box → move the ‘sex’ variable to the ‘Grouping variable’ box → click ‘Defi ne groups’ box → group 1 (male) = 1, group 2 (female) = 2 → continue → OK The following matrix (truncated) will appear: Test Statisticsa

Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

b15

b16

b17

b18

10760.500 17315.500 −3.009 0.003

11597.500 18152.500 −2.045 0.041

12446.500 19001.500 −1.047 0.295

12373.000 12949.000 18928.000 40444.000 −1.133 −0.0455 0.257 0.649

b19

b21 11660.000 18215.000 −1.986 0.047

From the Asymp.Sig. row in this box we can see that there are three items with significant (p < 0.05) differences: b15 (I watch English language TV or movies), b16 (I read for pleasure in English) and b21 (I divide words into parts). If we want to know in which direction the difference lies, that is, whether males or females use these strategies more frequently (as we probably would), we can look to the ‘Ranks’ matrix on the same SPSS page. Ranks

b15

b16

b17

b18

b19

b21

sex

N

Mean Rank

Sum of Ranks

MALE FEMALE Total MALE FEMALE Total MALE FEMALE Total MALE FEMALE Total MALE FEMALE Total MALE FEMALE Total

114 234 348 114 234 348 114 234 348 114 234 348 114 234 348 114 234 348

151.89 185.51

17315.50 43410.50

159.23 181.94

18152.50 42573.50

166.68 178.31

19001.50 41724.50

166.04 178.62

18928.00 41798.00

177.91 172.84

20282.00 40444.00

159.78 181.67

18215.00 42511.00

A Conceptual Perspective

79

From this matrix we can see that for all of our signifi cant diff erences (b15, b16, b21) the female mean rank is higher than the male: that is, the female participants report more frequent use of these strategies than the males. In fact, out of these six strategies, there is only one which is used more frequently by males (b19 – I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words) but this is not significant. Kruskall-Wallis H test for several independent samples

If we have more than two groups and we want to fi nd if there are any differences among them, we can use a Kruskall-Wallis H test for several independent samples. We might, for instance have divided our participants according to three age groups: under 20, 20–29 and 30+ , and we want to know which of these groups is the most frequent user of strategies: Analyse → nonparametric tests → Legacy dialogs → K independent samples → Transfer target variables to ‘Test variable list’ → Transfer ‘age’ to the ‘Grouping variable’ box → Click ‘Defi ne range’ box → Enter min = 1, max = 3 → Continue → OK. The following matrix (again seriously truncated because of space constraints) will appear: Test Statisticsa,b d31

d32

d33

d34

d35

d38

Chi-Square

8.345

1.987

df

2

2

4.578

3.039

12.283

12.203

2

2

2

2

Asymp. Sig.

0.015

0.370

0.101

0.219

0.002

0.002

From this we can tell that there are three significant differences (p < 0.05) for this group of strategies among these three age groups: d31 (I notice my mistakes), d35 (I look for people I can talk to in English) and d38 (I think about my progress). And which group uses these strategies more than the others? Above the ‘Test statistics’ matrix on the SPSS spreadsheet, you will fi nd the ‘Ranks’ matrix which gives this information. In fact, in all three cases, it is the group in their 20s that has the highest mean rank, indicating that they are the most frequent strategy users. Of course, we do have to consider that there may be some distortion due to the fact that those in their 20s form by far the largest group (N = 240, see the ‘N’ column in the ‘Ranks’ matrix). It might actually be better, in the interest of reliability and validity, to divide the groups

80

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Ranks age3 d31

d32

d33

d34

d35

d38

N

Mean Rank

1.00

68

144.38

2.00

240

182.54

3.00

40

177.48

Total

348

1.00

68

159.90

2.00

240

178.37

3.00

40

176.13

Total

348

1.00

68

154.00

2.00

240

181.59

3.00

40

166.83

Total

348

1.00

68

157.14

2.00

240

177.41

3.00

40

186.55

Total

348

1.00

68

142.35

2.00

240

186.45

3.00

40

157.45

Total

348

1.00

68

138.43

2.00

240

184.79

3.00

40

174.10

Total

348

more evenly. But this will suffice for now for the purpose of exemplification. Are the items cumulative?

Yet another issue with questionnaires has to do with whether or not the items are cumulative, that is, whether they can be added together. According to Tseng et  al. (2006), whereas instruments such as the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire or MSLQ (Pintrich et  al., 1991) or the Self-regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale or SRCVOC (Tseng et al., 2006) measure underlying learner traits, the items of the SILL measure frequency of specific behaviours. Therefore, they argue, the items of the SILL are not cumulative, and ‘computing mean scale scores is not justifi able psychometrically’ (Tseng

A Conceptual Perspective

81

et al., 2006, authors’ italics), a position which is repeated in Dörnyei and Ryan (2015: 158). This is an issue which researchers need to consider at the design stage. Analysing numerical data

Unlike Likert-type questionnaires, experiments (whether quasi or true experimental designs – see Data collection section) yield numerical data, usually in the form of pre-test and post-test scores which can then be entered into a computer program (such as SPSS). If the scores are normally distributed (that is, they are evenly distributed around the mean, producing the classic bell-curve), parametric tests, such as means (M), Pearson product-moment correlation (r), Student’s t-test of difference (t), ANOVA, MANOVA, etc. can be used to determine the effect of the intervention on scores. Normality of distribution

Even if the data are numerical (such as test results), parametric tests should only be used if the data are normally distributed. How do you know if the data are evenly distributed? For the sake of exemplification, let us run the SILL data used for the previous examples: Analyse → descriptives → explore → move target variables to dependent list → plots → normality plots with tests → continue → OK. In the box labelled ‘Tests of Normality’, there will be two tests: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (for fewer than 100 participants) and ShapiroWilk (for larger numbers, though, in fact, the two tests usually produce very similar results). If the Sig values of the tests is less than 0.05, distribution is not normal. As can be seen from the example matrix below (which is, in fact, the fi rst section of the SPSS fi le used for the study reported in Section 2.1), none of the items is normally distributed (which is, indeed, a very usual result to emerge from a Likert-type instrument). Over the years, it has to be admitted that many researchers in the strategy field (including the author of this book) have used inappropriate parametric statistical procedures to analyse Likert-type data, often on the advice of statistical ‘experts,’ since linguists are often not also mathematicians and must rely on others who are hopefully more knowledgeable in this field. It is true that non-parametric tests usually produce quite similar results to their parametric equivalents, though often slightly weaker, meaning that the difference is often minimal. This might, however, also be used as an argument to support the idea that, since results are often quite similar, it is surely best to employ the correct statistical procedures for maximum validity of results.

82

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic

df

Sig.

Statistic

df

Sig.

a1

0.185

348

0.000

0.907

348

0.000

a2

0.191

348

0.000

0.913

348

0.000

a3

0.185

348

0.000

0.914

348

0.000

a4

0.171

348

0.000

0.917

348

0.000

a5

0.210

348

0.000

0.893

348

0.000

a6

0.213

348

0.000

0.856

348

0.000

a7

0.165

348

0.000

0.901

348

0.000

a8

0.170

348

0.000

0.914

348

0.000

a9

0.188

348

0.000

0.914

348

0.000

Means

Since the questionnaire ratings from our data base are ordinal (as well as not normally distributed), parametric tests such as means are not appropriate. The students’ ages and the course levels, however, are numerical, so we can calculate means (averages) for them: Analyse → descriptive statistics → descriptives → transfer the item/s you want to analyse to the variable box → ok. The following box will be produced: Descriptive Statistics N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

age

348

14.00

64.00

24.4540

6.81164

level

348

1.00

7.00

3.4109

1.85671

Valid N (listwise)

348

From this we can see that the average age of the students in the sample was about 24½, whereas the average level at which they were working was in the 3–4 range. Correlation

If we want to fi nd out if there is a relationship between age and class level, we follow the same procedure as described above for Spearman, but instead of deselecting Pearson and selecting Spearman, we run with Pearson. The matrix below is produced. The matrix tells us that the relationship between age and level is negative, that is, younger students are working at higher levels than older

A Conceptual Perspective

83

students. However, the relationship is not significant (it is more than 0.05), so it might be just by chance. Correlations

age

Pearson Correlation

age

level

1

−0.064

Sig. (2-tailed) N level

Pearson Correlation

0.235 348 −0.064

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.235

N

348

348 1

348

T-Tests

If we want to know the difference in level according to gender, we can use a T-Test. Analyse → compare means → independent samples T-Test → move level to test variable box → move gender to grouping variable box → define groups (1 = male, 2 = female) → OK The resulting matrix is too wide to fit on this page, but, from the Sig. (2-tailed) column we can see that the signifi cance level is 0.273 (not  signifi cant). In other words, there is no signifi cant diff erence between the male and the female students in this study according to course level. Effect size

In recent years it has become increasingly common for journals to insist on having eff ect size quoted as a pre-condition for publication. The reason usually given for this is that eff ect size calculations are not dependent on sample size. For example, with a sample of, say, 1000 students, it is possible that even quite a small eff ect may reach significance. However, as Dörnyei (2007) explains, ‘the main shortcoming of effect size … [is] that there are no universally accepted and straightforward indices to describe it’ (2007: 212). Indeed, the APA Publication Manual itself lists more than a dozen different ways of estimating effect size. These include r 2 (which stands for the Pearson’s correlation coefficient times itself), or rs2 (if using Spearman), which provides the percentage of variance accounted for by that factor. Actually, this is quite a commonly quoted measure of effect size, and reasonably easy to obtain, since the correlation coefficient is often produced in the process of running standard tests of correlation.

84

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

A relatively easy way of calculating effect size for non-mathematicians (i.e. most applied linguists) is by means of the Eta function on SPSS. If we want to fi nd out the effect of age on course level: Analyse → descriptive statistics → crosstabs → transfer target variable/s (in this case ‘age’) to top box → transfer ‘level’ to lower box → statistics → eta → continue → OK. The Eta value for each variable will be displayed in the box labelled ‘Directional Measures’. Note that, since we are trying to fi nd the effect of age on course level, ‘level’ is the dependent variable, so the Eta value is 0.307. If we square this, we get the percentage of variance that the variable (age) accounts for (=9.4%). Directional Measures Value Nominal by Interval

Eta

age Dependent

0.144

level Dependent

0.307

However, this calculation is associated with ANOVA, in other words, it is a parametric test, and, as we have already noted above, Likert-type questionnaires produce ordinal data, which require non-parametric analysis. The same is true of Cohen’s d, another commonly used measure of effect size. Cohen’s d is reasonably easy to calculate, it is the difference in the two groups’ means divided by the average of their standard deviations. However, since it is based on the mean, it is only appropriate for parametric data. Non-parametric effect sizes can be calculated from the Mann-Whitney test for two independent samples. The following website can be useful for this: Yanati, K. http://yatani.jp/teaching/doku.php?id=hcistats:mannwhit ney#effect_size Effect sizes for several independent samples can be calculated from the Kruskall-Wallis test using the following website: Wilson, D. Practical Meta-Analysis Effect Size Calculator. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-R5.php And, once we have got an effect size, how do we interpret it? J. Cohen (1988) reluctantly gives the following thresholds: Small = 1% Medium = 6% Large = 15% J. Cohen’s reluctance stems from the fact that how important an effect size may be depends entirely on the context. If, for instance, we are

A Conceptual Perspective

85

considering adverse side effects on unborn babies of a particular drug, 1% (or one baby in 100) would be considered large. But a 1% improvement in students’ pass rates from using a particular strategy is hardly likely to be considered all that exciting (unless, perhaps, the student who failed with 49% can suddenly pass with 50%). For this reason, J. Cohen (1988) provides the thresholds noted above ‘with much diffidence, qualifications, and invitations not to employ them if possible’ (1988: 532). Dörnyei (2007) also recommends that ‘researchers need to exercise great caution’ (2007: 213, author’s italics) when trying to generalize their research results to a larger population. As for our 9.4% noted above as the effect of age on course level, since it is actually nearly 10% it is worthy of some attention, and it is in the direction that might have been predicted given that younger is commonly believed to be better. But it is certainly not enough to suggest that age has a large effect on course level, and is actually below J. Cohen’s ‘large’ threshold of 15%. To further complicate a decision regarding interpretation of effect size, Plonsky and Oswald (2014) suggest that Cohen’s reluctantly-provided thresholds are inappropriate for the applied linguistics field anyway. The thresholds they suggest are Small = 6% Medium = 16% Large = 36% So, which ones should we use? Unfortunately, as with so much in this area, it is impossible to provide hard-and-fast rules. The important thing is that researchers should have sound reasons for their choices and be able to justify them. Concluding comments on quantitative data analysis

So, although we have to agree with White et  al. (2007) that an extremely ‘efficient method for ascertaining learner strategies is through self-report questionnaires’ (2007: 94), there are also a number of issues with this kind of instrument which researchers need to consider carefully in the interests of the validity of the results obtained and the conclusions drawn. Of course, it is a common practice for a researcher to hand over the collected data to a statistics ‘expert’ for analysis. But nobody will understand our data the way we do ourselves. Nobody will know what we are aiming to get out of it. Nobody else will be prepared to spend the time sitting ‘playing’ with it, trying this and that until something interesting emerges, and following up interesting leads. Learning how to use SPSS may take a bit of time, but actually, it is no more difficult for those who are prepared to persevere a little than any other computer program, and the rewards in terms of personal satisfaction are considerable. Besides, as I was advised many years ago by my own PhD supervisor, being able to analyse our own data is empowering.

86

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

So I would like to urge those considering embarking on this journey not to give up too easily, but to invest some time and effort doing a course and experimenting. Qualitative data analysis

An examination of the contents of recent journals will reveal that studies which produce qualitative data have become more popular in recent years as recognition of the value of a qualitative perspective has increased. One of the difficulties with analysing qualitative data is that is often very ‘thick’, that is, there is a lot of it, which can make the process of analysis very time-consuming. There are several issues with qualitative data analysis which need to be considered: Transcription

The issue of transcription applies mainly to methods which gather oral data, that is, interviews, observations and think-aloud protocols. The major problem with transcription, of course, is simply the time it takes, which can be very considerable. There are software programs available which automatically transcribe speech into a written form. Although these are currently not highly reliable or accurate, it is possible that they may become more useful as technology advances, so it may be worth keeping an eye on developments in this area. In the meantime, there are three main ways of approaching the transcription issue: (1) Full transcription: Although time-consuming and tedious, it is hard to argue that this is the best, since it produces clear and complete evidence of what was said during the interview, observation or think aloud. Even though we have to consider realistically that a transcript may be as much a product of the transcriber’s interpretation as it is of the participant’s input, and although it has inevitably lost its paralinguistic features (such as intonation and body language, which may alter the meaning considerably, and be almost impossible to convey in written form) it is, nevertheless as close to the original as we can get. (2) Recorder analysis: This involves a process of taking notes while listening to a recording of the interview, observation or think-aloud, perhaps noting the key points on the recording device for later checking. Although this has the advantage of being much less time-consuming, it also has the disadvantage of indicating selectivity on the part of the researcher, and, therefore, potential for reduced reliability. The threat to reliability can be counteracted to some extent by having more than one researcher independently listening to the recording and taking notes, after which, inter-rater reliability should be calculated. Also, if the full recording is kept, it can be produced for checking or as evidence if required.

A Conceptual Perspective

87

(3) Partial transcription: This involves the researcher making decisions and selecting the parts of an interview, observation or think-aloud which are most relevant to the research topic and the argument. Again, the issue of selectivity is the main problem here, so the selection process needs to be carefully described and justified, and more than one researcher should be involved in the selection process. Grounded approach

A common approach to qualitative data analysis is known as grounded theory, which refers to an approach introduced by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later Strauss and Corbin (1998) which involves taking a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach to data analysis, meaning that the themes emerge from the data rather than being pre-determined. This approach involves progressively coding the data by means of: • • •

open coding (the text is examined for salient themes); axial coding (the themes are grouped around a conceptual axis); selective coding (a core over-arching category is selected).

A grounded approach is especially useful for analysing the data from narratives, diaries, blogs, interviews, think-aloud protocols, observations, case studies, ethnographies, phenomenological studies, etc. which, by their nature, are impossible to predict, and which, therefore, must be approached from the bottom-up. An example of a study which used a grounded approach is the one by Oxford, Rubin et al. (2014) which examines six narratives for themes, which are then grouped around seven core concepts before an overarching theme of ‘the diversity of complementary perspectives on language learning strategies’ (2014: 30) is identified. Subjectivity

A potential problem with qualitative analysis is that ‘a high level of subjectivity is likely to be present’ (Gu, 2014: 78). In order to maintain as much objectivity as may be possible, it is important that: •

• •

qualitative data analysis is an iterative process, that is, the researcher repeatedly goes over the data collected, the codes that have been established, and the categories to which data have been assigned, and makes adjustments as required; colleagues or others knowledgeable in the field should be consulted, asked how they would rate the data, and inter-rater agreement should be calculated; member checking is another important aid to reliability: this is when the participants themselves are asked for their feedback in order to check that the way the researcher has interpreted the data really was what the participant intended.

88

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

1.7 Conclusion

At a conceptual level, language learning strategies have almost limitless potential as a tool for facilitating language learning, and because of the promise which they present, they have been widely researched and extensively written about. In spite of this potential, however, the strategy concept has proven difficult to nail down and it has proven difficult to entirely eliminate fuzzy terminology, conflicting defi nitions, theoretical inconsistencies, incompatible classification systems and inappropriate research methodologies. This chapter has attempted to clarify these basic concepts. In particular, the chapter has suggested that: (1) At the level of terminology, strategy has been and probably remains the term which has been most consistently used to cover the behaviours involved, and for this reason it is probably the term which best deserves to be accepted as the established one for behaviour aimed at target language development by speakers of other languages. (2) From an extensive review of the literature spanning more than 30 years, a defi nition is suggested of language learning strategies as actions chosen by learners for the purpose of learning language. This is a very parsimonious defi nition, which really boils the concept down to a ‘prototypical core’ (Gu, 2012: 330), covering action, choice, purpose and language learning. It is hard to see how the defi nition could be reduced much further and still cover the features without which the behaviour would cease to be strategic. (3) In addition to this basic defi nition, ‘dimensions of variation’ (Gu, 2012: 330) may be added (e.g. deliberate/conscious/habitual, mental/ behavioural, etc.). If researchers wish to include these other dimensions, they need to be carefully defi ned and justified. (4) This defi nition excludes several related but distinct concepts with which learning strategies are often confused (styles, communication strategies and skills). (5) Strategy effectiveness must be considered in relation to learning target, situation, learner characteristics and coordination (orchestration) with other strategies. (6) Strategy theory has an eclectic theoretical base, including elements of Behaviourism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism, Cognitivism, Socioculturalism, Humanism, Complexity Theory, Dynamic Systems Theory and many sub-theories within these larger theoretical paradigms, contributing to an extremely complicated, but rich and inclusive, theoretical foundation which might be called the Magpie Theory. (7) Following a review of several well-known and somewhat contradictory classification systems, a binary system is suggested here, consisting of a metacognitive/regulatory stratum which manages the learning process (including affective, supervisory and social strategies) and a

A Conceptual Perspective

89

cognitive/direct stratum (including strategies focused on meaning, rules, skills, vocabulary, phonology, fluency, pragmatics and discourse). (8) Issues connected with research methodology and the ways data has been collected and analysed have also added to controversy in the strategy arena. This chapter has looked at the various methods employed and made suggestions which it is hoped will be useful in the interests of reliability and validity of results. It is important to establish these basic concepts before moving on to look at some fundamental questions which will be investigated in the next chapter. 1.8 Conceptual Areas for Further Research

As this chapter has attempted to demonstrate, there is still much work to be done in the area of basic concepts. Particularly urgent is the need to: •

• • •

•

achieve consensus regarding terminology and defi nition, the absence of which currently creates a great deal of controversy and confusion, hampers research initiatives, leaves fi ndings open to question and limits generalizability; continue with studies to investigate the relationships between/among effective strategies, learning target, learning situation, strategy orchestration and individual variables; continue to discuss and refi ne the understanding of the complex theoretical underpinnings of the language learning strategy concept; experiment with useful ways of classifying strategies so that unwieldy numbers of items can be grouped in more manageable as well as theoretically and statistically justifiable ways, thereby facilitating meaningful interpretation of research data; ensure appropriate methodologies are used to collect and analyse strategy data.

2 A Quantitative Perspective

Even once we have dealt with some of the basic concepts, including terminology, definition, theoretical underpinnings, classification and research methodology, some thorny fundamental questions remain. It is, for instance, by no means universally agreed that language learning strategies are related to successful language learning, or, if they are, precisely how. This question has given rise to a great deal of debate over many years. If we check the previous literature on the subject, we fi nd that Green and Oxford (1995) discovered a ‘significantly greater overall use of language learning strategies among more successful learners’ (1995: 285) when they surveyed 374 Puerto Rican university students using the 50-item version of the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990). In other words, the more proficient students used language learning strategies more frequently than less proficient students. Dreyer and Oxford (1996) and Kyungsim and Leavell (2006) also reported a positive relationship between frequency of strategy use and successful learning. But by no means all studies have yielded such clearly positive results. Studies by Bialystok (1981), O’Malley et  al. (1985), Huang and Van Naerssen (1987) and Ehrman and Oxford (1995) all failed to find a significant relationship between frequency of language learning strategy use and successful learning, although they managed to show relationships between effective learning and various types of strategies (such as metacognitive, functional practice or cognitive strategies). And there have also been studies which seem to cast doubt on the role of language learning strategies. Porte (1988), for instance, interviewed 15 under-achieving adolescent learners in private language schools in London and discovered that his ‘poor’ learners were using strategies very similar to those reported by ‘good’ language learners. Another key observation was that, ‘the majority of learners said that they used strategies which were the same as, or very similar to, those they had used at schools in their native countries’ (1988: 168). It would seem, then, that these low-level students were unable to select strategies which were appropriate for the situation in which they found themselves. Furthermore, Porte (1988) comments, ‘where these underachievers’ strategies differ from those of good language learners … is in the 90

A Quantitative Perspective

91

fact that they may demonstrate less sophistication and a less suitable response to a particular activity’. In other words, they do not know how to choose strategies which are appropriate for the goal (this issue is discussed in Section 1.3). A similar observation was made by Vann and Abraham (1990) during a study of two low-level Saudi Arabian women (Mona and Shida) studying on an intensive language programme in the United States. Using thinkaloud protocols and task product analysis to investigate strategy use by their two participants while completing four activities (an interview, a verb exercise, a cloze passage and a composition), Vann and Abraham (1990) concluded that, although their participants were active strategy users, ‘they often failed to apply strategies appropriately to the task at hand’ (1990: 191). In other words, they also did not choose strategies appropriate for their goals (see Section 1.3). Although Mona and Shida appeared to use a large number of strategies, providing ‘counter evidence for the claim that unsuccessful learners are inactive’ (1990: 177), the women’s progress in language acquisition was slow, as evidenced by low TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) scores. Given the level of uncertainty which remains, there are a number of fundamental questions which need to be addressed, including: • • • • • • • • •

Is frequency of strategy use related to successful language learning? Is quantity of strategy use related to successful learning? Are some strategy types more related to successful learning than others? Do strategy choices vary according to learner variables such as motivation, nationality, sex or age, and how are any individual variations related to successful learning? What are the relationships among situation, strategy selection and effectiveness? What are the relationships among learning target, strategy selection and effectiveness? Are a learner’s strategies set in concrete and resistant to change, or do they develop over time? How do any strategy modifications relate to successful learning? Are strategies the cause or the effect of successful learning?

Each of these basic questions will be dealt with in turn in the course of this chapter. 2.1 Is Frequency of Strategy Use Related to Successful Learning?

Faced with the inconsistent results noted above, in order to investigate the relationship between frequency of strategy use and successful language learning, 348 international students studying English at a private language school in Auckland, New Zealand were surveyed (Griffiths, 2003b) using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990). There were

92

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

both males (approximately one third) and females (approximately two thirds), ranging in ages from 14 to 64. They came from 21 different nationalities, and were spread over seven levels (elementary to advanced). Statistically significant relationships were discovered between class level and the reported frequency of use of almost two thirds (n = 32) of the SILL items. Although three of these items (Item 7: I physically act out new words, Item 8: I review lessons often, and Item 43: I write in a diary) were actually negatively correlated with course level (meaning that they are reportedly used more frequently by lower level students), by far the majority (n = 29) were positively related. In other words, strategies are used significantly more frequently by higher level students.

Is frequency of strategy use related to successful learning?

According to the results of this study, overall, frequent use of language learning strategies is positively related to successful language learning.

2.2 Is Quantity of Language Learning Strategy Use Related to Successful Language Learning?

A number of writers (e.g. Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), argue that quantity is not important when it comes to strategy use. Nevertheless, according to the results of the study described above (Griffiths, 2003b), advanced-level students reported frequent use (median = 4 or 5) of 22 items, whereas elementary-level students reported using only two items at this rate of frequency. Put another way, according to these results, higher level students reported frequent use of 11 times as many strategies as lower level students. In order to explore this question further, a study was set up as described below. Participants and setting

The participants (all Turkish, N = 204) in this study were studying English at four different language schools in Sakarya, Turkey. The schools all used the Oxford Placement Test to place students in classes from A1 to C2 (6 levels) according to the Common European Framework guidelines. There were 69 male students and 135 females, and ages ranged from 17 to 39. The instrument

Given the acknowledged problems with existing strategy inventories (see Section 1.6), it was decided to attempt to construct a questionnaire

A Quantitative Perspective 93

based on the binary classification (cognitive – used to interact directly with the material to be learnt, and metacognitive – used to supervise the interaction) discussed in Section 1.5. Previous inventories, especially the SILL (Oxford, 1990), the ELLSI (Griffiths, 2003b) and the SRCVOC (Tseng et al., 2006), as well as personal and colleagues’ experience were consulted. Every attempt was made to include as many strategy types as possible, including strategies relating to vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and function, strategies which employ skills in order to promote a language learning goal, plus supervisory strategies (e.g. planning, monitoring, etc.), as well as social strategies (to manage interaction with others) and affective strategies (to manage emotional states such as anxiety and motivation). The strategy items were written into statements using a fi rst-person formula in order to tap into students’ personal preferences, and they were asked to respond on a 6-point scale (6 = strongly agree, 5 = agree, 4 = partly agree, 3 = partly disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) according to how strongly they agreed or disagreed that the statements applied to their own language learning experience. The 6-point formula was chosen in order to avoid students taking the easy middle ground (that is, 3 on a 5-point scale), while at the same time providing a relatively neutral ‘Partly agree/disagree’ option in the middle so as not to artificially force a choice which might not reflect true feelings. On a practical level, every attempt was also made to keep the length to a minimum in order to minimize student resistance, which was not easy, given the broad range included. The fi nal draft included 40 items: 20 cognitive and 20 metacognitive. Since the intended first set of participants were learning English, the questionnaire given to them specified English. However, since it was intended that the questionnaire could be used to survey the learners of any target language, the questionnaire was called the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory or TaLLSI (see Appendix 5), and it could easily be adapted to suit any language by simply replacing ‘English’ with whatever the target language may be. Data collection and analysis

The data were collected by a colleague going to the classes and getting the students to complete the questionnaires while he was present to assist with any questions there might be. The purpose of the questionnaire was fi rst explained (in Turkish, the L1 of all the students) and they were assured that participation was voluntary and that any information they provided would be confidential. They were asked to sign that they consented to the data being used for research and/or publication, and all who were present seemed happy to do this. The data were then entered into SPSS and analysed for reliability, normality of distribution, factor compatibility, central tendency, correlations and differences.

94

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Reliability

Chronbach’s alpha for reliability was 0.931 over the 40 items, which suggests that this was a very reliable instrument for measuring the target concept in this environment. None of the items altered the reliability substantially if deleted. Normality of distribution

According to a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, none of the 40 items is normally distributed (actually, a very common result for this kind of instrument). In addition to the fact that data from a Likert-type questionnaire are ordinal, this means that nonparametric tests are appropriate for the purposes of analysis. Factor analysis

According to a Principal Component Analysis, all of the items loaded onto one factor, suggesting that the items are all measuring a similar underlying construct (i.e. the strategies that students use to learn language) and do not need to be further sub-divided. Results Medians

As noted above, since Likert-type questionnaires produce ordinal (rather than numerical) data, and since distribution is not normal, medians rather than means were used to determine the central tendency for these data (see Table 2.1). Overall these students seem to be very much on the ‘agree’ side of the scale. Indeed, there is only one item with which they even partly disagree (rating = 3 for Item 39 about using games). There is strong agreement (rating = 6) for: • •

Item 7 (listening to songs); Item 38 (watching TV or movies).

Another 15 other items attract a median rating of 5 (agree). The lower level students (levels A1–B2) tend not to deviate too much from the overall median, although they give higher than the overall median ratings for: • • • • •

memorization (Item 11); working out grammar rules (Item 18); translation (Item 20); investment of effort (Item 26); goal setting (Item 35).

A Quantitative Perspective

95

They strongly agree (median rating = 6) with only two items: • •

listening to songs (Item 7); watching TV or movies (Item 38).

The higher level students (level C1–C2) strongly agree with many more strategies (n = 6) than the lower level students, including: • • • • • •

writing (Item 4); understanding (Item 5); listening to songs (Item 7); correct pronunciation (Item 12); listening to people talking (Item 14); watching TV or movies Item 38).

They also report stronger agreement than lower level students with: • • • • •

talking to native speakers (Item 16); preparation for class (Item 24); learning about the culture (Item 31); selecting goal-appropriate strategies (Item 37); using games (Item 39).

On the other hand, they report less agreement with: • • • • • • •

memorization (Item 11); keeping a notebook (Item 15); working out grammar rules (Item 18); translation (Item 20); investment of effort (Item 26); consulting the teacher (Item 34); goal-setting (Item 35).

This might suggest that the higher level students have grown beyond these strategies. Correlations

Overall there were seven significant correlations between strategy use and class level (Spearman’s rho for nonparametric data – see Table 2.1) of which two were negative (Items 15 and 17, indicating that there is a significantly higher level of agreement with them by lower level students). All of the effect sizes, however, were small (according to both Cohen, 1988, and Plonsky & Oswald, 2014, indicating that each of them is responsible for only a small amount of the variance. Indeed, even the most strongly positively related item (Item 5: I try to understand how English is used) is responsible for only 4.3% of the variance in course level. Having said that, when one considers how many variables there are, perhaps a factor which accounts for as much as 4.3% of the variance should not be totally disregarded.

96

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Table 2.1 Median ratings for agreement for the items (n = 40) of the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory (TaLLSI) over all students (N = 204) for level A1–B2 students (N = 102) and for level C1–C2 students (N = 38), plus significant correlations (Spearman’s rho) and effect sizes in terms of percentage of variance Item

Strategy

Overall Median

Lower Level Median

Higher Level Median

Significant correlations

Effect size

1

I do homework.

5

5

5

rs = 0.168* p = 0.017

2.8%

2

I try to think in English

5

5

5

3

I read in English

5

5

5

4

I write in English

5

5

6

rs = 0.175* p = 0.013

3.1%

5

I try to understand how English is used

5

5

6

rs = 0.209** p = 0.003

4.3%

6

I revise regularly

4

4

4

7

I listen to songs in English

6

6

6

8

I try to pronounce words so that I can be understood

5

5

5

9

I try to learn as much new vocabulary as I can

5

5

5

10

I talk to other students in English

4

4

4

11

I try to memorize the new language I learn

4

4.5

4

12

I try to pronounce English words correctly

5

5

6

13

I try to learn grammar rules

5

5

5

14

I listen to people talking in English

5

5

6

15

I keep a language learning notebook

4

4

3

rs = −0.225** p = 0.001

5.1%

16

I talk to native speakers of English whenever I can

4

4

5

17

I try to learn from my mistakes

5

5

5

rs = −0.157* p = 0.025

2.5%

18

I try to work out English grammar rules

4

4.5

4

19

I repeat new things I learn to myself

5

5

5

20

I translate things I learn into my first language

4

5

4

(Continued)

A Quantitative Perspective

97

Table 2.1 (Continued) Item

Strategy

Overall Median

Lower Level Median

Higher Level Median

21

I use electronic learning aids

5

5

5

22

I plan my English study

4

4

4

23

I choose strategies so that they work well together

4

4

4

24

I prepare for classes and learning opportunities

4

4

5

25

I try not to worry about making mistakes

4

4

4

26

I invest a lot of effort in studying English

4

5

4

27

I try to make friends with native speakers

4

4

4

28

I monitor the progress I am making in my study

4

4

4

29

I use a self-study centre

4

4

4

30

I choose strategies to suit my situation

4

4

4

31

I try to learn about the culture of English speakers

4

4

5

32

I manage my time so that English study is done

4

4

4

33

I select strategies that are suitable for my needs

4

4

4

34

I consult with my teacher when I have questions

5

5

4

35

I try to set clear goals for my study

4

5

4

36

I regularly evaluate how well I am doing

4

4

4

37

I select strategies that are suitable for the task

4

4

5

38

I watch TV or movies in English

6

6

6

39

I use language learning games

3

3

4

40

I try to maintain my motivation

5

5

5

Strategies rated 6 (strongly agree)

2

2

6

Significant correlations

Effect size

rs = 0.138* p = 0.049

1.9%

rs = 0.152* p = 0.030

2.3%

6 = strongly agree 5 = agree 4 = partly agree 3 = partly disagree 2 = disagree 1 = strongly disagree

98

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Differences

Differences according to motivation, nationality, gender and age will be reported in later sections of this chapter. Is quantity of language learning strategy use related to successful language learning?

According to these results, higher level students tend to give high ratings to many more (3 times as many) strategy items as do lower level students. 2.3 Are Some Strategy Types More Related to Successful Learning than Others?

Although the results of the study reported in the previous sections (2.1, 2.2) indicate that higher level students report using more language learning strategies more often than lower level students, it is possible that not only quantity and frequency are important when considering the relationship between strategies and success in language learning. There are studies which suggest that strategy type must also be considered (for instance, Bialystok, 1981; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Huang & Van Naerssen, 1987; O’Malley et al., 1985; Porte, 1988; Vann & Abraham, 1990). However, studies which have attempted to investigate the relationship between language learning strategy type and success in language development have produced mixed results. O’Malley et al. (1985) discovered that, although students at all levels reported the use of an extensive variety of learning strategies, higher level students reported greater use of metacognitive strategies (that is strategies used by students to manage their own learning). This led the researchers to conclude that the more successful students are probably able to exercise greater metacognitive control over their learning. Bialystok (1981) and Huang and Van Naerssen (1987), on the other hand, came to a different conclusion. Both of these studies found that strategies related to functional practice were most associated with proficiency. Wong Fillmore (1982) discovered the importance of social strategies (although she did not use this term) employed by good language learners. She reported that the good language learners in her study ‘spent more time than they should have during class time socialising and minding everyone else’s business … they were constantly involved in the affairs of their classmates’ (1982: 163). Ehrman and Oxford’s (1995) conclusion was different again. In this case the researchers discovered that cognitive strategies such as looking for patterns and reading for pleasure in the target language were the type of strategy most frequently used by successful students in their study. An examination of Table 2.1 suggests that strategies might fall into several groups: those favoured equally across all students, those favoured

A Quantitative Perspective

99

by lower level students, and those favoured by higher level students. Griffiths (2003a, 2003b) suggests that these groups might be labelled core strategies, base strategies and plus strategies. Core strategies

If we look Table 2.1, we can see that there are 24 strategies given the same rating across all students (Items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 40). These strategies seem to form a core of strategies which have some elements in common with what Green and Oxford (1995: 289) call ‘bedrock strategies’ (authors’ italics), reportedly used at similar rates of frequency across all levels. Green and Oxford (1995) suggest that such strategies are not necessarily unproductive, but that they may ‘contribute significantly to the learning process of the more successful students although not being in themselves sufficient to move the less successful students to higher proficiency levels’. Since these strategies are typical of students at all levels, we might assume that they are important at all stages of the learning process. Are some strategy types more related to successful learning? Core strategies

It would appear that a number of strategies are a major core ingredient of language learning strategy repertoires overall, and that they remain important to learners from elementary to advanced stages of learning. Base strategies

Another strategy group which is identifiable from Table 2.1 is the group rated more highly by lower level students than by higher level students. There are seven strategies in this group (Items 11, 15, 18, 20, 26, 34, 35). It would appear that these lower level learners are more likely than their higher level schoolmates to try to memorize, to write in a notebook, to try to work out rules, and to translate. They seem to think they put more effort into their study, they set goals and they are more teacher-dependent. Are some strategy types more related to successful learning? Base strategies

From these results, it would appear that lower level students tend to rely more heavily on memory, translation, rule generation, goal setting and investment of effort as basic language learning strategy types. They are also more likely to keep notebooks and consult their teachers than higher level students.

100

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

If, then, these strategies are used more frequently by lower level students than by higher level students, should students be discouraged from using them? This may not necessarily be logical, since it is quite possible that such strategies may be useful in the early stages of learning a language. After all, in the beginning, it is necessary to remember key vocabulary, and it is probably useful to commit to memory some basic rules for fitting the words together which might otherwise take some considerable time to work out on a trial-and-error basis the way we learn our first language. Also, we should remember that there are individual variations. Nina (the high-level learner interviewed in Chapter 3) for instance, gave writing everything in a notebook as one of her key strategies, even at her very high level. Nevertheless, it would also seem logical to encourage students to move beyond these basic strategies as soon as they have the ability and the confidence to do so, and to try to use strategies more generally typical of higher level learners.

Plus strategies

The group of nine strategies rated more highly by higher level students than by lower level students (Items 4, 5, 12, 14, 16, 24, 31, 37, 39 – see Table 2.1) seems to characterize the higher level learners. These plus strategies appear to be the ones which set the higher level students apart from the lower level learners. Of these nine strategies, five are from the cognitive section of the questionnaire (Items 1–20) and the other four are from the metacognitive section (Items 21–40). The cognitive strategies involve the use of skills (writing, listening, speaking) as well as working to obtain comprehension and correct pronunciation. The metacognitive strategies emphasize the importance of preparation, being interested in the culture, selecting taskappropriate strategies and participating in games.

Are some strategy types more related to successful learning? Plus strategies

According to the results of this study, higher level students use plus strategies, involving skills, comprehension and pronunciation, as well as metacognitive strategies for preparation, cultural awareness, taskorientation and participation.

The core-plus repertoire

If we add the core strategies and the plus strategies together, we can see that according to these results, higher level learners, rather than

A Quantitative Perspective

101

keeping to a limited range of language learning strategies, make use of a large repertoire of different strategy types, including those related to: • • • • • • • • •

vocabulary; pronunciation; function; grammar; skills; interaction with others; management of emotions; supervision of the learning process; use of resources (e.g. TV, movies, etc.).

Higher level students, however, seem to use memorization, translation or rule-generation strategies less than lower level students do. Neither do they worry so much about keeping notebooks, setting goals or consulting the teacher. They also seem to feel that they invest less effort than the lower level students. These basic strategies seem to become less necessary or appropriate as students progress to higher levels. Are some strategy types more related to successful learning? The core-plus repertoire

From these results, it appears that more successful learners do not limit themselves to a narrow range of strategies. On the contrary, they seem to go all out and choose an extensive array of activities in order to facilitate the achievement of their learning goals.

Metacognitive versus cognitive strategies

The importance of metacognitive strategies has long been recognized (e.g. O’Malley et al., 1985; Anderson, 2008). In Section 1.5, a binary classification of strategies according to whether they are metacognitive/regulatory or cognitive/direct was discussed, and it was suggested that they go hand-in-hand rather than being in opposition to each other. The Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory (TaLLSI) was designed to give equal weight to these two main strategy types (both types have 20 items each). So, what can we conclude from the study described above? If we look first of all at the core strategies (those given the same rating across all students), we fi nd that 11 of them (27.5%) are from the cognitive section of the questionnaire (Items 1–20), while 13 (32.5%) are from the metacognitive section (Items 21–40). In other words, there is an advantage of 5% for metacognitive strategies. If we look at the base strategies (rated more highly by lower level students), we find that 4 of them (10%) come from the cognitive section of the

102

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

questionnaire, while 3 of them (7.5%) are from the metacognitive domain: an advantage of 2.5% for cognitive strategies for the lower level students. If we consider the plus strategies (rated more highly by higher level students), we find that 5 (12.5%) are cognitive, while the other 4 (10%) are metacognitive (again, an advantage of 2.5% for higher level students). From these results we might conclude that there is actually not a big difference according to cognitive/metacognitive strategy use. Students seem to use both types almost equally whatever their level. Are some strategy types more related to successful learning? Cognitive versus metacognitive types

From these results, we can conclude that students use both cognitive and metacognitive strategies in quite similar proportions, suggesting that both types are important.

2.4 Are Learner Variables Related to Strategy Use?

Although the discoveries reported so far regarding the relationship between language learning strategies and successful learning are interesting, no account has so far been taken of the effect of learner variables. It is possible, however, that the language learning strategies reportedly used on the road to proficiency may not be the same for all learners, and that learner characteristics may have a ‘significant bearing on how learning proceeds’ (Cohen & Dörnyei, 2002: 170). Learners, in fact, can vary greatly from each other in their approach to learning, and a multitude of factors may affect the way an individual processes information. As Ellis (1994) comments, there is a ‘veritable plethora of individual learner variables which researchers have identified as influencing learning outcomes’ (1994: 472). Four factors which are often thought to have a strong influence on the way individual learners go about their learning are the variables of motivation, nationality, age and sex. Motivation

Motivation has been shown to be related to successful language learning and to language learning strategy use (see Section 1.3). For instance, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) conducted a large-scale study of US college students and found that highly motivated learners used four out of five strategy categories significantly more frequently than less motivated learners. In turn, frequency of strategy use has been shown to be related to success in language learning (Green & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2003a, 2003b, 2008b, 2013).

A Quantitative Perspective

103

The 348 international students studying English at a private language school described earlier in this chapter (Section 2.1) provided a multiplicity of reasons motivating them to study English. Some were down-toearth and practical (for instance, further education, future employment). Others were more personal (for instance, travel, friendships). The motivation given by the largest single group (N = 132) for learning English was that they wanted to learn English in order to travel. Other personal reasons given varied from the romantic (‘I want to marry a New Zealander’) to the sometimes sweeping (‘I want to change my life’!). This group displaying predominantly personal motivation totalled 195. The second largest group (N = 115) said they wanted to learn English for future employment and 58 said they needed English for further education. Many of those who wanted English to pursue educational opportunities overlapped with those gave wanting to learn in order enhance their future job prospects, making a total of 153 for this group whose motivation appeared to be predominantly vocational. Those who reported wanting to study English for further education and/or future employment (vocational, N = 153) scored a higher median for course level than did those who gave wanting to learn English for travel and/or other personal reasons (N = 195) as their motivation. Furthermore, according to the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990), a much higher number of strategy items (n = 16) used at a high median rate of frequency (median = 4 or 5) was reported by those who gave vocational reasons as their motivation for learning English than by those who gave personal reasons (n = 2) as their motivation (see Table 2.2). A statistically significant difference was found in course level (p = 0.000, Mann-Whitney U) according to motivation, with those studying for vocational reasons working at a higher course level (median = 4, which is pre-intermediate) and reporting more strategies used at a high rate of frequency (n = 16) than those studying for personal reasons, whose median course level was 3 (upper elementary), and who reported using only two language learning strategies in the ‘usually’ to ‘always’ range of frequency. These results are set out in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Median course level, and number of strategies reportedly used frequently (median = 4 or 5) according to motivation and across all students Motive

Median course level (7-point scale)

Number of strategies used frequently (Median = 4 or 5)

Travel/other (personal) (N = 195)

3.0 (upper-elementary)

2

Education/employment (vocational) (N = 153)

4.0 (pre-intermediate)

16

All students (N = 348)

3.0 (upper-elementary)

10

104

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

From these results it would seem that those with educational or employment related reasons (vocational) for studying report frequent use of more language learning strategies and are more successful in their studies than those with less clearly focused reasons relating to personal goals such as travel or friendships. Given that educational/employment goals might be considered extrinsic to the learner, something the student uses as an instrument to reach some further target, these findings might suggest that extrinsic/instrumental motivation types are more productive than the intrinsic/ integrative types of motivation which drive those who want to travel or form friendships for their own personal satisfaction. In other words, although intrinsic motivation is often regarded as the ‘optimal’ (Ushioda, 2008: 21) kind of motivation, the results of this study suggest that it may not be as motivationally powerful as something which has more immediate and tangible rewards (such as a good job or higher salary). On the other hand, we might argue that for students to be motivated to work hard to qualify for a particular course of study or job, they must want it (be intrinsically motivated) in the fi rst place. Put another way, extrinsic/instrumental motivation may only be effective if there is an underlying intrinsic drive, of which those who give ‘future employment’ or ‘further education’ as a reason for studying may not even be aware. As noted in 1.3, this ambivalence was discovered in a study by Griffiths and Özgür (2013) when they surveyed a group of students at a private language school in Istanbul, Turkey. According to the results of this study, although the highest rating was accorded to instrumental motivation (they wanted to learn for employment or further study), those who gained the highest fi nal test scores were intrinsically motivated. Are learner variables related to strategy choice? Motivation

These data indicate that strategy use varies according to motivation, and motivation is related to successful language learning. Motivation, then, is an extremely complicated phenomenon, which Oxford (2011a: 72) describes as ‘dynamic and changeable, depending on internal and external influences’. Given the complexities, it may well not be possible to meaningfully categorize motivation according to the wellestablished instrumental-integrative or intrinsic-extrinsic continua, since the factors which motivate a learner are highly individual and complex, as well as dynamic (for instance, Dörnyei et al., 2015). Nevertheless, we can say that, according to the results of this study, there are differences both for strategy use and successful learning in terms of course level according to motivation.

A Quantitative Perspective

105

Nationality

As previously discussed in Section 1.3, nationality is often confused with the closely related concepts of culture (ways of behaving), ethnicity (relating to racial origin) and language. Since it is not always easy to assign individuals to particular cultural, linguistic or ethnic categories, nationality (what is on the student’s passport used to enrol at the school) will be used as the grouping variable for the purpose of this study. Although nationality is often assumed to imply certain cultural, linguistic or ethnic characteristics, it should be remembered that this may not always be the case. When grouping the 348 students studying at a private language school for international students in Auckland, New Zealand according to nationality, Griffiths (2003b) discovered that 219 (63%) were Japanese, 61 (18%) were Taiwanese, 21 (6%) were Korean and 30 (9%) were European. The remaining 17 students (4%) were from various other Asian countries such as Thailand, Indonesia and Hong Kong. This group was not analysed further because the numbers were too low to make analysis statistically viable, leaving 331 participants in this analysis. The Europeans were grouped together because no one European country was represented in sufficient numbers to form a statistically viable group on its own. The European group included Germans, Swiss, Czechs, Russians, Swedish, Danish and also South Americans such as Brazilians, Chileans, Colombians and Argentineans (included because they speak a European language). Although this is a very diverse group, it was considered that students from countries such as Germany and France, Sweden and Russia, Spain and Argentina are culturally and linguistically more similar to each other than, for instance, Germans and Koreans. They were, therefore, grouped together in the interests of creating a statistically viable unit, but the diversity within the group should be borne in mind when interpreting results. When the data from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990) were analysed according to nationality, a significant difference was found in class level (p = 0.000, Kruskall-Wallis K), with the Europeans recording the highest mean rank (241.27) followed by the Koreans (215.38), the Taiwanese (183.90) then the Japanese (146.62). The Europeans also reported using many more strategies at a high rate of frequency (median = 4 or 5) than any of the other groups. These results are set out in Table 2.3. It is, of course, possible that many factors might contribute to the higher average class levels of European students. It is conceivable, for instance, that: •

similarities of language, culture and educational practices make it easier for Europeans to learn English than it is for non-Europeans;

106

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Table 2.3 Median class levels and median reported strategy frequencies according to nationality Nationality

Median class level (7 levels)

Japanese (N = 219)

3 (upper-elementary)

Taiwanese (N = 61)

4 (pre-intermediate)

8

Korean (N = 21)

4 (pre-intermediate)

18

European (N = 30)

5 (intermediate)

27

Overall

3 (upper elementary)

10

•

•

•

•

Number of strategies used frequently (median = 4 or 5) 6

since many European languages use the same or similar graphic conventions as English, whereas languages such as Chinese and Korean use a system of writing which is very different from English, this might add an entirely extra layer of difficulty to the learning task for students from these backgrounds; the common vocabulary and similar grammatical systems which many European languages share with English might provide a point of reference (cognates) for European students, whereas Asian students have no such advantage; Europeans (especially younger students) are typically educated to communicate ideas freely, whereas in other cultures (for instance, Japanese) students tend to be expected to show polite restraint at all times (Usuki, 2000) making it more difficult for students from these backgrounds to adapt culturally as well as linguistically; there may be cultural/linguistic bias in the items included in the SILL. Some languages, for instance, do not have the concept of rhyme, so students who speak these languages fi nd Item 5: I use rhymes to remember new words very difficult even to understand.

Although it may not be the only factor, the fi nding of relationships between class level and reported frequency of language learning strategy use suggests that an examination of the strategies used by the higher level Europeans might help to throw further light on how strategies might be used effectively by other groups.

Are learner variables related to strategy choice? Nationality

Although a variety of factors may help to explain the higher median class levels attained by European students, a potentially important factor may be that, according to this study, European students give high ratings to many more language learning strategies than other students.

A Quantitative Perspective

107

Age

The relationship between age and successful language learning has been quite extensively studied and theorized (see Section 1.3), and the relationship between successful language learning and language learning strategies has been demonstrated. It is, therefore, perhaps, surprising to discover that there are ‘very few studies’ (Oxford, 1989a: 238) which attempt to explore the relationships among successful language learning, language learning strategy use and age, although Oxford comments that older learners appear to use more ‘sophisticated’ language learning strategies than younger learners. When the students in Griffiths’s (2003b) study were divided as closely as possible in half, the ages of the younger group (N = 172) ranged from 14 to 23 while the ages of the older group (N = 176) ranged from 24 to 64. Younger students were found to be working at a slightly higher median class level (median = 4) than older students (median = 3), but the difference was not significant (Mann-Whitney U). The number of strategies used frequently (median = 4 or 5) was the same for both groups (n = 10). In other words, in the case of this study, we might say that any differences according to age were negligible. In the case of the study reported in Section 2.2, the students were again divided as closely as possible in half according to age, resulting in the younger group (N = 112) ranging from 17 to 21, and the older group (N = 92) ranging from 22 to 39. Contrary to the trend in the previous study, the older learners in this group were found to be working at a median class level of 4, whereas the younger group were working at a median class level of 3, a difference (Mann-Whitney U) which was significant (p = 0.000). Differences in strategy ratings according to age were not significant except for two: • •

Item 16 (Talking to native speakers, p = 0.032); Item 39 (Using games, p = 0.001).

Both of these indicated higher levels of agreement by the older group. Median numbers of strategies rated 5 or 6 (agree or strongly agree) were the same (n = 17) (see Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Median class level and number of strategies rated highly according to age and across all students (using the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory or TaLLSI, Griffiths, 2016) Age

Median class level (6 levels)

Number of strategies rated 5 or 6

Younger (N = 112) (age = 17–21)

3

17

Older (N = 92) (age = 22–39)

4

17

All students (N = 204) (age = 17–39)

3

17

108

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

In other words, according to the TaLLSI study, the older students were working at a significantly higher level and rated some strategies significantly more highly than the younger group. Although this might possibly be explained simply by the fact the older group has had longer to work on the language (this question was not further explored in the case of this study, but could be a useful direction for other studies to pursue), this finding tends to be contrary to the Critical Period (Lenneberg, 1967; Penfield & Roberts, 1959) ‘wisdom’ which has tended to dominate the age-related language learning issue for a long time. In short, it supports the idea that, under the right circumstances older learners can be at least as good as younger ones.

Are learner variables related to strategy choice? Age

Although the SILL study found a non-significant difference in class level according to age, according to the TaLLSI, the older learners were working at a significantly higher level than the younger ones. In the case of both studies, strategy use according to age was the same.

Sex/gender

Since women are often believed to be more motivated to learn language and to use learning strategies more frequently than men (Nyikos, 2008), it would be reasonable to expect women to be more successful language learners than men, and many studies show a slight advantage for women (for instance, Gu, 2002; Sunderland, 2000). Ehrman and Oxford (1995), however, found no correlation between strategy use according to gender and successful language learning, nor was there a difference in performance between men and women ‘by any measure’ (Ehrman & Oxford, 1995: 81). Nyikos (2008: 78–79) consequently concludes: It is therefore crucial to emphasize once more that differences in language learning preferences between males and females, although in some cases statistically significant, tend to be slight, with far greater variation between individuals than between the sexes.

The relationships among sex/gender, language learning strategies and successful language learning have been discussed in Section 1.3. When the data from the study reported in Section 2.1, using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL, were analysed according to sex, there were 114 (32.8%) male students and 234 (67.2%) female students. As with the study by Green and Oxford (1995), the results of this study indicated that women reported frequently using more language learning strategies (N = 11) than men (N = 7), although the difference was not significant. Median class levels were the same (level 3 – upper elementary).

A Quantitative Perspective

109

Table 2.5 Strategies favoured by females versus males with levels of significance Item

Strategy

FEMALES

1

I do homework

p = 0.000

11

I try to memorize the new language I learn

p = 0.026

15

I keep a language learning notebook

p = 0.000

18

I try to work out English grammar rules

p = 0.007

19

I repeat new things I learn to myself

p = 0.048

21

I use electronic learning aids

p = 0.022

22

I plan my English study

p = 0.001

23

I choose strategies so that they work well together

p = 0.018

26

I invest a lot of effort in studying English

p = 0.004

29

I use a self-study centre

p = 0.038

32

I manage my time so that English study is done

p = 0.007

35

I try to set clear goals for my study

p = 0.001

37

I select strategies that are suitable for the task

p = 0.005

27

I try to make friends with native speakers

MALES p = 0.036

The difference in strategy use between males and females according to gender was more in evidence in the target language study in Turkey described in Section 2.2, using the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory or TaLLSI, where there were 14 statistically significant differences. Of these, 13 were rated more highly by females, while just one was rated more highly by male students, as can be seen in Table 2.5. Table 2.5 would seem to paint a clear picture of females as much more strategically active than male students, who, interestingly, only appear to be strategically superior in the case of a social strategy (making friends with native speakers). For the females, the picture presented is of much more hardworking, ‘serious’ students who do their homework, memorize and repeat things, keep notebooks, and concern themselves with rules, time management, strategy selection and orchestration, planning and goal-setting. They report significantly higher levels of agreement with self-study centres and even electronic aids, which one might have expected to be favoured by the males. In spite of this, however, the difference in class level according to gender was not significant.

Are learner variables related to strategy choice? Sex/gender

In spite of the fact that females report higher levels of strategic activity than males in the two studies reported here, there were no significant differences in class level according to gender.

110

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

2.5 Are Contextual Variables Related to Strategy Use?

Another important variable which should not be disregarded in any discussion of strategies is learning context (discussed in Section 1.3). Although the role of learning situation was long overlooked as a factor in language learning, its critical importance has been highlighted by writers such as Oxford (1996), Norton and Toohey (2001) and Ushioda (2015). Clearly, no human activity, including language learning, takes place in a vacuum, and learning environment may well have a marked influence on the strategies that learners are willing or able to choose. But which strategies are going to be useful for which environment? In fact, there are very few studies which examine the effect of context on learning, and certainly very few which compare learning across contexts. This may be partly because of the difficulty of establishing comparable levels. Even if students in, say, New Zealand and China or Turkey are given the same strategy inventory, it is very difficult to be sure that ‘elementary’ or ‘advanced’ in one context means the same as the same terms used elsewhere. Even if we go for guidelines such as the Common European Framework (A1–C2), it is not easy to be certain that, for instance, competences that include phrases such as ‘reasonably fluently’ or ‘appropriate use’ are going to be interpreted identically, or even similarly, in different places. Standardized tests results such as IELTS (International English Language Testing System) or TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) are probably the best when it comes to reliability, but they tend to be in short supply, and, of course, privacy issues may make them difficult to obtain. In recent years, the study abroad experience, where students go to study in a target language context, has become very popular as a means of helping to develop competence in a target language. However, although this has the potential to be very helpful in terms of promoting target language development, there may also be challenges (e.g. Du, 2013; Irie & Ryan, 2015; Masuda, 2011; Mendelson, 2004; Mora & Valls-Ferrer, 2012; Serrano et al., 2016), and these challenges may require strategies. By way of example, let us investigate the strategies which appeared to be most positively related (that is, they had correlation coefficients of +0.200) to success in terms of higher class levels for international students studying in an English speaking (ESL) environment at a privatlanguage school in New Zealand (see Section 2.1 for details). The strategy ratings for the items of the SILL were correlated with class level, and those strategies which correlated most highly with class level were noted. According to the results, three of the highest correlations were with metacognitive strategies: paying attention (Item 32, rs = 0.302), learning from mistakes (Item 31, rs = 0.240) and monitoring progress (Item 38, rs = 0.208). Metacognitive strategies were discovered by O’Malley et al. (1985) to be typical of higher level learners, and Anderson (2008) also argues their importance. Indeed, for some time now it has been

A Quantitative Perspective

111

recognized that successful learners are able to self-regulate (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Winne, 1995), that is, they are able to employ strategies of various kinds to manage their own learning, and are therefore less at the mercy of the situation in which they happen to fi nd themselves than students who are not able to self-regulate. Without these kinds of strategies, as O’Malley et al. point out, students lack direction, and are likely to be less effective learners than those with well-developed metacognitive skills. It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising to fi nd that students with well-developed metacognitive strategy repertoires seem to do better in an unfamiliar environment, since they are the ones who might be expected to be able to manage such a situation effectively. Higher level students also appear to be more able to manage uncertainty than lower level students, since they avoid trying to fi nd word-forword equivalents (Item 22, rs = 0.234). The positive relationship between this kind of strategy and class level accords with the fi nding by Naiman et al. (1978) that the ability to tolerate a degree of ambiguity is a characteristic of more proficient learners. These kinds of students tend not to immediately reach for a dictionary the moment they fi nd a word they do not know, but they can guess and use strategies such as working out meaning from context. Authority-oriented students may fi nd this difficult to get used to, but good language learners seem to understand that not everything may always be totally understood, and they are able to live with this uncertainty until, perhaps, a later moment of enlightenment occurs. Such strategies may help learners to cope with contextual uncertainties. The use of reading as a language learning strategy is also among the strategies most strongly positively correlated with class level for these students. Higher level students report reading for pleasure (Item 16, rs = 0.221) significantly more frequently than lower level students. While reading, they more frequently use strategies such as skimming (Item 18, rs = 0.215). It is often not easy to get students to read in English. This may be partly because many students do not come from a learning environment where reading is emphasized, so that it is not an established behaviour, or it may be related to the contemporary emphasis on listening and speaking which has been in vogue since the communicative language teaching approach was introduced, as well as the influence of technology, which tends to have a visual bias. The finding that reading is related to successful language learning accords with the findings by Huang and van Naerssen (1987) and Ehrman and Oxford (1995) that reading is a useful way to learn a target language. In fact, reading is a way to expand vocabulary, to obtain models of real language in use, and to obtain cultural insights. Furthermore, a book is always available whenever the student has time, can be revised at will, and is more within the reader’s control than people, who may not always want to interact, who may get impatient with being asked to repeat, and who may ridicule mistakes leading to loss of confidence. These may be especially important considerations when trying to cope in an unfamiliar environment.

112

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

In other words, for students studying in an unfamiliar context, it would seem that metacognitive strategies which they use to regulate their own learning are very important, as well as strategies to help them manage ambiguity and to read in the target language. This study did not attempt to explore students’ previous strategy use in their home environments, but it could be an interesting area for possible future research to investigate the degree to which students’ strategies change according to the context in which they fi nd themselves and the relationship with success.

Are contextual variables related to strategy choice?

These results suggest that when learning in an unfamiliar environment, the ability to manage or regulate the learning process and to tolerate ambiguity are important, as well as willingness to read in the target language.

2.6 Are Target Variables Related to Strategy Use?

It would seem to be no more than stating the obvious to suggest that different strategies are more or less suitable depending on the learning goal. Students who want to expand their vocabulary, for instance, may write new words they fi nd in a notebook. Those who want to improve their grammar may look for patterns in what they read. Those who want to improve their speaking skills may listen to people talking on the bus, and so on. But how transferable are these strategies across targets, for students studying business or tourism, for instance? In fact, there is very little research into goal-appropriate strategies. Griffiths (2004) undertook a study of the strategies used by international students studying the Research Methods paper at a tertiary institute in New Zealand. There were 53 students in this class, most of whom were taking the class in order to prepare themselves for further study. Approximately 60% of the class were male and 40% female, and they were aged between 22 and 36 years old. They came from a variety of national backgrounds, including China, India, Indonesia and Fiji. Students were asked to rate each statement on the Language Skills Development (LSD) survey (see Section 1.6 and Appendix 1 for details) from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) according to the frequency of use. In order to avoid encroaching on students’ lecture time, LSD Questionnaires were handed out to be completed in students’ own time and handed back at their convenience. Surveys were returned by 32 students. The alpha co-efficient for reliability of the instrument across these students was 0.88, which is in the ‘very acceptable’ range according to Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 6). Of the LSD strategy items, those with

A Quantitative Perspective

113

a significant positive correlation (Spearman’s rho) with end-of-course results were: Reading 1: I read extensively for information (rs = 0.361, p < 0.05) Reading 3: I find reading material at my level (rs = 0.709, p < 0.01) Reading 6: I look for text organization (rs = 0.408, p < 0.05) Speaking 9: I use similar words or phrases (rs = 0.402, p < 0.05) The individual strategy item most strongly correlated with end-of-course results was Reading 3 (I fi nd reading material at my level), which accounts for 50.27% of the variance, which is considered a large effect size (according to both Cohen, 1988 and Plonsky & Oswald, 2014). There were also significant correlations with two other reading strategies, making reading by far the best represented of the groups in terms of relationship to positive outcomes. This result accords with the results of some other studies (for instance, Ehrman & Oxford, 1995; Griffiths, 2002, 2003a, 2003b; Griffiths & Parr, 2000, 2001b; Huang & van Naerssen, 1987) which emphasize the importance of reading when learning another language. Out of the 32 students who completed the questionnaire, there were six who achieved an A pass, and three who were given a D grade in the fi nal exam. After the publication of end-of-course results, the six students who achieved A passes were interviewed in order to explore the patterns of LSD use by individuals. These students mentioned a variety of strategies they used to develop their language skills, and all six regarded reading as a key strategy, using it as a source of new vocabulary and as a model of correct grammar and usage to be applied across language modes (reading, writing, listening, speaking). Reading was also considered valuable because the reader has more control over the language input than is the case when listening, when much of the control is with the speaker. Types of reading these students considered useful included newspapers, magazines, text books, novels and graded readers. Other strategies which the A students mentioned as useful for developing skills and coping with difficulties included: • • • • • • • • • • •

making friends with native speakers; talking to other non-native speakers in English; paying careful attention when English is being spoken; revision; listening to the radio (e.g. in the car); going to Church; going to the gym; talking to neighbours; being good humoured about making mistakes; lots of practice; preparation;

114

• • •

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

watching TV; taking classes; talking to homestays.

The D students were invited for an interview, but they did not come. Further research with an instrument such as the LSD (Language Skills Development) Questionnaire is required before it will be possible to comment with any authority on the relationship between language learning strategies and learning target. In the case of the study reported here, students were studying a Research Methods course, which might, by its nature, have been expected to require a lot of reading, thereby favouring those with well-developed reading strategies. It is possible that different targets (e.g. an exam or a Business English course) might have favoured different kinds of strategies.

Are target variables related to strategy choice?

In this study, which looked at the strategies used by students studying for a Research Methods course, reading strategies featured strongly among strategies significantly positively related to end-of-course results. In the course of the interviews, all of the A grade students mentioned using reading as a key strategy. Possibly, however, other targets might have favoured different strategies.

2.7 Do Strategies Change over Time?

An important feature of strategies is that they are ‘amenable to change’ (Wenden, 1991: 18, author’s italics). However, measuring this change is not always easy and the vast majority of strategy research has looked at a sample of learners at a particular point in time rather than trying to measure changes over a period of time. According to Ellis (1994: 559), nevertheless, longitudinal studies are ‘sorely needed’ because of our incomplete understanding of the development of language learning strategy use and the relationship of this development to successful language learning. Cohen and Macaro (2007) also note ‘a dearth of longitudinal studies which map the changes in strategic behaviour over time’ (2007: 282–283). Changes in strategy use were investigated by Griffiths (2003b, 2006) by looking at students’ reported frequency of language learning strategy use on entry to their language course and again three months later. This study was conducted in the same private English language school as the study in Section 2.1 of this chapter, using the same placement procedures: the Oxford Placement Test (Allan, 1995) plus a communicative interview. After placement, promotion through the levels of the school was

A Quantitative Perspective

115

determined by the results of regular weekly tests. These tests were based on the work covered in class during the week. If students scored well in the test (usually 75% or more), they would be offered the opportunity to go up to a higher level. Students who made good progress in their language learning might well be promoted quite frequently. In other words, levels of promotion over a given period of time was taken as an indication of progress in language learning in this environment. There were 30 students with courses of three months or longer who completed an English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI – for details see Section 1.6) questionnaire on two occasions. Students were asked to rate each strategy item from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) according to their perception of the frequency with which they used it (see Appendix 2). The fi rst occasion was in the week of arrival at the school, when all students completed the questionnaire during the Study Skills class. The second occasion was three months later when they were approached by the researcher and asked to complete another questionnaire. Although three months is not a long time in language learning terms, the students in this school generally came for quite short courses, the minimum being only two weeks. Very few students enrolled for courses longer than three months, which was, therefore, the longest period of time over which a study could realistically be spread in this environment. Participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 32 with the majority (23 or 77%) being in their twenties. These 30 students came from a variety of national backgrounds (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Thailand, South America). There were 11 (37%) males, and 19 (63%) were female. Students gave a variety of reasons for wanting to study, including improving their job prospects, needing it to further their education or using it for travel purposes. Data from the ELLSIs were analysed for reliability, means, correlations and differences using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). The alpha reliability co-efficient for the ELLSI was calculated at .87, which is in the range described as ‘very respectable’ by Oxford and Burry-Stock (1995: 7). The entry and re-survey ratings totals for frequency of language learning strategy use for each of the 30 students are set out in Table 2.6 along with the changes in the totals between surveys and the number of levels of promotion. Medians are noted at the bottom of the table. Viewed overall, for the 30 students who completed two ELLSIs at an interval of three months, the median ratings total for reported frequency of use on entry was 105. When re-surveyed three months later, the median was 111.5. The difference between the entry and the re-survey medians for language learning strategy frequency ratings use was, therefore, +6.5. In other words, overall, these students increased their language learning strategy use over the 3 months of the study. As can be seen from Table 2.6, in some cases, the increase was quite dramatic. The ratings for student number 1, for instance, increased from

116

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Table 2.6 Entry and re-survey totals for reported frequency of language learning strategy use (ELLSI), with the change in reported frequency of strategy use between surveys and the number of levels of promotion Student number

Entry totals

Re-survey totals

Entry/re-survey change

Levels of promotion

1

81

128

47

3

2

105

128

23

1

3

79

101

22

1

4

89

110

21

3

5

91

107

16

0

6

102

116

14

1

7

105

118

13

3

8

83

94

11

0

9

137

148

11

4

10

105

114

9

2

11

89

97

8

1

12

112

119

7

2

13

114

121

7

1

14

111

116

5

2

15

112

117

5

2

16

117

121

4

0

17

101

105

4

0

18

94

97

3

1

19

139

142

3

0

20

94

97

3

3

21

106

107

1

2

22

104

105

1

2

23

129

124

−5

1

24

104

96

−8

0

25

124

116

−8

0

26

101

90

−11

1

27

119

106

−13

0

28

138

113

−25

2

29

133

100

−33

0

132

94

−38

1

105

111.5

+4.5

1

30 Medians

Difference = +6.5

81 to 128, an increment of +47, or more than 50%. In some cases, however, the change was in a negative direction. The ratings for student number 30, for instance, went from 132 to 94, a decrease of −38. Promotion for these 30 students over that period of time ranged from 0 to 4 levels, with the median being 1 level.

A Quantitative Perspective

117

Do strategies change over time?

These results indicate that the answer to this question is ‘Yes’. 2.8 How do Strategy Changes Relate to Progress?

Over the three months, there were five students who were promoted three or more levels. The median ratings increase for the frequently promoted group was +21. These results are set out in Table 2.7. The largest increases in the entry/re-survey totals for the five students who were promoted three or more levels in the three months were reported for a group of ten strategies: Item 6: Watching TV in English Item 7: Revising regularly Item 10: Writing letters in English Item 14: Reading newspapers in English Item 16: Deliberately learning new vocabulary Item 17: Keeping a language learning notebook Item 19: Noting language used in the environment Item 20: Controlling schedules so that English study is done Item 25: Listening to native speakers of English Item 29: Watching movies in English Interestingly, however, this frequently promoted group did not report increased use of all strategies. There were two strategy items for which reduced usage was reported: Item 13: Using a dictionary; Item 28: Making friends with native speakers. The decrease in the frequency of dictionary use may well reflect on the one hand the tendency for higher level students to be more tolerant of Table 2.7 Language learning strategy ratings totals on entry and when re-surveyed, with the change in ratings and levels of promotion for the five students who made the fastest progress during the three-month period Student number

Entry totals

Re-survey totals

Entry/re-survey change

Levels of promotion

9

137

148

+11

4

1

81

128

+47

3

4

89

110

+21

3

7

105

118

+13

3

20

94

97

+3

3

Median

94

118

+21

3

118

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

ambiguity and therefore less inclined to reach for a dictionary when faced with words they don’t know. It may also, of course, simply be a sign of a larger vocabulary which leaves fewer gaps needing to be looked up. In the case of Item 28, it is not uncommon for students to fi nd that making friends with native speakers is not as easy as they had hoped, since interaction with native speakers (such as shopkeepers, bus drivers etc.) is often at a fairly superficial level. Furthermore, the native speakers they come across often have their own established relationships which restrict them from opening up to newcomers, and, anyway, making friends takes time and international students are often only in the overseas learning environment for quite short periods. Over the three months, there were nine students who were not promoted at all. The results for this group can be seen in Table 2.8. It is interesting to note that, of these nine students who made no progress in terms of promotion to higher level classes, four (students 24, 25, 27, 29) actually gave lower ratings for frequency of strategy use over the threemonth period. Overall, the median change, although positive, was low: in fact, it was one seventh of the change reported by the frequently promoted group (see Table 2.8). This suggests that perhaps the really important factor when it comes to the relationship between language learning strategy use and successful language learning may be not so much the actual frequency, but the degree to which a learner is prepared to take on new strategies and to expand existing strategy repertoires. We might, for instance, compare student 1 and student 8 (see Tables 2.6, 2.7. 2.8), both of whom gave quite low initial ratings (81 and 83 respectively) on the ELLSI. Three months later, however, student 1 had increased this total to 128 (an increase of 47) while student 8 had only Table 2.8 Language learning strategy ratings totals on entry and when re-surveyed, with the change in ratings and levels of promotion for the nine students who were not promoted at all during the three-month period Student number

Entry totals

Re-survey totals

Entry/re-survey change

Levels of promotion

5

91

107

16

0

8

83

94

11

0

16

117

121

4

0

17

101

105

4

0

19

139

142

3

0

24

104

96

−8

0

25

124

116

−8

0

27

119

106

−13

0

29

133

100

−33

0

Median

117

106

+3

0

A Quantitative Perspective

119

increased the total by 11 to 94. And whereas student 1 had been promoted three times, student 8 had not been promoted at all. Another interesting group is the set of eight students whose re-survey ratings total was lower than the ratings total on entry. With only one exception (student 28) students in this group were promoted only one level or not at all (see Table 2.9). Possible explanations of this phenomenon might be that students who reported using strategies frequently on arrival might be affected by others who were less strategic in their approach to their studies, by peer pressure, by a desire to fit in, by a need to adapt to the new culture in which they found themselves, or by the sudden absence of the kinds of pressures they had at home. Another possible interpretation might be that the language learning strategies reported on arrival might not have been a realistic representation of actual strategy use, a recognized limitation of self-report data discussed at length by Gu et al. (1995) among others. It is possible that not all students report their strategy use reliably or using the same frames of reference: what is ‘always or almost always’ for one student might, for instance, be given a lower rating by another (Gu et al., 1995). Whatever the explanation for the decline in reported frequency of strategy use among these eight students, this group achieved only a very low rate of promotion (median = 0.5, which is half of the overall median, and considerably less than the progress achieved by some of the more successful students). Care needs to be taken when interpreting these results because participant numbers are relatively low (N = 30) and the time span relatively short (three months). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the group of students who progressed through three to four levels during the three

Table 2.9 Language learning strategy ratings totals on entry and when re-surveyed, with the change in ratings and levels of promotion for the eight students who reported a reduction in frequency of strategy use over the three-month period Student number

Entry totals

Re-survey totals

Entry/re-survey change

Levels of promotion

28

138

113

−25

2

23

129

124

−5

1

26

101

90

−11

1

30

132

94

−38

1

24

104

96

−8

0

25

124

116

−8

0

27

119

106

−13

0

29

133

100

−33

0

Median

126.5

103

−12

0.5

120

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

months reported a median increase of +21 in frequency ratings, which is seven times greater than the median increase of only three reported by students who remained at the same level throughout the three months. It is important to bear in mind, however, that although this study found a positive relationship between increased reported frequency of strategy use and progress overall, this fi nding does not necessarily apply to every individual student. An examination of Table 2.6 reveals that not all students who achieved a high level of promotion also reported a large increase in their frequency of language learning strategy use. Student number 20, for instance, progressed through three levels in spite of reporting an increase of only +3 in the strategy frequency ratings total. Conversely there were those like student number 5 who reported a relatively high entry/re-survey ratings change of +16 but who was not promoted at all during the three month period of the study. Another interesting case is student number 28, who will be called Lee. Wanting to learn English ‘for myself’, she was initially placed at pre-intermediate level. Her initial frequency ratings total was very high (138) and she appeared to arrive with good intentions of making the best of her time abroad, giving ratings of 5 (always or almost always) to strategies such as Talking to native speakers and Making friends with native speakers. However, even in this fi rst survey, completed in the fi rst week of her course, Lee was complaining in notes which she added to the ELLSI questionnaire form that ‘teacher doesn’t talk to Asia student’, that ‘I want talking with native person for long time’ and that ‘I want to stay small [number of] students in my classroom’. A picture emerges of a rather inflexible and unhappy student who found it difficult to adapt to the realities of the situation in which she found herself. By the end of three months, Lee’s frequency ratings total had decreased to 113. In her second survey, Lee complained that ‘I cannot meet English person’ and gave Talking to native speakers of English a rating of 2, and a rating of only 1 this time to Making friends with native speakers, with the implication in her comments that native speakers are difficult to talk to and unfriendly. Although she had been promoted to upper intermediate (two levels of promotion), a rate of promotion which is actually higher than the median (1 level), the impression among those of us who knew her at the school was that she could have done better but for her negative attitudes which appeared to be reflected in the declining frequency she reported in language learning strategy use. By comparison, student number 9, who will be called Taro, scored almost the same as Lee on the initial ratings total (137) and by the end of the three months he had increased this by +11 to 148. Taro was cheerful and outgoing and interacted enthusiastically with teachers and fellow students alike. By the end of the research period he had been promoted through four levels, the highest rate of promotion in the study.

A Quantitative Perspective

121

How do strategy changes relate to progress?

These fi ndings indicate that, although the relationship is complex, overall, the students who progressed most rapidly in terms of promotion through the levels of the school were those who reported the largest increases in the frequency of their language learning strategy use over the research period. Therefore, it is not possible to claim an uncomplicated linear association between rate of promotion and reported language learning strategy use. In fact, the relationship is very complex and can vary considerably according to the individuals involved. Nevertheless, the results of this study do indicate that, in general, increased frequency of language learning strategy use is linked to progress, and that, overall, the most frequently promoted students are the ones who report the greatest increase in the frequency of their language learning strategy use over a period of time. 2.9 Which is the Chicken and which the Egg? The Tornado Hypothesis

Although this chapter has provided answers to a number of fundamental questions regarding the language learning strategy concept, the whole question of cause and effect remains problematic. Merely because we can quote statistics to show that language learning strategies are related to class level does not mean to say that one causes the other, and we need to be very careful that this basic nonsequitur is clearly understood. For instance, if higher level students use more reading strategies than lower level students, does this mean that the reading strategies lead to (cause) promotion, or is it that higher level students have a larger vocabulary which facilitates the employment of more sophisticated reading strategies? If higher level students are more likely to start conversations in English, does this strategy contribute to their increased proficiency, or does a higher level of proficiency provide the confidence required to initiate such interaction? Does avoiding literal translation and guessing unfamiliar lexis lead to higher levels of proficiency, or is it just easier for higher level students to cope with the ambiguity and use these strategies since they already have a well-developed linguistic base, therefore there are fewer and smaller gaps in their knowledge? It is important to remember that language learning is not a linear process (Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2015). On the contrary, it is extremely complex and dynamic. That is, the language learning process may be influenced by a complicated mixture of different factors, including the environment, the target, and the learner’s own individual characteristics.

122

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Furthermore, the process is not static: it can and does change from time to time, sometimes from moment to moment. Model: Hypothesized Tornado Effect STRATEGY TYPE

TORNADO

PROFICIENCY

PLUS

ADVANCED

CORE

INTERMEDIATE

BASE

ELEMENTARY

Image credit: © Lorc used under CC BY

I would like to suggest that the relationship of strategies to effective language learning is probably spiral, where enlarged vocabulary and other linguistic knowledge support improved reading, confidence and interactive ability, which exposes the learner to more vocabulary and linguistic input, which makes comprehension and production even easier and more enjoyable and builds confidence, and so on in an ever-augmenting spiral. This might be termed the Tornado Effect, a model of which might be represented as in the diagram above. But this kind of non-linear effect is difficult to investigate, since, by its nature, one factor influences the other ad infinitum, creating a complex and dynamic system, as discussed, for instance, by Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2015), Mercer (2014) and Mahmoodzadeh and Gkonou (2015), and rendering it difficult if not impossible to definitively assign causality to any given effect. To discover some means of studying such spiral phenomena would represent a major breakthrough in language learning strategy research.

2.10 Conclusion

The studies discussed in this chapter have hopefully contributed some answers to some fundamental questions. In particular: (1) Language learning strategies do appear to be related to success in language learning. According to the results of the studies reported here, there is a significant relationship between language learning strategy

A Quantitative Perspective

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

123

use and class level, and advanced students report using many more language learning strategies significantly more frequently than elementary students. Some types of strategies do appear to be more related to successful language learning than others. In particular, there is a plus group of strategy items which appears to be typical of higher level students. In addition, there is a group of core strategies which are equally favoured across all students. There is also a group of strategies which appear to be more typical of lower level students, which might be called base strategies. Some learner variables (such as nationality and motivation) do seem to be related to strategy use and to class level, whereas others (such as sex and age) do not appear to be significantly related. Although there is not a lot of research investigating the relationship between strategy use and learning context/environment, there are some indications that students are more likely to be successful in a new situation if they read in the target language, employ metacognitive strategies, and are able to tolerate ambiguity. The relationship between language learning strategies and learning goal/aim is another under-researched area, but according to the study reported here, reading in the target language is the strategy most strongly correlated with successful course outcomes. Strategies do appear to be capable of changing over time, with students sometimes reporting an increase, and sometimes a decrease, in language learning strategy use. On the whole, those students who most increase their language learning strategy use appear to be the ones who make the fastest progress. Cause and effect remain problematic in relation to language learning strategies: do strategies contribute to increased proficiency, or does increased proficiency influence strategy use, or is the relationship a spiral one, with one factor augmenting the other? It is suggested that this might be termed the ‘Tornado Effect’, but much more research is required about this complex and dynamic system.

We have already seen, however, that these generalisations, although useful when looking at the situation overall, do not apply to every individual student. The next chapter will look more closely at individuals and try to discover what we can learn from looking at how particular learners go about learning language. 2.11 Quantitative Areas for Further Research

The studies described in this chapter have produced some interesting fi ndings, but there are still many unanswered questions, especially: (1) More studies are still needed to confi rm the relationship between strategies and success in language learning.

124

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

(2) More research is still needed to refi ne concepts of strategy type. (3) Although there are some interesting findings from the use of the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory or TaLLSI introduced in this chapter, the items included in this questionnaire are all very broad. It would be useful to explore specific items in more depth. (4) The studies reported here give some indications of relationships which might exist between strategies and the learner variables of motivation, nationality, age and sex, but there are many other variables (such as style, personality, beliefs, autonomy, aptitude, affect, identity, investment and so on) which also have the potential to affect strategy selection but which remain under-researched. (5) Studies of the relationship between strategies and learning context or learning goal are very rare. Given that situational or target variables have the potential to profoundly affect strategy choice and learning outcomes, further studies are urgently needed. (6) Another area which is conspicuous by its lack of published research is that of longitudinal studies into strategy use to investigate strategy development over time and how this is related to success in language learning. (7) If we accept an expanding spiral model of language learning strategy development (the Tornado Effect), we need to develop effective methods of researching complex, non-linear phenomena.

3 A Qualitative Perspective

Selinker (1972) is emphatic when he states: ‘a theory of second language learning that does not provide a central place for individual differences among learners cannot be considered acceptable’ (1972: 213, author’s italics). Although data such as those presented in Chapter 2 are interesting in terms of overall patterns, far from behaving according to some aggregated statistical model, individuals are uniquely engaged in their own infi nitely variable world of human activity within the social context to which they belong, and pre-occupied with their own personal goals. They are much more than ‘a quantified collective’ (Roebuck, 2000: 82) of statistics. Because of this growing awareness, interest in qualitative research has been steadily growing (e.g. Holliday, 2007), since, as Lichtman (2014) explains, ‘many disciplines in the social sciences have accepted some types of qualitative research (QR) as a reasonable alternative or complement to quantitative research’ (2014: xxi). 3.1 The Individual Language Learner

Among qualitative methods, the semi-structured interview is highly regarded because of its flexibility and because of the rich information which such interviews can produce (Dowsett, 1986). For this reason, it was the method chosen for the qualitative section of Griffiths’s (2003b) study. From among the international students studying English at a private language school in Auckland, New Zealand (for more details see Section 2.1), 26 were selected and invited to an interview which lasted about half an hour. The interviewees were purposively selected to be as representative as possible of the learner variables included in the study in terms of class level, sex, age and the major national groups. In addition to the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990), which students had already completed before the interview, an interview guide was used consisting of three main questions (regarding key strategies, learning difficulties and the effects of learner variables) designed to probe a student’s strategy use and to explore some of the factors which inter-relate with this strategy use. The interview guide (see Appendix 3) was designed to complement the SILL’s

125

126

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

quantitative approach by adding a qualitative element in the form of individual opinions, attitudes, reactions or beliefs. During the interview, the interviewer asked the student the questions on the guide and noted the responses for later summarizing. In addition to providing direct answers to the questions, students were encouraged to elaborate on their answers by providing examples and personal insights, which were also noted by the interviewer. During the interview, the questionnaire responses were discussed. The students were asked about the strategies they had found most useful and about their development of strategies to deal with the difficulties they had found with learning English. Students were also asked whether they thought their nationality, their sex, their age or other factors aff ected their choice of language learning strategies and/or how they felt these factors aff ected others with whom they learnt. Any other interesting insights, such as their reasons for learning (motivation), were also noted. Following the interviews, the notes were examined for useful insights into strategy use and ten were selected for closer examination and detailed reporting. These ten students were chosen to be as varied as possible in terms of proficiency, nationality, sex and age and also in terms of the success or otherwise they achieved during their courses (information obtained from their class teachers and from test results). The selected interviewees were also chosen because of the quality of the insights they provided during the interview and the degree to which these insights added something new to previous interviews (some tended to be rather repetitive of material obtained previously). Pseudonyms are used for these students in order to protect privacy. Using the notes and the questionnaire responses, learner profiles of the ten selected interviewees were constructed. Learner characteristics (nationality, sex, age and other characteristics) as well as the median frequency of strategy use were noted. Achievement (in terms of examinations passed) was recorded or rate of progress (in terms of levels per month) calculated. In addition, the interview notes were examined for qualitative insights which were also added to the profi les. In particular, any learning difficulties the students encountered (such as ‘understanding native speakers’ or ‘cultural differences’) were noted as well as the key strategies employed (the ones students identified as being important for themselves, such as ‘deliberately working to manage lack of self confidence’ or ‘eating western food’). Interviewees’ perceptions regarding the role on their language learning of individual differences such as nationality, sex, age or other factors were also included. Since motivation for learning was often mentioned, this was also added to the profi le. All of this information was included in a written summary, as well as any comments and insights which helped to round out the learner as an

A Qualitative Perspective

127

individual and suggested possible answers to some otherwise puzzling questions, such as: • • • • • •

‘Why did Yuki make so little effort to learn?’ ‘Why did May choose to work at a level below her level of achievement?’ ‘Why did Lily appear to lose motivation mid-course?’ ‘Why did Hiro want to study English in his retirement?’ ‘Why was Mikhail much less successful than Kira?’ ‘Why did Kang refuse to eat Korean food while he was in New Zealand?’

Nina

An examination of the interview data relating to how individuals reportedly use language learning strategies would seem to indicate general support for the fi ndings from the survey data that the most successful students report frequently using a large number of language learning strategies. At 19 years old, Nina had already studied English for nine years in her native Germany and had passed the Cambridge First Certificate (FCE) examination. She was, therefore, already at quite an advanced level on arrival. After sitting the Cambridge Advanced English (CAE) and the Cambridge Proficiency in English (CPE) examinations, Nina planned to return to Germany to study English at University in order to equip herself for a career in a fi eld where her English would be useful. According to the results of her strategy questionnaire, Nina made frequent use of many language learning strategies, with an overall median of 4. She was also able to add a number of key strategies of her own in addition to the ones listed in the survey. When she sat the high-level Cambridge Advanced English (CAE) and Cambridge Proficiency in English (CPE) examinations, she achieved A passes in both, which is estimated to place her at native-speaker level. Nina’s details are summarized in Student profi le 1. As a European, Nina said she felt she had an advantage over Asian students because of the similarities of the languages. As a woman, she felt that women are more likely to study language than men, who are more likely to be expected by others to study something practical. She felt that it was an advantage for herself to be doing something others accepted as ‘normal’ rather than having to fight against the expectations of others. Nina did not feel, however, that either nationality or sex affected the strategies which were likely to lead to success. As for age, she commented that when she was younger she used reading as her main strategy (receptive), whereas now she was more aware of the importance of writing (productive).

128

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 1: Nina

Learner characteristics Nationality: German Motivation: to study at university

Sex: female

Age: 19

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 4 Achievement: passed CAE and CPE Learning difficulties *Speaking in English Key strategies *Talking to people in English to improve speaking skills *Deliberately working to manage lack of self confidence *Living in an environment where English is spoken *Writing new language items down in a notebook During the interview, Nina said that a key strategy she used was to always write everything she learnt down since this helped to fi x it in her mind and meant she could revise and learn it later (other students also commented on her penchant for this strategy). She had found talking to people in English the most useful strategy as a means of improving speaking skills, an area in which she lacked confidence. She felt that the best way to overcome this difficulty with confidence was to stay in an environment where the language was spoken, preferably living with a native-speaking family (as she did) since this maximized opportunity for practice and meant that she had to make the effort to interact in English whether she felt like it or not. Nina was such a competent student, it was easy to forget that confidence (as mentioned above) is an issue, even with someone like her. One day she arrived in class uncharacteristically flushed and flustered. When asked what was the matter she told us that, as she was walking to school and waiting to cross at the lights, a woman came up to her and asked how to get to the station. Trying to think how best to direct her, Nina said ‘Um’, and the woman immediately said ‘Oh, so you are a foreigner too!’ This brief exchange really unsettled Nina and threw her into a tail-spin of self doubt. ‘I didn’t say anything!’ she exclaimed to us in class. ‘Only ‘Um’, and from that she could tell I was a foreigner!’ Although visibly affected by the encounter, it was not long before Nina had recovered from this ego-denting experience, as might, perhaps, have been expected from the high rating she gave to the strategy: I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. It is difficult to be sure, however, whether the use of such a strategy might be a

A Qualitative Perspective

129

cause of language learning effectiveness, or whether the fact that Nina was already a successful learner gave her the underlying confidence to recover her composure and use such a strategy effectively. The issue of confidence is further discussed from a pedagogical perspective in Chapter 4. Kira

Although, unlike Nina, he did not sit an examination to provide an external measure of success, Kira made the fastest rate of progress of the ten selected interviewees in terms of progress through the levels of the school (two levels per month). Like Nina, Kira made frequent use of many language learning strategies, with an overall median of 4. Especially prominent among the items he said he used frequently were ‘metacognitive’ strategies, used to manage or regulate the learning process, such as I pay attention when someone is speaking English and I plan my schedule so that I will have enough time to study English. When 28-year-old Kira started his English language course he was placed in a mid-elementary class on the basis of the placement procedures adopted by the school (Oxford Placement Test plus oral interview). He said he wanted to learn English in order to obtain a new job and so that he could write English lyrics for songs which he could perform with the band he had in Japan. Although Kira had not studied English formally since leaving school and had ‘forgotten much’, even at an early stage in his course he was a very confident speaker and managed to use the knowledge he had very effectively, an ability which he put down to having worked in a duty-free shop where he had to speak English to customers, and to having been in a band where he sang in English. Like Nina, Kira was very focused: he knew what he wanted and he worked very hard. Staff members often mentioned having to evict him from the self-study room as they were going around the school locking up long after the majority of the students had gone. According to all the teachers who had him, he was a delight to have in class, always participating keenly in classroom activities. He was also very popular among the students, having, among other things, organized a school soccer team which gave him status and a high profi le and provided time out from direct study, which he used as a deliberate strategy to ‘refresh myself’. During his interview, Kira was very defi nite and specific about his key strategies, readily producing a long list. He said he watched TV as much as possible to practise listening and read newspapers. In order to reactivate the knowledge acquired in his school days, he spent two to three hours a day working on his grammar. In class he always sat next to the teacher, so that it was easy to ask questions, or next to the best speaker in the class, so that he could use the other student’s knowledge to expand his own. He did homework and lesson revision every day and talked with his host family in the evenings. He used every opportunity to converse with

130

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

native speakers such as taxi drivers and shopkeepers and kept a special notebook in which he wrote sentences. Kira believed in writing full sentences in order to check the usage: isolated words and meanings he found insufficient. In order to give himself a break from study, on the weekends he played sport, which he considered beneficial. According to Kira, the responsibility for learning was basically the students’, who needed to make positive efforts to learn if they were to be successful. However, he believed a teacher could be very helpful, especially by creating a good atmosphere, by providing useful feedback, and by acting as a reference. When he was young Kira considered that he had not been a good student of English. However, when he was about six or seven years old he used to go to visit a friend of his mother’s who spoke good English and she would play language games with him. He found this a lot of fun and, therefore, from an early age developed a positive attitude towards English, the importance of which is stressed by Stern (1975). Kira made excellent progress, moving through six levels (mid-elementary to advanced) in a mere three months (two levels a month). Even allowing for the possibility that some of this progress might have been the result of reactivating stored knowledge, this was a remarkable rate of promotion. Kira’s details are summarized in Student profile 2. Student profile 2: Kira

Learner characteristics Nationality: Japanese Motivation: new job, song writing

Sex: male

Age: 28

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 4 Progress: 2 levels per month Learning difficulties *Understanding spoken English *Reading and writing Key strategies *Watching TV to practise listening *Talking to native speakers

*Grammar

*Reading newspapers *Writing sentences in a notebook *Working specifically on knowledge of grammar *Deliberately manipulating position in the classroom *Doing homework and revision regularly *Providing for time out from study in order to refresh himself

A Qualitative Perspective

131

The consensus among his teachers was that Kira was a conspicuously excellent, hard-working student who was keen to participate in everything and who approached his studies with a consistently positive attitude which made him a pleasure to have in class. Kira had an outgoing personality and showed real leadership qualities among the other students while his disciplined approach to his learning earned everyone’s respect and helped him to achieve an all-round excellence which is a rare accomplishment in such a short time. The possibility that some of this success might be related to Kira’s extensive repertoire of language learning strategies is suggested by the positive relationship which was discovered between reported frequency of language learning strategy use and proficiency. Fernando

Another interviewee who made very good progress (1.2 levels per month) was Fernando, a 23-year-old from Argentina, which placed him in the ‘European’ category for the purposes of this study, since he spoke a European language (Spanish). At the beginning of his five-month English language course, Fernando was placed at mid-elementary level. At this stage he struggled to communicate verbally in English and his grammar was especially weak. He was, however, extremely focused, determined and assertive, indeed the term ‘pushy’ was used to describe him on more than one occasion. He had left a job to study abroad and had fi nanced his own studies which he wanted to use to improve his job prospects. He was, therefore, very aware of what the course was costing him in monetary terms and there was an urgency about his determination to make the best of his time at the school which was not evident with many of the other students whose courses were often being paid for by parents or others. Highly motivated, therefore, to make the best use of his time and money, he agitated ceaselessly for promotion and decided to join a class working for the First Certificate in English (FCE) examination. When Fernando’s questionnaire was examined, a high median reported frequency of strategy usage (median = 4) was discovered. Noticeably prominent among his frequently used items were a number of ‘social’ strategies, suggesting he was very aware of the advantages of interaction when learning language. The most difficult aspects of learning English, according to Fernando, were prepositions, understanding native speakers, and also working out the pronunciation of English words. Although English has a lot of vocabulary which is related to Spanish, he found that it is often not possible to work out the pronunciation from the written form as is usually the case with Spanish. However, he said he was not afraid to ask people if he was unsure of pronunciation and was prepared to learn from correction (though, in fact, he was often so busy talking that he would continue right over attempts to correct him!).

132

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 3: Fernando

Learner characteristics Nationality: Argentinian Motivation: better job

Sex: male

Age: 23

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 4 Progress: 1.2 levels per month Learning difficulties *Prepositions *Understanding native speakers

*Pronunciation

Key strategies *Asking for help *Learning from correction *Learning language in chunks *Keeping a notebook *Speaking only in English *Watching TV, especially for listening practice and pronunciation modelling Asked what he found the most useful strategies Fernando said he liked to learn language in related chunks rather than as isolated words, a strategy which he credited to a highly esteemed private teacher with whom he studied in Argentina, and which was also prominent in Kira’s strategy repertoire. These details are summarized in Student profile 3. Other key strategies included keeping a notebook in which he recorded language items new to him (for instance, prepositional usage) and watching TV as much as possible in order to practise listening and as a model for pronunciation. When it was pointed out to him that his questionnaire indicated that he reported very little use of ‘memory’ and ‘cognitive’ strategies and suggested that he might usefully consider using such strategies (for instance, writing letters, reading for pleasure) more often, Fernando expressed impatience with this advice and insisted that speaking English only was the most important learning strategy. His considerable charm certainly facilitated the exercise of this strategy by ensuring him of a constant supply of eager (female) companions, with whom he no doubt spent the time speaking English constantly!(?) Fernando left the school from the advanced class, having moved through six levels in five months. This is a good rate of progress and due very much to his single-minded determination. He did not pass First Certificate, however – a failure which may well be at least partly attributable to the fact that he did not put nearly as much effort into the formal areas of his studies as he did into the communicative aspect (an

A Qualitative Perspective

133

observation made by his teachers and also able to be inferred from an examination of the types of language learning strategies he used, of which, as has already been noted, a high number were ‘social’ strategies). Although interactive strategies may be important, Fernando’s lack of allround success (such as achieved, for instance, by Nina) suggests the possibility that it may also be important to balance different types of strategies so that all aspects of language development are given due attention. Kim

Like Fernando, when 20-year-old Kim from Korea arrived for a fivemonth English course, she was initially placed in a mid-elementary class. These two students have several points of similarity and also some interesting differences, so they are interesting to compare and contrast with each other. She had come to study English in order to improve her job prospects and to have a ‘better life’ and she had worked for eight months as a teacher and librarian in order to earn the money for her course. She worked hard and made steady progress. She was a good student in class, participated well in all activities and was not especially demanding as far as promotion – she was promoted purely on her results, without the kind of pressure other more ‘pushy’ students, such as Fernando, sometimes exerted. An examination of her questionnaire results showed a high median reported frequency of language learning strategy use (median = 4). Unlike Fernando, however, who favoured ‘social’ strategies, ‘metacognitive’ strategies featured strongly among Kim’s highly rated strategy items. The choice of such different types of strategies might suggest rather different types of learners: Fernando highly sociable and keen to use interaction with others to improve his English, Kim (like Kira) more aware of the need to regulate her own learning. Kim said she found idioms especially difficult when learning English and she felt that Europeans had an advantage here because ‘their thinking is closer to English – they can guess’. English vocabulary was also a problem. In spite of the Korean education system’s well-developed method for teaching vocabulary in lists, Kim found it difficult to distinguish between the many words in English which mean almost the same thing. English grammar was similarly problematic, since it is ‘completely different’ from Korean and she found the unfamiliar conventions of English (such as word order) hard to get used to. Kim had found it necessary to pay deliberate attention to these areas of English, writing idioms, vocabulary and grammar in a notebook as she came across them and deliberately learning them later. Other key language learning strategies she said she had found useful were watching TV and using tapes in the self study room to improve her listening skills, as well as reading magazines, newspapers and stories, which she found helped her writing as well as her ability to read. Kim said

134

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 4: Kim

Learner characteristics Nationality: Korean Motivation: better job, ‘better life’

Sex: female

Age: 20

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 4 Progress: 1.2 levels per month Learning difficulties *Idioms *Grammar

*Vocabulary

Key strategies *Writing language items (especially idioms, vocabulary, grammar) in a notebook and deliberately learning them *Watching TV and listening to tapes to practise listening skills *Reading newspapers, magazines, stories to improve reading and writing *Putting a lot of time into study *Speaking English to the homestay family and non-Korean friends she put a lot of time into her study, believing: ‘We must study steadily and with patience’. Kim also tried to speak to her host family or non-Korean friends at school as much as possible in order to improve her speaking and listening skills with which she lacked confidence because in Korea her lessons had been textbook-based and she had had no access to English speakers. She said she did not concern herself too much with strategies relating to feelings because ‘it is important to keep your mind on your work and not to worry too much about feelings’. As might have been expected from Kim’s emphasis on ‘metacognitive’ strategies, she believed in taking charge of her own learning. As she put it: ‘The teacher leads, but learning is up to the student’. Kim was well thought of by all her teachers and the other students. She left the school planning to continue at an English school in Korea and to go back to university to study accountancy. She was such a quiet, steady worker that it was actually a surprise, at the end of her five-month course, to discover that she had gone all the way from mid-elementary to advanced (six levels), a rate of progress which matched Fernando’s. Kim’s details are summarized in Student profi le 4. It is encouraging to discover that, in spite of the common belief in the advantages enjoyed by European students (e.g. Nina and even Kim

A Qualitative Perspective

135

herself), Asian students can progress as rapidly. The possibility that appropriate language learning strategies may be related to Kim’s excellent progress is suggested by the positive correlation which was shown by the results of the data analysis to exist between reported frequency of language learning strategy use and class level. Mikhail

Compared with these four students (Nina, Kira, Fernando and Kim) who all scored 4 for median frequency of strategy use and who all made excellent progress, Mikhail, whose median reported frequency of strategy use was only 3, progressed through only 0.6 levels per month. Mikhail was a 24-year-old Russian who, like Kira, was initially placed in a midelementary class. When interviewed ten months later, he had been working in the advanced class for some weeks. His promotion to this level, however, had not been without reservations on the part of myself and of the various teachers he had had along the way. Mikhail was very ambitious and keen to achieve the status of being in a higher level class. Over the months he managed to become very fluent and able to communicate what he needed to say with little difficulty. Those of us who knew him better, however, realized that this surface fluency often disguised the fact that his underlying grammatical competence by no means kept pace with his communicative competence. When listened to with more than conversation-level care, Mikhail’s utterances would be discovered to be liberally sprinkled with extremely suspect structures, such as ‘Twenty-oneth of January’, ‘One month and half of holiday’, ‘When I have been in elementary class I study quite hard’ and so on. However, in line with the philosophy behind the currently fashionable communicative approach to language teaching and learning, that the most important aspect of language is the ability to use it to communicate, Mikhail was promoted as he desired and essentially in line with his verbal communicative ability. The weaknesses in grammatical competence were even more evident in Mikhail’s written work. His own awareness of this was suddenly and rather uncomfortably brought home to him in his last week at school when he sat an IELTS practice test prior to sitting the exam itself the following week. Needing to get at least a level 6 in order to fulfil his (and his parents’) ambition to enter university the following year, he was dismayed to discover that the practice test indicated a level considerably below what he needed. According to his reported use in the questionnaire, Mikhail did not employ language learning strategies frequently (median = 3). Mikhail gave a rating of 5 (‘always or almost always’) to very few items, one of which related to the need to relax! When asked whether he could suggest any reasons for the rapid progress he had made in his verbal

136

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 5: Mikhail

Learner characteristics Nationality: Russian Motivation: further study/social

Sex: male

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: Progress:

Age: 24

3 0.6 levels per month

Learning difficulties *Grammar (especially tenses) Key strategies *Watching TV *Talking to friends in English *Consulting friends for answers to language questions communication skills, Mikhail said that he felt that watching TV (especially American comedy) and talking to friends (especially Englishspeaking friends) had been more important than formal study. Mikhail complained that English grammar, especially the tense system, was difficult to come to terms with. As for strategies he might use to overcome the problem he rather dubiously suggested checking a grammar book, but then said he would be more likely to consult a friend. Mikhail’s details are summarized in Student profi le 5. Ostensibly, further education was Mikhail’s main reason for learning English – he was studying to be a lawyer. However, he himself did not consider this a particularly urgent motivation – he was doing it mainly to please his parents. For himself, he needed English mainly for social purposes such as drinking and going to parties. It was clear that for Mikhail, having a good time was his major reason for learning English, a motivation reminiscent of Wes’s in the well-known study by Schmidt (1983). The problem for Mikhail seemed to be that the language required to survive well in the limited contexts of the language school and the parties he attended left him with a false sense of his own ability, the deficiencies in which suddenly became vividly apparent when he had to sit the IELTS examination, at which time all the terrifying spectres of parental expectations also suddenly re-surfaced. Faced with the probability of failing the qualification he needed to enter university and satisfy his parents, Mikhail said he wished he had put more work into building up his underlying knowledge base of English by deliberately studying English grammar and vocabulary to underpin his admittedly considerable gains in fluency. Rather than blame himself,

A Qualitative Perspective

137

however, Mikhail attributed his lack of success to the school and his teachers for failing to impose sufficient discipline! In fact, when Mikhail sat the IELTS exam he actually scored only 4.5, well below the level he needed for university, and he had to endure the indignity (as he felt it) of being enrolled by his parents in a foundation programme which involved working on his English for another year before he was able to go on to university. Yuki

Even less conspicuous than Mikhail by her progress as a language learner (0.25 levels per month) was Yuki, who, according to the questionnaire, reported the lowest frequency of language learning strategy use of the interviewees (median = 2). When 44-year-old Yuki started her English language course, she had already been in New Zealand with her children on a visitor’s visa for one year. Wanting to stay with her children, rather than having to return to Japan leaving her children behind, she applied for a student visa, which meant that she was obliged to attend school. On the Oxford Placement Test (Allan 1995) she scored 81, which is categorized as a ‘minimal user’ and she was placed in the lowest class. For some time, Yuki’s attendance was very erratic. She or her children were often sick and she ‘moved my house’ four times. She was not easy to interview because she found it difficult to understand the questions, and, when she understood, found it difficult to express what she wanted to say in English. The English she could manage was frequently extremely ungrammatical: ‘I can’t express myself very well English’. After being warned of the possible consequences of breach of the conditions of her visa, Yuki’s attendance became more regular. After four months she was moved to a mid-elementary class, and three months later to an upper-elementary class. Her ability to communicate remained very low, however, often requiring the services of the Japanese counsellor to translate. The results of the monthly tests were also unspectacular. After nearly a year at the language school, and after nearly two years living in an Englishspeaking environment, Yuki was still only in the upper-elementary class. The most difficult aspect of learning English Yuki found to be speaking and writing (production skills). She thought that using the telephone and writing long sentences might be useful strategies to help with these difficulties, though she said she did not actually use either of these. From a Japanese perspective, she found English grammar difficult, but was unable to suggest strategies for dealing with the difficulty. Yuki’s details are summarized in Student profi le 6. The only key strategy Yuki was aware of using was reading easy books in English. Yuki thought English was difficult to learn because ‘my mind is blank’, a condition which she put down to her age. Her motivation was her children’s education, and she attended an English Language School

138

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 6: Yuki

Learner characteristics Nationality: Japanese Sex: female Motivation: children’s education

Age: 44

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 2 Progress: 0.25 levels per month Learning difficulties *Speaking and writing *Grammar Key strategies *Reading easy books in English only because she needed a student visa. As such, her motivation to learn English appeared low and her progress was minimal. Hiro

Although Yuki believed she was too old to learn English, she was far from the oldest student in the school. Hiro was a 64-year-old Japanese man who came to spend a month studying English. His entry test indicated that he was at pre-intermediate level, and he studied at this level throughout the month he spent at the school. He said he had spent seven years studying English, but ‘that was a long time ago’ during the war, when he believed he had been handicapped because there were no books, no paper, and he was taught by non-native speakers. In spite of his age, Hiro was extremely well-liked and respected by the younger students and he got on with them extremely well. As an older Japanese person, however, especially as an older man, interacting with younger students (who in many cases were a lot more communicatively competent than he was) was fraught with cultural difficulties. They could not display superiority without being, in their terms, impolite, and he could not appear to be inferior without losing face in a way that they would all have found socially very difficult. Hiro was, therefore, acutely aware of the need, as an older learner, to develop effective strategies to cope with the social difficulties of interacting with students much younger than himself. One such strategy he used was to busy himself with his notebook when he found classroom communicative activities too threatening. Hiro’s details are summarized in Student profile 7.

A Qualitative Perspective

139

This ‘opting out’ strategy, however, created some problems with classroom dynamics. His teacher was concerned that Hiro spent quite a lot of class time recording new grammar and making long lists of vocabulary in his notebook, and even complaining that the class was not given enough ‘new’ grammar and vocabulary. The teacher felt that vocabulary acquisition strategies such as these were not as useful as, for instance, interacting with other students and practising using the vocabulary they already knew. The teacher also felt defensive at the suggestion that Hiro was perhaps discontented with her teaching. She reported that, although generally a delightful student, Hiro had a tendency to be a little rigid and formal in his approach to his learning. Understandable given his age and background, this was almost the only negative comment ever made about Hiro during his time at the school. In addition to the avoidance and note-taking strategies already noted, Hiro said he found the most useful strategies for learning English were reading newspapers, listening to radio and songs, going to movies, and noting language from the environment such as posters and signs. He felt it was useful to speak only the target language and to try to remember new

Student profile 7: Hiro

Learner characteristics Nationality: Japanese Motivation: hobby/fun

Sex: male

Age: 64

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: 3 Progress: in the same class for the month he was at the school Learning difficulties *Grammar

*Vocabulary

Key strategies *Reading newspapers *Listening to radio and songs *Watching movies *Speaking only the target language *Recording grammar and vocabulary in a notebook *Learning language from the environment (e.g. posters, signs) *Remembering new vocabulary by connecting it with something memorable *Using ‘face saving’ techniques such as avoiding threatening situations by becoming absorbed with note taking

140

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

vocabulary by connecting it with something memorable. As an example of this he mentioned remembering the word ‘notorious’ by connecting it with politician who gained notoriety by paying an exorbitant price for a pair of silk boxer shorts. As reported on the questionnaire, Hiro did not employ language learning strategies at a high rate of frequency (median = 3). When asked his reasons for learning English Hiro said it was just a hobby. He felt that this was a good motivation for learning English, since being relaxed and unworried about the outcome would help him to automatically employ strategies to help him learn more effectively, such as picking up natural language from the environment. As he delightfully put it: ‘I have worked hard all my life. Now I am going to have some fun!’

Although his course was too short for any fi rm conclusions to be drawn regarding rate of progress, on the basis of his test results, he would probably have been promoted to the next level (intermediate) had he continued. Hiro’s case points to some interesting possible implications regarding the use of language learning strategies (such as ‘face saving’ strategies) by the older learner and suggests some possibly fruitful areas for further research specially designed to investigate age-related differences in strategy use. May

In general, when students report a high median frequency of language learning strategy use there is also a high number of strategies used frequently. However, this is not always the case. May, for instance, reported frequent language learning strategy use (median = 4) according to the questionnaire, but the numbers of strategies rated as 5 (used ‘always or almost always’) were relatively low. An examination of her responses reveals an unusually high number of items rated 4 (‘usually’) compared with the others, which has the effect of increasing the median in spite of a low number of strategies used ‘always or almost always’. This might possibly be an example of the ‘highly valued modesty’ referred to by Gu et al. (1995: 3) as typical of Asian students, creating a tendency to use the middle of a scale rather than the extremes. At 35 years old, May was older than average for the school. On the results of her intake test, she was initially placed at pre-intermediate level when she arrived from Taiwan for a six-month English course. In spite of her greater age, her cheerful, obliging personality meant that she fitted into her classes among generally much younger students without obvious difficulty. Indeed, her mature attitudes were an asset to the class and much appreciated by her teachers. Prior to leaving Taiwan she had worked for a trading company and hoped that better English would improve her job prospects, although she also wanted to travel and ‘change my life’.

A Qualitative Perspective

141

The most difficult aspect of learning English, according to May, was listening and speaking. The main reason for this, she said, is that the schooling system she was used to was very formal, with large classes and so ‘we learned just reading and writing’. Even the reading and writing which she had learned in school presented problems for May. Her native language, of course, uses Chinese ideographs for writing which bear little or no relationship to the pronunciation, unlike languages such as Korean where there is a phonic correspondence with the written form of the word. Consequently, when asked to read English aloud from a text (such as a newspaper) in class, May often struggled to work out words she did not already know or even to produce an accurate version of words she did know (for instance, she might read ‘complex’ for ‘complexity’, ‘learn’ for ‘learned’, ‘read’ for ‘reading’ and so on). For May, the complications of English grammar and the size and complexity of English vocabulary were also a challenge. Especially problematic was the tense system. Compared with Taiwanese verbal concepts, usually consisting of just one form with tense expressed by an adverbial (‘I go yesterday’, ‘I go now’, ‘I go tomorrow’), she found the contortions of English tense structures extremely difficult to master. Added to this, the vast array of synonyms in English, all meaning more or less (but not quite) the same thing, was also a constant anxiety. Another problem was gender differentiation, which does not exist in Chinese languages as it does in English. This helps to explain why Chinese students can say ‘she’ when talking of a man and be quite unaware of the incongruity. The fact that English speakers often fi nd this kind of mistake amusing and are likely to laugh can be a problem in itself because of the Asian fear of ‘losing face’. This was something May said she had learnt: it is natural to make mistakes, and she tried not to be afraid of doing so. According to May, cultural differences manifested themselves not just in what people did but in how they thought: ‘They have different logic’, as she put it. Although I came back to this rather intriguing statement several times during the interview, attempts to get her to explain what she meant or provide examples proved fruitless, perhaps, in itself an example of our ‘different logics’. I, as a European, expected to be able to analyse and rationalize such a statement. For May, the insight itself was enough. May’s details are summarized in Student profile 8. May’s reported strategies for coping with her many difficulties in learning English included making deliberate efforts to maximize her exposure to English. She went to movies, watched TV, listened to tapes and went on school activities to increase her opportunities to meet native speakers. When she went to restaurants and cafes she listened to the English being spoken around her and tried to ‘copy their sentence’. She tried to make friends with non-Taiwanese and endeavoured to learn ‘many vocabularies’ and tried not to worry about making mistakes.

142

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 8: May

Learner characteristics Nationality: Taiwanese Motivation: job/travel/change

Sex: female

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: Progress:

Age: 35

4 0.66 levels per month

Learning difficulties *Listening and speaking *Cultural differences *Grammar (especially tenses and sex differentiation) *Vocabulary (especially synonyms) Key strategies *Listening to and copying *Making non-Taiwanese friends native speakers *Working deliberately to *Trying not to worry about mistakes expand vocabulary *Maximizing exposure to English, for instance, by going to movies, watching TV, listening to tapes and going on school activities At the end of six months May had progressed from pre-intermediate to advanced (four levels). At this point she decided not to go back to Taiwan and enrolled spasmodically at the school. She decided, however, she did not want to have to cope with the anxiety of working at advanced level and so asked to be put back to upper-intermediate, explaining: ‘I am tired. I have been here a long time. I don’t want to pressure’. In fact, it was probably true that upper-intermediate was a more suitable level for May, since, although communicatively she had become very competent (even on the phone, which most English language students fi nd very difficult), and although, when she studied, she could do well in tests (according to which she was promoted), her grammar remained unreliable to say the least and she did not seem to have the will to work on it as would have been necessary for the improvements needed in this area. So May stayed for another six months, sometimes at school, sometimes not, but picking up a lot of English just from being in a native-speaking environment. However, her unwillingness to push herself meant that she never quite got to be as good as she might have been, and the interference from her own language meant that her spontaneous utterances remained full of grammatical inaccuracies to the end when, by way of explaining why she was finally going home, she told me: ‘My uncle she want me come back Taiwan’!!

A Qualitative Perspective

143

Kang

While May, even with a high reported frequency of strategy use failed to make particularly good progress, Kang, with less than frequent reported strategy usage (median = 3) and the lowest number (n = 3) of strategy items rated 5 except for Yuki, still managed to make good progress (one level per month). Like Yuki, Kang was in his forties, but apart from their age, they could hardly have been more different. When the 41–year-old Korean fi rst arrived, he was initially placed in the lowest elementary class. At this point, Kang’s knowledge of English was negligible, although he was evidently fluent in Japanese, so not inexperienced as a language learner. Although he had left his wife and young children in Korea and obviously missed them, Kang settled single-mindedly to his work. Like Kira, he spent long hours in the self-study room revising lessons, doing homework and listening to tapes, especially pronunciation tapes, which was the area he found most difficult. An interesting theory that he had was that pronunciation is affected by the food we eat, because different kinds of foods require different movements of the mouth and tongue. Accordingly, while abroad, he eschewed his traditional Korean diet (a major sacrifice!) and ate local food instead, a strategy aimed at helping him to get his mouth around the sounds of English. Student profile 9: Kang

Learner characteristics Nationality: Korean Sex: male Age: 41 Motivation: better job and better lifestyle for his family Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: Progress:

3 1.0 level per month

Learning difficulties *Pronunciation Key strategies *Revising lessons *Doing homework *Listening to tapes *Eating western food *Watching TV *Listening to the radio *Going to the movies *Using a dictionary *Listening to people *Adapting to the talking teacher *Using a textbook for vocabulary, sentence structure and grammar *Noting language from signs, notices and advertising in a notebook

144

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Although age is often considered to be a disadvantage when learning language, Kang was more successful than many of the much younger students with whom he studied. By the end of his seven-month course Kang was working in the advanced class, although difficulties remained with typical Korean pronunciation problems such as r/l and f/p discrimination, in spite of seven months of western tucker! It is possible that previous language learning experience (Japanese) may have played a part in Kang’s success. He was also able to detail a wide repertoire of language learning strategies which he used, in spite of not reporting a high frequency of strategy usage according to the SILL questionnaire items. Although, according to his questionnaire, Kang did not make frequent use of language learning strategies, he nevertheless mentioned quite a list of key strategies during his interview, including listening to radio, watching TV, and going to the movies. Kang said he consulted a textbook for vocabulary, sentence structure and grammar and used a notebook to write down language he picked up from signs, notices and advertising. He kept a dictionary with him at all times and listened to people talking around him. Unlike some other students who believed that ‘good’ or ‘bad’ teaching was responsible for their success or otherwise, Kang accepted realistically that some teachers are going to be better than others, and that some teachers’ styles may affect the way some students learn. Therefore, he believed, students must change their attitudes and strategies if they are to make the best of the teacher and succeed. This acceptance of the responsibility for his own learning was another characteristic he shared with Kira and with fellow Korean, Kim. Asked why he thought he had made such good progress, Kang replied, ‘My heart is 100% want to learn’. He wanted to learn English in order to improve his job prospects so that he could provide better opportunities for his family. This strong motivation showed itself in the consistent focus which he brought to his work, in the disciplined and thorough way he went about his study and in his keen awareness of the importance of strategies for learning. Lily

Motivation, however, is not necessarily constant, as exemplified by Lily. When Lily arrived from Switzerland with her husband, they planned to immigrate. She was 26 years old and her native language was Swiss German. She had been a primary school teacher in Switzerland, and she wanted to improve her already very good English in order to get a position as a teacher and to strengthen her eligibility for immigration. She therefore enrolled for a class studying for the Cambridge Proficiency in English (CPE), a very high-level examination close to native speaker standard. In the same class as Nina, Lily began the course as a very hard-working

A Qualitative Perspective

145

student, focused on her goal. In fact, she scored higher than Nina on the initial placement test. She was cheerful and positive in class, keen to participate in all activities, meticulous with homework, and also willing to use her skills as a teacher to support other students. According to her questionnaire, Lily reported using language learning strategies at a high level of frequency (median = 4). She also used a large number (n = 13) of strategies ‘always or almost always’ (rating = 5). She gave a rating of 5 to five of the plus strategies (strategies reportedly used frequently by advanced students but not by all). Communicating in spoken English, Lily believed, was the most important strategy since it provided the opportunity for repetition which her experience as a teacher had indicated was important for learning. As she put it: ‘You only learn something when you do it several times’. Lily found grammar, especially tenses, the most difficult aspect of learning English, and she believed that German speakers generally found the English tense system difficult because the patterns of German tenses are different from those of English. She believed in deliberately studying grammar and looking up points she was unsure of, but said she found it difficult to bring the theory and the use together. A personal difficulty which she had was that she lived with her husband and also Swiss flatmates, so inevitably the tendency was to speak Swiss German at home. She felt this placed her at a disadvantage compared with other students (such as her classmate Nina) who lived in an English-speaking environment. According to Lily, if a high level of proficiency was the goal, it was important not to translate word for word, but to develop a ‘feeling’ for the language. She acknowledged that this was easier for Europeans, whose languages were often related to English, than for Asian students who were often more dependent on dictionaries because their languages were too different from English to make it possible for them to guess when unsure. Another key strategy she reported using was reading in English, often voluminous novels. She said she found books more useful than TV because the reader had more control over a book and a book could be reviewed as required. Lily believed that how much students learnt depended on how much they wanted to learn (that is their motivation) and on the intensity of their desire to succeed which would affect their choice of strategies. In the light of the last comment, an interesting change occurred in Lily about half way through the course. At this point she and her husband decided to apply for permanent residence, so suddenly she urgently needed proof of her English level. With the Cambridge exam (CPE) still some weeks away, she decided to sit for IELTS, an examination which can be sat at short notice with the results available in about a fortnight. After some hasty tuition in IELTS techniques she got 8.5, which put her close to native speaker level (the top score being 9).

146

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Student profile 10: Lily

Learner characteristics Nationality: Swiss Motivation: immigration

Sex: female

Age: 26

Questionnaire results and progress/achievement Median reported frequency of use: Achievement: obtained 8.5 in IELTS and passed CPE

4

Learning difficulties *Grammar (especially tenses) Key strategies *Communicating in spoken English *Repetition *Deliberately studying grammar *Reading in English *Not translating word for word Lily was delighted with her IELTS result, but when the permanent residence application was declined she was bitterly disappointed. She was less cheerful and positive in class and she often complained of being tired. The written work she handed in had more errors than previously, possibly indicating less time and attention spent on homework, and when she made an error she was more likely to repeat it rather than learn from her mistakes. She rarely asked questions in class, and if she were asked a question she was much more likely than previously to answer incorrectly. To really add to the difficulties Lily appeared to be having at this time, her mother came out from Switzerland about two weeks before the Proficiency exam. Lily became very homesick and lacked focus on her study right at this critical time. She got a C pass in CPE, which was satisfactory, especially in such a high-level exam, but in the light of her initial level and the 8.5 she got in the IELTS exam, she might have been expected to do better. (As previously stated, Nina, whose score was lower than Lily’s on the initial placement test, got an A pass.) There is a postscript to the story, however. Lily came in to see me at school about 18 months later. She had a new baby in a pram and looked glowingly contented. She told me that after fi nishing her course she had had several relief teaching jobs before she became pregnant. A few days previous to her visit she and her husband had finally been given permanent residence. When the baby was older she was planning to apply for a teaching position, so she was looking forward positively to the future. She was, in fact, back to her old, cheerful, positive self, and her English was excellent! I am not sure I want to go so far as to seriously suggest having a baby or immigrating as good strategies for learning English, but Lily’s case

A Qualitative Perspective

147

would seem to support Gardner and MacIntyre’s (1993) proposal that attitudes interact with strategies to affect success in language learning. 3.2 What Can we Learn from the Interviews?

In order to facilitate the comparison of one student with another, the questionnaire results (minus the ‘compensation’ strategy group) of the 10 selected student interviewees are set out in Table 3.1. Items rated 5 are shaded for emphasis. For abbreviated strategy statements, refer to Table 2.1, or for full SILL statements, refer to Oxford (1990). The base strategies reportedly used more frequently by elementary students than by advanced students are marked ‘-’ in the ‘item’ column. The core items which were reportedly used frequently (median – 4 or 5) across all students are marked ‘c’ in the ‘item’ column. The plus items reportedly used frequently by advanced students in addition to those used frequently across all students are marked ‘ + ‘ in the ‘item’ column. At the bottom of the table there is a summary of the following key statistics: med: no:

the median reported frequency of strategy use; the number of strategies rated 5 (always or almost always); base: the number of base strategies rated 5; core: the number of core strategies rated 5; plus: the number of plus strategies rated 5; ach/progress: the achievement in terms of exams passed or the average rate of progress in levels per month. Strategy use

It should be noted that the six students who progressed through one or more levels per month or who passed their examinations (Nina, Kira, Fernando, Kim, Kang, Lily) were all able to identify key strategies they used to address the difficulties they were having with learning English. Nina, for instance, lived in an environment where English was spoken in order to work on her difficulties with speaking in English. Kira read newspapers to improve his ability to read in English. Fernando asked for help when he could not understand native speakers. Kim used a notebook to record idioms so that she could review them later. Kang ate western food to help with pronunciation. And Lily made a deliberate effort to learn the problematic rules of English grammar. Compared with these students who were all successful in terms of progress made or exams passed, Mikhail was only able to tentatively suggest as a key strategy asking a friend to help with grammar difficulties. The only key strategy suggested by Yuki (reading easy books in English) did not address the difficulties of which she was aware (speaking and writing in English and learning grammar).

148

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Table 3.1 Reported frequency ratings of language learning strategy use by interviewees 1–10 with progress in terms of levels per month Item

Nina

Kira

Fernando

Kim

Mikhail

Yuki

Hiro

May

Kang

Lily

1+

4

3

4

3

3

2

4

3

2

5

2

3

5

5

5

3

2

3

3

3

4

3

2

5

1

4

4

2

3

4

4

4

4−

2

5

3

3

4

2

3

3

3

4

5

1

3

1

3

3

2

3

3

2

2

6−

1

2

3

1

1

3

3

2

2

2

7−

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

2

4

1

8−

3

4

4

5

1

3

3

3

4

3

9

5

3

4

3

4

2

4

4

4

3

10+

5

5

1

4

3

2

3

4

3

4

11c

5

5

1

5

5

3

3

4

4

5

12c

4

5

4

4

4

2

3

4

2

4

13

3

3

4

4

3

2

3

4

3

3

14+

5

4

4

5

4

2

2

4

3

5

15c

5

3

4

5

5

3

5

3

4

5

16

5

2

3

5

4

3

3

4

4

5

17

5

4

3

4

1

2

2

2

3

3

18

5

3

5

5

3

2

5

4

4

3

19+

5

3

4

4

4

2

5

4

2

4

20

3

5

3

3

4

2

5

4

4

4

21+

5

3

1

3

1

2

3

3

4

4

22+

3

2

5

3

4

2

2

4

1

5

23

2

3

3

4

5

2

3

4

4

3

30+

3

5

4

3

4

2

4

3

3

4

31c

4

5

5

5

4

2

4

4

4

4

32c

3

5

5

5

5

2

5

5

4

4

33c

3

5

5

5

4

2

5

4

4

3

34

2

5

5

3

1

2

4

4

3

5

35+

3

5

4

3

1

2

3

4

3

3

36

3

5

4

5

1

2

3

4

3

5

37

4

5

4

5

2

2

3

4

2

5

38c

4

5

3

4

5

2

5

4

5

3

39+

4

5

5

2

5

2

5

4

2

4

40c

5

5

5

3

2

2

4

5

4

3

41

3

2

3

3

3

2

1

1

2

2

(continued)

A Qualitative Perspective

149

Table 3.1 (Continued) Item

Nina

Kira

Fernando

Kim

Mikhail

Yuki

Hiro

May

Kang

Lily

42

2

4

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

4

43−

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

4

5

1

44

2

3

2

1

4

2

1

4

5

3

45c

4

4

5

3

4

2

4

5

4

5

46

3

3

5

2

1

2

4

4

2

3

47+

4

3

5

5

4

2

1

4

3

5

48+

3

3

5

4

3

2

4

4

3

4

49c

4

5

5

5

4

2

4

4

3

5

50+

4

4

3

5

3

2

4

5

4

5

Kira

Fernando

Kim

Mikhail

Yuki

Hiro

May

Kang

Nina

Lily

Med

4

4

4

4

3

2

3

4

3

4

No

11

19

14

15

6

0

8

4

3

13

Base

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

Core

3

8

6

6

4

0

5

3

1

4

Plus

4

4

4

3

1

0

1

1

0

5

CPE A

2.0

1.2

1.2

0.6

.25

0

.66

1.0

CPE C

ach/progress

Although Hiro said he recorded grammar and vocabulary in a notebook in order to help him with his difficulties with these areas of English, these strategies were perhaps not always used appropriately since they often appeared to be employed in order to avoid interacting with other members of the class. May’s case is somewhat different in that, although she reported using quite a list of strategies to cope with her difficulties, the main problem seemed to be lack of real motivation to succeed in learning English. If the key strategies reportedly used by the six students who progressed through one or more levels per month or who passed their exams (Nina, Kira, Fernando, Kim, Kang, Lily) are brought together, the following list emerges: Watching TV/movies Reading newspapers/magazines, novels/stories Listening to tapes/radio/people talking Working through textbooks Using a dictionary Using the teacher Noting language in the environment (e.g. signs) Revising Learning in an English-speaking environment Doing homework

150

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Manipulating position in class Organizing time out Learning from correction Keeping a notebook (e.g. for vocabulary) Spending a lot of time studying Repetition Talking to people in English Asking for help Deliberately working on grammar Learning language in chunks Not translating word for word Deliberately working on lack of self-confidence Kang’s strategy of eating western food, although it was made in all seriousness, was not included in this list, since it seemed rather too idiosyncratic to be the kind of strategy other students might like to copy, and also since there was little evidence that it had produced the desired results (that is an improvement in pronunciation). Of these key strategies, some are represented in the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning – Oxford, 1990) (for instance, watching TV, reading in English), but many others are not included (such as manipulating position in class, learning language in chunks, organizing time out, working on self-confidence). The existence of what Lunt (2000) calls ‘nonSILL strategies’ serves, as she points out, to emphasize the individuality of learners, and to remind us, that though we can learn a lot from an overall perspective by using an instrument such as the SILL, language learning strategy use at the individual level may not always be reflected in the overall view, as this list of key strategies demonstrates. Pawlak (2012b) is another who reminds us that ‘the choice of a particular strategy is often a very individual matter’ (2012: 284). Many of the key strategies relate to the use of resources (TV, tapes, movies, people, the environment, newspapers, magazines, stories, novels, radio, textbooks, dictionaries, the teacher). Very few such strategies are listed in the SILL. The higher level students, however, appear to be very aware of the potential for these resources to contribute to effective language learning. Strategies

The data obtained from these interviews accord with the fi ndings in Chapter 2 and reinforce the idea that, in general, successful students frequently use a large repertoire of strategies of various types. In general, then, it would seem that the successful students in this study reported the use of a large repertoire of frequently used strategies of

A Qualitative Perspective

151

various types. Another aspect of strategy use which is not easy to assess is how this repertoire is used together, or orchestrated. As Anderson (2008: 101) comments, ‘effective strategy use does not occur in isolation … [it is important to] … integrate the use of various strategies in a positive way.’ Although it is intuitively easy to agree with this comment, attempts to group strategies together, for instance, by means of factor analyses of the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990) and the ELLSI (English Language Learning Strategy Inventory, Griffiths, 2003b), have not proved very useful (see Section 1.7). It almost seems as though effective strategy orchestration is such an individual phenomenon which is also dependent on situational and target factors, that attempts to quantify it are not very productive. However, since it is an important question, especially in the light of students who do not appear to be able to do it well (for instance, Porte, 1988; Vann & Abraham, 1990), further research would seem to be warranted. Motivation

Motivation has been discussed at some length in relation to successful language learning and strategy use in 1.3 (Strategy effectiveness). As might have been predicted from the quantitative results reported in Chapter 2, an examination of the interview data suggests that success in language learning is linked to motivation, as discovered also by Politzer and McGroarty (1985), Ehrman and Oxford (1989) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) and considered at some length by Dörnyei (2001) and Ushioda (2008). As Cohen and Dörnyei (2002: 172) comment: ‘Motivation is often seen as the key learner variable because without it, nothing much happens. Indeed, most other learner variables presuppose the existence of at least some degree of motivation’. The students who progressed one or more levels per month during the time of their courses (Kira, Fernando, Kim, Kang) and Nina (who gained an A pass in the Cambridge Proficiency in English examination) were unwavering in their focus on their studies and wanted to learn English for further study and/or future employment. All of them except Kang reported frequent strategy use, a high number of strategies rated 5, and a high number of plus strategies (explained in Chapter 2). Even Kang, as has already been discussed, reported a high number of key language learning strategies of his own. Compared with highly focused and successful students like Nina, Kira, Fernando, Kim and Kang (whose motivation for learning English was essentially vocational) Yuki used her English study as a means of staying with her children, May wanted it to ‘change her life’ and for Hiro it was a ‘hobby’. Although she passed her exam, Lily’s motivation wavered during her course, which may well have been reflected in her lower than expected grade in the Cambridge Proficiency exam, and Mikhail’s

152

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

motivation, like that of Wes (Schmidt, 1983) was essentially social, and therefore lacked the dimension of urgency which characterized the more successful students. Motivation

Results of the individual interviews accord with previous fi ndings that motivation is an important factor in successful language learning and is likely to be reflected in strategy use.

Nationality

Nationality has also been discussed as a possible factor in successful language learning and strategy use (see Section 1.3) and was mentioned as a possible factor in language learning by Kim, Nina and May. Kim, from Korea felt that Europeans had an advantage, not only because the languages are similar but also because the ‘thinking’ is similar. Nina, from Germany, agreed that she had an advantage when learning English because of the similarities of the languages. May provided a number of examples of the diffi culties Chinese students may encounter when learning English, and she displayed fi rst language interference to the end. Nationality

An important fi nding from the interviews indicates that, although European students appear to have an advantage over Asian students when learning English, Asian students can be very successful learners of English, especially if they are well motivated and frequently employ well developed strategy repertoires. Nevertheless, the interview data indicated that, although European students appear to have an advantage over Asian students when learning English, some Asian students manage to study English to a high level of proficiency, a successful outcome possibly related to the patterns of language learning strategies employed. This is highlighted especially by comparing Kim from Korea and Fernando from Argentina. They were initially placed at the same level (mid-elementary) for a course of the same length (five months). They reported the same frequency of strategy use (median = 4) and they both fi nished their courses at advanced level. Although she was Asian and he European, and although there were differences in the types of strategies they reported using, their rates of progress and overall strategy patterns were remarkably similar.

A Qualitative Perspective

153

Age

Although often considered an important factor in successful language learning (for more details, see Section 1.3), an analysis of the quantitative data reported in Section 2.4 revealed no statistically significant differences for class level or reported frequency of language learning strategy use according to age. However, there were indications from the interview data that older students might go about their learning in ways which are qualitatively different from the approaches employed by younger students. For Hiro, for instance, saving face in front of younger students was obviously important in terms of his status within the class and how comfortable both he and they felt in the classroom. As a result, he needed space to apply his own strategies as he needed to. Kang’s strategy patterns were highly idiosyncratic, reflecting, perhaps, the way his strategy repertoire and thinking had developed over the years; but his strategies were largely effective for him, even if not reflected in standard strategy inventories. Age

Although age is often believed to reduce language learning ability, the interviews reinforce the fi ndings in Chapter 2 that well motivated and strategically active older learners can learn language successfully. Although there are some interesting possibilities for research in this area (especially given an ageing student population reported by many learning institutions in many places), generally, the failure to discover significant differences in proficiency according to age supports Ehrman and Oxford’s (1990: 319) conclusion that there is ‘optimism for older learners’. Certainly, students like Kang demonstrate that it is possible for older learners to learn very effectively. Gender/sex

The question of the role of sex differences in successful language learning and strategy use has also been discussed in Sections 1.3 and 2.4. Although contrary to much common belief, the results of the quantitative analyses in Chapter 2 regarding language learning achievement and strategy use indicated that there were no significant differences according to sex. Sex/Gender

The qualitative data from the interviews also accords with the quantitative questionnaire data from Chapter 2 that there does not appear to be any real difference in language learning ability according to sex for motivated and strategically active learners.

154

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Indeed, sex does not really seem to be an issue with most students, and the only one of the interviewees who mentioned it was Nina, who commented that most people felt that learning language was ‘normal’ for a woman, and she felt this was an advantage since she did not have to fight other people’s prejudices. This is not entirely to say, of course, that male and female students are equal in a classroom. Sunderland (1998), for instance, notes that girls are much quieter in mixed classrooms than boys (again, contrary to much common belief). Nevertheless, these social differences do not seem to be reflected in achievement or strategic behaviour. Style

Although learning style was not directly investigated in the course of the study reported in this chapter, an examination of the interview data suggests considerable differences in the style preferences of the individual learners. Fernando, for instance, was highly interactive, and sociable, whereas Kang spent long periods of time revising and doing homework on his own. Hiro was another with a somewhat solitary learning style, often focused on his notebook, a characteristic preference that may possibly have been related to his age. Nina, Kim and Lily were rather introspective in their style and they all used reading as an effective means of obtaining language input, whereas Kira (who didn’t really enjoy reading) preferred sport and other activities for interacting with native speakers as a means of promoting his knowledge of English. But these learners were all successful, underlining the fact that learning style is a very individual matter.

Learning style

Although learners appear to favour certain types of activities according to their learning style, no particular learning style appears to be more likely to lead to success than any other.

The essential conclusion would seem to be that students should be allowed to study according to the style with which they feel comfortable and which produces the best results for themselves Personality

Personality is a specialized area which the data reported in Chapter 2 do not really address in any detail or by using any instrument designed to

A Qualitative Perspective

155

focus on personality characteristics. Furthermore, no in-depth personality testing was done to complement the interviews. On a superficial level, however, it is interesting to note that the best language learner in terms of the highest level of achievement (an A pass in CPE) was Nina, who had quite a shy personality, although not unfriendly. Kang and Kim also kept to themselves, but nevertheless made very good progress in their language learning. None of these three excellent learners would be considered extroverts according to the common understanding of the term. Nevertheless, other successful learners, such as Kira and Fernando, appeared to be quite extroverted, and used strategies such as playing sport and speaking to others in English to improve their language abilities. Highly sociable Mikhail, however, was not highly successful in spite of his outgoing and highly sociable personality. It is possible, of course, that external behaviour in the cases of these students might not accurately reflect the inner characteristics underlying them. In fact, there are not enough data from the interviews to enable any fi rm conclusions to be drawn regarding the interviewees’ personalities, but the relationships among personality, strategies and success in language learning remain an interesting area for further research. For the moment, observations from the interviews would seem to accord with Ehrman’s (2008) conclusion that good language learners are not limited to a particular personality type.

Personality

Somewhat contrary to expectations, Ehrman (2008) discovered that introverted personalities were the most successful learners in her study. Nevertheless, although personality might have some effect on strategy choice, overall there does not seem to be any particular personality which is more strongly typical of good language learners than others.

Autonomy

Autonomy is another area which neither the data reported in Chapter 2 nor the interviews address in detail. Nevertheless, if we examine the data with a view to investigating possible indications of autonomy, there are a few interesting observations which might be used to suggest further research. Kira, for instance, believed that students need to make a positive effort if they are to be successful. Kira was a very active strategy user, especially

156

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

the metacognitive strategies itemized in the questionnaire used in this study (the SILL). Autonomy

The interviews would seem to suggest that, in general, successful learners are autonomous and capable of regulating their own learning and that they use strategies in order to do this. Kim also believed that learning is basically up to the student, who should study ‘steadily and with patience’. The frequent ratings that she also gave to many of the SILL’s metacognitive strategies suggest that she believed in taking charge of her own learning. Kang was another who believed that students must not be overly dependent on the teacher but must adapt attitudes and strategies if they are to learn successfully. As has already been noted, although Kang did not report frequent use of the SILL strategies, he could identify a large number of strategies of his own. All three of these students exercised autonomy and accepted responsibility for their own study. They regulated their own learning, and all three were successful in terms of progress through the levels of the school. In contrast, Yuki infrequently used very few strategies. In terms of volitional competence, she might be described as displaying learned helplessness since she believed she was too old to learn language, a condition which she saw as beyond her control. She made more or less no apparent effort to accept responsibility for her own learning, and it would seem possible that this lack of autonomy might be a contributing factor to her minimal progress in language learning. Beliefs

Although the interviews did not examine learner beliefs directly, it is notable that Yuki, who was the most unsuccessful of the interviewees, believed she was too old to learn language, and she made minimal use of language learning strategies. Did this negative belief contribute to her lack of success? This question becomes especially relevant when it is considered that, although Yuki blamed her age, Kang, who was of a similar age, used many quite idiosyncratic strategies and did well in spite of his age. And even Hiro, who was considerably older, actually did quite well, and would probably have done even better with more time. In other words, it may well have been Yuki’s beliefs about her age rather than age itself which were the problem.

A Qualitative Perspective

157

Beliefs

Although beliefs are a relatively stable learner characteristic, it would seem that successful learners are able, at least to some extent, to adapt their beliefs to the requirements of their situation and to adopt effective strategies accordingly. In addition, they need to believe in themselves as equal to the learning challenge and also they need to believe that the learning task is worthwhile.

Aptitude

An examination of the interviews reported in this chapter does not really seem to throw much light on the question of aptitude. We have no way of knowing, for instance, whether Nina did well because of natural ability, or whether Yuki did not succeed because of aptitude deficiencies. Intuition would suggest that the main reason Nina did well was because she wanted to, and that the reverse is true of Yuki. But then, maybe natural aptitude contributed to Nina’s motivation and may also have affected her choice of strategies? Further research using some aptitude measure as a baseline is required before anything at all conclusive could be said on this subject. Aptitude

Although, intuitively, aptitude might be a strong predictor of success in language learning, the ability to measure the construct reliably remains problematic, and, anyway, application of such measurements continues to be highly controversial. As a result, the relationship between aptitude and strategies remains under-researched.

Affect

As can be seen from the numerous sub-headings under the topic of affect, there has been considerable interest in the concept over the years. In the case of the interviews reported in this chapter, affect was mentioned directly only twice. Kim reported that she did not worry too much about feelings since it was more important to ‘keep your mind on your work’. Kira, however, was more aware of the need to attend to his affective needs and to relax by playing sport. This is an interesting area, but more research is required in order to explore which of these positions is more realistic (perhaps Kim actually does employ more strategies to manage her affective states than she entirely realizes) or productive in terms of learning outcomes.

158

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Of the interviewees, it is, perhaps, May, who chose to work at a level below the one to which her test results entitled her, who most clearly demonstrates the effects of anxiety. ‘I don’t want to pressure’, she insisted when explaining why she chose to work at a lower level. The effect of positive attitudes can be seen in the cases of Nina, Kira, Fernando, Kim, Hiro and Kang. On the other hand, Mikhail’s and Yuki’s negative attitudes may well have contributed to their lack of success. In this study, the successful students (for instance, Kira, Kim, Kang) believed in their ability to control their own learning. Yuki, however, attributed her failure to her age, a factor which was beyond her control, while Mikhail blamed his teachers for not imposing enough discipline! If we think of the interviews in this study, perhaps the one which most strongly suggests a possible relationship between empathy and successful learning might be Lily. When Lily thought her immigration application was likely to be successful, at which point we might hypothesize her desire to empathize with the citizens of her new country and the language they spoke would have been high, she was outstandingly successful in her exam (IELTS). After the rejection of her application, however, when empathy levels might well have been lower, she was less successful. Of the interviewees, there were two who mentioned the issue of inhibition directly. Fernando said he was not embarrassed by and willing to learn from correction (although, in fact, he often did not listen to corrections when they were offered); and May said she tried not to be afraid of losing face when she made mistakes (although, by implication, she was worried about losing face, which may have contributed to her preference for working at a lower level than she was capable of – she was less likely to make mistakes there). In terms of self-concept, Nina judged herself to be lacking in selfconfidence, especially in relation to her speaking skills. She was, nevertheless, a highly successful student, both before and during the course, which may well have provided her with underlying self-esteem and positive self-image. Although self-efficacy was not directly researched in the current study, it is probably reasonable to assume that the successful interviewees believed they could do it. Yuki, however, did not believe she could do it, and she didn’t. Some interesting question marks, however, might hang over the likes of Mikhail and May. If they had been asked whether they would be successful, I hypothesize that Mikhail would have said ‘yes’, whereas May would have said ‘no’. And yet Mikhail was not successful, though May was reasonably successful and could easily have been more so if she had been willing to invest more effort. This potential gap between self-perceptions of efficacy and the actual level of achievement might be an interesting direction for further research

A Qualitative Perspective

159

Affect

Affect has long been recognized as an important factor in successful language learning, and many facets of the affect phenomenon have been identified and investigated, including anxiety, attribution, empathy, inhibition and various dimensions of self-concept. Although learners may not always want to acknowledge, or even be aware of, the role of affect in their learning, affect is, nevertheless, important to successful learning. Identity

Obviously, uniqueness of identity applies to all of our interviewees. They all had their own reasons for being at the school, their own personalities, backgrounds and dreams for the future. We could probably say that for those who were successful in their studies, they saw English as contributing positively to their sense of identity, whether that was in the area of improved job status and/or income (Nina, Kira, Fenando, Kim), as successful provider for a family (Kang), as respected elder member of the school (and probably wider) community (Hiro), or as successful immigrant (as Lily ultimately succeeded in becoming). It should also be noted, however, that patterns of strategy use were far from identical among these successful learners, leading, perhaps, to the conclusion, that strategy use is determined by individual identity. Of those who were not successful students, Yuki’s identity was not tied up with being a successful learner of English: she was a Japanese housewife and mother and that was all she wanted to be. As for Mikhail, his identity as a ‘party animal’ was central to his sense of self and to his beliefs about what made life worthwhile: having to learn English was really just a nuisance which exacerbated his hangovers. Neither Yuki nor Mikhail were frequent strategy users. Identity

A learner’s identity is constructed from a potentially vast array of variables, a number of which have been dealt with in this chapter. It would seem possible that this complex identity structure might contribute to determining individual strategy use. May was more ambivalent about her identity. In fact, May really wanted to ‘change her life’, in other words, to adopt a new identity, different from the office worker persona that she brought with her from Taiwan. In the end, however, she had to go back, and this appeared to affect the level of investment that she was prepared to put in to her studies.

160

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Investment

As previously noted, Yuki and Mikhail, the least successful of the interviewees, had low levels of strategic investment. Most of the others reported high levels of strategic activity, although it should be remembered that both Hiro and Kang used strategies which were not listed on the Strategy inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990). Investment

Investment in language learning refers to the amount of time, attention and effort a learner is prepared to ‘spend’ learning language. The level of reported strategy use may well be a useful indicator of the extent of a learner’s willingness to invest in the language learning enterprise.

3.3 Conclusion

The fi ndings from the quantitative data reported in Chapter 2 indicated that higher level students reported frequent use of a large number of language learning strategies, and that they may favour the use of certain types of strategies. An analysis of the qualitative interview data indicates that: (1) Most of the students who progressed to higher class levels or who passed the exams for which they were preparing reported a frequent overall use of language learning strategies and gave ratings of 5 (‘always or almost always’) to a large number of language learning strategies of different types (see details of Nina, Kira, Fernando, Kim, Lily earlier in this chapter). (2) There were, however, individual exceptions to this general fi nding. Kang, for instance, made very good progress during his course in spite of not reporting frequent use of the language learning strategies itemized in the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990) while May failed to make particularly good progress despite frequent reported language learning strategy use (these individual cases have been discussed earlier in this chapter). (3) A variety of factors emerged from the interview data as possible contributors to an explanation of these varying levels of reported language learning strategy use and differing rates of progress of which motivation, leading to a willingness to invest time and effort, may well be the strongest. The qualitative interview data, then, GENERALLY supported the quantitative fi ndings but also indicated that each learner is unique,

A Qualitative Perspective

161

suggesting that attempts to apply overall truths to individuals must be made with extreme care. This, of course, is the reality that teachers face on a daily basis: a class full of individuals, each with his/her own needs. 3.4 Qualitative Areas for Further Research

The interviews reported here have produced some interesting fi ndings which supplement the quantitative data reported in Chapter 2. However, there are also a number of areas needing further research. In particular: (1) When it comes to the relationships among language development, language learning strategy use, and third factors, there are many underexplored areas, including the influence of: learning style; personality; beliefs; autonomy; aptitude; identity investment; affect (including anxiety, attribution, empathy, inhibition, self-concept). All of these areas require further research (2) As listed here, many of the key strategies which learners report using are rather general and ill-defi ned. Doing homework, for instance, could cover a range of behaviour, each of which might be considered a strategy in its own right. The same might be true of Using a dictionary, Keeping a notebook and so on. Although time did not permit a more detailed examination of the use of these strategies in the context of the interviews, they might well be worth further research. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

4 A Pedagogical Perspective

Although much time and energy has been devoted over the years to questions of strategy defi nition, theory, research methodology and other such academic issues, the key practical question of how to transfer strategic knowledge to new or less successful learners has often been neglected. In the absence of effective strategy instruction, strategic knowledge is often gained by hard experience, accompanied by the stress, frustration and discouragement that comes with a trial-and-error approach to strategy development by less effective or inexperienced learners. Although stated long ago as a major aim of strategy research (Rubin, 1975), more than 30 years later Manchon et al. (2007) were complaining that strategy instruction remained ‘under-researched’ (2007: 246), a gap that Chamot and Harris (2018) aimed to fill with their book about issues and implementation of strategy instruction in the language classroom. According to the authors, this book is the first since Chamot et al. (1999) to focus solely on strategy instruction, and it includes instructional progression and differentiation, cultural factors, and different instructional models. In addition, the book addresses the lack of readily available teaching materials which affect the preparation of language teachers to engage effectively in strategy instruction and research initiatives. The questions which this chapter aims to address include: • • • • • • • • • • •

How do strategies fit into the overall picture of language teaching theory as it has evolved over the years? How teachable are strategies? What have we learnt from previous research? What strategy instruction programmes have there been? What are teachers’ perceptions? What have we learnt from classroom experiences? How should strategy instruction be conducted? What should be included in strategy instruction programmes? How can learner confidence be promoted? How should learner, situational and target variables be dealt with? How can teachers be trained to conduct strategy instruction effectively?

Since all of the above questions are important, let us look at them one by one. 162

A Pedagogical Perspective

163

4.1 The Place of Strategies in Overall Theories of Teaching

Over the years, various teaching methods have attributed more or less importance to the role of learners in their own learning, and, therefore, to the strategies they might use to learn. The basic assumption underlying the Grammar-Translation Method, for instance, tended to be that if learners simply learned the structure (grammar) and the lexis of the new language and translated from one language into the other, they would, as a matter of course, learn the target language. In this structuralist view, there was little consideration given to the contribution that students themselves might make to the learning process (Richards & Rodgers, 1986), for instance by means of strategies. Although considered outdated by many contemporary educators, Grammar-Translation remains a common approach to the teaching and learning of language, either as the major or a supplementary method, and it continues to be a basic organizing principle for many textbooks in many places right up to the present. Faced both with dissatisfaction with the structuralist GrammarTranslation approach, which tended to produce ‘communicatively incompetent graduates’ (Griffiths, 2011: 302), and an urgent need for fluent speakers of other languages during the war, a new method was developed known initially as the Army Method. Since this method was actually very successful at the time, after the war it was adapted for peace-time use and became known as Audiolingualism. Based on Behaviourist principles that all behaviour (including language) is a habit (e.g. Watson, 1930), which is formed by means of stimulus, response and re-inforcement (e.g. Skinner, 1957), Audiolingual techniques depended heavily on drills and repetition. According to this view, there was, if anything, even less importance accorded to the students’ role than there had been with GrammarTranslation. Under Audiolinguaglism, students’ efforts to regulate their own learning were viewed with suspicion since they might make mistakes, which, if not immediately corrected, were likely to become fossilized. Given such dire potential consequences, learners’ strategies were not encouraged or even tolerated. In a well-known review of Skinner’s (1957) book, Chomsky (1959) attacked Behaviourist theories and promoted a cognitive view of language development whereby learners use what he called a language acquisition device (LAD) to learn language and to generate rules regarding the language they are in the process of learning. According to a cognitive perspective, learners are capable of thinking through the language learning process until they gain the knowledge they require to achieve understanding of the new language system. Although Audiolingualism continued for some years, and still survives in language laboratories and classrooms in the form of drilling and repetitive exercises, it never really recovered from Chomsky’s attack.

164

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

From a cognitive perspective, language learners are seen as much more than mere passive receptacles for linguistic patterning by means of stimulus, response and reinforcement which had underpinned the Audiolingual method. The effect of Audiolingual techniques of rote learning, repetition, imitation, memorization, drilling and pattern practice was to minimize the importance of explicit learning strategies employed in the language learning process (Stern, 1992). Although some strategies such as repeating vocabulary until it becomes automatic might be considered basically Behaviourist, most learning strategies require a much more cognitively engaged learner. As noted above, a major principle of Audiolingualism related to error correction. According to a Behaviourist view, errors must be dealt with by means of immediate correction in order to avoid fossilization. Corder (1967), however, published a very influential cognitive view of learner errors which viewed the error phenomenon as an indication of the learner’s progress in thinking through what Selinker (1972) later called Interlanguage. This developing awareness of the importance of cognition in language learning led to the interest in the strategies used by ‘good language learners’ in the mid to late 70s (for instance, Hosenfeld, 1976, 1977; Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). An important corollary which follows logically from placing language learning strategies within a fundamentally cognitive theoretical paradigm is that not only are learners able to bring cognition to bear on their learning processes, but that the strategies themselves are also able to be learnt and, furthermore, that teachers are able to facilitate strategy development. In other words, from a cognitive perspective, language learning strategies are learnable and teachable. However, at much the same time as the strategists were developing their ideas along a largely cognitive paradigm, Krashen (for instance, Krashen, 1976, 1977, 1985) proposed his five hypotheses (the Acquisition/ learning Hypothesis, the Monitor Hypothesis, the Input Hypothesis, the Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Natural Order Hypothesis). In these (especially the Acquisition-Learning and Monitor Hypotheses) he postulated that language is best acquired by means of natural communication, the way children acquire their fi rst language. Children, of course, do not learn their fi rst language by means of vocab lists or grammar rules, therefore, Krashen argued, conscious learning has limited usefulness in the process of language development which must be naturally acquired by means of communication, a philosophy which was developed into the Natural Method (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). According to Krashen’s view, therefore, strategies have a minimal role to play in language development, for which all that is required is sufficient comprehensible input: that is, input which is a little above the learner’s current level of competence but able to be understood, often expressed by the formula I + 1.

A Pedagogical Perspective

165

Krashen’s ideas have often been strongly criticized over the years (for instance, Gregg, 1984) and others have suggested modifications. Pienemann (1984, 1985, 1989), for instance, argued that language can be taught when the learner’s interlanguage approaches the point where the target structure would be acquired in a natural setting (Teachability Hypothesis). Swain (1985) suggested the Output Hypothesis as a complement to the Input Hypothesis, arguing that comprehensible input alone is insufficient for learners to become competent in a target language, and that language production is also necessary. And Long (1996) proposed the Interaction Hypothesis, acknowledging the importance of comprehensible input, but suggesting that learning is more effective when learners must use the input to communicate. Of course, the emphasis on language as communication had first been introduced to the literature by Hymes (1972) who published an article promoting an important theoretical principle which he called Communicative Competence. This is the ability to use language to convey and interpret meaning, later divided by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) into: • • • •

grammatical competence (which relates to the learner’s knowledge of the vocabulary, phonology and rules of the language); discourse competence (which relates to the learner’s ability to connect utterances into a meaningful whole); sociolinguistic competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to use language appropriately); strategic competence (which relates to a learner’s ability to employ strategies to compensate for imperfect knowledge).

This communicative view of language development contributed to the impetus for the now widely used communicative approach to language teaching and learning (CLT), according to which language is acquired in the process of using it to interact with others and employing it for communicative functions (for instance, Littlewood, 1981, 2012; Richards, 2006; Spada, 2007; Widdowson, 1978; Wilkins, 1976). Language development, therefore, becomes essentially a sociocultural phenomenon, a view developed by writers such as Lantolf (2000b) and Pavlenko and Lanfolf (2000) and is developed by means of social mediation within a cultural context (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). The emphasis on social interaction led to the development of a widely used branch of CLT known as task based language (TBL) teaching, based on the idea that language is learnt most eff ectively by engaging students in communicative activities which approximate those they might be required to perform in real life, such as going to the supermarket, renting a flat or planning a holiday (for instance, Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). Given its communicative focus, strategies in a CLT paradigm tend to focus on interactive activities such as seeking out conversation partners, and, possibly, strategies to remember anything

166

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

learnt from communicative encounters for future occasions (such as writing new vocabulary in a notebook). In recent years theories of language teaching have tended to move away from dogmatic positions of right and wrong, and to be more willing to recognize the potential merits of a wide variety of possible methods and approaches, sometimes termed eclecticism (for instance, Tarone & Yule, 1989) or postmethod (for instance, Kumaravadivelu, 2001; LarsenFreeman, 2005; Tajeddin, 2005). Eclectic approaches to language teaching have been willing to include Humanistic perspectives, which emphasize learners as individuals who can help to regulate their own learning by means of a range of strategies, including affective strategies such as positive self-talk, etc. The Poststructuralist emphasis on meaning rather than structure has influenced teachers’ attitudes towards error correction, so that they tend to be more tolerant of learner strategies such as I try to understand the overall meaning even if I don’t understand every word. Although eclecticism has been criticised as ‘resulting in a hodge podge of conflicting classroom activities assembled on whim rather than upon any principled basis’, effective eclecticism requires effort and places a great deal of responsibility on the teacher (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 10). The increased interest in eclecticism is reflected in comments such as that by McLaughlin et al. (1983) who remind us of the story of the blind men and the elephant and then conclude that learning a target language is ‘a complex phenomenon and there are many legitimate points of view. The trouble begins when one starts to claim that a particular point of view is the total one’ (1983: 156). Strategies and teaching theory

Although commonly considered essentially cognitive in their theoretical orientation, language learning strategies also show evidence of Grammar-Translation, Audiolingual and Communicative teaching theories. In more recent years, language teaching theories have tended to become more eclectic, employing features of many different theories (including Socioculturalism, Humanism, Poststructuralism, etc.) to suit the situation, the target and the students, sometimes also called ‘Postmethod’.

4.2 Teachability

It was anticipated by pioneering researchers such as Rubin (1975) that discoveries regarding how successful students learn could be used by other students to learn more successfully. From the beginning, therefore, the pedagogical perspective has been seen as the essential raison d’être underlying debates on and research into the language learning strategy concept.

A Pedagogical Perspective

167

Or, as Gu (1996: 1) colourfully puts it: ‘Research on language learning strategies (LLS) started off with the Robin Hoodian good will of breaking the secret behavioural codes of successful language learners and sharing them with the unsuccessful ones’. The possibility that knowledge gained about learning strategies might be made available to other students to help them to learn more effectively has been a major underlying tenet of much of the research and writing on language learning strategies. The idea that teachers should be concerned not only with ‘fi nding the best method or with getting the correct answer’ but also with assisting students in order to ‘enable [them] to learn on [their] own’ (Rubin, 1975: 45) was, at the time it was written, quite revolutionary. However, an important component of language learning strategy theory is the belief that language learning strategies are ‘teachable’ (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989: 291, authors’ italics) and that learners can benefit from coaching in learning strategies (for instance, Cook, 1991; LarsenFreeman, 1991). According to this view, the teacher’s role expands from being mainly concerned with imparting knowledge to including the facilitation of learning by raising awareness of strategy options and providing encouragement and opportunities for practice so that students might be assisted towards the goal of managing their own learning. This idea is sometimes seen as a threat by teachers (for instance, Grundy, 1999). However, the new role of facilitator, counsellor and resource person can be an empowering one for both teacher and student. (Cotterall & Crabbe, 1999; Harmer, 1995; Pemberton, 1996; Voller, 1997). However, although there are those who argue that strategy instruction is an important part of the teacher’s role (for instance, Oxford & Nyikos, 1989), the principle of the teachability of language learning strategies is by no means universally accepted. According to Rees-Miller (1993: 679), for instance, attempts to train learners to use learning strategies more effectively have produced ‘only qualified success’. As evidence of this claim, she gives details of less than totally successful attempts at learner training, including studies by O’Malley (1987) and by Wenden (1987a) (see Section 4.3). Possible reasons suggested by Rees-Miller (1993) for this lack of success in teaching strategies include the student’s age, educational background, life experience, curriculum demands, varying cognitive styles and incompatibility of student and teacher beliefs regarding how to learn language. She also suggests that ‘the behaviours defi ned as exemplary of successful learning strategies practised by good language learners may be based on cultural models that are not universal’ (1993: 684). Given the level of unresolved debate which surrounds the issue of the teachability of language learning strategies, Rees-Miller (1993) questions whether the time spent raising awareness of strategy use might not be better spent directly teaching language, at least until the situation has been clarified by further research.

168

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Nevertheless, evidence seems to be mounting that strategy instruction is useful. Following a systematic review of available research, Hassan et al. (2005) report that ‘there is sufficient research evidence to support claims that training language learners to use strategies is effective’ (2005: 2). A meta-analysis by Plonsky (2011) also concluded that there was a ‘small to medium overall effect of SI’ (2011: 993). And in the spirit of these results, there are ongoing publications promoting the value of strategy instruction (e.g. Chamot & Harris, 2018; Tang & Griffiths, 2014). Teachability

Although controversy remains over the issue of strategy teachability, evidence seems to be mounting that strategy instruction is effective.

4.3 Previous Research into Strategy Instruction

Although long acknowledged as necessary and important, strategy instruction remains an under-researched area. Manchon et al. (2007), for instance, report that studies of strategy instruction make up only 10% of their corpus of strategy studies. Nevertheless, over the years there have been some. In an attempt to investigate the effectiveness of language learning strategy instruction on language learning, O’Malley (1987) randomly assigned 75 students to one of three instructional groups for listening, speaking and vocabulary acquisition skills, In these groups, they received training in (1) metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies, (2) cognitive and socioaffective strategies or (3) no special instruction in language learning strategies (control group) A signifi cant difference was discovered in favour of the treatment groups for speaking, but not for listening, while the control group for vocabulary actually scored slightly higher than the treatment groups. O’Malley (1987) explains this unexpected fi nding as being due to the persistence of familiar strategies among certain students, who continued to use rote repetitive strategies, and who were unwilling to adopt the strategies presented in training, especially when they knew they would be tested within only a few minutes. Wenden (1987a) describes an intensive English programme which included a language learning strategy component at an American university. The students were described as ‘very advanced’ (1987a: 164), of various cultural backgrounds and with varied reasons for learning. A questionnaire revealed that less than 50% of the students thought that the strategy training had been useful. Wenden (1987a: 164) concluded that ‘learner training was not considered relevant in its own right’. In fact, some of the students were so resistant that one of the classes was

A Pedagogical Perspective

169

discontinued after only three weeks. This result supports Naiman et al.’s (1978) belief that ‘long lectures on strategies, or even lengthy discussions on the subject, would [not] be particularly profitable’ (1978: 225). Carrell et al. (1989) investigated the effects of metacognitive strategy training on ESL reading. Their research involved 26 students who were divided into three groups. Some of the participants were graduates, others undergraduates. They came from various linguistic backgrounds, were of differing ages and of both sexes. The researchers discovered that, in the context of their study (at the Center for English as a Second Language at Southern Illinois University), metacognitive strategy training was effective in enhancing reading ability by speakers of other languages. These results accord with O’Malley et al.’s (1985) conclusions regarding the importance of metacognitive strategies. The effects of the teaching of cognitive and metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension in the classroom were also investigated by Tang and Moore (1992) using three recent adult immigrants to New Zealand. The researchers concluded that, although cognitive strategy instruction (title discussion, pre-teaching vocabulary) improved comprehension scores, the gains were not maintained upon the withdrawal of the treatment. Metacognitive strategy instruction, on the other hand (involving the teaching of self-monitoring strategies) appeared to lead to improvements in comprehension ability which were maintained beyond the end of the treatment. In a classroom-based study in Hong Kong which aimed to research whether learner strategy training makes a difference in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes, Nunan (1995) involved 60 students in a 12-week programme ‘designed to help them reflect on their own learning, to develop their knowledge of, and ability to apply learning strategies, to assess their own progress, and to apply their language skills beyond the classroom’ (1995: 3). The programme was based on a bank of tasks which belonged to four categories: general aspects of learning, different modes of learning, developing macroskills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) and language systems (pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, discourse). Students also kept journals, from which Nunan (1995: 8) concluded that ‘strategy training, plus systematic provision of opportunities for learners to reflect on the learning process, did seem to lead to greater sensitivity to the learning process over time’. Nunan (1995) recommended that language classrooms should have a dual focus, teaching both content and an awareness of language learning processes. A study of strategy use by four independent learners, carried out by Simmons (1996) over a period of six weeks at an Australian university, consisted of a series of intensive individual training sessions aimed at raising awareness of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. At the end of the period, Simmons (1996) concluded that students had increased the number and variety of their strategy use and were more aware of the strategies

170

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

which suited themselves as individuals. Simmons (1996: 75) suggests that ‘making the learning process more transparent’ is important in the interests of empowering students to direct their own learning. After studying a group of language students who were participants in a strategies-based instructional programme at the University of Minnesota, Cohen (1998, 1999) concluded that the programme had made a positive difference in speaking performance. Cohen summed up the pedagogical implications of his fi ndings as indicating that language learning strategies should be both explicitly taught in the classroom and embedded in daily tasks. In a study of the effects of strategy instruction on writing skills, Macaro (2001) studied the effects of intervention on two teenage British learners of French. When he compared the students’ pre-intervention written work with their post-intervention output, Macaro concluded that their writing had improved, which he attributed in part to the planning, composing and checking strategies that they had learned to use. At a college in Japan, 210 students were divided into two groups for reading instruction (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2003). The treatment group included 73 high-proficiency and 23 low-proficiency students (total N = 96) while the control group included 82 high-proficiency and 32 lowproficiency learners (total N = 114). Classes were held for 90 minutes once a week, and of this time, explicit strategy instruction in reading was conducted for 20 minutes. Although the researchers found no increase in frequency of strategy use among the low-proficiency students, increased frequency in strategy use was found among the high-proficiency members of the treatment group, and this increase was retained when students were re-tested five months later. In order to study the effects of strategy instruction on vocabulary acquisition, Eslami Rasekh and Ranjbary (2003) divided 53 Iranian college students of EFL into a control group (N = 26, who were taught according to the regular curriculum) and a treatment group (N = 27, who were instructed in metacognitive strategies such as how to deal with unfamiliar words in context). According to the researchers, the group which received the strategy intervention showed significantly higher gains in vocabulary than the control group. In a 12-week oral communication course, Nakatani (2005) divided 62 female students into two groups. One group (N = 28) received metacognitive strategy instruction, while the control group (N = 34) were taught according to normal communicative methods. According to the fi ndings, the group which received strategy instruction significantly improved their speaking test scores, while improvements in the control group were not significant. At the University of Ottawa in Canada, Vandergrift and Tafaghodatari (2010) investigated the effectiveness of listening strategy instruction with 106 students of French. The 60 students in the experimental group were

A Pedagogical Perspective

171

given instruction in how to apply predicting, planning, monitoring, evaluating and problem-solving strategies while listening. Although taught by the same teacher, the 46 students in the control group were not given any strategy instruction. On the fi nal assessment, the experimental group was found to significantly outperform the control group. The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels was investigated by De Silva and Graham (2015) using stimulated recall. They found that the strategy use of both high- and low-proficiency learners developed as a result of the instruction. In Singapore, Bai (2015) investigated the effects of strategy-based writing instruction on 442 primary school students. The students received nine writing strategy-based lessons and the data analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. The fi ndings indicated that the students showed a significant improvement in both their writing ability and their strategy use. In addition, the students also showed improved ability to orchestrate their strategy use effectively. The development of listening strategies by four Taiwanese EFL learners was examined longitudinally by Yeldham and Gruba (2016) by means of both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The course combined both direct strategy instruction with their practice embedded in the class listening texts. The results showed that all learners managed to integrate strategies from the course into their own listening strategy repertoires. In addition, they also developed increased confidence, motivation and feelings of control over their listening skills. Such a mixed bag of results relating to the effectiveness of language learning strategy instruction and how best to go about it is difficult even to summarize. These results seem to indicate successful instruction for some types of strategies but not for others; success for strategies relating to some skills, but not for others; success for some students but not for others; and success in some situations, but not in others. There is obviously still a considerable amount of work to be done in the area of research into how best to go about instruction in language learning strategy use. Nevertheless, according to Nunan (1995), although the effectiveness of strategy training remains uncertain, there is enough evidence of a positive relationship between language learning  strategies and profi ciency to suggest that further research is warranted. Previous research

Previous research into strategy instruction has produced very mixed results and much research remains to be done to clarify questions of instructional effectiveness and the teacher’s role in the process.

172

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

4.4 Strategy Instruction Programmes

Although strategy instruction has been far from uncontroversial (for instance, Rees-Miller, 1993), over the years, a number of programmes have been designed with the aim of instructing students in the use of language learning strategies. Among the best known and most widely used are: CALLA (Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach)

CALLA was one of the first strategy-based instruction programmes, developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1986). As O’Malley and Chamot (1990: 190) explain, ‘the focus of CALLA is on the acquisition and use of procedural skills that facilitate academic language and content learning’. In order to facilitate this acquisition, CALLA uses a three-dimensional approach: • • •

content instruction; academic language development; direct instruction in learning strategies.

The CALLA programme is based on several important propositions: • • • •

mentally active students are better learners; learning is more effective with learning strategies; learning strategies can be taught; learning strategies can be transferred to new tasks.

Included in the CALLA instructional programme are 20 strategies, including: • • •

metacognitive strategies (such as advance organization, organizational planning, selective attention, self-evaluation, self-management); cognitive strategies (such as grouping, note-taking, summarizing, deduction, imagery, elaboration, inferencing); socio-affective strategies (such as questioning for clarification, cooperation, self-talk).

Promoted as a ‘bridge to the mainstream’ (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987: 227), CALLA employs a recursive instructional sequence of preparation, presentation, practice, self-evaluation and expansion, which was further expounded in the Learning Strategies Handbook, published by Chamot et al. (1999) Learning to Learn

According to Ellis and Sinclair (1994), learner training aims to help learners consider the factors that affect their learning and discover the

A Pedagogical Perspective

173

learning strategies that suit them best. Learning to Learn English aims to provide a systematic course that enables students to become more effective learners and take on greater responsibility for their own learning. The programme is divided into two stages. The fi rst involves preparing the student for learning and considers a number of questions (Ellis & Sinclair, 1994: v): • • • • • •

What do you expect from your course? What sort of language learner are you? Why do you need or want to learn? How do you organize your learning? How motivated are you? What can you do in a self-access centre?

Section 2 works directly on developing language knowledge (including vocabulary and grammar) and skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) each of which is organized according to a 7-step procedure (Ellis & Sinclair, 1994: v–vi): • • • • • • •

How do you feel about …? What do you know about …? How well are you doing? What do you need to do next? How do you prefer to …? Do you need to build up your confidence? How do you organize your …?

Learners and teachers can select the skills and strategies they need and plan their own route through the materials, and they can also make use of materials designed to encourage learner reflection such as a needs analysis chart, a self-assessment scale, and a motivation graph. The Learning to Learn course can be used either in conjunction with a regular language course or presented as separate learner training sessions. Strategies based instruction (SBI)

One of the foremost proponents of strategies-based instruction (SBI) has been Andrew Cohen and his team at the University of Minnesota. Cohen (1998) describes a study in which 55 intermediate level language learners were divided into a control group and an experimental group which received SBI. The researchers (Cohen et al., 1998) concluded that an increase in strategy use was linked to improved performance for the experimental group. In more recent years, strategies-based instruction (SBI) has been integrated with styles to become styles- and strategies-based instruction

174

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

(SSBI). The Centre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) website lists a systematic approach to SSBI which involves: • • • • •

strategy preparation – when learners’ existing strategy knowledge is assessed; strategy awareness-raising – when students are made aware of strategy possibilities; strategy training – when students are instructed in strategy use; strategy practice – when students are encouraged to try out their strategy repertoires; personalization of strategies – when students evaluate how well their strategies are working for themselves.

In order to conduct SBI, Cohen (2011: 115) suggests that teachers may need to adopt a number of different roles, including: • • • • • •

catalyst for learners’ self-diagnosis – by making students more aware of strategies they might potentially employ; learner facilitator – by explicitly or implicitly instructing learners in the use of strategies; coach – by working with individual learners to develop their strategy repertoires; coordinator – by overseeing the learners’ study programmes and assisting with any problem areas; language learner – by putting themselves in the role of a language learner, sharing language learning experience, thereby establishing empathy with the learners; researcher – by checking and analysing the progress of instruction.

Underlying strategy-based instruction is the premise that ‘language learning will be facilitated if students become more aware of the range of possible strategies’ (Cohen, 2011: 116). The Grenfell and Harris model

The Grenfell and Harris (1999) model gets students to work through a series of six steps. • • • • • •

Awareness raising: students engage in a task and then identify the strategies involved. Modelling: the teacher models and discusses new strategies. General practice: students practise new strategies. Action planning: students set goals and plan strategies to achieve the goals. Focused practice: students carry out the action plan using the chosen strategies. Evaluation: teacher and students assess the success of the action plan and set new goals for a new cycle.

A Pedagogical Perspective

175

This cycle is aimed at providing initial familiarization and modelling, before getting the students to take charge of their own strategic development. Key strategies

In their book aimed at the Chinese market, Tang and Griffiths (2014) outline a five-stage procedure for strategy instruction. •

•

•

•

•

Awareness raising: Rubin (1987) suggests that an important element of strategy instruction is the raising of students’ awareness of language learning strategy options. If students know the alternatives they have available, she argues, they are in a better position to make informed choices. Explicit instruction: Wenden (1991) suggests that strategy training needs to be explicitly stated. If students do not clearly understand what they are doing and why, they will not continue to use the new strategies beyond the immediate task. Practice: According to Oxford (1989a), practice is an important ingredient of strategy training. If the new strategies of which students have been made aware are rehearsed, they will become automatic and stored in a student’s individual strategy repertoire to be called on as needed. Implicit instruction: In addition to explicit instruction, Cohen (1998) argues that strategy instruction should also be embedded into regular classroom activities and practised. However, it needs to be done in such a way that it is not seen as just a waste of time and a distraction from the real task of learning new language. Evaluation: Following the steps outlined above, students should reflect on the experience and evaluate it (e.g. Chamot, 2005). They need to consider whether they wish to incorporate it into their own strategy repertoires, adapt it, or, perhaps, they may decide that it is not suitable for them personally and they may discard it.

In other words, according to this sequence, it would seem that effective strategy instruction should aim to raise learner awareness of strategy choices and provide opportunities to practise by means of both explicit and implicit instruction before students evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy according to their individual needs. Strategy instruction programmes

A number of strategy instruction programmes have been designed over the years, five of which are outlined here. Although the focus and delivery of these five programmes is different, they all have in common that they aim to develop students’ awareness of strategy options and their ability to use strategies effectively.

176

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

4.5 Teachers’ Perceptions

It may seem surprising that, although teachers are ‘pivotal in the enterprise of teaching and learning’ (Freeman & Richards, 1996: 1), their perspectives are often ignored in language teaching and learning research. In fact, as Richards (1996) reminds us, teachers are individuals as much as their students are, and teacher practices and perceptions are critically important because these factors often influence the effectiveness of the teaching/learning process. The question of teacher perceptions becomes even more important in the light of research which suggests that teachers’ and students’ perceptions are often divergent. Nunan (1988), for instance, reports on a study where students and teachers were asked to rate ten classroom activities (conversation practice, explanations to class, vocabulary development, pronunciation practice, error correction, language games, using pictures/fi lms/video, listening to/using cassettes, student selfdiscovery of errors, pair work) according to their perceived importance. In only one case (the importance accorded to pronunciation practice) were student and teacher ratings the same. In other cases, the differences between student and teacher perceptions were often dramatic, especially with regard to error correction (which students rated ‘very high’ and teachers rated ‘low’) and in the ratings accorded to student self-discovery of errors and pair work (which students rated ‘low’ and teachers rated ‘very high’). Other research suggests that teachers are often not aware of their students’ learning strategies (for instance, O’Malley et al., 1985), and that teachers’ assumptions about their students’ strategies are often not correct (Hosenfeld, 1976). Indeed, it has been shown that teachers may hold beliefs regarding their students’ strategy usage which are quite contrary to what their students report, as Griffiths and Parr (2001a) concluded. In this study, which used the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990), 569 international students of English in Auckland, New Zealand were asked to rate the 50 items of the questionnaire according to frequency of use. The data were later analysed for frequency of use according to the categories of the SILL (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, social). Thirty teachers also filled out a questionnaire on which they ranked the SILL’s categories from 6 = most frequent to 1 = least frequent according to which ones they believed their students used most often. The results are summarized in Table 4.1. According to the results, teachers believed their students used memory strategies most frequently, while the students rated memory strategies as least frequently used. Students, however, actually reported social strategies as most frequently used, whereas teachers rated them only third in terms of the frequency with which they believed their students made use of them.

A Pedagogical Perspective

177

Table 4.1 Student and teacher rankings of frequency of use of the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) categories (note that 6 = most frequent, 1 = least frequent) Teacher rankings

Student rankings

6

1

Cognitive

5

3

Compensation

2

4

Metacognitive

3

5

Memory

Affective

1

2

Social

4

6

In fact, as can be seen from Table 4.1, there are points at which student and teacher perceptions are almost exactly the inverse of each other, especially with respect to memory strategies. Indeed, the only point at which teachers’ and students’ perceptions almost coincide was with affective strategies, which students ranked second to lowest (ranking = 2) and teachers ranked lowest (ranking = 1). Leaving aside the question of which set of perceptions might be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, such lack of awareness, incorrect assumptions, and mismatches between student reports and teacher beliefs have the potential to aff ect what goes on in the classroom in quite negative ways since mutual understanding would seem to be a precondition of good  student–teacher relationships. It would therefore seem to be important to discover more about how teachers’ perceptions of language learning strategy use relate to reported strategy practices by students in order that such information might be used to inform classroom practice.

Teachers’ perceptions

A number of studies have shown that teachers’ and students’ perceptions of language learning strategy use vary widely. More research is therefore needed in order to promote a good accord between teacher and students with potentially positive consequences in terms of classroom dynamics and successful learning.

4.6 The Classroom Experience

At the school where the study reported in Chapter 3 was carried out, students new to the school were involved in a Study Skills class about midway through their first week. The idea of the class was to raise awareness

178

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

of how to study effectively and thereby maximize the benefit students might obtain from their time at the school. The one-off class seemed to be quite successful, so, it was decided to offer a Study Skills class on a regular weekly basis, at a time (Wednesday afternoon) when regular weekly option classes operated. These classes were offered for a month, at the end of which time they would be offered again or discontinued, depending on demand (Griffiths, 2003b). Materials used for the Study Skills class included commercially available texts such as Ellis and Sinclair (1994) and Willing (1989) as well as teacher-generated materials, some of which involved further exploration of the items of the ELLSI (English Language Learning Strategy Inventory – Griffiths, 2003b) such as • • •

When do you use a dictionary? What kind of dictionary? When should you NOT use a dictionary?

During the period when the class was running attendance was recorded and student and teacher feedback informally noted in order to assess the effectiveness of this approach to language learning strategy instruction. Quite a large number of students (N = 12, the maximum number of students allowed in a class) initially chose the special Study Skills option class, designed to run for one month, when it was offered on Wednesday afternoons. However, although initially enthusiastic, by the end of the month the drop-out rate was high and few of the students were actually attending the class. Informally asked why they were not attending class, students reported that after two or three weeks there was nothing new, and they would rather be learning grammar or vocabulary or practising skills (foci of some of the competing classes). They did not perceive the class as useful on a long-term basis and therefore either did not attend or asked to change class. The experience with this class is reminiscent of Wenden’s (1987a) experience with students who did not consider a strategies class useful. Teachers who taught the class reported fi nding it difficult to fi nd or create interesting materials which students would find relevant and useful, and reported being discouraged by lack of student interest. In the light of this rather negative feedback, the class was not re-offered the following month. The classroom experience

By no means all classroom attempts to teach strategies have been successful. A less-than-successful one is described here.

A Pedagogical Perspective

179

So, what went wrong here? If this is not a useful way to conduct strategy instruction, how should strategy instruction be carried out? 4.7 How Should Strategy Instruction be Conducted?

In spite of critical appraisals of learner training in language learning strategies such as in the article by Rees-Miller (1993), and in spite of some less than spectacularly successful attempts at strategy training, such as those reported by O’Malley (1987), Wenden (1987a) and Griffiths (2003b), there are many others (for instance, Chamot & Rubin, 1994; Cohen, 1998; Nunan, 1995; Wenden, 1991) who can point to successful efforts to teach strategies. Brown (2001), however, points out, there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding HOW such instruction should be conducted. According to Rubin (1987), an important component of strategy instruction is the raising of students’ awareness of language learning strategy options. Students are in a better position to make informed choices if they are aware of the available alternatives. Oxford (1989a) stresses the need for practice as an important element of strategy training. The new strategies of which students have been made aware are more likely to become automatic and stored in a student’s individual strategy repertoire if they have been rehearsed. Wenden (1991) and Graham (1997) suggest that strategy training needs to be explicit. If students do not clearly understand what they are doing and why, they will not transfer the new strategies they have learnt beyond the immediate task to new ones. Students can be shown, for instance, how to break down words they do not know into recognizable units. The word ‘insubordinate’, for example, can be divided into in = not, sub = lower, ordinate = order/rank, therefore an adjective for one who does not behave according to his/her lower rank. Many students have never been shown how to carry out this simple exercise and are not aware that it is even possible. Yet such a simple strategy can unlock the mysteries of some quite intimidating vocabulary. Other wellknown techniques include the Keyword method (Atkinson, 1975), in which a new word is associated with a familiar word which sounds similar and the Linkword method developed by Gruneberg (1987), which involves linking words in the fi rst and target language to construct a picture in the mind. Oxford (1990) identifies many other language learning strategies such as using flashcards or semantic mapping (creating a diagram with the key concept connected by lines or arrows to related concepts). Others (for instance, Cohen, 1998; Harris, 2001) argue that strategy instruction should also be implicit, that is, it should also be embedded into regular classroom activities and practised. This needs to be done in such

180

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

a way, however, that students do not see it as just a waste of time which distracts from the real task of learning new language. And after these steps have been taken, it is important that students evaluate (e.g. Chamot, 2005; Grenfell & Harris, 1999) the new strategies, and how effective they are for their own individual needs, goals and situations. Students can then decide whether to continue using them or to consider other strategy options. In other words, it would seem that effective strategy instruction should aim to raise learner awareness of strategy choices, provide opportunities to practise by means of both explicit and implicit instruction, and then encourage evaluation to inform ongoing action. If strategy instruction is going to be embedded into the regular classroom activities, clearly it has to be compatible with whatever else is going on in the learning situation. As discussed under Theoretical Underpinnings in Chapter 1 (Section 1.4), Audiolingual techniques (with their emphasis on rote memorization and automatic responses) do not really sit comfortably with the idea that learners can use strategies to engage cognitively with their own learning. Neither do Krashen’s (1976, 1977) Monitor and Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses (which promote the idea that conscious learning is of little value in the process whereby language develops by means of natural communication) fit easily with strategy theory which suggests that learners can promote their own language development by being cognitively active. If teachers are working in a situation which favours, or even demands, adherence to such approaches, it may be more challenging for them to introduce strategy instruction than for those working in a more eclectic environment. Another factor which may need to be considered is the role of the learners’ L1, which may affect interactive strategies, especially in monolingual classes. However, although principles such as Audiolingual Behaviourism and the acquisition/learning nil interface position were once rigidly held, contemporary language teaching has tended to become much more eclectic. Language learning strategies have the potential to form a useful ingredient of modern eclectic syllabuses and can be used compatibly with a wide variety of different methods and approaches including some of the less widely known and adopted such as Total Physical Response (Asher, 1969), The Silent Way (Gattegno, 1963), The Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983) and Suggestopaedia (Lozanov, 1978). However, an important condition for this to be successful is teacher awareness. In turn, teacher cognition begins at the teacher training stage. In other words, teacher trainers and teacher training institutions need to acknowledge the critical importance of strategy instruction if any real progress is to be made in this direction (see Section 4.13).

A Pedagogical Perspective

181

How should strategy instruction be carried out?

From an examination of the existing literature and of successful strategy instruction programmes, it would seem that effective strategy instruction includes five main elements: 1. raising awareness of available strategies from which students can make informed choices which suit their own individual characteristics, situations and leaning goals; 2. explicit teaching of strategies so that students can transfer new strategies they learn to different learning tasks; 3. students need to be given maximum opportunities to practise the strategies they have learnt until they become automatic; 4. strategies need to be implicitly embedded in the content so that HOW they are trying to learn does not divert time and attention from WHAT they want to learn; 5. students need to be encouraged to evaluate the new strategies and to consider their usefulness in relation to their own needs, goals and contexts.

4.8 What Should be Included in Strategy Instruction?

Content of strategy instruction programmes may vary according to student needs, situational constraints or target requirements. However, in general, it is possible to suggest some key features. Although the importance of frequency of language learning strategies has been questioned (for instance, Purpura, 1999), indications from the study reported in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 suggest that, overall, the frequent use of a large number of language learning strategies is reported by higher level learners. This fi nding would seem to indicate that, in general, more is indeed generally better when it comes to reported frequency of language learning strategy use. Within this generalization, however, it is possible that not only the overall reported frequency (quantity), but also the type (quality) of language learning strategies chosen may be important, since certain types of strategies appear to be typical of more proficient students. Griffiths (2003b) identified three basic types of strategies, which all need to be considered from a pedagogical point of view. Base strategies

It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that the base strategies, because they are favoured by elementary students (see Section 2.3), do  not help to promote language learning and should therefore be

182

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

discouraged. However, it is also possible that these strategies typical of  lower level students might form a base which, with practice and confi dence, underpins the kind of strategy structure more typical of higher level students. If this were the case, these base strategies could be shown to serve an important function in helping to lay the foundations of language learning and supporting students while confi dence develops. The fi ndings reported in Chapter 2, however, would seem to suggest that students who continue year after year to employ strategies such as rote memorization of long texts in the belief that this will somehow improve their language ability could learn much more effectively if they were willing to utilize strategies more typical of higher level students. This is not necessarily to say, of course, that memorization is not a useful strategy if used appropriately. It may well be necessary, especially in the early stages of learning a new language, to remember certain basic vocabulary, for instance, and some fundamental rules of grammar for putting the vocabulary together. However, these fi ndings would seem to indicate that memorization is utilized less frequently as students move on to higher levels. This suggests, perhaps, that memorization is a lower-order strategy and may possibly be an example of the less sophisticated use of strategies by lower level students noted by both Porte (1988) and Vann and Abraham (1990). Logically, therefore, students who wish to progress to higher levels in their language learning might be well advised to move on from these basic strategies as soon as they can cope with the kinds of strategies more typical of higher level students. The discovery of this group of strategies reportedly used more frequently by elementary students than by advanced students raises questions regarding pedagogical practice: is it useful for teachers to encourage students to, for instance, keep notebooks, when research indicates that use of these strategies is more typical of lower level students? Or is it possible that strategies such as these have their usefulness early on the road to proficiency and only become a problem if they are retained past the point where they are useful, perhaps if students become fi xated on one or other of them to the exclusion of others (for instance, students who spend most of their time in their rooms memorizing material at the expense of spending time talking to host families or watching TV)? Because these base strategies may well have their usefulness early in the language learning process, care is recommended regarding how their use is discouraged or even forbidden (as sometimes happens in language classrooms). Nevertheless, it would seem reasonable to suggest that students should probably be encouraged to move on from them and to develop strategy patterns more typical of higher level students.

A Pedagogical Perspective

183

Core strategies

According to the results of the survey reported in Section 2.3, the core strategies used highly frequently across all students are equally divided between cognitive and metacognitive types. The cognitive strategies are those that students use to interact directly with the material to be learnt, whereas the metacognitive strategies are those the students use to regulate their own learning. Teachers sometimes fi nd the thought that students can manage without them somewhat threatening (for instance, Grundy, 1999), but, the fact that students can to some extent autonomously regulate their own learning does not obviate the need for the teacher. It merely changes the emphasis of the teacher’s role from authority figure to facilitator, a shift which can, in fact, be very rewarding (for instance, Harmer, 1995). Plus strategies

The discovery of a group of plus strategies (see Section 2.3) that are reportedly used highly frequently by higher level students but not by all students, suggests the possibility that they are a group of activities which might be employed by students in general to promote more effective language learning. The possibility that these are strategies which teachers might usefully encourage students to use more frequently in order to ‘enhance their success record’ as Rubin (1975: 42) puts it has exciting pedagogical implications. Orchestration

Strategy orchestration is a complex phenomenon. According to Anderson (2008: 101): Effective strategy use does not occur in isolation. Often we discuss the use of a strategy as if it happens all by itself. Understanding the interdependency of strategy use while engaged in a language learning task is an important learning experience. Being metacognitively aware of strategy use allows good language learners to integrate the use of various strategies in a positive way.

Since strategies are not isolated phenomena, the ability to use strategies effectively in combination with each other, in groups, chains or clusters, is an important skill. It is a skill which the poor language learners whom Porte (1988) and Vann and Abraham (1990) report as active strategy users appeared not to have: although they used many strategies, they were unable to select strategies appropriate for their current learning situation and to use them effectively in combination.

184

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

What should be included in strategy instruction

There are numerous possibilities for what should be included in strategy instruction, but an effective programme should include awareness of: 1. Base strategies – these are the strategies which form the foundation of students’ strategy use and provide a base for further development as the student becomes more proficient; 2. Core strategies – these strategies are at the centre of a student’s strategy repertoire and consist of both cognitive and metacognitive strategies which facilitate direct engagement with the target language and also enable students to manage, control or regulate their learning; 3. Plus strategies – these are the strategies which seem to characterize higher level students, which become available to them as they become more proficient, and which in turn promote greater proficiency; 4. Orchestration – this is a skill which students develop to harmonize their strategy repertoires in ways which maximize their ability to learn. From a pedagogical perspective, however, strategy orchestration is not an easy skill to teach. This is because the particular combination of strategies which will suit a given student is highly individual, and may vary according to numerous factors such as age, nationality, gender, affective states and so on. It is also contextually dependent, and may vary according to the specific situation in which the learner is working or living: the same learner may not use the same strategies in a different environment. The combination will also differ according to the learning goal: strategies which work well for a General English course may or may not work as well for an exam or Business English course. In other words, it is not possible to provide a pre-set formula for effective orchestration. Learners need to experiment for themselves to determine the combination which produces the best results given the unique blend of individual, situational and target variables. Nevertheless, discussion of the orchestration issue may well be helpful to assist students to work through the possibilities and arrive at a harmonious outcome. 4.9 The Issue of Confidence and the Tornado Effect

The issue of confidence brings up the vexed question of cause and effect regarding the relationship between language learning strategies and proficiency: does a strategy such as not looking up every new word, for instance, help to develop proficiency and, if so, should dictionaries be totally banned from all classrooms; or is it just that more proficient

A Pedagogical Perspective

185

students have a wider vocabulary and are therefore able to use confidently the knowledge they have as a framework to enable them to work out what they do not know? Would removing dictionary support from less proficient students help them to develop high proficiency-related behaviour, or would it simply remove a useful tool which they need at that point in their language development while the foundations of the new language are still being laid, thereby reducing confidence? These are difficult questions akin to the age-old riddle about the chicken and the egg: which comes first? Perhaps it is useful to view cause and effect in this field not so much as linear but as a spiral, where language learning strategies may help to develop proficiency (for instance, by increasing vocabulary), which affects language learning strategy choice (for instance, with a wider vocabulary, students will be able to read newspapers with ease), which may further increase proficiency (they will come across even more vocabulary, as well as idioms and other authentic expressions) and so on in a hopefully ever enlarging spiral (the Tornado Effect? – see Section 2.9). If this is the case, since the analysis of the data indicates that some language learning strategies are reportedly used more frequently by more proficient students than by others (for instance writing in English or looking for patterns, learning the culture) perhaps teachers might usefully conclude that the strategies which are more typical of higher level students are goals to be aimed for and encouraged where appropriate, although care should be taken that their use is not imposed whether students are ready or not. The Tornado Effect

Image credit: © Lorc used under CC BY

The Tornado Effect concept rests on the hypothesis that strategy development is spiral (like a tornado) rather than linear. It suggests that, as proficiency and confidence increase, more and more strategies become accessible to the learner, increasing exponentially in strength into a powerful force for learning. Teachers should know how to harness the potential for learning which the Tornado Effect presents.

186

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

4.10 Learner Variables

Since learners vary according to factors such as motivation, nationality, sex and age, learner variables need to be taken into account when considering language learning strategy instruction. This is because strategies which are appropriate for some may or may not be suitable for others. Motivation and investment

From a pedagogical point of view, although Cohen and Dörnyei (2003) suggest that teachers can actively address the issue of student motivation in order to increase the effectiveness of instruction, and although at times teachers may feel guilty that unmotivated students are somehow their fault, the indications are that the students whose interview data is reported in Chapter 3 succeeded or not on the basis of the motivation which they brought with them into the classroom situation. Whether or not it is within a teacher’s power, or whether it is reasonable for teachers to be expected to motivate students like Mikhail and Yuki to learn language when, in fact, they have little or no intrinsic motivation to do so remains an area for ongoing research and debate. Motivation, however, has been found to be related to the reported frequency of language learning strategy use, which, in turn, is related to course level. It would therefore certainly seem reasonable to expect that anything a teacher might be able to do in terms of increasing students’ motivation may well bear dividends in terms of successful learning and in terms of their willingness to invest the time and effort required. Nationality

Although there are some studies which have reported on differences in strategy use according to nationality (for instance, O’Malley, 1987; Politzer & McGroarty, 1985), generally research in this area is scarce. The evidence from the interviews presented in Chapter 3 would seem to suggest that, although Europeans may have an advantage when learning English because of linguistic and cultural similarities, in fact all students can learn English successfully with sufficient investment of effort. We might also expect that Asian learners would fi nd it easier to learn Chinese than Europeans, or that speakers of other Turkic languages would fi nd it easier to learn Turkish, and, indeed, this often does seem to be the case. But this does not mean that it is an impossible task for those who do not have the advantage of linguistic or cultural cognates. And teachers can assist by promoting appropriate strategies, perhaps by encouraging the students themselves to exchange ideas about strategies that they have found useful.

A Pedagogical Perspective

187

Age and sex/gender

Most research on the subject of age or gender differences in language learning seem to conclude that there are few, if any, differences according to these two factors for either strategy use or successful learning. In spite of these overall fi ndings, however, on an individual level Hiro’s comments regarding the need for ‘face saving’ strategies as an older learner were illuminating, and Kang’s repertoire of idiosyncratic key strategies raises questions regarding the degree to which the ability to evolve such a set of strategies may be typical of the successful older learner. From a pedagogical point of view, it is important that classroom procedures are sufficiently flexible to allow for students such as Hiro to be able to employ the strategies with which he is comfortable, and for unusual strategies (such as Kang’s for pronunciation – see Section 3.1) to be tolerated or even encouraged – after all, they might work! Style and personality

Obviously, in any class, there is going to be a range of personality types. Some of the students may be extroverted and contribute willingly to speaking activities; others may be more introverted and more reluctant to get involved. Some may be intuitive and quick to pick up subtle inferences; others may need to think through information step by step in order to achieve understanding. And personality may be related to learning style in the classroom. We might expect, for instance, that extroverted learners (such as Kira and Mikhail) would enjoy group work, while introverts (such as Kim and Kang) would probably prefer to work quietly on their own. In turn, style and personality might be expected to influence students’ choice of strategies. Extroverts will probably make use of social occasions to learn whereas introverts will probably prefer the self-study room or a library or their own rooms. Since there does not seem to be any strong evidence that one kind of style or personality is superior to another in terms of language learning (see Section 3.2), the important thing from a pedagogical perspective would seem to be that classroom systems make allowances for individual differences. Autonomy

There does seem to be some evidence that good language learners are autonomous, meaning that they are able to exercise control over their own learning (for instance, Cotterall, 2008). Certainly, in the study reported in Chapter 3, Kira, Kim and Kang all displayed autonomous behaviour, which meant that they accepted responsibility for their own learning, and all were successful. Furthermore, they were all active strategy users.

188

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Mikhail, on the other hand, used few strategies and blamed his teachers for his failure. Learner autonomy can at times be threatening for teachers (for instance, Grundy, 1999). Truly autonomous students, however, are usually also aware that their teacher is a valuable resource, and they will develop strategies to maximize what they can obtain from their teacher (such as Kira’s strategy of always sitting beside the teacher in class whenever he could so that it was easy to get the teacher’s attention). Teachers need to learn to value students’ autonomy (e.g. Little et al., 2017), and to  develop managing strategies rather than resisting it (e.g. Pawlak et al., 2017). Beliefs

Beliefs are a very personal matter and may manifest themselves in a classroom in a number of ways. These may include the way students dress, where they sit and with whom, the way they interact with classmates and/ or the teacher, whether homework is done and how carefully, how regular they are in attendance or punctuality – all of these behaviours may indicate underlying belief systems. These beliefs may, in turn, affect strategies. Students (such as Yuki) who do not believe that the target language is worth learning, for instance, may not bother too much with homework, and not worry if they are late or absent. On the other hand, students who do believe that the target language is worthwhile will organize themselves to get homework done, to attend regularly and to be on time. Aptitude

As previously discussed, the aptitude concept has been rather out of favour for some time and instruments with which to measure it are controversial. As a consequence, research regarding aptitude is relatively scarce. Regarding the interviewees in Chapter 3, it is really not possible to say whether their success or otherwise might be attributable to natural aptitude or lack thereof. Perhaps in relation to teaching strategies, the most sensible thing we can suggest is that all students should be given the benefit of the same instructional opportunities. From that point, what the student chooses to do, and the strategies they choose to employ, are a matter of individual choice which may or may not be related to natural aptitude. Affect and identity

Although aff ect did not feature strongly among the strategies reported by the interviewees in Chapter 3, it would seem only sensible

A Pedagogical Perspective

189

to assume that students who are anxious, who have negative attitudes, who attribute failure to deficiencies in their own ability, who do not empathize with speakers of the target language, who suffer from inhibitions or who have low self-concepts are less likely to be successful language learners than those who have more positive emotions. These feelings may be linked to a person’s sense of identity, perhaps the extent to which he or she does or does not feel accepted by the target community (for instance, Norton & Toohey, 2001), and this may in turn relate to the amount of effort a learner is prepared to invest in learning the target language. It is not easy to say how much influence a teacher may have over learners’ affective states, sense of identity or willingness to invest in the language learning endeavour: this will vary according to both the individual learner and the individual teacher. It is obviously desirable for the teacher to maintain a positive and accepting classroom atmosphere and to ensure that all students are treated fairly and equally, whatever their identity. It might also be worth recommending affective strategies such as positive self-talk, giving oneself a reward, or writing feelings in a diary.

Learner variables

As discussed in Chapter 1, there are many individual learner variables and these may all affect the kinds of strategies students choose. From a pedagogical point of view, the important thing would seem to be that strategy instruction should be provided to all students and that the strategy choices that they make should be respected by teachers, even if (perhaps like Hiro’s withdrawal strategy, see Section 3.1) they do not quite fit with the lesson plan, or (perhaps like Kang’s pronunciation strategy, also in Section 3.1) they are a little unusual.

4.11 Situational Variables

Although recognized as an important factor in language learning (for instance, Norton & Toohey, 2001), situational/contextual/environmental variables are often invisible when it comes to considering how students learn most effectively. White (1993) discovered the importance of metacognitive strategies for students studying in a distance learning situation. In a study abroad situation, Griffiths (2008e) found that the strategies most strongly related success were those related to lexical expansion and flexibility, the management of learning, and tolerance of ambiguity.

190

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Situational variables

Clearly, the situation in which a learner is studying (for instance, in a classroom, in a distance education programme, or abroad) will affect the strategies which are most likely to contribute to success in that environment. Students need, therefore to be flexible with strategy choice, rather than rigidly keeping to familiar strategies. And teachers need to be tolerant and supportive during the period when students are adapting existing strategy repertoires to the new situation. Although there is so little research in this area to go on, it would seem only sensible to suggest that teachers need to be sensitive to the learning situations from which their students come and in which they and their students operate. They also need to be aware that strategies that are appropriate and effective in one learning environment may or may not be suitable or useful in another, and students may need to adapt existing strategy patterns. Students who come from more traditional learning environments, for instance, may be very dependent on memory strategies, and they may struggle with the strategies required to cope in a more communicative environment. The role of the teacher is to support this adaptation with patience, sensitivity and respect for the students’ existing strategies, which may well have served them well in their previous learning environment. Teachers should remember that it is not always easy to change established behaviour, but, with understanding and good will it is possible to co-construct a learning environment which will facilitate satisfactory outcomes for all concerned. 4.12 Target Variables

In spite of the fact that, intuitively, strategies must vary according to the learning purpose for which they are being employed, goal-appropriate strategies are another area where often little research is available (e.g. Oxford et al., 2007; Pawlak, 2012b). Clearly, however, strategies which a student may find useful for studying grammar, for instance, may or may not be useful for students who want to improve their pronunciation or their listening skills. This section will, therefore, examine the strategies which have been suggested for a range of learning targets (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, function/pragmatics, listening, speaking reading, writing), and, where appropriate, make potentially helpful suggestions. Grammar strategies

Grammar has long been a mainstay of language teaching (e.g. Gass, 1991; Larsen-Freeman, 2003; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Thornbury, 1999). The importance ascribed to grammar has, however, waxed and

A Pedagogical Perspective

191

waned over the years (e.g. Ellis, 2006). According, for instance to the Acquisition/learning Hypothesis (Krashen, 1981), language cannot be effectively learnt (e.g. by studying grammar rules), but must be acquired by means of naturalistic exposure, in the same way that the fi rst language is developed. The advent of the communicative approach (CLT, e.g. Littlewood, 1981; Savignon, 1991; Spada, 2007; Widdowson, 1978) further downplayed the role of traditional grammar in favour of the ability to communicate. More recently, with the spread of English as a lingua franca (ELF), the idea that ‘correctness’ is not important as long as intelligibility is achieved has again received considerable support (e.g. Cogo, 2012; Jenkins, 2007, 2012; Seidlehofer, 2004, 2011). In spite of all this negative press, however, students have tended to stubbornly persist in wanting grammar. Bade (2008), for instance, reports one of the students in her study rather forlornly asserting: ‘I am a professional adult and yet I still make lots of errors in my writing. I don’t want this’ (2008: 179). However, in spite of the importance ascribed to grammar by students, and the fact that early strategy writers (e.g. Naiman et al., 1978; Rubin, 1975) included attending to grammar/language systems in their lists of characteristics of good language learners, grammar learning strategies remain scarce in the literature. Oxford et al. (2007), however, provide a number of possible grammar strategies that students might use when learning language, including: • • • • • •

keeping a notebook of new structures that seem very important or frequent; noticing when someone gives me a corrected version of what I said; trying to discover the underlying rule; creating my own hypothesis about how target structures operate; memorizing rules about frequently used linguistic forms; using newly learnt rules/structures in context as soon as possible.

This list (of which just a few are noted above) was incorporated into a Likert-type questionnaire and used by Pawlak (2012b) in a study of the grammar learning strategies used by 142 students of English philology at a Polish university. He concluded that, although according to the questionnaire students reported frequent use of grammar learning strategies, responses to the open-ended question did not match this conclusion, and he therefore suggests further investigation in order to clarify this inconsistency. In spite of whatever the current ‘fashion’ in language teaching/learning theories might be, the fact remains that grammar is taught widely throughout the world. As Ellis (2006) remarks: ‘grammar has held and continues to hold a central place in language teaching’ (2006: 101); furthermore, he adds, ‘there is ample evidence to demonstrate that teaching grammar works’ (2006: 102). This being the case, perhaps it is time to pay some more attention to the kinds of strategies that might help

192

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

students to ‘come to grips with the language as a system’ (Naiman et al., 1978: 225). Vocabulary strategies

Vocabulary is at least as important as grammar when learning a new language, perhaps more so, since, as Wilkins (1972) neatly put it: ‘Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed’ (1972: 111). Because of the important role vocabulary plays in language learning, a number of writers have specialized in the area over the years (e.g. Coxhead, 2014; Lewis, 1993, 1997; Nation, 1990, 2013; Schmitt, 2000, 2010). Vocabulary strategies are dealt with by a number of writers, including Nyikos and Fan (2007). These include memorization, repetition, association, the keyword method (associating a new word with a cognate in the L1, Atkinson, 1975), contextualization and dictionary use (including electronic dictionaries). According to Nyikos and Fan (2007) all of these strategies can be effective depending on the individual learner. Moir and Nation (2008) report on a study involving 10 learners at a New Zealand university which aimed to investigate the strategies of selecting, revising, self-evaluating, monitoring, learning and memorizing. According to Moir and Nation (2008), all of these learners considered vocabulary to be important, and they spent a lot of time and effort trying to learn. Only one of the 10, however, was successful, which the authors ascribe to the fact that in addition to using strategies, the successful student took control of his own learning (in other words, he was autonomous). Using 38 intermediate language learners divided into two groups, Khoii and Sharifi far (2013) investigated the eff ects of rote memorization and semantic mapping, on vocabulary acquisition. After a fourmonth-long intervention, a multiple-choice vocabulary post-test was administered to both groups. According to the results, both groups had improved their vocabularies, but the diff erence was not statistically signifi cant. The authors therefore concluded that rote memory was as eff ective as semantic mapping as a strategy, therefore calling into question the amount of time and energy required to prepare the semantic maps. In order to explore the effects of using songs as a vocabulary learning strategy, Coyle and Gracia (2014) organized three 30-minute lessons with a group of 25 five-year-old Spanish preschool children. Immediately before and after the teaching sessions the children were tested by means of vocabulary pictures, with a delayed post-test after five weeks. The fi ndings seemed to indicate that using songs to teach language can promote receptive vocabulary, but it did not seem to have as much effect on production.

A Pedagogical Perspective

193

As we can see, then, vocabulary strategy research is quite vibrant. However, ‘mastery of vocabulary is a complex multidimensional task’ (Nyikos & Fan, 2007: 272), and there is still much room for ongoing research into effective strategies for promoting lexical competence. Pronunciation strategies

Although there is general agreement that pronunciation is important when learning language, there is also broad consensus that it is generally neglected in the language classroom, (e.g. Brown, 2008). Kelly (2000) suggests that one reason for this neglect may be that teachers suffer from ‘a feeling of doubt as to how to teach it’ (2000: 13). This may stem partly from the fact that by no means all language teachers are familiar with the phonemic alphabet, which is, undoubtedly, an extremely useful tool when teaching pronunciation. Brown (2008) adds ‘the lack of a systematic way of assessing students’ pronunciation’ (2008: 204) and ‘lack of suitable materials for pronunciation teaching’ (2008: 205) as contributory factors to the general lack of attention given to this important area of language awareness. Yet another reason that we might suggest is the sheer ‘fuzziness’ of the concept. We all know that English is spoken in widely varying ways around the world, such that even those who consider themselves to be native speakers can have difficulty understanding each other, and consensus on which version is the ‘standard’ one is more-or-less impossible to achieve. Faced with this confusion, teachers may well wonder whether the way they personally pronounce words such as ‘banana’ or ‘tomato’ (to quote the well-known British/American problem pair by way of example) is actually ‘correct’ or not, or whether, anyway, their own pronunciation is the one their students want to and/or should use as a model. Ultimately, pronunciation is a very individual matter, and the model students choose to adopt for themselves will depend on their vision of themselves and their future trajectories. Also, of course, pronunciation difficulties are often related to where the student is from, which, in turn, relates to the L1. In addition, there may be an aptitude factor to be considered – some learners may simply be better able to adapt to new sounds than others. Kang, for instance, who was interviewed in Chapter 3, was Korean, and he had a difficulty with f/p discrimination, which even his assiduously applied strategy of not eating Korean food while in New Zealand failed to remediate. But other Koreans that I have known either do not have this problem, or they manage to overcome it fairly quickly. Anyway, even native speakers may sometimes have non-‘standard’ pronunciations. For instance, I had a student recently who returned from a study-abroad experience in the UK saying things like ‘fi nk’ instead of ‘think’ – she insisted that that was the way her homestay family said it, so she had adopted their way of speaking. Furthermore, sometimes learners may actually choose to retain an accent – it is part of their identity, and

194

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

they may not want to sound like a native speaker: it does not feature in their vision of their ideal future self. For those, however, who do aspire to some kind of ‘standard’ pronunciation, what strategies can they use to work towards this? As already mentioned, Kang’s dietary strategy was not particularly successful, so we cannot recommend that (though it may work for someone else, who knows?). Other pronunciation strategy studies in the literature, have also not managed to identify effective strategies. Derwing and Rossiter (2002), for instance, investigated the pronunciation difficulties of 100 adult learners of English from a variety of L1 backgrounds in Canada with regard to the strategies they used when faced with breakdowns in communication. Although most of the problems identified by the students related to phonemes, the most commonly used strategies for repair were paraphrasing what they had said, repeating themselves, writing or spelling the problem segment, and adjusting the volume of their speech. In other words, the strategies the students said they used did not address the difficulties with pronunciation. A more successful study was conducted by Rokoszewsk (2012) in Poland aimed at investigating the role of strategies on the production of English vowel sounds by first-year university students. Strategies included: • • • • • • • •

making up songs, rhymes, sentences, etc. to memorize pronunciation; making associations; using phonetic symbols or one’s own code; regularly revising the pronunciation of new words; using mechanical techniques, such as flash cards; rote learning; repeating a word (aloud or silently) several times; listening to a recorded list of words several times.

According to the results of the study, a significant relationship was found between the use of pronunciation learning strategies and the production of English vowels. The author therefore recommends that ‘students of English, who on average use pronunciation learning strategies rather occasionally, should receive some strategy-based instruction’ (Rokoszewsk, 2012: 391). Functional/pragmatic strategies

It is, perhaps, Halliday (1973) who is usually credited with introducing the concept of functions (that is, the way language is used in real life communication to DO things such as requesting apologizing, complaining, explaining, etc.) to the field of language teaching. Since then, the functions of language have been a common feature, or even a major organizing principle, of many textbooks. Often also called ‘speech acts’ (e.g. Cohen,

A Pedagogical Perspective

195

2005), the interest in language functions arose to address ‘learner needs for using language to communicate and interact with others’ (Tajeddin, 2008: 185), and it arose out of the realization that the meaning of an utterance may not reside straight-forwardly in the vocabulary or the grammar employed. For this reason, ‘learners can fi nd it challenging to use English in a way that is pragmatically appropriate to the situation and the interlocutor’ (Roever & Al-Gahtani, 2015: 395). A simple sentence such as ‘I am cold’, for instance, may well not be intended as a mere statement of fact. In fact, it might serve a number of communicative purposes, for instance, it might be: • • • • •

a request (‘Would you mind closing the window?’); seeking permission (‘Is it OK if I close the window?’); a complaint (‘It is too cold in here!’); a suggestion (‘Why don’t you put the heater on?’); an explanation (‘I closed the window because I am cold’).

Or such an utterance might serve any one of a number of other pragmatic purposes depending on the context and the interlocutor/s, which, in turn may be signaled in part by intonation (an aspect of pronunciation, e.g. Brown, 2008) or body language (e.g. gestures or facial expression). As we can see just from this simple example ‘the intended meanings often go beyond the literal ones’ (Cohen, 2012b: 249), and strategies to manage such pragmatic interactions are of considerable interest in language teaching (e.g. Kasper & Rose, 2002; Rose & Kasper, 2001). Savić (2015), for instance, set out to investigate request development in young Norwegian EFL learners, from eight to twelve years old, in order to identify specific request strategies emerging at different stages of development. The study had a cross-sectional design and data were collected by means of role play activities and a short structured interview. According to the author, ‘results revealed clear patterns of pragmalinguistic development [but] little evidence of sociopragmatic development was found in the data’ (Savić, 2015: 443). Savić therefore recommends a number of possibilities for further investigation of functional development and the pragmatic strategies used by young EFL learners. In China, Lee (2016) investigated the refusal style of 156 Cantonese learners of English aged between 14 and 18 in terms of their strategy use, as well as the pattern, order, and content of their refusals. Examples of refusals were collected during role plays. Lee found that indirect refusal patterns were generally used by the students across age groups and situations. The most dominant strategy was giving a specific reason, which is consistent with the Chinese adult style, and the frequency rate of indirect refusals was found to increase with age and exposure to the target language. Furthermore, the direct-then-indirect pattern of pragmatic development in target language refusals by young Cantonese learners of English seems to follow a similar pattern to that of target language requests and

196

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

complaints, and these functions appear to display evidence of L1 pragmatic transfer. However, although the teenage learners in this study were also able to demonstrate sociopragmatic competence in response to relationships with interlocutors, Lee concludes that ‘their pragmalinguistic resources were limited’ (Lee, 2016: 257), leaving room for further functional strategy instruction. Given the importance of pragmatics for oiling the wheels of sociocultural interaction, whether within or between cultures, this would seem to be an area which would greatly benefit from further research initiatives. Listening strategies

As White (2008b) points out, listening is usually the fi rst skill to be developed in the fi rst language. The typical sequence of skill development in the L1 is that children listen to what they hear, then they repeat what they hear, later they learn to read and recognize the graphic form of the sounds that they have heard, and fi nally they learn to write the forms that they have seen written. This sequence may not always be identical in the case of a subsequent language, which is often approached by means of reading and writing, especially in the case of more ‘traditional’ approaches such as the still widely popular Grammar-Translation Method. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to disagree that listening in the target language is an important skill to develop, especially for students who aspire to achieve communicative competence, or who plan to study in a target-language environment where they will need to cope with lectures. Listening, however, is not an easy skill to develop (e.g. Graham & Macaro, 2008), and students often identify listening as the most difficult skill to learn (e.g. Siegel & Siegel, 2015). One reason for this may well be that it is actually the modality over which the learner has least control. When reading, one can go back and re-read if uncertain, check a dictionary, ask a more knowledgeable other, or employ numerous other strategies to overcome the problem area. Likewise with writing, reference materials or more knowledgeable others can be valuable resources. Even with speaking, it is often possible to prepare beforehand the vocabulary and expressions one it likely to need for a given situation. But when faced with a real, live interlocutor, it is impossible to know for certain what this person is going to say, and, therefore, what one will need to be able to understand and respond to. And often what is actually said is not at all what one might have predicted. If we add to this the individual characteristics of different speakers (e.g. accent, speed, clarity of enunciation), it is, perhaps, little wonder that students often complain that listening is the hardest skill to develop in a target language. This difficulty becomes even more acute when removed from the relative safety of the language classroom and thrust into the hurley-burley of the ‘real world’.

A Pedagogical Perspective

197

Although once described as the ‘Cinderella of communication strategies’ (Vandergrift, 1997: 494), listening has attracted the attention of researchers in the years since. Goh (1998), for instance, found that the higher level students in her study used more strategies (especially metacognitive strategies) than the lower level learners. Vandergrift (2003) concluded that the ability to orchestrate strategies effectively was a characteristic of skilled listeners. White (2008b) provides some useful lists of strategies which might be used to promote listening ability in the language classroom. These include: (1) Cognitive strategies • predicting • inferencing • guessing • using schemata • visualizing (2) Metacognitive strategies • focusing attention • applying advance organizers • planning • checking comprehension • taking notes • identifying problems (3) Socio-affective strategies • asking for clarification • seeking listening opportunities • lowering anxiety • empathizing with the speaker (For full list, see White, 2008b: 213–214) Such strategies, which aim to provide learners with tools for managing their listening, are likely to be useful since, although ‘listening was generally viewed as a receptive ability in which the listener played a passive role …, more recent perspectives on L2 listening comprehension recognize that the listener engages actively in interpreting a speaker’s messages and plays a pivotal role in the communication process’ (Siegel & Siegel, 2015: 638). Siegel and Siegel (2015) also raise the question of whether top-down strategies (e.g. accessing existing schemata) are more or less useful than bottom-up (e.g. dealing with phonemes, lexical items, etc.) strategies. In order to investigate this question, they divided three classes of EFL Japanese university students into a treatment group (N = 21) and a contrast group (N = 32). Both groups listened to the same audio material and completed listening activities from an assigned textbook. In addition, the treatment group engaged in a set of six

198

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

bottom-up listening activities using the same material. According to the results, the post-test scores for the treatment group showed a significant increase, whereas the increase for the contrast group was not significant. Speaking strategies

Speaking is another skill well-recognized for the difficulties it presents for new learners of a language, so that ‘getting students to speak can be a challenge’ (Talandis & Stout, 2015: 11). Indeed, ‘my students can’t/won’t/ don’t talk’ is a common complaint to be heard in many staff rooms over coffee or lunch breaks, while inability to speak in the target language is often cited as a problem by education authorities, examination boards or employers. This may be partly because ‘oral communication involves an interactive social aspect which sets it apart from other language skills and creates a whole extra dimension with which the learner must come to terms’ (Kawai, 2008: 218). According to Rubin and Thompson (1994), problems which may arise during speaking which may require strategies include difficulties with pronunciation, accuracy and intelligibility, as well as the more social aspects such as dealing with breakdowns in communication and the rules of interaction (which, of course, vary according to the sociocultural environment). In general, studies which investigate speaking strategies are rare, and the results tend to be rather inconclusive. Pietrzykowska (2014), for instance, investigated the strategy use of 80 students at a Polish university using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990). Results, however, were very mixed, leading to the rather guarded conclusion that ‘The results show that there might indeed be a relationship between some language learning strategies and speaking performance, but there is much individual variation in this respect’ (Oxford, 1990: 55). A serious limitation of the study, however, might be the question of how suitable an instrument the SILL was for the purpose of assessing speaking strategies. However, even a study which used an instrument (A Speaking Task Battery) specifically designed for an experiment at the University of Minnesota (Cohen, 1998, 2011) did not produce anything much more concrete than the one by Pietrzykowska (2014). There were 55 students involved in the Minnesota quasi-experiment, of whom 32 received speaking strategy instruction, and 23 formed the comparison group. Strategies included were divided into three groups: (1) Before speaking • lowering anxiety • preparing • planning

A Pedagogical Perspective

199

(2) During speaking • taking control • being involved • monitoring performance (3) After speaking • evaluation • onward planning The study, however, did not seem to produce anything very clear in the way of results, leading to the somewhat vague conclusion that ‘the fi ndings were complex and at times somewhat contradictory … it is possible that some fi ndings simply remain a bit of a mystery’ (Cohen, 2011: 193). Given the inconclusiveness of speaking strategy studies to date, it is impossible to disagree with Cohen (2011) when he states: ‘there is no doubt about the need to conduct further studies as to the efficacy of strategy instruction’ (Cohen, 2011: 226). Indeed, of all the skill areas, speaking would seem to be the one most in need of further investigation, suggesting a fertile area for would-be researchers. In the meantime, perhaps, we can agree with him that ‘if instructors systematically introduce and reinforce strategies that can help students speak the target language more effectively, their students may well improve their performance on language tasks’ (Cohen, 2011: 225). For this purpose, the speaking strategies listed (Cohen, 2011: 227–231) might provide a useful starting point. Reading strategies

Although the perceived importance of reading has tended to decline since the advent of communicative language teaching (CLT) and the expansion of computer technology, reading actually remains an important skill for many students, since many of them plan to go on to further study, which will require the ability to manage quite high-level texts. Not only that, but it has been shown that reading is an excellent source of comprehensible input (Krashen, 2004), which can expand a reader’s vocabulary (e.g. Yanmaz, 2015), provide a model of target language use, including grammar (e.g. Chen et al., 2013; Webb & Chang, 2015), expand cultural horizons, and also assist development of other skills, especially writing (e.g. Grabe, 2001; Nation, 2009). Although reading is usually characterized as ‘receptive’ (as opposed to ‘productive’), this is not to say that the reader is not required to do anything. On the contrary, as Schramm (2008) puts it, reading involves ‘the concept of meaning construction that characterizes reading not as a passive way of getting information, but as an active process of constructing understanding’ (Schramm, 2008: 231). In order to do this, readers need

200

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

strategies, a number of which are provided by Grabe and Stoller (2011) including: • • • • • • • • • • • •

specifying purpose; planning; previewing; predicting; questioning; accessing schemata; inferencing; paying attention to text structure; rereading; guessing; summarizing; reflecting. (For full list, see Grabe & Stoller, 2011: 10)

Over the years there have been a number of studies which have investigated reading strategies. One of the earliest was by Hosenfeld (1976) who reported a study of the reading strategies used by 14-year-old students using a think-aloud protocol. As a result of this study, Hosenfeld (1976) concluded that reading strategies could be described on two levels: meaning level and word level. In a later study, Hosenfeld (1977) analysed the strategy use of 20 high-scoring students and 20 low-scoring students. She concluded that the successful readers kept the main meaning of the text in mind and did not allow themselves to become ‘bogged down’ with unknown words which they could often infer from context. The less successful learners, on the other hand, lost track of meaning by concentrating on decoding word-by-word. Anderson (1991) first elicited from his university students a list of 47 strategies which he then divided into five groups. Anderson (1991) found that the more successful readers used more strategies than the less successful ones, and they were more skilled at selecting, combining, applying and monitoring their strategies (often labelled ‘metacognitive’). A 14-month longitudinal study of the reading strategies used by beginning learners of French in the UK conducted by Macaro and Erler (2008) focused on awareness raising, practice and evaluation. The students were divided into experimental and control groups, with the experimental group receiving 10 minutes per week of strategy instruction. Even with such a low level of input, the experimental group was found to significantly outperform the control group on post-test results. As an added bonus, the students in the treatment group reported significantly more positive attitudes towards reading in French than the control group. More recently, Manoli et al. (2016) investigated the effects of multiplestrategy instruction on reading performance by 99 Greek-speaking EFL

A Pedagogical Perspective

201

learners aged between 11 and 12 years old. The study involved a treatment group that received a three-month programme of strategy instruction, and a control group which did not receive the instruction. The results indicated that the students in the treatment group improved their reading performance both in the immediate and delayed posttest compared with those in the control group. Although there is wide agreement that reading is important for target language development, and that strategies are important to facilitate this development, in fact ‘research on reading strategies … is surprisingly limited’ (Grabe & Stoller, 2011: 112). This points, therefore, to yet another fruitful area awaiting further research. Writing strategies

Since even in the fi rst language writing is usually the last skill to be developed, and it is often the skill which even L1 learners fi nd the most difficult, it should, perhaps, not be considered surprising that writing is not an easy skill for students to develop in a subsequent target language. Over the years, various approaches have been utilized to promote students’ writing ability, two of the best-known being the process approach and the genre approach. Process writing involves a basically cognitive approach to writing (e.g. Flower & Hayes, 1981), while a genre approach (e.g. Swales, 1990) aims to develop awareness of the conventions of writing for specific contexts. The different approaches, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive: indeed, they are often used in combination in the writing classroom (e.g. Hyland, 2016). But whichever approach or combination of approaches may be utilized, in order to learn effectively, students need to develop effective strategies, since ‘understanding writing strategies is indispensable to helping learners develop their writing abilities’ (Lei, 2008: 217). Pawlak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015) also stress the importance of strategies when they assert: ‘there can be little doubt that the act of writing in a second or foreign language is a highly complex process during which learners … employ appropriate strategies’ (Pawlak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2015: 110). There have been a number of review articles on writing strategies over the years (e.g. Manchon et al., 2007), and a number of studies into the effects of strategy use on the development of writing skills. Some of these studies have adopted a basically quantitative approach whereas others have approached the question from an essentially qualitative direction. An essentially quantitative approach was adopted by McMullen (2009) who investigated the use of language learning strategies by Saudi Arabian foreign language students (N = 165). The results of the study, which used the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford, 1990), were used to set up a program for direct strategy instruction with an English writing class.

202

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

A more qualitative approach was employed by Canagarajah (2011) who used essay drafts, journals, classroom assignments, peer review and stimulated recall to elicit data regarding the strategies employed during essay writing by a Saudi Arabian undergraduate student. He concluded that feedback by the instructor and peers can help learners question their choices, think critically about various options, evaluate the effectiveness of their choices, and develop metacognitive awareness. A qualitative perspective was also adopted by Chien (2012) who used think-aloud protocols and retrospective interviews with a group of 40 learners to investigate the writing strategies used by students in Taiwan. The high achievers were found to use more planning, text generation, revising and editing strategies than the low achievers. Using a mixed methods approach, Griffiths (2016) examined the writing strategies used by 59 students in a writing class at a university in Beijing, China. Stage one used a custom-constructed writing strategy inventory, according to which only one strategy (I record new language I hear or read in a notebook) was found to be significantly positively correlated with end-of-course scores. Strategies included in the inventory were:

`

I learn as much new vocabulary as I can I learn from my mistakes I learn grammar rules I use language I hear in my writing I plan my writing I use language I read in my writing I write as much as I can in English (e.g. letters, e-mails, lists, notes etc.) I revise new language regularly I record new language I hear or read in a notebook I memorize good texts as a model for my own writing I write a diary in English I check my writing for accuracy I analyse texts (e.g. sentence structure, grammar or figures of speech) I write creatively in English (e.g. stories or poetry) I use references (e.g. dictionary or grammar book) to check my writing I write a rough copy then re-write I get someone to proof read what I have written I learn idioms and other useful expressions I notice the writing of native speakers I consult my teacher if I have problems with my writing

For the qualitative stage of the study, four of the most successful students were contacted and asked for their feedback on the results of stage one. Although the qualitative results were generally in accord with the quantitative fi ndings, it was interesting to note that there was a great deal of

A Pedagogical Perspective

203

individual variation, and not even all of these successful students by any means agreed with each other.

Target variables

Goal-specific strategies are another area which is relatively underresearched. Although, intuitively, it would seem obvious that students will need different strategies for various learning targets and that teachers should make allowances for and facilitate the use of targetspecific strategies, there is relatively little research to identify what these strategies may be.

4.13 Teacher Training

A number of writers have emphasized the importance of teacher training and cognition in recent years (for instance, Bailey et al., 2001; Borg, 2009; Freeman & Richards, 1996; Harmer, 2012; Woods, 1996). Cohen (1998, 1999) suggests that teacher education is the key to progress on the strategy instruction front, and a recent book edited by Chamot and Harris (2018) looks at options for preparing teachers for strategy instruction. If teacher education prospectuses and materials are examined, however, language learning strategy issues will rarely be dealt with prominently, if at all. The studies presented in this book indicate that language learning strategies are significantly related to achievement in language learning. Although the relationship is not uncomplicated (is any human behaviour uncomplicated?), there would appear to be enough of a relationship for strategies to be taken seriously as a means of promoting more effective learning. So, what do teachers need to know? 1.

2.

3.

Teachers need to have an understanding of the terminology, defi nitions, classification and theory underlying the language learning strategy concept so that they are clear in their own minds about the issues and can therefore pass on to their students a clear vision of how strategies can be used to learn effectively. This conceptual perspective is dealt with in Chapter 1. Teachers need to be informed of the current state of research in the area of language learning strategies. They should know, for instance, that research has shown that, overall, higher level students do indeed use many more strategies more frequently than lower level students, and that some types of strategies (especially the plus strategies) do indeed seem to be more related to successful learning (in terms of higher class levels) than others. Teachers should know that some learner variables (such as motivation and nationality) are related to progress in English, and they

204

4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

should consider how to deal with this variability in their own classrooms. Teachers should consider how to manage aspects of the learning situation in which they and their students fi nd themselves and strategies which may or may not be suitable for this particular environment. Teachers should consider the learning target at which their students are aiming and give careful thought to facilitating goal-appropriate strategies. Teachers should be aware that research has shown that strategies can and do change over time and that the students who appear to make the fastest progress in their language learning are those who most increase the frequency of their strategy use over a period (see Sections 2.7, 2.8). Given this result, teachers should consider how best they can facilitate this development. Teachers should remain constantly aware that their students, though part of a class, are inevitably individuals who must be allowed, indeed encouraged, to apply their own unique approach to learning. From an individual perspective, quantitative statistics, although useful for providing generalized information, never quite describe any particular student exactly (see Chapter 3 for examples). Teachers must remain aware of, make allowances for, even celebrate this basic variability of human nature. Teachers need to learn techniques for integrating language learning strategy instruction into the fabric of their lessons, making strategy instruction both explicit and embedded in order both to make students aware of their actions so that they may be able to transfer this knowledge to other situations, and to provide the practice required for new strategies to become automatic. By doing this, instead of strategy instruction being seen as a waste of time which holds up WHAT students want to learn, the HOW and the WHAT may be brought together in a mutually supportive partnership. Teachers should at all times be careful to promote student confidence so that they may be willing to risk their egos trying higher level strategies (such as reading without looking up every new word) and maybe learning from mistakes without fear of losing face. This learning then leads to more confidence, which encourages further risk-taking. Teachers should remember that strategy development is not linear but spiral, with one strategy (for instance, expanding vocabulary repertoires) facilitating the development of others (for instance, reading newspapers) which then supports the ability to read more advanced material, and so on. This spiral (Tornado?) effect potentially leads to accelerating language development. If we could only discover how to harness the power of this Tornado Effect, what a wonderful teaching/learning tool we would have!

A Pedagogical Perspective

205

Image credit: © Lorc used under CC BY

Teacher training

If the potential of learning strategies to enhance learning is to be realized, teacher training needs to include an awareness of strategy theory and research as well as providing practical techniques for the promotion of strategy use in the classroom.

4.14 Conclusion

Much of the early pioneering strategy research (for instance, Rubin, 1975) was aimed at teaching good language learner strategies to less successful learners. Implications of this focus include: 1. Learners are capable of taking an active role in their own learning by the use of language learning strategies. Furthermore, language learning strategies are, themselves, able to be learnt, which allows for the possibility that individual students may be able to improve their language learning effectiveness by choosing appropriate strategies. 2. It is possible that teachers might be able to facilitate the development of language learning strategies by raising awareness of strategy possibilities, by making strategy instruction both implicit and explicit, by providing practice opportunities to develop automaticity and encouragement to develop confidence, and encouraging evaluation so that students can assess the effectiveness of their strategy choices and make adjustments as required. 3. Many attempts at strategy instruction have not, on the whole, been hugely successful (for instance, Griffiths, 2003b; O’Malley, 1987;

206

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Wenden, 1987a). Nevertheless, there have been some success stories (for a summary, see Chamot, 2008). Also, there are meta-analyses (e.g. Hassan et al., 2005; Plonsky, 2011) which suggest that, overall, strategy instruction can be effective. 4. Perhaps the experience with the Study Skills class reported in Section 4.6 points generally to the need to include strategy instruction, whether explicit or embedded, in the general teaching programme since, in general, students seem to quickly lose interest in learning HOW to learn if it is not perceived as being directly relevant to WHAT they want to learn. 5. This, in turn, would seem to point to the importance of teacher education, so that teachers are made aware of the need to integrate strategy instruction into the content of their lessons and are provided with training and practice in how to do this. Since higher level students report frequent use of a large number of language learning strategies, teachers should aim to raise students’ awareness of strategy options and encourage students to practise and expand their language learning strategy repertoires. In order to do this effectively, teachers need to consider carefully the limitations and affordances existing in their particular learning situations given the learner and target variables with which they must deal.

4.15 Pedagogical Areas for Further Research

From a pedagogical perspective, many questions regarding language learning strategies remain to be answered. In particular: 1. how to motivate students to become more strategically aware; 2. how to allow for learner differences (such as age-related strategy choices) in a classroom; 3. how strategies relate to particular learning targets; 4. how strategies relate to particular learning situations; 5. how to develop materials related to language learning strategies which can be built into the course as language learning exercises in their own right but with implicit strategy instruction underlying the language input; 6. how to manage explicit strategy instruction in such a way as to help to circumvent student resistance; 7. how strategies can be effectively orchestrated; 8. how the Tornado Effect can be used to maximize effective language learning.

5 Conclusion

We began this book with a reminder of the old proverb about the value of teaching a man to fish, and along the way we have encountered other metaphors used to describe the language learning strategy phenomenon, including ‘tool’ (O’Malley et al., 1985) and ‘orchestra’ (e.g. Anderson, 2008). Might we therefore gloriously mix the metaphors and describe the use of LLS as going fishing with an orchestrated toolkit? Why not? As noted previously, the strategy field has at times been criticized for being atheoretical (for instance, Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 1994, 2008; Macaro, 2006). This book has attempted to address underlying theoretical issues by looking at terminology, defi nition, theoretical underpinnings and classification systems, as well as considering issues in research methodology and providing suggestions and guidance for collecting and analysing data. Rather than merely discuss concepts, this book has presented empirical evidence from research studies for each of the fundamental questions posed in Chapter 2. In addition, strategy use by individuals has been examined qualitatively in Chapter 3 and the implications of the interview data have been considered. Finally, in Chapter 4, rather than looking at strategies divorced from the ‘real world’ of the classroom, this book has looked at the issues from the teaching/learning point of view. 5.1 The Strategy Concept

Although widely believed to be a significant factor in successful language learning, the language learning strategy concept, referring to behaviour employed by learners in order to promote language learning, has proven elusive, even at the basic level of terminology. However, even though a range of terms has been used to cover this kind of behaviour (including learning behaviours, tactics, techniques and so on) the term strategy has probably been the most consistently used over the years, and for this reason it is probably the term best recognized and most widely accepted today. Since it has been so difficult to achieve consensus even on a name, it is, perhaps, hardly surprising that defi ning this terminologically challenged concept has caused no less debate. An extensive review of the literature 207

208

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

suggests that language learning strategies are actively selected by learners in order to achieve a particular learning goal. Language learning strategies might therefore be defi ned as: actions chosen by learners for the purpose of learning language. It should be remembered, however, that there may be ‘dimensions of variation’ (Gu, 2012: 330), and also this defi nition is value-neutral and does not relate to how effective a strategy may be. Strategy effectiveness can only be judged in relation to how useful it is for the user, the situation and the learning target. Equally problematic has been the establishment of agreed theoretical underpinnings. Traditionally, the strategy concept has been considered to have an essentially cognitive foundation, and this is still evident in the tendency for strategy inventories to include many cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Nevertheless, some Structuralist (for instance, learning grammar rules, looking for patterns, coming to terms with the systems of the new language), Behaviourist (for instance drilling, repetition, practice), Sociocultural/Communicative (for instance listening to, conversing with others, asking for help/advice/correction), Humanist (for instance attending to motivation and other affective needs) and Poststructuralist (for instance attending to meaning) dimensions may also be present in some strategies. In addition, elements of Schemata Theory, Complexity/ Chaos Theory, Activity Theory, Dynamic Systems Theory, Interlanguage Theory, Information Processing Theory, and perhaps others may well be present in the somewhat eclectic theoretical base which underlies the strategy concept. Attempts to construct neat and tidy strategy taxonomies have failed to produce universal agreement, and learning strategies are often confused with other types of strategies (such as communication strategies) and other phenomena (such as styles and skills). Statistical procedures such as factor analyses have generally failed to produce coherent groupings, leading to a conclusion that a standardized classification system for language learning strategies may well not be viable. When undertaking language learning strategy research, researchers might be well advised to either write their own instruments or to carefully adapt existing instruments such as the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990) or the ELLSI (English Language Learning Strategy Inventory, Griffiths, 2003b – see Appendices) to suit their own particular learners, situations and learning targets. 5.2 Quantitative Research

Research methodology has also come in for criticism in the strategy literature (e.g. Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; LoCastro, 1994; Woodrow, 2004), and issues in research methodology have been discussed in Chapter 1. A

Conclusion 209

number of studies are presented in Chapter 2 which show that frequency and quantity of language learning strategies are positively related to success in language learning. Furthermore, some strategy types appear to be more related to successful language learning than others. Overall, the more successful students frequently use a large number of different strategy types. Can we assume that these findings will apply to all learners, contexts and learning goals? According to the results presented in Chapter 2, both motivation and nationality are related to both strategy use and higher class levels. According to the Target Language Learning Strategy Inventory (TaLLSI), the older learners were working at significantly higher levels than the younger learners (a result which runs contrary to most other studies on this question). However, there were no significant differences according to gender, in spite of the fact that the female students reported higher levels of strategy use than the male students. For students studying in an unfamiliar context, it would seem that metacognitive strategies which they use to regulate their own learning are very important, as well as strategies to help them manage ambiguity and to read in the target language. Reading also features strongly among strategies significantly positively correlated with successful end-of-course results for a Research Methods course. Are strategies a fi xed individual attribute, or are they variable? According to Griffiths (2003b, 2006), learners can adapt their strategy repertoires. Furthermore, the most successful learners in this study were those who most increased their strategy frequency over the research period. So, can we conclude that strategy use leads to more successful learning? We need to be careful here, since it is also possible that higher level students have access to more strategies merely because of their higher level of proficiency. It is rarely so easy to decide which is the chicken and which the egg. It might be reasonable, however, to suggest a spiral rather than a linear pattern of strategy development. This means, for instance, that a larger vocabulary facilitates wider reading, which increases exposure to previously unfamiliar vocabulary and so on in an ever-expanding spiral which might be termed a Tornado Effect. 5.3 Qualitative Research

These quantitative fi ndings, however, although useful when looking at the situation overall, do not necessarily apply to every individual student, as reported in Chapter 3. Although most of the interviewees who progressed to higher class levels or who passed the exams for which they were preparing reported a highly frequent overall average use of language learning strategies and gave ratings of 5 (‘always or almost always’) to a large number of language learning strategies of different types, there were individual exceptions to this general fi nding (for instance Kang and May). Of the factors which emerged from the interview data as possible contributors to an explanation of varying levels of reported language learning

210

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

strategy use and differing rates of progress, motivation may well be the strongest. Gender/sex and age did not appear to be strongly related to strategy use or success on an individual level. Although not researched here directly, the interviews also provided some interesting insights into some other individual variables which are commonly researched in the literature (style, personality, autonomy, beliefs, affect, aptitude, identity, investment). As we can see from the multiple factors noted, learners are multi-faceted, a complex amalgamation of context, goals and individual differences. And not only are they complex, they are also dynamic, that is, they can change, as they grow older, as they move from one place to another, as motivation, beliefs or affective states vary. Because of this, it is important that learners are viewed holistically (e.g. Griffiths & Cansiz, 2015), since all of these factors are interdependent, and changes in one almost inevitably lead to changes in others. 5.4 Pedagogical Research

If learners are capable of taking a deliberate and active role in their own learning by the use of language learning strategies, it follows logically that language learning strategies are, themselves, able to be learnt. This allows for the possibility that individual students may be able to improve their language learning effectiveness by choosing appropriate strategies. Teachers, for their part, may be able to facilitate the process of strategy development by raising awareness, by making strategy instruction both implicit and explicit and by providing practice and evaluation opportunities to develop confidence and stimulate the Tornado Effect which has as its foundation the premise, based on research evidence, that the strategy factor is related to successful learning. Success then encourages strategy expansion, making learning even more effective, and creating an expanding and accelerating spiral resembling a tornado.

Image credit © Lorc used under CC BY

Conclusion 211

Although not all research has found a close accord between teacher and student perceptions regarding language learning strategies, and although not all attempts at strategy training have been particularly productive, there have been some successful strategy instruction initiatives. Key ingredients of successful strategy development programmes would seem to include awareness raising, explicit as well as implicit instruction and opportunities for practice and evaluation. When training teachers to administer strategy instruction, it is important that they are made aware of the theoretical issues relating to the concept and of the research which has been conducted in the area. They also need to have a clear idea of strategy options available to students and of the learner variables which may affect which strategies are effective and for whom. Teachers also need to be trained to consider situational and target variables when considering strategy instruction for their students. 5.5 Conclusion

Although research into language learning strategies was begun in the 1970s, many unanswered questions and much controversy remains. By looking at the subject from conceptual, quantitative, qualitative and pedagogical perspectives, this book has attempted to provide answers for some of the questions and address some of the controversies. It is to be hoped that the search for solutions to some of the remaining issues will continue, since research to date has indicated that language learning strategies have the potential to be a powerful factor in successful language learning. So, is the octopus that I mentioned in Section 1.2 fi nally in the box? Given the controversies that have raged for so many years, this might be a bold claim. But hopefully this book will have contributed to clarifying some of the fuzzy areas and confusion which have generated some of the unproductive controversies of the past, and to achieving the necessary consensus in the strategy arena for fruitful research initiatives to go forward.

Photo: Colourbox.com/Photographer

Appendix 1

NAME LANGUAGE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY QUESTIONNAIRE

The following questionnaire contains some of the strategies which students report using in order to assist the development of skills in the language they are trying to learn. Please read the following strategy items and grade each one according to the frequency with which you use it: 1. Very low

2. Low

3. Medium

4. High

5. Very high

READING SKILLS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

I read extensively for information in the target language I read for pleasure in the target language I fi nd reading material at my level I use a library to obtain reading material I fi rst skim read a text then go back and read it more carefully I look for how a text is organized I make summaries of what I read I make predictions about what I will read next I guess the approximate meaning by using clues from the context I use a dictionary to get the exact meaning

WRITING SKILLS

1. I write letters or e-mails to friends in the target language 2. When my mistakes are corrected, I learn from the corrections 3. I write a variety of text types in the target language (e.g. notes, messages, lists) 4. I plan my writing before I start

212

Appendix 1

213

5. If I cannot think of the correct expression I think of another way to express my meaning (e.g. synonyms) 6. I use reference materials (e.g. a dictionary, thesaurus or grammar book) to check that what I am writing is correct 7. If I am unsure about something I want to write I try to express my meaning and do not worry too much about correctness 8. I write a rough copy before writing a good copy 9. I write a diary in the target language 10. I get someone to proof read my writing LISTENING SKILLS

1. I attend out-of-class events where I can listen to the new language being spoken 2. I use the media (e.g. radio, TV or movies) to practise my listening skills 3. I listen to native speakers in public places (e.g. shops, restaurants, buses) and try to understand what they are saying 4. I listen for key words which seem to carry most of the meaning 5. I predict what the other person will say next based on context, background knowledge or what has been said so far 6. I ask the speaker to slow down, repeat or clarify if I do not understand 7. I avoid translating what I hear word-for-word 8. I use the speaker’s tone of voice, gestures, pauses or body language as a clue to meaning 9. If I am unsure about meaning I guess 10. I listen carefully to how native speakers pronounce the language I am trying to learn SPEAKING SKILLS

1. I repeat new language to myself in order to practise it 2. I seek out people with whom I can speak the target language 3. I plan in advance what I want to say 4. If I am corrected while speaking, I try to remember the correction and avoid making the same mistake again 5. I ask questions 6. I do not worry about correctness as long as I can communicate my meaning 7. If necessary, I use gestures to convey my meaning and keep a conversation going

214

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

8. I practise the target language with other students 9. If I do not know the vocabulary I want to use, I use similar words or phrases 10. I try to pronounce the target language like native speakers

BIODATA BIRTHDATE:

M/F NATIONALITY

Why are you studying? Are there any other strategies which you have found useful for developing the language skills you need for your study? Strategies for Language Skills Development (LSD) Questionnaire, Griffiths, 2004

Appendix 2

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY INVENTORY (ELLSI)

NAME

M/F

Age

Dear student: please read the following list of language learning strategies. Please mark each one according to the frequency with which you use it: 1. Very low 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

2. Low

3. Medium

4. High

5. Very high

Doing homework Learning from the teacher Learning in an environment where the language is spoken Reading books in English Using a computer Watching TV in English Revising regularly Listening to songs in English Using language learning games Writing letters in English Listening to music while studying Talking to other students in English Using a dictionary Reading newspapers in English Studying English grammar Deliberately learning new vocabulary Keeping a language learning notebook Talking to native speakers of English Taking note of language used in the environment Controlling schedules so that English study is done Pre-planning language-learning encounters Not worrying about mistakes Using a self-study centre Trying to think in English Listening to native speakers of English Learning from mistakes Spending a lot of time studying English Making friends with native speakers Watching movies in English Learning about the culture of English speakers Listening to the radio in English Writing a diary in English English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI), Griffiths, C. (2003) 215

Appendix 3

NAME INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Which language learning strategies have you found most useful for learning English (key strategies)? 2. (a) What have you found most difficult about learning English? (b) Which strategies have you used to help overcome these difficulties? 3. Do you think the strategies you use have been affected by your (a) nationality (b) gender (c) age (d) other factors If so, what effect have these factors had?

216

Appendix 4

NAME THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY INVENTORY (ELLSI – TEACHERS’ VERSION)

Dear teacher: please read the following list of language learning strategies. Please mark each one according to how important you think it is: 1. Very low 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

2. Low

3. Medium

4. High

5. Very high

Doing homework Learning from the teacher Learning in an environment where the language is spoken Reading books in English Using a computer Watching TV in English Revising regularly Listening to songs in English Using language learning games Writing letters in English Listening to music while studying Talking to other students in English Using a dictionary Reading newspapers in English Studying English grammar Deliberately learning new vocabulary Keeping a language learning notebook Talking to native speakers of English Taking note of language used in the environment Controlling schedules so that English study is done Pre-planning language-learning encounters Not worrying about mistakes Using a self-study centre Trying to think in English Listening to native speakers of English Learning from mistakes Spending a lot of time studying English Making friends with native speakers Watching movies in English Learning about the culture of English speakers Listening to the radio in English Writing a diary in English English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI) 217

Appendix 5

TARGET LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY INVENTORY (TALLSI) – 2016 Dear participant

We are doing a research study about language learning strategies. Strategies are actions chosen by learners for the purpose of learning or regulating the learning of language. The result of the questionnaire is only for research and we will keep your personal information confidential. Your participation is voluntary, but much appreciated. We hope also, that by completing the questionnaire, and, perhaps, discussing it, you will have an opportunity to reflect on ways that you might learn language more effectively. Could you please fi ll out the questionnaire as carefully as possible. Please try to include all the biographical details, as these are important for computing the statistics. When you give your age, could you please calculate it in terms of completed years (i.e. according to the ‘western’ way). You do not have to give your name or your email if you do not wish to, but these are useful if there is something we would like to follow up. And the comments you might make are also valuable to add a ‘human’ dimension to the ratings. Thank you for your input Name (optional):

Class level:

National origin:

L1:

Gender:

Male/Female

Age (in completed years):

email (optional): I consent to these data being used for research and/or publication: (signature)

218

Appendix 5

219

Dear participant: please read the following list of language learning strategies and mark each one according to how strongly you agree or disagree that they apply to your own language learning experience. Any comments or examples you can give are also valuable. If there is not enough space in the boxes, please number your comment carefully and add to the back of the sheet. 6 = strongly agree 5 = agree 3 = partly disagree 2 = disagree rating

4 = partly agree 1 = strongly disagree

Item

Strategy

1

I do homework

Comment

2

I try to think in English

3

I read in English

What do you read? (e.g. novels, newspapers, magazines, online material, etc.)

4

I write in English

What do you write? (e.g. letters, emails, a diary, etc.)

5

I try to understand how English is used

Can you give an example?

6

I revise regularly

7

I listen to songs in English

8

I try to pronounce words so that I can be understood

9

I try to learn as much new vocabulary as I can

10

I talk to other students in English

11

I try to memorize the new language I learn

12

I try to pronounce English words correctly

13

I try to learn grammar rules

14

I listen to people talking in English

Where do you listen to them?

15

I keep a language learning notebook

What do you put in your notebook?

16

I talk to native speakers of English whenever I can

When do you do this? To whom?

17

I try to learn from my mistakes

Can you give an example?

18

I try to work out English grammar rules

19

I repeat new things I learn to myself

20

I translate things I learn into my first language

When/where do you do homework?

What kinds of songs do you like?

How do you do this?

How do you do this?

220

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Item

Strategy

rating

21

I use electronic learning aids

Which ones? (e.g. online courses, apps on my phone, etc.)

22

I plan my English study

Can you give an example?

23

I choose strategies so that they work well together

How do you do this?

24

I prepare for classes and learning opportunities

How do you do this?

25

I try not to worry about making mistakes

Why?

26

I invest a lot of effort in studying English

How do you do this?

27

I try to make friends with native speakers

28

I monitor the progress I am making in my study

29

I use a self-study centre

30

I choose strategies to suit my situation

How do your strategies vary according to your situation?

31

I try to learn about the culture of English speakers

How do you do this?

32

I manage my time so that English study is done

Can you give an example?

33

I select strategies that are suitable for my needs

Which needs?

34

I consult with my teacher when I have questions

35

I try to set clear goals for my study

What are your goals?

36

I regularly evaluate how well I am doing

How often?

37

I select strategies that are suitable for the task

38

I watch TV or movies in English

What do you watch?

39

I use language learning games

Which ones?

40

I try to maintain my motivation

How do you do this?

Are there any other strategies you are aware of using?

Comment

Glossary

Note: The defi nitions given here are of the terms as they are used in relation to language learning. Acculturation model – this was proposed by Schumann (1978) to explain a language learner’s in/ability to integrate with the target culture and therefore to learn the language. Acquisition – a term sometimes used in the narrow sense of language which is developed the way children acquire their L1 (Krashen, 1976) and at other times used for language development more generally (e.g. Ellis, 1986, 1994, 2008). Activity Theory – proposes that human activity is socioculturally situated and tool-mediated, and consists of a subject, an object, an action, operations and conditions (Leont’ev, 1978). Additional language – a language learnt in addition to the fi rst language or mother tongue. Sometimes also known as the second language, L2 or target language. Additive language – an alternative term to additional language (see above). Affective (adjective) – relating to emotions or feelings. Noun = affect. Arnold’s (1999) book deals with many aspects of the concept. Agency – in a language context, agency refers to a learner’s willingness or ability to take action. ANOVA – a parametric (q.v.) statistical test used to compare three or more variables. An ANOVA performs a similar function to the Kruskall-Wallis test (q.v.) for nonparametric (q.v.) data. Anxiety – an affective condition which renders an individual nervous or worried and which may affect performance. Language learning anxiety is often classified according to whether it is a state (a temporary condition which will pass) or a trait (a permanent characteristic of the learner). The Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) was constructed by Horwitz et al. (1986) to measure the construct. Aptitude – a natural ability to do anything, e.g. learn language. Perhaps the best-known test of aptitude is the MLAT (Modern Language Aptitude Test) by Carroll and Sapon (1959). Army Method – developed during WWII to rapidly develop language competence in military personnel – later became the Audiolingual Method. 221

222

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Attitude – a person’s attitude relates to the manner in which he/she approaches and feels about the world, other people or tasks. Attitudes are typically seen as either positive or negative and are related to motivation. Attribution – the process of ascribing responsibility for the perceived cause of success or failure, e.g. natural ability or lack of ability or good or bad luck (e.g. Weiner, 1974). Audiolingualism – a system for learning language based on Behaviourist beliefs (q.v.). In contrast to the grammar-translation method (q.v.) it emphasized the importance of aural/oral skills (e.g. Skinner, 1957). Automatic – not dependent on deliberate decisions. Autonomy – Introduced to language learning by Holec (1979, 1981), autonomy refers to the ability to take charge of/manage/control/regulate one’s own learning. BALLI – acronym for the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (q.v). Base strategies – these are the strategies which form the base level of students’ strategy use and provide a foundation on which students can build as they become more expert. Memory strategies feature strongly at this level. Behaviourism – a belief based on the idea that all human behaviour (including language) is developed as a habit by means of stimulus, response and reinforcement (e.g. Watson, 1930). Belief – something which an individual holds to be true e.g. ‘I am/am not a good language learner’, ‘English is/is not a good language to learn’. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory – developed by Horwitz (1987) to survey learners’ beliefs. Big Five Model – a framework for conceptualizing personality (McCrae & John, 1992). The Big Five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). CALLA – acronym for the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (q.v.). CANAL-F – acronym for Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language-Foreign (q.v.). Case study – a research method which uses individual cases to generalize about a wider population. CBI – acronym for content-based instruction (q.v.). CLIL – acronym for content and language integrated learning (q.v.). CLT – an acronym for communicative language teaching (q.v.). Code-switching – This occurs where a learner alternates between/among different languages in an attempt to convey meaning. Cognate – an element of one language which is recognizable to speakers of a different language because it is already known. For example, makina in Turkish is recognizable to English speakers because of its similarity to ‘machine’ in English.

Glossary

223

Cognition – relating to thinking, knowledge or understanding. Adjective = cognitive. Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of Language-Foreign – an aptitude test based on the premise that successful language learners are able to cope with new ideas (Grigorenko et al., 2000). Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach – a strategy-based language learning programme developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1987). Cognitive load – refers to the amount of mental energy required for a particular task. Cognitive style – describes the different ways individuals think – a more general term than learning style (q.v.). Cognitivism – the belief that learning occurs as a result of thinking. Communication strategy – an activity (such as gesturing) whose basic purpose is to convey meaning (e.g. Tarone, 1980, 1981). Communicative competence – a theoretical principle developed by Hymes (1972) which emphasized the ability to use language to convey and interpret meaning. The concept was later divided by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) into: grammatical competence – relating to the learner’s knowledge of the vocabulary, phonology and rules of the language; discourse competence – relating to the learner’s ability to connect utterances into a meaningful whole; sociolinguistic competence – relating to a learner’s ability to use language appropriately; strategic competence – relating to a learner’s ability to employ strategies to compensate for imperfect knowledge. Communicative language teaching – an approach to language teaching based on the idea that the primary function of language is communication (e.g. Littlewood, 1981, 2011; Widdowson, 1978). Compensation strategies – used to make up for missing knowledge. Complexity Theory (Complex Systems Theory) – promotes the idea that language learning is a complex undertaking with multiple interacting variables which must all be taken into account. Comprehensible input – an hypothesis developed by Krashen (1985) which postulates that language is acquired when input is received which is slightly above the current level of competence, often represented by the formula I + 1. Content and language integrated learning – a teaching method based on the premise that language is more easily learnt when integrated with content knowledge. Content-based instruction – a teaching method based on the premise that language can develop alongside motivating content knowledge. Context/situation/environment – terms used to indicate where a phenomenon is located.

224

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Contrastive analysis – hypothesized that target language difficulties could be predicted by contrasting the native language and the language the student is trying to learn (Lado, 1957). Contrastive rhetoric – examines for a student’s first language and culture influence target language acquisition (Connor, 1996; Kaplan, 1966) Studies of language learning strategy use according to nationality are not easy to fi nd. Core strategies – consisting predominantly of metacognitive strategies, these activities are at the centre of a student’s strategy repertoire and facilitate the management, control or regulation of a student’s learning. Correlation – this is a statistical concept which measures the relationship between two variables. Correlation values range from zero to 1 (a correlation of 1 means the variables are identical). Common correlation test includes Pearson (for parametric data) and Spearman (for nonparametric data). CPH – acronym for Critical Period Hypothesis (q.v.). Critical Period Hypothesis – the belief that there are maturational constraints on an individual’s ability to develop language, and after this critical period has passed language development becomes difficult or impossible (Lenneberg, 1967). Cultural capital – a metaphor introduced by Bourdieu (1977) to describe what learners hope to gain when they invest in the language learning enterprise. Culture – culture is often understood to include the customs, language, family relationships, social organization and artifacts of a people (e.g. Hofstede, 1980, 1997). It is frequently confused with other often closely related concepts such as ethnicity (q.v.) and nationality (q.v.). Culture shock – refers to the negative feelings experienced by an individual who encounters an unfamiliar culture (e.g. Schumann, 1975). Deliberate – requiring a decision of which the learner is aware. Difference – a statistical concept which measures the degree to which variables are different from each other. Commonly used tests of difference include Student’s t-tests (for parametric data) and Mann-Whitney U and Kruskall-Wallis (for non-parametric data). Dimensions of variation – a term used by Gu (2012) to indicate that strategies will vary around a common core. Distance learning – a teaching method where students are not physically present in a classroom and do not have a face-to-face relationship with a teacher or with other students (e.g. White, 2003). Dynamic Systems Theory – states that variables are not static but in a constant state of change. Eclecticism – a language teaching approach which chooses procedures from a wide variety of methods or techniques according to the needs of a particular set of learner characteristics, situations or goals.

Glossary

225

Effect size – a statistical concept which aims to assess the size of the effect of a particular independent variable on a dependent variable. EFL – acronym for English as a foreign language (q.v.). Ego – A concept originally introduced by Freud (1910) to indicate an individual’s sense of self. Ego boundary – a concept introduced by Federn (1928) to indicate the mechanism used by individuals to distinguish the self from others and the world outside the self. Individuals with thin ego boundaries tend to be more open to the outside world, whereas those with thick ego boundaries tend to be more inhibited. ELLSI – acronym for English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (q.v.). EMI – acronym for English as a medium of instruction (q.v.). Empathy – the ability to identify with others and understand (though not necessarily agree with) their points of view (e.g. Guiora et al., 1972). English as a foreign language – where English is being learnt in an environment where it is not spoken in the community (e.g. French as it is taught in New Zealand). English as a medium of instruction – a teaching method which delivers the content in the target language. English as a second language – a term used to describe English being taught as the target language in a place where it is the common language (e.g. English being taught in the UK). English for specific purposes – a teaching approach which aims to develop language by means of a course which is meaningful for students in terms of their life goals, e.g. Business English, English for Tourism, etc. English Language Learning Strategy Inventory – questionnaire developed by Griffiths (2003b) to assess students reported use of language learning strategies. Error – Something which is incorrect. According to Corder (1967) an error was something which a learner could not self-correct, which distinguishes it from a mistake (q.v.). ESL – acronym for English as a second language (q.v.). ESP – acronym for English for specific purposes (q.v.). Ethics – aimed at protecting individual rights, e.g. by means of informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality and absence of threat. Ethnicity – often closely related to culture (q.v.) and nationality (q.v.), ethnicity refers to a person’s racial origin. Ethnography – a research method where the context is an important aspect of the study. Experiment – a research technique which involves the use of pre/post-test design, random assignment, control and experimental groups, and an intervention. If any of these is missing, it is called a quasi-experiment (q.v.). Explicit strategy instruction – a teaching method whereby students are provided with overt information regarding strategy options and their use.

226

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Facilitator – one who helps another to achieve a goal. Factor analysis – a statistical procedure which aims to identify variables with common underlying characteristics. Field in/dependence – an aspect of learning style. Field dependent learners are unable to separate details from background, whereas field independent learners are able to focus on discrete aspects of a phenomenon. First language (L1) interference – this occurs when aspects of a student’s first language interfere with target language acquisition, for instance, students who apply word order in their L1 inappropriately to English. FLCAS – acronym for Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (q.v.). Foreign language (FL) – a language studied in an environment other than where it is spoken as a native language, for instance French as it is taught in England or Turkey, or English as it is taught in Korea. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale – a survey designed to investigate the anxiety phenomenon in foreign language classrooms (Horwitz et al., 1986). Fossilization – in language learning, fossilization refers to the idea that if errors are not corrected they will become ‘set in stone’ – in other words, they will become a fi xed habit and will not be able to be changed. Functions – a term used to refer to language functions (q.v.) Gender – whereas the concept of ‘sex’ is biological, and therefore relatively fixed, the ‘gender’ concept relates more to the attributes accorded to ‘male’ or ‘female’ by society. However, ‘gender’ is quite often used as a softer way of expressing male/female differences even when it is essentially biological differences which are being referred to. Grammar-translation – a method of teaching language based (as the name suggests) on learning grammar and translating to and from the target language. Grounded approach – This refers to an approach introduced by Glaser and Strauss (1967) and later Strauss and Corbin (1998) which involves taking a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach to data analysis, meaning that the themes emerge from the data rather than being pre-determined. Habit – automatic behavior. Hawthorne effect – states that the very fact of observing a particular phenomenon changes its nature – named after the place where it was first documented. Also called the observer paradox (q.v.). Heritage language – the language derived from a particular cultural heritage spoken in a dominant language environment, for instance Hebrew spoken by Jewish people in America. Humanism – a philosophy which emphasizes the value of human identities. Identity – the combination of the factors (such as nationality, culture, age, gender etc.) which contribute to learner individuality (e.g. Norton, 1997, 2000, 2010). Implicit strategy instruction – a teaching method which embeds strategy instruction in the regular classroom material.

Glossary

227

Information processing – based on the metaphor of the human brain as a computer, this theory emphasizes the human ability to process incoming information. Inhibition – something which causes an individual to retreat from open interaction with others. Input Hypothesis – one of Krashen’s five hypotheses (q.v.). Interaction Hypothesis – (Long, 1996) suggests that comprehensible input is more effective when learners must use the input to communicate. Interlanguage – the term introduced by Selinker (1972) to describe the state where a learner is between the L1 and the target language. Interview – a research technique which involves consulting (either face-to-face or virtually) participants in order to elicit answers to research questions. Investment – the resources in terms of time, effort, attention, money etc. that a student is prepared to contribute to the learning endeavour (e.g. Bourdieu, 1977; Peirce, 1995). Krashen’s hypotheses – these were five proposals which have given rise to much controversy over the years and which have had a major effect on the way language teaching theory and practice has developed: Acquisition/learning Hypothesis – language is acquired by means of natural communication and formal learning is of limited value; Monitor Hypothesis – formal learning is only useful as a means of monitoring acquisition; Input Hypothesis – language is learnt by means of being exposed to language one stage ahead of the learner’s current level of competence; Affective Filter Hypothesis – emotions can either facilitate or block language acquisition; Natural Order Hypothesis – language is acquired in a set order. Kruskall-Wallis – a nonparametric statistical test of difference for several independent samples, a very useful test for examining variation among ordinal data (e.g. data obtained from Likert-type instruments). LAD – acronym for language acquisition device (q.v.). Language acquisition device – a concept originally promoted by Chomsky (1965) that humans are equipped with an area in the brain which predisposes them to be able to develop language. Language function – an aspect of language which is concerned with what users do with the language, typically expressed in gerund form, e.g. complaining, asking questions, giving directions, etc. (e.g. Wilkins, 1976). Language transfer – where learners transfer the lexical or grammatical characteristics of one language (typically their L1) to another language (typically their target language – TL). Language use strategies – strategies aimed at allowing a learner to use the language already learnt. Learned helplessness – a state in which learners believe they have no control over their learning (e.g. Kuhl, 1984).

228

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Learning style – a person’s preferred ways of learning, e.g. aural, visual, kinesthetic etc. Likert-type questionnaire – a technique designed originally by Likert (1932) to measure attitudes, and producing ordinal data. Longitudinal – carried out over a period of time. Magpie Theory – a metaphor expressing the idea that strategy theory is very eclectic, including aspects of many different theories, the way magpies are believed to collect materials for their nests. Mann-Whitney – a nonparametric statistical test of difference for two independent samples, a very useful test for examining variation among ordinal data (e.g. data obtained from Likert-type instruments). MBTI – acronym for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (q.v.). Mean – a statistical value obtained by adding all the available values and dividing by the number of values. Median – the middle value of a data set when listed in numerical order. Mediation – the process of assisting with learning (Vygotsky, 1978). Mediator – someone or something who/which provides mediation. Meta – a prefix meaning ‘beyond’, e.g. metacognition = beyond cognition. Metacognition – refers to knowledge, above cognition, at the level of organizing, managing, regulating or controlling. Mistake – something which is incorrect. According to Corder (1967), a mistake is a slip which the learner can self-correct, whereas an error (q.v.) is beyond the learner’s ability to self-correct. MLAT – acronym for Modern Language Aptitude Test (q.v.). Mode – the most common value of a data set. Modern Language Aptitude Test – a test of language aptitude published by Carroll and Sapon (1959). Mother tongue – the language spoken in the home, sometimes also referred to as first language or L1. Motivation – refers to the drive to achieve a goal. Motivation has traditionally been divided into four types: Integrative – driven by the desire to be accepted by a particular group; Instrumental – being used as a tool to achieve a particular purpose; Intrinsic – aimed at one’s own satisfaction; Extrinsic – driven by the desire for external reward. Of these pairs, the first two are generally attributed to Gardner and Lambert (1959), and the second two are generally attributed to Deci and Ryan (1980). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – based on Jung’s (1921) theories of psychological types, is a widely used personality inventory (Myers, 1962), which measures personality according to four dichotomous scales: Extraversion-Introversion – focused towards an internal or an external reality; Judging-Perceiving – tending to depend on rational assessment versus instinctive impressions.

Glossary

229

Sensing-Intuitive – depending on the five senses versus non-sensory perceptions; Thinking-Feeling – depending on logical versus affective judgments; Narrative – a research method which analyses participants’ stories. Nationality – refers to the geographical area (country) to which one belongs. Typically, nationality is what is on one’s passport. Native language/speaker – this is actually a complicated concept, but it refers essentially to the language spoken in the home and those who speak it. The native language is usually, but by no means always, the language spoken in the surrounding community. Natural approach – a method of language learning promoted by Krashen and Terrell (1983) based on the idea that non-native languages should be acquired in the same way as children develop their first languages NESB – acronym for non-English-speaking background (q.v.). Neurolinguistics – a branch of psychology which is concerned with the neurological (brain-based) basis of language. Nominal data – refers to values assigned to various categories (e.g. gender, nationality, etc.). Non-English-speaking background – a background where English is not spoken as the native language. Non-native language/speaker – this refers to a language other than the primary language spoken in the home and those who speak it. Nonparametric data – this refers to data which do not fall within specific parameters. Data from Likert-type questionnaires are nonparametric (ordinal) since the numbers represent attitudes rather than mathematical values. Nominal values given to variables such as sex (for example, male = 1, female = 2) are another example of nonparametric data. Numerical values (such as test scores) are also nonparametric if they are not normally distributed. Non-primary language – a language other than the L1 or the one spoken in the home. Normality of distribution – in order to be considered ‘normal’, values should be evenly distributed around the mean, forming a bell-shaped curve. Noticing Hypothesis – Introduced by Schmidt (1990), the Noticing Hypothesis suggests that in order to learn, learners must pay attention, and they must notice the target feature. Notion – an identifiable group of language items covering the same idea, e.g. numbers, time, etc. Numerical data – refers to numbers (e.g. age, test scores, income, etc.) as distinct from ordinal (q.v.) or nominal (q.v.) data. Observation – a research technique which involves watching participants. Observer paradox – this refers to the idea that an observer, although wanting to investigate ‘natural’ phenomena, may alter the normal patterns of behaviour merely by being there. Also often called the Hawthorne effect (q.v.).

230

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Orchestration – when referring to strategies, this is a metaphorical use of the term and indicates the ability to use a repertoire of strategies in combination/harmony with each other. Ordinal data – this kind of data is where values are attached according  to a scale such as 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree (often called a Likert scale after the researcher who introduced it in 1932). Output Hypothesis – (Swain, 1985), suggests that language production can act as a complement to comprehensible input and help to facilitate language development. Overgeneralization – an error which occurs when a learner knows a rule but applies it too generally (e.g. sitted). Parametric – relating to normally distributed (q.v.) numbers. Age, income or test scores are examples of parametric data, as long as they are normally distributed. Pearson product-moment – a test of correlation used for parametric (q.v.) data. Pedagogy – the study of teaching. Pedagogue is another word for teacher. Adjective = pedagogic, adverb = pedagogical. Peer – one who is the same as oneself, e.g. a classmate etc. Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire – a learning style inventory developed by Reid (1987) involving five modalities: visual (learning by seeing); auditory (learning by hearing); tactile (learning by touching); kinaesthetic (learning by moving); individual/group (preferring to learn alone versus with others). Personality – distinctive features of a person’s behaviour such as attitudes, preferences or social relationships. Phenomenology – a research paradigm which investigates a particular phenomenon. Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery – an aptitude test aimed at high school students (Pimsleur, 1966). PLAB – acronym for Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery (q.v.). PLSPQ – acronym for the Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (q.v.). Plus strategies – these strategies are the ones which tend to be used by higher level students in addition to the strategies used by all students. Plus strategies are very varied in their nature and seem to indicate that higher level learners are willing and able to employ a wide range of strategies in the pursuit of their goals. Postmethod – a term employed to convey the idea that teaching should not proceed according to a fixed method, but should employ techniques suitable for the given learners, context and target. Sometimes also called eclecticism.

Glossary

231

Poststructuralism – a reaction against rigid structuralist (q.v.) ideas, emphasizing the importance of meaning. Pragmatics – the area of linguistics which is concerned with how language is used for social interaction. Primary language – the language spoken in the home, often also called the mother tongue or native language. Proficiency – a difficult concept to measure, relating to one’s level of competence in a language. Prototypical core – a term used by Gu (2012) to identify the essential characteristics of a strategy (according to the definition in this book, strategies are active, chosen by the learner, purposeful, with a language-learning goal). Psycholinguistics – a branch of linguistics which emphasizes the psychological basis of language (e.g. motivation, personality, etc.). Qualitative – relating to non-numerical data obtained, for instance, from interviews, open-ended questions, think-aloud protocols etc. Quantitative – relating to numerical data, obtained, for instance, from questionnaires, data bases etc. Quasi-experiment – a term used if any of the elements of a true experiment (q.v.) are not met (e.g. random assignment). Reliability – relating to the consistency of the data. Repertoire – a musical metaphor used to refer to the range of strategies at a learner’s disposal from which a selection can be made to suit a particular situation, goal or task. SBI – acronym for strategy-based instruction (q.v.). Schema/ta – the mental framework/s that humans construct based on experience and on which they tend to base future action. Second language (SL, L2) – studied in the environment where the language is spoken, for instance international students or immigrants studying English in New Zealand or USA, or English speakers studying Japanese in Japan. Self-concept – the way one conceives of oneself (e.g. Mercer, 2011). Self-confidence – the degree to which one believes in oneself. Self-determination Theory – relates to what motivates people to behave in certain ways. Self-efficacy – the belief in one’s ability to achieve a particular goal (e.g. Bandura, 1997). Self-esteem – a broader concept than self-efficacy, self-esteem refers more generally to one’s confidence in oneself and is not necessarily related to a particular goal (e.g. Coppersmith, 1967). Self-image – the way one visualizes oneself. Self-regulation – refers to learners’ ability to manage their own learning, (e.g. Dörnyei, 2005; Winne, 1995). Sensitive Period Hypothesis – a weaker version of the Critical Period Hypothesis which suggests that language development becomes

232

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

steadily more difficult as a learner matures, but not necessarily impossible. Sex – the biological difference between males and females. Significance – a statistical concept indicating that a result is more than would be expected merely by chance. Silent way – a method which relies for its effectiveness on the teacher being silent as much as possible (Gattegno, 1963). SILL – acronym for the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (q.v.). Skill – refers to the ability to use language to communicate, typically divided into reading, writing, listening and speaking, each of which may have sub-skills, such as skim reading, letter writing, listening for gist, conversation management, etc. Social distance – a concept which describes the differences between/ among various cultures (Schumann, 1976). Sociocultural – an adjective used to describe characteristics which are dependent on social and/or cultural influences (e.g. Lantolf, 2000a; Vygotsky, 1978). Speakers of other languages (SOL) – a general term used to include those who are in an environment or learning situation where they do not speak the dominant or target language, for instance English speakers in China or in a Chinese class elsewhere. In other words, the term covers what is generally understood by both second language and foreign language. Spearman’s rho – a test of correlation used for nonparametric (q.v.) data. SPSS – acronym for Statistical package for Social Sciences (q.v.). SSBI – acronym for styles and strategies-based instruction (q.v.). Statistical Package for Social Sciences – a commonly used statistical programme in linguistic research. Strategy – an action chosen by learners for a specific purpose. Strategy-based instruction – an approach to language learning which emphasizes the use of strategies. Strategy Inventory for Language Learning – (Oxford, 1990) used to assess frequency of reported strategy use. Structuralism – the belief that language consists of fi xed structures. Style – a learner’s preferred way of learning (e.g. visual, aural, etc.). Styles and strategies-based instruction – an approach to language learning based on students’ learning styles and strategies, developed by Cohen (1998). Suggestopedia – a teaching method which relies on positive suggestion such as a pleasant environment, music, colour, art etc. (Lozanov, 1978). Tactics – a term sometimes used more-or-less synonymously with the term ‘strategy’ (e.g. Seliger, 1984), and sometimes used to describe a specific activity which contributes to a strategy (e.g. Oxford, 2011a, 2017). Target language (TL) – the language the learner is aiming to learn.

Glossary

233

Task-based language teaching – is based on the idea that language is learnt most effectively by engaging students in communicative activities which approximate those they might be required to perform in real life, such as going to the supermarket, renting a flat or planning a holiday (e.g. Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). TBL – acronym for task-based language teaching (q.v.). Teachability Hypothesis – developed by Pienemann (1985, 1989), the Teachability Hypothesis postulates that language can be taught and learnt when the learner is ready. Think-aloud – a research protocol which requires participants to vocalize their thought processes as they engage in a task. Tornado effect – an hypothesized effect which suggests that strategy development is spiral rather than linear, and that as students develop their strategies and increase their proficiency, more and more strategies become available to them (for instance, higher level students can improve their listening skills by watching TV, which lower level students would be unable to understand). This means that the learner has a constantly widening spiral (resembling a tornado) of strategies which s/he can utilize (Griffiths, 2003b). Total physical response – a teaching method which relies on physical movement for its effect (Asher, 1969). TPR – acronym for Total Physical Response (q.v.). Triangulation – This occurs where different methods (e.g. a questionnaire and interviews) are used to cross-check results. T-test – a parametric (q.v.) test of difference for two independent samples, performing a similar function to the Mann-Whitney (q.v.) test for nonparametric (q.v.) data. UG – acronym for universal grammar (q.v.). Universal Grammar – the idea that all human languages have elements in common (Chomsky, 1965). Validity – the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to be measuring. A number of different types of validity have been identified, including: Concurrent validity – the degree to which an instrument correlates with others done at the same time; Construct/concept validity – how well the target concept is measured (e.g. does a learning strategy questionnaire really measure learning strategies?); Content validity – the degree to which the content is appropriate for the context (e.g. an instrument designed for adults might not be suitable for younger learners); Convergent validity – the degree to which an instrument correlates with the results of other instruments; Criterion validity – the relationship between the results of the instrument and a given standard;

234

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

External validity – the degree to which the results are generalizable to a wider population; Face validity – the degree to which an instrument appears to be measuring what it is supposed to be measuring; Internal validity – the degree to which results can be used to infer cause and effect; Predictive validity – the degree to which the results of an instrument are able to predict outcomes. VARK – a questionnaire produced by Fleming and Mills (1992) based on Visual, Aural, Read/write and Kinaesthetic learning styles. Volition – the will to persevere with a chosen course of action (e.g. Corno, 2001). Zone of proximal development – the difference between what a learner can do with and without help (Vygotsky, 1978). ZPD – acronym for zone of proximal development (q.v.).

References

Abutalebi, J. (2008) Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica 128, 466–468. Abraham, R. and Vann, R. (1987) Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 85–102). New York: Prentice Hall. Aldridge, A. and Levine, K. (2001) Surveying the Social World: Principles and Practice in Survey Research. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. Allan, D. (1995) Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anam, S. and Stracke, E. (2016) Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self-efficacy beliefs. System 60, 1–10. Anderson, J. (1980) Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co. Anderson, N. (1991) Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing. Modern Language Journal 75 (4), 460–471 Anderson, N. (2008) Metacognition and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 99–109). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, N. (2012) Metacognition: Awareness of language learning. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Language Learning Psychology: Research, Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 169–187). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Anderson, R. (1977) The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise. In R.  Anderson, J. Spiro and W. Montague (eds) Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge (pp. 415–431). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Aoki, N. and Smith, R. (1999) Learner autonomy in cultural context: The case of Japan. In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds) Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change (pp. 19–27). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Armstrong, S., Peterson, E. and Rayner, S. (2012) Understanding and defi ning cognitive styles and learning styles: A delphi study in the context of educational psychology. Educational Studies 38 (4), 449–455 Arnold, J. (ed.) (1999) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arnold, J. and Brown, H.D. (1999) A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asher, J. (1969) The total physical response approach to second language learning. The Modern Language Journal 53 (1), 3–17. Atkinson, R. (1975) Mnemotecnics in second-language learning. American Psychologist 30, 821–828. Ausubel, D. (1964) Adults vs. children in second language learning: Psychological considerations. Modern Language Journal 48, 420–424. Ausubel, D. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bacon, S. (1992) The relationship between sex, comprehension, processing strategies and cognitive and affective response in second-language listening. Modern Language Journal 76, 160–178. 235

236

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Baddeley, A. and Hitch, G. (1974) Working memory. In G. Bower (ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Volume 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic Press. Bade, M. (2008) Grammar and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 174–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bai, B. (2015) The effects of strategy-based writing instruction in Singapore primary schools. System, 53, 96–106. Bailey, K., Curtis, A. and Nunan, D. (2001) Pursuing Professional Development. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Baker, C. (1988) Key Issues in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-effi cacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W.H. Freeman. Barcelos, A. (2003) Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja and A.  Barcelos (eds) Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp. 7–33). Netherlands: Kluwer. Bedell, D. and Oxford, R. (1996) Cross-cultural comparisons of language learning strategies in the Peoples’ Republic of China and other countries. In R. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 47–60). Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre: University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Belcher, D. (ed.) (2009) English for Specific Purposes: Theory and Practice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press ELT. Bellingham, L. (2000) Language acquisition after 40? Babel 35 (1), 24–38. Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson. Benson, P. (2007) Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40 (1), 21–40. Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds) (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman. Bialystok, E. (1978) A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning 28 (1), 69–83. Bialystok, E. (1981) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 65, 24–35. Bialystok, E. (1991) Achieving proficiency in a second language: A processing description. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith and M. Swain (eds) Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 63–77). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bialystok, E. (1999) Confounded age: Linguistic and cognitive factors in age differences for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Birdsong, D. (ed.) (1999a) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Birdsong, D. (1999b) Whys and why nots of the critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition. In D. Birdsong (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis (pp. 1–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt. Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. and Zeidner, M. (eds) (2000) Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. Borg, S. (2009) Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Bourdieu, P. (1977) The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information 16, 645–668. Bowler, B. and Parminter, S. (1992) Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

237

Boyle, J. (1987) Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language Learning 37, 273–284. Breen, M. (ed.) (2001) Learner Contributions to Language Learning. London: Longman. Brown, A. (2008) Pronunciation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 197–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H.D. (1980) Principles and Practices of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, H.D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, H.D. (2001) In the minds of the methodologists. EL Teaching Matters, April 2001, v. Brown, J. (2009) Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal 93 (4), 570–583. Brown, J. and White, C. (2010) Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System 38 (3), 432–443. Bruner, J. (1960) The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burgoon, J. (1976) The unwillingness to communicate scale: Development and validation. Communication Monographs 43, 60–69. Burling, R. (1981) Social constraints on adult language learning. In H. Winitz (ed.) Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 279–290). New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Burstall, C. (1975) Factors affecting foreign-language learning: A consideration of some relevant research fi ndings. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 8, 5–25. Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. and Hargreaves, M. (1974) Primary French in the Balance. Windsor: NFER Publishing. Cammarata, L., Tedick, D. and Osborn, T. (2016) Content-based instruction and curricular reforms: Issues and goals. In L. Cammarata (ed.) Content-Based Foreign Language Teaching (pp. 1–22). New York and London: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2004) Subversive identities, pedagogical safe houses, and critical learning. In B. Norton and K. Toohey (eds) Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning (pp. 116–137). New York: Cambridge University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2011) Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. The Modern Language Journal 95 (3), 401–417. Canale, M. (1983) On some dimensions of language proficiency. In J. Oller (ed.) Issues in Language Testing Research (pp. 333–342). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Canale, M. and Swain, M. (1980) Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1–47. CARLA (Centre for Research in Language Acquisition) See www.carla.umn.edu. Carrell, P., Pharis, B. and Liberto, J. (1989) Metacognitive strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 23 (4), 647–673. Carroll, J. (1965) The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training. In R. Glaser (ed.) Training Research and Education (pp. 87–136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Carroll, J. and Sapon, S. (1959) Modern Language Aptitude Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Chamot, A. (1987) The learning strategies of ESL students. In A.Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 71–83). London: Prentice Hall. Chamot, A. (2001) The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 25–43). Harlow: Longman. Chamot, A. (2005) The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): An update. In P. Richard-Amato and M. Snow (eds) Academic Success for English Language Learners: Strategies for K-12 Mainstream Teachers (pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman.

238

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Chamot, A. (2008) Strategy instruction and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 266–281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chamot, A. (2009) The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. and Robbins, J. (1999) The Learning Strategies Handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Chamot, A. and Harris, V. (eds) (2018, in preparation) Learning Strategy Instruction in the Language Classroom: Issues and Implementation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Chamot, A. and O’Malley, M. (1986) A Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: An ESL Content-based Curriculum. Wheaton, Md.: National Clearing house for Bilingual Education. Chamot, A. and O’Malley, M. (1987) The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly 21 (2), 227–250. Chamot, A. and Rubin, J. (1994) Comments on Janie Rees-Miller’s ‘A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications’. TESOL Quarterly 28 (4), 771–781. Chapelle, C. (1988) Field independence: A source of language Variance? Language Testing 5, 62–82. Chaudron, C. (1986) The interaction of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research: A view of the second language classroom. TESOL Quarterly 20 (4), 709–717. Chaudron, C. (1995) Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chen, C., Chen, S.-C., Chen, S.-H. and Wey, S. (2013) The effects of extensive reading via e-books on tertiary level EFL students’ reading attitude, reading comprehension and vocabulary. TOJET: The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology 12 (2), 303–312. Chien, S. (2012) Students’ use of writing strategies and their English writing achievements in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 32 (1), 93–112. Chihara, T. and Oller, J. (1978) Attitudes and attained proficiency in EFL: A sociolinguistic study of adult Japanese speakers. Language Learning, 28, 55–68. Chik, A., Aoki, N. and Smith, R. (eds) (2016) Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching: New Research Agendas. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Ching, T. (1992) Chinese learning styles: A personal view. Many Voices 3, 9–10. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton Chomsky, N. (1959) Review of verbal behaviour by B.F. Skinner. Language 35, 26–58. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, N. (1968) Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Clarke, J. (1996) Face-directed behaviour in the language classroom. TESOLANZ Journal, 4, 13–20. Cogo, A. (2012) English as a Lingua Franca: Concepts, use and implications. ELT Journal 66 (1), 97–105. Cohen, A. (1991) Strategies in second language learning: Insights from research. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith and M. Swain (eds) Foreign/ Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 107–119). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A. (1998) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Longman. Cohen, A. (1999) Language learning strategies instruction and research. In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds) Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change (pp. 61–68). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Cohen, A. (2003) The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies and tasks meet? IRAL 41, 279–291.

References

239

Cohen, A. (2005) Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (3), 275–301. Cohen, A. (2011) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Cohen, A. (2012a) Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies and motivation on tasks. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Language Learning Psychology: Research, Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 136–150). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cohen, A. (2012b) Comprehensible pragmatics: Where input and output come together. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 249–261). Berlin: Springer. Cohen, A. and Aphek, E. (1980) Retention of second language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System 8, 221–235. Cohen, A. and Dörnyei, Z. (2002) Focus on the language learner: Motivation, styles and strategies. In N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 170–190). London: Edward Arnold. Cohen, A. and Macaro, E (2007) Learner Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cohen, A., Oxford, R. and Chi, J. (2002) Learning Styles Survey. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. See www.carla.umn.edu. Cohen, A., Oxford, R. and Chi, J. (2003) Learning Strategies Survey. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Cohen, A., Weaver, S. and Li, T. (1998) The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. Cohen (ed.) Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language (pp. 107–156). New York: Longman. Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edn). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education (6th edn). London and New York: Routledge. Cole, J. and Vanderplank, R. (2016) Comparing autonomous and class-based learners in Brazil: Evidence for the present-day advantages of informal, out-of-class learning. System 61, 31–42. Connor, U. (1996) Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (1991) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold. Coppersmith, S. (1967) Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: Freeman and Co. Corbett, J. (1999) ‘Chewing the fat’ is a cultural issue. IATEFL Issues 48, 2–3. Corder, S.P. (1967) The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, 160–170. Corno, L. (2001) Volitional aspects of self-regulated learning. In B. Zimmerman and D. Schunk (eds) Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 191–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cotterall, S. (2008) Autonomy and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 110–120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cotterall, S. and Crabbe, D. (eds) (1999) Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Cotterall, S. and Reinders, H. (2000) Learner’s perceptions and practice in self access language learning. TESOLANZ Journal 8, 23–47. Coxhead, A. (2014) New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary. Revised. Washington: TESOL. Coyle, Y. and Gracia, R. (2014) Using songs to enhance L2 vocabulary acquisition in preschool children. ELTJ 68 (3), 276–285. Crabbe, D. (1993) Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s responsibility. System 21 (4), 443–452.

240

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Ontario: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2001) Negotiating Identities: Education for Empowerment in a Diverse Society (2nd edn). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education. Curry, L. (1983) Learning Style in Continuing Medical Education. Ottawa: Canadian Medical Association. Dalton-Puff er, C. and Smit, U. (2013) Content and language integrated learning: A Research agenda. Language Teaching 46 (4), 545–559. Dam, L. (1995) Autonomy: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dansereau, D. (1978) The development of a learning strategies curriculum. In H.F. O’Neil (Jr) (ed.) Learning Strategies (pp. 1–29). New York: Academic Press. Darvin, R. and Norton, B. (2015) Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 36–56. De Andres, V. (1999) Self-esteem in the classroom or the metamorphosis of butterfl ies. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp. 87–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Bot, K. (2008) Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 166–178. De Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Vespoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1980) The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 13 (pp. 39–80). New York: Academic Press. De Keyser, R. (2009) Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. Long and C. Doughty (eds) Handbook of Second Language Teaching (pp. 119– 138). Oxford: Blackwell. De Keyser, R. and Koeth, J. (2011) Cognitive aptitudes for second language learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Volume 2 (pp. 395–406). New York: Routledge. Derwing, T. and Rossiter, M. (2002) ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System 30 (2), 155–166. De Saussure, F. (1916) Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. De Silva, R. and Graham, S. (2015) The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System 53, 47–59. De Vaus, D. (1995) Surveys in Social Research (4th edn). London: Allen and Unwin. Dewaele, J. (2012) Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Language Learning Psychology: Research, Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 42–57). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Dikilitaş, K. and Griffiths, C. (2017) Developing Teacher Autonomy through Action Research. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Diller, K. (ed.) (1981) Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Doiz, A., Lasagabaster, D. and Sierra, J. (eds) (2012) English-medium of Instruction at Universities: Global Challenges. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Donato, R. (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (1995) On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29 (1), 55–85. Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2003) Questionnaires in Second Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

References

241

Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in language classrooms. Language Teaching 47 (1) 80–91. Dörnyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. New York and London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. and Skehan, P. (2003) Individual differences in second language learning. In  C. Doughty and M. Long (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edn). Harlow: Pearson Longman. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. and Henry, A. (eds) (2015) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dowsett, G. (1986) Interaction in the semi-structured interview. In M. Emery (ed.) Qualitative Research (pp. 51–59). Canberra: Australian Association of Adult Education. Dreyer, C. and Oxford, R. (1996) Learning strategies and other predictors of ESL profi ciency among Africaans speakers in South Africa. In R. Oxford (ed.) Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 61–74). Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre: University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Du, H. (2013) The development of Chinese fluency during study abroad in china. Modern Language Journal 97 (1), 131–143. Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Dunn, R., Dunn, K., and Price, G. (1975) The Learning Style Inventory. Lawrence, KS: Price Systems. Eckman, F., Bell, L. and Nelson, D. (eds) (1984) Universals of Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ehrman, M. (1999) Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp. 68–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrman, M. (2008) Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrman, M. and Leaver, B. (2003) Cognitive styles in the service of language learning. System 31, 393–415. Ehrman, M., Leaver, B. and Oxford, R. (2003) A brief overview of individual diff erences in second language learning. System 31 (3), 313–330. Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73 (1), 1–13. Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1990) Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal 74 (3), 311–327. Ehrman, M. and Oxford, R. (1995) Cognition plus: Correlates of language learning success. The Modern Language Journal 79 (1), 67–89. Eisenstein, M. (1982) A study of social variation in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 32, 367–391. Ellis, G. and Sinclair, B. (1994) Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R (1994) The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

242

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Teaching and Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2006) Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 83–107. Ellis, R. (2008) The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ely, C. (1995) Tolerance of ambiguity and the teaching of ESL. In J. Reid (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 87–95). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Emery, M. (ed.) (1986) Qualitative Research. Canberra: Australian Association of Adult Education. Eslami Rasekh, Z. and Ranjbary, R. (2003) Metacognitive strategy training for vocabulary learning. TESL-EJ 7 (2), writing.berkley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a5.html. Eysenck, H. and Eysenck, S. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. (eds) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London and New York: Longman. Farhady, H. (1982) Measures of language profi ciency from the learner’s perspective. TESOL Quarterly 16, 43–59. Fathman, A. (1975) The relationship between age and second language productive ability. Language Learning 25, 245–253. Federn, P. (1928) Narcissism in the structure of the ego. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 9, 401–419. Finkbeiner, C. (2008) Culture and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 131–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flavell, J. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (ed.) The Nature of Intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fleming, N. and Mills, C. (1992) Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy 11, 137–149. Flower, L. and Hayes, J. (1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication 32, 365–387. Foucault, M. (1961) History of Madness. New York: Routledge. Freeman, D. and Richards, J. (eds) (1996) Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freud, S. (1910) The origin and development of psychoanalysis. American Journal of Psychology 21 (2),196–218. Fries, C. (1945) Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Gao, X. (2007) Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. Applied Linguistics 28 (4), 615–620. Gao, X. (2010) Strategic Language Learning: The Roles of Agency and Context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gao, X. (2013) Reflexive and reflective thinking: A crucial link between agency and automomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 7 (3), 226–237. Gardner, R. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language learning: The Role of Attitude and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1959) Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13, 266–272. Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gardner, R. and MacIntyre, P. (1991) An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 57–72. Gardner, R. and MacIntyre, P. (1993) A student’s contribution to second language learning: Part II, affective factors. Language Teaching 26, 1–11.

References

243

Gass, S. (1991) Grammar instruction, selective attention, and learning processes. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith and M. Swain (eds) Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research (pp. 134–141). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gattegno, C. (1963) Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. Reading: Educational Explorers. Gillam, B. (2000) Case Study Research Methods. London and New York: Continuum. Gkonou. C. (2014) The sociolinguistic parameters of L2 speaking anxiety. In M. Pawlak, J. Bielak and A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak (eds) Classroom-oriented Research: Achievements and Challenges (pp. 15–32). Heidelberg: Springer. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine. Goh, C. (1998) How ESL learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactics. Language Teaching Research 2 (2), 124–147. Grabe, W. (2001) Reading-writing relations: Theoretical perspectives and instructional practices. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (eds) Reading and Writing Relations in L2 Contexts (pp. 15–47). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Grabe, W. and Stoller, F. (2011) Teaching and Researching Reading (2nd edn). Harlow: Pearson Longman. Graham, S. (1997) Effective Language Learning: Positive Strategies for Advanced Level Language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Graham, S. and Macaro, E. (2008) Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning 58 (4), 747–783. Green, D. (2003) The neural basis of the lexicon and the grammar in L2 acquisition. In R. van Hout, A. Hulk, F. Kuiken and R. Towell (eds) The Interface between Syntax and the Lexicon in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Green, J. and Oxford, R. (1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and sex. TESOL Quarterly 29 (2), 261–297. Gregersen, T. and MacIntyre, P. (2014) Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gregg, K. (1984) Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5, 78–100. Gregorc, A. (1979) Learning/teaching styles: Potent forces behind them. Educational Leadership 36, 236–238. Grenfell, M. (2009) Social capital and educational policy. Education, Knowledge and Economy 3 (1), 17–34. Grenfell, M. and Harris, V. (1999) Modern Languages and Learning Strategies: In Theory and Practice. London: Routledge. Grenfell, M. and Macaro, E. (2007) Claims and critiques. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 9–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Griffiths, C. (2002) Using reading as a strategy for teaching and learning language. ERIC Database of Educational Documents. See http://www.ericfacility.org Griffiths, C. (2003a) Patterns of language learning strategy use. System 31, 367–383. Griffiths, C. (2003b) Language Learning Strategy Use and Profi ciency. See http://hdl. handle.net/2292/9 Griffiths, C. (2004) Studying in English: Language skills development. Occasional Paper no. 5. Auckland, New Zealand: Centre for Research in International Education. See http://www.crie.org.nz Griffiths, C. (2006) Strategy development and progress in language learning. Prospect 21 (3), 58–76. Griffiths, C. (ed.) (2008a) Lessons from Good Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C. (2008b) Strategies and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 83–98). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

244

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Griffiths, C. (2008c) Age and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 35–48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C. (2008d) Teaching/learning method and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 255–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C. (2008e) Learning successfully in a target language environment. TESOLANZ Journal, 16, 34–43. Griffiths, C. (2011) The traditional-communicative dichotomy: Defi ning the terms and re-examining the constraints. ELTJournal 65, 300–308. Griffiths, C. (2012) Learning styles: Traversing the quagmire. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice (pp. 151–168). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan. Griffiths, C. (2013) The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning (Ist edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Griffiths, C. (2015) What have we learnt from good language learners? ELTJ 69 (4), 425–433. Griffiths, C. (2016) Strategies for developing English language writing skills – overall and individual perspectives. Asian EFL Journal 18 (3). Griffiths, C. (2018) How individual diff erences relate to successful strategy use: Selfregulated language learners round the world. In R. Oxford and C. Amerstorfer (eds) Situated Strategy Use: Language Learning Strategies and Individual Learner Characteristics (pp. 55–73). London: Bloomsbury. Griffiths, C. and Cansiz, G. (2015) Language learning strategies: An holistic view. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5 (3), 475–495. Griffiths, C. and Inceçay, G. (2016a) Styles and style-stretching: How are they related to successful learning? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 45 (3), 599–613. Griffiths, C. and Inceçay, G. (2016b) New directions in language learning strategy research: Engaging with the complexities of strategy use. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learning Psychology. Heidelberg: Springer. Griffiths, C. and Özgür, B. (2013) Second language motivation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 70, 1109–1114. Griffiths, C. and Parr, J. (2000) Language learning strategies, nationality, independence and proficiency. Independence 28, 7–10. Griffiths, C. and Parr, J. (2001a) Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT Journal 55 (3), 247–254. Griffiths, C. and Parr, J. (2001b) Strategies for success: How language learning strategies relate to proficiency in language learning. Many Voices 17, 27–31. Griffiths, C., Oxford, R., Kawai, Y., Kawai, C., Park, Y., Ma, X., Meng, Y. and Yang, N. (2014) Focus on context: Narratives from East Asia. System 43, 50–63. Grigorenko, E., Sternberg, R. and Ehrman, M. (2000) A theory-based approach to the measurement of foreign language learning ability: The CANAL_F theory and test. Modern Language Journal 84, 390–405. Grundy, P. (1999) From model to muddle. ELT Journal 53 (1), 54–55. Gruneburg, M. (1987) Linkword French, German, Spanish, Italian. London: Corgi Books. Gu, Y. (1996) Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 6, 1–29. Gu, Y. (2002) Gender, academic major and vocabulary learning strategies of Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal 33 (1), 35–54. Gu, Y. (2012) Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (4), 330–356. Gu, Y. (2014) To code or not to code: Dilemmas in analysing think-aloud protocols in learning strategies research. System 43, 74–81.

References

245

Gu, Y., Wen, Q. and Wu, D. (1995) How often is Often? Reference ambiguities of the Likert-scale in language learning strategy research. Occasional Papers in English Language Teaching 5, 19–35. ELT Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Guiora, A., Brannon, R. and Dull, C. (1972) Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning 22 (1), 111–130. Halliday, M. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language’. London: Edward Arnold. Harish, S. (2014) Social strategy use and language learning contexts: A case study of Malayalee undergraduate students in India. System 43, 64–73. Harley, B. (1986) Age in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Harley, B., Allen, P., Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (eds) (1990) The Development of Second Language Proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harmer, J. (1995) Taming the big ‘I’: Teacher performance and student satisfaction. ELT Journal 49 (4), 337–345. Harmer, J. (2012) Essential Teacher Knowledge: Core Concepts in English Language Teaching. Harlow: Pearson. Harris, V. (2001) Helping Learners Learn: Exploring Strategy Instruction in Language Classrooms across Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Hartmann, E. (1991) Boundaries in the Mind: A New Psychology of Personality. New York: Basic Books. Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye, G., Smith, P. and Vanderplank, R. (2005) Strategy training in language learning – a systematic review of available research. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/ cms/Default.aspx?tabid=296 Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Newbury Park: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hogan, R. (1969) Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33, 307–316. Holec, H. (1979) Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Holliday, A. (2007) Doing and Writing Qualitative Research (2nd edn). Los Angeles: Sage. Honey, P. and Mumford, A. (1982) The Manual of Learning Styles. Maidenhead: Peter Honey Publications. Horwitz, E. (1987) Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 119–132). London: Prentice Hall. Horwitz, E. (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal 72 (3), 283–294. Horwitz, E. (1999) Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System 27, 557–576. Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70 (2), 125–132. Hosenfeld, C. (1976) Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals 9, 117–129. Hosenfeld, C. (1977) A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and non-successful second language learners. System 5 (2), 110–213. Hu, H. and Nassaji, H. (2014) Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System 45, 27–38. Huang, J. (2011) A dynamic account of autonomy, agency and identity in (T)EFL learning. In G. Murray, X. Gao and T. Lamb (eds) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 229–246). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

246

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Huang, J. and Benson, P. (2013) Autonomy, Agency and Identity in foreign and second language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 36 (1), 17–28. Huang, X. and van Naerssen, M. (1987) Learning strategies for oral communication. Applied Linguistics 8 (3), 287–307. Hutchinson, T. and Waters, A. (1987) English for Specifi c Purposes: A Learning-Centred Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K. (2016) Teaching and Researching Writing (3rd edn). New York: Routledge. Hyltenstam, K. and Abrahamsson, N. (2003) Maturational constraints in SLA. In C.  Doughty and M. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hyltenstam, K. and Pienemann, M. (eds) (1985) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hymes, D. (1972) On communicative competence. In J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ikeda, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2003) Can strategy instruction help ESL learners to improve their reading ability? An empirical study. JACET Bulletin 37, 49–60. Ioup, G., Boustagui, E., El Tigi, M. and Moselle, M. (1994) Reexamining the critical period hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16, 73–98. Irie, K. and Ryan, S. (2015) Study abroad and the dynamics of change in learner L2 selfconcept. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 343–366). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2003) Development of oral communication skills abroad. Frontiers 9, 149–173. Jamieson, S. (2004) Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education 38, 1212–1218. Jenkins, J. (2007) English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. (2012) English as a Lingua Franca: From the classroom to the classroom. ELT Journal 66 (4), 486–494. Jones, J. (1995) Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal 49 (3), 228–234. Juffs, A. and Harrington, M. (2011) Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching 44 (2), 137–166. Jung, C. (1921) Psychological Types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A., Aro, M. and Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2015) Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Kaplan, R. (1966) Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language Learning 16 (1), 1–20. Kasper, G. and Rose, K. (2002) Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kawai, Y. (2008) Speaking and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 218–230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keblowska, M. (2012) The place of affect in second language acquisition. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 157–168). Berlin: Springer. Kelly, G. (2000) How to Teach Pronunciation. Harlow: Longman. Khoii, R. and Sharifi far, S. (2013) Memorization versus semantic mapping in L2 vocabulary acquisition. ELT J 67 (2), 199–209. Kim, H. (2014) Learner investment, identity, and resistance to second language pragmatic norms. System 45, 92–102. Kinsella, C. and Singleton, D. (2014) Much more than age. Applied Linguistics 35 (4), 441–462.

References

247

Kinsella, K. (1995) Understanding and empowering diverse learners. In J. Reid (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 170–195). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Kiziltepe, Z. (2003) Considering gender with attitudes and motivation of EFL students. Education and Science 28 (130), 75–82. Kline, R. (1998) Literacy and language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers 4, 139–163. Kolb, D. (1976) The Learning Style Inventory: Self-scoring Test and Interpretation. Boston: McBer and Company. Kormos, J. and Csizér, K. (2013) The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in diff erent learner groups. TESOL Quarterly Online. Krashen, S. (1976) Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10, 157–168. Krashen, S. (1977) Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H.D. Brown, C. Yorio and R. Crymes (eds) On TESOL ‘77 (pp. 144–158). Washington DC: TESOL. Krashen, S. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Krashen, S. (2004) The Power of Reading: Insights from Research (2nd edn). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1983) The Natural Approach. Hayward, California: Hayward Press. Kuhl, J. (1984) Volitional aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: Toward a comprehensive theory of action control. In B. Maher and W. Maher (eds) Progress in Experimental Personality Research (pp. 101–171). Orlando: Academic Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001) Towards a postmethod methodology. TESOL Quarterly 35, 537–560. Kyungsim, H. and Leavell, A. (2006) Language learning strategy use of ESL students in an intensive English learning context. System 34 (3), 399–4151. Labov, W. (1972) Sociolingustic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Lado, R. (1957) Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor. Lado, R. and Fries, C. (1967) English Pattern Practices: Establishing the Patterns as Habits. Michigan, USA: University of Michigan Press. Lam, W. and Wong, J. (2000) The effects of strategy training on developing discussion skills in an ESL classroom. ELT Journal 54 (3), 245–255. Landsberger, H. (1958) Hawthorne Revisited. New York: Ithaca. Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000a) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. (2000b) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S. and Poehner, M. (2015) Second language development. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd edn; pp. 207–227). New York and London: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1987) From unity to diversity: Twenty-five years of language-teaching methodology. Forum 25 (4), 2–10. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991) Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL Quarterly 25 (2), 315–350. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18 (2), 141–165.

248

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001) Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 12–23). Harlow: Longman. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) From Grammar to Grammaring. Boston, USA: Heinle and Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005) A critical analysis of postmethod. ILI Language Teaching Journal 1 (1), 21–25. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015) Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman. Lavine, R. (2001) Beyond the Boundaries: Changing Contexts in Language Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leaver, B.L. (2003) Achieving Native-like Second Language Proficiency: A Catalogue of Critical Factors. Vol. 1: Speaking. Salinas, CA: MSI Press. Lee, C. (2016) Understanding refusal style and pragmatic competence of teenage Cantonese English learners in refusals: An exploratory study. Intercultural Pragmatics 13 (2), 257–282. Legato, M. (2005) Why Men Never Remember and Women Never Forget. New York: Rodale. Lei, Xiao (2008) Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing strategies. Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 217–236. Lenneberg, E. (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. Leont’ev, A. (1978) Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lewis, M. (1993) Lexical Approach: The State of Elt and the Way Forward. UK: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1997) Implementing the Lexical Approach. UK: Language Teaching Publications. Li, S. (2016) The construct validity of language aptitude: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38, 801–842. Lichtman, M. (2014) Qualitative Research for the Social Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2006) How Languages Are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Likert, R. (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140, 1–55. Little, D. (1999) Learner autonomy is more than a western cultural concept. In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds) Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change (pp. 11–18) Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Little, D., Dam, L. and Legenhausen, L. (2017) Language Learner Autonomy: Theory Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Littlemore, J. (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littlewood, W. (1984) Foreign and Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littlewood, W. (2001) Students’ attitudes towards classroom English learning: A crosscultural study. Language Teaching Research 5 (1), 3–28.

References

249

Littlewood, W. (2012) Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching 45, 1–14. Lo Bianco, J., Orton, J. and Yihong, G. (eds) (2009) China and English: Globalisation and the Dilemmas of Identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. LoCastro, V. (1994) Learning strategies and learning environments. TESOL Quarterly 28 (2), 409–414. Long, M. (1990) Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 251–285. Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. William and B. Tej (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413– 468). San Diego: Academic Press. Lozanov, G. (1978) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach. Lunt, H. (2000) The learning strategies of adult immigrant learners of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis: University of Melbourne, Australia. Macaro, E. (2001) Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London and New York: Continuum. Macaro, E. (2006) Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal 90 (3), 320–337. Macaro, E. and Erler, L. (2008) Raising the achievement of young-beginner readers of French through strategy instruction. Applied Linguistics 29 (1), 90–119. MacIntyre, P. (1994) Towards a social psychological model of language use. Foreign Language Annals 27, 185–195. MacIntyre, P. and Charos, C. (1996) Personality, attitudes and aff ect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 15, 3–26. Mackey, A. and Philp, J. (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal 82 (3), 299–307. Mahmoodzadeh, M. and Gkonou, C. (2015) A complexity dynamic systems perspective on foreign language anxiety. Konin Language Studies 3 (1), 89–108. Manoli, P., Papadopoulou, M. and Metallidou, P. (2016) Investigating the immediate and delayed effects of multiple-reading strategy instruction in primary EFL classrooms. System 56 (1), 54–65. Manchon, R., Roca de Larios, J. Murphy, L. (2007) A review of writing strategies: Focus on conceptualizations and impact of first language. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 229–250). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Marinova-Todd, S. (2003) Comprehensive analysis of ultimate attainment in adult second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Masuda, K. (2011) Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese Language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. The Modern Language Journal 95, 519–540. McCrae, R. and John, O. (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60 (2), 175–215. McCroskey, J. and Richmond, V. (1987) Willingness to communicate. In J. McCroskey and J. Daly (eds) Personality and Interpersonal Communication (pp. 129–156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McLaughlin, B. (1978) The Monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning 28, 309–32. McLaughlin, B. (1990) ‘Conscious’ versus ‘unconscious’ learning. TESOL Quarterly 24 (4), 617–634. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T. and McLeod, B. (1983) Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning 33 (2), 135–158.

250 The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

McMullen, M. (2009) Using language learning strategies to improve the writing skills of Saudi EFL students: Will it really work? System 37 (3), 418–433. Mehrabian, A. and Epstein, N. (1972) A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality 40, 525–543. Mendelson, V. (2004) ‘Hindsight is 20/20:’ Student perceptions of language learning and the study abroad experience. Frontiers 10, 43–63. Mercer, S. (2011) Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept. Berlin: Springer. Mercer, S. (2012) Self-concept: Situating the self. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Language Learning Psychology: Research, Theory and Pedagogy (pp. 10–25). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mercer, S. (2014) The self from a complexity perspective. In S. Mercer and M. Williams (eds) Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Miller, J. (2003) Audible Difference: ESL and Social Identity in Schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Moir, J. and Nation, P. (2002) Learners’ use of strategies for effective vocabulary learning. Prospect 17 (1), 15–35. Moir, J. and Nation, P. (2008) Vocabulary and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 159–173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mokuedi Magogwe, J. and Oliver, R. (2007) The relationship between language learning strategies, proficiency, age and self-efficacy beliefs: A study of language learners in Botswana. System 35 (3), 338–352. Mora, J. and Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012) Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly 46 (4), 610–641. Morgan, B. and Clarke, M. (2011) Identity in second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (2nd edn; pp. 817–836). New York: Routledge. Moyer, A. (2009) Input as a critical means to an end: Quantity and quality of experience in L2 phonological attainment. In T. Piske and M. Young-Scholten (eds) Input Matters in SLA (pp. 159–174). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Moyer, A. (2014) Exceptional outcomes in L2 phonology: The critical factors of learner engagement and self-regulation. Applied Linguistics 35 (4), 418–440. Muñoz, C. and Singleton, D. (2007) Foreign accent in advanced learners: Two successful profi les. The EUROSLA Yearbook 7, 171–190. Muñoz, C. and Singleton, D. (2011) A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment. Language Teaching 44 (1), 1–35. Murray, G. (ed.) (2014) Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Murray, G., Gao, X. and Lamb, T. (2011) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Myers, E. (1962) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. and Todesco, A. (1978) The Good Language Learner. Research in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Nakatani, Y. (2005) The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal 89 (1), 76–91. Nation, I.S.P. (1990) Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Nation, I.S.P. (2008) Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Nation, I.S.P. (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. New York: Routledge. Nation, I.S.P. (2013) Learning Vocabulary in another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

251

Nation, R. and Mclaughlin, B. (1986) Novices and experts: An information processing approach to the ‘good language learner’ problem. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 41–55. Nel, C. (2008) Learning style and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 49–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neufeld, G. (1978) On the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features in adult language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review 32 (2), 163–174. Noels, K., Pelletier, L., Clement, R. and Vallerand, R. (2000) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50, 57–85. Norton, B. (1997) Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 31 (3), 409–427. Norton, B. (2000) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. Harlow: Longman. Norton, B. (2010) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change. Second edition. London: Longman/Pearson. Norton, B. (2013) Identity and language learning: Extending the Conversation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Norton, B. (2014) Identity and poststructuralist theory in SLA. In S. Mercer and M. Williams (eds) Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA (pp. 59–74). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Norton Peirce, B. (1995) Social identity, investment and language learning. TESOL Quarterly 29, 9–31. Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2001) Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly 35 (2), 307–322. Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2011) Identity, language learning and social change. Language Teaching 44 (4), 412–446. Nunan, D. (1988) The Learner-Centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1991) Language Teaching Methodology. New York: Phoenix. Nunan, D. (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1995) Learner strategy training in the classroom: A case study. Unpublished paper. Nunan, D. (1999) The Very First Day of the Rest of my Life. TESOL Matters 9 (2), 3. Nunan, D. (2000) Seven hypotheses about language teaching and learning. TESOL Matters 10 (2), 1, 8. Nunan, D. (2004) Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. and Choi, J. (2010) Language, culture and identity: Framing the issues. In D. Nunan and J. Choi (eds) Language and Culture: Refl ective narratives and the Emergence of Identity (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nyikos, M. (1987) The effects of color and imagery as mnemonic strategies on learning and retention of lexical items in German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Nyikos, M. (1990) Sex related differences in adult language learning: Socialisation and memory factors. Modern Language Journal 3, 273–287. Nyikos, M. (2008) Gender and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 73–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nyikos, M. and Fan, M. (2007) A review of vocabulary learning strategies: Focus on language proficiency and learner voice. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language learner Strategies (pp. 251–274). Oxford, Oxford University Press. Nyikos, M. and Oxford, R. (1993) A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social psychology. The Modern Language Journal 77, 11–22.

252

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

O’Malley, J.M. (1987) The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on learning English as a second language. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 133–143). Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. O’Malley, J.M. and Chamot, A. (1990) Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J.M., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. and Russo, R. (1985) Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning 35 (1), 21–46. O’Neil, H. (ed.) (1978) Learning Strategies. New York: Academic Press. Oxford, R. (1989a) Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System 17 (2), 235–247. Oxford, R. (1989b) ‘The best and the worst’: An exercise to tap perceptions of languagelearning experiences and strategies. Foreign Language Annals 22 (5), 447–454. Oxford, R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House. Oxford, R. (1993) Style Analysis Survey (SAS). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama. Oxford, R. (1996) Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language learning strategies. Applied Language Learning 7 (1) and (2), 25–45. Oxford, R. (ed.) (1996a) Language Learning Strategies around the World: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre: University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Oxford, R. (1999) Anxiety and the language learner: New insights. In J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (2001) The bleached bones of a story: Learners’ constructions of language teachers. In M. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 86–111). Harlow: Longman. Oxford, R. (2011a) Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Oxford, R. (2011b) Research timeline: Strategies for learning a second or foreign language. Language Teaching 44 (2), 167–180. Oxford, R. (2017) Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: SelfRegulation in Context (2nd edn). New York: Routledge. Oxford, R. and Burry-Stock, J. (1995) Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System 25 (1), 1–23. Oxford, R. and Cohen, A. (1992) Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning 3 (1) and (2), 1–35. Oxford, R. and Crookall, D. (1989) Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal 73 (iv), 404–419. Oxford, R., Lavine, R. and Crookall, D. (1989) Language learning strategies: The communicative approach and their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals 22 (1), 29–39. Oxford, R., Lee, K. and Park, G. (2007) L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and beyond. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 117–140). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford, R and Lee, K. (2008) The learners’ landscape and journey: A summary. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 306–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. and Nyikos, M. (1989) Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal 73 (iii), 291–300. Oxford, R., Nyikos, M. and Ehrman, M. (1988) Vive la difference? Reflections on sex diff erences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 21, 321–329.

References

253

Oxford, R., Griffiths, C., Longhini, A., Cohen, A., Macaro, E. and Harris, V. (2014) Experts’ personal metaphors and similies about language learning strategies. System 43, 11–29. Oxford, R., Rubin, J., Chamot, A., Schramm, K., Lavine, R., Gunning, P. and Nel, C. (2014) The learning strategy prism: Perspectives of learning strategy experts. System 43, 30–49. Oyama, S. (1976) A sensitive period in the acquisition of a non-native phonological system. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 5, 261–285. Paradis, M. (2004) A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Bejamins. Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (eds) (2003) Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re) construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pawlak, M. (ed.) (2012a) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching. Berlin: Springer. Pawlak, M. (2012b) Instructional mode and the use of grammar learning strategies. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 263–287). Berlin: Springer. Pawlak and Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015) Investigating the use of writing strategies by advanced learners of English: Results of a study. Konin Language Studies 3 (1), 109–126. Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. and Bielak, J. (eds) (2017) Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources. Berlin: Springer. Pearson, E. (1988) Learner strategies and learner interviews. ELT Journal 42 (3), 173–178. Pellegrino, V. (1998) Student perspectives on language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers 4, 91–120. Pemberton, R. (1996) The learner and the learning process. In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or and H. Pierson (eds) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 59–60). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pemberton, R., Li, E., Or, W. and Pierson, H. (eds) (1996) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Penfield, W. and Roberts, L. (1959) Speech and Brain Mechanisms. London: Hodder Education. Pennycook, A. (1997) Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 35–53). London and New York: Longman. Perani, D. and Abutalebi, J. (2005) The neural basis of fi rst and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15 (2), 202–206. Peterson, E., Rayner, S. and Armstrong, S. (2009) Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: Is there really a future? Learning and Individual Differences 19 (4), 518–523. Phillipson, R., Kellerman, E., Selinker, L., Sharwood-Smith, M. and Swain, M. (eds) (1991) Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, M. (1984) Psychological constrains on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 186–214. Pienemann, M. (1985) Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam and M. Pienemann (eds) Modelling and Assessing Second Language Acquisition (pp. 23–75). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Pienemann, M. (1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics 10, 52–79.

254 The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Pierson, H. (1996) Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context. In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or and H. Pierson (eds) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 49–58). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pietrzykowska, A. (2014) The relationship between learning strategies and speaking performance. In M. Pawlak, J. Bielak and A. Mystkowska-Wiertelak (eds) Classroomoriented Research: Achievements and Challenges (pp. 55–68). Heidelberg: Springer. Pimsleur, P. (1966) Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovic. Pintrich, P., Smith, D., Garcia, T. and McKeachie, W. (1991) A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Plonsky, L. (2011) The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A metaanalysis. Language Learning 61 (4), 993–1038. Plonsky, L. and Oswald (2014) How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research. Language Learning 64 (4), 878–912. Politzer, R. (1983) An exploratory study of self reported language learning behaviours and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 54–65. Politzer, R. and McGroarty, M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviours and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19, 103–123. Porte, G. (1988) Poor language learners and their strategies for dealing with new vocabulary. ELT Journal 42 (3), 167–171. Purpura, J. (1999) Learner Strategy Use and Performance on Language Tests: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Purpura, J. (2014) Language learner styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. Brinton and A. Snow (eds) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (4th edn; pp. 532–549). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning. Ranalli, J. (2012) Alternative models of self-regulation and implications for L2 strategy research. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (4), 357–376. Ranta, L. (2008) Aptitude and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 142–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rees-Miller, J. (1993) A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4) 679–687. Regan, V. (1998) Sociolinguistics and language learning in a study abroad context. Frontiers 4, 61–89. Reichle, R. (2010) Judgments of information structure in L2 French: Nativelike performance and the Critical Period Hypothesis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48 (1), 53–85. Reid, J. (1987) The learning style preferences of ESL students. TESOL Quarterly 21 (1), 87–111. Reid, J (1990) The dirty laundry of ESL survey research. TESOL Quarterly 21 (2), 323–338. Reid, J. (ed.) (1995) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Reid, J. (ed.) (1998a) Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Reid, J. (1998b) Preface. In J. Reid (ed.) Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Classroom (pp. ix–xiv). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Richards, J. (1994) The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. (1996) Teachers’ maxims in language learning. TESOL Quarterly 30 (2), 281–296. Richards, J. (2006) Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

255

Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (2010) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (4th edn). Harlow: Longman. Riding, R. (2000) Cognitive style: A strategic approach for advancement. In R. Riding and S. Rayner (eds) Interpersonal Perspectives on Individual Differences (Vol. 1: Cognitive styles, pp. 365–377). Stamford, CT: Ablex. Riding, R. and Rayner, S. (1998) Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies. London: David Fulton. Rigney, J. (1978) Learning strategies: A theoretical perspective. In H. O’Neil, Jr (ed.) Learning Strategies (pp. 165–205). New York: Academic Press. Rinvolucri, M. (2007) Humanising Your Coursebook. New Delhi, India: Viva Books. Robinson, P. (2012) Individual differences, aptitude complexes, SLA processes and aptitude test development. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 57–76). Berlin: Springer. Roebuck, R. (2000) Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning (pp. 79–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roever, C. and Al-Gahtani, S. (2015) The development of ESL proficiency and pragmatic performance. ELTJ 69 (4), 395–404. Rokoszewsk, K. (2012) The influence of pronunciation learning strategies on mastering English vowels. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2 (3), 391–413. Rose, H. (2012) Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics 33 (1), 92–98. Rose, K. and Kasper, G. (eds) (2001) Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossi-Le, L. (1995) Learning styles and strategies in adult immigrant ESL students. In J. Reid (ed.) Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom (pp. 118–127). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Rubin, J. (1975) What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9 (1), 41–51. Rubin, J. (1981) Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 117–131. Rubin, J. (1987) Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 15–19). Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rubin, J. and Thompson, I. (1994) How to be a More Successful Language Learner (2nd edn). Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic defi nitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67. Ryan, S. and Irie, K. (2014) Imagined and possible selves: Stories we tell ourselves about ourselves. In S. Mercer and M. Williams (eds) Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA (pp. 109–126). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Savić, M. (2015) ‘Can I very please borrow it?’ Request development in young Norwegian EFL learners. Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (4), 443–480. Savignon, S. (1991) Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly 25 (2), 261–278. Schmidt, R. (1983) Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 137–174). New York: Newbury House. Schmidt, R. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 129–158. Schmitt, N. (2000) Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

256 The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Schmitt, N. (ed.) (2002) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics. London: Edward Arnold. Schmitt, N. (2010) Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Schmitt, N. and Celce-Murcia, M. (2002) An overview of applied linguistics. In N. Schmitt (ed.) An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 1–18). London: Edward Arnold. Schramm, K. (2008) Reading and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 231–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schumann, J. (1975) Affective factors and the problem of age in second language acquisition. Language Learning 25, 209–235. Schumann, J. (1976) Second language acquisition: The pidginisation hypothesis. Language Learning 26 (2), 391–408. Schumann, J. (1978) The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.  Gingras (ed.) Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. (2000) Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Scovel, T. (1978) The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning 28, 129–142. Seidlehofer, B. (2004) Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239. Seidlehofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seliger, H. (1984) Processing universals in second language acquisition. In F. Eckman, L. Bell and D. Nelson (eds) Universals of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 36–47). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Seligman, M. (1975) Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. Selinker, L. (1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–230. Serrano, R., Llanes, A. and Tragant, E. (2016) Examining L2 development in two shortterm intensive programs for teenagers: Study abroad vs. ‘at home’. System 57 (1), 43–54. Sharwood Smith, M. (1994) Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations. London and New York: Longman. Sheorey, R. (1999) An examination of language learning strategy use in the setting of an indigenized variety of English. System 27 (2), 173–190. Si, J. and Kim, D. (2011) How do instructional sequencing methods affect cognitive load, learning transfer, and learning time? Educational Research 2 (8), 1362–1372. Siegel, J. and Siegel, A. (2015) Getting to the bottom of L2 listening instruction: Making a case for bottom-up activities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 5 (4), 637–662. Simmons, D. (1996) A study of strategy use in independent learners. In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or and H. Pierson (eds) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 61–76). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Singleton, D. (1989) Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Singleton, D. and Lesniewska, J. (2012) Age and SLA: Research highways and bye-ways. In M. Pawlak (ed.) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 97–117). Berlin: Springer. Singleton, D. and Munoz, C. (2011) Around and beyond the critical period hypothesis. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Volume 2 (pp. 407–425). New York: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.

References

257

Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skinner, B.F. (1938) Behavior of Organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B. (1957) Verbal Behaviour. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skyrme, G. (2005) English as cultural capital in the decision to study abroad: ‘I want to show my English is very good’. Paper presented at the conference on Value of English for Asian students and ‘added value’ of studying in New Zealand, University of Auckland, October 2005. Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978) The critical period for language acquisition: Evidence from language learning. Child Development 49, 1119–1128. Snow, R. (1987) Aptitude complex. In R. Snow and M. Farr (eds) Aptitude, Learning and Instruction (pp. 11–34). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Soruç, A. and Griffiths, C. (2015) Identity and the spoken grammar dilemma. System 50, 32–42. Spada, N. (2007) Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) International Handbook of English Language Teaching, 15 (pp. 271–288). Berlin: Springer. Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 34, 304–318. Stern, H. (1980) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stern, H. (1992) Issues and Options in Language Teaching (edited posthumously by P. Allen and B. Harley). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stowe, L. and Sabourin, L. (2005) Imaging the processing of a second language: Effects of maturation and proficiency on the neural processes involved. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43 (4), 329–353. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sturtridge, G. (1997) Teaching and language learning in self-access centres: Changing roles?. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 66–78). London and New York: Longman. Sunderland, J. (1998) Girls being quiet: A problem for foreign language classrooms. Language Teaching Research 2 (1), 48–82. Sunderland, J. (2000) New understandings of gender and language classroom research: Texts, teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research 4 (2) 149–173. Swain, M. (1981) Time and timing in bilingual education. Language Learning 31, 1–6. Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds) Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Swain, M. (2000) The output hypothesis and beyond. In J. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sweller, J. (1988) Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12 (2), 257–285. Tajeddin, Z. (2005) A critique of the inception and premises of the postmethod paradigm. ILI Language Teaching Journal 1 (1), 1–14. Tajeddin, Z. (2008) Functions and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 185–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C. and Coyle, D. (2007) Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situational and group diff erences. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 69–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

258 The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Talandis, G. and Stout, M. (2015) Getting EFL students to speak. ELTJ 69 (1), 11–25. Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003) Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal 25 (1), 63–85. Tang, H. and Moore, D. (1992) Effects of cognitive and metacognitive pre-reading activities on the reading comprehension of ESL learners. Educational Psychology 12 (3) and (4), 315–331. Tang, Y. and Griffiths, C. (2014) The Keys to Highly Effective English Learning. Shenzhen: Jiangxi Education Publishing House. Tarone, E. (1980) Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30 (2), 417–429. Tarone, E. (1981) Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly 15 (3), 285–295. Tarone, E. and Yule, G. (1989) Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tatzl, D. (2016) A systemic view of learner autonomy. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learner Psychology (pp. 39–54). Heidelberg: Springer. Thornbury, S. (1999) How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman. Toohey, K. (2000) Learning English at School: Identity, Social Relations and Classroom Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Toohey, K. and Norton, B. (2010) Language learner identities and sociocultural worlds. In R. Kaplan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 178–188). New York: Oxford University Press. Tran, T. (1988) Sex differences in English language acculturation and learning strategies among Vietnamese adults aged 40 and over in the United States. Sex Roles 19, 747–758. Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z. and Schmitt, N. (2006) A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics 27 (1), 78–102. Turner, J. (1993) Using Likert scales in L2 research. TESOL Quarterly 27 (4), 736–739. Ullman, M. (2004) Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92 (1), 231–270. Ushioda, E. (2008) Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ushioda, E. (2015) Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Usuki, M. (2000) A new understanding of Japanese students’ views on classroom learning, Independence 27, 2–6. Vandergrift, L. (1997) The Cinderella of communication strategies: Receptive strategies in interactive listening. Modern Language Journal 81 (4), 494–505. Vandergrift, L. (2003) Orchestrating strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled language listener. Language Learning 53 (3), 463–496. Vandergrift, L. and Tafaghodatari, M. (2010) Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning 60 (2), 470–497. Van Houtte, M. (2004) Why boys achieve less at school than girls: The difference between boys’ and girls’ academic culture. Educational Studies 30 (2), 159–173. Vann, R. and Abraham, R. (1990) Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly 24 (2), 177–198. VanPatten, B. and Williams, J. (2015) Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd edn). New York and London: Routledge. Voller, P. (1997) Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning? In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 98–113). London and New York: Longman.

References

259

Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wach, A. (2016) L1–based strategies in learning the grammar of L2 English and L3 Russian by Polish learners. System 61, 65–74. Watson, J. (1913) Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review 20: 158–177. Watson, J. (1930) Behaviourism. New York: Norton. Webb, S. and Chang A. (2015) Second language vocabulary learning through extensive reading with audio support: How do frequency and distribution of occurrence affect learning? Language Teaching Research 19 (6), 667–686. Weiner, B. (1974) Achievement Motivation and Attribution Theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievement, motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92, 548–573. Weinstein, C. (1978) Elaboration skills as a learning strategy. In H. O’Neil, Jr (ed.) Learning Strategies (pp. 30–62). New York: Academic Press. Wenden, A. (1985) Learner strategies. TESOL Newsletter 19 (5), 1–7. Wenden, A. (1987a) Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 159–167). Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. (1987b) How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds) Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 103–117). Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. (1991) Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. (1998) Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19, 515–537. Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds) (1987) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wesche, M. (1977) Learning behaviours of successful adult students on intensive language training. In C. Henning (ed.) Proceedings of the Los Angeles Second Language Research Forum (pp. 355–370). English Department, University of California at Los Angeles. Wesche, M. (1981) Language aptitude measures in streaming, matching students with methods, and diagnosis of learning problems. In K. Diller (ed.) Differences and Universals in Language Learning Aptitude (pp. 119–154). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. White, C. (1989) Negotiating communicative language learning in a traditional setting. ELT Journal 43 (3), 213–220. White, C. (1993) Strategy use in foreign language learning: A comparative study. Unpublished doctoral thesis: Massey University, Palmerston Nth, NZ. White, C. (1999) Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System 27, 443–457. White, C. (2003) Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, C. (2008a) Beliefs and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 121–130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, G. (2008b) Listening and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (ed.) Lessons from Good Language Learners (pp. 208–217). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, C., Schramm, K. and Chamot, A. (2007) Research methods in strategy research: Re-examining the toolbox. In A. Cohen and E. Macaro (eds) Language Learner Strategies (pp. 93–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (1978) Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

260

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

Widdowson, H. (1990) Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkins, D. (1972) Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold. Wilkins, D. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, S. (1998) On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant perspectives. Frontiers 4 (5), 121–138. Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Willing, K. (1987) Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Willing, K. (1989) Teaching How to Learn: Learning Strategies in ESL. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Winitz, H. (ed.) (1981) Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Winne, P. (1995) Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist 30, 173–187. Witkin, H. (1962) Psychological Differentiation. New York: Wiley. Witkin, H. (1971) Embedded Figures Test. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden. Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds) (1983) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House. Wong Fillmore, L. (1982) The language learner as an individual: Implications of research in individual differences for the ESL teacher. In M. Clarke and J. Handscombe (eds) On TESOL (pp. 157–171). Washington: TESOL. Wong, L. and Nunan, D. (2011) The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System 39 (2), 144–163. Woodrow, L. (2005) The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 38 (1), 90–98. Woods, D. (1996) Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-Making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yanmaz, S. (2015) The effects of extensive reading on enhancing reading comprehension, vocabulary recognition, grammar competence and attitudes of the A1 level learners of English. (Unpublished MA dissertation). Cyprus International University, Nicosia, Cyprus. Yashima, T. (2012) Willingness to communicate: Momentary volition that results in L2 behaviour. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Psychology for Language Learning (pp. 119–135). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Yeldham, M. and Gruba, P. (2016) The development of individual learners in an L2 listening strategies course. Language Teaching Research 20 (1), 9–34. Young, D. and Oxford, R. (1997) A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process written input in the native language and a foreign language. Applied Language Learning 8 (1), 26–43. Zhong, Q. (2015) Changes in two migrant learners’ beliefs, learning strategy use and language achievements in a New Zealand context. System 53, 107–118. Zimmerman, B. and Risemberg, R. (1997) Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. Phye (ed.) Handbook of Academic Learning (pp. 105–125). San Diego: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. and Schunk, D. (eds) (2011) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. New York: Routledge.

Index

Acculturation Model, 55, 59 Acquisition/learning Hypothesis, 4, 5, 164, 180, 191 Activity Theory, 11, 54 Additional language, 4 Additive language, 4 Affect/Affective, 43–46, 157–159, 188–189 Age, 30–32, 107–108, 153, 187 Agency, 9, 41, 57, 58 ANOVA, 73, 81 Anxiety, 44, 158, 159 Aptitude, 42, 53, 157, 188 Army method, 49 Attitude, 44, 158 Attribution, 44 Audiolingualism, 49, 163–164 Automatic, 13, 19 Autonomy, 39–40, 155–156, 187–188

Cognition/cognitive, 62, 101–102, 163–164 Cognitive load, 53 Cognitive style, 53 Cognitivism, 50–53 Communication strategy, 17, 18, 61 Communicative Competence, 54 Compensation strategy, 17, 18, 61 Complex Systems/chaos Theory, 57–58 Comprehensible input, 56, 164 Confidence, 45, 122, 128, 184–185 Consciousness, 11–12 Context/environment/situation, 13, 21–23, 32, 39, 42 Contrastive analysis, 27, 53–55, 110–112 Contrastive rhetoric, 27 Core strategies, 99–100, 183, 184 Core-plus strategies, 100–101 Correlation, 73, 76–77, 82, 83 CPH/Critical Period Hypothesis, 30–31 Cultural capital, 46 Culture, 27–29, 105–106 Culture shock, 31

BALLI/Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory, 41 Base strategies, 99–100, 181–182, 184 Behaviourism, 48–49 Belief, 41–42, 156–157, 188 Big Five Model, 35

Deliberate, 13, 19 Dictionary, 18, 67, 111, 117, 178, 185 Difference, 77–80, 83 Dimensions of variation, 8, 20, 88, 208 Distance learning, 13, 22, 32, 189, 190 Dynamic Systems Theory, 58–59

CALLA/Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach, 52, 172 CANAL-F/Cognitive Ability for Novelty in Acquisition of LanguageForeign, 43 Case study, 71 CBI/Content-based instruction, 14 Choice, 11–15 CLIL/Content and language integrated learning, 14 CLT/Communicative language teaching, 54, 165 Code switch, 51 Cognate, 17–18

Eclecticism/eclectic, 58–59, 166, 180 Effect size, 83–85 EFL/English as a foreign language, 3, 5, 6, 22 Ego boundary, 45, 204 ELLSI/English Language Learning Strategy Inventory, 10, 67–68, 115–121 261

262

The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning

EMI/English as a medium of instruction, 14 Empathy, 45, 158 Error/mistake, 50–53, 164, 176 ESL/English as a second language, 22 ESP/English for specific purposes, 14 Ethics, 65 Ethnicity, 27, 105 Ethnography, 72 Experiment/quasi-experiment, 71, 81 Explicit strategy instruction, 175, 181, 205, 206, 210, 211 Facilitator, 164, 167, 174, 183, 190, 204, 205 Factor analysis, 74–76 Field in/dependence, 37, 38 First language (L1), 14, 164 FLCAS/Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Survey, 44 Foreign language, 3, 5, 6, 22 Fossilization, 50, 164 Functions, 93, 101, 165, 190, 194, 195, 196 Gender/sex, 32–34, 102–109 Grammar, 190 Grammar-translation, 163, 166 Grounded approach, 187 Habit, 12 Hawthorne effect, 70 Heritage language, 3, 27 Humanism, 56, 58, 59 Identity, 22, 47–48, 159, 188–189 Implicit strategy instruction, 175, 181, 206, 210, 211 Information processing, 52, 58 Inhibition, 45, 62, 158, 159, 189 Input Hypothesis, 165 Interaction Hypothesis, 165 Interlanguage, 51, 53, 58, 165 Interview, 69–70, 86–87, 125–126 Investment, 46–47, 160, 186 Kruskall-Wallis, 79, 84 LAD/Language acquisition device, 163 Language use strategies, 17

Learned helplessness, 40, 156 Learning goal/purpose/target, 21, 112–114 Learning style, 10–11, 36–38, 154, 187 Learning/teaching method, 163 Likert-type instrument, 66, 72–73 Listening, 196–198 Longitudinal, 58, 71, 114–117 LSD/Learning Skills Development Questionnaire, 68–69, 112–114 Magpie Theory, 59, 88, 84 Mann-Whitney, 78, 84 MANOVA, 73, 81 MBTI/Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 34–35 Mean, 82 Median, 76 Mediation/mediator, 54, 58, 60, 165 Memory, 18, 43, 53, 61, 100, 176–177 Metacognition/metacognitive, 51, 60–64, 101–102, 110–112 MLAT/Modern Language Aptitude Test, 42 Mode, 76 Monitor Hypothesis, 164 Mother tongue/L1, 180, 193, 196 Motivation, 24–27, 102–104, 151–152, 186 Narrative, 71, 87 Nationality, 27, 105 Native/non-native language/speaker, 4, 120, 138, 141 Natural approach/method, 164, 180 Natural Order Hypothesis, 164 NESB/non-English-speaking background, 5 Neurolinguistics, 53 Nominal data, 73 Normal distribution, 81–82, 94 Noticing Hypothesis, 52, 58 Numerical data, 81 Observation, 70–71 Observer paradox, 70 Orchestration, 23–24, 183–184, 207 Ordinal data, 72–73 Output Hypothesis, 165 Overgeneneralization, 51

Index

Parametric/nonparametric, 73, 81, 84 Pearson correlation, 81, 82 Pedagogy, 162–206, 210 Personality, 34–36, 154–155, 187 Phenomenology, 72 PLAB/Pimsleur Language Aptitude Battery, 43 PLSPQ/Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire, 37 Plus strategies, 100, 183, 203 Postmethod, 166 Poststructuralism, 50, 58, 166, 208 Pragmatics, 194–196 Primary/non-primary language, 4–6 Proficiency, 90, 121, 123, 184–185 Pronunciation, 100, 131, 143, 176, 193–194 Prototypical core, 8, 20, 88 Qualitative, 86–87, 125–206, 209 Quantitative, 72–86, 90–124, 208–209 Quasi-experiment, 71, 81 Questionnaires, 66–69 Reading, 111, 113, 199–201 Reliability, 74, 86, 94 Repertoire, 23, 100–101 SBI/strategy-based instruction, 173–174 Schema Theory, 51–53, 58 Self-concept, 45–46 Self-confidence, 45 Self-determination Theory, 25 Self-efficacy, 45 Self-esteem, 45 Self-image, 46 Self-regulation, 40, 57 Significance, 77, 83

263

Silent way, 32, 180 SILL/Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, 10, 61, 66–67, 80–81 Skill, 15–16 Social distance, 31, 55 Sociocultural, 53–55 SOL/speakers of other languages, 5–6 Speaking, 198–199 Spearman’s correlation, 73, 76–77, 83 SSBI/styles and strategies-based instruction, 173–174 Structuralism, 49–50, 58, 163 Subjectivity, 87, 43 Suggestopedia, 32, 43 Tactics, 2–3 Target language, 3–4, 14, 15, 17, 21, 112–114, 190–203 TBL/task-based language, 165 Teachability Hypothesis, 166–168 Teacher education/training, 203–205 Think-aloud, 71 Tornado effect, 121–123, 184–185, 204, 209, 210 TPR/total physical response, 32 Transcription, 86–87 Triangulation, 72 T-test, 73, 81, 83 Validity, 66, 81, 85, 89 VARK/visual, aural, read-write, kinesthetic, 37 Vocabulary, 14–15, 192–193 Volition, 40, 156 Writing, 201–203 ZPD/Zone of Proximal Development, 54