Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This article provides an overview of language learning strategies (LLS) for second and
foreign language (L2/FL) teachers. To do so it outlines the background of LLS and LLS
training, discusses a three step approach teachers may follow in using LLS in their
classes, and summarises key reflections and questions for future research on this aspect of
L2/FL education. It also lists helpful contacts and internet sites where readers may access
up-to-date information on LLS teaching and research.
Introduction
Within the field of education over the last few decades a gradual but significant shift has
taken place, resulting in less emphasis on teachers and teaching and greater stress on
learners and learning. This change has been reflected in various ways in language
education and applied linguistics, ranging from the Northeast Conference (1990) entitled
"Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner" and annual "Learners' Conferences" held
in conjuction with the TESL Canada convention since 1991, to key works on "the
learner-centred curriculum" (Nunan, 1988, 1995) and "learner-centredness as language
education" (Tudor, 1996).
This article provides an overview of key issues concerning one consequence of the above
shift: the focus on and use of language learning strategies (LLS) in second and foreign
language (L2/FL) learning and teaching. In doing so, the first section outlines some
background on LLS and summarises key points from the LLS literature. The second
section considers some practical issues related to using LLS in the classroom, outlining a
three step approach to implementing LLS training in normal L2/FL courses. The third
section then briefly discusses some important issues and questions for further LLS
research. In the fourth section the article ends by noting a number of contacts readers may
use to locate and receive up-to-date information on LLS teaching and research in this
widely developing area in L2/FL education.
1. BACKGROUND
Learning Strategies
In a helpful survey article, Weinstein and Mayer (1986) defined learning strategies (LS)
broadly as "behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning" which are
"intended to influence the learner's encoding process" (p. 315). Later Mayer (1988) more
specifically defined LS as "behaviours of a learner that are intended to influence how the
learner processes information" (p. 11). These early definitions from the educational
literature reflect the roots of LS in cognitive science, with its essential assumptions that
human beings process information and that learning involves such information
processing. Clearly, LS are involved in all learning, regardless of the content and context.
LS are thus used in learning and teaching math, science, history, languages and other
subjects, both in classroom settings and more informal learning environments. For insight
into the literature on LS outside of language education, the works of Dansereau (1985)
and Weinstein, Goetz and Alexander (1988) are key, and one recent LS study of note is
that of Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes and Simmons (1997). In the rest of this paper, the focus will
specifically be on language LS in L2/FL learning.
Reading the LLS literature, it is clear that a number of further aspects of LLS are less
uniformly accepted. When discussing LLS, Oxford (1990a) and others such as Wenden
and Rubin (1987) note a desire for control and autonomy of learning on the part of the
learner through LLS. Cohen (1990) insists that only conscious strategies are LLS, and
that there must be a choice involved on the part of the learner. Transfer of a strategy from
one language or language skill to another is a related goal of LLS, as Pearson (1988) and
Skehan (1989) have discussed. In her teacher-oriented text, Oxford summarises her view
of LLS by listing twelve key features. In addition to the characteristics noted above, she
states that LLS:
(Oxford, 1990a, p. 9)
Beyond this brief outline of LLS characterisitics, a helpful review of the LLS research
and some of the implications of LLS training for second language acquisition may be
found in Gu (1996).
A caution must also be noted though, because, as Skehan (1989) states, "there is always
the possibility that the 'good' language learning strategies...are also used by bad language
learners, but other reasons cause them to be unsuccessful" (p. 76). In fact Vann and
Abraham (1990) found evidence that suggests that both 'good' and 'unsuccessful'
language learners can be active users of similar LLS, though it is important that they also
discovered that their unsuccessful learners "apparently...lacked...what are often called
metacognitive strategies...which would enable them to assess the task and bring to bear
the necessary strategies for its completion" (p. 192). It appears, then, that a number and
range of LLS are important if L2/FL teachers are to assist students both in learning the
L2/FL and in becoming good language learners.
A more detailed overview of these six main types of LLS is found in Oxford (1990a, pp.
18-21), where they are further divided into 19 strategy groups and 62 subsets. Here, by
way of example, we will briefly consider the social LLS that Oxford lists under indirect
strategies. Three types of social LLS are noted in Oxford (1990a): asking questions, co-
operating with others, and empathising with others (p. 21). General examples of LLS
given in each of these categories are as follows:
Asking questions
Although these examples are still rather vague, experienced L2/FL teachers may easily
think of specific LLS for each of these categories. In asking questions, for example,
students might ask something specific like "Do you mean...?" or "Did you say that...?" in
order to clarify or verify what they think they have heard or understood. While at first
glance this appears to be a relatively straightforward LLS, in this writer's experience it is
one that many EFL students in Japan, for example, are either unaware of or somewhat
hesitant to employ.
What is important to note here is the way LLS are interconnected, both direct and
indirect, and the support they can provide one to the other (see Oxford, 1990a, pp. 14-16).
In the above illustration of social LLS, for example, a student might ask the questions
above of his or her peers, thereby 'co-operating with others', and in response to the
answer he or she receives the student might develop some aspect of L2/FL cultural
understanding or become more aware of the feelings or thoughts of fellow students, the
teacher, or those in the L2/FL culture. What is learned from this experience might then be
supported when the same student uses a direct, cognitive strategy such as 'practising' to
repeat what he or she has learned or to integrate what was learned into a natural
conversation with someone in the target L2/FL. In this case, the way LLS may be inter-
connected becomes very clear.
2. USING LLS IN THE CLASSROOM
With the above background on LLS and some of the related literature, this section
provides an overview of how LLS and LLS training have been or may be used in the
classroom, and briefly describes a three step approach to implementing LLS training in
the L2/FL classroom.
Last, but certainly not least, teachers need to study their own teaching methods and
overall classroom style. One way to do so is to consider your lesson plans. Do they
incorporate various ways that students can learn the language you are modelling,
practising or presenting, in order to appeal to a variety of learning styles and strategies?
Does your teaching allow learners to approach the task at hand in a variety of ways? Is
your LLS training implicit, explicit, or both? By audiotaping or videotaping one's
classroom teaching an instructor may objectively consider just what was actually taught
and modelled, and how students responded and appeared to learn. Is your class learner-
centred? Do you allow students to work on their own and learn from one another? As you
circulate in class, are you encouraging questions, or posing ones relevant to the learners
with whom you interact? Whether formally in action research or simply for informal
reflection, teachers who study their students, their materials, and their own teaching will
be better prepared to focus on LLS and LLS training within their specific teaching
context.
If you tend to be teacher-centred in your approach to teaching, you might use a specific
number of tasks appropriate for your context from the collection by Gardner and Miller
(1996) in order to provide students with opportunities to use and develop their LLS and
to encourage more independent language learning both in class and in out-of-class
activities for your course. As Graham (1997) declares, LLS training "needs to be
integrated into students' regular classes if they are going to appreciate their relevance for
language learning tasks; students need to constantly monitor and evaluate the strategies
they develop and use; and they need to be aware of the nature, function and importance
of such strategies" (p. 169). Whether it is a specific conversation, reading, writing, or
other class, an organised and informed focus on LLS and LLS training will help students
learn and provide more opportunities for them to take responsibility for their learning3.
In order to encourage learner reflection, later in the course I used a questionnaire asking
students about their vocabulary learning and VLS in and outside of class, and the
following week gave them a generic but individualised vocabulary knowledge test where
students provided the meaning, part of speech, and an example sentence for up to 10
words each person said he or she had 'learned'. I marked these and handed them back to
students the next week, summarising the class results overall and sparking interesting
class discussion. For a more detailed description of this classroom activity and a copy of
the questionnaire and test, see Lessard-Clouston (1994). For more information on the
research that I carried out in conjunction with this activity, please refer to Lessard-
Clouston (1996). What became obvious both to me and my students in that attempt at
LLS training was that vocabulary learning is a very individualised activity which requires
a variety of VLS for success in understanding and using English vocabulary, whether or
not one is eventually 'tested' on it. Though this is just one example of implementing LLS
training in a normal L2/FL class, hopefully readers will be able to see how this general
three step approach to doing so may be adapted for their own classroom teaching.
The second reflection pertains to the integration of LLS into both language
learning/teaching theory and curriculum. The focus of this article is largely practical,
noting why LLS are useful and how they can or might be included in regular L2/FL
classes. These things are important. However, in reflecting on these issues and attempting
to implement LLS training in my classes I am reminded that much of the L2/FL work in
LLS appears to lack an undergirding theory, perhaps partially because L2/FL education is
a relatively young discipline and lacks a comprehensive theory of acquisition and
instruction itself. As Ellis (1994) notes, much of the research on LLS "has been based on
the assumption that there are 'good' learning strategies. But this is questionable" (p. 558).
As my own research (Lessard-Clouston, 1996, 1998) suggests, L2/FL learning seems to
be very much influenced by numerous individual factors, and to date it is difficult to
account for all individual LLS, let alone relate them to all L2/FL learning/teaching
theories.
The related challenge, then, is how to integrate LLS into our L2/FL curriculum,
especially in places like Japan where "learner-centred" approaches or materials may not
be implemented very easily. Using texts which incorporate LLS training, such as those in
the Tapestry series, remains difficult in FL contexts when they are mainly oriented to L2
ones. How then may FL educators best include LLS and LLS training in the FL
curriculum of their regular, everyday language (as opposed to content) classes? This final
point brings us to this and other questions for future LLS research.
A pressing need for further research involves developing a comprehensive theory of LLS
that is also relevant to language teaching practice. Moving beyond taxonomies of LLS,
various types of studies into LLS use and training must consider a wide range of
questions, such as: What types of LLS appear to work best with what learners in which
contexts? Does LLS or LLS training transfer easily between L2 and FL contexts? What is
the role of language proficiency in LLS use and training? How long does it take to train
specific learners in certain LLS? How can one best assesss and measure success in LLS
use or training? Are certain LLS learnt more easily in classroom or non-classroom
contexts? What LLS should be taught at different proficiency levels? Answers to these
and many other questions from research in a variety of settings will aid in the theory
building that appears necessary for more LLS work to be relevant to current L2/FL
teaching practice.
In considering the above questions concerning LLS and LLS training, a variety of
research methods should be employed. To date much of the LLS research appears to be
based in North America and is largely oriented towards quantitative data and
descriptions. In fact, one report on more qualitatively-oriented LLS data by LoCastro
(1994) sparked an interesting response from major LLS figures Oxford and Green (1995).
While calling for collaborative research in their critique, Oxford and Green's (1995)
comments in many ways discourage such work, especially for those who do not work
within North America or use a quantitatively oriented research approach. However, as
LoCastro points out in her response,
...there are different kinds of research which produce different results which may be of
interest. Research dealing with human beings is notoriously fuzzy and shows a great deal
of variation. (LoCastro, 1995, p. 174).
I would concur with this observation. In listing the above questions and calling for more
research on LLS, I also hope that more case studies, longitudinal studies, and learner's
self-directed qualitative studies, like the one by Yu (1990), will be carried out and will
receive greater attention in the literature in L2/FL education.
4. HELPFUL LLS CONTACTS AND INTERNET
SITES
As readers may want to take up my challenge and address the issues and questions for
research I have outlined here, in this final section I focus on where they may find
additional information and resources to help them in their LLS teaching and research. In
addition to checking the sources listed in the reference section at the end of this article,
there are a number of contacts which readers may find useful for obtaining more
information on LLS, LLS training and/or research, and in networking with others
involved with or interested in LLS within various aspects of L2/FL education. Three such
contacts are noted here.
http://www.ipcs.shizuoka.ac.jp/~eanaoki/LD/homeE.html
http://www.man.ac.uk/IATEFL/lisig/lihome.htm
CARLA
Suite 111, UTEC Building
1313 5th St. S.E.,
Minneapolis, MN
5514 U.S.A.
Email: carla@tc.umn.edu
The area of LLS is a major but quickly developing aspect of L2/FL education, and
interested teachers and researchers are advised to check the internet sites listed here for
the most up-to- date information on this topic. In accessing these WWW pages one will
also find links to related sites and organisations5.
Conclusion
This paper has provided a brief overview of LLS by examining their background and
summarising the relevant literature. It has also outlined some ways that LLS training has
been used and offered a three step approach for teachers to consider in implementing it
within their own L2/FL classes. It has also raised two important issues, posed questions
for further LLS research, and noted a number of contacts that readers may use in
networking on LLS in L2/FL education. In my experience, using LLS and LLS training
in the L2/FL class not only encourages learners in their language learning but also helps
teachers reflect on and improve their teaching. May readers also find this to be the case.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my students for their input on LLS and LLS training, and Birgit
Harley and Wendy Lessard-Clouston for their input on the issues presented in this
overview and for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
Notes
1. The Author: Michael Lessard-Clouston is Associate Professor of English, School of
Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, 1-1-155 Uegahara, Nishinomiya, 662 Japan.
2. See, for example, the work of Bialystok (1990), Bongaerts & Poulisse (1989), Dornyei
& Thurrell (1991), Kasper & Kellerman (1997), McDonough (1995), Poulisse (1989),
and Willems (1987) on communication strategies.
3. For more examples of specific types of LLS training, refer to the works listed in the
reference section. Oxford's (1990a) book, for instance, offers chapters with practical
activities related to applying direct or indirect LLS to the four language skills or general
management of learning.
4. For recent discussions of this issue and others related to autonomy and independence
in language learning, see Benson & Voller (1997) and the articles in Ely & Pease-Alvarez
(1996).
5. The contact details provided in this section are current as of autumn 1997.
References
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language
Learning. London: Longman.
Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1989). Communication strategies in L1 and L2: Same or
different? Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 253- 268.
Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Chamot, A., & O'Malley, M. (1996). Implementing the cognitive academic language
learning approach (CALLA). In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies Around
the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 167-173). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.
Cohen, A. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and Researchers.
New York: Newbury House.
Dansereau, D. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J.W. Segal, S.F. Chipman, & R.
Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research (pp.
209-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, R. (1997). Modeling the strategies we advocate. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 5-6.
Dornyei, A., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT
Journal, 45(1), 16-23.
Earle-Carlin, S., & Proctor, S. (1996). Word of Mouth. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ely, C., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (Eds.). (1996). Learning styles and strategies [Special
Issue]. TESOL Journal, 6(1) [Autumn].
Freeman, D., & Richards, J. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., & Simmons, D. (1997). Peer- assisted learning
strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational
Research Journal, 34(1), 174-206.
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1996). Tasks for Independent Language Learning.
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Gu, P. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher taught us?
Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 1-29.
Kidd, R., & Marquardson, B. (1996). The foresee approach for ESL strategy instruction
in an academic-proficiency context. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language Learning Strategies
Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 189-204). Honolulu: University of
Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre.
LoCastro, V. (1995). The author responds... [A response to Oxford and Green (1995)].
TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 172-174.
McDonough, S. (1995). Strategy and Skill in Learning a Foreign Language. London:
Edward Arnold.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language Learner.
Research in Education Series 7. Toronto: OISE Press.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1996). The Good Language Learner.
Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (1990, April). Shifting the
Instructional Focus to the Learner. New York City.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
29(1), 133-158.
Nunan, D. (1996). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research study.
TESOL Journal, 6(1), 35-41.
Offner, M. (1997). Teaching English conversation in Japan: Teaching how to learn. The
Internet TESL Journal [on-line serial], 3(3) [March 1997]. Available at:
www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Offner-HowToLearn.html
Oxford, R. (1990a). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1990b). Styles, strategies, and aptitude: Connections for language learning.
In T.S. Parry & C.W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language Aptitude Reconsidered (pp. 67-125).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oxford, R., & Green, J. (1995). Comments on Virginia LoCastro's "Learning strategies
and learning environments" -- Making sense of learning strategy assessment: Toward a
higher standard of research accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 166- 171.
Pearson, E. (1988). Learner strategies and learner interviews. ELT Journal, 42(3), 173-
178.
Pickard, N. (1996). Out-of-class language learning strategies. ELT Journal, 50(2), 150-
159.
Reid, J. (Ed.). (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1),
41-51.
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to Be a More Successful Language Learner,
Second Edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Santos, M. (1997). Portfolio assessment and the role of learner reflection. English
Teaching Forum, 35(2), 10-14.
Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual
in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Sharkey, J. (1994/1995). Helping students become better learners. TESOL Journal, 4(2),
18-23.
Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.
Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C. Wittrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd Edition (pp. 315-327). New York:
Macmillan.
Weinstein, C., Goetz, E., & Alexander, P. (Eds.). (1988). Learning and Study Strategies:
Issues in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yu, L. (1990). The comprehensible output hypothesis and self- directed learning: A
learner's perspective. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1), 9-26.
The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 12, December 1997
http://iteslj.org/
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html