j. taylorson take away paper finished version

8/3/2019 J. Taylorson Take Away Paper Finished Version

1/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

1

Language learners are responsible for their own learning and should develop their

own strategies; it is not the teachers responsibility, nor is it feasible, given the many

ways in which learners differ. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Discuss with reference to SLA theory.

Take Away Paper

Jennifer E. Taylorson

University of St. Andrews

Student number: 110017069


2/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3

Part 1 ......................................................................................................................... 3

Part 2 ......................................................................................................................... 6

What are Strategies? ......................................................................................................... 6

What qualities are to be found in a good language learner and what strategies do such

learners tend to use? ......................................................................................................... 8

How can learners differ? .................................................................................................... 9

Age ................................................................................................................................ 9

Aptitude ........................................................................................................................ 10

Motivation .................................................................................................................... 11

Intelligence ................................................................................................................... 12

Personality ................................................................................................................... 13

Learner Beliefs ............................................................................................................. 13

Learning Styles ............................................................................................................ 14

What does research into the teaching of language learning strategies tell us? ................ 15

Do the above differences make teaching strategies impracticable? ..................... ............ 17

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 19

Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 21

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 23


3/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

3

Introduction

In order to answer this question satisfactorily, it must be broken into two parts.

The first part, Language learners are responsible for their own learning and should

develop their own strategies, requires consideration of the roles and responsibilities

of both the teacher and learner, and consideration also of the nature of the learning

process. The second part, regarding the feasibility of teaching language learning

strategies, requires us to reflect upon what factors may make strategy training

challenging, what research into the teaching of language learning strategies can

reveal, and finally how these challenges may practically be overcome.

Part 1

Key Questions:

y Is it the responsibility of the learner to develop his or her own strategies?

y

H

ow does learning occur?

y What is the role of the teacher?

y What is the role of the learner?

Traditionally, L2 acquisition was considered to be a process of habit formation.

In this view, teachers were seen to be transmitters of knowledge, and the students,

merely passive vessels to be filled up with information which would take root

through the process of memorizing, copying, and repeating the expert knower.

Teachers were seen to be central to the learning process.

As stated by Mitchell & Myles (2004), Chomskys 1957 review of Skinner's

Verbal Behavior (1957) introduced a radically new idea; the idea that language

acquisition was based on an innate genetic blueprint that provided a natural


4/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

4

readiness for language acquisition. For acquisition to occur, learners had to

internally process the language data in their environments and hypothesise about

the rules of the language. This radical departure from the behaviourist view of

learning shifted our view of teacher and learner, and brought about the idea that

learners are not only active agents in the learning process, but in fact central to it.

As time has progressed the idea that learners are central to the learning

process holds true, and research into second language acquisition strongly

indicates that learner motivation, autonomy, and activeness are central pillars of

success. Indeed, as stated in Cotterall (1995), learners able to self-monitor their

own output and the output of others, who are intrinsically motivated, actively seek

out opportunities to communicate and practice language, set manageable and

achievable goals for themselves, and are aware of what they need to do in order to

improve tend to be more successful language learners than students who do not

exhibit these behaviours.

Whilst it may be a commonly held belief that language learning success

depends very much upon learners taking responsibility for their own development,

research tells us that not all learners will naturally or independently develop the

strategies that they will need in order to achieve this independence. If, as evidence

suggests, it would help such learners to develop autonomy and independence then

it would seem logical to suggest that a goal of language educationalists should be to

facilitate this development. To suggest that it should be the sole responsibility of the

learner to develop his or her own learning strategies may be to block the path of

development for that individual.

From a sociocultural perspective, the human mind is mediated, and social

and mental activity is constructed through interaction with more knowledge


5/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

5

members of a society (Lantolf, 2007). In this view of learning, it is not our role as

teachers merely to generically transmit content knowledge, leaving the learner

entirely responsible for processing and applying this information; rather it is our role

to provide the scaffolding learners need to transition from inter-psychological to

intra-psychological functioning (Mara C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil,

2000), which will eventually lead to learner independence and autonomy.

As Lantolf (2007) states, interaction between learner and teacher leads to the

development of higher mental capacities such as intentional memory, voluntary

attention, planning, logical thought and problem solving, learning, and evaluating the

effectiveness of these processes. Cummings distinction between basic

interpersonal skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP)

stresses the specific relevance these mental capacities have to the language

learning process, and emphasise the fact that for success in certain language tasks

the development of such thinking skills is essential. On cross referencing these

higher order thinking skills against Oxfords strategy taxonomy, 1985 (cited in

Erhman & Oxford, 1990), their relevance is further highlighted as one finds that

these mental capacities are the essential basis for many metacognitive, cognitive,

and memory strategies.

In terms of the practical application of the sociocultural theory of learning to

strategy training, three models have been devised. These (as cited in Chamot

2004) are, the Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction Model (Cohen, 1998), the

Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach Model (Chamot, 2005; Chamot

et al., 1999) and Grenfell & Harriss 1999 model. Each of these models seek to find

a structure through which the teacher can locate each individual learners zone of

proximal development and provide relevant and specific scaffolded support that will

help learners develop language learning strategies appropriate to their individual


6/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

6

needs and to the tasks they must perform. (Please see appendix 1 for a table

adapted from Harris, 2003 (found in Chamot, 2004) outlining these three Models for

Language Learning Strategy Instruction).

Part 2

What are Strategies?

As defined by Chamot (2005), Learning strategies are procedures that

facilitate a learning task. Strategies are most often conscious and goal-driven,

especially in the beginning stages of tackling an unfamiliar language task.

To further investigate what language learning strategies are, we may use

Oxfords Strategy Taxonomy, 1985 (cited in Erhman & Oxford, 1990) in which

language learning strategies are broken down into two basic categories; direct, and

indirect strategies. These two core categories are then further broken down as

follows:

Direct strategies: behaviours involving direct use of the language;

1. Memory strategies: for entering information into memory and retrieving:

a) creating mental linkages: grouping, associating/elaborating, placing new words

into a context

b) Applying images and sounds: using imagery, semantic mapping, using

keywords, representing sounds in memory

c) Reviewing well: structured reviewing

d) Employing action: using physical response or sensation, using mechanical

techniques

2. Cognitive strategies: for manipulating the language for reception and

production of meaning


7/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

7

a) Practicing: repeating, formally practicing with sounds and writing systems,

recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, practicing

naturalistically

b) Receiving and sending messages: getting the idea quickly, using resources for

receiving and sending messages

c) Analysing and Reasoning: reasoning deductively, analysing expressions,

analysing contrastively (across languages), translating, transferring

d) Creating structure for input and output: taking notes, summarizing, highlighting

3. Compensation strategies: for overcoming limitations in existing knowledge

a) Guessing intelligently: using linguistic clues, using other clues

b) Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing: switching to the mother

tongue, getting help, using mime or gesture, avoiding communication partially

or totally, selecting the topic, adjusting or approximating the message, coining

words, using a circumlocution or synonym

Indirect strategies: behaviours which support language learning although they do

not directly involve using the language;

1. Metacognitive strategies: for organizing and evaluating learning

a) Centring your learning: overviewing and linking with already known material,

paying attention, delaying speech production to focus on listening

b) Arranging and planning your learning: finding out about language learning,

organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language

task (purposeful listening/ reading/ speaking/ writing), planning for a language

task, seeking practice opportunities

c) Evaluating your learning: self-monitoring, self-evaluating


8/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

8

2. Affective strategies: for managing emotions and attitudes

a) Lowering your anxiety: using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or

mediation, using music, using laughter

b) Encouraging yourself: making positive statements, taking risks wisely,

rewarding yourself

c) Taking your emotional temperature: listening to your body, using a checklist,

writing a language learning diary, discussing your feelings with someone else

3. Social strategies: for learning with others

a) Asking questions: asking for clarification or verification, asking for correction

b) Cooperating with others: cooperating with others, cooperating with proficient

users of the new language

c) Empathizing with others: developing cultural understanding, becoming aware

of others' thoughts and feelings

What qualities are to be found in a good language learner and what strategies do

such learners tend to use?

According to Rubin (1975) the good language learner is a willing and accurate

guesser who actively uses available contextual clues in order to inductively infer

meanings, which according to Oxfords strategy taxonomy can be termed as a

direct, compensatory strategy. He is also highly motivated to communicate, has

good interpersonal skills, and possesses the ability to use whatever resources are at

his disposal in order to communicate the message (which may translate into

application or preference for direct compensatory strategies). The good language

learner is not inhibited and does not feel foolish when communicating indirect

affective strategies possibly, but certainly social strategies. He pays attention to

form and seeks opportunities to test hypothesis, taking every opportunity to try out

new language, and taking full advantage of communication opportunities (indirect


9/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

9

metacognitive and social strategies). Finally, the good language learner monitors

his own and the speech of others in terms of form, which is an indirect

metacognitive strategy, and also closely attends to meaning.

How can learners differ?

If the behaviours exhibited and strategies chosen by successful language

learners can be identified, then logically one might assume that less successful

language learners may be assisted through training that helps them to implement

strategies utilized by more successful language learners. Whilst this may potentially

be the case, research into the effects of learner differences on the strategies

learners choose to implement suggests that there is no one type of successful

language learner. Rather, the success of an implemented strategy, and of the

general success of the individual learner, depends on a complex interaction

between context, background, age, motivation and attitude, personality, and

learning style.

In the following sections we will take a brief look at how learners can differ and

what impact these differences can have on language learning strategies.

Age

In terms of a persons age, it is argued that there is a critical period for

language acquisition during early childhood and that if one begins learning a

language after this period then the learning will not be constrained by UG in the

same way in which the learning of the L1 is suggested to be. Language learning

after the passing of the critical period is said to be typified by incomplete success

due to the fact the learners can no longer rely on their natural readiness for

language acquisition. Therefore, although adult learners may have to rely on more

general learning abilities for L2 acquisition, such as Oxfords metacognitive,


10/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

10

cognitive, and memory strategies, their knowledge of the world and of learning can

work to their advantage as they can use this knowledge as a useful language

learning resource. In terms of this difference affecting the teachability of strategies,

as a class will usually be made up of learners of the same age (roughly) this

difference does not pose a huge problem to the teacher.

Aptitude

Aptitude, as defined by Carroll, 1991 (cited in Lightbown and Spada, 2006) is

characterized by the ability to learn quickly. It can be broken down into four parts

in which a persons natural capacity for language learning can be measured in terms

of their phonemic coding ability, associative memory, grammatical sensitivity, and

their inductive language learning ability Carroll, 1965 (cited in Skehan 1991).

As Skehan (1991) states, aptitude is one factor that affects learning style and

also the strategies a learner may choose to utilize. Indeed, Skehan, 1986a (cited in

Skehan, 1991) was able to find evidence for the existence of different learner

profiles according to their language aptitude as calculated by a language aptitude

test. For example, learners who scored highly on inductive language learning

ability saw language learning as a pattern-making game. For these learners rule

analysis was a fundamental tenet of language learning. Other learners, however,

relied more heavily on memory and accumulated a number of pre-fabricated chunks

which enabled communication to occur more quickly than with the analytically

minded students.

In terms of how aptitude can affect strategy choice, learners who are more

analytical will logically favour cognitive strategies such as analysing and reasoning,

whereas students relying more heavily on memory will probably favour memory

strategies such as creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, and


11/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

11

reviewing chunks and vocabulary well. Interestingly, Skehan implies that it is not

necessary for a language learner to employ a huge range of different strategies;

rather he states that success seemed to occur when learners played to their

strengths. Indeed, Wesche, 1981 (cited in Skehan, 1991) indicates that matching

students with methodologies on the basis of their aptitude profile may lead to

greater student satisfaction and success, suggesting that forcing students to adopt

strategies that they are not naturally comfortable with may hinder progress.

Motivation

Motivation is perhaps one of the most important factors to affect the success of

language learning. Perhaps the most well know description of motivation is

Gardners 1979 & 1985 (cited in Skehan 1991) integrative and instrumental

motivation. According to Gardner, a person who possesses integrative motivation

typically has a positive attitude towards the target language community, identifies with

them, and approaches language study with the intention of entering that community.

An instrumentally motivated person on the other hand sees language learning as

enabling them to do useful things, but as having no special significance in itself. In

general terms, motivation is thought to be of extreme importance in being able to

successful learn a language, however, integrative motivation is believed to be the

more powerful of the two, as it comes from within the individual.

The link between how motivation may affect strategy choice is not clear,

however, it may be that learners who are invested in the target language community

may implement more social strategies than those who have little interest in the

language or culture itself.


12/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

12

Intelligence

Intelligence, as stated by Lightbown and Spada (2006), is more closely

related to metalinguistic knowledge rather than communicative ability. Furthermore,

traditionally, intelligence was seen only to pertain to the academic skills of reading,

writing and vocabulary (Genesee 1976, cited in Lightbown and Spada 2006). The

work of Howard Gardner, however, changed this very one dimensional view of

intelligence as he posited that in fact there are 7 types of intelligences.

These multiple-intelligences include logical-mathematical intelligence; linguistic

intelligence; spatial intelligence; musical intelligence; bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence;

interpersonal intelligence; and finally, intrapersonal intelligence. More recently, the

above seven types of intelligence have been added to, and now include naturalistic

intelligence and existential intelligence bring the total number of intelligences to nine.

Again, the exact correlation between intelligence and strategy choice remains

unclear. However, Arnold and Fonsec (2004) state that different multiple intelligence

types do in fact affect the way in which learners learn languages. For example, they

state that logical-mathematical learners, who are good at problem-solving tasks, in

language learning, focus mainly on meaning. Through constant rereading of the text

to solve the problem of meaning, they acquire a familiarity with the vocabulary and

structures used. These behaviours perhaps suggest that these types of learners may

choose to implement strategies such as cognitive, and some compensatory

strategies. One more example of how intelligence type can affect choice is the way

in which interpersonal learners behave. These learners, as stated by Arnold and

Fonsec (2004) have a strong ability to understand other people, to work cooperatively

and to communicate effectively. Their desire to communicate and work with others

strongly suggests that they prefer to learner through the adoption of social strategies.


13/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

13

Personality

As stated by Lightbown and Spada (2006) there are a number of different

personality traits that may affect second language learning including extroversion,

inhibition, anxiety, self-esteem, dominance, talkativeness, and responsiveness.

However as Lightbown and Spada go on to say in general, the available research

does not show a single clearly defined relationship between personality traits and

second language acquisition. For example, whilst extroversion has traditionally been

linked to the adoption of positive social strategies and success in language learning,

Wong-Fillmore, 1979 (cited in Lightbown and Spada 2006) found that in certain

circumstances introverted, quiet observant types had greater success. Such

anomalies highlight the complex effect that context, culture, background, beliefs,

aptitude and intelligence have on the behaviours a learner exhibits, the choice of

strategies a learner implements, and ultimately, the overall success of that individual.

Clearly, much more research needs to be conducted to determine the nature of the

relationship between the above elements.

Learner Beliefs

Most learners will have strong beliefs about the way they think they should be

taught, what they should be taught, and the way they think they learn best. These

beliefs are usually based on their previous learning experiences.

As stated by Cotterall (1995), all behaviour is governed by beliefs and

experiences, therefore learner beliefs can have a strong impact on the adoption of

successful language learning strategies. For example, as Cotterall (1995) states, if a

learner believes that error will impede his language learning progress then he may be

discouraged from participating in fluency-focused activities or communicating with

other learners or native speakers of the language because of anxiety or fear of

getting it wrong. Logically, such a student would perhaps not ordinarily choose to


14/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

14

implement compensation or social strategies as these often involve risk taking which

would potentially create further anxiety.

Learning Styles

There are various different models that can be used to describe a

students learning style. The following, however, detail only two of these and refer

specifically to the learners preferred way of processing information. The first is

Myers-Briggs adaptation of Carl Jungs learning-styles model (cited in Oxford, 1990)

which includes four pairs of opposite processing styles. These, as described in

Oxford (1990) are:

1. Judger: hardworking and self-disciplined

2. Perceiver: can deal with uncertainty and likes less structure

3. Extraverts: friendly and sociable

4. Introverts: self-sufficient and reserved

5. Intuitives: down-to-earth and realistic

6. Intuitives: imaginative and holistic-thinkers

7. Thinkers: logical and analytic

8. Feelers: interpersonally oriented and empathic

Another way in which to look at learning styles is to use Honey and

Mumfords learning styles model which categorizes people into activists,

pragmatists, theorists, and reflectors.

We can also refer to a students VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic)

learning style. This, however, refers largely to the learners preferred way of

receiving the input they will later come to process, rather than the learners

information processing preference.


15/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

15

Research carried out by Ehrman and Oxford (1990) looked into the link

between Myers-Briggs learner types and strategy choice. Their research strongly

suggests that learning style has a marked impact on strategy choice. For example,

they found that Extroverts use social strategies consistently and easily, whereas

Introverts reject such strategies but prefer to implement metacognitive alternatives.

Sensing students apparently reported a strong liking for memory strategies, reported

frequent use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, but rejected compensation

strategies. Intuitives, on the other hand, made extensive use of compensation

strategies. Thinkers and Feelers were completely juxtaposed. As suggested by the

researchers perhaps because of their enjoyment of analysis, Thinkers showed an

extremely strong preference for cognitive strategies whereas Feelers completely

rejected most cognitive strategies, especially analysis. Finally, Judgers indicated

preference for metacognitive strategies like "tactical" planning whereas Perceivers

typically rejected this. Judgers, being uncomfortable with ambiguity, strongly rejected

compensation strategies, unlike Perceivers who preferred such strategies.

What does research into the teaching of language learning strategies tell us?

First of all, it is worth defining what strategy training in fact is. Ellis &

Sinclair, 1989 (cited in Chen, 2007) define it as the explicit teaching of how, when,

and why students should employ FL learning strategies to enhance their efforts at

reaching language programme goals.

In terms of the usefulness of strategy training, despite the many learner

differences we have just discussed above, Erhman & Oxford (1990) state that,

Important effects of training in the use of learning strategies have been discovered

by a number of researchers. Some specific examples of this work include Ross and

Rost (1991), Thompson & Rubin (1996), Carrier (2003), Ozeki (2000), Vandergrift


16/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

16

(2003b) (all cited in Chamot 2005) who studied the efficacy of teaching learning

strategies to improve the outcome of listening tasks, and whose research was carried

out in a range of different contexts. All of the above mentioned researchers found

that the teaching of strategies had a positive impact on the learners ability to

complete the listening tasks in the study. Other examples of research that shows

strategy training may have a positive effect on learner progress include Grenfell &

Harris 1999 study (cited in Chamot 2005) which focused on the teaching of

vocabulary memorization strategies, and Macaros 2001 study (cited in Chamot 2005)

which focused on teaching six form learners of French metacognitive strategies to

improve writing skills. As Chamot (2005) states, perhaps the most challenging area

for teaching strategy instruction is in oral communication due to the fact that the use

of deliberate strategies can restrict the flow of natural speech. Due to this

presentational speaking, rather than interactive speaking, has been the focus of

several studies (see Cohen, 1998; OMalley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Chamot 2005)

and found that strategy training did indeed have a positive impact on the task

outcome.

Whilst much of the research suggests that strategy training is often

beneficial to learners, as Rees-Millar (1993) states, we must be careful of assuming

that strategies utilized by good language learners will be beneficial to all learners. To

qualify this, she cites several studies which appear to suggest that even when

unsuccessful language learners are taught to adopt, or independently adopt,

strategies used by good language learners, they dont necessarily become more

successful. For example, Vann & Abraham 1990 (cited in Rees-Miller, 1993) carried

out a study in which they sought to identify the strategies two unsuccessful language

learners were utilizing. Interestingly, despite the learners lack of success they were

found to be employing an extensive repertoire of strategies characteristic of


17/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

17

successful learners, such as engagement in the task, risk taking, monitoring errors,

and paying attention to overall meaning.

Another study Rees-Miller reports on is that of Porte (1988) who studied 15

unsuccessful students of EFL. Porte found that the students used many learning

strategies that were considered good, however, the sophistication and appropriateness of

the application of these strategies to specific tasks appeared to be lacking when compared

to more successful classmates.

Do the above differences make teaching strategies impracticable?

As we can see from the above discussion, learners vary greatly from one

another, and these variations necessarily affect the choice of strategies each learner

will implement. However, whilst this is certainly true, the available research tells us

that strategy instruction is feasible and can be beneficial to learners. Whether

learner differences make the teaching of language learning strategies impracticable

is perhaps down to the approach taken by each individual teacher. For example, a

teacher who takes a prescriptive approach to strategy instruction and seeks to

impose his favoured strategies on learners will necessarily fail as these strategies

will not necessarily be appropriate to the needs of each individual in the class.

On the other hand, a teacher who seeks to engage learners in an

interactive and self-reflective process can instead help individual learners gain

greater awareness of the strategies they may currently be using, introduce further

suggested strategies, and scaffold the learner to make appropriate choices that will

help them achieve their language learning aims. Furthermore, through the

continuous evaluation of these strategies, learners will be empowered to make

choices for themselves, thus aiding learner autonomy.


18/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

18

Sensitivity to a teaching context is also an important factor that can affect the

potential success of strategy instruction as the way in which strategies may be

taught, and the types of strategies taught will depend, for example, upon the level of

a class, the age of learners in a class, whether the class is ESL or EFL, the goals of

the learners in a class (exam focused, writing focused, communication focused,

general English class), or whether a class is monolingual or mixed. For example,

whilst teaching a monolingual class a teacher may use the learners L1 to explicitly

clarify the reasons why a particular strategy may be useful. However, if teaching a

mixed lower level class then the teacher will have to rely more heavily on

demonstration techniques, and the reasons why the strategy is useful to the

learners may not be explicitly communicated. To provide an example of how

strategy type may be affected by the goals of the learners we may consider the

difference between an exam class and an academic writing class. In the former, a

teacher will probably be more focused on helping the learners pass the exam they

will come to sit. To do this, the teacher may encourage memorisation techniques or

affective strategies that will be of use in the exam. In the academic writing class,

however, the teacher will probably be more focused on sharing strategies such as

proof-reading, drafting, re-drafting and, self-assessment.

As briefly mentioned above, the explicitness of the instruction is another

consideration as is whether strategy instruction should be integrated into language

lessons or be delivered as a separate course. In terms of explicitness of instruction,

as Chamot (2005) states, there is overwhelming agreement that explicit instruction

is more effective than implicit instruction. Regarding whether strategy training

should be integrated, or be taught in a separate course outside of the language

classroom there is far more diversity of opinion, however. Gu, 1996 (cited in

Chamot, 2005) argues that strategies taught in a language class are less likely to


19/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

19

transfer to other tasks and that it may not be practical to prepare all language

teachers to teach strategies. On the other hand, as stated by Wenden, 1987b

(cited in OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 152) those who favour integrated strategy

training argue that learning in context is far more effective than learning separate

skills whose immediate applicability may not be evident to the learner.

Conclusion

In summary, regarding the question of whether or not it is the learners

responsibility to develop his or her own learning strategies, it can be concluded that

whilst some learners will naturally and independently adopt language learning

strategies that will aid their development, not all learners will be able to achieve this

without teacher guidance. As it is a teachers duty as the more knowledgeable

other to facilitate his learners development, we cannot state that it should be the

sole responsibility of the learner to develop his or her own learning strategies; rather

strategy development should be the culmination of efforts made both by the teacher

and the learner.

Regarding the question of feasibility, the available research suggests that the

teaching of language learning strategies in some contexts and circumstances is

possible and indeed useful to learners. However, it is important to bear in mind that

strategies for the skills of reading, writing, vocabulary learning, and oral presentations

are perhaps easier to teach and have a greater impact on task outcome than

strategies for the skills of speaking.

Further to the above, research tells us that good language learners are skilled

at matching strategies to the task they were working on, whereas less successful

language learners apparently do not have the metacognitive knowledge about task

requirements needed to select appropriate strategies (Chamot 2005). It is therefore


20/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

20

equally important, or possibly more important, for teachers to support learners to

consider the requirements of a given task in order that they may learn to decide

which strategy or strategies might be most appropriately applied to that specific

context.

Finally, in order to facilitate the development of their students effectively,

teachers must be acutely aware that the relationship between IQ, intelligence,

aptitude, age, learner beliefs, motivation, personality, learning style and strategy

choice is an extremely complex one. Furthermore, teachers must be aware that the

language learning strategies that breed success in one culture or context cannot be

applied universally to all, and that even students from within the same culture or

learning context can differ greatly and will not benefit from a one size fits all

approach to strategy teaching. This may practically be achieved through the

adoption of one of the above mentioned strategy training models (please see

appendix 1).

To conclude, as Rubin (1975) states, in the end we are only able to guide our

learners to select for themselves strategies that are appropriate to their own

individual learning styles.


21/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

21

Bibliography

Arnold, J., & Fonseca, C. (2004). Multiple Intelligence Theory and Foreign Language

Learning: A Brain-based Perspective. International Journal of English Studies,4

(1), 119-136.

Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching.

Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1 (1), 14-26.

Chamot, A. (2005). Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and

Rearch. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112130.

Chen, Y. (2007). Learning to learn: the impact of strategy training. ELT Journal, 61

(1), 20-29.

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for Autonomy: Investigating Learner Beliefs. System,

23 (2), 195-205. 1995

Cummings, J. (n.d.). BICS & CALP. Retrieved from

http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:morJDf3Y9w4J:scholar.

google.com/+cummings+bics+and+calp&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in

an Intensive Training Setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74 (3), 311-327.

De Guerrero, M, C, M., & Villamil, O, S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual

Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51-68.

Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural Theory: A Unified Approach to L2 Learning and

Teaching. In Cummins, J., Davison, C (Eds.),International handbook of English

language teaching, Volume 1 (693 701). New York: Springer Science +

Business Media LLC.


22/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

22

Lightbown, P, M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford. OUP.

Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. London. Hodder

Education.

OMalley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition.

Cambridge. CUP.

Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and

Teaching Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 679-689.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly,9,

(1), 41-51.

Skehan, P. (1991). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. SSLA, 13, 275 -

298.


23/23

Take Away Paper

Jennifer Taylorson

23

Appendix 1

Styles and Strategies-BasedInstruction Model

Cognitive Academic LanguageLearning Approach Model

Grenfell & Harris

Teacher as diagnostician:

Helps students identifycurrent strategies andlearning styles.

Preparation:

Teacher identifies studentscurrent learning strategies forfamiliar tasks.

Awareness Raising: Students

complete a task, and thenidentify the strategies theyused.

Teacher as languagelearner:Shares own learningexperiences and thinkingprocesses.

Presentation:The teacher models, names, &explains new strategy; asksstudents if and how they haveused it.

Modelling:Teacher models, discussesvalue of new strategy, makeschecklist of strategies for lateruse.

Teacher as learner trainer:Trains students how to use

learning strategies.

Practice:Students practice new strategy;

in subsequent strategy practice,teacher fades reminders toencourage independentstrategy use.

General practice:Students practice new

strategies with different tasks.

Teacher as coordinator:Supervises students studyplans and monitorsdifficulties.

Self-evaluation:Students evaluate their ownstrategy use immediately afterpractice.

Action planning:Students set goals and choosestrategies to attain those goals.

Teacher as coach:Provides on going guidanceon students progress.

Expansion: StudentsTransfer strategies to newtasks, combine strategies intoclusters, develop repertoire ofpreferred strategies.

Focused practice:Students carry outaction plan using selectedstrategies; teacher fadesprompts so that students usestrategies automatically.

-Assessment:Teacher assesses students useof strategies and impact onperformance.

Evaluation:Teacher and students evaluatesuccess of action plan; set newgoals; cycle begins again.

j. taylorson take away paper finished version

Documents