Language Learning Strategies

Language-learning strategies:theory and perceptionCarol Griths and Judy M. Parr

This article looks at how the theory of language-learning strategies (LLS), asused by speakers of other languages (SOL), has developed alongside othertheories of language teaching and learning, and at the place of LLS in the eldof contemporary eclectic language teaching and learning. The article thenlooks at one aspect of LLS in practice by reporting on a study conducted withspeakers of other languages, aimed at discovering the kinds of LLS they use. Italso compares these results with those of a survey of teacher perceptions ofstudents use of LLS.

Background It was dicult not to feel for Peter Grundy when he complained recentlyin the ELT Journal that changes in language teaching and learning theoryhave made him feel like Teacherosaurus Rex (1999: 55). Grundy (p. 54)suggested that the contemporary thrust to develop learner independenceis particularly hard on a teachers self-condence. He nds himselfhankering after the days when there was a structuralist theory oflanguage and a behaviourist theory of learning from which to derive thatperfect, unquestionable method (ibid.).

Grammar translation It is true that, over the years, many dierent methods and approaches tothe teaching and learning of language to and by speakers of otherlanguages (SOL), each with its own underlying theoretical basis, havecome and gone. The structure-based grammar translation method, as itsname suggests, relied heavily on teaching grammar and practisingtranslation as its main teaching and learning activities. The major focusof this method tended to be on reading and writing, with relatively littleattention paid to speaking and listening. Vocabulary was typically taughtin lists, and a high priority given to accuracy, and the ability to constructcorrect sentences. Consideration of what students might do to promotetheir own learning had little or no place in grammar-translation theory,which tended to assume that, if students simply followed the method,learning would result as a matter of course.

Audiolingualism The audiolingual method grew partly out of a reaction against thelimitations of the grammar-translation method, and partly out of urgentwar-time demands for uent speakers of other languages. The ArmyMethod was developed to produce military personnel withconversational prociency in the target language. Later, this method

ELT Journal Volume 55/3 July 2001 Oxford University Press 247

attracted the attention of linguists already looking for an alternative togrammar-translation, and became known as the audiolingual method.This method depended heavily on drills, repetition, and substitutionexercises. These were justied according to behaviourist theories,whereby language was seen as a system of habits which can be taughtand learnt on a stimulus/response/reinforcement basis.Audiolingualism tended to view the learner as a passive entity waiting tobe programmed. As such, it paid scant, if any, attention to the possibilitythat learners might have any useful contribution to make to theprogramming process. If anything, learner attempts to become involvedin the learning process were viewed with suspicion, and discouraged onthe grounds that conscious intervention on the part of the learner mightinterfere with the desired automatic response outcome.

The development Finding this behaviourist view of language quite inadequate, Chomsky of communicative (1968: 84) developed a theory of the learner as a generator of rules. This teaching notion was taken up by Corder (1967) who argued that language errors

made by students indicate the development of underlying linguisticcompetence, and reect the learners attempts to organize linguisticinput. The intermediate system created while the learner is trying tocome to terms with the target language was later called interlanguage bySelinker (1972), who viewed learner errors as evidence of positive eortsby the student to learn the new language. This view of language learning,which allowed for the possibility of learners making deliberate attemptsto control their own learning, contributed to a thrust by researchers suchas Rubin (1975), who aimed at discovering how learners employlanguage-learning strategies (LLS) to actively promote their ownlearning.

However, at much the same time, as researchers such as Rubin wereworking to develop an awareness of language learning strategies,Krashen (1976) dealt the edgling LLS movement a body blow. Buildingon the concept of communicative competence introduced by Hymes(1971), Krashen insisted that language cannot be learnt, but only acquiredthrough natural communication. Many of Krashens ideas have beensoundly criticized over the years, but in spite of the many challenges, hisviews have been, and remain, very inuential in the language teachingand learning eld. In so far as he believed that language developsthrough natural communication, Krashen might be considered to be oneof the driving forces behind the communicative language teaching (CLT)movement which is in vogue to the present day.

Eclecticism In addition to grammar-translation, audiolingualism, and communicativelanguage teaching, there have been, and continue to be, many other lesswidely adopted methods and approaches to the teaching and learning oflanguage, such as the natural method, the direct method, the totalphysical response method, the silent way, and suggestopoedia. All ofthese various methods and approaches have, in varying degrees, hadsome inuence on contemporary language teaching and learning. Inrecent years the eld has tended to move away from dogmatic positionsof right or wrong, better or worse, becoming much more eclectic inits attitudes, and more willing to recognize the potential merits of a wide

248 Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr

variety of possible methods and approaches. This contemporarytendency to eclecticism has resurrected the interest in the contributionmade by the learners themselves in the teaching/learning dichotomy,and in the learning strategies which learners employ in the process oflearning language.

Theoretical There are two main theoretical assumptions which underlie assumptions behind contemporary ideas on LLS. To comment that some students are more learning strategies successful at learning language than others is, of course, to do no more Language learning than state the obvious. LLS theory postulates that, other things being as a cognitive equal, at least part of this dierential success rate is attributable to theprocess varying strategies which dierent learners bring to the task. From this

perspective, which views students as being able to consciously inuencetheir own learning, the learning of language becomes a cognitiveprocess, similar in many ways to any other kind of learning (McLaughlin1978). It is a view diametrically opposed to Krashens Monitor andAcquisition/Learning Hypotheses (Krashen 1976, 1977) which state thatlanguage cannot be consciously learnt but only acquired through naturalcommunication, and therefore, by implication, that conscious learningstrategies are not useful in the development of language.

Learning strategies Following on from the observation that some students are more can be learnt successful than others, and the hypothesis that some of this success may

be as a result of more eective LLS, it is further assumed that thestrategies employed by the more successful students may be learnt bythose who are less successful, and that teachers can assist the language-learning process by promoting awareness of them, and encouragingtheir use. This teachability component of language-learning strategytheory means that contemporary educators and researchers areincreasingly keen to harness the potential which LLS would seem to havefor enhancing an individuals ability to learn language.

Learning With the exception of the Monitor and Acquisition/Learning strategies and Hypotheses, LLS theory operates comfortably alongside most other language teaching language-learning and teaching theories, and ts easily with a wide

variety of dierent methods and approaches. For instance, memory andcognitive strategies are involved in the development of the vocabularyand grammar knowledge on which the grammar-translation methoddepends. Memory and cognitive strategies can be involved to make thepatterning of automatic responses which are characteristic of theaudiolingual method more eective. Learning from errors, developedfrom interlanguage theory, involves cognitive and metacognitivestrategies. Compensation and social strategies can easily be assimilatedinto communicative competence theory and the communicativelanguage-teaching approach. Methods such as suggestopoedia involveaective strategies. The fact that learning strategy theory can work soeasily alongside other theories, methods, and approaches means that ithas the potential to be a valuable component of contemporary eclecticsyllabuses.

In recent years the importance of LLS in the teaching and learningprocess has been argued by writers such as Oxford (1990), who divided

Language-learning strategies 249

LLS into six groups (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,aective, and social), and developed the questionnaire known as theStrategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). It was thisquestionnaire which was used as the basic instrument in the presentstudy.

The investigation The study aimed to explore how language-learning strategy theory relatesto the practice in terms of learners and teachers perceptions.Specically, the research questions asked were:

1 Which groups of LLS are believed to be used most frequently bystudents who are speakers of other languages?

2 How do teachers beliefs concerning the LLS of their studentscorrespond with what students report?

Participants A large sample of students of English for speakers of other languages(n=569), drawn from a variety of English-language learning situations(private language schools, tertiary institutions, and high schools) in NewZealand, completed the SILL (ibid.: 2936). There were males andfemales who ranged in prociency from beginner to advanced and inages from 14 to 64. Participants came from 31 dierent nations, andexpressed a wide variety of reasons for wanting to study English. Forsome, the motivation was down-to-earth and practical, such as work,immigration, travel, or further study. For others the reasons werepersonal and sometimes sweeping, such as I want to change my life!

In addition, 30 teachers involved with students who speak other languagescompleted the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS). Theseteachers were drawn from private English language schools or tertiaryinstitutions, and many of them also had high school experience.

By spreading the net widely in this way we hoped to gather a trulyrepresentative sample of speakers of other languages studying English,and their teachers, in order to provide an adequate base for generalizing about LLS. It was also hoped that such a large and variedsample might be broken down later into signicant groups, for closerexamination of the varying factors involved in LLS use, and in beliefsabout such use.

Data collection The basic instrument for the current study was the speakers of other instruments languages version of the SILL (ibid.). This is a self-scoring paper-and-

pencil survey which consists of statements such as I start conversationsin English, or I ask questions in English, to which students are asked torespond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never, or almost never)to 5 (always, or almost always). The 50 items of the ESL/EFL version ofthe SILL are divided into the following six groups:

memory strategies: relating to how students remember language, such asI use ashcards to remember new English words, or I review Englishlessons often.


cognitive strategies : relating to how students think about their learning,such as I read for pleasure in English, or I try to nd patterns inEnglish.

compensation strategies : these enable students to make up for limitedknowledge, such as I read English without looking up every new word,or To understand unfamiliar English words I make guesses.

metacognitive strategies : relating to how students manage their ownlearning, such as I notice my English mistakes and use that informationto help me do better, or I plan my schedule so that I will have enoughtime to study English.

aective strategies : relating to students feelings, such as I try to relaxwhenever I feel afraid of using English, or I give myself a reward or treatwhen I do well in English.

social strategies : these involve learning by interaction with others, such asI ask English speakers to correct me when I talk or I try to learn aboutthe culture of English speakers.

In order to probe teacher beliefs regarding LLS, a survey was designedcalled the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS). The ILLSlists the SILLs six strategy groups, with a brief denition, and asks thequestion in your professional opinion, which of these strategy groupswould you say your students use most frequently? Teachers respond byranking them on a scale from 6 to 1, where 6 is the most frequent, and 1is the least frequent (see Appendix).

Procedure Teachers were asked to explain to their classes the research function ofthe Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, after which it waspresented as a normal classroom activity designed to stimulate studentsawareness of their existing language-learning strategies (LLS), and of thepotential of LLS to improve language-learning ability. The anonymousquestionnaire forms were later collected so that the data could be collatedand analysed. Average frequency of use was calculated for each strategygroup across all questionnaires (n=569), and the averages ranked inorder from 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent).

The teachers questionnaire (ILLS) was distributed at sta meetings andat workshops. Like the students survey, it was anonymous, and teacherswere asked to complete it and hand it in at their convenience. Thecollection was closed when 30 questionnaires had been returned.Average responses for each strategy group were calculated across the 30questionnaires, and, as with the student questionnaires, ranked in orderfrom 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent).

Results As can be seen by an examination of the data set out in Table 1, studentsreport using memory strategies least. Most frequently used are socialstrategies, followed by metacognitive strategies. Students rankcompensation and cognitive strategies in the middle-frequency range,while aective strategies come only one rank higher than memorystrategies.


6 (most frequent) Social strategies

5 Metacognitive strategies

4 Compensation strategies

3 Cognitive strategies

2 Aective strategies

1 (least frequent) Memory strategies

Teachers typically reacted with surprise when presented with theseresults. As a consequence, the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies(ILLS) was drawn up and completed by 30 teachers who had not beenexposed to the results of the students survey. According to this survey(see Table 2), teachers believe that their students use memory strategiesmost frequently, while cognitive strategies are ranked second. Teachersbelieve students use social and metacognitive strategies quite frequently,while compensation and aective strategies are ranked lowest.

6 (most frequent) Memory strategies

5 Cognitive strategies

4 Social strategies

3 Metacognitive strategies

2 Compensation strategies

1 (least frequent) Aective strategies

It is interesting to note that while students report using memorystrategies least, their teachers believe they are used the most. Conversely,whereas students report using social strategies most, they are rankedonly third by teachers in terms of what teachers believe their students do.Metacognitive strategies, which students rank second to top, are rankedsecond to bottom by teachers, and cognitive strategies, which teachersrank second to top, are ranked only fourth by students. Compensationstrategies are ranked third by students but only second to bottom byteachers. The only point at which teacher and student perceptions almostconcur are with aective strategies which are ranked second to bottom bystudents, and bottom by teachers. Student and teacher rankings arecompared in Figure 1.

Discussion and Interesting parallels might be drawn between the results of this study, conclusion which seem to indicate discrepancies between student and teacher

perceptions of language learning strategy use, and the results of a studyreported by Nunan (1988) which explored teacher and studentperceptions of the importance of selected learning activities. Teacherswere asked to complete a questionnaire which required them to rate tenselected learning activities according to their degree of importance.These data were then compared with student ratings of the sameactivities. It was discovered that in only one instance was there a matchbetween the ratings of the students and the teachers, and that was forconversation practice, which was considered very important by bothteachers and students. All of the other ratings (that is, nine out of the ten)


table 1Rank ordering of rate of language learningstrategy group usage, asreported by students

table 2Rank ordering of teacherperceptions of studentsrate of language-learningstrategy usage

did not match, and in some cases the mismatches were dramatic,especially in the case of language games, which teachers rated as highlyimportant, but which students rated as quite unimportant.

A similar conclusion regarding dierences in perception betweenstudents and teachers was reached by OMalley et al. (1985) in a study ofthe learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate students inan American high school. Teachers and students were interviewed, andLLS noted. It was discovered that both beginning and intermediatestudents identied and reported using an extensive variety of learningstrategies (ibid.: 41), but that teachers were generally unaware of theirstudents strategies (ibid.: 21).

It is possible that some of the discrepancies discovered in the presentstudy may be due to diering interpretations of the strategy groupings. Itis possible, for instance, that a strategy such as I read for pleasure inEnglish might be classied as a metacognitive or an aective strategy,rather than as a cognitive strategy, as it is classied in the SILL. Thisreservation notwithstanding, such levels of discrepancy in perceptionbetween teachers and students (as indicated in the studies by Nunan1988, OMalley et al., and in the present study) have to be of concern.

In theory, LLS have great potential to enhance language-learning abilityand, in practice, students have been shown to use a wide range of LLSstrategies, some of them quite frequently. Perhaps one way for us, asteachers, to avoid the postmodern displacement to which Grundy (1999)refers, might be to work to increase our awareness of our studentsstrategy usage and needs, in order to be able to facilitate the language-learning process more eectively in line with contemporary eclecticdevelopments in the theory and practice of English language teaching.

Final version received March 2000


figure 1A comparison of studentand teacher rankings ofLLS group usage

ReferencesBrown, H., C. Jorio, and R. Crymes (eds.). 1977. OnTESOL. Washington DC.Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.Corder, S. P. 1967. The signicance of learnerserrors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5:16070.Grundy, P. 1999. From model to muddle. ELTJournal 53/1: 545.Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence.Philadelphia, PA: University of PennsylvaniaPress.Krashen, S. 1976. Formal and informal linguisticenvironments in language acquisition andlanguage learning. TESOL Quarterly 10: 15768.Krashen, S. 1977. Some issues relating to theMonitor Model in H. Brown et al. eds.). 1445.McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor model: somemethodological considerations. Language Learning28: 14458.Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-centred Curriculum.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.OMalley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzanares, L. Kupper, and R. P. Russo. 1985.Learning strategies used by beginning andintermediate ESL students. Language Learning35/1: 2146.Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies:What every teacher should know. New York:Newbury House.Rubin, J. 1975. What the good language learnercan teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9: 4151.Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. InternationalReview of Applied Linguistics 10: 20930.

The authorsCarol Griths has a BA in English and French(Massey University) and a Diploma in Teaching(Auckland). After working for a number of years asa high school teacher, she transferred to the ESOLeld. She then completed a Diploma in EnglishLanguage Teaching (University of Auckland) andan MA (Hons) in Applied Linguistics (WaikatoUniversity). Currently the Director of Studies withInternational Language Academies (ILA) inAuckland, New Zealand, she is also working on aPhD researching language learning strategies.Email: [email protected]

Dr Judy M. Parr is a senior lecturer in the School ofEducation at the University of Auckland, NewZealand. She has an MA and Diploma in Teachingfrom Auckland and a BSc (Hons) and PhD inPsychology from the Australian NationalUniversity. Her published areas of researchinclude the development of expertise in language,particularly written language, literacy, andtechnology, and technology in education.Email: [email protected]

Appendix

Inventory of language-learning strategies (ILLS)Language-learning strategies (LLS) have beendened as operations employed by the learner toaid the aquisition, storage, retrieval and use ofinformation (Oxford 1990). Oxford divideslanguage learning strategies into six groups:memory strategies (strategies used by students tohelp them remember new language items)cognitive strategies (strategies which help studentsthink about and understand the new language)compensation strategies (strategies used bystudents to help them compensate for lack ofknowledge)aective strategies (strategies relating to howstudents feel about the new language)social strategies (strategies used by students whichinvolve interaction with other people)

Question: in your professional opinion, which ofthese strategy groups would you say your studentsuse most frequently? Could you please numberthem from 6 to 1, where

6 = most frequent1 = least frequent


articles: welcome:

Language Learning Strategies

Documents

Transcript of Language Learning Strategies