language learning strategy research: current trends … · language learning strategy research:...

Language Learning Strategy Research:

Current trends and issues in the field

Heath Rose Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics School of Linguistic, Speech & Communication Sciences, Trinity College, The University of Dublin

EDUCATION

PhD & Masters in Education/Applied linguistics at the University of Sydney

BA & PG Teaching Cert., University of Queensland

WORK HISTORY

5 years in schools in Australia (teaching Japanese) and Japan (teaching English)

10 years in universities in Australia and Japan

RESEARCH

Second language learning

Cognitive learning strategies

Self-regulation

Global Englishes/ELF

LOTE

CURRENT WORK

Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics

Trinity College Dublin

heath.rose@tcd.ie

Most of my research

context is in Japan

I have a vested

interest in language

education, not just

linguistic research

Overview

Where have we come

from?

Historical development

Criticisms Self-regulation

(SR)

Where are we now?

Current directions

Abandon LLS Incorporate

LLS & SR

Where do we go from

here?

Future directions

Self-regulation vs learning strategies

General vs specific models

What does this mean for me?

Researchers Instructors Learners

WHERE HAVE WE COME FROM? Part One

What are LLS?

• Language learning strategies are “thoughts and actions, consciously chosen and operationalized by language learners, to assist them in carrying out a multiplicity of tasks from the very onset of learning to the most advanced levels of target-language performance” Cohen (2012, p. 136)

• There is contention among academics over definitions. – LLSs have been defined as special thoughts, behaviors,

techniques and devices.

– They have been perceived as cognitive, metacognitive, psychological, affective, and social.

Historical Overview

1975 2000

Rubin (1975)

O'Malley, Chamot, Stewner-

Menzanares, Kupper & Russo

(1985-1990)

SILL-related studies

Rubin’s taxonomy

O’MALLEY & CHAMOT

1. Metacognitive 2. Cognitive 3. Social/affective

OXFORD 1. Cognitive 2. Mnemonic 3. Metacognitive 4. Compensatory 5. Affective 6. Social

LLS Research Explosion

Bailystok (1979) Hosenfeld (1976) Naiman, Frolich & Stern (1975) Selinger (1977)

Rubin’s taxonomy was a list of “what might be

termed academic or study skills” (Grenfell & Macaro,

2007, p. 11)

Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL)

• 50+ item questionnaire of general strategies for language learning: – If I do not understand something in

English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again.

– I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake

– I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better

– I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English.

l. Never or almost never true of me

2. Usually not true of me

3. Somewhat true of me

4. Usually true of me

5. Always or almost always

true of me

2000 Now

Dornyei (2005)

Tseng et al. (2006)

Gao (2006) Cohen & Macaro

(2007)

SELF-REGULATION

Woodrow (2005)

LSS (2003) MARSI (1998-2000)

SORS (2001) MALQ (2006)

STATE OF FLUX: • Continue LLS

research? • Abandon LLS

for SR? • Incorporate SR

& LLS?

• Likert scale of SILL is inappropriate • Lack of reliability in using

questionnaires to measure learning strategies

• “a more situated approach utilizing in-depth qualitative methods” (p. 90)

• Computation of mean scores is not justifiable

• Previous taxonomies are too “fuzzy”

WHERE ARE WE NOW? Part Two

Overview – recent history

• LLS research has been on the decline since the late 1990s, and early 2000s.

• The field of LLS has been complicated by the calls to shelve LLS research in favor of self-regulation.

• This has caused a field that once garnered much attention in the 1990s to one that new scholars are hesitant to answer.

Current trend 1: Incorporate SR & LLS

• Self-regulation in language learning refers to the processes the learner uses to exercise control over learning.

– This definition also causes issues and some researchers use the term synonymously with autonomy and self-management (Cohen, 2007).

– Self-regulation and LLS can be complimentary models (Gao, 2006)

– this is direction I took in 2007

Self-regulation (Dornyei 2005: 113)

• Commitment control strategies for helping preserve or increase learner’s goal commitment.

• Metacognitive control strategies for monitoring and controlling concentration and for curtailing unnecessary procrastination.

• Satiation control strategies for eliminating boredom and adding extra attraction or interest to the task.

• Emotion control strategies for managing disruptive emotional states or moods and for generating emotions that are conducive to implementing one’s intentions.

• Environmental control strategies for the elimination of negative environmental influences by making an environment an ally in the pursuit of a difficult goal.

木

白

飲

穴

語

流

部

好

黒

食

六

言五口

泳河汗池

B

女子

Cognitive processes

Rose (2012) (from 2007)

Definitional fuzziness

Not one instance of environmental control was reported in the study where it was not being used to regulate another form of motivation control. Such results indicate environmental control may not be a separate category of control in itself, but a self-regulatory mechanism or strategy to control other forms of motivation. Participants, for example, reported regulating their study environment in order to alleviate boredom (by changing the study environment regularly) or stress (by working out while studying), or factors that may lead to procrastination (by creating an environment free of distractions). (Rose, 2012, p. 12)

Self-regulation in kanji learning

Cognitive learning strategies

Motivational control strategies

Memory strategies Self-regulation Co

gnit

ive

per

spec

tive

Psych

olo

gical pe

rspective

Applied linguistics (SLA)

Cognitive science/psychology

Kanji

Current trend 2: Explore self-regulation further

Commitment control

Metacognitive control

Satiation control

Emotion control

Self-regulation has a deeper history

• Ranalli (2012) argues critics (including myself) assume Dornyei and colleagues’ version of self-regulation to be the only valid formulation

– “They miss opportunities to widen the theoretical lens and explore what else this construct may have to offer our field.” (Ranalli, 2012, p. 361)

– Ranalli (2012) introduces the application of Winne and Hadwin’s COPES model of self-regulation to second language learning tasks.

Current trend 3: Learning strategy research continues

• Business as usual for many of the sub-fields of strategy research

– These escaped the criticisms of LLS because:

• They were task-specific (VLS, Reading Strategies)

• They had long moved on from the SILL and its inaccuracies

• They had already developed their own taxonomies of strategies

Criticisms do not mean the end of LLS

• “Dornyei may be setting up a straw man in order to knock him down” (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007, p. 26).

• LLS and self-regulation are looking at two different parts of the learning process (Gao, 2007)

• “The definition quibble is going beyond the advancement of knowledge in delineating conceptual boundaries.” (Gu, 2012, p. 330)

Looking at skill or function (Cohen, 2012)

Language Learning

Strategies

Skill

Vocabulary

Reading

Listening comprehension

Function

Cognitive strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Affective strategies

New directions by Peter Gu (2012)

Conceptual fuzziness should not be a problem serious enough to overthrow forty years of research on language learning strategies… ..In fact, the proposed alternative term ‘self- regulation’ or even a more general and key term ‘learning’ fall into the same fuzziness trap… ..This indicates to me that the find-another-term solution is not viable.” (p. 331)

– Gu (2012) strips learning strategies back to its prototypical core, providing one of the most interesting theory-driven papers in the field I have read in recent years.

The process of a strategic move (Gu, 2012, p. 337)

Dimensions of variation (Gu, 2012, p. 341)

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Part Three

Where do we go from here?

• New ways to look at strategies could be explored, incorporating the volume of research outside of L2

• New methods to look at self-regulation in L2 learning could be explored

• Both models have their strengths: – Strategy research has strength in context-specific tasks, or

processes (e.g. cognitive strategies for learning kanji)

– Self-regulation has strength in the psychological processes of the learner (e.g. control over learning process)

There is a need in applied linguistic research for both

fields

There is a need for movements away from self-

report questionnaires

Continue to explore LLS as a multidisciplinary construct:

incorporate LLS and self-regulation into complimentary

models of strategic learning

Separate the disciplines of LLS, and conducting research under

the strength of previous research in that discipline

(affect regulation, cognitive strategies, social strategies)

LLS were always a multi-disciplinary construct

Gao (2006) Rose (2012)

Oxford (2009) Weinstein (2009)

Independent fields need not be

affected by the ongoing debate

BUT – the focus has to be context or task-specific, e.g. kanji learning, VLS

Or similar fields can be explored (cognitive-

metacognitive)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME? Part Four

Implications for the researcher

OUT

• Oxford’s LLS model

• Self-report questionnaires – SILL

– Frequency based statements

• Dornyei’s motivation control paradigm

• Self-regulation & LLS all-encompassing models (e.g. Oxford’s S2R model)

IN

• Context-specific studies

• Skill-based models of LLS

• Function-based models of LLS

• Additions to self-report questionnaires – Stimulated recall

– Interviews

Implications for the instructor

• Be careful with the teaching of strategies in the language classroom – Effectiveness of strategy instruction is varied

– Research consistently shows individual differences in use of strategies by successful learners

• Best to take an approach of awareness-raising – Exposing/discussing a range of known useful

strategies with students for them to “try-out”

– Don’t force strategies on your students (e.g. kanji learning)

Implications for the learner

• Strategies are not magic.

– Strategies aid learning they do not work miracles

– Choose strategies that make sense to you

• There is a danger of adopting strategies at face value

– E.g. Learners of Japanese kanji and “magic” solutions

Further reading

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, H. (2012). Language learning strategy research: Where do we go from here? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(2), 137-148. Rose, H. (2012). Learner Strategies, Self-Regulation, and Self-Access Learning (Editorial). Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4). Rose, H., & Harbon, L. (2013). Self-regulation of the kanji-learning task. Foreign Language Annals. 46(1). MLJ article on mnemonic strategies in review

References Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learner strategies: surveying the experts. In D. C. Cohen & E. M. Macaro. (Eds.), Language learner strategies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (pp. 29-45).

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grenfell, M. & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In D. C. Cohen & E. M. Macaro. (Eds.), Language learner strategies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (pp. 9-28).

Gao, X. 2006. Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng, Dornyei and Schmitt Applied Linguistics 28(4), 615-620.

Gu, Y. (2012). Learning Strategies: Prototypical Core and Dimensions of Variation. SiSAL Journal , 3(4),

330-356

Oxford R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.

Ranalli, J. (2007). Alternative Models of Self-regulation and Implications for L2 Strategy Research.

SiSAL Journal , 3(4), 330-356

Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C. & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies: the role of individual, situational, and group differences. In D. C. Cohen & E. M. Macaro.(Eds.), Language learner strategies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (pp. 69-92).

Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2012). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102.

Weinstein, C. E. (2009). Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st Century: The merging of skill, will and self-regulation. Paper given at the Independent Learning Association Conference, June 4. Hong Kong.

Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 38(1), 90–100.

Thank you

Heath Rose Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics School of Linguistic, Speech & Communication Sciences, Trinity College, The University of Dublin Contact: heath.rose@tcd.ie