Language-learning strategies: theory and perception Carol Griªths and Judy M. Parr
This article looks at how the theory of language-learning strategies (LLS ), as used by speakers of other languages (SOL ), has developed alongside other theories of language teaching and learning, and at the place of LLS in the field of contemporary eclectic language teaching and learning. The article then looks at one aspect of LLS in practice by reporting on a study conducted with speakers of other languages, aimed at discovering the kinds of LLS they use. It also compares these results with those of a survey of teacher perceptions of students’ use of LLS .
Background
It was diªcult not to feel for Peter Grundy when he complained recently in the ELT Journal that changes in language teaching and learning theory have made him feel like ‘Teacherosaurus Rex’ (1999: 55). Grundy (p. 54) suggested that the contemporary thrust to develop learner independence is particularly hard on a teacher’s self-confidence. He finds himself hankering after the days when there was ‘a structuralist theory of language and a behaviourist theory of learning from which to derive that perfect, unquestionable method’ (ibid.).
Grammar translation It is true that, over the years, many di¤erent methods and approaches to the teaching and learning of language to and by speakers of other languages (SOL ), each with its own underlying theoretical basis, have come and gone. The structure-based grammar translation method, as its name suggests, relied heavily on teaching grammar and practising translation as its main teaching and learning activities. The major focus of this method tended to be on reading and writing, with relatively little attention paid to speaking and listening. Vocabulary was typically taught in lists, and a high priority given to accuracy, and the ability to construct correct sentences. Consideration of what students might do to promote their 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 the limitations of the grammar-translation method, and partly out of urgent war-time demands for fluent speakers of other languages. The ‘Army Method’ was developed to produce military personnel with conversational proficiency 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 to grammar-translation, and became known as the audiolingual method. This method depended heavily on drills, repetition, and substitution exercises. These were justified according to behaviourist theories, whereby language was seen as a system of habits which can be taught and learnt on a stimulus/response/reinforcement basis. Audiolingualism tended to view the learner as a passive entity waiting to be programmed. As such, it paid scant, if any, attention to the possibility that learners might have any useful contribution to make to the programming process. If anything, learner attempts to become involved in the learning process were viewed with suspicion, and discouraged on the grounds that conscious intervention on the part of the learner might interfere with the desired automatic response outcome.
The development of communicative teaching
Finding this behaviourist view of language ‘quite inadequate’, Chomsky (1968: 84) developed a theory of the learner as a generator of rules. This notion was taken up by Corder (1967) who argued that language errors made by students indicate the development of underlying linguistic competence, and reflect the learners’ attempts to organize linguistic input. The intermediate system created while the learner is trying to come to terms with the target language was later called ‘interlanguage’ by Selinker (1972), who viewed learner errors as evidence of positive e¤orts by the student to learn the new language. This view of language learning, which allowed for the possibility of learners making deliberate attempts to control their own learning, contributed to a thrust by researchers such as Rubin (1975), who aimed at discovering how learners employ language-learning strategies (LLS) to actively promote their own learning. However, at much the same time, as researchers such as Rubin were working to develop an awareness of language learning strategies, Krashen (1976) dealt the fledgling LLS movement a body blow. Building on the concept of communicative competence introduced by Hymes (1971), Krashen insisted that language cannot be learnt, but only acquired through natural communication. Many of Krashen’s ideas have been soundly criticized over the years, but in spite of the many challenges, his views have been, and remain, very influential in the language teaching and learning field. In so far as he believed that language develops through natural communication, Krashen might be considered to be one of 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 communicative language teaching, there have been, and continue to be, many other less widely adopted methods and approaches to the teaching and learning of language, such as the natural method, the direct method, the total physical response method, the silent way, and suggestopoedia. All of these various methods and approaches have, in varying degrees, had some influence on contemporary language teaching and learning. In recent years the field has tended to move away from dogmatic positions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, ‘better’ or ‘worse’, becoming much more eclectic in its attitudes, and more willing to recognize the potential merits of a wide
248
Carol Griªths and Judy M. Parr
variety of possible methods and approaches. This contemporary tendency to eclecticism has resurrected the interest in the contribution made by the learners themselves in the teaching/learning dichotomy, and in the learning strategies which learners employ in the process of learning language.
Theoretical assumptions behind learning strategies Language learning as a cognitive process
There are two main theoretical assumptions which underlie contemporary ideas on LLS . To comment that some students are more successful at learning language than others is, of course, to do no more than state the obvious. LLS theory postulates that, other things being equal, at least part of this di¤erential success rate is attributable to the varying strategies which di¤erent learners bring to the task. From this perspective, which views students as being able to consciously influence their own learning, the learning of language becomes a cognitive process, similar in many ways to any other kind of learning (McLaughlin 1978). It is a view diametrically opposed to Krashen’s Monitor and Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses (Krashen 1976, 1977) which state that language cannot be consciously learnt but only acquired through natural communication, and therefore, by implication, that conscious learning strategies are not useful in the development of language.
Learning strategies can be learnt
Following on from the observation that some students are more successful than others, and the hypothesis that some of this success may be as a result of more e¤ective LLS , it is further assumed that the strategies employed by the more successful students may be learnt by those who are less successful, and that teachers can assist the languagelearning process by promoting awareness of them, and encouraging their use. This ‘teachability’ component of language-learning strategy theory means that contemporary educators and researchers are increasingly keen to harness the potential which LLS would seem to have for enhancing an individual’s ability to learn language.
Learning strategies and language teaching
With the exception of the Monitor and Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses, LLS theory operates comfortably alongside most other language-learning and teaching theories, and fits easily with a wide variety of di¤erent methods and approaches. For instance, memory and cognitive strategies are involved in the development of the vocabulary and grammar knowledge on which the grammar-translation method depends. Memory and cognitive strategies can be involved to make the patterning of automatic responses which are characteristic of the audiolingual method more e¤ective. Learning from errors, developed from interlanguage theory, involves cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Compensation and social strategies can easily be assimilated into communicative competence theory and the communicative language-teaching approach. Methods such as suggestopoedia involve a¤ective strategies. The fact that learning strategy theory can work so easily alongside other theories, methods, and approaches means that it has the potential to be a valuable component of contemporary eclectic syllabuses. In recent years the importance of LLS in the teaching and learning process has been argued by writers such as Oxford (1990), who divided Language-learning strategies
249
LLS into six groups (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, a¤ective, and social), and developed the questionnaire known as the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL ). It was this questionnaire which was used as the basic instrument in the present study.
The investigation
The study aimed to explore how language-learning strategy theory relates to the practice in terms of learners’ and teachers’ perceptions. Specifically, the research questions asked were: 1 Which groups of LLS are believed to be used most frequently by students who are speakers of other languages? 2 How do teachers’ beliefs concerning the LLS of their students correspond 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 New Zealand, completed the SILL (ibid.: 293–6). There were males and females who ranged in proficiency from beginner to advanced and in ages from 14 to 64. Participants came from 31 di¤erent nations, and expressed a wide variety of reasons for wanting to study English. For some, the motivation was down-to-earth and practical, such as work, immigration, travel, or further study. For others the reasons were personal and sometimes sweeping, such as ‘I want to change my life’! In addition, 30 teachers involved with students who speak other languages completed the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS ). These teachers were drawn from private English language schools or tertiary institutions, and many of them also had high school experience. By spreading the net widely in this way we hoped to gather a truly representative 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 varied sample might be broken down later into significant groups, for closer examination of the varying factors involved in LLS use, and in beliefs about such use.
Data collection instruments
The basic instrument for the current study was the ‘speakers of other languages’ version of the SILL (ibid.). This is a self-scoring paper-andpencil survey which consists of statements such as ‘I start conversations in English’, or ‘I ask questions in English’, to which students are asked to respond 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 of the SILL are divided into the following six groups: memory strategies: relating to how students remember language, such as ‘I use flashcards to remember new English words’, or ‘I review English lessons often’.
250
Carol Griªths and Judy M. Parr
cognitive strategies : relating to how students think about their learning, such as ‘I read for pleasure in English’, or ‘I try to find patterns in English’. compensation strategies : these enable students to make up for limited knowledge, 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 own learning, such as ‘I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better’, or ‘I plan my schedule so that I will have enough time to study English’. a¤ective strategies : relating to students’ feelings, such as ‘I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English’, or ‘I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English’. social strategies : these involve learning by interaction with others, such as ‘I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk’ or ‘I try to learn about the culture of English speakers’. In order to probe teacher beliefs regarding LLS , a survey was designed called the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS ). The ILLS lists the SILL ’s six strategy groups, with a brief definition, and asks the question ‘in your professional opinion, which of these strategy groups would you say your students use most frequently?’ Teachers respond by ranking them on a scale from 6 to 1, where 6 is the most frequent, and 1 is the least frequent (see Appendix).
Procedure
Teachers were asked to explain to their classes the research function of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, after which it was presented as a normal classroom activity designed to stimulate students’ awareness of their existing language-learning strategies (LLS ), and of the potential of LLS to improve language-learning ability. The anonymous questionnaire forms were later collected so that the data could be collated and analysed. Average frequency of use was calculated for each strategy group across all questionnaires (n=569), and the averages ranked in order from 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent). The teachers’ questionnaire (ILLS ) was distributed at sta¤ meetings and at workshops. Like the students’ survey, it was anonymous, and teachers were asked to complete it and hand it in at their convenience. The collection was closed when 30 questionnaires had been returned. Average responses for each strategy group were calculated across the 30 questionnaires, and, as with the student questionnaires, ranked in order from 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent).
Results
As can be seen by an examination of the data set out in Table 1, students report using memory strategies least. Most frequently used are social strategies, followed by metacognitive strategies. Students rank compensation and cognitive strategies in the middle-frequency range, while a¤ective strategies come only one rank higher than memory strategies.
Language-learning strategies
251
table 1 Rank ordering of rate of language learning strategy group usage, as reported by students
6 (most frequent)
Social strategies
5
Metacognitive strategies
4
Compensation strategies
3
Cognitive strategies
2
A¤ective strategies
1 (least frequent)
Memory strategies
Teachers typically reacted with surprise when presented with these results. As a consequence, the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS ) was drawn up and completed by 30 teachers who had not been exposed to the results of the students’ survey. According to this survey (see Table 2), teachers believe that their students use memory strategies most frequently, while cognitive strategies are ranked second. Teachers believe students use social and metacognitive strategies quite frequently, while compensation and a¤ective strategies are ranked lowest.
table 2 Rank ordering of teacher perceptions of students’ rate of language-learning strategy usage
6 (most frequent)
Memory strategies
5
Cognitive strategies
4
Social strategies
3
Metacognitive strategies
2
Compensation strategies
1 (least frequent)
A¤ective strategies
It is interesting to note that while students report using memory strategies least, their teachers believe they are used the most. Conversely, whereas students report using social strategies most, they are ranked only third by teachers in terms of what teachers believe their students do. Metacognitive strategies, which students rank second to top, are ranked second to bottom by teachers, and cognitive strategies, which teachers rank second to top, are ranked only fourth by students. Compensation strategies are ranked third by students but only second to bottom by teachers. The only point at which teacher and student perceptions almost concur are with a¤ective strategies which are ranked second to bottom by students, and bottom by teachers. Student and teacher rankings are compared in Figure 1.
Discussion and conclusion
Interesting parallels might be drawn between the results of this study, which seem to indicate discrepancies between student and teacher perceptions of language learning strategy use, and the results of a study reported by Nunan (1988) which explored teacher and student perceptions of the importance of selected learning activities. Teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire which required them to rate ten selected learning activities according to their degree of importance. These data were then compared with student ratings of the same activities. It was discovered that in only one instance was there a match between the ratings of the students and the teachers, and that was for conversation practice, which was considered very important by both teachers and students. All of the other ratings (that is, nine out of the ten)
252
Carol Griªths and Judy M. Parr
figure 1 A comparison of student and teacher rankings of LLS group usage
did not match, and in some cases the mismatches were dramatic, especially in the case of language games, which teachers rated as highly important, but which students rated as quite unimportant. A similar conclusion regarding di¤erences in perception between students and teachers was reached by O’Malley et al. (1985) in a study of the learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate students in an American high school. Teachers and students were interviewed, and LLS noted. It was discovered that both beginning and intermediate students identified and reported using ‘an extensive variety of learning strategies’ (ibid.: 41), but that ‘teachers were generally unaware of their students’ strategies’ (ibid.: 21). It is possible that some of the discrepancies discovered in the present study may be due to di¤ering interpretations of the strategy groupings. It is possible, for instance, that a strategy such as ‘I read for pleasure in English’ might be classified as a metacognitive or an a¤ective strategy, rather than as a cognitive strategy, as it is classified in the SILL . This reservation notwithstanding, such levels of discrepancy in perception between teachers and students (as indicated in the studies by Nunan 1988, O’Malley et al., and in the present study) have to be of concern. In theory, LLS have great potential to enhance language-learning ability and, in practice, students have been shown to use a wide range of LLS strategies, some of them quite frequently. Perhaps one way for us, as teachers, to avoid the postmodern displacement to which Grundy (1999) refers, might be to work to increase our awareness of our students’ strategy usage and needs, in order to be able to facilitate the languagelearning process more e¤ectively in line with contemporary eclectic developments in the theory and practice of English language teaching. Final version received March 2000 Language-learning strategies
253
References Brown, H., C. Jorio, and R. Crymes (eds.). 1977. ‘On TESOL ’. Washington DC . Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Corder, S. P. 1967. ‘The significance of learners’ errors’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 160–70. Grundy, P. 1999. ‘From model to muddle’. ELT Journal 53/1: 54–5. Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press. Krashen, S. 1976. ‘Formal and informal linguistic environments in language acquisition and language learning’. TESOL Quarterly 10: 157–68. Krashen, S. 1977. ‘Some issues relating to the Monitor Model’ in H. Brown et al. eds.). 144–5. McLaughlin, B. 1978. ‘The Monitor model: some methodological considerations’. Language Learning 28: 144–58. Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-centred Curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Malley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. StewnerManzanares, L. Kupper, and R. P. Russo. 1985. ‘Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students’. Language Learning 35/1: 21–46. Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Rubin, J. 1975. ‘What the good language learner can teach us’. TESOL Quarterly 9: 41–51. Selinker, L. 1972. ‘Interlanguage’. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209–30. The authors Carol Griªths has a BA in English and French (Massey University) and a Diploma in Teaching (Auckland). After working for a number of years as a high school teacher, she transferred to the ESOL field. She then completed a Diploma in English Language Teaching (University of Auckland) and an MA (Hons) in Applied Linguistics (Waikato University). Currently the Director of Studies with International Language Academies (ILA ) in Auckland, New Zealand, she is also working on a PhD researching language learning strategies. Email:
[email protected]
254
Dr Judy M. Parr is a senior lecturer in the School of Education at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. She has an MA and Diploma in Teaching from Auckland and a BSc (Hons) and PhD in Psychology from the Australian National University. Her published areas of research include the development of expertise in language, particularly written language, literacy, and technology, and technology in education. Email:
[email protected]
Appendix Inventory of language-learning strategies (ILLS ) Language-learning strategies (LLS ) have been defined as ‘operations employed by the learner to aid the aquisition, storage, retrieval and use of information’ (Oxford 1990). Oxford divides language learning strategies into six groups: memory strategies (strategies used by students to help them remember new language items) cognitive strategies (strategies which help students think about and understand the new language) compensation strategies (strategies used by students to help them compensate for lack of knowledge) a¤ective strategies (strategies relating to how students feel about the new language) social strategies (strategies used by students which involve interaction with other people) Question: in your professional opinion, which of these strategy groups would you say your students use most frequently? Could you please number them from 6 to 1, where 6 = most frequent 1 = least frequent
Carol Griªths and Judy M. Parr
