Language Learning Strategies: A Critical Review

From Boomerszoomer4
 By way of introduction most of the literature on language learning strategies reminds us that investigation into this field began in the 1970’s. For the most part, this same literature describes the benefits of strategy teaching and use. However, some authors are not yet convinced that LLS are as beneficial as the literature might have us believe. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of the criticisms directed at language learning strategies and use.
 Asked by Language Learning Journal to review submissions to their December 2007 volume which dealt specifically with LLS, Ernesto Macaro outlined a number of concerns. More particularly, his task was to “evaluate the extent to which the papers presented in this volume adhere to some sort of theoretical consensus.” He argues there is not enough rigorous research (2006) to show a definitive causality so “the notion that gets put into people’s heads is: use of strategies leads to proficiency, achievement and success-i.e. causality. But we just don’t know that!”
 His criticism of not enough rigour in research stems from the inability of other researchers to have the opportunity to replicate and therefore validate the findings. He states, “If we don’t say exactly how we did it, how can other researchers or practitioners try it out for themselves?” Rebecca Oxford (1994) supports Macaro’s replication concerns when she implies that “Research should be replicated so more consistent information becomes available within and across groups of learners.”
 Rees-Miller (1993) is also concerned with the statements made by some researchers who preach causality when she warns teachers to approach with caution the teaching of LLS until empirical data in the form of longitudinal studies are gathered, “Until empirical data, particularly in the form of empirical studies are gathered to answer questions about the usefulness of learner training, teachers should approach the implementation of learner training in the classroom.” Phakiti (2003) adds, “To date, there is little empirical evidence to show how language learning strategies are related to actual strategy use in context.”
 In a discussion concerning the framework for strategy training Cohen (2003) also contributes to the argument of the lack of empirical evidence which supports strategy training and use. He acknowledges the identification of three different instructional frameworks but adds that “no empirical evidence has yet been provided to determine a single best method for conducting strategy training.” Oxford (1989) echoes this when she says “Just how language learning strategies should be taught is open to question.” While accepting the tenant that the number and variety of strategies correlates with greater proficiency in an L2 (Oxford & Nyikos, 1998), Oxford states that the theoretical model is based on a number of “assumptions as yet unsupported by empirical evidence (Rubin, 1987).
 In their investigation into strategy research Alexander, Graham and Harris (1998) add to the criticism when they articulate that “For the most part, past and current portrayals of strategic processing have been constructed like a puzzle – built on many separate pieces that must be forced together to create any semblance of cohesion.” Oxford (1994) outlines “almost two dozen” L2 strategy classification systems defined into subsequent sub classifications. She explains that “The existence of these distinct strategy typologies indicates a major problem in the research area of L2 learning strategies lack of a coherent, well accepted system for describing these strategies.”
 Rees-Miller (1993) also criticize the ambiguous, lack of clarity and broad definition of what a strategy really is. Macaro (2006) calls this her strongest attack on strategy research when she says, “Even the cognitive learning strategies, such as seeking meaning, using deduction, inferencing, or monitoring, are defined so broadly that it is questionable whether they can be specified in terms of observable, specific, universal behaviours that could be taught to or assessed in students. (p.681)” Stevick (1990) adds to the criticism of definition in his article dealing with terminology, Research on What? Macaro (2007) calls the definition “loose” and bunched together with all sorts of learner behaviours. He adds, “Moreover, this loose definition of the strategy concept has meant that strategies have been confused, or used interchangeably, with ‘processes’, or they have been juxtaposed with ‘processes’ but the differences between them never defined.”
 Another criticism is that we can somehow observe the good language learner (GLL) and copy the strategies employed. This idea excludes all other variables such as learner styles, sex, age and culture to name a few. Osamu Takeuchi (2003) raises concerns about adopting a general approach to good language learners. A study in the Japanese foreign language context confirms that there are some strategies uniquely preferred in the Japanese FL context.” Rees-Miller agrees with this criticism when she says that “behaviours defined as exemplary of successful learning strategies practiced by good language learners may be based on cultural models that are not universal.”
 Another concern is the possible disconnect between teacher and student beliefs concerning strategy use. Carol Griffiths (2007) discussed findings of a study done by Griffiths and Parr (2001) using the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Mismatches were discovered between what the teacher perceived as strategies employed by students and the actual strategies that were used. Griffiths claims that these mismatches have the potential “to negatively affect what goes on in the classroom”. Rees-Miller (1993) continues this criticism by indicating a possible “lack of fit” between teacher and student beliefs about what strategies are most used or effective. Where current theory tends to change teacher instruction methods, teachers may throw out an effective strategy training tool and prohibit students from using it. Again Rees-Miller criticizes the lack of empirical evidence when she says in this case, “Neither side can call upon unimpeachable empirical evidence to prove that one or the other method of learning is best for a particular individual learner.”
 The criticisms put forth according to those that assert them are in no way meant to pass judgement on other people’s work as mentioned by Macaro (2007), but to make clear that more empirical research is needed in the field of language learning strategies. It is noted that researchers must unite to tighten the broad and loose definition of what language learning strategies are.
 References:
 Alexander, P. A., Graham, S. and Harris, K. R. (1998). Educational Psychology Review, 10, 129-154. Cohen, A. (2003). Strategy training for second language learners. Eric Digest.
Griffiths, C. (2007). Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal, 61, 91-99.
 Griffiths, C., Parr, J.M. (2001). Language-learning strategies: Theory and perception. ELT Journal, 55, 247-254.
 Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 679-689.
 Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337.
 Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: Adhering to a theoretical framework. Language Learning Journal, 35, 239-243.
 Oxford, R. (1989). The role of styles and strategies in second language learning. Eric Digest. Oxford, R. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. CAL: Digests
 Phakiti, A. (2003). A closer look at gender and strategy use in L2 reading. Language Learning, 53, 649-702.
 Stevick, E.W. (1990). Research on what? Some terminology. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 143-153.
 Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good foreign language learners? A qualitative study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31, 385-392.

Extensive reading: why it is good for our students… and for us.

In this, the first of two articles for TeachingEnglish, Alan Maley considers the benefits extensive reading can bring to English language learners and teachers.

What is Extensive Reading (ER)?
Extensive Reading is often referred to but it is worth checking on what it actually involves.  Richard Day has provided a list of key characteristics of ER (Day 2002). This is complemented by Philip Prowse (2002). Maley (2008) deals with ER comprehensively. The following is a digest of the two lists of factors or principles for successful ER:

1. Students read a lot and read often.
2. There is a wide variety of text types and topics to choose from.
3. The texts are not just interesting: they are engaging/ compelling.
4. Students choose what to read.
5. Reading purposes focus on: pleasure, information and general understanding.
6. Reading is its own reward.
7. There are no tests, no exercises, no questions and no dictionaries.
8. Materials are within the language competence of the students.
9. Reading is individual, and silent.
10. Speed is faster, not deliberate and slow.
11. The teacher explains the goals and procedures clearly, then monitors and guides the students.
12. The teacher is a role model…a reader, who participates along with the students.

The model is very much like that for L1 reading proposed by Atwell (2006).  It has been variously described as Free Voluntary Reading (FEVER), Uninterrupted Silent Reading (USR), Sustained Silent Reading (SSR), Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), or Positive Outcomes While Enjoying Reading (POWER).

So what are the benefits of ER?
Both common sense observation and copious research evidence bear out the many benefits which come from ER (Waring 2000, 2006). There are useful summaries of the evidence in Day and Bamford  (1998: 32-39) and The Special Issue of The Language Teacher (1997) including articles by Paul Nation and others, and passionate advocacy in Krashen’s The Power of Reading. (2004). The journals Reading in a Foreign Language and the International Journal of Foreign Language Learning are also good sources of research studies supporting ER. (see references for websites) And there is the indispensable annotated bibliography,http://www.extensivereading.net/er/biblio2.html

So what does it all add up to?

ER develops learner autonomy.
There is no cheaper or more  effective way to develop learner autonomy. Reading is, by its very nature, a private, individual activity. It can be done anywhere, at any time of day. Readers can start and stop at will, and read at the speed they are comfortable with. They can visualise and interpret what they read in their own way. They can ask themselves questions (explicit or implicit), notice things about the language, or simply let the story carry them along.

ER offers Comprehensible Input.
Reading is the most readily available form of comprehensible input, especially in places where there is hardly any contact with the target language. If carefully chosen to suit learners’ level, it offers them repeated encounters with language items they have already met. This helps them to consolidate what they already know and to extend it. There is no way any learner will meet new language enough times to learn it in the limited number of hours in class. The only reliable way to learn a language is through massive and repeated exposure to it in context: precisely what ER provides.

ER enhances general language competence.
In ways we so far do not fully understand, the benefits of ER extend beyond reading. There is ‘a spread of effect from reading competence to other language skills ~ writing, speaking and control over syntax.’ (Elley 1991) The same phenomenon is noted by Day and Bamford (1998: 32-39) but they even note evidence of improvements in the spoken language. So reading copiously seems to benefit all language skills, not just reading.

ER  helps develop general, world knowledge.
Many, if not most, students have a rather limited experience and knowledge of the world they inhabit both cognitively and affectively. ER opens windows on the world seen through different eyes. This educational function of ER cannot be emphasised enough.

ER extends, consolidates and sustains vocabulary growth.
Vocabulary is not learned by a single exposure.  ER allows for multiple encounters with words and phrases in context thus making possible the progressive accretion of meanings to them.  By presenting items in context, it also makes the deduction of meaning of unknown items easier. There have been many studies of vocabulary acquisition from ER (Day et al 1991, Nation and Wang 1999, Pigada and Schmitt, 2006). Michael Hoey’s theory of ‘lexical priming’  (Hoey  1991, 2005) also gives powerful support to the effect of multiple exposure to language items in context.

ER helps improve writing.
There is a well-established link between reading and writing.  Basically, the more we read, the better we write.  Exactly how this happens is still not understood (Kroll 2003) but the fact that it happens is well-documented (Hafiz and Tudor 1989) Commonsense would indicate that as we meet more language, more often, through reading, our language acquisition mechanism is primed to produce it in writing or speech when it is needed. (Hoey 2005).

ER creates and sustains motivation to read more.
The virtuous circle - success leading to success - ensures that, as we read successfully in the foreign language, so we are encouraged to read more. The effect on self-esteem and motivation of reading one’s first book in the foreign language is undeniable. It is what Krashen calls a ‘home run’ book : ‘my first’! This relates back to the point at the beginning of the need to find ‘compelling’, not merely interesting, reading material. It is this that fuels the compulsion to read the next Harry Potter. It also explains the relatively new trend in graded readers toward original and more compelling subject matter. (Moses)

So why don’t teachers use ER more often?
A good question. When I conducted an inquiry among teachers worldwide, the answers came down to these:

a) Insufficient time.

b) Too costly.

c) Reading materials not available.

d) ER not linked to the syllabus and the examination.

e) Lack of understanding of ER and its benefits.

f) Downward pressure on teachers to conform to syllabi and textbooks.

g) Resistance from teachers, who find it impossible to stop teaching and to allow learning to take place.

Oddly, the elephant in the room: the Internet culture of young people, was not mentioned. There is work on the non-linear reading required by Internet users in Murray and Macpherson (2005), and articles on hypermedia by Richards (2000), and Ferradas Moi (2008) and some interesting reflections in Johnson  (2006).  The ‘non-reader’ issue will not go away but it is too important to deal with here and needs a separate article.

Extensive Reading for Teachers
My contention is that reading extensively, promiscuously and associatively is good for teacher, and for personal development. ‘The idea of the teacher having to be someone who is constantly developing and growing as a whole human being as a prerequisite for being able to truly help his or her pupils to be able to do the same, is such a core truth of teaching, yet it is typically ignored in FLT. (Peter Lutzker)

ER helps teachers to be better informed, both about their profession and about the world. This makes them more interesting to be around – and students generally like their teachers to be interesting people. For our own sanity we need to read outside the language teaching ghetto. For the sake of our students too.

It also helps teachers to keep their own use of English fresh. As we saw, the research on language learner reading shows how extensive reading feeds into improvements in all areas of language competence. (Krashen 2004) If this is true for learners, how much more true for teachers, who risk infection by exposure to so much restricted and error - laden English or who only read professional literature? Regular wide reading can add zest and pleasure to our own use of the language.

Teachers who show that they read widely are models for their students. We often tell students to ‘read more’ but why should they read if we do not? Teachers who are readers are more likely to have students who read too.

Furthermore, the books we read outside our narrow professional field can have an unpredictable effect on our practice within it.  So much of what we learn is learned sub-consciously. Its effects spread more by infection than by direct injection. And it is highly individual.  Individuals form associative networks among the books they read. This results in a kind of personal intertextuality, where the patterns form and re-form as we read more different books. This gives us a rich mental yeast which we can use to interact with others, while still retaining our individual take on the texts and the world.

So Extensive Reading has a lot to offer - both for our students and ourselves Read on!.

References.

• Atwell, Nancie. (2006)  The Reading Zone: how to help kids become skilled, passionate, habitual, critical readers.    New York: Scholastic
• Bamford, Julian and Richard Day.  (2004)   Extensive Reading Activities for Teaching Language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Day, Richard, R. (2002) ‘Top Ten Principles for teaching extensive reading.’   Reading in a Foreign Language.  14 (2)
• Day, Richard, R , Omura, Carole, Hiramatsu, Motoo.  (1991) ‘Incidental EFL vocabulary learning and reading.’  Reading in a Foreign Language.   7 (2)
• Day, Richard, R  and Bamford, Julian.(1998)  Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Elley, W.B  (1991)  ‘Acquiring literacy in a second language: the effect of book-based programmes.’   Language Learning.  41.  375-411
• Ferradas Moi, Claudia.  (2003)  ‘Hyperfiction: Explorations in Texture’ in  B.Tomlinson (ed)  (2003)  Developing Materials for Language Teaching.  London/New York: Continuum,  pp 221-233
• Hafiz, F.M and Tudor, I. (1989)   ‘Extensive reading and the development of language skills.’   ELT Journal 43 (1)  4-13
• Hoey, Michael  (1991) Patterns of Lexis in Texts.  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hoey, Michael  (2005)  Lexical Priming.  London: Routledge
• Johnson, Steven (2006)  Everything Bad is Good for You.  New York:  Riverhead.
• Krashen, Stephen  (2nd edition. 2004 )  The Power of Reading: insights from the research.   Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Kroll, Barbara (ed) (2003) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing.: Chapter 10 Reading and Writing Relations.  New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Maley, Alan (2008)  ‘Extensive Reading: Maid in Waiting’ in B. Tomlinson (ed)  English Language Learning Materials: a critical review.  London/New York: Continuum  pp133-156.
• Moses, Antoinette, (2004)   Jojo’s Story.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Murray, Denise and Pamela McPherson  (eds) (2005) Navigating to Read – Reading to Navigate.  Teaching in Action (series)  Sydney: NCELTR, McQuarie University
• Nation, Paul  (1997)  ‘The language teaching benefits of extensive reading.’  The Language Teacher.  21 (5)
• Nation, Paul  and  Wang Ming-Tzu, Karen  (1999) ‘Graded readers and vocabulary.’ Reading in a  Foreign Language.   12 (2)
• Pigada, Maria and Norbert Schmitt  (2006) ‘Vocabulary acquisition for extensive reading.’  Reading in a Foreign Language.  18 (1)
• Prowse, Philip.  ‘What is the secret of extensive reading?’ http://www.cambridge.org/elt/readers/prowse 1.htm  (accessed 4 April 2007)
• Prowse, P.  (2002)  ‘Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading: a response.’ Reading in a Foreign Language.  14 (2)
• Richards, Cameron (2000)   ‘Hypermedia, Internet communication and the challenge of re-defining literacy in the electronic age.’ Language Teaching and Technology.  4  (2,) 59-77.
• Scmidtt, Ken   Lower level Extensive reading Opportunities for Lower-level Learners of EFL/ESL.  on http://tesl-ej.org/ej13/int.html
• Waring, Rob  (2000)  The ‘Why’ and ‘How’ of Using Graded Readers. Oxford University Press, Japan.  (free publication accessible on www.oupjapan.co.jp/teachers/tebiki/tebiki.shtml)
• Waring, Rob  (2006)  ‘Why Extensive Reading should be an indispensable part of all language programmes’.  The Language Teacher  30 (7): 44-47

Useful Websites

http://www.extensivereading.net/er/biblio2.html  

http://www.extensivereading.net/er/whatis.html

http://sdkrashen.com 

http://ijflt.com

www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/  

http://www.extensivereading.net 

www.erfoundation.org  

http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF

Source: http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/extensive-reading-why-it-good-our-students%E2%80%A6-us