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.
