Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

Language learners are responsible for their own learning and should develop their own strategies; it is not the teachers responsibility, nor is it feasible, given the many ways in which learners differ. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Discuss with reference to SLA theory. Take Away Paper Jennifer E. Taylorson University of St. Andrews Student number: 110017069

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 Part 1 ......................................................................................................................... 3 Part 2 ......................................................................................................................... 6

What are Strategies? ......................................................................................................... 6 What qualities are to be found in a good language learner and what strategies do such learners tend to use? ......................................................................................................... 8 How can learners differ? .................................................................................................... 9 Age ................................................................................................................................ 9 Aptitude........................................................................................................................ 10 Motivation .................................................................................................................... 11 Intelligence................................................................................................................... 12 Personality ................................................................................................................... 13 Learner Beliefs ............................................................................................................. 13 Learning Styles ............................................................................................................ 14 What does research into the teaching of language learning strategies tell us? ................ 15 Do the above differences make teaching strategies impracticable? ................................. 17

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 19 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................... 23

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

Introduction In order to answer this question satisfactorily, it must be broken into two parts. The first part, Language learners are responsible for their own learning and should develop their own strategies, requires consideration of the roles and responsibilities of both the teacher and learner, and consideration also of the nature of the learning process. The second part, regarding the feasibility of teaching language learning strategies, requires us to reflect upon what factors may make strategy training challenging, what research into the teaching of language learning strategies can reveal, and finally how these challenges may practically be overcome. Part 1 Key Questions: Is it the responsibility of the learner to develop his or her own strategies? y y y How does learning occur? What is the role of the teacher? What is the role of the learner?

Traditionally, L2 acquisition was considered to be a process of habit formation. In this view, teachers were seen to be transmitters of knowledge, and the students, merely passive vessels to be filled up with information which would take root through the process of memorizing, copying, and repeating the expert knower. Teachers were seen to be central to the learning process. As stated by Mitchell & Myles (2004), Chomskys 1957 review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior (1957) introduced a radically new idea; the idea that language acquisition was based on an innate genetic blueprint that provided a natural

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

readiness for language acquisition. For acquisition to occur, learners had to internally process the language data in their environments and hypothesise about the rules of the language. This radical departure from the behaviourist view of learning shifted our view of teacher and learner, and brought about the idea that learners are not only active agents in the learning process, but in fact central to it. As time has progressed the idea that learners are central to the learning process holds true, and research into second language acquisition strongly indicates that learner motivation, autonomy, and activeness are central pillars of success. Indeed, as stated in Cotterall (1995), learners able to self-monitor their own output and the output of others, who are intrinsically motivated, actively seek out opportunities to communicate and practice language, set manageable and achievable goals for themselves, and are aware of what they need to do in order to improve tend to be more successful language learners than students who do not exhibit these behaviours. Whilst it may be a commonly held belief that language learning success depends very much upon learners taking responsibility for their own development, research tells us that not all learners will naturally or independently develop the strategies that they will need in order to achieve this independence. If, as evidence suggests, it would help such learners to develop autonomy and independence then it would seem logical to suggest that a goal of language educationalists should be to facilitate this development. To suggest that it should be the sole responsibility of the learner to develop his or her own learning strategies may be to block the path of development for that individual. From a sociocultural perspective, the human mind is mediated, and social and mental activity is constructed through interaction with more knowledge

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

members of a society (Lantolf, 2007). In this view of learning, it is not our role as teachers merely to generically transmit content knowledge, leaving the learner entirely responsible for processing and applying this information; rather it is our role to provide the scaffolding learners need to transition from inter-psychological to intra-psychological functioning (Mara C. M. de Guerrero and Olga S. Villamil, 2000), which will eventually lead to learner independence and autonomy. As Lantolf (2007) states, interaction between learner and teacher leads to the development of higher mental capacities such as intentional memory, voluntary attention, planning, logical thought and problem solving, learning, and evaluating the effectiveness of these processes. Cummings distinction between basic interpersonal skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) stresses the specific relevance these mental capacities have to the language learning process, and emphasise the fact that for success in certain language tasks the development of such thinking skills is essential. On cross referencing these higher order thinking skills against Oxfords strategy taxonomy, 1985 (cited in Erhman & Oxford, 1990), their relevance is further highlighted as one finds that these mental capacities are the essential basis for many metacognitive, cognitive, and memory strategies. In terms of the practical application of the sociocultural theory of learning to strategy training, three models have been devised. These (as cited in Chamot 2004) are, the Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction Model (Cohen, 1998), the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach Model (Chamot, 2005; Chamot et al., 1999) and Grenfell & Harriss 1999 model. Each of these models seek to find a structure through which the teacher can locate each individual learners zone of proximal development and provide relevant and specific scaffolded support that will help learners develop language learning strategies appropriate to their individual

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

needs and to the tasks they must perform. (Please see appendix 1 for a table adapted from Harris, 2003 (found in Chamot, 2004) outlining these three Models for Language Learning Strategy Instruction). Part 2

What are Strategies? As defined by Chamot (2005), Learning strategies are procedures that facilitate a learning task. Strategies are most often conscious and goal-driven, especially in the beginning stages of tackling an unfamiliar language task. To further investigate what language learning strategies are, we may use Oxfords Strategy Taxonomy, 1985 (cited in Erhman & Oxford, 1990) in which language learning strategies are broken down into two basic categories; direct, and indirect strategies. These two core categories are then further broken down as follows: Direct strategies: behaviours involving direct use of the language; 1. Memory strategies: for entering information into memory and retrieving: a) creating mental linkages: grouping, associating/elaborating, placing new words into a context b) Applying images and sounds: using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords, representing sounds in memory c) Reviewing well: structured reviewing d) Employing action: using physical response or sensation, using mechanical techniques 2. Cognitive strategies: for manipulating the language for reception and production of meaning

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

a) Practicing: repeating, formally practicing with sounds and writing systems, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, practicing naturalistically b) Receiving and sending messages: getting the idea quickly, using resources for receiving and sending messages c) Analysing and Reasoning: reasoning deductively, analysing expressions, analysing contrastively (across languages), translating, transferring d) Creating structure for input and output: taking notes, summarizing, highlighting

3. a) b)

Compensation strategies: for overcoming limitations in existing knowledge Guessing intelligently: using linguistic clues, using other clues Overcoming limitations in speaking and writing: switching to the mother tongue, getting help, using mime or gesture, avoiding communication partially or totally, selecting the topic, adjusting or approximating the message, coining words, using a circumlocution or synonym

Indirect strategies: behaviours which support language learning although they do not directly involve using the language; 1. a) Metacognitive strategies: for organizing and evaluating learning Centring your learning: overviewing and linking with already known material, paying attention, delaying speech production to focus on listening b) Arranging and planning your learning: finding out about language learning, organizing, setting goals and objectives, identifying the purpose of a language task (purposeful listening/ reading/ speaking/ writing), planning for a language task, seeking practice opportunities c) Evaluating your learning: self-monitoring, self-evaluating

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

2. a)

Affective strategies: for managing emotions and attitudes Lowering your anxiety: using progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or mediation, using music, using laughter

b)

Encouraging yourself: making positive statements, taking risks wisely, rewarding yourself

c)

Taking your emotional temperature: listening to your body, using a checklist, writing a language learning diary, discussing your feelings with someone else

3. a) b)

Social strategies: for learning with others Asking questions: asking for clarification or verification, asking for correction Cooperating with others: cooperating with others, cooperating with proficient users of the new language

c)

Empathizing with others: developing cultural understanding, becoming aware of others' thoughts and feelings

What qualities are to be found in a good language learner and what strategies do such learners tend to use? According to Rubin (1975) the good language learner is a willing and accurate guesser who actively uses available contextual clues in order to inductively infer meanings, which according to Oxfords strategy taxonomy can be termed as a direct, compensatory strategy. He is also highly motivated to communicate, has good interpersonal skills, and possesses the ability to use whatever resources are at his disposal in order to communicate the message (which may translate into application or preference for direct compensatory strategies). The good language learner is not inhibited and does not feel foolish when communicating indirect affective strategies possibly, but certainly social strategies. He pays attention to form and seeks opportunities to test hypothesis, taking every opportunity to try out new language, and taking full advantage of communication opportunities (indirect

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

metacognitive and social strategies). Finally, the good language learner monitors his own and the speech of others in terms of form, which is an indirect metacognitive strategy, and also closely attends to meaning. How can learners differ? If the behaviours exhibited and strategies chosen by successful language learners can be identified, then logically one might assume that less successful language learners may be assisted through training that helps them to implement strategies utilized by more successful language learners. Whilst this may potentially be the case, research into the effects of learner differences on the strategies learners choose to implement suggests that there is no one type of successful language learner. Rather, the success of an implemented strategy, and of the general success of the individual learner, depends on a complex interaction between context, background, age, motivation and attitude, personality, and learning style. In the following sections we will take a brief look at how learners can differ and what impact these differences can have on language learning strategies. Age In terms of a persons age, it is argued that there is a critical period for language acquisition during early childhood and that if one begins learning a language after this period then the learning will not be constrained by UG in the same way in which the learning of the L1 is suggested to be. Language learning after the passing of the critical period is said to be typified by incomplete success due to the fact the learners can no longer rely on their natural readiness for language acquisition. Therefore, although adult learners may have to rely on more general learning abilities for L2 acquisition, such as Oxfords metacognitive,

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

10

cognitive, and memory strategies, their knowledge of the world and of learning can work to their advantage as they can use this knowledge as a useful language learning resource. In terms of this difference affecting the teachability of strategies, as a class will usually be made up of learners of the same age (roughly) this difference does not pose a huge problem to the teacher. Aptitude Aptitude, as defined by Carroll, 1991 (cited in Lightbown and Spada, 2006) is characterized by the ability to learn quickly. It can be broken down into four parts in which a persons natural capacity for language learning can be measured in terms of their phonemic coding ability, associative memory, grammatical sensitivity, and their inductive language learning ability Carroll, 1965 (cited in Skehan 1991). As Skehan (1991) states, aptitude is one factor that affects learning style and also the strategies a learner may choose to utilize. Indeed, Skehan, 1986a (cited in Skehan, 1991) was able to find evidence for the existence of different learner profiles according to their language aptitude as calculated by a language aptitude test. For example, learners who scored highly on inductive language learning ability saw language learning as a pattern-making game. For these learners rule analysis was a fundamental tenet of language learning. Other learners, however, relied more heavily on memory and accumulated a number of pre-fabricated chunks which enabled communication to occur more quickly than with the analytically minded students. In terms of how aptitude can affect strategy choice, learners who are more analytical will logically favour cognitive strategies such as analysing and reasoning, whereas students relying more heavily on memory will probably favour memory strategies such as creating mental linkages, applying images and sounds, and

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

11

reviewing chunks and vocabulary well. Interestingly, Skehan implies that it is not necessary for a language learner to employ a huge range of different strategies; rather he states that success seemed to occur when learners played to their strengths. Indeed, Wesche, 1981 (cited in Skehan, 1991) indicates that matching students with methodologies on the basis of their aptitude profile may lead to greater student satisfaction and success, suggesting that forcing students to adopt strategies that they are not naturally comfortable with may hinder progress. Motivation Motivation is perhaps one of the most important factors to affect the success of language learning. Perhaps the most well know description of motivation is Gardners 1979 & 1985 (cited in Skehan 1991) integrative and instrumental motivation. According to Gardner, a person who possesses integrative motivation typically has a positive attitude towards the target language community, identifies with them, and approaches language study with the intention of entering that community. An instrumentally motivated person on the other hand sees language learning as enabling them to do useful things, but as having no special significance in itself. In general terms, motivation is thought to be of extreme importance in being able to successful learn a language, however, integrative motivation is believed to be the more powerful of the two, as it comes from within the individual. The link between how motivation may affect strategy choice is not clear, however, it may be that learners who are invested in the target language community may implement more social strategies than those who have little interest in the language or culture itself.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

12

Intelligence Intelligence, as stated by Lightbown and Spada (2006), is more closely related to metalinguistic knowledge rather than communicative ability. Furthermore, traditionally, intelligence was seen only to pertain to the academic skills of reading, writing and vocabulary (Genesee 1976, cited in Lightbown and Spada 2006). The work of Howard Gardner, however, changed this very one dimensional view of intelligence as he posited that in fact there are 7 types of intelligences. These multiple-intelligences include logical-mathematical intelligence; linguistic intelligence; spatial intelligence; musical intelligence; bodily-kinaesthetic intelligence; interpersonal intelligence; and finally, intrapersonal intelligence. More recently, the above seven types of intelligence have been added to, and now include naturalistic intelligence and existential intelligence bring the total number of intelligences to nine. Again, the exact correlation between intelligence and strategy choice remains unclear. However, Arnold and Fonsec (2004) state that different multiple intelligence types do in fact affect the way in which learners learn languages. For example, they state that logical-mathematical learners, who are good at problem-solving tasks, in language learning, focus mainly on meaning. Through constant rereading of the text to solve the problem of meaning, they acquire a familiarity with the vocabulary and structures used. These behaviours perhaps suggest that these types of learners may choose to implement strategies such as cognitive, and some compensatory strategies. One more example of how intelligence type can affect choice is the way in which interpersonal learners behave. These learners, as stated by Arnold and Fonsec (2004) have a strong ability to understand other people, to work cooperatively and to communicate effectively. Their desire to communicate and work with others strongly suggests that they prefer to learner through the adoption of social strategies.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

13

Personality As stated by Lightbown and Spada (2006) there are a number of different personality traits that may affect second language learning including extroversion, inhibition, anxiety, self-esteem, dominance, talkativeness, and responsiveness. However as Lightbown and Spada go on to say in general, the available research does not show a single clearly defined relationship between personality traits and second language acquisition. For example, whilst extroversion has traditionally been linked to the adoption of positive social strategies and success in language learning, Wong-Fillmore, 1979 (cited in Lightbown and Spada 2006) found that in certain circumstances introverted, quiet observant types had greater success. Such anomalies highlight the complex effect that context, culture, background, beliefs, aptitude and intelligence have on the behaviours a learner exhibits, the choice of strategies a learner implements, and ultimately, the overall success of that individual. Clearly, much more research needs to be conducted to determine the nature of the relationship between the above elements. Learner Beliefs Most learners will have strong beliefs about the way they think they should be taught, what they should be taught, and the way they think they learn best. These beliefs are usually based on their previous learning experiences. As stated by Cotterall (1995), all behaviour is governed by beliefs and experiences, therefore learner beliefs can have a strong impact on the adoption of successful language learning strategies. For example, as Cotterall (1995) states, if a learner believes that error will impede his language learning progress then he may be discouraged from participating in fluency-focused activities or communicating with other learners or native speakers of the language because of anxiety or fear of getting it wrong. Logically, such a student would perhaps not ordinarily choose to

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

14

implement compensation or social strategies as these often involve risk taking which would potentially create further anxiety. Learning Styles There are various different models that can be used to describe a students learning style. The following, however, detail only two of these and refer specifically to the learners preferred way of processing information. The first is Myers-Briggs adaptation of Carl Jungs learning-styles model (cited in Oxford, 1990) which includes four pairs of opposite processing styles. These, as described in Oxford (1990) are: 1. Judger: hardworking and self-disciplined 2. Perceiver: can deal with uncertainty and likes less structure 3. Extraverts: friendly and sociable 4. Introverts: self-sufficient and reserved 5. Intuitives: down-to-earth and realistic 6. Intuitives: imaginative and holistic-thinkers 7. Thinkers: logical and analytic 8. Feelers: interpersonally oriented and empathic Another way in which to look at learning styles is to use Honey and Mumfords learning styles model which categorizes people into activists, pragmatists, theorists, and reflectors. We can also refer to a students VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) learning style. This, however, refers largely to the learners preferred way of receiving the input they will later come to process, rather than the learners information processing preference.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

15

Research carried out by Ehrman and Oxford (1990) looked into the link between Myers-Briggs learner types and strategy choice. Their research strongly suggests that learning style has a marked impact on strategy choice. For example, they found that Extroverts use social strategies consistently and easily, whereas Introverts reject such strategies but prefer to implement metacognitive alternatives. Sensing students apparently reported a strong liking for memory strategies, reported frequent use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, but rejected compensation strategies. Intuitives, on the other hand, made extensive use of compensation strategies. Thinkers and Feelers were completely juxtaposed. As suggested by the researchers perhaps because of their enjoyment of analysis, Thinkers showed an extremely strong preference for cognitive strategies whereas Feelers completely rejected most cognitive strategies, especially analysis. Finally, Judgers indicated preference for metacognitive strategies like "tactical" planning whereas Perceivers typically rejected this. Judgers, being uncomfortable with ambiguity, strongly rejected compensation strategies, unlike Perceivers who preferred such strategies. What does research into the teaching of language learning strategies tell us? First of all, it is worth defining what strategy training in fact is. Ellis & Sinclair, 1989 (cited in Chen, 2007) define it as the explicit teaching of how, when, and why students should employ FL learning strategies to enhance their efforts at reaching language programme goals. In terms of the usefulness of strategy training, despite the many learner differences we have just discussed above, Erhman & Oxford (1990) state that, Important effects of training in the use of learning strategies have been discovered by a number of researchers. Some specific examples of this work include Ross and Rost (1991), Thompson & Rubin (1996), Carrier (2003), Ozeki (2000), Vandergrift

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

16

(2003b) (all cited in Chamot 2005) who studied the efficacy of teaching learning strategies to improve the outcome of listening tasks, and whose research was carried out in a range of different contexts. All of the above mentioned researchers found that the teaching of strategies had a positive impact on the learners ability to complete the listening tasks in the study. Other examples of research that shows strategy training may have a positive effect on learner progress include Grenfell & Harris 1999 study (cited in Chamot 2005) which focused on the teaching of vocabulary memorization strategies, and Macaros 2001 study (cited in Chamot 2005) which focused on teaching six form learners of French metacognitive strategies to improve writing skills. As Chamot (2005) states, perhaps the most challenging area for teaching strategy instruction is in oral communication due to the fact that the use of deliberate strategies can restrict the flow of natural speech. Due to this presentational speaking, rather than interactive speaking, has been the focus of several studies (see Cohen, 1998; OMalley & Chamot, 1990, cited in Chamot 2005) and found that strategy training did indeed have a positive impact on the task outcome. Whilst much of the research suggests that strategy training is often beneficial to learners, as Rees-Millar (1993) states, we must be careful of assuming that strategies utilized by good language learners will be beneficial to all learners. To qualify this, she cites several studies which appear to suggest that even when unsuccessful language learners are taught to adopt, or independently adopt, strategies used by good language learners, they dont necessarily become more successful. For example, Vann & Abraham 1990 (cited in Rees-Miller, 1993) carried out a study in which they sought to identify the strategies two unsuccessful language learners were utilizing. Interestingly, despite the learners lack of success they were found to be employing an extensive repertoire of strategies characteristic of

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

17

successful learners, such as engagement in the task, risk taking, monitoring errors, and paying attention to overall meaning. Another study Rees-Miller reports on is that of Porte (1988) who studied 15 unsuccessful students of EFL. Porte found that the students used many learning strategies that were considered good, however, the sophistication and appropriateness of the application of these strategies to specific tasks appeared to be lacking when compared to more successful classmates. Do the above differences make teaching strategies impracticable? As we can see from the above discussion, learners vary greatly from one another, and these variations necessarily affect the choice of strategies each learner will implement. However, whilst this is certainly true, the available research tells us that strategy instruction is feasible and can be beneficial to learners. Whether learner differences make the teaching of language learning strategies impracticable is perhaps down to the approach taken by each individual teacher. For example, a teacher who takes a prescriptive approach to strategy instruction and seeks to impose his favoured strategies on learners will necessarily fail as these strategies will not necessarily be appropriate to the needs of each individual in the class. On the other hand, a teacher who seeks to engage learners in an interactive and self-reflective process can instead help individual learners gain greater awareness of the strategies they may currently be using, introduce further suggested strategies, and scaffold the learner to make appropriate choices that will help them achieve their language learning aims. Furthermore, through the continuous evaluation of these strategies, learners will be empowered to make choices for themselves, thus aiding learner autonomy.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

18

Sensitivity to a teaching context is also an important factor that can affect the potential success of strategy instruction as the way in which strategies may be taught, and the types of strategies taught will depend, for example, upon the level of a class, the age of learners in a class, whether the class is ESL or EFL, the goals of the learners in a class (exam focused, writing focused, communication focused, general English class), or whether a class is monolingual or mixed. For example, whilst teaching a monolingual class a teacher may use the learners L1 to explicitly clarify the reasons why a particular strategy may be useful. However, if teaching a mixed lower level class then the teacher will have to rely more heavily on demonstration techniques, and the reasons why the strategy is useful to the learners may not be explicitly communicated. To provide an example of how strategy type may be affected by the goals of the learners we may consider the difference between an exam class and an academic writing class. In the former, a teacher will probably be more focused on helping the learners pass the exam they will come to sit. To do this, the teacher may encourage memorisation techniques or affective strategies that will be of use in the exam. In the academic writing class, however, the teacher will probably be more focused on sharing strategies such as proof-reading, drafting, re-drafting and, self-assessment. As briefly mentioned above, the explicitness of the instruction is another consideration as is whether strategy instruction should be integrated into language lessons or be delivered as a separate course. In terms of explicitness of instruction, as Chamot (2005) states, there is overwhelming agreement that explicit instruction is more effective than implicit instruction. Regarding whether strategy training should be integrated, or be taught in a separate course outside of the language classroom there is far more diversity of opinion, however. Gu, 1996 (cited in Chamot, 2005) argues that strategies taught in a language class are less likely to

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

19

transfer to other tasks and that it may not be practical to prepare all language teachers to teach strategies. On the other hand, as stated by Wenden, 1987b (cited in OMalley & Chamot, 1990, p. 152) those who favour integrated strategy training argue that learning in context is far more effective than learning separate skills whose immediate applicability may not be evident to the learner. Conclusion In summary, regarding the question of whether or not it is the learners responsibility to develop his or her own learning strategies, it can be concluded that whilst some learners will naturally and independently adopt language learning strategies that will aid their development, not all learners will be able to achieve this without teacher guidance. As it is a teachers duty as the more knowledgeable other to facilitate his learners development, we cannot state that it should be the sole responsibility of the learner to develop his or her own learning strategies; rather strategy development should be the culmination of efforts made both by the teacher and the learner. Regarding the question of feasibility, the available research suggests that the teaching of language learning strategies in some contexts and circumstances is possible and indeed useful to learners. However, it is important to bear in mind that strategies for the skills of reading, writing, vocabulary learning, and oral presentations are perhaps easier to teach and have a greater impact on task outcome than strategies for the skills of speaking. Further to the above, research tells us that good language learners are skilled at matching strategies to the task they were working on, whereas less successful language learners apparently do not have the metacognitive knowledge about task requirements needed to select appropriate strategies (Chamot 2005). It is therefore

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

20

equally important, or possibly more important, for teachers to support learners to consider the requirements of a given task in order that they may learn to decide which strategy or strategies might be most appropriately applied to that specific context. Finally, in order to facilitate the development of their students effectively, teachers must be acutely aware that the relationship between IQ, intelligence, aptitude, age, learner beliefs, motivation, personality, learning style and strategy choice is an extremely complex one. Furthermore, teachers must be aware that the language learning strategies that breed success in one culture or context cannot be applied universally to all, and that even students from within the same culture or learning context can differ greatly and will not benefit from a one size fits all approach to strategy teaching. This may practically be achieved through the adoption of one of the above mentioned strategy training models (please see appendix 1). To conclude, as Rubin (1975) states, in the end we are only able to guide our learners to select for themselves strategies that are appropriate to their own individual learning styles.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

21

Bibliography Arnold, J., & Fonseca, C. (2004). Multiple Intelligence Theory and Foreign Language Learning: A Brain-based Perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 4 (1), 119-136. Chamot, A. (2004). Issues in Language Learning Strategy Research and Teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1 (1), 14-26. Chamot, A. (2005). Language Learning Strategy Instruction: Current Issues and Rearch. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112130. Chen, Y. (2007). Learning to learn: the impact of strategy training. ELT Journal, 61 (1), 20-29. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for Autonomy: Investigating Learner Beliefs. System, 23 (2), 195-205. 1995 Cummings, J. (n.d.). BICS & CALP. Retrieved from http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:morJDf3Y9w4J:scholar. google.com/+cummings+bics+and+calp&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult Language Learning Styles and Strategies in an Intensive Training Setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74 (3), 311-327. De Guerrero, M, C, M., & Villamil, O, S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51-68. Lantolf, J. P. (2007). Sociocultural Theory: A Unified Approach to L2 Learning and Teaching. In Cummins, J., Davison, C (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching, Volume 1 (693 701). New York: Springer Science + Business Media LLC.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

22

Lightbown, P, M., & Spada, N. (2006). How Languages are Learned. Oxford. OUP. Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories. London. Hodder Education. OMalley, J., & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge. CUP. Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A Critical Appraisal of Learner Training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching Implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27 (4), 679-689. Rubin, J. (1975). What the "Good Language Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, (1), 41-51. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. SSLA, 13, 275 298.

Take Away Paper Jennifer Taylorson

23

Appendix 1
Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction Model Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach Model Grenfell & Harris

Teacher as diagnostician: Helps students identify current strategies and learning styles. Teacher as language learner: Shares own learning experiences and thinking processes. Teacher as learner trainer: Trains students how to use learning strategies.

Preparation: Teacher identifies students current learning strategies for familiar tasks. Presentation: The teacher models, names, & explains new strategy; asks students if and how they have used it. Practice: Students practice new strategy; in subsequent strategy practice, teacher fades reminders to encourage independent strategy use. Self-evaluation: Students evaluate their own strategy use immediately after practice. Expansion: Students Transfer strategies to new tasks, combine strategies into clusters, develop repertoire of preferred strategies.

Awareness Raising: Students complete a task, and then identify the strategies they used. Modelling: Teacher models, discusses value of new strategy, makes checklist of strategies for later use. General practice: Students practice new strategies with different tasks.

Teacher as coordinator: Supervises students study plans and monitors difficulties. Teacher as coach: Provides on going guidance on students progress.

Action planning: Students set goals and choose strategies to attain those goals.

Focused practice: Students carry out action plan using selected strategies; teacher fades prompts so that students use strategies automatically. Evaluation: Teacher and students evaluate success of action plan; set new goals; cycle begins again.

Assessment: Teacher assesses students use of strategies and impact on performance.