A Study of Learning Strategies in L2 Acquisition:(2)

However, there are many advantages in the classification of strategies. Strategy subsets enable researchers to describe the correspondence between mental processes and strategic processes (O’Malley&Chamot, 2001). Strategy inventories, as a valuable reference guide, may play an important role for teachers to carry on strategy training.

The work of Rubin (1975,1981), Wenden(1983), Oxford (1985,1990), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990) has made great contributions to the knowledge of learning strategies. Among their work, Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning ( SILL) is perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date (Ellis). SILL contained items tapping sixty-four inpidual strategies linking inpidual strategies as well as strategy groups with each of the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing). Oxford pided learning strategies into two main groups: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies consist of subconscious strategies directly involving the target language while indirect strategies provide indirect support for language learning through more conscious strategies such as focusing, planning, evaluating. These two classes are subpided into six subcategories: memory, cognitive, compensation, social, affective and metacognitive. A big problem is that SILL fails to provide details of language learning strategies related to any specific language. What’s more, Oxford’s taxonomy fails to make a distinction between strategies directed at learning the L2 and those directed at using it (Ellis). The last problem is that compensation strategies are considered as a direct type of learning strategies rather than one type of production strategies, which is somewhat confusing. Despite these problems, Oxford’s inventory has a well-understood organization of specific strategies into a hierarchy of levels.

2.2 O’Malley and Chamot framework of classification

Unlike Oxford, O’Malley and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories depending on the level or type of processing involved: metacoginitive, cognitive and social/affective. They grounded the study of learning strategies within the information-processing model of learning developed by Anderson. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s efforts into the learning task. These strategies are higher order executive skills that may entail planning learning, monitoring the process of learning, and evaluating the success of a particular strategy. They have an executive function. In O’Malley and Chamot framework of learning strategies, metacognitive strategies include advance organizers, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, advance preparation, self-monitoring, delayed production and self-evaluation.

Cognitive strategies are defined as learning strategies that “operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990:44). They have an operative or cognitive-processing function,directly linked to the performance of particular learning tasks. Cognitive strategies include repetition, resourcing, grouping, note-taking deduction/induction, substition, elaboration, summarization, translation, transfer and inferencing.

Social/affective strategies concern the ways in which learners interact with other leaners and native speakers or take control of one’s own feelings on language learning. Examples of such strategies are cooperation and question for clarification.

O’Malley and Chamot’s three-way distinction is useful and has been generally accepted (Ellis,1994). Perhaps the reason is that this classification is more consistent with a learner’s use of strategies. It implies that second language acqusition is active and dynamic mental processes. For teachers, the classification is found to be useful for describing how to integrate strategies into instruction (O’Malley and Chamot, 2001).

Their classification of strategies still remains problematic, however. First, like other classifications, this classification still has the problem that it is not clear whether the range of strategies is finite or infinite in number. Second, even O’Malley and Chamot talked about their problems (2001, p.144). In fact, the distinction between metacognitive and cognitive strategies is obscure without precise boundaries. Possibly what is metacognitive to one researcher is cognitive to another. “Directed attention” (deciding in advance to attend in general to a learning task and ignore irrelevant distractors) is classified into a metacognitive strategy and presumed to occur prior to the beginning of a task. But actually it is ongoing when students direct their attention to the task. Another example is “selective attention” (deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of language input or siruational details that will cue the retention of language input.) , which sometimes has the feature of being an integral aspect of task performance, rather than the type of skill recognized as an executive function.

Obviously, there is no agreement on what constitute learning strategies. Ellis (1994:558) analyzed the phenomonon as follows: There is no widely accepted theoretical basis for identifying and describing strategies. The work done to date has been essentially descriptive, reflecting the corpora of data that different researchers have worked on. No wonder that there is a state of confusion in the classification of strategies.

These problems are serious blocks to reliable research(Ellis,1994). Because of different sets of strategies and the lack of agreement, it is impossible for the studies to reach any general conclusion. What can be done to solve the problem? Maybe some useful suggestions can be obtained from the study of vocabulary-learning strategies made by Brown and Perry’s study (1991) .The study of vocabulary-learning strategies is very promising. The success of the study lies in clarifying the learning targets and classifying strategies very precisely. Their study also shows that it is possible to locate vocabulary strategy research within a strong theoretical framework (Ellis). For the purpose of conducting research, specific strategy terms and operational definitions to describe strategic processing should be used (O’Malley and Chamot, 2001 ). On the other hand, perhaps criteria should be taken into consideration when developing an taxonomies of learning strategies. Rubin (1987) once proposed four criteria when developing an inventory of cognitive strategies. It might be a feasible approach.

Conclusion

As mentioned above, the study of learning strategies is still in its infancy, so there is a lot of work to do. How to define and classify the term “learning strategy” is a worthwhile undertaking. Probably we should explore the issue based on some theoretical framework and generic criteria.

【References】

[1] Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. from http://www.cal. org/resources/digest_pdfs/0110_Anderson.pdf/ survey2007-7.

[2] Cohen, A. D. (2005). Coming to terms with language learner stategies: What do strategy experts think about the terminology and where would they direct their research? Working paper No. 12. from http;//crie.org.nz/research_ paper/Andrew. Cohen/WP12.pdf/survey2007-7.

[3] Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.

[4] O’Malley, J.M.& A. U. Chamot. (2001). Learning Srrategies in Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.

[5] Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

[6] Oxford, R. & D. Crookall. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73(iv), 404—419.

[7] Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart. (2000). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Reaearch Press.

[8]Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31.