Teng, F. (2023). Language learning strategies. In Z. Wen, R. Sparks, A. Biedroń., & F.

Teng
(Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in second language acquisition: Theories, assessment,
and pedagogy (pp. 147-173). Berlin: De Gruyter.

8 Language Learning Strategies

Mark Feng Teng

Abstract: This chapter introduces the historical development of L2 learning strate-

gies. I first reviewed the assessment of language learning strategies by summarizing
survey instruments developed by SLA researchers and educational practitioners
over the years. Next, I reviewed research findings that shed light on individual dif-
ferences in strategy use and the factors that result in individual differences in strat-
egy choice and L2 learning performance. These findings highlight the effectiveness
of strategy-based instruction on L2 learning. The chapter concludes by highlighting
the remaining challenges for instruction and pedagogy related to language learning
strategies.

Keywords: Language learning strategies, strategy-based instruction, cognitive

strategies, individual differences in strategy choice, assessment of strategies

8.1 Introduction

Assessing individual differences in students’ learning is a prominent area of inter-

est in second language acquisition. Individual differences refer to the more-or-less
enduring psychological characteristics that distinguish one person from another
(Baumeister and Vohs 2007). Factors such as age, motivation, and learning strate-
gies can influence learners’ development in another language. According to Ox-
ford (2017), strategies refer to setting goals, determining actions to achieve the
goals, and mobilizing resources to execute the actions. Learning strategies are de-
fined as “specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques – such as seeking out con-
versation partners or giving oneself encouragement to tackle a difficult language
task – used by students to enhance their own learning” (Scarcella and Oxford
1992: 63). Language learning strategies refer to “the processes and actions deployed
by language learners to learn or use a language more effectively” (Rose 2015: 421)
or the thoughts and actions operationalized by language learners to carry out “a
multiplicity of tasks from the very outset of learning to the most advanced levels
of target language performance” (Cohen 2011:7).
In the 1970s, researchers explored the possibilities of gathering data from
learners to identify good learner behaviors and then used strategies as the basis
for training less effective learners. During the 1980s, work on strategies continued
but with a focus on developing questionnaires to assess learners’ use of strategies.
The notion that learning strategies might assist second and foreign language

[Link]
148 8 Language Learning Strategies

acquisition is actually quite new. Researchers questioned how L2 learners could

use strategies to enhance their language learning. One possible answer is that lan-
guage learning strategies could help L2 learners in individualized ways to address
and deal with their own inner states. “Good” language learners might be doing
something special or different from poor language learners, and those strategies
could be helpful to less successful language learners. Thus, much emphasis has
been placed on the exploration of social, psychological, and affective variables
that could either enhance or hamper L2 achievement. In the last few years, there
have been extensive attempts to assess language learning strategies and examine
the potential of strategy training.
Proponents of language learning strategies suggest that strategies can deter-
mine how and how well a learner can learn a second or foreign language. When
learners become aware of strategies that fit the L2 task at hand, the strategies may
foster active and purposeful self-regulated learning. Learners may also feel more
confident and experience lower anxiety for the L2 task. In contrast, learners who
fail to identify appropriate strategies for the L2 task at hand may perform poorly,
feel less confident, and experience significant anxiety. According to Oxford (1990:
8), strategies “make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new situations”. Hence, language learn-
ing strategies may enable learners to become more independent in L2 learning.

8.2 Theories

Types of language learning strategies

The description of the strategies used by “good” language learners provided a

window for research into the establishment of taxonomies for language learning
strategies (LLSs). O’Malley and Chamot (1990) divided LLSs into three major
types: cognitive, metacognitive, and social-affective. On the other hand, Oxford
(1990) classified LLSs into six broad categories, namely, cognitive, mnemonic,
compensatory, metacognitive, affective, and social. Each of the aforementioned
strategies is described in the next sections.

Cognitive strategies

Cognitive strategies are learning strategies that can help learners to strengthen as-
sociations between new and already-known information (Oxford 1996). The term
“cognitive” in its simplest form is the use of the mind (cognition) to complete a
 8.2 Theories 149

learning task. Cognitive strategies help learners regulate thought processes and
content to achieve goals or solve problems (Cameron and Jago 2013). These strate-
gies may also increase the efficiency and confidence with which learners complete
a learning task. For example, reading comprehension is a complex task. Learners
can use a self-directed questioning strategy (a type of cognitive strategy) to think
about what they read. Such a strategy can help learners to search the text and com-
bine information, leading them to more actively monitor their own comprehension
(Teng 2020). Other academic tasks that utilize cognitive strategies include process-
ing and memorizing information from content, constructing and editing sentences
and paragraphs, and paraphrasing and reorganizing information.
Cognitive strategies are based on self-regulation theories of behavior. Cogni-
tive strategies aim to assist learners with scaffolding and the mental structuring
of information. Terms used to describe cognitive strategies include procedural fa-
cilitators (Bereiter and Scardamalia 1987), procedural prompts (Rosenshine and
Meister 1997), and scaffolds (Palincsar and Brown 1984). Typically, cognitive strat-
egies include orienting, repeating (repetition), organizing information, taking sys-
tematic notes, summarizing meaning, guessing meaning from context, reasoning
inductively and deductively, and using imagery for memorization. These cogni-
tive strategies can help learners to guide their goal-directed behavior. Cognitive
strategies are often used for cognitive behavior therapy to direct learners’ atten-
tional focus.
The development of cognitive strategies was related to two frameworks, i.e.,
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978) and communicative
language teaching (Canale and Swain 1980). For example, Vygotsky suggested that
learning occurs during interactions with other people (social learning), especially
with the help of a more knowledgeable peer or a teacher. The teacher or the capa-
ble peer provides scaffolding or assistance, and then the learners gradually pull
away when they no longer need assistance for using the strategy. During this pro-
cess, students can develop cognitive learning strategies or higher thinking skills,
e.g., analyzing information and reasoning. Cognitive strategies require learners to
conduct hypothesis testing, such as searching for clues from surrounding materi-
als and one’s own background knowledge, guessing the meaning of the unknown
item, evaluating whether a meaning makes sense, and, if not, locating another ap-
propriate meaning.

Mnemonic strategies

Mnemonic strategies refer to how learners store information for better memory.
These strategies can help students to improve their memory for the recall of
150 8 Language Learning Strategies

important information. For example, learners can enhance their understanding

and awareness of knowledge by connecting new learning to prior knowledge.
Mnemonic methods include recall of information by keywords, sounds (e.g.,
rhyming), body movement (e.g., total physical response), or location on a page or
blackboard (e.g., the locus technique). The rationale is that students can convert
difficult or unfamiliar information into more manageable information.
There are some differences between mnemonic strategies and cognitive strat-
egies. Mnemonic strategies can help learners relate one thing to another in a sim-
plistic, stimulus-response manner. Cognitive strategies can better foster deep
associations for learners’ memory and learning. Mnemonic strategies are useful
for learning vocabulary items or grammar rules. For example, mnemonic strate-
gies can help learners streamline the learning process and gain access to broad
amounts of information. Access to broad amounts of information means less de-
pendence on working memory.
Considerable emphasis has been placed on the use of mnemonic strategies,
e.g., rehearsal strategies, as a means to improve memory of important informa-
tion. Young learners in the preschool years find it challenging to be engaged in
certain activities. They can only transform memory processes into cognitive, pur-
poseful, and voluntary learning only at a later age (Oyen and Bebko 1996). There
may be a relation between the manipulation of the learning task and its possible
impact on rehearsal use and recall. Increasing learners’ interest in the learning
task may be the first step to bringing about spontaneous mnemonic strategy use.

Metacognitive strategies

Metacognition is defined as the awareness, analysis, and knowledge that a person

has of his/her cognitive (e.g., learning, thinking) processes (Teng & Yue, 2022). The
term refers to the cognitive processes used by learners to ‘think’ about their
‘thinking’. Metacognitive strategies are used to help learners plan, control, and
evaluate their learning. Learners can rely on metacognitive strategies to develop
an appropriate plan for learning and memorizing information. When learners be-
come aware of how they learn, they can use metacognitive strategies to efficiently
acquire new information and gradually become capable of becoming indepen-
dent and autonomous learners (Efklides 2008).
It is essential to foster learners’ awareness of metacognitive strategies. First,
learners need to become aware of metacognitive strategies because metacognitive
strategies can help learners understand the nature of a learning task. For example,
metacognitive strategies can help learners to identify available resources, decide
on valuable resources, and make plans and goals for a given task. In an empirical
 8.2 Theories 151

study based on five secondary school students, Forbes and Fisher (2018) found that
increasing students’ awareness and use of metacognitive learning strategies had a
positive impact on their confidence and proficiency in speaking. Second, there are
potential relationships between metacognitive strategies and language learning
outcomes. For example, in a study with 383 grade twelve students from five upper
secondary schools, the results showed the indirect effects of self-reported metacog-
nitive strategies on language learning outcomes (Saks and Leijen 2018a). However,
as acknowledged by Forbes and Fisher (2018), strategy use is complex in nature,
and the strategies that the students chose in their study depended very much on
their individual personality. This may be one reason that there are individual dif-
ferences in language learning aptitude and outcomes.

Compensatory strategies

Compensatory strategies refer to environmental modifications or behavioral

strategies to bypass impairment in attention, memory, executive function, and/or
other cognitive skills as a means to achieve desired rehabilitation goals (Kurtz
2011). Compensatory strategies are meant to overcome knowledge gaps, communi-
cate in the target language, and develop strategic competence (Oxford 1990). In
real-life communication, language learners make use of such strategies if an ex-
pression is not known or if something is not well understood. Compensation strat-
egies may also help to overcome limitations in speaking. Learners also need to
apply compensatory strategies to understand their learning materials. Such strat-
egies are important for learners from various social and multilingual back-
grounds or learners of diverse language proficiency levels.
Compensatory strategies are often necessary to help learners compensate for
missing knowledge when using English in oral or written communication. For ex-
ample, in terms of speaking, learners can use compensatory strategies, e.g., using
synonyms, “talking around” the missing word, circumlocution, and gesturing, to
suggest the meaning. In terms of writing, learners can use compensatory strate-
gies, such as synonym use or circumlocution, to convey what they want to write.
Compensatory strategies are important for those who do not possess the skills to
complete the tasks in the proper manner.

Affective strategies

Differences in foreign language learning performance have also been attributed

to individual differences in personality, motivation, and anxiety. Such awareness
152 8 Language Learning Strategies

highlights an increased focus on individuals’ emotions and feelings. Affective

strategies refer to how learners identify their feelings (e.g., anxiety, anger, con-
tentment) and become aware of the learning circumstances or tasks that evoke
them (Arnold 1999). Researchers have paid increasing attention to anxiety when
learning a foreign language (Horwitz 2010). Oxford (1990) identified three main
sets of affective strategies: lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself, and tak-
ing your emotional temperature. In terms of lowering anxiety, learners can use
progressive relaxation, deep breathing, or meditation to reduce their anxiety. The
strategy of encouraging yourself refers to how learners encourage themselves to
be motivated. The strategy of taking your emotional temperature asks learners to
assess their feelings, motivations, and attitudes toward learning a new language.
The important role of affect in language learning resonates with the intu-
itions of second and foreign language teachers. According to Krashen’s (1982) af-
fective filter hypothesis, learners who felt anxious or bored in language learning
may be because of the existence of an internal barrier. The role of affect in lan-
guage learning also reflects language learning anxiety, i.e., the fear of communi-
cating in the target language when a judgment of performance is anticipated
(Young 1998). Affective strategies can help learners deal with anxiety through ac-
tions such as deep breathing, laughter, and positive self-talk (‘I know I can do it!’,
‘I know more than I did before’), and praising oneself for performance can lower
anxiety in language learning. Learners who have negative attitudes and beliefs
may become demotivated in language learning. In contrast, learners who hold
positive attitudes and beliefs can do the reverse (Shao, Pekrun, and Nicholson
2019).

Social strategies

Language learning is both an intellectual and social process as well as an element

of social behavior used for communication between people. Thus, it is helpful to
understand the importance of social strategies for language learning. Social strate-
gies are helpful for learners to achieve more effective language learning and under-
stand the culture of the language they are learning. Examples of social strategies
include asking questions for clarification or confirmation, asking for help, and
learning about social or cultural norms. Even though some researchers tend to
downplay social strategies (O’Malley and Chamot 1990), social strategies can also be
important for communicative language learning. Oxford (1990) delineates three sets
of social strategies: asking questions for clarification or verification and correction;
cooperating with others (e.g., with peers and proficient users of the new language);
 8.3 Frameworks and Models 153

and empathizing with others to develop cultural understanding and becoming

aware of others’ thoughts and feelings.

8.3 Frameworks and Models

Language learners are encouraged to learn and use a broad range of language
learning strategies because language learning could be facilitated if learners be-
come aware of the range of strategies for language learning and use (Shao et al.
2019). One of the efficient ways to build learners’ awareness of strategy use is
through strategy training. The purpose of strategy training is to help learners be-
come aware of what helps them to learn the target language most efficiently. In
terms of language learning strategy training, researchers have probed various
models or frameworks that are reviewed here.

Pearson and Dole’s (1987) Model

Pearson and Dole (1987) developed a strategy training model for L1 learners. In
this model, teachers first instruct learners about the benefits of applying a spe-
cific strategy and model the use of strategies. Students then practice the strategies
individually and attempt to transfer the strategy to a new learning situation. The
final aim is to build students’ independent strategy use and promote learner
autonomy.
The sequence of strategy training includes the following steps:
– Initial modeling of the strategy by the teacher, including explanations of the
strategy’s use and importance.
– Initial modeling of the strategy by the teacher.
– Definitions and explanations by the teacher.
– Guided practice with the strategy
– Consolidation, for which teachers help students identify the strategy and de-
cide when it might be used
– Independent practice with the strategy
– Application of the strategy to new tasks

Pearson and Dole’s model casts some light on strategy training. In an empirical
study (Dole, Brown, and Trathen 1996), the results indicated that readers who re-
ceived strategy instruction made superior gains in comprehension performance
over their peers who received story content or traditional reading instruction. How-
ever, Pearson and Dole’s model focused only on the training of limited strategies. It
154 8 Language Learning Strategies

is harder to develop students’ problem-solving competence in complex and authen-

tic learning tasks. In addition, it may not be easy for teachers to create a classroom
climate where students can practice different strategies effectively.

Oxford (1990) Model

Oxford’s Model (1990) focuses on explicit strategy awareness, benefits of strategy

use, functional and contextualized practice with the strategies, self-evaluation,
monitoring of language performance, and suggestions for or demonstrations of
the transferability of the strategies to new learning contexts. These strategies are
implemented step-by-step in the following procedure:
– Learners are immersed in an authentic language learning task without in-
structional cues.
– Teachers suggest and demonstrate helpful strategies for greater self-direction
and expected benefits.
– Learners practice new strategies with language tasks.
– Learners transfer the strategies to other tasks.
– Learners choose the strategies they will use to complete the language learning
tasks.
– Teachers help students understand how to evaluate the success of their strat-
egy use and gauge their progress as responsible and self-directed learners.

Oxford’s (1990) model was used as a basis for research on strategy use instruction.
Most researchers agree on the importance of explicit strategy instruction (e.g.,
Shen 2003). Chamot (2005) also pointed out the benefits of explicit learning strat-
egy instruction. Teachers should opt for explicit instruction and integrate the in-
struction into their regular coursework. One problem with strategy instruction is
whether students can transfer strategies learned in one situation to another situa-
tion. Early research on learning strategies found that students found it challeng-
ing to transfer strategies to new tasks (Seker 2016). To increase the transfer of
strategies to new tasks, teachers may need to help students better understand
their learning processes (Teng 2016).

Chamot and O’Malley (1994) model

Chamot and O’Malley (1994) developed the Cognitive Academic Language Learn-
ing Approach (CALLA). The purpose was to develop students’ academic language
skills.
 8.3 Frameworks and Models 155

This model integrates academic language development, content area instruc-

tion, and explicit instruction of learning strategies for language acquisition. This
model includes a six-stage problem-solving process.
– Planning. Students plan ways to approach a learning task. The teacher identi-
fies students’ current learning strategies, such as recalling prior knowledge
and previewing key vocabulary and concepts to be introduced to the lesson.
– Monitoring. Students monitor their performance by paying attention to their
strategy use and checking comprehension.
– Problem Solving. Students find solutions to problems they encounter by prac-
ticing new strategies.
– Evaluation. Students evaluate the effectiveness of a given strategy and learn
to determine the effectiveness of their learning by summarizing or giving
self-talk, either cooperatively or individually.
– Expansion: Students transfer strategies to new tasks, combine strategies into
clusters and develop a repertoire of preferred strategies.
– Assessment: The teacher assesses students’ use of strategies and their impact
on performance.

Saks and Leijen (2018b) adapted the strategies from Chamot and O’Malley’s (1994)
CALLA model and Oxford’s (1990) model. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
used to determine whether the model fit the proposed two-factor and six-factor
structures. The results found that the six dimensions, i.e., active language use,
metacognition, social strategies, compensation strategies, memory strategies, and
connecting strategies, showed good model fit. One issue that needs attention is
that Chamot and O’Malley’s (1994) CALLA model did not consider any of Oxford’s
affective strategies. It seems essential to explore whether such strategies have
any role in supporting language learning. This is of particular importance given
that affective strategies are considered theoretically to be highly significant in
promoting effective language learning (Oxford and Ehrman 1995).

Cohen’s (1998) model

Cohen’s (1998) Styles and Strategies-Based Instruction Model (SSBI) is based on a

learner-centered approach. This model includes both explicit and implicit integra-
tion of strategies into the course content. The teacher’s roles included the Teacher
as a (1) diagnostician who helps the students identify current strategies and learn-
ing styles, (2) language learner who shares his/her own learning experiences and
thinking processes, (3) learner-trainer who trains the students on how to use
156 8 Language Learning Strategies

learning strategies, (4) coordinator who supervises students’ study plans and
monitors difficulties, and (5) coach who provides on-going guidance on students’
progress.
Cohen’s model prescribes what a teacher should do in English instruction les-
sons. The model provides more flexibility for teachers to explicitly and implicitly
incorporate the language strategies training into the regular classroom program.
The feature of the model is to allow students to have more responsibility for
learning, become more autonomous, diagnose their strengths and weaknesses,
and self-direct their language learning process. Many experimental studies have
adopted this model with a focus on the training of cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. For example, Cohen (2005) adopted a taxonomy of language learner
strategies based on this model to support learners in their efforts to obtain knowl-
edge about speech acts. These strategies have a potentially beneficial role in help-
ing L2 learners reduce the likelihood of pragmatic failure in their performance of
speech acts.

Grenfell and Harris’s (1999) model

Grenfell and Harris (1999) also developed a model of language learning strategies.
The feature of this model is the importance of developing students’ metacognitive
understanding of the value of learning strategies. The realization comes through
the teacher’s demonstration and modeling and the students practicing and evalu-
ating the strategies. The goal is to internalize and automatize the strategies and
transfer them to new tasks. The procedures are as follows:
(1) Awareness raising. The students complete a task and then identify the strate-
gies they used.
(2) Modeling. The teacher models a new strategy. The teacher then prepares a
checklist of strategies for later use.
(3) Practice. The students adopt strategies for different tasks.
(4) Action planning. The students set goals and select appropriate strategies for
the attainment of those goals.
(5) Focused practice. The students carry out action plans by selecting appropri-
ate strategies, and the teacher identifies prompts for the students to use.
(6) Evaluation. The teacher and students evaluate the success of the action plan,
and set new goals, and the cycle begins again.

In sum, these different models of language learning strategies provide opportuni-

ties to assist learners in becoming aware of what helps them to learn the target
language. Harris (2003) also highlighted the role of language learning strategy
 8.4 Assessment 157

instruction in promoting learner autonomy. Harris compared several models, in-

cluding O’Malley and Chamot (1994), Oxford (1990), and Grenfell and Harris
(1999). Based on the comparison of different models, Harris concluded that learn-
ers need to reflect on and make explicit the strategies they are using. Harris also
noted that helping learners develop an awareness of common overarching meta-
cognitive strategies and how to scaffold the evaluation process are important is-
sues for consideration.

8.4 Assessment

It is important to diagnose students’ potential problems in the use of language

learning strategies, locate the possible causes of language deficiencies, and bridge
their linguistic gaps. Assessment is not only the evaluation of student’s language
competence or achievement but also their learning behaviors. Teachers may
need to understand the following elements of assessment:
1) Ideal targets of strategic language learning
2) Assessing strategic learning
a. Types of tools
b. How to choose tools
c. How to design tools
3) How to interpret assessment results
4) How to provide feedback
5) How to differentiate instruction based on assessment results

Using self-report questionnaires is the most common assessment method for mea-
suring learning strategies. The advantages of using questionnaires include ease of
administration and statistical analyses. Some researchers have argued that ques-
tionnaire items cannot generalize across situations and cannot capture the dy-
namic interplay of person and task essential to self-regulated learning (Kikas and
Jõgi 2015). While answering questions, learners may not be able to accurately re-
call the strategies they use, or their memory reconstructions may be distorted
(Veenman 2011). In addition, self-reports have the lowest reliability and validity
of all test instruments. Despite these limitations, questionnaires may be able to
help teachers assess learners’ perceptions, beliefs, or knowledge of strategies. The
types of questionnaires include selected-response (fixed format), e.g., true-false,
matching, multiple-choice, pick from a list; constructed-response (guided format),
e.g., fill-in blanks, short answers, performance, guided interviews; and personal-
response (open-ended format), e.g., think-aloud, observation free interviews,
diary entries, and narratives.
158 8 Language Learning Strategies

It is important to have information about the level and quality of students’

strategy knowledge and to understand whether students use adequate strategies
spontaneously, and if not, why not. Assessment of language learning strategies can
help to understand learners’ competence and their beliefs in language learning. In
an empirical study (Kikas and Jõgi 2015), the assessment of learning strategies was
conducted through the concurrent use of questionnaires and cognitive-behavioral
learning task methods. The results showed the validity of using a questionnaire to
assess language learning strategies.
Teachers can also develop their own tools to diagnose learners’ strategic
learning. An example of assessing writing strategies is described here.

Example: Assessing writing strategies

Student writers make use of a range of strategies to put their ideas into a written
product. In writing, the requirement is to string decoded words together to con-
vey messages or ideas. To do this, students need to think of topic sentences or key-
words and organize information to quickly transform ideas into words. Writing
requires not only vocabulary and knowledge about topics and linguistic struc-
tures but also the use of strategies in making writing activities “self-planned, self-
initiated, and self-sustained” (Zimmerman and Risemberg 1997: 73).
For example, when students cannot do well on writing tasks, it is essential to
assess their writing strategies. The following figure provides an observation
sheet. This assessment tool is designed to create a writing strategy profile for
learners, diagnose their writing strategy problems, and customize the writing in-
structions. In class, when students are required to write an essay or exchange
feedback for writing, teachers can focus on whether the students can understand
how to use feedback to correct writing errors or enhance their writing compe-
tence. Here, three different observations of writing performance are suggested to
better understand students’ learning process. After three observations, if a stu-
dent still shows problems in using the feedback for writing, we may assume that
the student needs help in learning how to write.
There are some issues to be considered for assessing writing strategies. The
assessment of writing strategies involves three steps: 1) being familiar with peda-
gogical content knowledge for writing, 2) understanding learners’ interpretation
of assessment outcomes, and 3) providing teacher and peer feedback for writing.
The assessment requires the assessor to understand the nature of the writing task
and the writing process. In addition, the assessment is also dependent on stu-
dents’ interpretation of their assessment outcomes. Finally, teacher and learner
feedback can make a difference in learning to write.
 8.4 Assessment 159

Student name____
Tasks
Collaborative writing on a given topic
Individual writing on a given topic
Book review
Date of observation
Observation 1 ______ Observation 2 ______ Observation 3______
Writing strategies
Making use of peer feedback for writing.
Brainstorming ideas and using the ideas as an orientation aid for writing.
Revising the sentences and improving content and style/grammar.
Trying to understand different genre requirements in writing.
Synthesizing information for writing through referring to materials.
Not using it Developing it Expert user

Diagnosis

Suggestions

Figure 1: An example of assessing writing strategies.

Previous questionnaires assessing language learning strategies

Systematic evaluation of language learning strategies requires the use of valid,

reliable, and practical instruments. Among the available tools, questionnaires
stand out as tools that can quickly and easily collect data and map out strategy
patterns (Oxford 2017). Some of the most often-used questionnaires are included
here.
The most cited questionnaire was the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) developed by Oxford (1990). This 5-point Likert scale instrument comprises
50 items grouped into six categories: (a) memory strategies (9 items), (b) cogni-
tive strategies (14 items), (c) compensation strategies (6 items), (d) metacognitive
strategies (9 items), (e) affective strategies (6 items), and (f) social strategies (6
items). Researchers have applied this instrument in different contexts. For exam-
ple, Mochizuki (1999) administered the SILL to 44 second-year and 113 first-year lan-
guage learners at a university in Japan. The results indicated that the students used
160 8 Language Learning Strategies

compensation strategies more frequently than they used affective strategies. In ad-
dition, the more proficient students used cognitive and metacognitive strategies
more frequently than the less proficient students. Saks and Leijen (2018b) adopted
the SILL to measure Estonian learners’ use of language learning strategies. The re-
sults showed that the original two-factor taxonomy did not provide an acceptable
model fit, so an alternative classification, i.e., a different six-factor model, was de-
veloped. All goodness of fit statistics fell within the established criteria for the
new six-factor model (χ2 = 201.405; df = 103; CMIN/DF = 1.955; CFI =.918; RMSEA
=.061). The six factors included active language use (4 items), metacognitive strat-
egies (4 items), social strategies (3 items), compensation strategies (2 items), mem-
ory strategies (2 items), and connecting strategies (2 items). Their findings also
showed that students who achieved higher scores on the English examination re-
ported using these strategies more frequently than those who achieved lower
scores. The authors’ six-factor model lacked any of Oxford’s affective strategies.
Gu (2018) introduced a new version of the Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire
(VLQ) based on his previous studies (see also Gu and Johnson 1996). Gu (2018) pi-
loted two versions of the instrument, a paper version with a 7-point Likert scale
and an online version with a 100-point slider bar. The series of validation proce-
dures were based on a total of 682 students in China and resulted in a 62-item in-
strument. The questionnaire includes two dimensions: metacognitive and cognitive
components. Metacognitive dimensions include beliefs about vocabulary learning
(10 items) and metacognitive regulation (7 items). Cognitive dimensions include in-
ferencing (7 items), using a dictionary (7 items), taking notes (6 items), rehearsal (9
items), encoding (12 items), and activation (4 items). Only one of the 15 strategies,
i.e., Visual Repetition, had an alpha of.638. The remaining strategies were all
above.70. The overwhelming majority of strategies were above.80. The Cronbach’s
alpha of over 0.6 showed acceptable reliability. Subject to EFA, Bartlett’s test of
sphericity was also acceptable (chi-square = 17672.477, df = 1891, p =.000).
The Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) is a self-
report instrument used to assess learners’ awareness of reading strategies (Mokhtari
and Reichard 2002). MARSI was developed to elucidate students’ use of reading strat-
egies within the context of academic or school-related reading. The MARSI measures
three categories of strategies: (1) global reading strategies (GRS), which can be de-
scribed as strategies aimed at setting the stage for the reading act; (2) problem-
solving strategies (PSS), which are perceived as localized, focused problem-solving
strategies used in facing the difficulties of understanding textual information; and
(3) supportive reading strategies (SRS), which provide the support mechanisms or
tools aimed at sustaining responsiveness to reading. After eliminating items with
factor loadings lower than.30 in the EFA analysis, GRS contained 13 items, PSS con-
tained 8 items, and SRS contained 9 items. Smith-Keita (2018) used the MARSI with
 8.5 Research Results and Findings 161

10th-grade learners and measured the relationship between metacognitive aware-

ness of reading strategies and their achievement with college and career readiness
standards for English language arts. The MARSI, including global reading strategies
(α =.76), problem-solving strategies (α =.54), and support reading strategies (α =.71),
demonstrates sound reliability. The new results provided information about the ex-
tent to which students were metacognitively aware of the strategies they used to
support themselves as readers. The results showed a moderate, positive relationship
between students’ metacognitive awareness of the reading strategies they used and
their college English language arts achievement scores.

8.5 Research Results and Findings

In this section, the results of studies on students’ use of language learning strate-
gies are presented. The findings are organized into themes to better understand
the research on this topic.

Individual differences in using language learning strategies

and factors that affect strategy choice

Increased attention has been given to examining individual learner differences in

the process of learning a second and foreign language. Although an understanding
of individual differences has been explored in the discipline of psychology, it is still
essential to synthesize what we know and do not know about individual differen-
ces in language learning. Every psychological component of the language learning
process is a potential source of individual differences in language learners. Under-
standing individual differences in strategy use is important, as strategies are cogni-
tive steps for learners to acquire, store, and retrieve new information.
Anderson (1991) examined second language readers’ individual differences in
reading. A total of 28 Spanish-speaking students enrolled in the ESL program com-
pleted all phases of the research study. The results showed that when attempting
to answer the comprehension questions, high- and low-achieving readers used
different kinds of strategies. This finding suggests that strategic reading may be a
matter of knowing which strategies to use for understanding a text. The qualita-
tive results showed that compared to learners with high reading proficiency,
poorer readers may not understand whether they are successful in applying the
strategies.
162 8 Language Learning Strategies

Sufficient evidence in early research has shown that greater strategy use is
related to higher levels of language proficiency (Green and Oxford 1995; Khalil
2005; Lan and Oxford 2003). In an early study, Siegler (1988) examined individual
differences in young learners’ strategy choices. The focus was on the consistencies
in 6-year-olds’ strategy choices while performing three tasks: addition, subtraction,
and word identification. The children were 21 first-grade boys and 15 first-grade
girls attending a middle-class school. The learners completed three tasks and a
standardized test measuring mathematics computation, mathematics problem
solving, total reading, word recognition, and reading comprehension. Cluster anal-
ysis divided the students into three groups: perfectionist, good students, and not-
so-good students. The perfectionists appeared to set very high confidence criteria.
The good students appeared to set fewer high-confidence criteria. The not-so-good
students seemed to set the lowest confidence criteria. The results supported indi-
vidual differences in first graders’ strategy use.
In a recent study, the focus was on exploring the impact of individual differen-
ces on the process of second or foreign language writing (Forbes 2019). Drawing
upon in-depth qualitative data from writing tasks and stimulated recall interviews,
four distinct writer profiles emerged: the strategic writer, the experimenter, the
struggling writer, and the multilingual writer. The results also showed the complex
and mutually interdependent relationship between strategy use and writing achieve-
ment. The findings suggested that the development of strategies may positively influ-
ence students’ proficiency level, which, in turn, can also impact the extent to which
they use strategies and transfer the use of strategies in different contexts.
Overall, strategy use and proficiency may be both causes and outcomes of
each other. However, the picture is complicated. Many researchers have ques-
tioned the direction of causality in this relationship between proficiency and
strategy use (Bremner 1999; Su 2005) and suggested that more proficient learners
reported more frequent use of language learning strategies than learners of less
proficiency. One reason may be related to the fact that good language learners
are willing to take advantage of practice opportunities, persevere in their drive to
look for patterns, attend to meaning, monitor the use of language, and develop
language as a system (Bruen 2001). Good language learners tend to think in the
language, address the affective demands of language learning, and use language
as a tool for communication (Wharton 2000). Successful learners know how to
choose appropriate strategies, depending on the demands of the learning situa-
tion and the language task for which they may use memory strategies that include
information organizing, grouping, imagery, and structured review to store infor-
mation in memory and to recall it when necessary (O’Malley and Chamot 1990).
Some research findings did not support the positive relationship between strategy
use and proficiency level. For example, Vandergrift (1997) found that similar to
 8.5 Research Results and Findings 163

successful learners, unsuccessful learners also actively use and apply a number
and variety of strategies. Skehan (1989) has explained that the existence of a corre-
lation between two variables does not necessarily suggest causality in a particular
direction because poor language learners may not be able to use learning strate-
gies as a result of their weak language skills. These contradictory results should
lead us to consider that a certain strategy that may not be effective for all learners,
tasks, and learning situations.
What are some factors that may impact the use of language learning strate-
gies? Learners’ metacognitive awareness could influence their strategy use. Re-
search findings show that several factors, including the languages they have
learned; their language proficiency level; their prior language learning experien-
ces; their feelings; and their aptitude, age, and learning style, can affect their lan-
guage learning performance as well as their strategy use (Teng and Huang 2019).
In addition, research findings have shown the effect of age on language learning
strategy use. For example, Devlin (1996) compared the learning strategies em-
ployed by 21 mature age (defined as 23 years of age or more) and 104 younger
teacher education students (defined as 22 years of age or less). Compared to youn-
ger students, mature-age students obtained significantly higher scores on 7 of the
10 Learning and Study Strategies Inventory Scales (Devlin 1996). Mature-age stu-
dents were better time managers; less anxious about the study; better able to con-
centrate, process information, and select important ideas from a topic area; more
likely to evaluate their level of understanding of a topic; and more knowledgeable
of effective examination strategies. Overall, mature-age students had more favor-
able attitudes towards the study and used more sophisticated language learning
strategies than their younger counterparts.
Gender differences may also affect the use of language learning strategies.
Hamilton (2008) reported that females used cognitive strategies significantly
more often than males. The differences may be associated with women’s better
awareness of cognitive development, as argued by Hamilton (2008). In a study of
adult language learners, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) found that females reported
significantly greater use of language learning strategies than male students. For
example, female students reported significantly higher use of four strategies: gen-
eral study strategies, authentic language use strategies, strategies for meaning
communication, and self-management strategies. The authors hypothesized that
gender differences in language learning strategy use may occur because of wom-
en’s greater social orientation, stronger verbal skills, and greater conformity to
linguistic and academic norms.
Affective variables, including attitudes, motivation, goals, and personality
traits, could also influence the use and choice of language learning strategies. For
example, students’ attitudes were influential in their choice of language learning
164 8 Language Learning Strategies

strategies. Along with attitudes, motivation could determine learners’ engagement

in language learning (Man, Bui, and Teng 2018). Highly motivated learners dem-
onstrated more varied use of strategies than less motivated learners. In addition,
learners with a positive attitude may demonstrate frequent use of strategies for
language learning.

Effectiveness of strategy-based instruction on language learning

Learning strategies have been found to be teachable skills. For example, strategy-
based instruction can be important for the development of listening (Goh 2017),
reading (Teng 2020), and writing (Teng 2016) skills. Based on research findings,
strategy-based instruction led to greater strategy use, self-efficacy, anxiety reduc-
tion, and increased motivation and confidence for language learning. Strategy-
based training can help learners evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies
and determine when and how to transfer a given strategy to a new situation. With
regard to the effectiveness of strategy-based instruction, learners’ cultural back-
grounds and beliefs may need to be considered. Basic strategy instruction should
address learners’ affective and learning-style issues, teach the strategies students
need to know and reflect on how to incorporate strategy instruction into regular
language learning classrooms. According to the aforementioned research findings,
strategy-based instruction should be incorporated as part of the regular language
learning class. However, language teachers may feel ill-equipped to conduct strat-
egy-based instruction because they have few opportunities to see or participate in
such instruction themselves. In Table 1, I list some ideas about strategy-based
instruction.

8.6 Pedagogy and instruction

Next, implications for classroom practice, including the assessment of strategy

use, determining learners’ individual differences in strategy use, and teaching
strategy instruction in the language learning classroom, are presented along with
considerations for pedagogy and instruction.
First, teachers and learners can benefit from the assessment of students’ lan-
guage learning strategy use. The assessment of language learning strategies can
lead to a greater understanding of their use of learning strategies. Diagnosing
strategic learning can provide learners and their teachers with concrete ideas
about how to close the language gaps on language assessment tasks. Practical and
realistic means of evaluation, e.g., questionnaires, interviews, learner diaries, and
 8.6 Pedagogy and instruction 165

Table 1: Strategy-based instruction in previous studies.

Procedures for strategy-based instruction

Goh and Taib () Stage : Listen and answer. The listening exercises in six lessons
Metacognitive instruction for were parallel versions of the listening examination.
listening
Stage : Individual reflection. Questions were written on the
board to reflect individually on the completion of their listening
exercises. Questions included: What were you listening to?
What helped you to understand the text?
What prevented you from getting the correct answers?
What did you do to understand as much of the text as possible?

Stage : Self-report and group discussion. The learners took turns

to read aloud their notes on their reflections. As each learner
reported their observations, the others listened and sometimes
asked questions or included their own comments.

Teng () Stage : Read and answer.

Metacognitive instruction for This stage included two parts: Balanced literacy instruction and
reading traditional reading pedagogy. The balanced literacy instruction
mainly included instructional strategies involving reading and
writing workshops. In terms of traditional reading pedagogy,
students first read a text and answered three to five multiple-
choice comprehension questions.

Stage : Reflect
Student’s role:
(1) Each student reflected individually on the metacognitive,
self-addressed questions.
(2) Each student verified his/her cognitive and metacognitive
skills based on feedback-corrective processes, including
enrichment and remedial help provided by the teacher as
necessary.

Metacognitive prompts:
(1) Comprehension
Purpose: familiarize students with the articulation of the main
ideas in the text.
What was the text about?
What were the purposes of this text?
What specific points did I find important in this text?
166 8 Language Learning Strategies

Table 1 (continued)

Procedures for strategy-based instruction

(2) Connection
Purpose: guide students in contemplating the similarities and
differences between an immediate text and previously read texts
What were the similarities and differences between this and those I
have read in the past?

(3) Strategy
Purpose: allow students to reflect on appropriate strategies for
the exercise
What strategies were appropriate for completing this text reading in
time?
What strategies were useful for grasping the gist of this text?
What strategies were useful for inferring unknown words?

(4) Reflection
Purpose: guide students in evaluating their reading process
during or at the end of the exercise
Did my strategies for reading make sense?
Did I focus on all the details of the text?
Did I consider all relevant information while determining the purpose
of this text?
What prevented me from achieving the correct answers?
What did I do to understand as much of the text as possible?

Stage : Report and discuss

Participants randomly formed five-member groups for the final
stage of reporting and discussion. In each group, students took
turns reading their reflection notes aloud while the other students
listened and took notes. Students may ask questions or offer
comments.

Teng () Meta-cognitive self-addressed questions in writing:

Metacognitive instruction Knowledge of cognition
for writing (i) What is writing all about? Take some notes.
(ii) What factors will influence our performance in writing?
(iii) What strategies can be accessed efficiently for developing a
good writing sample? Explain your reasoning.
(iv) How should we proceed to develop a solution and in which
way can we apply the strategies from previous learning
experiences? Quote some.
(v) When and why can we use knowledge or strategies to improve
our writing?
 8.6 Pedagogy and instruction 167

Table 1 (continued)

Procedures for strategy-based instruction

Regulation of cognition
(i) What background knowledge do you have about planning,
monitoring, and evaluating English writing tasks?
(ii) Do I set reasonable goals for this writing?
(iii) How should we plan the content of the essay before writing?
Quote some, for example, what to write about, what views on the
topic were, how to support their views, and how to present
information.
(iv)What strategies should we use to plan the language content of
the essays
(v) How should we organize the content for writing? Quote some,
for example, how to organize ideas, language use, etc.
(vi) How should we monitor a writing task? For example, what are
the similarities and differences between the task at hand and the
tasks that we have solved in the past?
(vii) How should we evaluate a writing task? For example, does
the writing make sense? Can I write differently? Did I consider all
the relevant information?

classroom observations, can help teachers to conduct strategy assessments. Stra-

tegic assessment can also help teachers to pair language learning instruction with
learners’ needs. An understanding of students’ language learning strategy prefer-
ences can also help teachers to understand students’ specific needs. Such under-
standing can assist teachers with the systematic adoption of strategy instruction
and improvement of their language instruction. These assessment tools should be
used to supplement rather than supplant existing assessment measures.
Second, an area for future research on individual differences in learning
strategies is to determine why some learners use certain strategies while other
learners do not (or cannot). Researchers may need to understand learners’ indi-
vidual learning styles. However, there is a lack of reliable and valid measurement
instruments for the assessment of learning styles. Teachers find it difficult to pro-
vide more appropriate assistance to students who experience problems in the for-
eign language classroom, which is different from other classrooms, as learners
have limited foreign language input. It will be meaningful for future studies to
explore the interaction between individual learning styles and strategy use. An
understanding of individual differences in strategy use can help teachers and re-
searchers to gain a clear perspective of what individual students are learning while
engaged in language learning activities. Continued research and its application to
168 8 Language Learning Strategies

the classroom could assist language learners in enhancing their understanding of

strategy use and increasing their ability to use the language in varied situations.
Another educational implication is that it might be useful to teach young learners,
particularly lower-achieving students, to use backup strategies. The instruction for
children in learning how to execute backup strategies affords them more opportu-
nities for retrieval accuracy in inferring meaning while reading (Teng 2020).
Third, strategy-based instruction should provide sufficient practice to help
learners integrate strategies into the regular language learning program. Strategy-
based instruction should be geared to learners’ various needs. Affective factors
should be considered in designing and conducting strategy training. However, neg-
ative attitudes can make strategy training ineffective. Learners need to develop a
positive view of strategy instruction and determine their personal goals for lan-
guage learning. Additional factors, such as language learning experiences, gender
differences, and cognitive development, may also be crucial for the development of
strategy training (Arnold 1999). One issue for educators to consider is how teachers
can become sensitive to individual differences in language learning. Assessments
of strategies can help to guide strategy training. Teachers can use one or more tech-
niques, e.g., diaries, observations, and interviews, to assess learners’ current use of
learning strategies. Teachers can also try to understand students’ goals, motiva-
tions, attitudes, and personality types through informal discussions.
Finally, teachers should consider how to adapt strategy-based instruction to
the needs of their classrooms. Given the different requirements of strategy instruc-
tion formats, helpful steps include attending training sessions, reading the infor-
mation in published materials, and consulting strategy specialists. Strategy-based
instruction can also be the basis for conducting intervention studies. In assessing
strategic learning, teachers should consider the progress of each individual. It may
be an extra burden on the part of the teacher to develop learning opportunities
that attend to the different learning preferences of their students. Assessment
should also involve checking the use of language learning strategies and their rela-
tionship with learners’ individual language proficiency. Strategic learning is an in-
cremental process rather than a rapid process.
In terms of pedagogy and instruction, educators may need to consider other
critical issues. Language teachers must become aware of the importance of lan-
guage learning strategies. The first step is for teachers to discover how to instruct
strategies for students of linguistically diverse backgrounds. There are chal-
lenges in strategy-based instruction considering students’ individual differences
in language proficiency, learning motivation, institutional practices, and cultural
beliefs. There are some practical concerns regarding how training can be most
effectively accomplished. As described by Skehan (1991), several lines of inquiry,
 Recommended Readings 169

such as whether strategy-based instruction is integrated with a regular course-

book or is separate, whether students should be informed of the purposes of
training, and whether there are benefits in linking language strategy training to
content courses, need to be considered. More research is needed to identify
which strategies or strategy categories are most susceptible to training. It is also
important to investigate the length of time needed to achieve satisfactory results
from strategy training. Some learners may not be influenced by strategy train-
ing. Some good learners may be the ones for whom the use of effective strategies
is possible, while for poorer learners, strategies may not be helpful or cannot be
learned. Further research is required to help learners engage in strategy-based
learning. The key issue is to deliver techniques that enable learners to achieve
independence in their language-learning efforts.
Overall, all learners use strategies. Some learners are more open to choosing
the right strategy for the right occasion. Some learners depend on their teachers to
provide feedback for the specific use of strategies. Thus, strategy training may need
to aim at improving the decision-making capacities of learners from different cul-
tural backgrounds. Educators may even need to consider cultural norms for strate-
gic learning. If certain language learning strategies are not in line with cultural
norms, e.g., cooperative strategies that highlight active communication, teachers
may need to learn how to help students conquer problems related to cultural dif-
ferences. Research is burgeoning in the area of language learning strategies. Re-
searchers need to update theory and conduct investigations to help classroom
practitioners better understand their students and provide strategy-based instruc-
tion tailored to the diverse needs of students.

Recommended Readings

Gu, Yongqi & Robert Keith Johnson. 1996. Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643–679.
This is a well-cited study attempting to establish the vocabulary learning strategies used by EFL
students and the relationship between their strategies and outcomes in learning English.

Goh, Christine & Yusnita Taib. 2006. Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT
Journal, 60(3), 222–232.
This study aims to delineate young learners’ strategy use in listening. The results provide insights
into the factors that influence young learners’ listening and strategy use.

Teng, Feng. 2020. The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young
learners of English as a second language. Literacy, 54, 29–39.
170 8 Language Learning Strategies

This study aims to understand young learners’ strategy use in reading. The findings articulate the
knowledge factors that influence young learners’ reading. The results provide insights into the
nature and demands of reading and metacognitive knowledge in improving reading comprehension.

References

Anderson, Neil J. 1991. Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading and testing.
The Modern Language Journal 75(4). 460–472.
Arnold, Jane. 1999. Visualization: language learning with the mind’s eye. In Jane, Arnold (ed.), Affect in
language learning, 260–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baumeister, Roy F & Kathleen D. Vohs. 2007. Self‐regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass 1(1). 115–128.
Bereiter, Carl & Marlene Scardamalia. 1987. The psychology of written composition. New York, NY:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bremner, Stephen. 1999. Language Learning Strategies and Language Proficiency: Investigating the
Relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review 55(4). 490–514.
Bruen, Jennifer. 2001. Strategies for Success: Profiling the effective learner of German. Foreign
Language Annals 34(3). 216–225.
Bui, Gavin, Laura Man & Mark Feng Teng. 2018. From second language to third language learning:
Exploring a dual-motivation system among multilinguals. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
41(1). 63–91.
Cameron, Linda D & Lana Jago. 2013. Cognitive strategies. In Marc D. Gellman & J. Rodney Turner
(eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine, 26. Springer, New York, NY.
Canale, Michael & Merrill Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1). 1–47.
Chamot, Anna Uhl. 2005. Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual
review of applied linguistics 25. 112–130.
Chamot, Anna Uhl & J. Michael O’Malley. 1994. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive
academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Cohen, Andrew D. 1998. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Routledge.
Cohen, Andrew D. 2005. Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural
Pragmatics 2(3). 275–301.
Cohen, Andrew D. 2011. Strategies in learning and using a second language. Harlow: Longman/Pearson
Education.
Devlin, Marcia. 1996. Older and Wiser? A comparison of the learning and study strategies of mature
age and younger teacher education students. Higher Education Research & Development 15(1).
51–60.
Dole, Janice A, Kathleen J. Brown & Woodrow Trathen. 1996. The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly 31(1). 62–88.
Dornyei, Zoltan & Stephen Ryan. 2015. The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York:
Routledge.
Efklides, Anastasia. 2008. Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to
self-regulation and co-regulation. European Psychologist 13(4). 277–287.
 References 171

Ehrman, Madeline & Rebecca L. Oxford. 1989. Effects of sex differences, career choice, and
psychological type on adults’ language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73(1). l-13.
Forbes, Karen. 2019. The role of individual differences in the development and transfer of writing
strategies between foreign and first language classrooms. Research Papers in Education 34 (4).
445–464.
Forbes, Karen & Linda Fisher. 2018. The impact of expanding advanced level secondary school
students’ awareness and use of metacognitive learning strategies on confidence and
proficiency in foreign language speaking skills. The Language Learning Journal 46(2). 173–185.
Goh, Christine & Yusnita Taib. 2006. Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT
Journal 60(3). 222–232.
Goh, Christine. 2017. Cognition, metacognition, and L2 listening. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, Volume III, 214–228. New York: Routledge
Taylor & Francis.
Green, John M & Rebecca L. Oxford. 1995. A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly 29(2). 261–297.
Grenfell, Michael & Vee Harris. 1999. Modern languages and learning strategies: In theory and practice.
London: Routledge.
Gu, Yongqi. 2018. Validation of an online questionnaire of vocabulary learning strategies for ESL
learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8(2). 325–350.
Gu, Yongqi & Robert Keith Johnson. 1996. Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning
outcomes. Language Learning 46(4). 643–679.
Hamilton, Colin. 2008. Cognition and sex differences. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan
Harris, Vee. 2003. Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance learning context. TESL-
EJ 7(2). 1–19.
Horwitz, Elaine K. 2010. Foreign and second language anxiety. Language Teaching 43(2). 154–167.
Hyland, Ken. 2015. Researching language learning strategies. In Brian Paltridge & Aek Phakiti (eds.),
Research methods in applied linguistics, 421–438. New York: Bloomsbury.
Khalil, Aziz. 2005. Assessment of language learning strategies used by Palestinian EFL learners.
Foreign Language Annals 38(1). 108–117.
Kikas, Eve & Anna-Liisa Jõgi. 2015. Assessment of learning strategies: self-report questionnaire or
learning task. European Journal of Psychology of Education 31(4). 579–593.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: UK:
Pergamon Press.
Kurtz, Matthew M. 2011. Compensatory strategies. In Jeffrey S. Kreutzer, John DeLuca & Bryan Caplan
(eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. New York: Springer. (pp.657)
Lan, Rae & Rebecca L. Oxford. 2003. Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school
students in Taiwan. IRAL 41. 339–379.
Mokhtari, Kouider, & Reichard, Carla. 2002. Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.
Mochizuki, Akihiko. 1999. Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students. RELC
Journal, 30(2), 101–113.
O’Malley J., Michael & Anna Uhl Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, Rebecca L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Oxford, Rebecca L. 2017. Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in
context (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
172 8 Language Learning Strategies

Oxford, Rebecca. (Ed.). 1996. Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural
perspectives (No. 13). Natl Foreign Lg Resource Ctr.
Oxford, Rebecca L & Madeline E. Ehrman. 1995. Adults’ language learning strategies in an intensive
foreign language program in the United States. System 23(3). 359–386.
Oyen, Anne-Siri & James M. Bebko. 1996. The effects of computer games and lesson contexts on
children’s mnemonic strategies. Journal of experimental child psychology 62(2). 173–189.
Palinscar, Aannemarie Sullivan & Ann L. Brown. 1984. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension
fostering and comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction 1(2). 117–175.
Pearson, P. David & Janice A. Dole. 1987. Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and
a new conceptualization of learning. Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151–65.
Rose, Heath. 2015. Researching language learner strategies. In Brian Paltridge & Aek Phakiti (eds.),
Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp.421–437). New York:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Rosenshine, Barak & Carla Meister. 1997. Cognitive strategy instruction in reading. In Steven A. Stahl
& David A. Hayes (eds.), Instructional models in reading, 85–107. New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Saks, Katrin & Äli Leijen. 2018a. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies as predictors of language
learning outcomes. Psihologija 51(4). 489–505.
Saks, Katrin, Äli Leijen. 2018b. Adapting the SILL to measure Estonian learners’ language learning
strategies: the development of an alternative model. The Language Learning Journal 46(5).
634–646.
Scarcella, Robin C & Rebecca L. Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry of language learning: The individual in the
communicative classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Şeker, Meral. 2016. The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners and its role in
language achievement. Language Teaching Research 20(5). 600–618.
Shao, Kaiqi, Reinhard Pekrun & Laura J. Nicholsonc. 2019. Emotions in classroom language learning:
What can we learn from achievement emotion research? System 86. 102121.
Shen, Hwei‐Jiun. 2003. The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL reading. Foreign Language Annals
36(3). 424–433.
Skehan, Peter. 1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, Peter. 1991. Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 13(2). 275–298.
Siegler, R. (1988). Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication skill. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 258–275.
Siegler, Robert S. 1998. Individual differences in strategy choices: Good students, not-so-good
students, and perfectionists. Child Development 59(4). 833–851.
Smith-Keita, Davida. 2018. The relationship between metacognitive awareness of reading strategies use
and 10th grade students’ college and career readiness achievement in English language arts.
Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Mississippi, USA.
Su, Min-hsun Maggie. 2005. A study of EFL technological and vocational college students’ language
learning strategies and their self-perceived English proficiency. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching 2(1). 44–56.
Teng, Feng, & Yue, Mei. 2022. Metacognitive writing strategies, critical thinking skills, and academic
writing performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Metacognition and Learning.
Teng, Feng. 2016. Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese
EFL students’ English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills & Creativity 22. 289–302.
 References 173

Teng, Feng. 2020. The benefits of metacognitive reading strategy awareness instruction for young
learners of English as a second language. Literacy 54(1). 29–39.
Teng, Feng & Jing Huang. 2019. Predictive effects of writing strategies for self-regulated learning on
secondary school learners’ EFL writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 53(1). 232–247.
Vandergrift, Laurens. 1997. The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: A
descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals 30(3). 387–409.
Veenman, Marcel V. J. 2011. Learning to self-monitor and self-regulate. In Richard E. Mayer & Patricia
A. Alexander (eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, 197–218. New York:
Routledge.
Vygotsky, L.S & Michael Cole. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wharton, Glenn. 2000. Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in
Singapore. Language Learning 50(2). 203–243.
Young, Dolly Jesusita. 1998. Affect in foreign language and second language learning. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Zimmerman, Barry J & Rafael Risemberg. 1997. Becoming a self-regulated writer: A social cognitive
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology 22. 73–101.