DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 438 716 FL 026 146

AUTHOR Vance, Shelley J.

TITLE Language Learning Strategies: Is There a Best Way To Teach
Them?
PUB DATE 1999-12-00
NOTE 20p.
PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Adult Education; Cognitive Style; College Students;
Elementary Secondary Education; Language Research; Language
Skills; Language Teachers; Learning Processes; *Learning
Strategies; *Second Language Instruction; Second Language
Learning; *Teaching Methods

ABSTRACT
Research on language acquisition has begun to examine how
successful language learners achieve their goals. Teachers and researchers
have long noticed that some language learners acquire a second (or third or
fourth) language more quickly and more effectively than others. Upon
examination, researchers have found that several factors are involved in this
difference, such as motivation, attitude, and age. One factor in students'
success is their use of learning strategies. Given that learning strategies
can be taught, the focus of this paper is to examine the results of attempts
to teach learning strategies to second language learners, and whether the
results suggest that there is a best way to carry out learning strategy
training. The discussion of teaching language learning strategies has been
focused on whether learning strategy training can be separate from subject
content or integrated into it, embedded,or addressed directly. Research does
not suggest any clear answer on whether learning strategy teaching should be
integrated into subject matter or kept separate. There are demonstrable pros
and cons to each position. (Contains 12 references.) (KFT)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.
 I
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Language Learning Strategies: Is There a Best Way to Teach Them?

Shelley J. Vance

George Mason University

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION BEEN GRANTED BY
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization \rc,,n
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2
 2
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

In recent years, research on second language acquisition has begun to examine how

successful second language learners achieve their goals. Teachers and researchers have long

noticed that some language learners acquire a second (or third or fourth) language more quickly

and more effectively than other students. Upon examination, researchers have found that several

factors are involved in this difference: motivation, attitude, and age among them. One factor in

students' success is their use of learning strategies.

In the most general terms, learning strategies are strategies that, in the case of language,

help a learner develop a language system (Rubin, 1987). For the purposes of language

acquisition, researchers are concerned with learning strategies rather than communication

strategies or production strategies which deal with language use (O'Malley, Chamot and Kupper,

1995). Research has been conducted on the nature and identification of learning strategies with

the aim of classifying them (Chamot, 1987; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; O'Malley, Chamot and

Kupper, 1995; Oxford, 1985a, 1990; Rubin, 1987; see also Brown and Palinscar, 1982; Naiman,

Frolich, Stern & Todesco, 1978; Oxford, 1986; Rubin, 1975 as cited in O'Malley and Chamot,

1990). Other research has looked at how learning strategies function in the second language

acquisition process, and still other research has taken up the teachability of strategies. Given that

learning strategies can be taught, the purpose of this focus paper is to examine the results of

attempts to teach learning strategies to second language learners and whether the results suggest

that there is a best way to carry out learning strategy training.

Before researchers could develop research studies to find a "best" way and before teachers

and materials developers could write effective materials, they had to have a clear concept of what
 3
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

they were researching or intending to teach. Easier said than done. Different researchers have

different terms for the same concept, sometimes define language learning strategies differently and

occasionally disagree on which behaviors and processes should in fact be identified as language

learning strategies (Wenden, 1987b). O'Malley and Chamot define learning strategies as "special

thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new

information" (1990, p.1). Rigney (as cited in Oxford, 1989, p. 235) describes them much as one

would describe the operations of a computer: "operations or steps used by a learner to facilitate

the acquisition, storage or retrieval of information". Wenden's definition is wide-reaching,

encompassing not only what learners do to learn and regulate the learning of a second language,

but also what learners know about the strategies they use and the factors that make learning a

second language easier (Wenden, 1987b). Oxford defines learning strategies as "behaviors or

actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and

enjoyable" (1989, p. 235). Ellis (1994) believes Oxford's definition limits learning strategies to

the observable, i.e., behaviors and actions. (Either Ellis's 1994 interpretation of Oxford is too

narrow or he missed her work from. 1990 because_ in_ Oxford's_definition includes unobservable

strategies such as planning and organizing [Oxford, 1990].) By contrast, Weinstein and Mayer

define learning strategies as "behaviors and thoughts [emphasis added] that a learner engages in

during learning." (1986, p. 315). Ellis's own definition includes mental, and therefore

unobservable, processes (1994).

Just as different researchers have different definitions of learning strategies, they organize

what they see as strategies into different frameworks. According to Oxford (1994), there are
 4
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

some two dozen strategy classification systems grouped into at least five typologies. Oxford,

herself (1985a, 1985b,1989,1990), divides strategies into direct (including memory, cognitive and

compensation) and indirect (metacognitive, affective and social) strategies. Chamot (1987)

organizes them into three types: cognitive, metacognitive and social/affective, omitting some of

the compensation strategies Oxford includes perhaps because they are ways to compensate for not

being able to communicate in the target language rather than techniques to achieve linguistic

success. Ellis (1994) distinguishes two types of language learning strategy: those that focus on a

learner's mastery of the linguistic content of the target language (roughly equivalent to cognitive)

and those that focus on the learner's becoming a skilled speaker, listener, reader and writer

(roughly equivalent to metacognitive). Rubin (1981 as cited in Rubin, 1987) divides strategies

into two primary categories: strategies that affect learning directly and those that affect learning

indirectly. Under these are three kinds of strategies: learning strategies (both cognitive and

metacognitive), communication strategies (basically what equates to Oxford's "compensation"

strategies) and social strategies (Rubin, 1987). Naiman et al. (1978 as cited in O'Malley and

Chamot, 1990) organizes strategies into five broad categories.

Even when researchers agree that a particular behavior is a learning strategy, and their

respective frameworks include a similar category, they sometimes disagree as to which category it

belongs. For example, both Rubin (1981 as cited in Rubin, 1987) and Oxford's (1990)

frameworks include a category of indirect strategies. Yet the strategy of "clarification or

verification" is assigned to the direct category by Rubin and to the indirect category by Oxford.

Chamot (1987) and Rubin (1987) agree that questioning for clarification is a language learning
 5
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

strategy but Chamot sees it as a social/affective learning strategy because it requires interaction

with another person while Rubin sees it as a cognitive learning strategy.

However they organize them, most language learning strategy researchers agree that

language learners use behaviors and processes that are cognitive, metacognitve and

social/affective and that these contribute directly to language learning. Brown and Palinscar

(1982 as cited in Chamot, 1987) recognized groups of cognitive and metacognitve learning

strategies in their early research on general learning. Language learning researchers seem to have

found the grouping useful and accurate because, despite individual variations in their frameworks,

researchers without exception include cognitive and metacognitive categories at one level or

another. Later, researchers added the critical category of social/affective strategies.

Rubin defines cognitive strategies as "steps or operations used in learning or problem-

solving that require direct analysis, transformation or synthesis of learning materials" (1987, p.

23). They tend to be domain-specific and are more related to the type of task in the learning

activity (strategies for working math problems, strategies for learning vocabulary, etc...). One of

the most straightforward definitions is that cognitive strategies are used by the learner to

manipulate the material to be learned (Chamot and O'Malley, 1994).

In simple terms, metacognition is being aware of "our own thinking as we perform

specific tasks and then using this awareness to control what we are doing" (Marzano et al., 1988,

p. 9). It is knowledge of cognitive processes and self-management of such processes (O'Malley

et al., 1983 as cited in Rubin, 1987). Metacognitive learning strategies are used by a learner to

plan, monitor and evaluate his learning when he asks himself Where do I want to go?, What do I
 6
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

want to learn?, and How am I doing? They are generalizable to many different domains such as

math, science or social studies (O'Malley, Chamot & Kupper 1995), and they are exemplified by

such tasks as setting goals and getting organized. A learner uses metacognitive language learning

strategies when he directs the course of his language reception and production (O'Malley and

Chamot, 1990). Such language learning strategies are used to "oversee, regulate or self-direct

language learning" (Rubin, 1987, p. 25).

Social strategies refer to activities that expose language learners to opportunities to

practice their language with other people (Rubin, 1987) as in cooperative learning. They call for

"social mediation" (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990, p. 118). Affective strategies involve exercising

emotional control over one's learning such as reducing one's anxiety or making the learning

environment more conducive to learning. They help a student focus his attention and maintain his

motivation (Jones et al., 1987).

As researchers began to identify and organize language learning strategies, they observed

that different students use different sets of processes and behaviors. They also found that not all

language learners use their strategies effectively or in the same way. For example, in studies in

1978 and 1980, Cziko compared the reading strategies of French speaking students learning

English with the reading strategies of native English speakers (as cited in Devine, 1988, p. 265).

Cziko found that advanced English proficiency French students had strategies much closer to the

native English speakers than they had to poor English proficiency French students. Such

observations have led researchers (Naiman et al., 1978; Reiss, 1985; Rubin, 1975 as cited in Ellis,

1994; and Naiman, Frolich & Todesco, 1975 as cited in Oxford, 1985b) to the conclusion that

7
 7
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

there are "good" language learners. In fact, from 1971 to 1981 Rubin conducted research that

focused on the strategies of successful learners (Rubin, 1987). Her research confirmed that

successful language learners have a wider repertoire of learning_ strategies and use them in more

varied combinations and with greater effectiveness. Based on their observations, Chamot and

Kupper concluded that "more successful students used learning strategies more often, more

appropriately, with greater variety, and in ways that helped them complete the task successfully"

(1989, p. 17). On the other hand, less successful language learners are more likely to choose an

inappropriate strategy for a particular task (Marzano, et al.,1988). This descriptive phase of

research into language learning strategies paved the way for the question of whether the strategies

used effectively by good language learners could be taught to good benefit for less successful

language learners.

Many research studies have examined the teachability of language learning strategies and

determined that less effective students can learn to use and apply them (Derry & Murphy 1986;

O'Malley et al., 1985; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Thomas looked at research by Chamot and

O'Malley (1987, 1994) and O'Malley and Chamot (1990) that led Thomas to conclude that

"when English learners receive instruction with explicit teaching of learning strategies, they

become more efficient and effective learners in the second language" (as cited in Collier, 1995, p.

33). In fact, Collier, too, believes that one of a teacher's goals should be to expand the range of

students' learning strategies (Collier,1995). Weinstein and Mayer (1986) found strategy training

successful for first language learners who were at a higher skill level and at an appropriate level of

maturity. O'Malley (1987) conducted the second phase of a two-phase study in part to determine

8
 8
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

what influence language learning strategy training had on performance in some selected areas of

second language learning. Thompson and Rubin believe successful strategy training has been

demonstrated in many investigations (as cited in Oxford, 1994). There is ample evidence for

successful training of learning strategies for vocabulary.

If, then, language learning strategies can be taught, how best to teach them? This question

has huge implications for curriculum and materials developers and classroom teachers. The

discussion seems to be framed in two parts. First, should learning strategy training be separate

from subject content or integrated into it? Second, should learning strategy training be embedded

or addressed directly? There is, however, some confusion over the use of the terms "separate",

"integrated", "embedded" and "direct". What one researcher describes as "integrated" (Wenden,

1987a) is the same as what another calls "embedded" (Derry & Murphy, 1986). What some call

"direct" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), others calls "explicit" (Marzano et al., 1988; Oxford,

1989). One researcher describes the dichotomy as "blind" vs. "informed" (Wenden, 1987a) and

another as "embedded" vs. "detached" (Derry & Murphy, 1986) rather than "embedded" and

"direct". Where one researcher makes a distinction between "integrated" and "embedded"

(O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), another does not (Derry & Murphy, 1986). This will be dealt with

by describing the instructional situations and using the term found in most of the literature.

Strategy training is "separate" when it is presented as a separate instructional program. It

is a course unto itself and might be called "Study Skills" or "Learning_to Learn" or "Learning to

Think". In the case of separate, it would probably be designed to apply to all content areas, not

language learning alone because learning strategies, especially metacognitive and social/affective
 9
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

ones and to varying degrees cognitive ones, are applicable to a broad range of tasks and domains.

"Integrated" strategy training is that which is offered as part of a regular content area course such

as French, algebra, US history or biology. It is combined with and supplementary to the subject

matter content. "Embedded" refers to a situation in which students are presented with materials

that lead them to use a particular strategy, but are not told why the strategy is being practiced or

in what situations it is appropriate to use it. Presumably this method could be found in either a

"separate" or "integrated" strategy training program. Finally, in "direct" strategy training,

students are explicitly told the how and why of a learning strategy, its value and purpose. Again,

presumably, this method could be used in either a "separate" or "integrated" strategy training

program.

O'Malley and Chamot (1990) describe the question of separate or integrated strategy

instruction as an unresolved issue. Advocates of separate strategy training argue that students

will learn strategies better if they focus on them exclusively. Their attention will not divided

between strategies and content. They also argue that because learning strategies are generalizable

to many contexts, it makes sense not to teach them connected to any single content area.

Students might be more inclined to transfer strategy use among different domains if they have

learned them as domain-independent (Derry & Murphy, 1986). Teaching strategies separately

also eliminates the need to train every content teacher in the techniques of teaching strategies.

Instead, one teacher could be expertly trained to teach a class such as "Learning to Learn".

In the early 1980's, Weinstein (as cited in O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) developed and

implemented a separate cognitive strategy training course called Individual Learning Skills. It was
 10
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

aimed at university students who were taught learning strategies and then practiced applying them

to their other courses. Another two separate strategy training approaches were Dansereau's

Computer-Assisted Cooperative Learning (CACL) Program developed in the mid 1980's (as cited

in O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) and his MURDER learning strategy system whose acronym stands

for various substrategies (Dansereau et al 1979). In the former, students received and practiced

reading comprehension strategies by computer. In the latter, university students were taught

strategies in a 37-hour, 15-week course that Dansereau classified as either primary (roughly

equivalent to cognitive strategies) and support strategies (roughly equivalent to metacognitive and

social/affective strategies) (Dansereau et al., 1979). He found that students later had difficulty

transferring the strategies they had learned in the MURDER system to other particular kinds of

test material (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990).

Advocates of the integrated approach believe that strategy instruction is most effective

when linked to regular language learning_ activities (Oxford, Lavine & Crookall, 1989). "Study

skills can't be taught in isolation [because] they're a bore" (Vuko, 1999, p. C04). When learning

strategy training takes place in the context of core subject matter courses semester after semester,

students receive realistic content and years of practice. Practicing strategies on authentic

academic and language tasks also facilitates strategy transfer to similar tasks in other subject areas

(Chamot & O'Malley, 1987). One criticism of the separate approach is that the applicability of

strategies taught separately from subject matter may not be immediately evident to the learner

(Wenden, 1987a). Thus as regards language learning, strategies should be taught as part of the

language course curriculum. Collier believes that the teacher should "consciously [teach] learning
 11
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

strategies as part of the language acquisition process" (Collier, 1995, p. 33).

One example of an integrated approach is the Chicago Mastery Learning Reading Program

with Learning Strategies (CMLR/LS) (Deny & Murphy, 1986). The program incorporates

strategy training into regular reading curriculum materials, and extensive in-service teacher

training is considered unnecessary. According to Deny and Murphy the program has been judged

a success for several reasons they attribute to it. Student standardized test scores have increased,

student absenteeism and discipline problems have declined, post-course reading test scores have

increased, and the program has been adopted city-wide. All content teachers, then, become

strategy trainers as well.

Another integrated instructional model is the Strategic Teaching Model of B. F. Jones,

A.S. Palinscar, D.S. Ogle and E.G. Can (1987). It is a framework for instruction in content

areas, including language learning. It concentrates on instruction in and practice of learning

strategies in a specific sequence: determining the students' current strategy use, explaining the

target strategy, modeling of the strategy by the teacher and finally student practice of the strategy

with gradual lessening of teacher support and prompting.

A third example of integrated language learning strategy training is the Cognitive

Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) which was specifically developed for students

with limited English proficiency and who need to develop academic language skills in English

(Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). The curriculum is content-based, e.g. science, math, social studies,

and literature, and the subject matter content is the main focus of the instruction. They believe

that both learning of academic content and academic language can be facilitated by applying

12
 12
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

appropriate learning strategies, and the choice of strategy is determined by the nature of the

instructional task and language content. They start with a small number of strategies, pairing

them when they are supportive of each other. They aim for strategies and tasks that are only

moderately difficult so that students will find the effort worthwhile and experience success.

A compromise approach between integrated and separate strategy instruction is the Job

Skills Educational Program (JSEP). In JSEP, separate learning strategy instruction occurs in the

context of a core subject-matter course but before an actual subject-matter "learning event".

Afterwards, "brief, nonobtrusive promptings to use the previously learned strategies are inserted

at appropriate points" (Deny & Murphy, 1986, p. 15).

In the embedded approach to learning strategy instruction, materials are written and

activities are presented in such as way that they elicit the use of the particular learning strategy

being taught. Students are led to use a particular cognitive strategy by the activity. The strategies

are cued by the textbook. Most language learning texts and programs use the embedded

approach. They tend to present activities such as prereading preparation for vocabulary or

postreading activities such as outlining skills, reading analysis and fact-finding exercises. The

foreword to the text, rarely read by students, may explain how these activities are carried out and

what they involve, but it rarely explicitly tells the value or purpose of each strategy.

One study of embedded strategy training is reported by Barnett (1988) in which college

students were trained in certain reading strategies but were not told the purpose or importance of

the strategies. What little improvement the students showed over the control group was not

statistically significant. Research on training learning strategies using this approach found that it

13
 13
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

resulted in improved performance of the task to which it was tied but later, there was no

maintenance or transfer to similar tasks (Wenden, 1987a). In fact, the same lack of transfer to

new tasks was found elsewhere (Brown, Armbruster & Baker, 1986). B.F. Jones (1983 as cited

in O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) claims that the major advantage cited for embedded strategy

training is that it requires no teacher training. There is little else to recommend the embedded

approach to teaching language learning strategies.

Advocates of the direct approach are numerous: Brown et al. (1986), Palinscar and Brown

(1984 as cited in O'Malley & Chamot, 1990), Wenden (1987a), Derry and Murphy (1986),

Weinstein and Mayer (1986), Marzano et al. (1988), Oxford (1989) and Oxford, Lavine and

Crookall, (1989). Derry and Murphy call for "direct expository" instruction because they believe

that knowing the how, the why and the when of learning strategy use can facilitate a student's

ability to maintain the strategy once outside the training environment. O'Malley and Chamot

(1990) also conclude that strategy instruction should be direct. Besides improving strategy

maintenance, a direct approach will maximize strategy transfer (O'Malley et al., 1985b). Students

should be made aware of the strategies they are learning because such awareness will enable them

to transfer the strategies to new tasks and move them toward self-directed learning. Marzano et

al. (1988) found consistent and strong evidence that most students, but especially low-achieving

and younger students, need sustained explicit (i.e., direct) strategy instruction to become skilled

learners. According to Oxford (1989; see also Oxford, Lavine & Crookall, 1989), research has

demonstrated that the most effective strategy training teaches learners why and how to use new

strategies, to evaluate their effectiveness and to decide when it is appropriate to use a particular
 14
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

strategy in a new situation. Wenden (1987a) says that to teach students what to do but not why

or when is to leave students "blind" about a strategy's importance.

Support for the direct approach to teaching language learning strategies is not limited to

prominent researchers or materials and curriculum developers. Even individual classroom

teachers are on the front line, having discovered the usefulness of explicit strategy training. R.

Williams (1985), a classroom ESL teacher, has developed an approach in which he teaches

reading strategies directly, using chalk board, overhead project and specially designed teaching

materials. His program calls for "high focus" in which he and students examine a reading text

together on the overhead projector. He explains the target strategy to the whole class with

elaborately marked examples in the text. Students continue in small groups to examine and

practice the strategy in specially adapted texts with a few marked examples at first and then

gradually move to unmarked texts. Students discuss their reading comprehension and their

strategies. Eventually, students combine the strategy with other, previous learned strategies in

Williams' second phase of "integrated practice".

On the issue of embedded vs. direct, the verdict seems to be clear: learning strategies and,

by extension, language learning strategies should be addressed directly and explicitly. The direct

approach makes students aware of their learning strategies, what to do, why they are useful and

when it is appropriate to use them. From this, students can work toward becoming autonomous

learners, something every teacher should be striving for. There seems to be no benefit to the

students for doing otherwise.

On the issue of separate or integrated, the conclusion is less clear. There does not seem to

15
 15
LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

be the same degree of unanimity as there is on the embedded vs. direct issue. On the one hand, it

is less "work" for materials developers and curriculum planners if learning strategies are taught

separately. Materials for separate training need only be developed once for a course in learning

strategies probably lasting one or two semesters. When strategy instruction is integrated, it must

be incorporated into every core course curriculum and text and may need to be reintegrated every

time the course curriculum or text changes. The separate method also requires less teacher

training. The learning strategies course teacher might be the only one to receive training. There

is also the suggestion that separately taught learning strategies transfer more readily than when

they have been taught in a domain-specific context.

But what is our goal? If our goal is good teaching, then we must teach students "how to

learn, how to remember, how to think and how to motivate themselves" (Weinstein & Mayer,

1986, p. 315). We want our students to become independent and self-directed language learners

so that they are capable of continuing their language acquisition outside the classroom and after

they have left school. Evidence suggests that students acquire learning strategies more effective

when they are integrated into a content curriculum. Every language teacher, and every content

teacher, must be instrumental in ensuring that their students learn these strategies and how to

transfer them. Additional teacher training and recurring materials development must be the

"raised bar" of standards that educators set for themselves.

16
 References

Barnett, M.A. (1988). Teaching reading strategies: how methodology affects language

course articulation. Foreign Language Annals, 21., 109-119.

Brown, A.L., Armbruster, B.B., & Baker, L. (1986). The role of metacognition in

reading and studying. In J. Orasanu (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice.

(pp. 49-76) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations.

Chamot, A.U. (1987). The learning strategies of ESL students. In A. Wenden and J.

Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 71-84). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice/Hall International.

Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction.

Foreign language annals, 22 13-24.

Chamot, A.U. & O'Malley, J.M. (1987). The cognitive academic language approach: A

bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21 227-249.

Chamot, A.U. & O'Malley, J.M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the

cognitive academic language learning approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Collier, V.P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students. Jersey City, NJ:

New Jersey Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages-Bilingual Educators.

Dansereau, D.F., McDonald, B.A., Collins, K.W., Garland, J., Holley, C.D., Diekhoff,

G.M. & Evans, S.H. (1979). Evaluation of a learning strategy system. In H.F. O'Neil (Ed.),

Cognitive and affective learning strategies. (pp. 3-44). New York: Academic Press.

Deny, Si. & Murphy, D.A. (1986). Designing systems that train learning ability: From

theory to practice. Review of Educational Research 56, 1-39.

17
 Devine, J., (1988). The relationship between general language competence and second

language reading proficiency: Implications for teaching. In Carrell, P. L., Devine, J. and Eskey

D.E. (Eds.), Approaches to second language reading. (pp. 260-278). Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Jones, B.F., Palincsar, A.S., Ogle, D.S. & Carr E.G. (1987). Strategic teaching and

learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R.J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B.F., Presseisen, B.Z., Rankin, S.C. &

Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Norton, P. & Wiburg, K.M. (1998). Teaching with technology. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

O'Malley, J.M.. (1987). The effects of training in the use of learning strategies on

acquiring English as a second language. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in

language learning. (pp. 133-144). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice/Hall International.

O'Malley J.M. & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U. & Kupper, L. (1995). Listening comprehension strategies

in second language acquisition. In H.D. Brown & S. T. Gonzo (Eds.), Readings on second

language acquisition. (pp. 138-160). Englwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

18
 O'Malley, J.M., Chamot, A.U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L. & Russo, R.P.

(1985a). Learning strategiew used by beginning and intermediate students. Language Learning.,

35 21-46.

O'Malley, J.M, Chamot, A.U., Stewner- Manzanares, G., Russo, R.P. & Kupper, L.

(1985b). Learning strategy application with students of English as a second language. TESOL

Quarterly, 19., 557-584.

Oxford, R. (1985b). Second language learning strategies: What the research has to say.

ERIC/CLL News Bulletin, 9, 1, 3-4.

Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with

implications for strategy training. System, 17., 235-247.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.

Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Oxford, R. (1994). Language learning strategies: an update. ERIC Digest. Washington,

D.C.: Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics. Center for Applied Linguistics. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. EDO-FL-02-95) Also available on line:

[Link] cal .org/ERICCLL/digest/oxford0 [Link]

Oxford, R., Lavine, R.Z. & Crookall, D. (1989). Language learning strategies, the

communicative approach and their classroom implications. Foreign language annals, 22., 13-24.

Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and

typology. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice/Hall International.

Vuko, E.P. (1999, October 29). The first thing to think about is thinking. [Newspaper

19
article]. The Washington Post., p.004.

Weinstein, E. & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.C.

Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, third edition (pp. 315-327). New York:

Macmillan Publishing Company.

Wenden, A. (1987a). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. In A. Wenden and

J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 159-168). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice/Hall International. (Reprinted from System, 14., 315-325, 1986).

Wenden, A. (19870. Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin

(Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. (pp. 3-13). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice/Hall

International.

Williams, R. (1985). Teaching vocabulary recognition strategies in ESP reading. ESP

Journal. 4. 121-131.

20
 PoLocelli(-1-6

U.S. Department of Education J

)
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE
(Specific Document)

I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
Title:
tb-e/vv:A- 64rod-w
OA439-1
Is --reota_ ta &Fat--
?
Author(s): She) ed Vavt6e_
Corporate Source: Publication Date:

II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,
and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
of the page.

The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 1 documents affixed to all Level 2A documents affixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
BEEN GRANTED BY FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY, MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
\e \e \e
Sad car
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

2A 23
Level I Level 2A Level 2B

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
and dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival and dissemination In microfiche and In electronic media reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy. for ERIC archival collection subscribers only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.

If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproductidn from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signature' Printed Name/Position/Title:

Sign
here,-) S Vet te c
Organization/Address: FAX:
please LTA) 3 2-3 b3I
624_ raor4v VA- ail Address:
lien vl e tt- &?..)
i Date:

erois. cowl (over)

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, please
provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publicly
available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly more
stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and
address:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:

ERIIC Mukha= en
Latvia t Lingu nt,
4040 40TH ST. NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 200161850

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document being
contributed) to:
ERIC Procesing and Reference Facility
110011Vest Street, 2nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707=3598

Telephone:z301497-4080
Toll Free-'900-7993742
FAX: 301-953-0263
e mail: ericfac@[Link]
WWW: [Link]

EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)

PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.