System 43 (2014) 30–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/system

The learning strategy prism: Perspectives of learning strategyexperts

Rebecca L. Oxford a,*, Joan Rubin b, Anna Uhl Chamot c, Karen Schrammd,Roberta Lavine e, Pamela Gunning f, Carisma Nel g

aOxford Associates, Huntsville, AL, USAb Joan Rubin Associates, Wheaton, MD, USAc The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USAdUniversity of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaeUniversity of Maryland, College Park, MD, USAfMcGill University, Montréal, CanadagNorth-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 March 2013Received in revised form 9 December 2013Accepted 31 December 2013

Keywords:Learning strategy narrativesLearner needsStrategy instructionTeacher preparationPoliciesLife changes

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: rebeccaoxford@gmail.com (R.L. O

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.0040346-251X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

This article analyzes six short narratives written by language learning strategy expertsfrom Germany, South Africa, Canada, and the United States. The six essays, included in fullhere, form a prism, through which a ray of light is refracted into seven diverse colors, i.e.,specific themes arising from the analysis. These themes range from the strategy-relatedneeds of language learners and to the life changes and emotions of researchers andteachers. The overarching theme is the diversity of complementary perspectives onlanguage learning strategies. This article helps readers explore the strategy prism andunderstand the significance of language learning strategies.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Language learning strategies are generally defined as the learner’s consciously chosen tools for active, self-regulatedimprovement of language learning (Griffiths, 2008b, 2013; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 2011b). This article presentsand analyzes strategy-related narratives from six experts, Joan Rubin, Anna Chamot, Karen Schramm, Roberta Lavine, PamelaGunning, and Carisma Nel, who represent four countries (the United States, Germany, Canada, and South Africa) and threecontinents. The essays were elicited using the stimulus questions described in the introductory article (“The Twenty-FirstCentury Landscape of Language Learning Strategies”), and they form a metaphorical “prism,” i.e., a transparent but solidbody with many nonparallel facets. (For further discussion of the use of metaphor in relation to learning strategies, see theimmediately previous “Metaphor” article.) White light enters the prism as a mixture of contrasting frequencies that benddifferently, dispersing the light into a full spectrum of colors. The colors, when examined, reveal seven cross-cutting themesin the experts’ essays. The colorful, prismatic themes offer enlightenment from the experts and raise helpful challenges for thelearning strategy field.

This section has introduced the concept of the strategy prism, while the next section is the review of relevant literature.The third section presents the six complete stories before analysis. A detailed thematic analysis in the fourth section revealsseven refracted colors, i.e., emergent themes. The conclusion builds on the thematic analysis.

xford).

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 31

2. Research review

This section reviews varied approaches to language learning strategies. Chronicled by Oxford and Cohen (1992),McDonough (1999), and Cohen and Macaro (2007), some definitional and theoretical conflicts exist. See also “The Twenty-First Century Landscape of Language Learning Strategies” in this special issue for more about such controversies. However,diverse views can also be helpful if they are discussed in a spirit of collaborative inquiry (Oxford & Schramm, 2007).

2.1. Views from psychology and applied linguistics

Views from psychology and applied linguistics include the good language learner, autonomy and self-regulation, focus oncognitive and metacognitive strategies, strategies for social and affective aspects of language learning, variables related tolanguage learning strategies, the distinction between language use and language learning, strategy assistance (including butnot limited to strategy instruction), and strategy assessment.

2.1.1. The good language learnerThe initial spark for the language learning strategy field comes from Rubin’s (1975) concept of the good language learner

(see also Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Naiman, Fröhlich, & Todesco, 1975; Reiss, 1983, 1985; Stern, 1975), whichcontributes to an understanding of how learners can direct their own learning. Griffiths (2008b) updates the concept of thegood language learner in a theoretical sense by showing that there are many different types of good language learners. In apractical sense, her book demonstrates how language learners can reach success in a variety of language skill areas.

2.1.2. Autonomy and self-regulationApplied linguists describe learner autonomy in diverse ways: as the learner’s psychological attitude of complete re-

sponsibility, largely in self-access centers (Holec, 1980, 1981); the capacity and willingness to take responsibility for one’slanguage learning, as well as actions (what we would call learning strategies) in that direction (Allwright, 1990); and thecapacity for critically reflecting, making decisions, and taking independent action (Little, 1991). Oxford (2011a) arguesthat many theories of language learner autonomy insufficiently deal with non-Western “social autonomies” and thestrategies arising from them (see also Griffiths, Oxford, Kawai, Kawai et al., “Focus on Context: Narratives from East Asia,”2014).

Educational psychologists emphasize the identification and teaching of learning strategies for self-regulation. Forexample, Schunk and Ertmer (2000) describe self-regulatory strategies as including setting goals; paying attention; orga-nizing, coding, and rehearsing information; establishing a productive setting; using resources effectively; managing time;monitoring performance; seeking help; and managing emotional aspects, such as motivation, emotions, and attitude. Rubin(2001) views learning strategies as part of learner self-management, which also involves the learner’s beliefs and analysis ofthe learning task.

2.1.3. Focus on cognitive and metacognitive strategiesInfluenced by cognitive psychologist John Anderson (1983, 1985), O’Malley and Chamot (1990) focus primarily on

cognitive strategies for processing information and developing schemata (mental frameworks) and on metacognitive stra-tegies, such as planning and evaluating, for executive management of language learning. The Cognitive Academic LanguageLearning Approach, or CALLA, expands on the early work by Chamot and O’Malley and integrates strategy instruction intolanguage learning. This approach has been successful in many studies (see Chamot, 2004, 2005b, 2007, 2009).

2.1.4. Strategies for social and affective aspects of language learningIn addition to the crucial cognitive and metacognitive aspects of learning strategies (see Griffiths & Oxford, “The

Twenty-First Century Landscape of Language Learning Strategies” introducing this special issue), Bialystok (1981) reportsthat functional practice strategies for social interaction remain useful at all language proficiency levels. Her research alsoshows that formal, grammar-based practice strategies are less effective as students advance in proficiency. Oxford (1990)discusses many social strategies for language learning. Clément, Baker, and MacIntyre (2003) show that learners who arewilling to communicate seek out and exploit communication opportunities, thus using social strategies. In “SocialStrategy Use and Language Learning Contexts: A Case Study of Malayalee Undergraduate Students in India” (2014), Harishhighlights the importance of social strategies and indicates that many factors help determine whether such strategies areused or not.

Psychologists (Dansereau, 1985; McCombs, 1988; McCombs & Whisler, 1989; Oxford, 1990, 2011b) delineate the impor-tance of affective learning strategies for self-control of emotion and motivation, although very advanced learners might haveless need for affective strategies (Leaver, 2003a). Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, and Deci (2004) expand amotivationalself-determination model (Ryan & Deci, 2000) to include learning strategies. Compared to extrinsic motivation, i.e., the desireto learn the target language for reasons separable from the learning process itself (e.g., for a practical reward or for comingcloser to the target culture), intrinsic motivation – the desire to learn the language as an end in itself because of enjoyment,challenge, and interest – relates to greater use of deep processing strategies (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004), as well as a widerrange of strategies, more creativity, and stronger information retention (Ushioda, 2008).

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4932

2.1.5. Variables related to language learning strategiesResearchers examined learning strategies in relation to other variables, such as age, gender, motivation, and learning

styles. They found that (a) learners of different ages can identify their own learning strategies and (b) learning strategies,including those for phonology and grammar, may be necessary for teens and adults (Griffiths, 2008a; Oxford, 2011b; Oxford &Lee, 2007). Compared to males, females tend report using a wider range of learning strategies, including social and affectivestrategies (Nyikos, 2008). Motivation is often correlatedwith the frequency of use of language learning strategies andwith thedevelopment of language proficiency (Oxford, 1996b). Learning styles, or habitual or preferred ways of learning, influencelanguage learning strategy choice (Nel, 2008; Oxford,1996a,1999) and are connected to personality (Ehrman,1996, 2008) andcultural background (Cross & Markus, 1999; Kitayama & Markus, 1994).

2.1.6. Language use and language learningSelinker (1972) and Cohen (1998, 2011) distinguish between language learning strategies and language use strategies. This

distinction is crucial for research on speech acts, but it does not acknowledge the fact that every instance of language useoffers the potential for language learning (Little, 2003) as long as the learner is able to notice (Schmidt, 1995) what ishappening while communicating.

2.1.7. Strategy assistanceOxford (2011b) describes many forms of strategy assistance to learners. These include direct strategy instruction inte-

grated into language teaching (Chamot, 2007; Cohen, 1990; Thompson & Rubin, 1996), separate learning-to-learn courses(Ellis & Sinclair,1989), blind strategy training inwhich strategy guidance is only implicit (Oxford,1996a), learner counseling orcoaching (Rubin, 2007), strategy-rich language learner guidebooks (Brown, 1989, 1991, 2001; Paige, Cohen, Kappler, Chi, &Lassegard, 2006; Rubin & Thompson, 1982, 1994), individualized study plans (Leaver, 2003b), overt strategy guidancewoven into language textbooks (Hajer, Meestringa, Park, & Oxford, 1996), learner portfolios (Donato & McCormick, 1994;Yang, 2003), and strategy instruction for distance language learners (Hurd, Beaven, & Ortega, 2001; Rubin, 2001;White,1995).

2.1.8. Strategy assessmentFor strategy instruction to be successful, reliable and valid strategy assessment is necessary. Strategy assessment has many

forms, such as interviews, think-aloud protocols, questionnaires, observations, learning logs, dialog journals, learner narra-tives, and even color-coding (Chamot, 2007; Cohen, 2011; Oxford, 2011b).

2.2. Views from the sociocultural arena

Views from the sociocultural arena include the sociocultural perspective on self-regulation, activity theory, and socialpower.

2.2.1. Sociocultural perspective on self-regulationThe sociocultural concept of learner self-regulation comes initially from Vygotsky (1978) and includes mentoring of the

learner by a “more capable other,” i.e., amore skilledperson or a textbookor a learning device created by such a person. Vygotskydescribes learners’ self-regulated, higher psychological processes (we would call these strategies), such as analyzing, synthe-sizing, planning, monitoring, and evaluating. As learners internalize these processes through interactionwith themore capableother, often but not always a teacher, the internalized processes can eventually become the learner’s own inner speech, whichprovides ongoing guidance to the learner and is the basis of self-regulation (see Donato &McCormick,1994; Oxford & Schramm,2007). Feuerstein argues that aptitude is not a stable trait and demonstrates that learners can be taught to use cognitive andmetacognitive techniques, resulting in greater aptitude for learning the language and other subjects (Kozulin, 2000).

Influenced by sociocultural psychology, Oxford (2011b) delineates a range of sociocultural-interactive strategies for lan-guage learning. These strategies help learners obtain help, collaborate with others, transcend knowledge gaps whencommunicating with others, and deal with learning-related issues of identity and culture. See also Harish (2014).

2.2.2. Activity theoryIn the sociocultural perspective of activity theory, learning strategies are viewed as complex mental actions occurring in a

specific setting (Rehbein, 1977; Schramm, 2001). Sociocultural activity theory examines the relationship between individuallearning and the social situations in which learning occurs and in which learners take on what is valued in a culture (OxfordCentre for Sociocultural and Activity Theory Research, 2013).

2.2.3. Social powerA different sociocultural view encompasses the idea of language learning strategies in the context of social empowerment

and disempowerment (Oxford, 2011b). Minority students who experience societal power imbalances and therefore havedifferent degrees of investment in language learning take various stances – participation, opposition, or resistance – inrelation to the target language (Canagarajah, 1993; Norton, 2001; Norton & Toohey, 2004). Their use of specific languagelearning strategies differs greatly because of their relationship to the target language (Oxford, 2011b).

Having examined the existing literature from several angles, we now turn to the methodology of the present study.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 33

3. Methodology

The six relatively short narratives in this article were invited by the first author as part of a larger invitation to 17 strategyresearchers to tell their stories about their involvement with learning strategies. Details of the invitation, including theguiding research questions, are explicitly presented in this issue’s introductory article, “The Twenty-First Century Landscapeof Language Learning Strategies” (Griffiths & Oxford). Please refer to that article for further information on how these storiescame into being.

For the first author, the six narratives in the present article generated the concept of a “learning strategy prism” becausethey presented different, multifaceted perspectives on language learning strategies. Using a grounded theory approach(Strauss & Corbin, 2007), the first author thematically analyzed the six essays in three stages, known as open coding, axialcoding, and selective coding. Open coding identifies elements and categorizes them roughly into initial themes, while axialcoding offers linkages among themes. Selective coding results in a final, overarching theme. Additional details about theseprocedures can be found in “The Twenty-First Century Landscape of Language Learning Strategies” (Griffiths & Oxford,2014).

The six complete stories follow, without analysis, and the Results section presents the analytic findings.

4. Six stories before analysis

4.1. Joan Rubin’s story: from the “good language learner” to “learner self-management”

Where do ideas come from and how do they evolve? Working with learning strategies has been a fascinating journey inwhich I have been an active participant. I have helped to shape how the idea of looking at what learners know, think, feel, anddo to be successful at learning a second language has evolved into a major focus of second language acquisition (Rubin, 2008),drawing important insights and support from self-regulation research in educational psychology (Butler & Winne, 1995;Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987).

4.1.1. Initial interestMy own interest probably began as a successful learner of several languages characterized by skills in problem solving,

flexibility, and an ability to adapt to new learning demands. In contrast, my ESL courses at the University of Michigan in theearly 1950’s focused on teaching and how to be a good teacher and in fact, were very much Skinnerian stimulus-response,audio-lingual, and “don’t let learners make a mistake or it will be permanent.” Fortunately, during my doctoral program inanthropology at Yale University in the late 50’s and early 60’s, I was exposed to the cognitive revolution of the 1950’s in severalcourses with Professor Floyd Lounsbury and in particular to the theory elaborated by Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956) intheir book A Study of Thinking.

The major focus of the 1969 TESOL meeting in New Orleans was on language teaching. It was there, however, that the ideaof investigating what makes language learners successful came to me. Very shortly thereafter in 1970–71, while a VisitingScholar at Stanford University, I began my study of the language learning process. I gratefully acknowledge Lily Wong Fill-more’s help in securing funding for this study and early discussions with Andrew Cohen, both of whom were graduatestudents at the time. This and subsequent research at the East West Center at the University of Hawaii led to my publication“What the ‘Good Language Learner’ Can Teach Us” (Rubin, 1975). The late Ruth Crymes, then editor of the TESOL Quarterly,encouragedme towrite upmy research for publication. In about 1973–74, I met David Stern at a conference and discovered hetoo was interested in looking at learners (see Stern, 1975).

4.1.2. Development of the fieldTaking a small detour from the personalized flow of the field’s history, I see that there are a couple of ways to view the

development of the field. One is to focus on how language learning strategies have morphed into learner self-management(LSM) elaborated in Rubin (2005). This article suggests the followingmajor sequence of trends in the field: first, recognition ofthe concept of the Good Language Learner; second, focus on describing cognitive and socio-affective strategies; third, focus onmetacognitive strategies; fourth, focus on metacognitive knowledge. At this time, I would add another step to this sequence:fifth, consideration of the relationship between procedural knowledge (often viewed as related to metacognitive knowledge)and declarative knowledge (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999; Rubin, 1999, 2001).

A second sequence presents the following progression: first, descriptive and correlational studies of strategies; second,intervention studies to ascertain the effect of strategy training on performance (see Macaro, Vanderplank, Graham, Nakatani,& Wingate, 2004 for a massive review of listening intervention studies); and third, work on teacher training to promoteteachers’ ability to self-manage while integrating LSM with language lessons (Oxford, 1990, 1996a, 2011b; Rubin, Chamot,Harris, & Anderson, 2007; Thompson & Rubin, 1996; Wenden, 1991).

Both of these sequences include studies on different age groups (while most work has been done with adults, for strategyresearchwith children, see Grenfell & Harris, 1999; Macaro, 2001a, 2001b; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, &Russo, 1985). Both sequences also encompass studies on different language skills (e.g., for speaking, Goh, 2005; Goh & Burns,2012; Nakatani & Goh, 2007; and for listening, Mendelsohn & Rubin, 1995; Vandergrift, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2008, 2011), studieson different contexts (Gu, 2003; Uhrig, 2004), and studies on more and less successful language learners (see for example,

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4934

Gan, Humphreys, & Hamp-Lyons, 2004; Vann & Abraham, 1990). Developing these progressions has enhanced our under-standing of how learners use (and abuse) their knowledge of cognitive, socio-affective, and procedural strategies and howteachers can promote more effective control of the language learning process. That the field has grown enormously is amplydemonstrated by several significant volumes (Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2008b, 2013; Oxford, 2011b).

4.1.3. Moving forwardReturning to the personal side of the history of the strategy field, the initial focus on language learners resulted in our

volume that provided students with knowledge and skills to take control of their learning (Rubin & Thompson, 1982). Itprovided some procedural knowledge, including goal-setting, and a great deal of declarative knowledge (about cognitive andsocio-affective strategies, about the learning process, about the communication process, and about language). A later revision(Rubin & Thompson, 1994) further contextualized learning strategies by skill (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) aswell as by grammar and vocabulary. It also included a questionnaire assessing procedures of planning, monitoring, andevaluating, as well as cognitive strategies. Other similar books followed this initial learner self-help volume (e.g., Brown,2001; Lewis, 1999; Paige et al., 2006).

Further focus on the learner produced the first and only interactive videodisc to help learners take control of their learning(Rubin, 1988, 1996). While the program generated great interest around the world, this was period of dramatic changes intechnology which, unfortunately, quickly made the program obsolete.

Next, my research focused on intervention. My first experiment, begun in 1987, was conducted with two colleagues, JoannEnos and Jim Laffey (Rubin,1990). It was the first longitudinal language strategy intervention research. The subjects were highschool students of Spanish, and the skill was listening, with a special focus on the role of video to enhance listening. Importantfindings from this study were as follows: (a) the use of listening strategies can help students work with more challengingmaterial; (b) teachers need a lot more training and support to incorporate learning strategies into their classes; and(c) promoting listening strategies enhances self-efficacy.

In my next longitudinal experiment (Thompson & Rubin, 1996), the subjects were intermediate-level university studentsof Russian. The focus herewas also on promoting listening comprehension through strategy training, with a special emphasison using video to help learners leverage their knowledge. In this study, we avoided the need for teacher training by havingIrene Thompson provide strategy instruction to the experimental group. Major findings from this study were as follows: (a)systematic instruction in the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies resulted in improvement of listening compre-hension; (b) learners’ metacognition improved as evidenced by learners’ ability to give reasons for their cognitive choices;and (c) enhanced self-efficacy resulted from strategy instruction.

4.1.4. The teacher’s roleStepping back a bit, I must credit the Linguistics Department at Stanford University in 1982 for asking me to give a lecture

on the teacher’s role in learner strategies. I must admit at that time I was more focused on the learner. However, this was awake-up call, and after my experience with the high school Spanish experiment, I began to realize how important it was tohelp teachers understand how to promote “learning to learn.” My understanding has been greatly enhanced by preparingworkshops given for teachers around the world including a special European course, Socrates Lingua B, “In-Service Educationon Learner Autonomy and the Role of the Teacher.” During this five-year project, I became familiar with the special work ofFlavia Viera (2007, 2009), who dedicates much of the teacher training degree to considering how to integrate LSM intolanguage curricula and focuses especially on the constraints that teachers face.

4.1.5. LSMWhile a Visiting Scholar at the National Foreign Language Center in Washington, DC, I developed a model (LSM) which in-

tegrates the knowledge base that expert learners use with the procedures needed to exercise control over their learning. Thiswork benefited greatly from the work of Butler and Winne (1995), Wenden (1991), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990). In themodel, I included five kinds of knowledge and beliefs (task, self, strategies, background, and beliefs) which interact with pro-cedures (planning,monitoring, evaluating,problem-identification/problem-solution, and implementationofproblem-solution).

Continuing with this work, I began to unpackage one aspect of planning, namely, task analysis (consisting of task purpose,task classification, and task demands). This work helped to delineate a more effective way to select “appropriate” strategies.Once learners clarify their purposes (the “why” of doing a task) and analyze the nature of the task (task classification), they arebetter prepared to consider which strategies are appropriate for the task, the context, and their own learning styles instead ofusing strategies in a random fashion. My colleague Pat McCoy and I then conducted an experiment to determine the extent towhich promoting task analysis would affect language learning (Rubin & McCoy, 2005, 2008).

Since finishing this experiment, I have learned that the kind of task classification work that I developed (including genre,rhetorical style, language, vocabulary plus other features) is quite similar to work being implemented in the New Zealandschool system for English composition and reading and to some extent for ESL students (see www.tki.org.nz).

4.1.6. Learner counselingAnother focus has been on language learner counseling (see the special issue on this topic, Rubin, 2007). Many institutions

are considering ways to offer learners more time on the language learning task, looking for ways to offer learners the op-portunity for more independent study, and recognizing learners’ need to be self-reliant once a class ends. Much of this focus

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 35

now occurs in “self-access centers.” Recognizing that learners need a coach to do this, the contributors to the special issue onlearner counseling describeways inwhich teachers are helped to bemore effective coaches or counselors and learners helpedto take control of their learning.

4.1.7. Next fociI conclude by noting some of my next foci in this field. (a) I hope to continue research to understand how task analysis

applies to all levels of proficiency and how learners can begin to do this for themselves. Given the recent increased interest inpromoting higher levels of proficiency, task analysis can provide an important tool for learners to reach higher levels. (b) Ihope to continue my work with teachers to help them integrate LSM (i.e., focus on the process) with language learning (i.e.,focus on the language). (c) I hope to find ways to ensure that once exposed to LSM, teachers are enabled to understand andintegrate it within the constraints of an educational system.

Finally, I would like to express special thanks to all my colleagues and students who have stimulated me to expand on myoriginal ideas and take them much, much further than I ever imagined. A special thanks to Anna Chamot, Andrew Cohen,Peter Gu, David Mendelsohn, Rebecca Oxford, Pat McCoy, and Anita Wenden. Vive la learner!

4.2. Anna Uhl Chamot’s story: a life of learning strategies

My interest in learning strategies began in 1982 when I was invited to be the ESL specialist for a study on the L2 learningstrategies of high school ESL students. This studywas directed by J. Michael O’Malley, a colleague at a private organization thatconducted various research studies and information-dissemination projects related to language learners in bilingual and ESLcontexts. I was delighted to accept this opportunity to gain first-hand insights into what students actually do to learn thelanguage needed for English-medium instruction. This first study had both descriptive and intervention components (seeO’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Küpper, et al., 1985; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Russo, & Küpper, 1985).

4.2.1. A life-changing studyIt is not an exaggeration to say that this study changed my intellectual and professional life. In the descriptive component,

we found incontrovertible evidence that English learners were not only consciously aware of their own learning but couldalso describe the strategies they used to achieve success. This finding flew in the face of the prevailing theory that secondlanguage acquisition took place through subconscious processes. Our evidence to the contrary led us to search for a learningtheory that could explain our findings. We found it in the theories of cognitive researchers such as Anderson (1983, 1985),Brown and Palincsar (1982), Gagné (1985), Shuell (1990), and Weinstein and Mayer (1986). All of these theorists spoke tothe role of consciousness and intention on the part of learners, focusing on the learning process in general rather than onsecond language learning in particular.

In the second component of this investigation we conducted an intervention study to find out if learning strategies couldbe taught to high school ESL students. In this, the first truly experimental study on teaching L2 learning strategies, wediscovered that learning strategies are teachable – but also that numerous factors affect the result of learning strategy in-struction. Foremost are the strategies that learners bring with them; these need to be identified and used as a foundation fornew strategies, rather than replaced by the teacher’s choice of strategies. Another important factor that also emerged insubsequent studies was that the type and perceived difficulty of the task impacts both the learning strategy used and also itspotential success. If the task is too difficult (i.e., beyond the learner’s zone of proximal development), then even using learningstrategies is insufficient for successful task completion.

4.2.2. Importance of teachersOur initial studies were conducted by a team of researchers, but it became clear tome that for learning strategy instruction

to really help language learners, teachers, rather than researchers, should conduct the instruction. So the next step was toidentify and recruit a team of language teachers who were willing to try out learning strategy instruction. Many of theteachers we have worked with through the years found innovative ways to integrate strategy instruction into their teachingand indeed helped us understand what works and does not work in the real life classroom. Now, as a professor of secondaryeducation (ESL and Foreign Language Education), I also prepare future language teachers and naturally try to help themunderstand the rationale for learning strategy instruction and practice ways to help their students become more strategiclanguage learners.

My conclusion after many years of both in-service and pre-service teacher education is that teachers who are able toestablish learner-centered classrooms are also able to easily integrate strategy instruction into their teaching, but teacherswhose classrooms are organized in a teacher-centered, transmission mode are not usually successful with learning strategyinstruction. It seems to me that it is particularly difficult for a language teacher to create a learner-centered classroom,especially at the beginning stages of proficiency. This is because the teacher really does have the knowledge (the targetlanguage) and it is not easy to pull away from a transmission mode of instruction.

As for specific instructional approaches, my observations indicate that successful language learning strategy teachersdevelop metacognitive awareness of their own and their students’ learning and both practice and encourage self-reflection.They observe and question their students and model their own use of particular learning strategies. They are also able to

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4936

capitalize on teachable moments to identify the strategy or strategies a student used and encourage other students to also usethem. In other words, explicit strategy instruction is more effective than implicit instruction embedded in classroom activitieswithout explanations and modeling.

4.2.3. Language of instruction and selection of strategiesAn issue in learning strategy research in the L2 classroom is the language of instruction. Beginning level language students

do not yet have the L2 proficiency to understand explanations in the target language of why and how to use learning stra-tegies. Learning strategy instruction should not be postponed until intermediate or advanced level courses because beginnersalso need strategies that can make their language learning more successful and increase their motivation for further study. Itis probably impossible not to use the first language during strategy instruction for beginning to low intermediate levelstudents (Macaro, 2001a, 2001b).

Another important issue in language learning strategy instruction is the selection of strategies to teach. There is generalagreement that the nature of the task determines the types of learning strategies that can assist in completing the tasksuccessfully. Of course, many strategies can be used for a variety of tasks. Metacognitive strategies, for example, such asplanning, monitoring, evaluating, and managing your own learning, are applicable to all sorts of both language and non-language tasks. The same holds true for strategies like using one’s related prior knowledge and cooperating with others.Other learning strategies are more suited for specific types of tasks. For example, making inferences based on available in-formation is useful for reading and listening, while substituting/paraphrasing is helpful for speaking and writing tasks. Thelearning strategies most helpful for the foreign language student are those that assist in speaking and understanding thetarget language, while those that are most important for the second language learner are those that help students withacademic tasks.

4.2.4. Role of studentsStudents have played an important role in all of my research. Student focus groups and individual interviews have been a

feature of every study I have been involved in. Students have ranged from elementary grades in foreign language immersionprograms to secondary foreign language and ESL students to college students studying a less-commonly-taught language. Thelearning strategies reported by these students have all been remarkably similar, in spite of differences in age and languagestudied. A surprising finding from the elementary immersion study was that some children as young as six or seven couldactually report on their own thinking processes; although this metacognitive awareness is developmental, for some childrenit appears at quite a young age. A finding from the intervention studies in which teachers provided learning strategy in-struction was that this instruction is especially beneficial for struggling students and that more successful learners maydismiss it because “everybody already knows that.” So an instructional question to be investigated is how to capitalize on thestrategies that the “Good Language Learner” is already using and how to maintain the interest and motivation of this studentwhile teaching learning strategies to others.

4.2.5. CALLAIn my opinion, the most important outcome of my years of research on L2 learning strategies was the development, in

collaboration with Michael O’Malley, of an instructional model that incorporates learning strategy instruction. The CognitiveAcademic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) integrates instruction in subject matter content, academic language focusingon literacy, and the explicit teaching of learning strategies (Chamot, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2009; Chamot & O’Malley,1987, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1999). Because this model focuses on the academic needs of the second language learner, thelearning strategies taught are those that assist with academic tasks, especially literacy. The CALLA model has been imple-mented successfully in ESL, bilingual, and general education classrooms in a number of countries, and evaluations indicatethat students in CALLA programs make above average gains in academic achievement (Chamot, 2007).

4.3. Karen Schramm’s story: my experience with learning strategies

Although I was not explicitly introduced to the concept of language learning strategies during my high school days as aforeign language learner of English, French, and Latin, I was never without strategies. I believe that in many years of studyingunder the guidance of different teachers, we students came up with quite a number of language learning strategies.

4.3.1. My first experienceI am sure that our creativity and sophistication in this respect could have been fostered by professional strategy instruction

as we know it today, but looking back tomy first experiences with foreign language learning, it is important for me to see thatwe picked up on the “blind strategy training” of our language teachers because the linguistic tasks and requirements that theyset for us challenged us to the degree that we looked for strategies in order to be able to cope with what was expected of us.For example, I don’t think that wewere ever explicitly introduced to inferring the meaning of unknownwords or phrases, butat a certain stage we started to read novels. I remember that I scribbled very many German translations above the unknownwords in the first chapters, but there was simply no way or rather time to cope with the material in this way and teachersdiscouraged our translations anyway, so sooner or later, we learned how to infer from the context without explicit strategy-relevant information, and without modeling, practicing, and evaluating strategies. Because the expectations were high

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 37

enough, weweremotivated to observe in group work in class how others dealt with specific aspects of language learning, andto share, in private chats about learning outside of class, our ways of coping with language learning problems.

As a result of our schooling’s focus on certain skills, I believe I was better equipped with strategies for grammar andvocabulary learning as well as for reading and writing than for pronunciation, listening, speaking, translating, or culturallearning. Only later in my life, in the process of acquiring Italian with little formal instruction in mostly “natural” environ-ments, was I required to communicate at an early stage when my competence was still very limited, and I consequentlydeveloped oral communication strategies. These language learning experiences were helpful when I tried to learn Korean,which was the most typologically challenging of my language learning attempts. Whereas I think I came up with lots of newstrategies for cultural learning during my three-year stay in Korea, I also became aware of a disconcerting lack of effectivestrategies for improving my pronunciation.

4.3.2. University learningSo I believe I had experienced the power of language learning strategies long before I was ever introduced to the

theoretical concept. In my linguistic classes with Wilhelm Grießhaber (2005) and Jochen Rehbein (1977) at the Universityof Hamburg in the early 80’s, I came to learn about Wong Fillmore’s (1979) research on the cognitive and social strategiesof immigrant children who were successful to different degrees in their ESL acquisition and about Færch and Kasper’s(1983) work on communication strategies with greater or lesser potential for promoting second language acquisition.These works resonated with my interested observation that my peer foreign language learners, especially in thebeginning stages, acted quite differently with their limited linguistic resources, and were successful with their jokes,complaints, flirts, stories, etc. to strikingly different degrees. In Wong Fillmore’s and Færch and Kasper’s research, I foundanswers to questions that I had so far only addressed in fuzzy ways by observing more successful L2 speakers andlearners. Looking back, I think this was the starting point of my academic interest in language learning strategies.

Around the same time, one of the education seminars that made a particularly profound impression on me focused ongiftedness. As someone who wanted to become a teacher, I was thrilled to learn that quite a few researchers actuallyquestioned the concept of static giftedness, and instead argued for a dynamic concept of giftedness that I had never comeacross in the discourse about learning in my life outside of the university. I found this an exciting thought with tremendousimpact on thewaywe approach learning and teaching. In the concept of dynamic giftedness almost anything seemed possiblewith the aid of good mentoring or teaching, and with enough time and willingness to learn. Not only was this a passionateeducational thought about the possibilities to change the life of individuals and tomake an attempt at contributing to aworldof greater social justice, it was also practically a very useful concept to motivate myself as a learner and to approach complexacademic matters fearlessly, considering more or less anything learnable. In this inspiring seminar, we read one of the classiceducational Germanworks from the 60’s, Begabung und Lernen (Giftedness and Learning, Roth, 1969), that argued for using thethen disregarded “giftedness reserve” of rural, Catholic, female students who, at the time, were not as successful in Germanschools as were their peers. One of the quotes that sparked my passion as an ongoing educator at this timewas: “Begabung istnicht nur Voraussetzung für Lernen, sondern auch dessen Ergebnis [Giftedness is not only the pre-condition for learning, but alsoits result]” (Roth, 1969, p. 22).

I used this quote later as amotto formy doctoral dissertation and book on reading strategies (Schramm, 2001). In that work,I addressed the questions of how well German psychology students who read an American psychology textbook in Englishunderstand the texts that they read, whether they realize when they do not understand, and what they do to solve thecomprehension problems that they become aware of. My research on L2 reading strategies made me aware of the importanceofmetacognition in learning. I was fascinated to find in the concepts ofmetacognition and strategy instruction a key to “gifting”people, as Roth had said in another timely and disciplinary context. In my book, I now find a single explicit reference that I cantrace back to my seminar on giftedness, but indeed the whole research project was inspired by this very thought:

Dementsprechend erfolgt auch die empirische Erforschung des fremdsprachlichen Leseprozesses in dieser Untersu-chung letztendlich in der Hoffnung, einen Beitrag auf dem Weg zu einer prozeborientierten Lesedidaktik leisten zukönnen, die in der Lage ist, L2-Leser zu “begaben”, d.h. ihnen dabei zu helfen, ein intelligenteres fremdsprachlichesLesehandeln zu entwickeln.

[In a similar vein, this empirical investigation of the foreign language readingprocess is ultimatelyconducted in thehopeto be able tomake a contribution towards the goal of process-oriented reading instruction that is capable of “gifting” L2readers, i.e., of helping them to develop more intelligent foreign language reading action.] (Schramm, 2001, p. 4)

4.3.3. Action-theoretical perspectiveInmy book, I tried to come to termswith the concepts of mental action, metacognition, and strategies with regard to the L2

reading process. From an action-theoretical point of view, I preferred theoretical constructs other than “strategy,” but I wasclearly grappling with the samematters as, and inspired by the exciting work of pioneers of reading strategy research, such asBlock (1986), Hosenfeld (1977, 1979), Sarig (1987), and many others.

On the basis of my interpretive analysis of think-aloud data from German readers of English for academic purposes, Iconceptualized reading as mental action on three distinct levels. (a) On a first level, reading is a subordinate action for somehigher-level activity, such as the psychology class with its class discussions and exams; this sociocultural activity is essential

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4938

for the reader’s establishment of reading goals. Therefore, evaluation of the actual reading process depends on how helpfulthe mental models constructed during reading are for this higher-level activity. I would consequently argue that de-contextualized reading instruction does not allow readers to metacognitively evaluate their reading success and learnfrom their reading experience. (b) On a second level, reading is (inter-individual) interaction with the author in a dilatedspeech situation, i.e., in a situation that separates author and reader in space and time. This means that reading involves thereconstruction of the linguistic actions of the author that are laid down in the written text, and the reader’s orchestration ofhis or her mental operations with the reconstructed linguistic actions of the author. (c) Finally, on a third level, reading is the(intra-individual) problem-solving (or comprehension-securing) action that has been the focus of most think-aloud studieson reading strategies – probably because this level is usually not automatic and therefore more often verbalized that thesecond action level of reading (for more details, see Schramm, 2006).

4.3.4. Other highlightsAnother highlight of my personal strategy history was a conference on language learning strategies in 2001 at the Uni-

versity of Maryland at College Park. Life had just taken me to Washington, DC, and I considered this conference my personalwelcome gift tomy new life there. I was excited to actually see and listen to the real women andmen that I had so far onlymetin their writings: Peter Afflerbach, Patricia Alexander, Anna Chamot, Andrew Cohen, Rebecca Oxford, Michael Pressley, andmany others. I enjoyed this great opportunity to merge my personal impression of their faces, voices, and their ways ofinteracting with the audience with my own constructions of the researchers that had emerged from their writings and frommy mental discussions with them. To me, this conference was a unique and memorable experience, and the excitement ofthat day sustained me in my following attempts at finding a home in the academic community of my new place of residence.

When a class on language learning strategies by RebeccaOxfordwas offered to the students at the American universitywhereI was teaching a class in the TESOL program, I decided to try to audit this classmyself, and this decisionwas to have a huge impacton my life as a strategy researcher. I am deeply grateful to Rebecca for inviting me to participate in this course and for, later,introducingme to the IPOLLS (International Project on Language Learning Strategies) group. Andrew Cohen and Ernesto Macarowere so kind as to invite me to contribute to two chapters in their exciting book project on thirty years of language learningstrategy research and practice (Oxford & Schramm, 2007; White, Schramm, & Chamot, 2007). The first of these chapters,among other topics, revisits the topic of giftedness and suggests a strategy-based, dynamic assessment of language learning.

4.3.5. European developmentsIn my further research on the acquisition of German by immigrant children (Schramm, 2005, 2006, 2007), I focus on oral

story-telling in the monolingual German elementary school classroom, and I am amazed at the variety of narrative and repairstrategies that the children employ. The teachers’ ways of scaffolding second language story-telling support the children todifferent degrees, and I believe that the examples of best practice which are documented in the corpus can serve as aninspiring source for future language teachers. The data also allow me to specify verbal and non-verbal actions that disorient,or in the worst case even silence, the young German-as-a-second-language story-tellers, and it is my hope that they can serveto increase the awareness of often well-meant, but actually detrimental ways of interaction in the language classroom.

I am very pleased to see the importance of strategies reflected in the Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-guages (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001; see also Little, 2005) and in the European Language Portfolio (2012; see also Little,2005). There clearly are deficits in the brief portrayal of the learning styles research in the CEFR section on the “‘existen-tial’ competence” or the savoir-être as well as that of the learning strategies research in the CEFR section on the “ability tolearn” or the savoir-apprendre. Hoping, however, that these will be improved in future editions, the fact that the CEFR focuseson these competences and that, accordingly, the European Language Portfolio incorporates documents of self-observation andself-reflection on these competences, seems to be a major step in the effort to establish strategy learning in the Europeancontext. The Language Biography (2006) part of the European Language Portfolio in the German state of North Rhine-Westfalia,for example, provides lists that can be used to self-assess strategy use: It includes items like “How I organizemywork,” “How Ilearn words,” “How I develop and check listening comprehension” as well as “What I plan to do in the future” (p. 8; owntranslation). Of course, there is always room for improvement, but what seems more important here is that I expect thesedocuments to strongly contribute to the focus on language learning strategies in European language learning materials andclassrooms. Relatively recent textbooks in German as a foreign language, such as Studio d – B1 (Funk, Kuhn, & Demme, 2007),include questions promoting strategy exchange impulses such as “Talking about presentations: Read and complement theadvice on presentations given here” (Funk et al., p. 62; own translation) or strategy evaluation impulses such as “Practice theirregular verbs [while] walking, clapping your hands, or nodding your head. What functions best for you?” (Funk et al., p. 18;own translation). I look forward to more specific discussions about the details of strategy instruction at the theoretical andpractical level, but it is good to see that the CEFR and the European Language Portfolio have a great impact on language learningstrategy instruction in European countries.

4.4. Roberta Lavine’s story: strategies have changed my life

Strategies have changed my life. I know that sounds like an exaggeration, but it’s not. Since my introduction to L2 learningstrategies in 1986, I’ve changed the way I teach, the way I think about helping my students with specific skills and tasks, theway I look at almost everything I do. Now I routinely teach L2 learning strategies such as organizing informationwith a T-line

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 39

(see Oxford, 1990), always a hit with everyone, and linking ideas with a semantic map. I have adapted learning strategies tohelp me with my own professional and personal life, too. For instance, I reward myself after I complete a particularly difficulttask, and I repeat out loud and develop mental pictures to remember the names of the students in my Spanish classes orteacher education classes. I could include myriads of other examples.

4.4.1. Strategy metascriptsForme, one of themost powerful aspects of strategies is the easewithwhich they can be combined intowhat I call “strategy

metascripts.” A strategy metascript is a strategy instruction tool that I created with a colleague, Teresa Cabal Krastel (Lavine &Cabal Krastel, 2002). This can be used for L2 learners who have learning difficulties, as well as for all other L2 learners. Strategymetascripts contain one or more strategies, sequenced in a logical fashion, such as this brief set of steps for a listening task:“First I need to identify the topic of the conversation. I can do this by picking out some keywords. Then I can think aboutwhat Iknow about the topic. Then I can predict what might be said next. Then I can check whether my prediction comes true.”Learners can create their ownmetascripts alone or in a group, or they can learn metascripts prepared by the teacher. Studentsfind strategy metascripts very powerful for improving their L2 learning, and classroom performance supports this. (SeeOxford, 2011b for more details on metascripts for strategy instruction and for an example of a complete strategy metascript.)

4.4.2. In the personal domainI’ve used strategy metascripts not just in the professional domain, but in my personal life as well. My son, now an

adult, has several learning disabilities, and he experiences related problems, such as disorganization and lack of self-esteem. We began using strategy metascripts a while ago and continue to this day. Some years ago, he was veryscared about an upcoming job interview. No amount of reassurance or repeated advice could calm his fears.

At the time I was working with strategy metascripts to teach Spanish, and I decided to help him create a strategy metascriptfor the job interview. Instead of using a strategy metascript to accomplish an L2 learning task, my son needed such a script toaccomplish a very difficult interpersonal task in the L1. He had to have appropriate strategies for the interview, and these neededto be learned in a sequenced way so he could remember them. Together we fashioned a strategy metascript encompassing apreparatory phase, a simulation of an interview, an ending scenario, and a final moment of detachment. Each phase includedstrategies. We reviewed and refined the script and practiced numerous times. I remember clearly the telephone conversationwe had just before the interview. He had integrated the strategy metascript, modified it to really make it his own, and exhibitedreal confidence and organization in his thoughts, something not always usual for him as a personwith learning disabilities. Afterthe interview he called again. (All the while I had also been mentally reviewing the strategy metascript, hoping that thistechnique would have as positive a consequence for him as it did for my students.) I will never forget his words, “Mom, I did areally good job, and I felt fantastic. That script was a great idea. I’ll do it again.” He subsequently was offered the job.

This is but one example. He often tells me about his strategy metascripts, especially when he has to confront somethingnew and arduous. Strategies have indeed positively affected his life, and therefore mine as well. I could never have imaginedsuch heartening and widespread outcomes when I began working with L2 learning strategies to help my students so manyyears ago. And so I end as I began: Strategies have, indeed, changed my life.

4.5. Pamela Gunning’s story: helping shape L2 strategy use in Canada

I was first introduced to the field of learning strategies in 1991 in a book entitled An Introduction to Second LanguageAcquisition Research by Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991), which was required reading for myM.A. in Applied Linguistics. I wasintrigued by the topic and did several assignments to research it. An independent reading course which led me to discover,among other works by various scholars in the field, Oxford’s (1990) seminal book on the topic, Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know. This work inspired me to domymaster’s thesis on the topic and towrite the first adaptationfor children of Oxford’s Strategy Inventory on Language Learning (SILL, in Oxford, 1990), known as the Children’s SILL (inGunning, 1997). In addition, as an ESL teacher at the elementary level in Québec, I was motivated to try out several of thetechniques suggested by Oxford in her book.

4.5.1. Need for materialsAfter discovering L2 learning strategies, I had no published materials for teaching these strategies to children in the

Québec elementary school where I taught ESL. The task of integrating strategy instruction into my teaching was very chal-lenging, as all my tools had to be teacher-made. I had to devise methods for weaving strategy instruction into lessons plannedfrom textbooks that did not include a strategy component. Eventually I included a strategy instruction component in the firstESL textbook I co-authored, The Spinning Series, Level 2 (Gunning & Lalonde, 1995). For this textbook, written for the Grade 5level, my co-author and I created a strategymascot, Smart Cookie, tomodel the strategies for the children (see Oxford, 2011b).

In 2001, the Québec Education Program, which mandates the use of learning strategies, was instituted. My interest instrategies pre-dated the Québec Education Program by a whole decade, as shown above. As a result of the program, I wasasked to co-author additional strategy-based textbooks for language learners. After the program began, I implemented it inmy ESL classes and observed students as they used strategies to develop their ESL competencies. I found that having the new,co-authored textbooks as tools to implement strategy instruction greatly facilitated the process. The students in my classesused their strategy wheel and their strategy file (explained in Oxford, 2011b) and discussed their strategy use as a natural part

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4940

of the learning process. The visuals enabled me to explain the strategies to very young children with very limited Englishproficiency, without having to resort to the use of their mother tongue. Other teachers also found the strategy-enhancedtextbooks and materials to be highly valuable. I felt happy that I could contribute by helping create the textbooks andsupporting the Québec Education Program.

4.5.2. Teacher trainingAs a teacher trainer at the university level, I teach pedagogy courses that prepare future ESL teachers. I usually include

readings and discussions on strategies. This becomes imperative when the course encompasses a component on the QuébecEducation Program. As I am very interested in the effectiveness or lack thereof of the measures introduced by the Ministry ofEducation, I routinely ask student teachers how many of them work with master teachers who teach strategies, and howmany see the tools from the “Strategies for Success” module or from the ministry-approved textbooks in the schools wherethey do their practice teaching. A few years ago, the number of student teachers who had experienced strategy instruction inthe schools was very small, but this number has gradually increased each year, and this yearmany reported seeing evidence ofstrategy instruction in the schools.

4.5.3. Children’s learning strategiesMy dissertation study (Gunning, 2011; also Gunning & Oxford, 2014) empirically tested the effectiveness of these mea-

sures, identified the strategies that children at the elementary level in Québec employ in their L2 learning, and studied theeffects of strategy instruction and of children’s strategy use on success on ESL tasks. An updated Children’s SILL, Version 2.0,adapted for the Québec Education Program, was used to look at the strategies employed by a cross-section of the Québecelementary Cycle 3 (Grades 5 and 6) ESL students, and task-based strategy questionnaires and other measures were used for acase study of students’ application of the strategy instruction. Because of the large-scale integration of strategies into theQuébec curriculum, as well as the measures taken by the Ministry of Education to facilitate strategy instruction, the findingsof this study yielded important information regarding the effects of strategy instruction on learning outcomes.

4.6. Carisma Nel’s story: campaigning for strategies and for research quality

My involvement with L2 learning strategies started in 1991 when I started reading the available literature on the topic atthe time. It soon became apparent to me that this was the aspect missing in the South African education system, especially inthe L2 learning area. A pilot study undertaken with the North-West and Free State provinces in South Africa indicated thatboth teachers and learners alike were totally unaware of what L2 learning strategies entailed. I decided to get involved withstrategies because the research literature on the topic was interesting and inmy opinion addressed a crucial aspect needed byL2 learners in their language learning toolbox, a toolbox I thought was pretty bare. I completed my Ph.D. in 1992 andincorporated L2 learning strategies. Since 1992, I have been campaigning all over our country at various conferences, trying tomake teachers and lecturers aware of the importance of L2 learning strategies for learners of all ages.

4.6.1. Attention given to strategiesWith the introduction of Outcomes-based Education in South Africa and the transformation of our education system, L2

learning strategies have received more prominent attention. Strategies are now being included in the National CurriculumStatements from the Foundation Phase (Grades 1–3) to Grade 12. There is still a lot to be done, but for the South AfricanEducation system it is a start. Many teachers are still not sure how to teach strategies and how to integrate strategy teachingwithin their normal day to day teaching activities. I am, however, positive about the developments and think that “baby steps”will also make a difference. Students should be given the opportunity to understand not only what they can learn in thelanguage classroom, but also how they can learn the language they are studying.

As language teaching within South Africa has become more learner-focused and interactive, there has also been anemphasis on helping students take more responsibility for meeting their own language learning needs. Students are asked toself-regulate the language learning process and become less dependent on the classroom teacher. A focus of L2 learningstrategies helps learners to become more aware of different learning strategies, to understand how to organize and usestrategies systematically and effectively (given their learning-style preferences), and to learn when and how to transfer thestrategies to new language learning.

4.6.2. Personal involvementMy involvement with L2 learning strategies has affected my personal as well as my professional life, enormously.

Personally, I started training my daughter in the use of learning strategies from the age of 5. When she went to Grade 1, shewas the only learner who could identify main ideas, draw mind maps, monitor her reading and writing, etc. The result wasthat her confidence was given a boost and I had teachers and parents approaching me about Carli’s ability to work effectivelywithin not only her language classes, but also in the other content areas. Professionally, my involvement with L2 learningstrategies has affected the way I teach and it has also become one of my research focal points. Feedback from students I havetaught, both in South Africa and in the Middle East, has been very positive; tears of joy have flowed many times. One of mystudents, Sipiwe, came tome one day to tell me that hewould never have successfully completed his studies at university if hehadn’t had the experience with strategies.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 41

4.6.3. International researchMy research has focused on identifying the strategies used by South African students (English-speaking, Afrikaans-

speaking, and Setswana-speaking) and Arabic-speaking students in the Middle East. In addition, I have also focused onvariables that affect strategy choice and classification. Briefly, the research indicates that students are not a tabula rasawhen itcomes to strategy use. They most likely have developed some strategies, but may not use them systematically or well. Stu-dents need to be explicitly taught how, when, and why certain strategies (whether alone, in sequence, or in clusters) can beused to facilitate language learning. Students also need to learn how to evaluate the strategies they are using and look at waysthey can use them in other contexts. Learners of all ages use strategies, they only differ in theway they describe the strategies.Carli didn’t have the vocabulary to tell me that she was using a metacognitive strategy when she planned and monitored herwork, but she could tell me that “I set goals and I checked my work”.

My experience with students in South Africa and the Middle East suggests that learners at one proficiency level may favorcertain receptive or productive strategies. For example, a study of translation into English by speakers of Arabic found thatlearners in the foundation year favored translating word-for-word even if it meant that their reading was painstakingly slowand disjointed. The learners in the academic program reported translating only when necessary. The students in both thesesettings also used memory strategies the most; I believe this is a result of rote-learning which is a focus of the respectiveeducation systems. In addition, speakers of some languages appear more likely to use certain L2 learning strategies thanspeakers of other languages. For example, Arabic speakers tend to use a variety of visualization strategies to learn English,given that the letters do not have any connection to the Arabic alphabet.

Research on strategies for effective language learning has focused on (a) the identification, description, and classification ofstrategies; (b) their frequency of use and the learner’s success at using them; (c) differences in language proficiency level, age,gender, and cultural background that might affect their successful use of strategies; and (d) the impact of language strategytraining on student performance in language learning and language use. One aspect that has been criticized is the lack ofmethodological consistency in theL2 learningstrategyfield. This isonearea inwhich Iwould like tomakeacontribution in future.

4.6.4. Future missionMy future mission in the L2 strategies field is to promote the use of appropriate statistical procedures for quantitative

research. For decades a debate has been occurring in many social science disciplines, including applied linguistics, aboutstatistical significance testing and how it is used. Some view significance testing as “elegant, extraordinarily creative” (Hagan,1997, p. 22), while others consider it “the most bone-headedly misguided procedure ever institutionalized in the rotetraining” of students becoming researchers (Rozeboom, 1997, p. 335). There is justifiable criticism about relying solely on thep-value (probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when the result could be attributed to chance) for deciding which resultsare worth reporting. Suggestions have been made additionally to report effect sizes, which show the size of a relationshipbetween two variables or the size of a treatment effect. I plan to develop a framework for use by L2 learning strategy re-searchers that presents effect sizes as a supplement to the usual statistical significance testing. This will strengthen allquantitative L2 learning strategy research. This is my future contribution to the field of L2 learning strategies, and perhaps itwill influence the L2 field in general.

5. Results: colors of the prism

In a nutshell, Rubin takes a largely historical and psychological view, portraying her involvement in developments in thelanguage learning strategy field, such as learner self-management. Chamot surveys her strategy research career and ex-plores factors in strategy instruction. Schramm reflects on her own language learning and educational studies, research onstrategies as mental actions, and the meaning of dynamic giftedness. Lavine describes the “strategy metascript” and howshe employed it with Spanish language students and her own son. Gunning depicts strategy research and instruction amongyoung children learning English. Nel demonstrates personal and professional involvement with learning strategies in SouthAfrica and the Middle East and focuses on the quality of strategy research. What are the themes that pervade thesecontributions?

As noted in theMethodology section, this article’s first author (Oxford) iteratively read the stories at the open coding stage.This led to a very large number of themes or topics, for which she calculated frequencies (Table 1). At the axial coding stage,she organized the topics into clusters of related ideas. Her additional axial coding, inwhich small themes were organized intobroad relationships, resulted in identifying seven larger themes, as shown in Table 2, which links the seven themes to thecolor spectrum. The association of each theme with a particular color was initially intuitive, but it also made sense. Forinstance, the color red attracts attention, and the red theme is learners and their strategy needs – the focus of our attention.The color orange is warm and reaches out, so this color seemed apt when thinking of specific help that should reach out tolearners. Yellow is the color of the sun, the heat of which helps to bring a melding of strategy instruction with languageteaching. Green is associatedwith growth, which is relevant to the growth and preparation of teachers. Blue is often viewed asthe color of the mental sphere and of rationality, so it was logical to associate that color with model-building and research.Indigo is an unusual color that relates to innovations in governmental policies regarding strategies. Finally, violet is anemotional, vibrant color that fits well with life changes and emotions.

The final stage, selective coding, produced an overarching “multicolor” theme, highlighted in Table 3. The rest of thissection explores these themes in depth.

Table 1Examples of topics or themes from open coding and their initial clustering (with frequencies).

learn or learning (129), also including

learning styles

learner(s) (66), student(s) (58),

child/children (15). Total =139

strategies/strategy/strategic/

mental action(s) (234)

read/reading/reader with reference to the

L2 (38), listen/listening with reference to

the L2 (13), speak/speaker/speaking/

pronunciation/ oral communication with

reference to the L2 (13), writing with

reference to the L2 (4). Total =68

L2 vocabulary (3), L2 grammar (2), L2

translation (7), cultural/sociocultural

learning (4). Total =16

affect (emotions, motivation) of researchers

or those they helped: passion/passionate

(2), expressions of happiness (joy, happy,

delighted, pleased, fantastic, fascinated,

fascinating, excited, enjoyed, amazed) (10),

con�idence (1), learner motivation (3).Total

= 16

metacognitive/metacognitively/

metacognition (14), procedure(s)/

procedural [referring to metacognitive]

(5), metascript (19) [based on

metacognition]. Total =38 research/researcher (41), study/studies (36),

experiment/experimental (7),

investigation/investigating/investigated (3).

Total = 87cognitive strategies/cognition (10),

socio-affective strategies (3). Total = 13

learner success/successful(ly) with

reference to L2 learning or task

completion (23), effective(ly)/

effectiveness with reference to L2

learning and effective use of

strategies/control (6), good language

learner (2), higher levels of pro�iciency

(1). Total = 32

changed/affected/helped my life or

my child’s life (7), life of strategies (1), huge

impact on my life (1), journey. Total =10[also countless comments on crucial

professional conferences, meetings,

collaborations]

self-regulation/self-management (11),self-

help (1), self-ef�icacy/esteem/reliant (4),

self-reliant (1), self-assess (1), self as

learner (1), self-reward (1), self-access(1),

self-re�lection/observation/knowledge

(4), take responsibility (1). Total = 25 strategy instruction (32), intervention (7),

strategy training (5), teach strategies/strategy

teaching/strategy teacher (4), help

students/learners (3), promote/promoting

learning (8), mentoring (1), explain strategies

(1), L2 textbooks that teach strategies (9),

learner volume (1), learner videodisc (1),

strategy wheel (1), strategy �ile (1), facilitate

learning/instruction (3), experience with

strategies (1), “gift” students (1), learner

counselor/counseling/coach(ing)

(5), strategy exchange(1), helping one’s

own children with strategies (2), metascripts

(19). Total = 106

teacher training(er) (4), preparing

teachers (2), in-service/pre-service

teacher (education/training) (1),

teachers need training (1), promote

teachers’ ability (1), how to be a good

teacher (1), help/enable teacher(s) (3),

recruiting teachers (1),

lecture/workshops for teachers (2),

inspiring source for future teachers (1),

teacher awareness (2), work(ing) with

teachers (2), campaigning (1),

answering questions teacher’s questions

(1), asking student teachers about

evidence of strategy instruction in

schools (2). Total = 27

CEFR (5), European Language Portfolio

(5), Language Biography, Québec

Education Program (5),Outcomes-based

Education (1) National Curriculum

Statements (1), effectiveness of

government measures (2).Total = 14

strategy integration into L2 learning or

other activity (12)

L2/learning task (2), variety or types of

tasks (10), task dif�iculty

(2), task-based questionnaire (1), task

completion (2), general L2 task analysis

(4), task purpose/nature (3)

task classi�ication (3), task demands (1),

task knowledge (1). Total =25 strategies related to tools in the stories and

the story references (7) Total =7

Note: Read table from left to right.

Table 2Seven themes.

Coding stage Themes: different aspects of the prism Color of each theme

Stage 2: Axial coding Learners and their strategy needs RedSpecific kinds of help given to learners OrangeIntegrating strategy instruction into L2 teaching YellowPreparing teachers to help learners improve their strategies GreenModel-building and research BlueGovernment policies regarding learning strategies IndigoLife changes and emotions Violet

Table 3Overarching theme.

Coding stage Overarching theme Color

Stage 3: Selective coding The complete prism: diversity of approaches to learning strategies Multicolor

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4942

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 43

To help explore each theme, Oxford identified relevant quotations (words or phrases) in the narratives. These quotationsare placed in italics throughout the rest of this section.

5.1. The red theme: learners and their strategy needs

This theme highlights the language learners’ need for relevant learning strategies or mental actions. This theme is found inall six essays. Successful language learning – e.g., successful completion of tasks, successfully completed studies, reading success,and attaining higher levels of proficiency – results from learning strategies, particularly when organized and used effectively.

Of the various categories of learning strategies, the greatest emphasis in the essays is on the metacognitive category (e.g.,metacognitive strategies, metacognition, metacognitive awareness, metascripts, and [metacognitive] procedures), which arehighlighted by Rubin, Chamot, Schramm, Lavine, and Nel. Cognitive strategies are mentioned far less often. Socio-affectivestrategies are rarely even mentioned, and then only by one researcher, Rubin. In general, the essays are less concernedabout the affective (emotional, motivational, and attitudinal) side of language learning than they are about the metacognitiveand cognitive aspects.

5.2. The orange theme: specific kinds of help given to learners

To help learners achieve success or effectiveness in language learning, the specialists suggest strategy instruction (strategytraining, teaching, and intervention), providing experiencewith strategies, using strategy metascripts, learner counseling andcoaching, and offering strategy materials (e.g., strategy-enhanced language textbooks, a learner volume for “learning tolearn,” and a strategy videodisc).

Rubin constantly refers to promoting learning or aiding learners. Examples are: promote more effective control of thelanguage learning process, promote “learning to learn,” promot[e] higher levels of proficiency, promote their ability to self-manage,promot[e] listening strategies [to] enhanc[e] self-efficacy, promot[e] listening comprehension through strategy training, helplearners take control of their learning, help students work with more challenging material, and help learners leverage theirknowledge. Rubin’s primary objective is to empower learners to develop learner self-management and hence become self-reliant. Rubin also mentions her co-authored, strategy-rich volume (guidebook) for learners and her interactive videodisc tohelp learners take control of their learning. She contends that teachers can become language coaches and counselors to helplearners achieve peak learning performance.

Chamot often mentions her aim of assisting students, as in these comments: learning strategy instruction to really helplanguage learners, help . students become more strategic language learners, helpful for the foreign language student, help stu-dents with academic tasks, assist with academic tasks, [the strategy of] substituting/paraphrasing is helpful for speaking andwriting tasks, making inferences . is useful for reading and listening, learning strategies . that assist in speaking and under-standing, and learning strategies that can assist in completing the task successfully. Chamot wants to encourage self-reflection inlearners, as well as helping them become more proficient. According to Chamot, explicit strategy instruction is more effectivethan implicit instruction embedded in classroom activities without explanations and modeling. In explicit instruction, theteachers observe and question their students and model their own use of particular learning strategies. Chamot declares thatsuccessful language learning strategy teachers develop metacognitive awareness, but that teachers whose classrooms are orga-nized in a teacher-centered, transmission mode are generally unsuccessful as strategy mentors.

Schramm cites promoting second language acquisition via communication strategies and notes that questions canencourage strategy exchange (sharing). She frequently mentions the concept of dynamic giftedness, i.e., the great potential ofall students that is not only the pre-condition for learning, but also its result. Learner competence can be evoked through“gifting” learners, i.e., helping them to develop more intelligent mental actions. Applying the concept of dynamic giftedness,Schramm states that almost anything [is] possible with the aid of good mentoring or teaching, and with enough time and will-ingness to learn. She mentions that the European Language Portfolio includes documents of self-observation and self-reflection,that the Learner Biography stimulates self-assessment, that strategy-enhanced language textbooks help learners to learnmore effectively, and teachers can provide scaffolding to learners. Schramm also cites blind (implicit) strategy training, whichhelped her as a highly motivated language learner but which might not be productive for all learners.

Lavine emphasizes using the strategy metascript to help my students and my son. The strategy metascript enableslearners to remember and use the steps of a learning strategy or a sequential set of strategies. Learners can create their ownmetascripts alone or in a group, or they can learn metascripts prepared by the teacher; either way, metascripts are verypowerful for improving . L2 learning. The most poignant example comes from Lavine’s son, who jointly develops and thenemploys a strategy metascript to overcome low self-esteem and succeed in a very tense situation, a job interview. Lavine’sessay reveals that the same technique can help individuals not only in language learning but also in other practical lifesituations.

Gunning prepares concrete strategy aids for learners: unpublished, teacher-made strategy instruction materials, followedby a published series of ESL textbooks, including a strategy mascot that models learning strategies, and ancillary materials,such as a strategy wheel and a strategy file. The visuals in the materials explain the strategies to very young children with verylimited English proficiency, without having to resort to the use of their mother tongue. To teachers, the strategy-enhanced text-books and materials are highly valuable. Gunning mentions new governmental measures designed to assist students bypromoting the integration of explicit strategy instruction into language teaching. Her research directly addresses how

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4944

effectively these mandates help ESL students. Her effort to create adequate assessment of children’s strategy use includes theChildren’s SILL.

Nel describes helping to fill language learners’ pretty bare toolbox by generating an understanding of learning strategiesthat will facilitate language learning in her home country, South Africa. She identifies the effectiveness of strategy instructionin the life of her daughter, Carli, who amazes other students’ parents and teachers. Just as powerful is the impact of strategyinstruction on Nel’s students. Feedback from students I have taught, both in South Africa and in the Middle East, has been verypositive; tears of joy have flowedmany times.Nel is happy that learning strategies are now included in the National Curriculum.These governmental baby steps bring prominent attention to learning strategies and make language teaching more learner-focused. These steps also help students take more responsibility for meeting their own language learning needs, self-regulate thelanguage learning process and become less dependent on the classroom teacher, and organize and use strategies systematically andeffectively.

A key purpose of learning strategies is to help students take responsibility for their own learning, according to the essays. Thespecialists also use related terms, such as self-regulation, learner self-management or LSM, self-help, self-reflection, self-observation,self-efficacy, self-esteem, knowledge or beliefs about self, self-assess, self-access, self-reward, and self-reliant. Regarding the learningof particular language skills or areas that benefit from learning strategies, the experts emphasize reading, listening, speakingor oral communication (also pronunciation), writing, translation, vocabulary, and grammar.

5.3. The yellow theme: integrating strategy instruction into language teaching

Integrating direct strategy instruction into language teaching or other subjects is mentioned by Rubin, Chamot, Gunning,Nel, and Lavine as an important way to assist students. Rubin mentions integration several times: integrating LSM withlanguage lessons, integrat[ing] LSM into language curricula, developing a model . which integrates the knowledge base thatexpert learners use with the procedures needed to exercise control over their learning, integrat[ing] LSM (i.e., focus on the process)with language learning (i.e., focus on the language), and enabling teachers to understand and integrate (LSM) within the con-straints of a school system.

Chamot’s description of the CALLA model integrates the instruction of content, strategies, and the target language. Shestates, Many of the teachers we have worked with through the years found innovative ways to integrate strategy instruction intotheir teaching, and she continues, teachers who are able to establish learner-centered classrooms are also able to easily integratestrategy instruction into their teaching.Moreover, Chamot’s description of CALLA integrates instruction in subject matter content,academic language focusing on literacy, and the explicit teaching of learning strategies.

Gunning describes the difficulty of integrating strategy instruction into my teachingwhen no appropriate materials existed.However, she notes with satisfaction the subsequent large-scale integration of strategies into the Québec curriculum.

Nel mentions the need for teachers learn to integrate strategy teaching within their normal day to day teaching activities. Herpowerful energies have been devoted to campaigning all over our country at various conferences, trying to make teachers andlecturers aware of the importance of language learning strategies for learners of all ages.

In addition to teachers’ integration of learning strategies into language instruction, Lavine’s son integrated the strategymetascript into his job interview preparation. This produced a highly satisfactory outcome, that is, he got the job.

5.4. The green theme: preparing teachers to help learners improve their strategies

Successful strategy instruction requires competence on the part of the language teacher, coach, or counselor. Teacherdevelopment in many different forms is essential; without it, successful strategy instruction for learners would be impossible.

Rubin comments on teachers’ need to understand how to teach learning strategies: teachers need a lot more training andsupport; we can help teachers understand how to promote “learning to learn”; teachers are helped to become more effectivecoaches and counselors; teachers are enabled through exposure to LSM; and my work with teachers . help[s] them integrateLSM. As a specific example, Rubin mentions a teacher in-service course on learner autonomy and teachers’ roles. Like Rubin,Chamot often describes helping teachers to teach strategies to learners: preparing future teachers, working with teachers viain-service and pre-service teacher education, and recruiting teachers to lead strategy instruction in research studies (anoutstanding source of experience for teachers).

Gunning teaches teachers how to help students develop their learning strategies. For instance, she is a teacher trainer at theuniversity level who teaches pedagogy courses to prepare future ESL teachers, and she helps teachers by writing strategy-enhanced textbooks and materials and showing teachers how to use them. She asks student teachers how many of them workwith master teachers who teach strategies, and howmany see the tools from the Strategies for Success module or from the ministry-approved textbooks; and, primed to observe, these student teachers report increasingly seeing evidence of strategy instruction inthe schools.

Additional instances of assisting teachers come from Nel, Schramm, and Lavine. Nel mentions trying to make teachers andlecturers aware of strategies, answering questions from teachers about Carli’s learning strategies, and the need to help teachers(many teachers are still not sure how to teach strategies). Lavine talks about her role in teacher education. Schramm believes thatthe examples of best practice which are documented in the corpus can serve as an inspiring source for future language teachers.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 45

5.5. The blue theme: model-building and research

The six specialists have dedicated a significant part of their professional lives to conducting research on language learningstrategies, with the ultimate purpose of helping students. Rubin describes her 1995 article as her first major language learningstrategy-related breakthrough, followed by a rush of research papers and books by various strategy specialists. The essaysabundantly use terms, such as research/researcher(s), study/studies, experiment/experimental, and investigation/investigated/investigating. Different types of research are included, ranging from purely descriptive to experimental. Chamot and Rubinextensively present research results in their narratives. Nel speaks a bit more generally, stating that research shows thatstudents are not a strategic tabula rasa, although they need to learn how and when to use specific strategies. Significantresearch developments include the shift from one research focus to another (e.g., the move from the good language learner tolearner self-management, as Rubin puts it) and the creation of new strategy instruction models (e.g., CALLA) and classificationsystems.

Tasks are an increasingly important part of experts’ frameworks for strategy research, theory, and instruction. The termtask(s) is mentioned repeatedly, especially by Rubin in regard to task analysis, both in general and in various task analysiselements (e.g., identifying the nature or purpose of a task, classifying tasks, and discerning task demands or requirements).Many of the essays include other related terms, such as task difficulty, successful task completion, a variety of types of tasks,and task-based strategy questionnaires.

5.6. The indigo theme: government policies regarding learning strategies

Innovations in strategy-related educational policies are mentioned more than a dozen times. Learning strategies are nowincluded in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, the European Language Portfolio, the Québec Edu-cation Program, and South Africa’s Outcomes-Based Education and National Curriculum Statements. Gunning mentions theneed to evaluate the effectiveness of government policies about learning strategies.

5.7. The violet theme: life changes and emotions

For several contributors, the riveting, intense concern about students and about learning strategies is nothing short of life-changing. My involvement with L2 learning strategies has affected my personal as well as my professional life, enormously, saysNel. Strategies have changedmy life. I have adapted strategies to help me withmy professional and personal life. Strategies haveindeed positively affected [my son’s] life, and therefore mine as well, explains Lavine. Chamot states, “It is not an exaggeration tosay that this study [her first strategy study] changed my intellectual and personal life,” which eventually becomes a life ofstrategies.

Some life changes occur through encountering mentors, either in person or through publications. For Schramm, thedecision to audit the first author’s graduate course on language learning strategies has a huge impact on my life. She is alsoenlightened by the work Færch and Kasper, Wong Fillmore, and Roth. Rubin, Gunning, and others remark on the importanceof meeting specialists at conferences, and Chamot and Rubin find that professional collaboration is the ideal way to inves-tigate language learning strategies.

Lavine and Nel mention helping their own children learn useful strategies, thus changing those young lives. Lavine de-scribes her son’s reaction: He often tells me about his strategy metascripts, especially when he has to confront something new andarduous. Nel depicts her daughter as benefiting cognitively from learning strategies (When she went to Grade 1 she was the onlylearner who could identify main ideas, draw mind maps, monitor her reading and writing, etc.) and affectively as well (herconfidence was given a boost).

Powerful emotions are often linked with strategy instruction, strategy research opportunities, and the inclusion oflearning strategies in educational policy. Passion is mentioned twice regarding helping students with mental actions orstrategies. Schramm mentions experiencing passion as an ongoing educator and described passionate educational thoughtabout the possibility to change the life of individuals and to make an attempt at contributing to a world of greater social justice.Expressions of happiness (e.g., joy, happy, delighted, pleased, fantastic, fascinated, fascinating, excited, enjoyed, and amazed)emerge in the essays, mostly with reference to the experiences of the researchers. For instance, Rubin describes strategyinvolvement as a fascinating journey, while Schramm mentions her fascination with the key to “gifting” people, i.e., helpingincrease or recognize their giftedness. Sometimes the emotions are those of the learner, as in students’ tears of joy in the essayby Nel.

5.8. The multicolor (overall) theme: diversity of approaches to learning strategies

The overarching theme for the six essays is the existence of different theoretical perspectives. Rubin mentions her crucialencounters with the ideas in the cognitive revolution, which led her to develop initial theories about learners’ active mentalinvolvement with learning strategies. She also cites educational psychologists who further affected the evolution of herconcept of learner self-management. Inadequacy of existing theories of language learning or acquisition canmotivate strategyresearchers to seek or develop other theories. Chamot’s early research, showing that English learners were conscious of theirown strategies and could describe them, flew in the face of the prevailing theory that second language acquisition took place

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4946

through subconscious processes. As she notes, the search for a better explanation of learners’ conscious use of strategies led toher to cognitive-information processing theory, which, with other insights, resulted in CALLA.

Excellent learning strategy research studies, including many quantitative and mixed-methods investigations cited in thisarticle (e.g., by Chamot and Nel), reflect an individual difference perspective (see also Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003).However, several of the essays relate to various sociocultural perspectives. For instance, Lavine’s strategy metascript tech-nique reflects the sociocultural-psychological internalization of learner guidance, resulting inwhat Vygotsky would call innerspeech. The theoretical underpinnings of the strategy metascript concept deserve to be fleshed out. Schramm evokes acritical-sociocultural perspective aimed at social justice. She describes the possibility of using strategy instruction for “gifting”socially marginalized students and other students by improving their mental actions. Schramm, Gunning, and Nel mentionstrategy-related governmental policies, the effects of which can be studied not only through a quantitative, individual-difference lens but also through a qualitative, critically sociocultural lens (e.g., what are the lines of power, which groups/individuals benefit from the policies and which do not, and what are the sociocultural or educational impediments?).

6. Conclusion

If the field of language learning strategies has sometimes been criticized for a degree of inconsistency in definitions,categorizations, and intervention outcomes (explained in Cohen &Macaro, 2007; Oxford & Cohen,1992), one reasonmight bethe different theoretical perspectives that have been allowed to bloom and grow within this field. The diversity of viewsshown in the six essays can be a good thing rather than a problem, as long as each theory is richly developed (Oxford &Schramm, 2007). It is necessary to continue theoretical model-building and sound research, and it is also crucial for re-searchers to clarify the linkages and contrasts between their theories and to share ideas across the boundaries of theirperspectives (Oxford & Schramm, 2007). Seminars and symposia should systematically reflect diverse perspectives on lan-guage learning strategies, not just a single view.

Despite the diversity of theoretical approaches, the strategy experts in this article share an abiding and powerful desire tohelp students improve their learning strategies. Forms of learner assistance mentioned in the essays are strategy instruction,strategy-enhanced textbooks, strategy materials, learner guidebooks, and a videodisc. Other resources include websites, asdiscussed elsewhere in this special issue. Some learners described in the essays show major cognitive and metacognitiveimprovements in strategies, as well as positive emotional effects of experiences with learning strategies. The expertsthemselves have also been profoundly affected by their involvement with learning strategies; they talk about life changes anddeep emotions.

For teachers to provide assistance to learners, they themselves require complete information about what learning stra-tegies are, what makes learning strategies effective for given tasks, and how to deliver strategy instruction. Such teacherdevelopment can occur during pre-service teacher education, in-service workshops, and conferences and through journalarticles, books, and websites.

References

Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. Lancaster, UK: Centre for Research in Education, University of Lancaster.Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 65, 24–35.Block, E. L. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 463–494.Brown, H. D. (1989). A practical guide for language learning: A fifteen-week program of strategies for success. New York: McGraw-Hill.Brown, H. D. (1991). Breaking the language barrier: Creating your own pathway to success. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Brown, H. D. (2001). Strategies for success: A practical guide to learning English. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson ESL.Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategies learning from texts by means of informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning

Disabilities, 2(1), 1–17.Bruner, J., Goodnow, J., & Austin, A. (1956). A study of thinking. NY: Wiley.Butler, D., & Winne, P. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281.Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: ambiguities in opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4),

601–626.Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14–26.Chamot, A. U. (2005a). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130.Chamot, A. U. (2005b). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): an update. In P. A. Richard-Amato, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Academic

success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp. 87–102). White Plains, NY: Longman.Chamot, A. U. (2007). Accelerating academic achievement of English language learners: a synthesis of five evaluations of the CALLA Model. In J. Cummins, &

C. Davison (Eds.), The international handbook of English language learning, Part I (pp. 317–331). Norwell, MA: Springer.Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education/

Longman.Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., & Robbins, J. (1999). Learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: a bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227–249.Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. White Plains, NY: Addison

Wesley Longman.Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996a). Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: issues and options. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.),

Language learning strategies around the world (pp. 167–173). Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1996b). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA): a model for linguistically diverse classrooms. The

Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259–273.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 47

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1999). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: amodel for linguistically diverse classrooms. In K. Biacindo (Ed.),Perspectives: Educational psychology (pp. 39–51). Boulder, CO: Coursewise Publishing.

Clément, R. C., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: the effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal ofLanguage and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190–209.

Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language (1st ed.). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Longman.Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and using a second language (2nd ed.). Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Longman.Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality (2nd ed.) (pp. 378–

396). New York: Guilford.Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1) (pp. 209–240).

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Donato, R., & McCormick, D. E. (1994). A socio-cultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation.Modern Language Journal, 78, 453–464.Ehrman, M. E. (1996). Understanding second language learning difficulties: Looking beneath the surface. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ehrman, M. E. (2008). Personality and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330.Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.European Language Portfolio (2012). http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Portfolio_EN.asp.Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Funk, H., Kuhn, C., & Demme, S. (2007). Studio d – B1-Deutsch als Fremdsprache [Studio d – B1 – German as a foreign language]. Berlin: Cornelsen.Gagné, E. D. (1985). The cognitive psychology of school learning. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal,

88, 224–243.Goh, C. C. M. (2005). Second language learning expertise. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and teaching (pp. 64–84). Houndsmills,

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Goh, C. C. M., & Burns, A. (2012). Teaching speaking: A holistic approach. NY: Cambridge University Press.Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies in theory and practice. London: Routledge.Grießhaber, W. (2005). Sprachstandsdiagnose im kindlichen Zweitspracherwerb: Funktional-pragmatische Fundierung der Profilanalyse [Language competence

assessment in child second language acquisition: A functional pragmatics basis for profile analysis]. http://spzwww.uni-muenster.de/wgriesha/pub/tprofilanalyse-azm-05.pdf.

Griffiths, C. (2008a). Age and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 35–48). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Griffiths, C. (Ed.). (2008b). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies. System, 43, 1–10.Griffiths, C., Oxford, R. L., Kawai, Y., Kawai, C., Park, Y. Y., Ma, X., et al. (2014). Focus on context: narratives from East Asia. System, 43, 50–63.Gu, Y. (2003). Vocabulary learning in a second language: person, task, context, and strategies. TESL-EJ, 7(2). www.writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej26/a4.

html.Gunning, P. (1997). The learning strategies of beginning ESL learners at the primary level. Unpublished master’s thesis. Montréal, Québec: Concordia University.Gunning, P. (2011). ESL strategy use and instruction at the elementary school level: A mixed methods investigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montréal,

Canada: McGill University. http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca:8881/R/?func¼dbin-jump-full&object_id¼103480.Gunning, P. (2014). Children’s learning strategy use and the effects of strategy instruction on success in ESL. System, 43, 82–100.Gunning, P., & Lalonde, R. (1995). The spinning series, Level 2. Montréal: Lidec.Hagan, R. L. (1997). In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist, 52, 15–24.Hajer,M.,Meestringa, T., Park, Y., &Oxford, R. L. (1996).Howprintmaterials provide strategy instruction invarious countries. InR. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning

strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 118–140). Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.Harish, S. (2014). Social strategy use and language learning contexts: a case study of Malayalee undergraduate students in India. System, 43, 64–73.Holec, H. (1980). Learner training: meeting needs in self-directed learning. In H. B. Altman, & C. V. James (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Meeting individual

needs (pp. 30–45). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5(2), 110–123.Hosenfeld, C. (1979). Cindy: a learner in today’s foreign language classroom. In W. C. Born (Ed.), The foreign language learner in today’s classroom envi-

ronment: Northeast conference reports. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 834.Hurd, S., Beaven, T., & Ortega, A. (2001). Developing autonomy in a distance learning context: issues and dilemmas for course writers. System, 29(3), 341–

355.Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Culture and self: how cultures influence the way we view ourselves. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), People: Psychology from a

cultural perspective (pp. 17–37). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Kozulin, A. (2000). Experience of mediated learning: Impact of Feuerstein’s theory in education and psychology. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Language Biography (2006). European language portfolio in North Rhine-Westfalia state. http://www.learn-line.nrw.de/angebote/eps2/eps_info.html.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Lavine, R., & Cabal Krastel, T. (2002). Dealing with learning disabilities in the L2 classroom. Paper presented at the International Conference on Improving

Learning Strategies for First and Second Language Literacy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Leaver, B. L. (2003a). Achieving native-like second language proficiency: A catalogue of critical factors. In Speaking (Vol. 1). Salinas, CA: MSI Press.Leaver, B. L. (2003b). Individualized study plans for very advanced students of foreign languages. Salinas, CA: MSI Press.Lewis, M. (1999). How to study a foreign language. Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy I: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin: Authentik.Little, D. (2003, 16 Jan). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. The higher education academy guide to good practice. http://www.llas.ac.uk/

resources/gpg/1409.Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: involving learners and their judgments in the assessment

process. Language Testing, 22(3), 281–300.Macaro, E. (2001a). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum.Macaro, E. (2001b). Strategies in foreign and second language classrooms: Learning to learn. London: Cassell.Macaro, E., Vanderplank, S., Graham, S., Nakatani, Y., & Wingate, U. (2004). A systematic review of effective teaching approaches for uni-directional listening

comprehension for learners of a modern foreign language. EPPI Protocol. London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre,University of London.

McCombs, B. L. (1988). Motivational skills training: combining metacognitive, cognitive, and affective learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, et al. (Eds.),Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation. New York: Academic Press.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–4948

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1989). The role of affective variables in autonomous learning. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 277–306.McDonough, S. H. (1999). Learner strategies: state of the art article. Language Teaching, 32, 1–18.Mendelsohn, D. J., & Rubin, J. (Eds.). (1995). A guide for the teaching of second language listening. San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learner. TESL Talk, 6, 68–75.Nakatani, Y., & Goh, C. (2007). A review of oral communication strategies: focus on interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In A. D. Cohen, & E.

Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 207–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Nel, C. (2008). Learning style and good language learners. In E. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 49–60). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New

directions in research (pp. 159–171). London: Longman.Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (Eds.). (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Nyikos, M. (2008). Gender and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 73–82). Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press.O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL

students. Language Learning, 35, 21–46.O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Russo, R. P., & Küpper, L. (1985). Learning strategy applications with students of English as a second

language. TESOL Quarterly, 19(3), 285–296.Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Oxford, R. L. (1996a). Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,

University of Hawai’i.Oxford, R. L. (1996b). Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of

Hawai’i.Oxford, R. L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-

regulation. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 108–126.Oxford, R. L. (2011a). Learner autonomy in the crucible. In A. Barcelos (Ed.), Lingüística Aplicada: Reflexões Sobre Ensino e Aprendizagem de Língua Materna e

Língua Estrangeira [Applied linguistics: Reflections on learning and teaching native language and foreign language]. Campinas, Brazil: Pontes Publishers.Oxford, R. L. (2011b). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Longman.Oxford, R. L., & Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: crucial issues in concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3(1–2),

1–35.Oxford, R. L., & Lee, K. R. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: the second Cinderella and beyond. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies:

Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 117–139). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Oxford, R. L., & Schramm, K. (2007). Bridging the gap between psychological and sociocultural perspectives on L2 learner strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E.

Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 47–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Oxford Centre for Sociocultural and Activity Theory Research (2013). Our work. Oxford University, UK: Oxford Centre for Sociocultural and Activity Theory

Research.Paige, R. M., Cohen, A. D., Kappler, B., Chi, J. C., & Lassegard, J. (2006). Maximizing study abroad: A student’s guide to strategies for language and culture learning

and use. Minneapolis, MN: Center for the Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota.Pintrich, P., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 82, 33–40.Pintrich, P., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. Maehr, & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in motivation and

achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7) (pp. 371–402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Pressley, M., Borkowski, J. G., & Schneider, W. (1987). Cognitive strategies: good strategy users coordinate metacognition and knowledge. In R. Vasta, & G.

Whilehurst (Eds.), Annals of Child Development (Vol. 4) (pp. 80–129). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Rehbein, J. (1977). Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache [Complex action: Elements of the action theory of language]. Stuttgart,

Germany: Metzler.Reiss, M. A. (1983). Helping the unsuccessful language learner. Canadian Modern Language Review, 39, 257–266.Reiss, M. A. (1985). The good language learner: another look. Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 511–523.Roth, H. (1969). Begabung und Lernen [Giftedness and learning]. Stuttgart: Deutscher Bildungsrat. Gutachten und Studien der Bildungskommission, Bd. 4.Rozeboom, W. W. (1997). Good science is abductive, not hypotheticodeductive. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no

significance tests? (pp. 335–391). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.Rubin, J. (1988). The language learning disc. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern technology in foreign language education: Applications and projects. Lincoln, IL:

National Textbook Co.Rubin, J. (1990). Improving foreign language listening comprehension. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics

(pp. 309–316). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Rubin, J. (1996). Using multimedia for learner strategy instruction. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-cultural per-

spectives. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.Rubin, J. (1999). Promoting increased learner self-management in language learning. Washington, DC: National Foreign Language Reports.Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communications, 11, 25–37.Rubin, J. (2005). The expert language learner: a review of good language learner studies. In K. Johnson (Ed.), Expertise in second language learning and

teaching (pp. 37–63). Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Rubin, J. (Ed.). (2007, Mar). Learner counseling [Special issue]. System, 35(1).Rubin, J. (2008). Reflections. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from the good language learner (pp. 10–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies:

Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 141–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rubin, J., & McCoy, P. (2005). The role of task analysis in promoting learner self-management. Paper presented at the AILA Conference, Madison, WI.Rubin, J., & McCoy, P. (2008). Tasks and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from the good language learner (pp. 294–305). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner (1st ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American

Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.),

Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105–120). Washington, DC: TESOL.Schmidt, R. (1995). Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i.Schramm, K. (2001). L2-Leser in Aktion. Der fremdsprachlichen Leseprozeß als mentales Handeln [L2-Readers in action. The foreign language reading process as

mental action]. Münster, Germany/New York: Waxmann.

R.L. Oxford et al. / System 43 (2014) 30–49 49

Schramm, K. (2005). Aktives Zuhören beim Geschichtenerzählen [Active listening during story-telling]. Grundschule Deutsch, 20–22.Schramm, K. (2006). Interaktion bei Grundschulerzählungen in Deutsch als Zweitsprache – Exemplarische Analysen und Exploration für ein relationales

Datenbank-Design [Interaction during elementary school story-telling in German as a second language. Analyses and exploration for a relationaldatabank-design]. In B. Ahrenholz (Ed.), Kinder mit Migrationshintergrund. Spracherwerb und Fördermöglichkeiten [Children with an immigrant back-ground: Language acquisition and funding opportunities] (pp. 168–185). Freiburg i.B., Germany: Fillibach.

Schramm, K. (2007). Grammatikerwerb beim zweitsprachlichen Erzählen [Grammar acquisition during second language story-telling]. In K.-M. Köpcke, &A. Ziegler (Eds.), Grammatik in der Universität und für die Schule. Empirie, Theorie und Modellbildung [Grammar in the university and for the school:Empiricism, theory, and model-building] (pp. 199–221). Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2000). Self-regulation and academic learning: self-efficacy enhancing interventions. In M. Boeakerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M.Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 631–650). San Diego: Academic Press.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 209–231.Shuell, T. J. (1990). Phases of meaningful learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 531–547.Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29, 331–342.Uhrig, K. (2004). Context orientation in language learning strategy research. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages, Long Beach, CA.Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners (pp. 19–34). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Vandergrift, L. (1997). The comprehension strategies of second language (French) listeners: a descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 387–409.Vandergrift, L. (2002). “It was nice to see that our predictions were right”: developing metacognition in L2 listening comprehension. Canadian Modern

Language Review, 58, 555–575.Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: toward a model of the skilled second language learner. Language Learning, 53, 463–496.Vandergrift, L. (2008). Learning strategies for listening comprehension. In S. Hurd, & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings.

Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Vandergrift, L. (2011). L2 listening: presage, process, product, and pedagogy. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning

(Vol. 2) (pp. 455–471). New York: Routledge.Vann, R., & Abraham, R. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177–198.Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of

intrinsic goal contexts and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260.Viera, F. (2007, Apr 18–22). Teacher autonomy: why should we care? Paper presented at the 41st Annual Conference of the International Association of

Teachers of English as a Foreign Language, Aberdeen, Scotland.Viera, F. (Ed.). (2009). Struggling for autonomy in language education: Reflecting, acting, and being. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Collier Macmillan.Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: Planning and implementing learner training for language learners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: research findings. System, 23, 207–221.White, C., Schramm, K., & Chamot, A. U. (2007). Research methods in strategy research: reexamining the toolbox. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.),

Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 93–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wong Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisition. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in

language ability and language behavior (pp. 203–228). New York: Academic Press.Yang, N.-D. (2003). Integrating portfolios into learning-strategy-based instruction for EFL college students. International Review of Applied Linguistics in

Language Teaching, 41, 293–317.