Abstract
Major advances have been made in research on language learning strategies (LLS) since it was triggered by good language learner studies (e.g. Rubin, 1975). Numerous accounts of strategy use have been compiled, key classifications have been proposed, some progress has been made towards furthering our understanding of the complex relationship between LLS use and attainment, an array of factors impacting strategy use has been investigated, some evidence has been gathered for the beneficial role of strategies-based instruction, and new data collection tools have been developed (see e.g. Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2018, 2019; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2017; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018; Pawlak, 2011; Pawlak & Oxford, 2018). While acute problems related to the definition of LLS, their characteristics, their separation from regular learning activities or their actual utility have surely not disappeared, some promising solutions have been proposed (Griffiths, 2018; Oxford, 2017) and calls to abandon the concept have been countered (Dörnyei, 2005). This said, a question arises as to what can be done to move the field forward. Following a brief overview of existing research, the article tackles this issue with respect to the following areas: (1) foci of future research, (2) methodological choices, and (3) consideration of how research findings can inform pedagogy.
Keywords
I Introduction
Research into individual differences (ID) among learners has taken many turns over the last several decades, with some factors coming into sharper focus, others at least temporarily falling out of favor with researchers, and others yet enjoying their continued attention, albeit being investigated from changing theoretical perspectives (see Pawlak, 2017; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). The study of language learning strategies (LLS) without doubt falls within the last category because, even though it has been criticized on a number of counts, it has never ceased to provide strong impetus for empirical investigations. Even more importantly, this line of inquiry has never lost its appeal to practitioners, probably on account of the fact that the steps learners take to enhance their language learning are seen as tangible and amenable to pedagogical intervention. At the same time, the field came under scathing criticism at the beginning of the millennium which culminated in claims that the concept is theoretically untenable and doubts whether LLS can even be seen as a psychological construct (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). While the last few years have seen publications that have been quite successful in countering some of these problems (e.g. Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Griffiths, 2018, 2019; Oxford, 2017), there is an urgent need to consider the ways in which LLS research can be taken ahead, keeping abreast of the latest developments in second language acquisition (SLA) but at the same time proving its relevance to second and foreign language (L2) pedagogy. This is precisely the issue that this article addresses. First, a brief overview of the field will be provided, focusing in particular on how it has evolved and what it has been able to achieve, the challenges it has been confronted with and the reasons why claims that LLS research is of little value are unwarranted. This will be followed by reflections on the future of this line of inquiry in terms of the main foci of empirical studies, methodological considerations and the importance of forging stronger links with teaching practice. Finally, potential pitfalls and challenges that future empirical investigations into LLS are bound to encounter will be highlighted.
II The status of research into language learning strategies
Research into LLS has gone through a number of phases since the publication of the first studies of good language learners over four decades ago (e.g. Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Nowhere is this evolution better visible than in the definitions of LLS proposed over the years as, on the one hand, they provide insights into the key features of the construct and, on the other, they shed light on its theoretical underpinnings. Although an exhaustive analysis of all such definitions is not feasible in this article, it is instructive to offer a brief look at those most influential that have to a large extent shaped empirical investigations of LLS undertaken to date. Early on Oxford (1989, p. 235) defined learning strategies as ‘behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable’. A year later she offered an expanded characterization of strategies as ‘specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed and more transferable to new situations’ (Oxford, 1990, p. 8). While these two definitions are not grounded in a particular theory, they stress the fact that LLS originate with the learner and enhance his or her autonomy, they can be manifested on a number of levels, and they are used with the purpose of facilitating the mastery of the target language (TL). Oxford (1990, pp. 9–14) also listed the prototypical-definitional features of strategies, the most important of which are problem-orientedness, involvement of all the resources of the learner (i.e. cognitive, emotional and social), their direct and indirect impact on the learning process, consciousness, flexibility, teachability and dependence on a wide range of factors (e.g. personality, learning style, culture). A major contribution to the field was made by O’Malley and Chamot (1990, p. 1), who, like Macaro (2003) over a decade later, emphasized the cognitive aspect of LLS use by defining them as ‘special thoughts and behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information’, convincingly accounting for their role in terms of Anderson’s (1983) adaptive control of thought theory. The definition of LLS was subsequently fine-tuned by many scholars, who paid more attention to learners’ awareness and the fact that LLS foster the processes of both language learning and use. Okada, Oxford and Abo (1996, p. 107), for example, argued that LLS enhance the learning process by fostering noticing, storage and retrieval of aspects of the TL. Cohen (1998, p. 4), in turn, described LLS as ‘learning processes which are consciously selected by the learner’. It is these conceptualizations that laid the groundwork for the influential classifications of strategies. These were put forward by Oxford (1990), who divided LLS into direct and indirect, O’Malley and Chamot (1990), who distinguished between metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective strategies, or Cohen and Dörnyei (2002), who strove to reconcile the two taxonomies. A number of tools were also constructed to allow researchers to tap into the employment of LLS, with Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) being the most frequently used till the present day.
It is against this backdrop that arguments against strategies and the empirical investigations into their use began to emerge. Problems with LLS were highlighted in the 1980s and 1990s by Ellis (1986, 1994), Stevick (1990) and Rees-Miller (1993). They revolved, among other things, around the difficulty in defining the unit of analysis and level of abstractness (e.g. tactic vs. strategy), transferability between contexts and individuals, questions about the value of LLS use, or ad hoc and imprecise nature of existing classifications (see Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). However, the most scathing criticisms began to be formulated with the onset of the new millennium by Dörnyei and colleagues (e.g. Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003), who went as far as to cast doubt on the existence of LLS as a psychological construct and to suggest that the term ‘strategy’ should be abandoned in favor of the more inclusive concept of ‘self-regulation’. Specifically, the theoretical basis of the construct has been called into question, with claims being advanced that strategies cannot be simultaneously cognitive, emotional and behavioral, and that they are unlikely to contribute at the same time to the development of linguistic knowledge and development of TL skills. Questions have also been raised about the feasibility of drawing a distinction between strategic learning and ordinary learning on account of the fact that such attributes as goal-orientedness, intentionality, effortfulness or self-directedness apply in equal measure to ‘hard and focused learning in general’ (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 164). If this is indeed the case, a question arises as to the extent to which the use of strategies is conscious, as some well-practiced learning procedures can occur below the threshold of consciousness. There have also been concerns about instruments used to gauge LLS, in particular the SILL, which was criticized for the inclusion of behavioral items, reliance on the belief that higher frequency of strategy use accounts for effective learning, and the assumption that the scales it comprises are cumulative. In effect, attempts have been made to develop an alternative approach to the assessment of LLS, such that would be grounded in the concept of self-regulation and comprise items that ‘tap into general learner traits rather than survey specific behavioral habits’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 159). This stance is reflected in the Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc), constructed by Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt (2006).
Some of these criticisms can be quite easily refuted, because even the simple strategy of note-taking which is overtly behavioral, inevitably involves cognitive operations and may constitute an emotional response to a learning event, such as failure on a test. It is also reasonable to assume that taking notes can contribute to the enhancement of both L2 knowledge (e.g. vocabulary) but also to the growth of L2 skills (e.g. subsequent use of specific words in writing and speaking). Other critiques are at best open to discussion, an issue that will be elaborated on later. Nevertheless, many of the problems mentioned above are warranted, which has prompted LLS experts to further develop the construct and to seek new theoretical perspectives within which it could be considered. For example, there have been quite successful attempts to amend the definition to illuminate the fact that adept use of strategies is inherently involved in achieving self-regulation (e.g. Thomas & Rose, 2019). As a result, the need to operationalize the strategy concept and to obtain insights into strategic learning is by no means obviated but, rather, new lines of inquiry should be identified and new research approaches should be embraced. The necessity of seeing strategies as an inherent aspect of self-regulatory capacity lies at the heart of Oxford’s (2011, 2017) model of strategic self-regulation (S2R), which brings together the concepts of self-regulation, agency, motivation, emotions, growth mindsets and positivity. It has long been recognized that the effectiveness of strategy use hinges upon contextual (e.g. the task in hand) and individual (e.g. personality, proficiency) factors (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003; McDonough, 1999), and that LLS can serve diverse functions depending on the unpredictable combination of these factors (e.g. Cohen, 1996; Oxford, 1990). However, Oxford (2017) has recently made an attempt to revolutionize the field by accounting for LLS use within the theory of complex dynamic systems (CDST) (Larsen-Freeman, 2016; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), thus adhering to recent trends in the study of motivation (e.g. Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015; see Csizér, 2017). If this theoretical stance were to be accepted, it would have far-reaching implications for future research. Since within the CDST framework strategies need to be regarded as complex processes performing multiple and flexible roles, Oxford (2017) argues that clear-cut categories included in leading classifications or the instruments developed on their basis cannot give justice to how LLS operate and contribute to the mastery of the TL.
Drawing on content analyses of 33 definitions of learning strategies, 27 taken from the field of L2 learning and 6 from outside this field, Oxford (2017, p. 48) proposed a novel and, as she insists, encompassing definition of LLS, intended to invite consensus among LLS experts and SLA specialists. The definition is as follows: L2 learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by learners with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts in order to regulate multiple aspects of themselves (such as cognitive, emotional, and social) for the purpose of (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term proficiency. Strategies are mentally guided but may also have physical and therefore observable manifestations. Learners often use strategies flexibly and creatively; combine them in various ways, such as strategy clusters or strategy chains; and orchestrate them to meet learning needs. Strategies are teachable, but the learner in context is the ultimate authority regarding strategy choice. Appropriateness of strategies depends on multiple personal and contextual factors.
An undeniable strength of this definition is that it mentions all the key features of LLS and to some extent addresses many of the contentious issues mentioned earlier. Moreover, it can be easily modified to become applicable to strategy use with respect to TL skills and subsystems, such as grammar, vocabulary, reading or listening. However, it remains to be seen whether and to what degree such a complex definition stands a chance of being adopted as a universal point of reference in view of the fact that viable contenders exist. One of them is the most recent definition by Griffiths (2018, p. 88), according to which LLS are no more than ‘actions chosen by learners for the purpose of language learning’. There are good grounds to assume that this concise, straightforward and quite easily applicable definition is more likely to appeal to researchers and teachers alike.
While the steps taken to reinvent LLS research are commendable and have the potential to move the field forward, there are a few general points that should be made in defense of empirical investigations into learning strategies and the methods that have been employed for this purpose. In addition to the published criticisms, extreme opinions are sometimes expressed in conference talks, personal communications or paper reviews that LLS have gone out of fashion, research into strategic learning has exploited its possibilities and its findings have little to offer to teachers or learners. While it is undeniable that the search for new directions and approaches is urgently needed, it is difficult to accept the assertion that LLS should no longer be talked about and examined for a number of reasons.
First, the hundreds, if not thousands, of conceptual and empirical papers have led to considerable, even if sometimes clearly insufficient, advances in our understanding of the actions and thoughts learners engage in when confronting the challenges of L2 learning. These include, among other things, the identification, description and classification of LLS, both in general and with respect to TL subsystems and skills, important insights into the intricate relationship between strategy use and attainment, factors mediating the employment of LLS, or the efficacy of strategies-based instruction (SBI) (Cohen, 2011; Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2013, 2018, 2019; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Oxford, 2011; Plonsky, 2011; Pawlak, 2011; Takeuchi, Griffiths, & Coyle, 2007). Moreover, some researchers have heeded appeals for a more situated approach to LLS research (e.g. Cohen & Wang, 2018; Ma & Oxford, 2016; Oxford, Lavine, & Amerstorfer, 2018; Pawlak, 2018a, 2018b), even if such efforts are still in their infancy, in particular in the case of specific learning tasks. Additionally, many tools measuring LLS use have been developed, including general surveys (e.g. the SILL) and specific inventories (e.g. Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory; Gu, 2018). Although the use of such instruments may be controversial (e.g. reliance on rigid categories, cumulative scales, neglect of specific contexts), there is abundant evidence for their reliability and they have been instrumental in providing huge amounts of valuable data (Griffiths, 2018; White, Schramm, & Chamot, 2007). A valid question that must be posed is whether we can afford to ignore this impressive body of empirical evidence, pretending that it does not exist and that it has no relevance for L2 pedagogy. In fact, the value of researching LLS is recognized not only by leading experts in this area but also by scholars who are not directly involved in it and even its critics. On one side of the divide, Grenfell and Macaro (2007, p. 26) comment that ‘Dörnyei may be setting up a straw man in order to knock him down’. Gu (2012, p. 330) argues, in turn, that replacing the concept of learning strategies with the construct of self-regulation ‘is not a healthy sign, because the definition quibble is going beyond the advancement of knowledge in delineating conceptual boundaries, and because teachers and learners on the ground are not getting the practical guidance needed from the experts’. Somewhere in the middle, Rose cautions against ‘throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater’ Rose (2012, p. 92) and argues that the shift to self-regulation ‘is not incompatible with language learning strategies’ (2012, p. 97). On the other side, appreciating the vitality of the field, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015, p. 141) comment that ‘the question of learning strategies is an area that continues to demand our attention and compels us to offer a considered re-examination.’
Second, it is difficult not to take issue with the argument that such a productive line of inquiry has simply fallen out of favor and thus researchers should set their sights on other areas, such, one could surmise, that are currently more fashionable. But should such rationale really constitute the main reason why we conduct empirical investigations in the first place? Or, rather, should researchers’ endeavors be primarily guided by the potential that a given field holds for enhancing our understanding of SLA and informing L2 instruction? It is logical to assume that the latter should be the case and that it is not passing fads but the perceived utility of research that should dictate the choice of issues that we elect to investigate. Clearly, there are topics in research on ID factors that are enjoying more popularity than others, with motivation (e.g. Csizér, 2017), willingness to communicate (e.g. Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017), emotions (e.g. Piniel & Albert, 2018), positive psychology (e.g. Mercer & MacIntyre, 2014) or working memory (e.g. Wen, 2016) being among those topping the ranking. With absolutely no intention to discredit any of these lines of inquiry, one might question whether, say, detecting fluctuations in motivational intensity or identifying learners’ emotions in regard to TL skills are likely to aid our understanding of L2 learning and effective TL instruction to a greater extent than revealing patterns of strategy use. In fact, it could reasonably be argued that the study of LLS, if conducted properly, may be equally informative and likely much more relevant to everyday concerns of practitioners than, for example, insights into the link between working memory and different ways of responding to errors (Pawlak, 2017). This is surely ample reason to persist in our efforts to discover how learners use LLS to enhance their TL proficiency and to uncover how the use of most effective strategic devices should be fostered.
Third, although recent efforts to apply new approaches to the study of LLS, such as those inspired by CDST, should be applauded, it would be injudicious to completely renounce traditional procedures of data collection and analysis. It is obvious that many of the existing inventories are not free from shortfalls and are indisputably in need of an overhaul, and entirely new data collection instruments should be constructed. However, there is little reason why the use of questionnaires including Likert-scale items grouped into distinct categories, particularly if they are derived with requisite rigor, should be discontinued. After all, such inventories are taken advantage of in many areas of SLA research in order to, for example, tap into facets of L2 motivational self system (e.g. Al-Hoorie, 2018), determine personality traits or measure emotional intelligence (e.g. Ożańska-Ponikwia, 2018), or establish levels of enjoyment and anxiety (e.g. Dewaele & Alfawzan, 2018). Even when we look at the SILL which has taken the bulk of the criticism, including from Oxford (2017) herself, it is difficult to disagree with Amerstorfer (2018), who quite adeptly highlights the advantages of this tool. She concludes that it ‘has not expired’ and ‘will continue to contribute to the establishment of new knowledge in this complex field of research, especially if employed in combination with other research methods’ (p. 519). Besides, despite all the hopes pinned on it by its developers, the items included in Tseng, Dörnyei and Schmitt’s (2006) SRCvoc may have no more psychological reality to respondents that those the SILL comprises. By the same token, it might take a struggle to explain how the finding that the functions of strategies fluctuate in a vocabulary task (Cohen & Wang, 2018) is more revealing to teachers than identifying groups of LLS used more or less frequently in a given class. All in all, it would appear that establishing general patterns by means of carefully developed tools still makes sense although there is clearly a need to augment this approach with more situated, context-sensitive research methods.
III Reflections on future research into language learning strategies
Having considered the status of LLS research and elucidated the rationale for pursuing this line of inquiry, the remainder of the article will focus on future prospects of empirical investigations of this kind. These reflections will revolve around three core issues, namely the foci of such studies, methodological considerations, and the need to bridge the gap between research and everyday L2 pedagogy.
1 Foci of future research
The overarching goals of the study of strategies are likely to remain similar, focusing on their identification, the influences mediating their use, the effectiveness of different strategic devices with respect to L2 learning, and the contributions of pedagogical interventions targeting LLS. Still, such empirical investigations will have to become much more sharply focused, better take account of the contribution of the individual and the context, and get extended to cover new contexts and situations (see Pawlak & Oxford, 2018).
One way in which the field can be taken forward is by shifting the focus from examining generalized LLS use to probing how strategic devices are employed in specific domains, such as TL skills and subsystems, translation, culture, affect or communication. While this is by no means tantamount to taking the position that overall patterns of strategy use should no longer be explored, not least because language ultimately has to be used as an integrated entity rather than a set of unrelated components, it is clear that each TL domain has its own specificity and different strategies may be needed to aid the process of mastering it. For example, learning and using grammar is bound to require heavier reliance on a unique set of cognitive strategies (Pawlak, 2018c) than participating in spontaneous interactions (Nakatani & Goh, 2007; Pawlak, 2018b) or getting to know L2 culture (Oxford & Gkonou, 2018). If such differences are glossed over and researchers merely opt for slight adjustments to existing classifications and data collection tools, they might be missing out on the distinctive strategies and constellations thereof that aid the mastery of each domain, with the effect that it may become impossible to devise successful strategic intervention. It should also be kept in mind that while there is copious research on LLS in some domains (e.g. vocabulary, reading), there are areas that have garnered limited attention from specialists. These are strategies for learning pronunciation (e.g. Pawlak & Szyszka, 2018), grammar (e.g. Pawlak, 2018c), pragmatics (e.g. Sykes & Cohen, 2018), translation (e.g. Cohen, 2001) or speaking (not just communication strategies) (Pawlak, 2018c), and it is reasonable to assume that these areas should be researchers’ first priority. On a cautionary note, there are clearly overlaps between certain domains, because, for instance, the investigation of speaking strategies will inevitably entail taking into account elements of grammar, lexis, pronunciation or pragmatics.
Whether LLS are explored in a more general manner or in regard to specific domains, large-scale questionnaire-based studies need to be complemented with the examination of how strategies are deployed in various learning tasks. Empirical investigations adopting this situated approach are still few and far between, which is disconcerting because strategy use is dependent on context and general tendencies, whether they are established for a single learner or a group of learners, may not reflect LLS employed in a specific situation (see Ehrman et al., 2003; McDonough, 1999; Oxford, 2017). When strategies for learning L2 grammar are examined, for example, a learner might indicate high frequency of monitoring oral production in response to a Likert-scale item, but then fail to report it at all when doing a grammar exercise or using a structure in spontaneous interaction as other concerns have to be prioritized in view of limited attentional resources (e.g. recalling relevant rules, searching for the right words). Importantly, such a contextualized approach does not only apply to strategic devices used for learning and using TL skills and subsystems. It is equally feasible when investigating strategies for managing affective states, since, while reliance on narratives or hypothetical scenarios (e.g. Gkonou, 2018) may be revealing, much more interesting and ecologically valid insights can perhaps be gleaned by having learners report on strategies they actually apply to grapple with genuine situations that transpire in classrooms (e.g. giving a speech in front of a class, doing a listening comprehension exercise or completing a communicative task in a small group).
The issues that also surely warrant further investigation are the wide array of variables that mediate LLS use as well as the link between strategic learning and attainment. This is because although the available empirical evidence is abundant, the research findings are far from conclusive and many matters are in need of further illumination. First, the role of some ID factors has barely been examined even though they may constitute crucial influences on how learners choose and employ LLS. Relevant examples could be enjoyment and other positive emotions, willingness to communicate, working memory, but also concepts that are just beginning to be seen as viable lines of inquiry in ID research, such as boredom (Kruk & Zawodniak, 2018), curiosity (Mahmoodzadeh & Khajavy, 2018) or grit (Yamashita, 2018). When we consider the last of these, understood as perseverance and passion for achievement of long-term goals (Duckworth, Peterson, Mathews, & Kelly, 2007), there are grounds to assume that its levels impinge upon the employment of different types of strategies. Second, some constructs that have been investigated as mediating variables in LLS use have been subject to reconceptualization focusing on their multicomponential nature, with the effect that the existing findings may have to be verified. This is perhaps best evident in the case of motivation, which is currently mainly investigated in terms of the different elements of the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2009). Third, if the spotlight in LLS research is to be redirected at specific TL skills and subsystems, the impact of the mediating variables would need to be examined with respect to those domains rather than in a general manner. After all, it is one thing to show that LLS use is related to beliefs and another to demonstrate that this also applies to the link between strategies for learning grammar and beliefs about how this subsystem should be taught and learned. Fourth, it would make sense to illuminate the relationship between strategy use, attainment, and clusters of different variables, such as motivation, personality or emotions, as research conducted to date has largely been confined to exploring the impact of single variables. Fifth, also in this area it seems indispensable to complement questionnaire studies with a more situated perspective where diverse influences on strategy use are examined with reference to the performance of particular tasks by particular individuals. For instance, it would be insightful to reveal what individual and contextual factors impact the employment of LLS in different stages of a communicative task and subsequently relate these factors to the quality of the interaction and attainment, both in terms of communicative and linguistic goals. Sixth, more research is needed that would appraise the effectiveness of the use of LLS but also go beyond establishing correlations between reported frequencies and measures of proficiency (e.g. course grades, self-assessment), not least because it is exceedingly difficult to make claims about causality. Moreover, a more nuanced operationalization of achievement is needed that might focus on particular TL skills and subsystems and in the latter case tap into the contribution of LLS to the development of explicit knowledge (i.e. such that is conscious and requires adequate time to be accessed) and implicit or highly automatized knowledge (i.e. such that is activated quickly and can thus be drawn on in spontaneous communication) (DeKeyser, 2010, 2017; Ellis, 2009). Finally, it would be instructive to uncover how the use of LLS is related to and fosters agency, autonomy and self-regulation, a link that is assumed (Oxford, 2017; Thomas & Rose, 2019) but should also be empirically verified, irrespective of whether this happens by means of carefully designed inventories or in specific situations.
Yet another intriguing question is whether LLS use remains relatively stable over time or it is subject to changes with respect to its intensity, the palette of strategies that learners opt for, or the functions that strategic devices perform. Empirical investigations could shed light on such dynamism, both quantitatively and qualitatively, over longer periods of time, looking, for example, into how patterns of strategy use change over the course of an academic year or the duration of a program. Alternatively, also in this case a more situated stance could be adopted, just as Cohen and Wang (2018) did when examining changes in the use of vocabulary learning strategies. A middle-of-the-road position is also viable, in which case fluctuations in LLS use are investigated as a function of the focus of a given lesson or its phase, a sequence of several classes, group dynamics, the requirements of a specific homework assignment and so on. It should be emphasized that such research may but by no means has to be conducted within the framework of CDST, a point that will be expanded upon below. This is the case with motivational dynamics which are often studied with recourse to this paradigm (Dörnyei et al., 2015) but can also be approached from other theoretical perspectives (e.g. Pawlak, 2012).
There are also numerous contexts, however broadly defined, in which strategies should be subjected to more intensive investigation. On the most general level, research on LLS would surely benefit from achieving a balance in the settings in which it is undertaken, whether they are defined by access to TL (e.g. foreign vs. second), educational level (e.g. secondary vs. tertiary), program type (e.g. students majoring in an L2 vs. those pursuing other majors), course type (e.g. a general course in L2 vs. one focusing on L2 for specific purposes), age (e.g. children vs. adults), language learnt (e.g. L2 vs. L3) or socioeconomic status (e.g. refugee vs. immigrant populations). More specifically, one area that deserves closer scrutiny is LLS use in different additional languages that learners are trying to master, whether in general or with respect to specific domains. The work that has been conducted thus far is extremely scarce (e.g. Haukås, 2015; Pawlak & Kiermasz, 2018) and even though such attempts have been made in studies of multilingualism, their focus has been confined to demonstrating that multilinguals use strategies more frequently than bilinguals (e.g. Kemp, 2007). There is also a paucity of research targeting the employment of strategies in content-based language instruction, whatever form it may take, be it English-medium instruction (EMI) or content and language integrated learning (CLIL) (e.g. Ruiz de Zarobe & Zenotz, 2018). The situation is similar when it comes to research into LLS use in study abroad, with the empirical evidence being tenuous (e.g. Briggs, 2015), even though strategic learning in such settings might boost self-regulation on different levels (e.g. academic, linguistic, social). Yet another context that needs to be singled out as worthy of more robust empirical investigation is the employment of LLS by third-age learners. Also here relevant studies are few and far between (e.g. Pawlak, Derenowski, & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2018; Piechurska-Kuciel & Szyszka, 2017), which is regrettable because L2 learning in this age group is gaining popularity and adept use of strategies could make this process truly more effective, self-directed and enjoyable (Oxford, 1989, p. 235). Finally, there is a pressing need to give more attention to the application of strategies in technology-enhanced L2 learning. This is because more and more learners are availing themselves of such opportunities by, for example, engaging in synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated communication, regularly using educational software, drawing upon Internet-based resources, or being constantly immersed in social media. While the body of research has been on the increase (see Zhou & Wei, 2018), more studies are indispensable as this area holds a lot of promise. After all, patterns of LLS use are likely to deviate from those predominant in traditional modes of learning, other mediating variables may come into play, and new technologies offer more precise ways of recording strategy use and relating this use to learning gains.
The last research direction whose significance needs to be underscored is connected with empirical investigations of the effectiveness of pedagogical interventions composed of different forms of SBI. This line of inquiry has unique value as it is the most relevant to everyday concerns of practitioners. In fact, offering teachers concrete evidence that strategy training is effective and providing them with realistic guidelines on how to most beneficially implement it can reasonably be regarded as the ultimate goal of LLS research in the first place. As Pawlak and Oxford (2018, p. 529) emphasize, ‘the results of these empirical investigations should culminate in well-designed programs for strategic intervention in different areas, such that would be feasible and implementable, rather than merely reflecting the wishful thinking of their creators, in most cases researchers.’ In his meta-analysis of relevant studies, Plonsky (2011) found that SBI is moderately efficacious but that its utility is mediated by a host of variables. These include, among others, the choice of LLS that are introduced and practiced, the duration and intensity of the intervention, the manner in which it is carried out, or the type of program in which it occurs. It is such issues that future research should address, focusing to a greater extent on specific TL domains and ensuring that not only gains in strategy use are measured but also the effects on actual attainment, which, as mentioned earlier, should in itself be evaluated in a much finer-grained way (e.g. with reference to different types of L2 knowledge). The role of such studies cannot be overestimated as it is incumbent on researchers to produce convincing proof of the effectiveness of LLS if teachers are expected to place a higher premium on SBI.
2 Methodological issues
While methodological considerations have inevitably come up on several occasions in this article, it is warranted to pull the different threads together and offer general pointers on how future research on LLS should proceed. First and foremost, it is clear that successful research on ID factors, including LLS, should seek to combine a macro-perspective and a micro-perspective. In other words, if we wish to uncover more general patterns of strategy use and factors affecting those patterns, we still need large-scale studies involving respectable samples, well-designed inventories and advanced statistical procedures. At the same time, if we want to probe deeper and shed light on the use of strategies in specific contexts, such as the completion of various learning tasks, we need research projects that would tap strategic learning in a more situated manner, thus allowing a window on the dynamics of LLS as well as the contextual and individual forces underlying it. This shows that the macro- and micro-perspective are not mutually exclusive but can complement, enrich and inform each other, whether this happens within a single study or becomes possible once adequate empirical evidence has been accumulated.
Whatever approach to examining LLS we adopt, the best option is to rely whenever possible on mixed-methods research with an eye to getting a multifaceted view of the issues that we set out to investigate (Pawlak & Oxford, 2018). Thus, quantitative data obtained through questionnaires can be better understood when complemented with qualitative information from interviews with selected participants, whereas the strategies deployed in task performance can be tapped through several instruments, such as self-assessment grids, audio recording, think-alouds or immediate reports. Naturally, there is also a need to design valid and reliable tools for assessing LLS both in general and in different domains, and then amend and update them as research findings become available. This applies in equal measure to carefully designed inventories, such as those targeting grammar (Pawlak, 2018a) or vocabulary learning strategies (Gu, 2018), and tools for tapping into LLS use in context, which could perhaps draw on latest advances in computer technology. In fact, there seems to be little justification why well-tried questionnaires should be discarded even if they suffer from obvious flaws, all the more so that all instruments used in SLA research possess their own share of shortcomings. A prime example is the SILL, which, as Amerstorfer (2018) has so convincingly shown, can still be of value to research, particularly in combination with other tools, and it can certainly be capitalized on by teachers wishing to identify or teach strategies. Obviously, we should not overlook the innovative approaches and techniques that can be harnessed in the service of LLS research. The most promising include: (1) retrodictive qualitative modeling (Dörnyei, 2014), where current patterns of strategy use can be accounted for in terms of prior experiences (see Oxford, 2017), (2) the idiodynamic method (MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011), where LLS use could be explored on a second-by-second basis in specific tasks with the help of dedicated software, (3) narratives (e.g. Gkonou, 2018), which could come from diary entries or in-depth interviews, (4) vignette methodology (Gkonou & Oxford, 2016), where learners are asked to respond to hypothetical scenarios, (5) the use of vision to reveal strategies (e.g. Oxford et al., 2018), or (6) decision-tree methods (e.g. Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2018), which allow modeling prototypical use of strategies in context. It remains to be seen to what extent research carried out with the help of these approaches can enhance our understanding of the use of LLS.
Since some of the techniques mentioned above are anchored in CDST (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), the contribution of this theoretical perspective to the study of LLS should be given some consideration. While all efforts to help the field reinvent itself should be appreciated and there is much potential in retrodictive qualitative modeling or idiodynamic methodology, it would certainly be a mistake to view this paradigm as a magic bullet that offers a sole solution to all the woes of LLS research. One reason for this is that adherence to this stance would necessarily bring with it the abandonment of the macro-perspective and run the risk of leaving us with numerous, thought-provoking pieces of a puzzle which, however, could be totally unrelated and prevent us from discerning the complete picture. It could be argued that the entire field of ID research faces such a danger if, in response to what may turn out to constitute little more than a passing fad, it is forced to follow this direction. It is difficult to see how interpreting LLS use with the assistance of the terminological apparatus of CDST (e.g. attractor states, signature dynamics, perturbations) can get us any closer to understanding how strategies are applied, how they contribute to effective learning or how they can successfully be taught. While the value of this theoretical stance can hardly be denied, it appears to be no more useful than, say, theories of automatization. In fact, lack of dogmatism should continue to characterize LLS research since it is this property that has always been its hallmark and helped the field withstand the barrage of criticisms in the last decade.
3 The link between LLS research and pedagogy
To quote from Pawlak and Oxford (2018, p. 532) once again, ‘whatever aspect of LLS we choose to investigate and whichever data collection tools we employ, no matter how innovative they might seem, the yardstick for appraising the empirical evidence we generate will be the degree to which it translates into everyday L2 instruction.’ A warranted question then is how researchers in the field of LLS have been faring on this front. Sadly, the answer cannot be very positive, although this reflects the gap between theory, research and practice visible in all other strands of SLA (see Nassaji, 2012). On the one hand, elements of SBI have made their way into coursebooks and the need for strategic interventions even gets mentioned in national curricula. On the other hand, the focus on strategies is typically marginal, educational materials usually fail to provide SBI in a principled manner, and teachers are reluctant to devote time to strategies with so many other priorities on their agendas (see Chamot, 2018; Chamot & Harris, 2019). In the view of the present author, the blame for this unfortunate situation must be laid at the feet of specialists, who, despite all the talk about the need to bring strategies into the classroom, have failed to demonstrate how LLS contribute to proficiency, have not done enough to convey research findings to practitioners in an approachable manner, and have often formulated unrealistic expectations about SBI. While existing guidelines are certainly helpful (e.g. Gu, 2019), it is wishful thinking to believe that entire programs in any school system can be dedicated to strategic L2 learning. Thus, modest but also feasible proposals might be more successful, with greater chances that they find reflection in curricula, coursebooks and educational materials.
However, what is perhaps the most disconcerting is that while the latest developments may have given the field a momentum and opened up new lines of inquiry, it is hard to see how they can make LLS research more relevant to practitioners. Let us focus on three examples at this point. First, with respect to the application of CDST to the study of strategies, one cannot help wondering what L2 pedagogy stands to gain from relevant research and the answer is far from clear-cut. It might not really matter to teachers that much that the functions of strategies keep fluctuating in the performance of an activity, nor do they have to be persuaded that L2 learning is complex and dynamic if the apparently straightforward act of correction involves making a number of decisions in a split second. Second, when we examine the encompassing definition recently proposed by Oxford (2017), we cannot avoid the question of who it is intended for. While it may certainly serve as a point of reference for researchers and raises our awareness of how LLS operate, it might be close to impossible to design studies which would reflect all of the definitional features at the same time. However, having been a secondary school teacher for many years, the present author is at a loss to think of ways in which practitioners could benefit from it if they care to read it in its entirety. It is unlikely that such complex, convoluted and elaborate characterizations of LLS are likely to make the concept appealing to materials developers or convince teachers that orchestrating SBI is a worthwhile endeavor. Truth be told, it is the succinct definition by Griffiths (2018) that may at the end of the day make practitioners more sympathetic to the LLS cause. Third, recent years have seen a growing, one could even say excessive, focus on strategies that learners fall back on to regulate their emotions and some studies even seek to evaluate pedagogic interventions in this area (e.g. Bielak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak, 2018). While such attempts are laudable, it is doubtful that the findings will make their way into the classroom. One reason is that teachers do not have necessary qualifications to tamper with students’ affective states and some may be reluctant to do so. Moreover, many learners might shy away from having their affectivity meddled with by people they barely know. Most importantly, though, if there is limited willingness to focus on strategies that could help learners make headway with TL skills and subsystems, it is unrealistic to expect practitioners to allot time to instruction in affective LLS. The intention here is by no means to discredit any of these research avenues but simply to emphasize that they may do little to bridge the precipice between research and practice. For this to happen, we need more consistent findings that would be disseminated among teachers in language they comprehend, tangible benefits of SBI would need to be shown, and pedagogical recommendations would need to be realistic and sensitive to the realities of specific educational contexts.
IV Conclusions
The article has aimed to demonstrate that research on LLS is far from demise, it is robust, has the potential of extending our understanding of how additional languages are learned, and possesses considerable capacity to inform L2 pedagogy. In addition, the what and the how of future empirical investigations in this area have been considered by singling out the core issues that are in need of examination and illuminating critical methodological concerns that researchers should take heed of. While it has been shown that, despite all the criticisms, the study of LLS is extremely vibrant and will remain so for a foreseeable time to come, there are challenges and pitfalls that can thwart further development of the field or steer it away rather than towards everyday classroom practice. The most important include rigid adherence to theoretical positions, such as CDST with all its instrumentation, haphazard renouncement of previous research findings and abandonment of existing tools, such as strategy inventories, reliance on ambiguous definitions that have little appeal to researchers or teachers, promulgation of complex models of SBI, excessive focus on strategies for regulating emotions, and, on the whole, the growing disconnect with what transpires in actual classrooms. If the field manages to successfully navigate such treacherous spots and strike a healthy balance between the old and the new, not only will it persist as an influential line of inquiry within SLA but it is also likely to ultimately generate pedagogical proposals and SBI programs that can be embraced in different educational contexts.
