Language Learning Strategy Instruction

Martha Nyikosa, Peter Yongqi Gub, and Isobel Kai-Hui Wangc, a Department of Curriculum & Instruction, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, United States; b School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand; and c Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh (Holyrood Campus), Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Introduction 1 Historical Overview 2 From Theoretical Frameworks to Instruction 2 Responsive Pedagogical Practices 2 LLSI Teaching Cycle 3 Teaching Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Other Strategies 4 Metacognitive and Learner Self-Regulated Strategies 4 Cognitive Strategies 4 Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Coordination 4 Research Approaches 5 Conclusion 5 References 6

Key Points

Traces the historical development of language learning strategy instruction (LLSI) to understand how current practices have evolved
Identifies models for implementing LLSI to foster learners’ self-regulation
Examines how LLSI affects learner performance, focusing on metacognitive and cognitive strategies
Reveals the key instructional conditions that enhance strategy development
Reviews different research approaches from both macro and micro perspectives, and discusses directions for future research

to better understand the impact and implementation of LLSI

Abstract

This overview traces the evolution of research on language learning strategy instruction (LLSI) to show how strategies can be optimally implemented to enhance learners’ proficiency and self-regulation. The LLSI teaching cycle provides key steps in pairing strategies for task-appropriate instruction, practice and implementation through modeling and reflection. These steps include cognitive strategies linked to metacognitive training to develop protocols that facilitate language learning.

Introduction

Language learning strategy (LLS) research starts with the premise that all students can be competent learners of a new language when given the strategic tools to do so. This belief is inherent in almost 50 years of research findings in the field of language learning strategies (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Rubin, 1975; Rubin et al., 2007). Language learning strategies are essential tools to aid in learning languages. They are the intentional techniques or steps used by language learners to process new information more deeply, to recall previously learned information, and to apply prior knowledge and skills to facilitate language learning. When taught and used systematically in conjunction with language tasks (e.g., recalling words, applying grammatical structures, using idioms), strategies facilitate comprehension, recall and self-expression. They have the potential to lighten the staggering memory load for more efficient learning and retention, easing the learning process. Yet studies show that many learners are unaware of the broad range of learning strategies available to them, highlighting the need for language learning strategy instruction (LLSI).

Language learning strategy instruction (LLSI) involves teaching a new language in tandem with the strategies students might apply to specific types of language tasks. LLSI provides culturally and linguistically responsive ways for learners to engage with their new language to build understandings of how to learn more effectively and in line with their own learning preferences. Practitioners

Reference Collection in Social Sciences https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95504-1.00312-4 1

2 Language Learning Strategy Instruction

and researchers have proposed several models that outline the key steps classroom teachers can take in integrating LLSI into their

curriculum (see LLSI teaching cycle).

Historical Overview

Language learning strategy (LLS) research as a distinct area of inquiry was initiated by two seminal studies by Rubin (1975) and by Stern (1975), asking what strategies good language learners employ to build proficiency. They investigated how strategies used by high achievers contribute to building functional language use leading to communicative competence. In 1990 this was fol- lowed by several books (Cohen, 1990; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) and ground-breaking studies that offered a macro overview of the various conceptual classifications of strategy types. In particular, O’Malley & Chamot (1990) classified strategies into three categories (i.e., cognitive, metacognitive, social/affective), whereas Oxford (1990) posited six categories (i.e., cognitive, memory, social, metacognitive, affective and compensation strategies). From the latter model grew Oxford’s Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL), a five-point Likert scale self-report survey instrument which has yielded well over 2000 published studies around the world. Its initial study of 1200 university students studying various languages (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) launched an abundance of empirical investigations on the frequency of strategy use in these categories. These strategies were correlated with such sociocultural factors as age, motivation, gender, and other variables including language proficiency to better understand which factors could predict or exert most influence on language learning success. In contrast, fewer studies have provided guidance to teachers on ways to teach strategies. A smaller but robust group has investigated the efficacy of ways to introduce and develop these strategies with language learners.

Based on their experience, these practitioner researchers offered specific steps to introduce and demonstrate strategies and to guide learners to practice and reflect on their strategy use (Cohen & Weaver, 2006; Oxford et al., 1990). The instructional models they provided evolved from empirical observations by both researchers and practitioners engaged in classroom language instruc- tion. An early leading model was Chamot and O’Malley’s (1994) CALLA approach which purposefully integrated language learning strategies with academic content and academic language skills much like content and language integrated learning (CLIL) [see LLSI teaching cycle].

From Theoretical Frameworks to Instruction

The theoretical grounding for LLS research started with a strong cognitive basis in psycholinguistics, while sociocultural orienta- tions, cognitive and social constructivist approaches played key roles.

In the constructivist mode, learners are positioned as active agents, constructing, associating and organizing information through perceived patterns (e.g., morphological features of vocabulary, grammatical structures). Learners are posited to relate these processes to prior knowledge and experiences, whereby they formulate ways to store, retain and retrieve linguistic information and apply their strategies in culturally appropriate situations. More recent LLS studies verify the use of strategies in clusters as a multi-layered process, showing that when learners engage in tasks, they apply multiple, rather than single strategies (Graham et al., 2010; Wang & Cohen, 2021). Most recently, researchers have moved toward Bandura’s self-regulation model, whereby individuals direct their own learning, emotions and social language use (Oxford, 2017; Rubin, 2001).

LLS research approaches the full spectrum of enabling strategies from the early foundational stages through more complex communicative stages. The consensus among practitioners and researchers is that cognitive memory strategies are most in demand during the initial stages of learning a language when memory load is especially challenged. Novice learners spend most time devel- oping finer-grained memorization and recall strategies for vocabulary and grammar. Psycholinguistic (memory, recall) and cogni- tive functions (spaced vs. massed learning; associating new and old information) play a critical role in early learning. Memory cues (e.g., a sound reminds one of how to pronounce a word) or associations with previously learned grammatical patterns and personal experiences function to formulate and customize strategies in these early stages. Only later do sociocultural, communicative func- tions (conveying meaning through paraphrasing, circumlocution) begin to play a stronger role as learning strategies.

Most notably, although instruction has not been the concern of experimental and survey studies of students’ strategy choices, these researchers advocate for teaching models which are needed to instruct learners how to learn. LLSI focuses on the instructional side of language learning strategies rather than on strategy choice, utility, or use.

Responsive Pedagogical Practices

Research on LLSI seeks to answer the question of how to coordinate pedagogical practices to achieve meaningful language learning for all students, optimizing cognitive, social, and metacognitive processing. Through reflective practices (i.e., metacognitive strate- gies), learners develop tools to assess which strategies help them most. Responsive instructional models include positioning the teacher as a collaborative guide, eliciting and formulating personalized strategies. LLSI develops steps that instructors may take to guide students in identification, development and application of strategies which align with their learning preferences.

On their part, classroom teachers are challenged to address the wide range of individual differences in strategy use which have been connected to variables such as age, gender, anxiety, language proficiency, learner beliefs, learning style, and motivation (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). To address teachers’ practical need to see theoretical categories in functional terms, strategies have also been reclassified into the skill areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Skill-based questionnaires have been developed which include vocabulary learning, memorization, and grammar mastery. These adaptations allow teachers to better gauge students’ strategy use, especially when surveys are taken immediately after a task. Questionnaires also have the positive washback effect of suggesting strategies to respondents.

LLSI Teaching Cycle

Classroom researchers offer several frameworks with instructional steps (Chamot, 2005; Oxford et al., 1990) to assist teachers with ways to structure their approaches to LLSI. They hold that instruction is most effective when strategies are embedded into instruc- tion, modeled explicitly by the teacher and integrated into the regular language tasks with post-task reflection on their efficacy. Fig. 1 below visually summarizes/demonstrates the teaching cycle.

This Fig. 1 framework includes peer-to-peer modeling and reciprocal sharing (Nyikos, 2022). A consistent theme across these studies is the importance of teachers providing explicit instruction, and time for practical application, reflective practice, and ongoing metacognitive assessment in developing learners’ strategic competence. Teachers benefit reciprocally from student reflective discissions (in step 4).

The goal of LLSI recursive modeling cycles is to enable students to gain executive control over their own learning process by analyzing and reflecting on what is working and where more support is needed. This use of metacognitive strategies has been shown to differentiate successful from less successful language learners. Collaboration by language learners, teachers and peers in a socially supportive classroom offers the best environment for successful integration of strategic tools into second language learning. By incorporating strategies into a daily teaching protocol, classroom goals of equity, inclusion and self-efficacy can lead to ever greater learner autonomy.

Awareness raising and elicitation of strategies that students may already use

Language Learning Strategy Instruction 3

Transfer of strategy to similar tasks
Teacher presentation through task- appropriate strategy modeling
Multiple practice opportunities on tasks

Fig. 1

LLSI teaching cycle.

Reflective evaluation of strategy effectiveness
Peer-to-peer strategy sharing & reciprocal learning from students

4 Language Learning Strategy Instruction

Teaching Metacognitive, Cognitive, and Other Strategies

There is now plenty of evidence supporting the efficacy of learning strategy instruction. Research is focused on how much of a differ- ence it makes to language learning, which strategies are involved, how strategy instruction is done, for whom, for how long, and under what conditions and contexts. Plonsky’s (2019) recent meta-analysis of 77 primary studies including 112 experimental samples found that about three-quarters of students receiving strategy instruction perform above those who do not receive any strategy instruction. Strategy instruction focuses on metacognitive strategies which learners use to plan, monitor, or evaluate their own learning. It also focuses on cognitive strategies that cater to the effective and efficient learning of specific language learning tasks such as memorization, practice, retrieval, and communicative use.

Metacognitive and Learner Self-Regulated Strategies

Metacognition refers to the awareness and control of one’s cognitive processes and involves two key components: knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s cognitive abilities, understanding the demands of different tasks, and recognizing various strategies that can be applied. Metacognitive regulation, on the other hand, is the ability to oversee, plan, and regulate one’s cognitive processes in relation to learning tasks. Not all learners are good at using metacognitive strategies to regulate their own learning. Therefore, incorporating metacognitive strategies into instruction can signif- icantly enhance learning outcomes, and cultivate autonomous, reflective, efficient, and adaptable learners.

Which metacognitive strategies are included in instruction depends on individual differences and learner needs. For example, if learners set vague or unrealistic goals, the intervention can focus on helping them set specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals. If learners lack the skills to track and evaluate their progress in achieving their learning objectives, LLSI aimed at improving their monitoring and evaluation skills such as self-assessment and peer assessment exercises should be helpful.

Research on the instruction of metacognitive strategies in language learning has found unanimous evidence suggesting its useful- ness (Harris & Graham, 2016). Metacognitive strategy instruction enhances the learner’s regulation of learning (e.g., better plan- ning) which, in turn, improves performance on content learning (Nguyen & Gu, 2013).

Cognitive Strategies

Cognitive strategies in language learning are conscious and deliberate mental procedures that learners use to enhance their learning, comprehension, retention, or production. Unlike metacognitive strategies that are related to the learner’s ability in self-management of learning, cognitive strategies are more related to the cognitive task (e.g., memorizing, retrieving) or language learning task (e.g., comprehending a text, writing to convince). In other words, different tasks demand different strategies. Even highly experienced learners encounter novel tasks that necessitate the use of new or unfamiliar cognitive strategies.

The need for instruction of cognitive strategies normally comes from novel, complex, or unfamiliar tasks. If learners have diffi- culties with making inferences and predictions based on existing information, teaching them how to guess, predict, and synthesize meaning can be helpful in improving comprehension. If students are using rote memorization to commit new words to memory, training in how to incorporate isolated vocabulary into meaningful contexts such as stories will lead to better retention (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2009).

Instruction of cognitive strategies has been proven beneficial in improving task performance, especially when the measurement of effectiveness is based on strategy instruction for the task at hand (Vandergrift & Tafaghodtari, 2010; Wang & Cohen, 2021). However, strategy transfer beyond the task in focus is not as likely to occur as when also teaching metacognitive strategies for the regulation of learning.

Cognitive and Metacognitive Strategy Coordination

In real learning situations, learners seldom use one strategy to tackle one task. Most of the time, a single strategy is chosen from a few options and is applied to the task in question. In instructional settings, both teachers and learners have the opportunity to monitor the process during completion of the task and evaluate its success afterward. If the target is not reached, another strategy can be chosen to see if it achieves better effects.

Research has indeed found that coupling instruction of both metacognitive and cognitive strategies produces better results than any one type of strategy alone (Dalman & Plonsky, 2022; Wischgoll, 2016). This is understandable because the instruction does not merely help improve learners’ task performance but also enhances their coordinated and flexible application of task-appropriate strategy clusters. This cultivates autonomous self-regulated learning. In general, teaching one cognitive strategy has been the most direct approach to the immediate enhancement of the performance on the learning task being targeted; while teaching multiple strategies plus metacognitive strategies for the management of learning is most likely to result in long-term benefits of strategy transfer and improved self-regulated learning.

Research Approaches

A review of the literature shows that a predominant approach to examining the effect of LLSI is through experimental designs (Plonsky, 2019; Wang, 2024). The reviewed studies often involve one group receiving strategy enhancement treatment while another does not, with pre- and post-intervention tests. The results show that language learning strategies are teachable and that LLSI improves language learning across different skills and contexts. Beneficial instructional conditions for strategy development include:

providing explicit instruction with modeling and explanations,
integrating strategy instruction into regular classes,
encouraging learners to verbalize their cognitive processes,
incorporating metacognitive instruction tailored to specific skill areas.

The studies have also yielded mixed findings regarding the impact of the number of strategies taught in LLSI as well as the duration of instruction. Learners tend to benefit more from extended periods focusing on a few strategies per session. Nevertheless, the effec- tiveness of LLSI highly depends on learner-related factors (e.g., proficiency levels, language backgrounds, learning style preferences) and contextual factors, such as instruction length, and task types (Plonsky, 2019).

It is clear that quantitative-oriented studies provide a macro-level perspective on the relationship between the effectiveness of LLSI and various variables, whether learner-related, contextual, or both. Non-task-based self-report questionnaires are commonly used to measure the effect of LLSI on two areas. They assess overall learning outcomes, and the frequency of strategies used. When responding to questionnaires, learners might generalize their beliefs about the strategies they use, rather than reporting how strat- egies are actually used in specific language tasks.

There has been a growing recognition of the value of metacognitive interventions. Empirical studies suggest that higher levels of metacognition significantly enhance learning outcomes (e.g., Macaro, 2006; Wang & Cohen, 2023). They emphasize the importance of the quality of strategy use over the quantity. Studies have investigated how metacognitive instruction impacts the use of meta- cognitive strategies in language learning, particularly focusing on the variety and frequency of these strategies. There is a call for further research to examine how metacognitive instruction influences learners’ management of their strategy use, their effective orchestration of multiple strategies, as well as on how learners monitor and adapt their existing strategies across different tasks.

To better inform LLS instruction, there has been an increasing interest in micro-level investigations using process-oriented methods with learners. These include verbal reports, classroom observations, journal entries, and keystroke logging. Among these, think-aloud protocols (TAP), are widely used to study cognitive processes during strategizing. Recently, there has been attention given to investigate the value of fine-tuning verbal reports instead of solely relying on TAP as the exclusive method for describing cognitive processing during verbal reporting (Cohen & Wang, 2024).

Efforts have been made to conduct close-order investigations of how learners engage with strategy instruction through utilizing the different types of verbal reports (e.g., Wang & Cohen, 2023). The micro-level analysis of learner engagement in strategy instruc- tion at behavioral, cognitive, and affective levels has enriched our understanding of:

the complex interplay between successful and challenging moments during strategy instruction sessions,
the dynamics of strategy instruction, including the real-time needs and challenges perceived by recipients of strategy instruction, • the value of reciprocal learning between providers and recipients.

Micro-level studies have been noted for their idiosyncratic nature, making generalizations challenging (Cai, 2024). Nevertheless, there is increasing encouragement for researchers to undertake qualitative studies in LLSI. While stand-alone case studies may not reveal patterns on their own, a collection of insightful qualitative studies has the potential to provide a clearer picture (Wang & Cohen, 2023). Another promising approach for studying LLSI processes at a micro level is the use of process-tracing methods, which involve case-based qualitative research. This approach can help uncover causal relationships and develop theories that may be applicable beyond specific cases (Thomas et al., 2024). To address the limitations of both quantitative and qualitative methods, there is encouragement for adopting a mixed-methods approach that integrates macro- and micro-level data. Such an approach can provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of LLSI and yield research outcomes relevant to educational practices.

Conclusion

Based on fifty years of language learning strategy (LLS) research and the positive effects found on learners’ proficiency and self- regulation, practitioner researchers have evolved best practices for LLSI. This review has traced the evolution of LLSI, and the key insights that led to research consensus on the LLSI teaching cycle, including its crucial focus on responsive pedagogy. Teacher educa- tors and practitioners of LLSI help learners develop specific strategic tools for task-appropriate application. LLSI encourages the systematic use of affective, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies to empower learners toward ever-greater autonomy and profi- ciency. Future research will continue to work toward a better understanding of the benefits and impact of LLSI, particularly as arti- ficial intelligence converges with strategic learning of new languages. In addition, exploring the situated needs of LLSI recipients and providers during actual engagement could provide insights into how best to foster reciprocal learning. To fulfill the promise of

Language Learning Strategy Instruction 5

6 Language Learning Strategy Instruction

strategies-based instruction and ensure an enduring impact on future language learners, it is imperative to integrate LLSI training

into preservice teacher and professional development programs.

References

Cai, Y. (2024). Metacognitive strategy use in foreign language learning fluctuates from both ends towards the middle: Longitudinal evidence for the Island Ridge curve. System, 123, Article 103324.

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112e130.

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Addison-Wesley.

Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2024). Revisiting “think aloud” in language learner strategy research. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241266949 Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, S. J. (2006). Styles and strategies-based instruction: A teachers’ guide. Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of Minnesota. Cohen, A. D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Newbury House/Harper Collins.

Dalman, M., & Plonsky, L. (2022). The effectiveness of second-language listening strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. , Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211072981

Graham, S., Santos, D., & Vanderplank, R. (2010). Strategy clusters and sources of knowledge in French L2 listening comprehension. Innovation in Language Learning and

Teaching, 4(1), 1e20.

Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. (2016). Self-regulated strategy development in writing: Policy implications of an evidence-based practice. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain

Sciences, 3(1), 77e84.

Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3), 320e337.

Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2009). Examining the effectiveness of explicit instruction of vocabulary learning strategies with Japanese EFL university students. Language Teaching

Research, 13(4), 425e449.

Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 9e30. Nyikos, M. (2022). Cultivating equity, inclusion and self-efficacy through language learning strategies. Specialist English Language Teaching SPELT Quarterly, 36(2), 1e22. O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 291e300.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle & Heinle.

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Oxford, R., Crookall, D., Cohen, A. D., Lavine, R., Nyikos, M., & Sutter, W. (1990). Strategy training for language learners: Six situational case studies and a training model. Foreign

Language Annals, 22(3), 197e216.

Plonsky, L. (2019). Language learning strategy instruction: Recent research and future directions. In A. U. Chamot, & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language

classroom: Issues and implementation (pp. 3e21). Multilingual Matters.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41e51.

Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(1), 25e37.

Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Harris, V., & Anderson, N. J. (2007). Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of

research and practice (pp. 141e160). Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31(4), 304e318.

Thomas, N., Hultgren, A. K., Zuaro, B., Yuksel, D., Wingrove, P., Nao, M., et al. (2024). Process tracing for applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), Article

100118.

Vandergrift, L., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2010). Teaching L2 learners how to listen does make a difference: An empirical study. Language Learning, 60(2), 470e497.

Wang, I. K.-H. (2024). Prior studies of language learning strategy instruction (2020-2024). Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.25912258.v1

Wang, I. K.-H., & Cohen, A. D. (2021). Investigating learner engagement in strategy instruction focused on vocabulary for academic writing: A case study. System, 74, 169e182. Wang, I. K.-H., & Cohen, A. D. (2023). Self-access strategy instruction for academic writing vocabulary: What learners actually do. Applied Linguistics, 44(6), 976e1009. Wischgoll, A. (2016). Combined training of one cognitive and one metacognitive strategy improves academic writing skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(187), 1e13.