Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2005) 25, 112–130. Printed in the USA.

Copyright © 2005 Cambridge University Press 0267-1905/05 $12.00

6. LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY INSTRUCTION: CURRENT

ISSUES AND RESEARCH

Anna Uhl Chamot

This chapter begins with definitions and an overview of methods used to identify
learners’ strategies, then summarizes what we have learned from the large number of
descriptive studies of strategies reported by language learners. Research on
language learning strategies has a history of only about thirty years, and much of this
history has been sporadic. The 1980s and early 1990s were a period of substantial
research on language learning strategies, much of it descriptive. This period was
followed by an apparent loss of interest in language learning strategies, judging by
limited reported research and few related conference presentations. Recently,
however, a number of new investigations have reinvigorated the field. The focus of
the chapter is on the evolution of research on language learning strategy intervention
studies, the issues that have emerged from this research, and metacognitive models
that can be useful in the language classroom. The discussion concludes by setting
out directions for future research.

Definition and Importance of Strategies

Learning strategies are procedures that facilitate a learning task. Strategies

are most often conscious and goal-driven, especially in the beginning stages of
tackling an unfamiliar language task. Once a learning strategy becomes familiar
through repeated use, it may be used with some automaticity, but most learners will,
if required, be able to call the strategy to conscious awareness. Learning strategies
are important in second language learning and teaching for two major reasons. First,
by examining the strategies used by second language learners during the language
learning process, we gain insights into the metacognitive, cognitive, social, and
affective processes involved in language learning. The second reason supporting
research into language learning strategies is that less successful language learners can
be taught new strategies, thus helping them become better language learners
(Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Numerous descriptive studies have addressed the goal of
understanding the range and type of learning strategies used by good language
learners and the differences in learning strategy use between more and less effective

112

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 113

learners. However, until relatively recently there have been fewer studies focusing
on the second goal of trying to teach language learning strategies in classroom
settings.

Learning strategies are sensitive to the learning context and to the learner’s
internal processing preferences. If learners perceive, for example, that a task like
vocabulary learning requires correct matching of a new word to its definition within
a specified period of time (as in a test), they will likely decide to use a memorization
strategy. Their choice of which memorization strategy to use will depend on their
understanding of their own learning processes and on which strategies have been
successful in the past (Hsiao, 2004). A different task, such as being able to discuss
the theme of a short story will require strategies different from memorization—such
as making inferences about the author’s intended meaning and applying the learner’s
prior knowledge about the topic. The interpretation of a language learning task is
closely related to the goals advocated within each learner’s cultural context, for a
learning strategy valued in one culture may be deemed inappropriate in another
(Olivares-Cuhat, 2002; Wharton, 2000). A particular learning strategy can help a
learner in a certain context achieve learning goals that the learner deems important,
whereas other learning strategies may not be useful for that learning goal.

Methods for Identifying Learners’ Strategies

Learning strategies are identified through various self-report procedures.

Although self-report is always subject to error, no better way has yet been devised
for identifying learners’ mental processes and techniques for completing a learning
task. Learning strategies are for the most part unobservable, though some may be
associated with an observable behavior. For example, a student listening to new
information may use selective attention (unobservable) to focus on the main ideas
and might then decide to take notes (observable) on these main ideas. The only way
to find out whether students are using selective attention during a listening
comprehension task is to ask them. Mere observation has proven unsatisfactory in
identifying learners’ strategies (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Rubin,
1975; Wenden, 1991).

Self-reports have been conducted through retrospective interviews,

stimulated recall interviews, questionnaires, written diaries and journals, and think-
aloud protocols concurrent with a learning task. Each of these methods has
limitations, but at the present time they remain the only way to generate insights into
the unobservable mental learning strategies of learners.

Interviews

In retrospective interviews, learners are prompted to recall a recently

completed learning task and describe what they did to complete it (see Macaro,
2001). A stimulated recall interview is more likely to accurately reveal students’
actual learning strategies because it is conducted immediately after a learning task.
The actual task is videotaped, and the interviewer then plays back the videotape,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 114 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

pausing as necessary, asking the student to describe his or her thoughts at specific
moments during the learning task.

Questionnaires

The most frequently used method for identifying students’ learning

strategies is through questionnaires. Some studies have developed questionnaires
based on tasks that students have just completed (see Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999;
Fan, 2003; Goh, 2002a; Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999; Ozeki, 2000; Rubin &
Thompson, 1994; Weaver & Cohen, 1997). Most descriptive studies, however, have
relied on a questionnaire developed by Oxford (1990), the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL). This instrument has been used extensively to collect
data on large numbers of language learners (see Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1998;
Olivares-Cuhat, 2002; Oxford, 1990; 1996; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton,
2000). The SILL is a standardized measure with versions for English as a second
language (ESL) students and students of a variety of other languages, and as such can
be used to collect and analyze information about large numbers of students. It has
also been used in studies to correlate strategy use with variables such as learning
styles, gender, proficiency level, culture, and task (Bedell & Oxford, 1996; Bruen,
2001; Green & Oxford, 1995; Oxford, Cho, Leung, & Kim, 2004; Nyikos & Oxford,
1993; Oxford & Burry-Stock, 1995; Wharton, 2000). Oxford and her colleague are
currently developing a task-based questionnaire to complement the SILL (Oxford et
al., 2004).

Diaries and Journals

Written diaries and journals have also been used to identify language
learners’ strategies. In these, learners write personal observations about their own
learning experiences and the ways in which they attempted to solve language
problems (see, for example, Carson & Longhini, 2002). Rubin (2003) suggests using
diaries for instructional purposes to help students develop metacognitive awareness
of their own learning processes and strategies. An interesting variant on the diary
study was recently conducted by Takeuchi (2003), who examined published books
and essays by Japanese good language learners of various languages and analyzed
each author for evidence of learning strategy use included in their descriptions of
their foreign language learning histories.

Think-Aloud Protocols

A think-aloud protocol can be used for individual interviews in which the

learner is given a target language task and asked to describe his or her thoughts while
working on it. The interviewer may prompt with open-ended questions such as,
“What are you thinking right now? Why did you stop and start over?” Recordings
of think-aloud interviews are then analyzed for evidence of learning strategies. The
rich insights into language-learning strategies provided through think-aloud protocols
tend to reveal online processing, rather than metacognitive aspects of planning or

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 115

evaluating (see Chamot & Keatley, 2003; Cohen et al., 1998; O’Malley & Chamot,
1990).
Although self-report may be inaccurate if learners do not report truthfully or
cannot remember their thinking, it is still the only way available to us to develop
some understanding of learners’ mental processing. As Grenfell and Harris have
pointed out: “It is not easy to get inside the ‘black box’ of the human brain and find
out what is going on there. We work with what we can get, which, despite the
limitations, provides food for thought” (1999, p. 54)

Identification of Language Learning Strategies

The language learning strategies identified through these self-report methods

have identified characteristics of good language learners and compared the strategies
of more- and less-effective language learners. Such studies have been important in
identifying and classifying strategies used by language learners and understanding
how strategies are actually used in the learning process. This information has in turn
guided instructional investigations that have sought to teach learning strategies to
language learners and to measure relationships between strategy use and language
proficiency, metacognition, motivation, and self-efficacy.

Language learning strategies research began in the 1970s with the seminal
work of Joan Rubin, who, like Stern (1975), suggested that a model of “the good
language learner” could be constructed by looking at special strategies used by
successful L2 students (Rubin, 1975). Other researchers followed with descriptions
of learner characteristics and strategic techniques associated with effective second
and foreign language learning (Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978/1996;
O’Malley, & Chamot, 1990). More recently, Takeuchi (2003) identified the
characteristics of Japanese good language learners through their biographies. Taken
together, these studies identified the good language learner as one who is a mentally
active learner, monitors language comprehension and production, practices
communicating in the language, makes use of prior linguistic and general knowledge,
uses various memorization techniques, and asks questions for clarification.

Later studies comparing more and less effective language students have
revealed a recurring finding that less successful learners do use learning strategies,
sometimes even as frequently as more successful peers, but that their strategies are
used differently (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999; Khaldieh, 2000; Vandergrift, 1997a,
1997b). A recent study by Vandergrift (2003a) compared the listening
comprehension strategies of more- and less-skilled Canadian seventh-grade students
of French. Students listened to several French texts and were prompted to think
aloud during the process. The more skilled listeners used more metacognitive
strategies, especially comprehension monitoring, than did their less skilled peers. In
addition, more skilled listeners engaged in questioning for clarification, whereas the
less skilled used more translation. Graham (2004) investigated the attitudes toward
learning French of upper secondary English students and found that the less
successful students did not seem to be aware of the potential role of learning
strategies in improving their language performance.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 116 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

These studies have confirmed that good language learners are skilled at
matching strategies to the task they were working on, whereas less successful
language learners apparently do not have the metacognitive knowledge about task
requirements needed to select appropriate strategies. This trend is apparent with
children in foreign language immersion classrooms, secondary school ESL and
foreign language students, and adult language learners (Chamot & El-Dinary, 1999;
Chamot & Keatley, 2003). In addition, more proficient L2 learners use sequences of
strategies to complete a task effectively (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins,
1999; Goh, 2002b; Oxford et al., 2004).

The large number of descriptive studies of language learning strategies

reveals suggestive differences between more and less successful learners. Can less
successful language learners be taught to use the learning strategies that contribute to
the achievements of their more successful peers? Proponents of language learning
strategy instruction point to the substantial body of research in first language contexts
that supports the explicit teaching of learning strategies for academic achievement in
other content areas (De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Graham & Harris, 2000; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2000). Because learning strategy instruction has been
shown to improve performance on first language tasks such as vocabulary learning,
reading comprehension, and writing, it is likely that it could prove equally helpful for
language learners in these and other L2 tasks such as listening and speaking,
modalities not investigated in the first language literature.

Classroom Research on Language Learning Strategy Instruction

Although the majority of language learning strategy investigations have been

simply descriptive, a number of researchers have conducted studies in which
language learning strategies have been taught to students. This section briefly
reviews representative studies carried out in language classroom settings in which
teachers and/or researchers have provided more or less explicit instruction on
learning strategies.

The relatively small number of instructional language learning strategy

studies may be due, in part, to the inherent difficulties in conducting classroom
research. Ideally, an intervention study should have randomly assigned participants
to either a control or an experimental/treatment group. Instruction in each group
should be identical except for the presence or absence of the innovation being
studied. Participants should be pre- and posttested on valid and reliable instruments
that identify not only knowledge about and use of the innovation (e.g., learning
strategies), but also measure other factors deemed important in learning, such as
achievement/proficiency, motivation, attitude, and/or self-efficacy. It is rarely
possible to adequately control for all of these possible variables in any natural
classroom setting.

In one of the first experimental studies of language learning strategies

instruction, high school ESL students were taught how to apply learning strategies to

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 117

three different types of tasks, and their performance was compared to that of students
in a nonstrategies control group (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). This study was
conducted with 75 high school ESL students randomly assigned to experimental or
control groups. Students were pretested on three types of language tasks—
vocabulary, listening comprehension, and speaking from prepared notes—but not on
their use of learning strategies. The experimental group students were taught various
strategies for the same types of tasks over a two week period. The instruction was
provided by the researchers, all of whom had ESL teaching experience. Students
were posttested on the same types of tasks, but did not report on their use of learning
strategies. The main conclusions of this first language learning strategies
experimental study were as follows:

• Vocabulary learning strategies were effective only for students who had not
already developed alternative effective strategies.
• Listening comprehension improved for students instructed in learning strategies
on texts that were accessible, not on those that were too difficult and/or for
which students lacked relevant prior knowledge.
• Oral reports (presented from written notes) given by strategy-instructed students
were judged to be significantly more comprehensible and organized than those
of control group students.
• Explicit learning strategy instruction embedded within the language syllabus
appeared to be effective.

These conclusions support some of the major tenets proposed in current

language learning strategy instructional models, including the importance of not
overlooking students’ current learning strategies, careful choice of tasks for
practicing learning strategies, and providing explicit and embedded learning strategy
instruction. Although this study of L2 learning strategies was successful in showing
that second language learners could improve their language performance by using
instructed learning strategies, limitations of the study are clear. These interrelated
limitations include the study’s short duration (only two weeks) and absence of
follow-up; the lack of a measure of students’ use of learning strategies prior and
subsequent to instruction; and the fact that researchers rather than the normal
classroom teachers provided the instruction. Many of these limitations have been
addressed in subsequent intervention studies regarding the effects of language
learning strategy instruction for listening comprehension, speaking and oral
communication, reading comprehension, vocabulary learning, and writing strategies.

Listening Comprehension Strategies Studies

Several studies have sought to help language learners use strategies to

increase their comprehension of oral texts. For example, Ross and Rost (1991) first
identified the listening comprehension strategies used by higher proficiency students
and then successfully taught these to lower proficiency students. Another study of
listening comprehension was conducted over an entire academic year (Thompson &
Rubin, 1996). Students receiving strategy instruction showed significant
improvement on a video comprehension posttest compared to the students in the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 118 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

control group. In addition, students in the strategies group demonstrated

metacognitive awareness through their ability to select and manage the strategies that
would help them comprehend the videos.

More recently, Ozeki (2000) followed the example of Ross and Rost (1991)
by first identifying the listening strategies students already used as a basis for
selecting strategies to be taught. In this case, however, the strategies to be taught
were those students had reported that they used least frequently. Although intact
classes of students of English in a Japanese women’s college were used for the
treatment and control groups, randomization was achieved by the assignment of
students to class sections alphabetically by surname. Strategy instruction was
provided in the treatment class during 12 ninety-minute classes focusing on listening
comprehension distributed over a 20-week semester. The sequence of instruction
was as follows: a preparation stage in which students were explicitly taught a new
strategy and earlier strategies were reviewed; and a lesson stage in which students
practiced the strategies with listening comprehension tasks. Pretest and posttest
scores were compared to evaluate the effects of learning strategy instruction.
Improvement in the treatment group was noted in the following dimensions:
development of listening comprehension ability; increased use of learning strategies
(including some not explicitly taught); positive attitudes towards strategy instruction;
transfer of strategies to new tasks; and durability of strategy use after the completion
of strategy instruction.

Carrier (2003) taught listening comprehension strategies to a small group of

high school ESL students. This exploratory study focused on academic listening
tasks during six weeks of instruction. The strategies included both bottom-up and
top-down approaches to listening. The teacher modeled and defined the strategies,
then provided practice opportunities for the students. Actual strategies taught
included selective attention to various aspects of the text and note-taking. Pre- and
posttests on both discrete and overall listening comprehension showed that students
had significantly improved both aspects of listening comprehension.

In another recent study of listening comprehension strategies, Vandergrift

(2003b) undertook a study of French as a second language university students in
which he sought to raise awareness of the listening process through tasks designed to
develop effective listening strategies. After being told the topic of the listening task,
students completed a column on a worksheet in which they listed (in French and/or in
English) their predictions about information they might hear. Then they listened to
the text, checking off predictions and vocabulary they had anticipated and adding
new information. Next, they worked in pairs to compare and discuss what they had
understood. A second listening to the text allowed students to fill in additional
information comprehended, and this was followed by a class discussion in which
students shared the strategies they had used to comprehend the text. After a third
listening, students wrote a personal reflection on what they had learned about their
own listening processes and what strategies they might use in future to improve
listening comprehension. Similar procedures were followed for an additional
listening task. Students’ written reflections revealed positive reactions to the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 119

strategies, increased motivation, and understanding of their own thinking processes

during listening tasks.

Oral Communication Strategies Studies

Perhaps the most challenging language modality for learning strategy

instruction is oral communication, for deliberate use of a strategy could restrict the
flow of natural speech. Presentational speaking, rather than interactive speaking, has
been the focus of several studies (see Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). In
interactive speaking, researchers have looked at communication strategies with some
reservations because of doubts that using a communication strategy (such as using a
gesture when the needed word or phrase is not known) actually can lead to learning
(Cohen, 1998; Macaro, 2001, Nakatani, in press).

A comprehensive study of speaking strategies investigated the impact of

strategies-based instruction on college foreign language students taught by their
regular instructors over during 10 weeks of instruction (Cohen, et al., 1998; Cohen,
1998). The intervention groups received instruction in learning strategies for
speaking tasks. Students were pre- and post-tested on speaking tasks and on the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford, 1990). In addition, a
sample of students provided think-aloud data as they were completing task
checklists. The results indicated that integrating strategies instruction into the
language course was beneficial to students, although the relationship of reported
strategy use to performance was complex.

In a recent study of oral communication strategies, Nakatani (in press)

compared pre- and posttest oral communication test results of students receiving
metacognitive awareness-raising and a control group. The subjects were students at
a women’s college in Japan who had completed six years of prior English study. The
strategy training group was taught communication strategies that could help students
learn more of the language such as asking for clarification, checking for
comprehension, and paraphrasing, rather than communication strategies without a
direct influence on learning, such as abandoning a message or reverting to the L1.
Results showed that students taught to use strategies showed significant improvement
on oral proficiency tests.

Reading Comprehension Strategies Studies

Although reading strategy interventions in first language contexts have been

plentiful (see, for example, Pressley, 2000), this modality has attracted less attention
among language learning instruction researchers. A recent study investigating
different approaches to literacy development in high school ESL students with low
literacy in their native language included a learning strategies instructional
component (Chamot & Keatley, 2003). A curriculum of scripted literacy lessons
included explicit language learning strategy instruction for reading comprehension,
including sounding out, selective attention, summarizing, cooperation, predicting,
brainstorming of prior knowledge, visualization, and making inferences. Six of the

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 120 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

teachers provided initial strategy instruction in the students’ L1, then asked students
to use the same strategies when reading in English. The remaining eight teachers
attempted to teach the strategies only in English. Data from classroom observations
and from end-of-year individual think-aloud interviews in which students described
(in L1) the strategies they were using to read an unfamiliar text in English showed
the following:

• Teachers found it easier to teach strategies in the native language.

• Some students reported using the instructed strategies during the think-aloud
interviews.
• Students who were more able to verbalize their thinking processes (in L1)
displayed greater comprehension of the L2 text than those unable to describe
their thoughts.

Another recent study of reading comprehension investigated the effects of

strategy instruction on lower and higher proficiency levels and also assessed
students’ continuing use of strategies after the conclusion of instruction (Ikeda &
Takeuchi, 2003). Participants were 210 students of English at a Japanese university.
Students were divided into two groups according to their English language
proficiency; each group was then further divided into an experimental and a control
group. The experimental groups received explicit reading strategy instruction
integrated into their regular class over an eight-week period. Instructed strategies
included making inferences, using selective attention, using imagery, and
summarizing. Pre- and posttests (carried out at different intervals) consisted of
reading English texts, then completing a survey in Japanese of strategies used during
the reading task. The results indicated that the strategy instruction affected the
frequency of students’ use of the strategies only for the high proficiency level group.
The authors’ interpretation was that most of the strategies taught involved top-down
processing, but that what the low proficiency group probably needed was a focus on
bottom-up processing strategies. Students were tested after instruction and then
again three months and five months later to see if they continued to use the
instructed strategies. An encouraging finding was that students retained their use of
learning strategies for reading five months after the conclusion of instruction.

A recently completed study built on Ikeda and Takeuchi’s (2003) work to

further explore the effects of task difficulty in reading comprehension and use of
strategies (Oxford et al., 2004). ESL college students completed two reading tasks
(one easy, one difficult); these scores were used to determine whether students were
eithermore- or less-proficient readers, and also completed questionnaires about their
strategy use for the two readings. For the easy reading, there was little difference in
strategy use between more and less proficient readers. However, for the more
difficult reading, less proficient students actually used more strategies than their
more proficient peers. The authors attributed this finding to the fact that the
“difficult” reading was actually not much of a challenge for the higher proficiency
students, and thus they did not need to use many learning strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 121

Vocabulary Strategies Studies

Learning new vocabulary in a second language is a continuing process rather

than a single event. Beginning level students often believe that vocabulary learning
is all that is involved in second language acquisition and may focus their efforts and
strategies on this single component. Deep processing strategies such as association
have been found more effective in vocabulary retention than rote repetition strategies
(see Cohen & Aphek, 1981; Hulstijn, 1997; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Schmitt,
2000).

In a recent descriptive vocabulary study of Hong Kong university students

learning English, Fan (2003) identified important implications for strategy
instruction. For example, when students perceived that a strategy was useful, they
used it more often than strategies they did not perceive as useful. Even so, students
with higher vocabulary proficiency used strategies significantly more often even
when they did not perceive them as useful. This finding suggests that students might
use more learning strategies if teachers were to first convince students of their
usefulness.

This approach was taken in a series of case studies in England in which

researchers worked closely with five secondary teachers of modern languages as
teachers experimented with learning strategy instruction for a variety of tasks
(Grenfell & Harris, 1999). Three of the teachers focused on teaching memorization
strategies for vocabulary. The strategy instruction was generally explicit and
students’ metacognition was developed through a variety of consciousness-raising
activities. Most students were willing to adopt the new strategies, though they rarely
used them in combination. Performance on tests indicated that the memorization
strategies had been helpful for many in learning new vocabulary.

Writing Strategies Studies

Writing in a second language is arguably the most difficult of the modalities

in which to achieve communicative competence. Beginning level students struggle
with finding the words they need and remembering grammatical conventions,
whereas more advanced students find it difficult to link their ideas with coherence
and to produce appropriate target language discourse. Given these difficulties,
instruction in writing strategies could be beneficial for second language learners.

A study of writing strategies instruction was recently conducted in England

with six classes of secondary students of French (Macaro, 2001). In this Oxford
Writing Project, classes were randomly assigned to control or experimental groups.
Pre- and posttests included questionnaires, writing tasks, and think-aloud interviews
during a French writing task. Students in the experimental groups received about
five months of instruction on a variety of writing strategies that included the
metacognitive strategies of advance preparation, monitoring, and evaluating. At
posttest, experimental groups had made significant gains in the grammatical accuracy
of their writing. In addition, they reported a change in their approach to writing,

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 122 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

becoming less reliant on the teacher, more selective in their use of the dictionary, and
more careful about their written work.

Another recent writing strategies study explored the effects of translation (a

learning strategy) from the L1 on the quality of essays written in French by
university students of French (Cohen & Brooks-Carson, 2001). Students were given
prompts in the target language, then instructed to either write directly in French or to
write the essay first in their L1, then translate it to French. Strategy checklists
completed after students wrote the essays showed that students writing directly in
French reported less thinking in English during the composing process and their
essays were also rated higher than those who had gone through the translation
process.

Methodological and Practical Issues in Learning Strategy Instruction

Although we can be cautiously optimistic about the effectiveness of learning

strategy instruction, given that it has been well established in first language contexts
and shows promise in second language learning, a number of issues still remain
concerning specific teaching approaches. These include the language of strategy
instruction, the practicality of integrating strategy instruction into the regular
language class, and the use of metacognitive models to classify learning strategies for
instructional purposes. Although these issues are far from resolved, some recent
studies that have addressed them are briefly described in this section.

Language of Strategy Instruction

This issue is particular to teaching learning strategies to language learners.

In first language contexts, strategies are taught through a language medium in which
students are proficient, but in second or foreign language contexts, this is not
necessarily so. Beginning level students, in particular, do not have the L2
proficiency to understand explanations of why and how to use learning strategies, yet
postponing learning strategy instruction until intermediate or advanced level courses
deprives beginners of tools that could enhance language learning and increase
motivation for further study. It is probably not possible to avoid using the first
language during strategy instruction for beginning to low intermediate level students
(Macaro, 2001). Suggestions have been made to initially teach the learning strategies
in the students’ native language, assuming it is the same for all students and that the
teacher knows the language; alternatively, teachers have been urged to give the
strategy a target language name, explain how to use it in simple language, and model
the strategy repeatedly (Chamot et al., 1999).

Some recent studies have used a combination of the native and target
languages for strategy instruction. In an investigation of strategy instruction by
secondary French and German teachers in London, some materials were in English
(especially those used by students for planning and evaluating their own work),
whereas checklists, descriptions of strategies, and strategy activities were written in
the target language, simplified as needed (Grenfell & Harris, 1999). In a study of

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 123

Japanese college students learning English as a foreign language, questionnaires,

journal prompts, and self-evaluation checklists were written in “simple” English, but
students could respond in Japanese; actual strategy instruction and review was
conducted in English (Ozeki, 2000). In Chamot and Keatley’s (2003) ESL literacy
study, bilingual teachers were able to first teach the learning strategies in students’
native language, then had them use the same strategies in English for similar reading
tasks in English. Teachers providing instruction in English alone encountered
difficulties in teaching learning strategies because of the low level of students’
English proficiency, and most then abandoned the attempt to teach strategies. From
these few studies, it seems clear that the issue of language of instruction in teaching
language learning strategies is far from resolved, and may need to be addressed as a
context-specific factor.

Explicit and Integrated Learning Strategy Instruction

Explicit instruction includes the development of students’ awareness of their

strategies, teacher modeling of strategic thinking, identifying the strategies by name,
providing opportunities for practice and self-evaluation. Researchers in both L1 and
L2 contexts agree that explicit instruction is far more effective than simply asking
students to use one or more strategies and also fosters metacognition, students’
ability to understand their own thinking and learning processes (Anderson, 2002, in
press; Carrier, 2003; Chamot, 2004, 2005; Chamot et al., 1999; Cohen, 1998, 2003;
Goh, 2002b; Graham & Harris, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; O’Malley &
Chamot, 1990; Oxford & Leaver, 1996; Pressley, 2000; Shen, 2003).

Less agreement is found on whether strategy instruction should be integrated

into and taught concurrently with the language course, or whether to provide a
separate “how to learn” course independent of the language course. Although all of
the studies reviewed here have included strategy instruction as part of the regular
language class, it has been argued that strategies taught in a language class are less
likely to transfer to other tasks and that it may not be practical to prepare all language
teachers to teach strategies (Gu, 1996). Clearly, expertise in teaching language
learning strategies must be integrated into pre- and in-service preparation if teachers
are to provide it to their L2 students.

Impact of Task and Learner Context

As noted earlier, learning strategies are directed toward particular tasks that
can vary in both obvious and subtle ways. Tasks differ depending on whether the
context is a second language or foreign language setting and whether the learner’s
goal is to acquire social or academic language or both (Chamot, 2004; Cohen, 2003;
Cummins, 2000; Oxford et al., 2004). Differences in strategy use also vary
according to proficiency level. Takeuchi’s (2003) multiple case studies of learner
journals found that learners reported shifting their use of strategies as they advanced
to higher proficiency levels. Similarly, a recent reading study found that perceived
difficulty of the task affected use of learning strategies, which were used on more
challenging tasks (Oxford et al., 2004).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 124 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

The learner’s goals, the context of the learning situation, and the cultural
values of the learner’s society will also influence choice and acceptability of
language learning strategies. For example, in a culture that prizes individual
competition and has organized its educational system around competitive tasks,
successful language learners may prefer strategies that allow them to work alone
rather than social strategies that call for collaboration with others.

Two SILL studies illustrate the learning strategy preferences reported by

students in different cultural contexts. A study of ethnically Chinese, bilingual
Singaporean university students studying a foreign language (French or Japanese)
found that students reported a preference for social strategies as well as a
disinclination to use affective strategies (Wharton, 2000). Another study examined
the language learning strategies of students in a university advanced Spanish writing
class and compared achievement on a writing sample between those students
speaking Spanish as a first or heritage language and those learning Spanish as a
foreign language (Olivares-Cuhat, 2002). As expected, students with a Spanish
language background were graded higher on their writing samples than the other
students, but they also showed a greater preference for affective and memory
strategies, and these latter were highly correlated with writing achievement.
Preliminary findings of a current study of learning strategies used by university
students of less commonly taught languages indicate that both heritage speakers of
Arabic and students of Arabic as a foreign language share many of the same
challenges and consequent learning strategies for learning Modern Standard Arabic
(MSA), but also demonstrate differences (Keatley, Chamot, Spokane, & Greenstreet,
2004). For instance, heritage speakers reported using metacognitive strategies to
overcome interference from their Arabic dialects when they attempted to speak
MSA, but, unlike the foreign language students, had no difficulty in discriminating
Arabic sounds and hence did not report any learning strategies for listening
comprehension.

The implications for teaching are that language teachers need to find out
what learning strategies students already use for different tasks. An open discussion
of reasons why students use the strategies they identify can help teachers understand
cultural and contextual factors that may be influencing their students. This can lead
to clarification of task demands where there is a mismatch with students’ current
learning strategies. By understanding the task more clearly, students will likely be
more motivated to try new strategies to complete it.

Metacognitive Models

The development of students’ metacognition, or their ability to understand

and regulate their own thinking and learning, has been urged by a number of learning
strategy researchers (Anderson, 2002; Chamot et al., 1999; National Capital
Language Resource Center, 2003; Rubin, 2001; Wenden, 2000). Metacognition is
believed to involve both declarative (self-knowledge, world knowledge, task
knowledge, strategy knowledge) and procedural knowledge (planning for learning,
monitoring a learning task while it is in progress, and evaluating learning once a task

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 125

has been completed; Chamot, 1994). Evidence that language learners actually
engage in metacognitive knowledge and processes is reported in most of the research
on language learning strategies, both descriptive and instructional. Even young
children in language immersion classrooms can often describe their thinking
processes, demonstrating metacognitive awareness in their ability to describe their
own thinking (Chamot, 1999).

There are several current models for strategy identification, development,

and instruction that emphasize metacognition. My colleagues and I have proposed a
metacognitive model for learning strategy instruction that includes four recursive
(rather than sequential) processes: planning, monitoring, problem-solving, and
evaluating (Chamot, 1994; Chamot et al., 1999). In this model, teachers select
learning strategies to teach depending on the point in a learning task where students
need the most help. For example, students who do not seem to realize that a learning
task is not progressing well can be taught to monitor their comprehension,
production, or recall so that they can identify difficulties and select problem-solving
strategies to address the difficulties. Rubin (2001) equates self-management with
self-regulation as defined in the first language learning strategies literature (see, for
example, Pressley, 1995). Her learner self-management model includes five
metacognitive strategies: plan, monitor, evaluate, problem-solve, and implement.
The model is partly linear and partly recursive, and interacts with learners’
knowledge and beliefs. Anderson (2002) proposes a five-stage interactive process
that includes planning, selecting and using learning strategies, monitoring strategy
use, orchestrating various strategies, and evaluating the strategies used. In addition
to describing this metacognitive model, he also suggests how teachers can use it to
teach students how to become better language learners.

Similarly, the National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC; 2003)

has proposed a metacognitive model in which the learner’s problem-solving goals are
at the center of the circular model. Surrounding these learner goals are the
metacognitive strategies of planning, monitoring, managing learning, and evaluating
language learning and learning strategy effectiveness. Task-based learning strategies
comprise the outer circle of the model and are grouped into four categories: use what
you know, use your imagination, use your organizational skills, and use a variety of
resources. Teacher resource guides developed for elementary immersion classrooms
(NCLRC, 2003), high school foreign language classrooms (NCLRC, 2004a), and
higher education foreign language classrooms (NCLRC, 2004b) apply this model to
classroom instruction.

Developing Teacher Expertise

These metacognitive models of language learning strategies can serve an

important instructional goal for learning strategy instruction in second and foreign
language classrooms by offering a way to think about language learning strategies
from the perspective of the learner and the teacher, rather than from that of the
researcher (as has characterized the claims of different strategy classification
systems, for example, Hsiao & Oxford, 2002). Comprehensive classification

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 126 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

schemes of learner strategies are needed to describe the information derived from
descriptive studies that seek to chart the subtle permutations and often slippery
definitions of learners’ self-reported strategies. However, these extended and
complex definitions may be less useful in the language classroom where the teacher
is trying to help students become more strategic as they cope with actual learning
tasks rather than the hypothesized learning tasks proposed in the many questionnaires
and interviews designed to identify strategies that language learners claim to use.

Directions for Future Research

The study of language learning strategies will continue to develop as second

language acquisition researchers seek to understand different learner characteristics
and the complex cognitive, social, and affective processes involved in processing
language input and using the language for a variety of purposes. Likewise, language
educators and methodologists will continue their quest for more effective
instructional approaches, and, with the increasing emphasis on learner-centered
instruction and learner empowerment in all areas of education, instruction in learning
strategies will assume a greater role in teacher preparation and curriculum design.

First, rigorous intervention studies would provide information about the

effects of learning strategy instruction on achievement and language proficiency.
Such studies need to be conducted with a variety of language students, including
children in foreign language immersion and nonimmersion programs, school-aged
students in bilingual and second language programs, older students with differing
educational levels in their native language, and students in different learning contexts
around the world.

A second area for future research is in the development of language teacher

expertise for integrating learning strategies into classroom instruction. The
evaluation of different models for teacher preparation in learning strategies
instruction could lead to refining and improving current models. In addition, studies
need to be undertaken to identify the relationship of effective learning strategy
instruction to teacher characteristics such as teaching approach, attitude and teacher
beliefs, amount and type of preservice and/or in-service preparation in learning
strategy instruction, and years of teaching experience and length of time teaching
learning strategies—it might be that effective learning strategy instruction is closely
tied to specific individual teacher characteristics and experiences.

It is important that learning strategies research continue, both in these and

other directions, for only through a better understanding of the learning and teaching
process can more language learners achieve the level of success that currently
characterizes only a small proportion of all students studying a foreign or second
language around the world. Strategy instruction can contribute to development of
learner mastery and autonomy and increased teacher expertise, but additional
research in specific language learning contexts is essential to realizing its potential to
enhance second language acquisition and instruction.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 127

REFERENCES

Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and

learning. ERIC Digest, April 2002. Washington, DC: Center for Applied
Linguistics.
Anderson, N. J. (in press). L2 learning strategies. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bedell, D. A., & Oxford, R. L. (1996). Cross-cultural comparisons of language
learning strategies in the People’s Republic of China and other countries. In
R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives (pp. 47–60). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Bruen, J. (2001). Strategies for success: Profiling the effective learner of German.
Foreign Language Annals, 34(3), 216–225.
Carrier, K. A. (2003). Improving high school English language learners’ second
language listening through strategy instruction. Bilingual Research Journal,
27, 383–408.
Carson, J. G., & Longhini, A. (2002). Focusing on learning styles and strategies: A
diary study in an immersion setting. Language Learning, 52(2), 401–438.
Chamot, A. U. (1994). A model for learning strategy instruction in the foreign
language classroom. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round
Table on Languages and Linguistics 1994 (pp. 323–336). Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Chamot, A. U. (1999). How children in language immersion programs use learning
strategies. In M. A. Kassen (Ed.), Language learners of tomorrow: Process
and promise! (pp. 29–59). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching.
Electronic Journal of Foreign language Teaching, 1(1), 12–25.
Chamot, A. U. (2005). 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. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning
strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children's learning strategies in
immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 3, 319–341.
Chamot, A. U., & Keatley, C. W. (2003). Learning strategies of adolescent low-
literacy Hispanic ESL students. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London:
Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do
style, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 41, 279–291.
Cohen, A. D., & Aphek, E. (1981). Easifying second language learning. Studies in
Second Language Learning, 3, 221–36.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 128 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

Cohen, A. D., & Brooks-Carson, A. (2001). Research on direct versus translated

writing: Students’ strategies and their results. Modern Language Journal,
85(2), 169–188.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S., & Li, T-Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based
instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. D. Cohen, Strategies in
learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). London: Longman.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and
knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(4), 687–698.
Fan, M. Y. (2003). Frequency of use, perceived usefulness, and actual usefulness of
second language vocabulary strategies: A study of Hong Kong learners.
Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 222–241.
Goh, C. C. M. (2002a). Learner’s self-reports on comprehension and learning
strategies for listening. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12,
46–68 [Special issue on learning and teaching English in the Chinese
context].
Goh, C. C. M. (2002b). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their
interaction patterns. System, 30, 185–206.
Graham, S. J. (2004). Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ perceptions
of learning French. Modern Language Journal, 33(2), 171–191.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription
skills in writing and writing development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 3–
12.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2
proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297.
Grenfell, M., & Harris, V. (1999). Modern languages and learning strategies: In
theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Gu, P. Y. (1996). Robin Hood in SLA: What has the learning strategy researcher
taught us? Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 6, 1–29.
Hsiao, T.-Y. (2004). Testing a social psychological model of strategy use with
students of English as a foreign language. Psychological Reports, 95, 1059–
1071.
Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning
strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3),
368–383.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Mnemonic methods in foreign language vocabulary learning.
In J. Coady & T. Huckin (Eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 203–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ikeda, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2003). Can strategy instruction help EFL learners to
improve their reading ability?: An empirical study. JACET Bulletin, 37, 49–
60.
Keatley, C., Chamot, A. U., Spokane, A., & Greenstreet, S. (2004). Learning
strategies of students of Arabic. The Language Resource, 8 (4). Retrieved
from http://www.nclrc.org/nectfl04ls.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 LEARNING STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION 129

Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs.

less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 522–
533.
Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Students’ approaches to vocabulary
learning and their relationship to success. Modern Language Journal, 83(2),
176–192.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms.
London: Continuum.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978/1996). The good
language learner. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. (Original work
published 1978.)
Nakatani, Y. (in press). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral
communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89(1).
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (2003). Elementary
immersion learning strategies resource guide. Washington, DC: National
Capital Language Resource Center.
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (2004a). The secondary
education learning strategies resource guide. Washington, DC: National
Capital Language Resource Center.
National Capital Language Resource Center (NCLRC). (2004b). The post-secondary
education learning strategies resource guide. Washington, DC: National
Capital Language Resource Center.
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching
children to read. Retrieved from
http:/www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm
Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. L. (1993). A factor analytic study of language learning
strategy use: Interpretations from information-processing theory and social
psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77, 11–22.
O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Olivares-Cuhat, G. (2002). Learning strategies and achievement in the Spanish
writing classroom: A case study. Foreign Language Annals, 35(5), 561–570.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). (Ed.) Language learning strategies around the world: Cross-
cultural perspectives. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning. System, 23(2) 153–175.
Oxford, R. L., & Leaver, B. L. (1996). A synthesis of strategy instruction for foreign
language learners. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies
around the world: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 227–246). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R., Cho, Y., Leung, S., & Kim, H-J. (2004). Effect of the presence and
difficulty of task on strategy use: An exploratory study. International Review
of Applied Linguistics, 42, 1–47.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 130 ANNA UHL CHAMOT

Ozeki, N. (2000). Listening strategy instruction for female EFL college students in
Japan. Tokyo: Macmillan Language House.
Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-
term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30(4), 207–212.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research: Volume III, (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ross, S., & Rost, M. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language Learning, 41(2), 235–273.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly,
9, 41–51.
Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 11(1), 25–37.
Rubin, J. (2003). Diary writing as a process: Simple, useful, powerful. Guidelines,
25(2), 10–14.
Rubin, J., & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner.
Second edition. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridsge
University Press.
Shen, H-J. (2003). The role of explicit instruction in ESL/EFL reading. Foreign
Language Annals, 36(3), 424–433.
Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian
Modern Language Review, 31, 304–318.
Takeuchi, O. (2003). What can we learn from good language learners: A qualitative
study in the Japanese foreign language context. System, 31, 385–392.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1996). Can strategy instruction improve listening
comprehension? Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 331–342.
Vandergrift, L. (1997a). The comprehension strategies of second language (French)
Listeners: A descriptive study. Foreign Language Annals, 30(3), 387–409.
Vandergrift, L. (1997b). The Cinderella of communication strategies: Reception
strategies in interactive listening. Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 494–
505.
Vandergrift, L. (2003a). Orchestrating strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled
L2 listener. Language Learning, 53, 461–494.
Vandergrift, L. (2003b). From prediction to reflection: Guiding students through the
process of L2 listening. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 425–440.
Weaver, S. J., & Cohen, A. D. (1997). Strategies-based instruction: A teacher-
training manual. Minneapolis: Center for Advanced Research on Language
Acquisition, University of Minnesota.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice-
Hall International.
Wenden, A. L. (2000). Learner development in language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 23(1), 32–55.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language
learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2), 203–243.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061 Published online by Cambridge University Press