Article Review 1

 Introduction:



The article that I chose is named ‘Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching’ which is written by ‘Anna Uh Chamot’ from the George Washington University.


I chose this article for its topic is among our course readings. In this article the writer discusses current issues in language learning strategy research that affect teachers and learners of foreign languages. This article has different parts that I summarize them and include my own opinion in each part.




Issues in language learning strategy research:


1. identification of language learning strategies


2. terminology and classification of language learning strategies


3. learning strategies and learner characteristics


4. influence of culture and context


5. explicit and integrated strategy instruction


6. language of instruction


7. transfer of strategies to new tasks


8. models for language learning strategy instruction






1-Identification of language learning strategies:


Language learning strategies are identified through self-report. Although self-report may be inaccurate if the learner does not report truthfully, it is still the only way to identify learners’ mental processing.




Researchers have asked language learners to describe their learning processes and strategies 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 each provides important insights into unobservable mental learning strategies.


Here I think that just the first two ones need explanation.


In retrospective interviews, learners are asked to describe what they were thinking or doing during a recently completed learning task. The limitation is that students may forget some of the details of their thought processes or may describe what they perceive as the “right” answer. A stimulated recall interview is more likely to accurately reveal students’ actual learning strategies during a task because the student is videotaped while performing the task, and the interviewer then plays back the videotape, pausing as necessary, and asking the student to describe his or her thoughts at that specific moment during the learning task.


Here I think the writer had to discuss the limitations of these two methods, which seem not that much practical to me.






The greatest numbers of descriptive studies have utilized a questionnaire developed by Oxford, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). This instrument has been used extensively to collect data on large numbers of mostly foreign language learners. Oxford and her colleagues are currently working on a task-based questionnaire to complement the SILL.




2-Terminology and classification of language learning strategies:


Various classification systems have sought to group individual strategies within larger categories. Recently Hsiao and Oxford conducted a comparative study of three classification systems used in the field and found that the Oxford system of six basic types of language learning strategies (Metacognitive, Cognitive, Memory, Compensation, Social, and Affective) was superior in accounting for the variety of strategies reported by language learners.




In this part the writer of the article claims that those who classified the strategies had to classify them according to student or teacher’s goals. But I am against it for the classification should be based on the facts they perceive and what the writer of this article says is related to the way we apply these strategies in different educational situations which has nothing to do with the process of classifying.


3- Learning strategies and learner characteristics:

An important part of the descriptive research on language learner strategies has been the linking of self-reported strategy use with learner variables such as gender and level of language proficiency.


One study found that males used more strategies than females and another recent study found differences in strategy use between men and women related to the type of strategy rather than an overall difference. From an instructional perspective, then, we do not know with certainty whether female or male students are most in need of language learning strategies.


However, the relationship between language learning strategies and the student’s proficiency level is far clearer. More proficient language learners use a greater variety and often a greater number of learning strategies.


But to my surprise the writer of this article did not mention the relationship between learning strategies and learner styles. He considered the learner variables just as two: gender and level of proficiency. But I personally believe that learner styles are more important than those two. And in strategy-based instruction, learner style is of great value to help the teacher to design and apply the appropriate strategies.




4-Influence of culture and context:


The learner’s goals, the context of the learning situation, and the cultural values of the learner’s society can be expected to have a strong influence on 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.




5- Explicit and integrated strategy instruction:


In this part of the article, the writer claims that an ideal situation would be one in which all teachers in all subject areas teach learning strategies, as students would then be more likely to transfer strategies learned in one class to another class.


The writer ignores the question of how to teach strategy, whether we should teach it explicitly or integratedly. Oxford says that teachers should provide explicit explanation and modeling of strategy use, and provide ample opportunities for practice. She also emphasize that instruction should be embedded in meaningful communicative contexts.



6- Language of instruction:


From recent studies, it seems clear that the issue of language of instruction in teaching language learning strategies is far from resolved. If all students in a language class speak the same L1 and the teacher also knows that language, initial learning strategy instruction can be in the native language. The drawback is that use of the native language takes time away from exposure to and practice in the target language. Alternatively, teachers have been urged to give the strategy a target language name, explain how to use it in simple language, and repeatedly model the strategy. Harris and Grenfell recommend staying within the target language as much as possible, but acknowledge that for most beginning level classes, getting students started on reflecting on their own learning will probably have to be done through the L1.






7-Transfer of strategies to new tasks:




Early research on learning strategies in first language contexts found that students often were unable to transfer strategies to new tasks and later studies showed that transfer increased significantly when teachers helped students understand their own learning processes and metacognition. Similarly, language learning strategy researchers have argued for the central role of metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive learning strategies in language learning.



8- Models for language learning strategy instruction:


All these 3 models of language learning strategy instruction are solidly based on developing students’ knowledge about their own thinking and strategic processes and encouraging them to adopt strategies that will improve their language learning and proficiency.






1- SSBI Model (Cohen, 1998)






• Teacher as diagnostician: Helps students identify current strategies and learning styles.


• Teacher as language learner: Shares own learning experiences and thinking processes.


• Teacher as learner trainer: Trains students how to use learning strategies.


• Teacher as coordinator: Supervises students’ study plans and monitors difficulties.


• Teacher as coach: Provides ongoing guidance on students’ progress.



2- CALLA Model (Chamot, 2005; Chamot et al., 1999)



• Preparation: Teacher identifies students’ current learning strategies for familiar tasks.


• Presentation: Teacher models, names, explains new strategy; asks students if and how they have used it.


• Practice: Students practice new strategy; in subsequent strategy practice, teacher fades reminders to encourage independent strategy use.


• Self-evaluation: Students evaluate their own strategy use immediately after practice.


• Expansion: Students transfer strategies to new tasks, combine strategies into clusters, develop repertoire of preferred strategies.


• Assessment: Teacher assesses students’ use of strategies and impact on performance.






3- Grenfell & Harris (1999)






• Awareness raising: Students complete a task, and then identify the strategies they used.


• Modeling: Teacher models, discusses value of new strategy, makes checklist of strategies for later use.


• General practice: Students practice new strategies with different tasks.


• Action planning: Students set goals and choose strategies to attain those goals.


Focused practice: Students carry out action plan using selected strategies; teacher fades prompts so that students use strategies automatically.


Evaluation: Teacher and students evaluate success of action plan; set new goals; cycle begins again.






Conclusion:




As I mentioned above this article discusses eight issues in language learning strategies research and instruction.


As a whole I see the article a successful one for it simply and delicately chose the more important issues and the writer’s explanations in each part seem adequate and expressive.


But as I mentioned in the different parts of the article above, there are some parts that are not thorough and accurate enough. I think there are some gaps in this article that has to be filled. And as you read above, I tried to fill those gaps with my own personal views.


Among these gaps that I perceived, just one seems more substantial and that is the relationship between strategies and learner styles. As Oxford suggests, it is a good idea to have a learning checklist and then devise appropriate strategy-based tasks for the class students. Although this issue is somehow dealt with in the 8th part, I think it should have been examined separately.

Journal entry 2

In the second session we were supposed to read about the empirical basis of second language teaching and learning.


The first question asked by Nunan was that ‘Is learning a second language like learning a first language?’


It was said that insofar as syntax and phonology are concerned, they are different. But Nunan claimed that there is a high level of agreement in perception of semantic and discourse relationships in written texts between first and second language readers.


But this idea of Nunan does not sound right to me. According to my experience, discourse acquisition (perception of semantic and discourse relationships) in L1 and L2 is crucially different. To the extent that learning a new language is like gaining a new self.


An interesting idea that I encountered in the Nunan’s book was the Krashen’s assertation that learning and acquisition are totally separate and in SLA we should try hard to acquire the SL and reduce the amount of learning it. And I wondered how we can do that.


Another question was asked in the book: which one is more important in SLA, instruction or interaction?


The given answer was that both were necessary, but in my point of view interaction is more rewarding. I believe in classrooms which are communicative in orientation, but contains opportunities for explicit grammar instruction.


I found a beautiful sentence in the book that shows the importance of using tasks: ‘Acquisition will be maximized when learners engage in tasks that ‘push’ them to the limits of their current competence.’


Another interesting thing that I read in the book was the research result of Pica et al. he said that learners who have opportunities to negotiate meaning (make clarification requests and check comprehension) as they listen to a set of instructions, comprehend much more than students who receive a simplified set of instruction. This idea sounded weird to me at first, but when I thought about it, I found it really interesting.





                               *     *      *      *      *      *      *


Our second session has finished and now I am tying to remember what issues were discussed.


One thing that I learned is that Krashen’s claim that ‘learning and acquisition are completely different’ is prone to severe criticism.


I also found that in acquisition learner first gains procedural knowledge and then it converts to declarative knowledge. I am thinking about this and I am wondering whether I can increase the amount of learners’ acquisition. I mean is it possible to apply this in the classroom in some way?


A very beautiful thing that I learned was that a modern teacher should have 3 kinds of competence: topic competence, pedagogical competence and personal competence. And it is the third one that makes a teacher modern. Personal competence means that a teacher should know about psychology, for instance she should know how the learners feel and so on.


Another question that was raised by the teacher was: Should we apply all the methods in our classroom or we should just choose one method?


There are 3 views:


1. Some believe that the existing theories are good and they try to use those theories.


2. Some believe that we should imitate first language acquisition and we should not bother ourselves about using methods.


3. The third view which is the correct answer is that teacher should experience and do research. She/he should do both ethnographic and experiential research. The teacher should reconcile between theory and practice and decide what to do.

Journal entry 1

Preparation:

For the first session, we were supposed to have a glance at introductory materials in SLA. It included schools of thoughts in SLA. Among these schools, I was more interested in constructivism. Psychologists taking this approach have been mainly concerned with ways in which individuals come to make their own sense of the world.

I automatically related constructivism with learner-autonomy, the concept that I do believe is a key one in SLA. Constructivism explains the ways in which learners make their own personal sense of learning. And the successful educator must be one who understands the complexities of the teaching-learning process and can draw upon this knowledge to act in ways which empower learners both within and beyond the classroom situation. In this way the learner is brought into central focus in learning theory and we have the idea of learner-centeredness.

Among two important figures of constructivism, Piaget and Vigotsky, the latter’s social interactionism sounded much more helpful for me as a teacher.

Social interactionists believe that children are born into a social world and learning occurs through interaction with other people. The concept of interactionism is very crucial in learning, especially in language learning. We learn a language through using the language to interact meaningfully with other people.

In the introductory part of the Nunan’s book, there was a definition of education function which was in harmony with constructivism. It was written that the education function is to create the conditions whereby learners might generate their own skills and knowledge.

Another interesting piece of information that I found in Nunan’s book was two dimensions of learner-centeredness. The first was that the curriculum is collaborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners are closely involved in decision making process regarding the context of the curriculum and how it is thought.

There is another sense in which the term learner-centeredness is often used, in which learners are actively involved in the learning process, classrooms in which the focus is on the learner in the sense in which they do all the work. This kind of classroom is in fact consistent with a particular line of SLA research that suggests acquisition is facilitated when opportunities for learners to interact are maximized.

Assistance and Application:

There are some points that I have learned during the class session which had not taken my attention before class and I will discuss them briefly below. Since the materials we covered were mainly theoretical, I preferred to have Assistance and Application parts together.

• Widdowson emphasized on the fact that a teacher is a researcher and he/she should not apply whatever that is said by the others. Teacher should have a deep understanding and should not be just a consumer of the other’s ideas and theories. He/she should be a producer too. So Widdowson rejects the idea of assimilation of Piaget and calls it source of the problems.

• Each class should have its own methodology. We can personalize the materials and teaching. We should make a connection with the real world.

• Negotiated curriculum which was vague for me was defined by the class. It was said that we, as teachers, can have options and this is the student who decides which option to choose.

• I also learned that one solution is not appropriate and functioning for all problems. In our country we do not nativize the problems and it is one of our major problems.