Elena Serpunina, PhD
Succesfull strategies in language learning Smashwords Edition *** Copyright Š 2011 by Elena Serpunina Smashwords Edition License Notes This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with.
Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Problem Statement 2 Teaching Methods Expected and Methods Applied 2.1 History and Development of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) 2.2 History and Development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 2.3 Comparative analysis: the ALM versus CLT Chapter 2 Overview 3 Learner Strategies as a tool to develop learner autonomy 3.1 Defining Learner Autonomy 3.2 Types of Learner Strategies 3.3 Learner Strategies as a Tool of Developing Autonomy
Chapter 3 Overview 4 Explicit versus Implicit learning to learn Instruction 4.1 Learning Responsibility Transfer 4.2 Explicit versus Implicit Instruction 4.3 Learning Styles Instruction Chapter 4 Overview 5 Research design 5.1 Syllabus and Materials Overview 5.2 Methodology Design Chapter 5 Overview 6 Materials, methods and data collection 6.1 Students description 6.2 Piloting 6.3 Course of Experiment Chapter 6 Overview 7 Processing and interpreting the results 7.1 Quantative Data 7.2 Statistical methods 7.3 Analysis of Students’ Feedback 8 Conclusions 8.1 Overview 8.2 Application 8.3 Limitations and Further Research Appendix 1 Participant Consent Form Appendix 2 Background Questionnaire
Appendix 3 Before and After Likert Questionnaire Appendix 4 How I Learn English Questionnaire Appendix 5 Students’ Biweekly Log for experiment group Appendix 6 Learning Diary for control group References
1 Introduction 1.1 Background The idea of Learner autonomy proposed by Hoilec (1984) and developed by Dam (1995) and Little (2004) proves to work in the long run. It states that teaching the student how to learn motivates them to learn, gives them the responsibility for their learning and helps them become more successful students. The context of the classroom in Russia is known to be quite a teachercentric one, while the situation of acquiring English in a monolingual environment demands the student to be highly autonomous, if they want to be a successful English learner (Little, 2004) and to gain the effective level of proficiency. It is clear that the students lack the useful strategies, are unaware of their specific learning styles and have underdeveloped learner autonomy when they enter the English language classroom in Russia. The lack of these skills hinders them from being successful language learners. My own experience with teaching English with the textbooks that integrate the implicit strategy and styles instruction and autonomy development leads me to conclude that students need explicit styles and strategies instruction in order to help them become more teacher independent and to become more successful language learners and users (see Chapter 3 for more details). 1.2 Problem Statement When in the beginning of this school year we switched from audiolingual teacher centered Russian textbook to learner centered communicative New Hotline, we experienced serious difficulties from
the goal setting (why do it?) to learner diary. Not only had we to explain this concept and provide the students with several user friendly samples every week (Flaherty, et al., 2003), today they still ask us 'what is the learner diary?'. Such simple task as project 'My favorite pop star' took most of the students 3 months to complete, though the deadline was set as long as 2 weeks (and some are still busy completing it). We had been trying to get the projects done but most of them stumbled even at choosing the star let alone gathering material. Creating step-by-step instructions, pair and group assignments and samples of the finished tasks didn't help. Making these tasks obligatory and then awarding extra points for them didn't help either. They showed low self-esteem, poor time management, inability to meet deadlines and the general uncertainty about how to apply what they had learned to the personal contexts, the typical outcomes of the standard high school experience (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006). That is when we started to think about the need to introduce the explicit strategy instruction, especially metacognitive and cognitive kinds. It was hoped the students would adopt in the course of time, but they have not. At the end of the year we had well-rounded package of materials, students who wanted to learn and know English, a teacher who wanted to help and the vague feeling of mutual dissatisfaction (students with textbook, teacher with the students' attitude). The question is 'what are the possible reasons behind it?' Since we are responsible for the replacing textbook decision, this gap between wish to learn and surprising incapability to deliver touches us personally. We need to get to the reason of that. The groups were chosen due to their need and want and abilities to learn and surprising incapability to complete personally significant tasks; especially with such a simple task as a project. We sought to find the reasons of it and help students overcome their difficulties. We also did our learner profile about how personality influences proficiency and strategy instruction as well as styles and developing learner autonomy and thought it would be a useful theoretical starting point. The present paper aims at comparing two methods of styles and strategy instruction, the explicit and implicit ones, both integrated into the English as a Foreign Language course and the degree of their
influence on Learner Autonomy Development. The specific objectives are set to contribute to answering the main question. Aim: How the type of learning to learn instruction influences Learner Autonomy? Accordingly, to reach the aim, the objectives are to establish: 1. How explicit instruction influences the development of Learner Autonomy; 2. How implicit instruction influences the development of Learner Autonomy; 3. What are the outcomes in comparison? Thus we propose the following topic of the future research: Explicit Learning to Learn Instruction as a tool to develop Learner Autonomy in the context of Russian classroom. The research question is: TO WHAT EXTENT THE DIRECT LEARNING STYLES INSTRUCTION DEVELOPS LEARNER INDEPENDENCE? The object of the study is the process of learning to learn instruction, while the subject of the study the conditions under which the learning to learn instruction takes place. We suggest the following hypothesis: If Russian students experience explicit learning to learn instruction, English course integrated, then they will become more independent learners. The alternative hypothesis is that there is no difference between the explicit and implicit instruction outcomes of learner awareness. Hence we use the following thesis outline: The paper consists of 8 chapters. It begins with the short introduction followed by Literature overview (Chapters 2-4) that gives the outline of the before and after teaching methods compared, self-awareness
and explicit strategy instruction. Chapters 5 and 6 describe the methodology and the obtaining of the results respectively, while in chapter 7 we finally focus on interpretation of them. Chapter 8 briefly summarizes the results and their application and limitations and proposes the questions for further research. The appendices contain the consent form as well as questionnaire and log samples.
2 Teaching Methods Expected and Methods Applied One of the main features of the language pedagogy development has been the attempt to renew language teaching through changes in teaching method. In the past five decades, the three separate paradigms have emerged that define the theoretical background on which classroom instruction is based. Audiolingualism and communicative approach are classically juxtaposed in every way and yet both claim the principal goal of theirs being communication. In the Russian classroom audio-lingual method with grammarian overtones predominates still, while the authentic English language textbooks promote the Balanced Approach within the Communicative paradigm. Thus question arises: ‘What are the principles and practices of these methods in which they strive to achieve the same goal?’ The next sections of the paper attempt to answer this question. In the first subchapter we trace the history and the methods that contribute to the emergence of the audio-lingual method and its main features as well as limitations. The second subchapter discusses the development of Communicative Language Teaching, the levels of communicative competence and the weak points of the methodology. The third part aims at critically comparing the two methodologies in terms of origins, goals and principles and student/teacher relationships. Last paragraphs of the chapter 2 shortly conclude about weaknesses and strengths of both methodologies. 2.1 History and Development of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) The emergence of ALM is well described by Brown who accentuates how prominent theories in linguistics and psychology influenced
practice at that time: In the middle of the century the unique advances of both linguistics and psychology had a profound and lasting effect on language teaching methodology. Structural linguistics had provided tools for dissecting language into its smallest parts and for contrasting two languages ‘scientifically’ and behavioral psychology had provided a model for teaching virtually any behavior by operant conditioning. The two theoretical stances merged perfectly to give language teachers a method firmly grounded in theory: the Audio-Lingual Method. (Brown, 1980, p.242) In Britain the ALM was adopted in the form of the Oral or Situational Approach (1940-60s) which used pattern structures around situations that would provide the learners with maximum opportunity to practice the target language, usually through choral repetition. Skinner’s influential book Verbal Behavior (1957) brilliantly summarized the findings already existent in methodology and provided a solid theoretical ground for the new method. The whole concept of S>R->R was easily adapted to language learning methodology: ‘The student is encouraged to produce repetitively a suitable sound in his own language and is rewarded each time there is a phonetic variation in the direction of the foreign language sound until gradually only productions of the new sounds are rewarded’. (McDonough, 1981, pp. 14-15) The behavioral view of both language and language learning dominated foreign language teaching methodology for several decades resulting in classroom emphasis of controlled practice with careful reinforcement (Brown, 1980). The Audio-Lingual Method shares many features with behaviorist teaching methodologies. The first principle reads that language learning is a process of habit formation. The second one is that analogy; the processes of generalization and discrimination provide a better foundation for language learning than analysis. Lastly, language is speech; speaking skills should be presented first. Thus the main features of the ALM are as follows: 1. A detailed set of high- and low-level learning objectives is provided.
2. Materials are presented in a highly-structured, predetermined manner. 3. A conversation is followed by an introduction to sentence patterns and drills of them. 4. Vocabulary learning is kept to minimum; the meanings of words can be learned only in linguistic and cultural contexts. 5. A variety of repetitive language drills enable learners to form correct analogies and to reinforce positive learning. Student/teacher relationship As a variety of drills is set to practice, learning paths are predetermined. The authoritative teacher is at the center of the learning process, he provides resources, instructs and corrects; students learn from the teacher, as a result they are passive responders, not initiators. Students’ errors have to be corrected right away to prevent the formation of bad L2 habits. Language mastery is represented as acquiring a set of appropriate language stimulusresponse chains, a habit formation. Students develop ‘right’ language habits by drilling, often using technology such as tape recordings in language labs, such drills making the learning process impersonal. Limitations of the ALM The changes in linguistic theory in the 1960's challenged the structural view of language as well as the behaviorist view of language learning. The theoretical foundation of auidolingualism was attacked as being unsound both in terms of language theory and learning theory. According to Chomsky’s (1966) Universal Grammar concept, sentences are not learned by imitation and repetition but generate from the learner’s underlying linguistic competence. Furthermore, the practical results of the approach fell short of expectations. Though communication was stated the goal, students could not transfer skills acquired to real communication outside the classroom, demonstrating a lack of the long-term communicative proficiency. The ALM is also criticized for its error avoidance, which creates tension and nervousness in students fearing to make a mistake (by Krashen). The experience of studying through audio-lingual procedures is tiresome, boring and unsatisfying. The drill process itself expels the human aspect of both learning and teaching.
To sum up the ALM is based on Behavioral Psychology (the concepts of language behavior and habit formation), Structuralism (basic sentence patterns) and the Contrastive Analysis (the morpheme studies). This method aims at using the target language communicatively by intensive oral drilling. ‘Language learning is overlearning; anything else is of no use’, according to L. Bloomfield (Quoted in: Blair, 1986, p. 4). Developed through 1930s, it had its highlight in 1950s and decline in 1970s; it is still applied in many corners of the world and works well with highly motivated students. The method fails to develop oral proficiency and can be tiresome and impersonal demotivating the student. The dissatisfaction with the Audio-Lingual Method was one of a number of factors that caused a shift to other, more person-orientated approaches in the teaching of second and foreign languages. 2.2 History and Development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Communicative Language Teaching with its emphasis on meaning and communication and its learner-centered concept has served as the dominant approach to language teaching since the decline of the ALM. Though the communicative method gained its wide popularity in the 1980s, its development began in the early 1960s with coinage of the term ‘communicative competence’ in 1966. American sociologist Dell Hymes, who found Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance inadequate arguing that it places ‘ideal objects in abstraction from socio-cultural features that might enter into their description’ (Hymes, 1971, p.7) and proposed the term communicative competence.1 In Hyme’s view, a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and ability for language use. During the early 1970s the concept of communicative competence became the core of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). The work of the American applied linguist Krashen (1978) and his distinction between acquisition versus learning (the acquisition approach) also provided a theoretical foundation for understanding the
important role of communication in second-language learning. All these diverse concepts of Hymes, Halliday, Krashen as well as the further development of psycho- and sociolinguistics stressed the importance of the language as the functional means of communication. The notional-functional syllabus can be considered as somewhat a precursor to the CLT methodology, its goal being communicative competence development by using authentic language and materials (magazines, newspapers and graphic and visual sources around which communicative activities, such as information gap, choice and feedback tasks, might be constructed). The integration of content, meaning and functions became a must and the principle of meaningful and authentic language use was applied (Hadley, 2001, p.116). Moreover, another remark about the CLT should be made. We can describe CLT as an approach rather than a method, because it represents a philosophy of teaching that is based on communicative language use. Many language teaching methodologies are more or less in touch with communicative teaching now, task-based learning included. So the basics of the CLT in addition to those mentioned as the part of the notional-functional syllabus are these: 1. Meaning is primary; contextualization is basic. 2. Social functions of language are accentuated. 3. Attempts to communicate in TL are encouraged in the beginning of instruction and the ability to communicate in the TL is developed as well as integrative skills. 4. L1 is acceptable when feasible. 5. Activities include role play, drama, simulations and a variety of games, almost all done in groups and/or pairs. 6. Teacher as a facilitator using TL fluently and appropriately and offering comprehensible input at a level just beyond that currently acquired by the learner. Student/teacher relationship A tolerance for errors means that learners are not being constantly corrected to produce frustration or anxiety. Instead, errors are seen as
a normal phenomenon in the communicative process. Purposeful interaction (between the teacher and the learner as well as between the learner and the learner) is an important feature of the communicative classroom. Through grouping, pairing, and cooperation, students have the opportunity to express their own individuality, establish a positive self-image and produce comprehensible output, while being constantly instrumentally motivated to use the language. In relation to the roles of teacher and student, Richards and Rodgers note that CLT ‘often requires teachers to acquire less teacher-centered classroom management skills’ (Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p. 78). Their role is to organize the classroom as a setting for communication. Their role is not of a suppressor and controller. Littlewood describes the role of the teacher in CLT as that of a ‘facilitator of learning’, a consultant, advisor, coordinator of activities, classroom manager, cocommunicator, ‘human among humans’ who ‘steps out of his didactic role’ (Littlewood, 1983, p. 94). Limitations of CLT However, despite CLT being an improvement over preceding innovations, the reliance on a single concept of communication is a disadvantage. Stern explains: In order to account for all varieties and aspects of language teaching we either stretch the concept of communication so much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or we accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the predicament of the 'method' solution: an excessive emphasis on a single concept (Stern, 1992, p. 14). Other weaknesses are the favoritism of native-speaker teachers as possessing higher communicative competence and proficiency in the target language; difficulty in class management while a lot of pair and group communication takes place and in material control while a lot of it being authentic; lack of the explicit teaching of grammar, resulting in a consequent loss among students in accuracy in the pursuit of fluency. The zero position of the teacher not only rejects planned intervention in L2 learning (by presenting and practicing grammatical features) but also of unplanned intervention (incidental error correction). Other-directed learners can better succeed as they focus on language as an interpersonal social task, while inner-directed ones approach language learning as an intrapersonal task. CLT is a great challenge
both for teachers and students when the latter ones have small vocabulary and scarce knowledge of grammar, thus making the meaningful communication difficult. To sum it up CLT has become the most commonly accepted methodology for language programs since the 1980s. It is based on concepts by Chomsky (linguistic competence), Hymes (communicative competence), Halliday (basic language functions) and Krashen (acquisition versus learning, developmental nature of errors). This method stresses the communicative aspect of teaching language, concentrating on its function. Authentic materials, pair and group work, role play and simulation and information gap activities are preferred. The approach is learner-centered and individualityorientated. However, there are some limitations to this method, the main two being language forms understress and the demand of high level of proficiency in order to communicate meaningfully. 2.3 Comparative analysis: the ALM versus CLT The ALM and CLT were developed consequently in 1960s and 1970s and are used simultaneously. Their theory counterparts each other, so it will be interesting and useful to compare those two methodologies. As we can see from the previous subchapters, both methods are well rooted in theory, the ALM in psychology and general linguistics and CLT in applied linguistics and SLA. Though communication was stated the final goal within both methodologies, they achieved it in different ways, the former stressing accuracy and language structure through cognition and repetition, and the latter basing on the notions of competence, proficiency and social function of language. The goal of the ALM is to create language laboratory providing students with the opportunity of as many graded patterns repetitions as possible. The focus is on language habit formation and the learners’ ability to correctly reproduce the everyday speech patterns. The repetitions are viewed as the reinforced behavior and do not demand any personal involvement. The goal of CLT is to create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom. The focus is on functional language usage and the ability of learners to express their own ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs.
The part of the ALM teacher is to orchestrate the choral repetitions, to be a role model for accuracy in pronunciation and grammar competence (sometimes this can be redirected to the technical devices), a source of graded language and an error corrector (teachercentered approach). CLT claims no teacher intervention and places the learner in the center of the learning process, allowing the student to interact getting assistance from the teacher. Linguistic competence is based on the communication within the minimal vocabulary and a set of grammar patterns or ready-made dialogues within the ALM with the teacher, in choir or in pairs. CLT stresses the development of both grammar and pragmatic competences. Students usually work with realia in small groups on communication activities, during which they receive practice in negotiating meaning. The area of attention of the ALM is pronunciation, grammar and oral skills (the main techniques are the variety of drills), while CLT stresses the meaning and interaction skills (open ended questioning and problem-solving activities and exchanges of personal information are utilized as the primary means of communication). Vocabulary is not emphasized in both methodologies. The practices of the ALM in accordance with behaviorist views are based exceptionally on different kinds of drills (substitution, transformation) and exercises stressing contrast with L1 or language structure in general (grammar games). As far as CLT is concerned, its techniques heavily rely on co-operation and information gap activities all done with communication as the principal goal in mind. Though the comparative analysis makes the ALM look much less attractive than CLT, the differences are not as striking as they seem to be. The two methodologies actually have a thing or two in common. Their primer goal is to teach pronunciation, to develop functional language proficiency and make the students understand everyday speech. A certain focus on culture is maintained as well. It also should be emphasized, that limitations of each methodology lie in its strengths. The ALM has been strongly overcriticized in favor of CLT, but is not the cure-all in itself.
First of all, the ALM suits well the beginners or elementary level with its stress on good pronunciation and grammar accuracy, as well as discrete speech samples and a set of short and long-term goals. L1 comparison to prevent interference is a reasonable measure, too, especially with a small amount of FL classroom hours within high school system. Besides, linguistic competence is a foundation, on which we can develop other competences, not with the help of drills, of course. Next on the basis of established linguistic competence, developed by the ALM, CLT can be applied with intermediate and advanced levels. Students who achieve such high levels of proficiency certainly don’t need any drills or teacher’s intervention, but will gain from real life situations, authentic materials, the variety of discourses and comprehensible input offered by CLT, though engaging in communicative activities, which still are a behavior. Finally, though Chomsky strongly criticized the ALM for the overreliance on the behaviorist theories, there is a definite amount of cognitive procedure involved in the learning process. The development of the linguistic competence (recognition precedes production) and structure learning are impossible without some mental efforts from the learner. A definite amount of language awareness underlies CLT as well, that being only of the higher level (pragmatic and strategic ones). Moreover, both methodologies comprise of the same three aspects (behavioral, cognitive and communicative ones), the latter underplayed in the ALM, while the former underplayed in CLT. Chapter 2 Overview The development of the L2 Teaching Methodologies throughout the last half of the 20th century shows that each method considered is based on the certain learning theory and inspired by the findings in the humanities. Though new methods or approaches imply a certain 'break from the old', they maintain a link with the past by incorporating positive aspects of theories they deny. The communicative approach owes much to the rejection of the behaviorist assumptions, the adoption of Chomsky’s transformational grammar, and communication theories.
Yet, no method is perfect, both the ALM and CLT have their own strengths and limitations, which do not hold them back from still being influential in the world. CLT nowadays acknowledges a deal of control over classroom and materials and language awareness and mild error correction, as a result of borrowing positive (behavioral and cognitive) aspects from the ALM. After all, the right thing to do in the classroom will be not to stick with a certain methodology, but rather combine different types of those that meet the specific needs of the specific students in the specific learning/teaching context, thus developing a somewhat eclectic approach but in a really good working kind of way. The teacher should seek to achieve the right balance between the behavioral, cognitive and communicative aspects of the learning process. Studying findings and principles of language learning and teaching as well as teaching methods available help language teachers get broader view of the context they place their students in.
3 Learner Strategies as a tool to develop learner autonomy It is recognized now that language learning strategies (LLS) are the key to learner autonomy (LA). In order to facilitate the autonomy in their students, teachers need to incorporate learning strategy instruction into their language lessons. L2 research can assist autonomous learning by ensuring that the learner is offered ‘a range of choices with an adequate coverage of the diverse nature of l2 learning’ (Harris et al, 2001, p.5). Studies in Learner Autonomy and Learning Strategies (LS) are relatively new fields of research. They didn’t catch the attention of the scholars until mid 1970s, when first CRAPEL research in France and the so-called liberation of education began. Autonomous learning is not yet widely used, perhaps because autonomization threatens the power of educational structures. It is also not clear if it would fit with all kinds of mainstream educational systems (Little, 2004). Little (2000) explained though that learner autonomy is crucial for two interrelated reasons: one reason is that students perform more successfully and are more focused if they are involved in initiating,
reflecting and assessing their learning process. The other reason is that if the learners are engaged in learning a foreign language in such a way, they can then transfer the ability to act autonomously to other spheres. Thus the question arises ‘What learning strategies contribute to development of learner autonomy and responsibility?’ The next sections of the paper attempt to answer this question. The first subchapter of the chapter critically compares how different authors describe learner autonomy as well as responsibility and how the two relate to each other. The second subchapter discusses different groups of learner strategies. In the third subchapter we study the range of learner strategies as a tool of developing learner autonomy and responsibility. Last paragraphs of the chapter 3 briefly conclude about the results and the study limitations. 3.1 Defining Learner Autonomy The first to introduce the concept of LA was Henry Holec, though Benson (2001) names Yves Chântole to be ‘the father of autonomy’. Holec states that there is a need to stimulate the individual’s freedom by developing the abilities which entail the student to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society (Holec, 1981). Little supports this point of view and believes that learner autonomy depends on a capacity for ‘detachment, critical reflection, decisionmaking, and independent action’ (Little 1991, p.4). Leni Dam (1995) agrees with Holec (1981) and Little (1991) and acknowledges that learners take their first step towards autonomy when they accept responsibility for their own learning. However, the development of learner autonomy also has a socialinteractive dimension, as successful classroom experiments make clear. Learner autonomy develops through interdependence: interaction, co-operation and collaboration on the part of the language learners (Dam, 1995).
Little (2000) observes that we remember important learning experiences in terms of our relationship either with one or more other learners or with our teacher. There are three reasons for this: 1. All humans have a need for communication or face-to-face interaction to function successfully in the society; 2. Responsibility put on students enhances co-operation and collaboration on the part of the learners; 3. Proactive commitment to learning increases motivation and helps develop the reflective and attitudinal resources to overcome temporary 'motivational setbacks’. Naoko Aoki (1999) adds the emotional aspect to autonomy defining it as a psychological construct and a capacity to take control of one’s own learning ‘in the service of one’s perceived needs and aspirations’. (Aoki, 1999, p. 144). According to Schurle and Szabo, the autonomy is 'the freedom and ability to manage one's own affairs, which entails the right to make decisions.' These authors single out responsibility defining it as 'being in charge of something, but with the implication that one has to deal with the consequences of one's own actions' (Schurle & Szabo, 2000, p. 4) and conclude that both are interrelated. Yet another aspect, socio-political one, should be highlighted as in the following definition, ‘Autonomy is recognition of the rights of learners within educational systems' (Benson, 2001). Nevertheless, most researchers agree that learner autonomy requires a positive attitude towards language and culture, a capacity for reflection and responsibility, self-management as well as readiness for interaction and feedback. Having considered various definitions of learner autonomy we can conclude that autonomy is a complex construct including emotional (motivation and attitude), executive (responsibility, reflection) and social (interaction) components. We believe responsibility to be an
explicit part of autonomy. 3.2 Types of Learner Strategies Weinstein and Mayer (1986) point out that the goal of learner (or learning) strategies use is to ‘affect the learner’s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge’ (quoted in: Lessard-Clouston, 1997). Learner strategies at the same time are ‘special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information’ (O'Malley & Chamot (2000, p.1). All the strategies are communication ones, since they all develop 4 basic skills and language competence in general (Lessard-Clouston, 1997). Learning strategies have several classifications. Rebecca Oxford (1990) distinguishes between direct (memory, cognitive and compensation) and indirect learning strategies (metacognitive, affective and social ones). O'Malley and Chamot (2000) combine the latter two into the socio-affective group but we adhere to Oxford’s classification. Memory strategies assist in adding information to memory, store it there and then retrieve it, while cognitive (receiving and producing messages in the TL) operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning. Compensation strategies help overcome the gaps in the language knowledge. As Oxford insists, the direct strategies can be of limited application depending on specific tasks, since they involve TL. Indirect strategies are not implicated in the specific knowledge and hence can be a tool for a wider variety of tasks. Metacognitive strategies are higher order executive skills than the cognitive ones. They involve thinking about the learning process, focusing attention, planning for learning, monitoring of comprehension or production while it is taking place, and self-evaluation (or selfassessment) after the learning activity has been completed and help exercise 'executive control' in general. Affective strategies include ideational control over affect and help learners manage feelings, motivations, and attitudes related to
language learning. Among the examples are such techniques as lowering your anxiety and encouraging yourself (both are often referred to as self-talk) as well as taking your emotional temperature. Finally, social strategies represent a broad grouping that reflects the influence of social processes on learning and involves interaction with another person, their function is to "facilitate interaction with others, often in a discourse situation" (Oxford, 1990 quoted in: LessardClouston, 1997). O'Malley and Chamot (1990, 2000) suggest two representative strategies such as cooperation (or cooperative learning), and asking questions for clarification. Oxford adds empathizing with others to the examples. 3.3 Learner Strategies as a Tool of Developing Autonomy Bearing several dimensions of learner autonomy in mind and hypothesizing that indirect strategies are possible tools for developing autonomy we create a framework endeavoring to see how the LA can be developed with the help of LLS. First of all, it should be noted that although we separate components and strategies for the sake of our study they work together, probably at once and not one at a time. We must remember that the first step is political, acknowledging that LA exists. Acknowledging autonomy is a great motivating factor for the learner. We see then that emotional component can be very well exercised with affective strategies. Secondly, executive dimension is developed with the help of metacognitive strategies. There are specific metacognitive strategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 2000) for every state: the first, selective attention develops responsibility, while reflection is enabled by planning, monitoring and evaluation. Metacognitive strategies are often called procedural or executive knowledge and can exercises ‘being in charge’ aspect of LA.