2.2
THE TAXONOMY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
While researching into LLS, researcher may come across several models of taxonomy that are fundamental in helping us to understand the use of learning strategies among language learners. These taxonomies can also form the foundation of the development of a learning to learn programme. The following are some of the most comprehensive LLS models that represent several different domains.
2.2.1
The Language Learning Strategies Model of O’Malley and Chamot
A research on the use of language learning strategies in learning English as the second language among high school students was conducted by O’Malley, Chamot, StewnerManzanares, Kupper & Russo (1985). The study was conducted through interviews and classroom observation. They have managed to identify 26 different strategies employed by the students. The strategies have been categorised into three: metacognitive, cognitive and socio-affective. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) extended their research on second language learners of English and further divided the strategies into three (refer to table 2.1).
Metacognitive strategies are strategies for planning for learning, thinking about the process of learning, monitoring results and understanding, and evaluating learning after a particular language task has been completed. This strategy will act as a catalyst that will make learning more efficient and successful (Anderson 1983). Examples of metacognitive strategies are coming up with a timetable, conversing with native speakers, identifying mistakes and improving language skills.
Cognitive Strategies focuses on the learning. It covers all the activities to manipulate learning materials continuously through different ways. It involves the strategies of managing resources, making arrangement, summarising, elaborating, labelling, transferring information and many more. Learners may for example, repeat a newly learned word, arrange and classify it according to its meaning and syntax. He may also summarise information that he listened to or read in the target language.
O’Malley and Chamot (1990) are of the opinion that metacognitive strategies complement each other. The combination of these two strategies would make learning become more effective. Anderson (1983) stresses that the increase in the awareness of metacognitive strategies will strengthen cognitive skills.
Table 2.1 Classification of LLS by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) Metacognitive Strategies Advance organization: Previewing the main ideas and concepts of the material to be learned, often by skimming the text for the organizing principle. Advance preparation: Rehearsing the language needed for an oral or written task. Organizational planning: Planning the parts, sequence, and main ideas to be expressed orally or in writing Selective attention: Attending to or scanning key words, phrases, linguistic markers, sentences, or types of information Self-monitoring: Checking one’s comprehension during listening or reading, or checking one’s oral or written production while it is taking place. Self-evaluation: Judging how well one has accomplished a learning task. Self-management: Seeking or arranging the conditions that help one learn, such as finding opportunities for additional language or content input and practice.
Cognitive Strategies Resourcing: Using reference materials such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Grouping: Classifying words, terminology, numbers, or concepts according to their attributes. Note taking: Writing down key words and concepts in abbreviated verbal, graphic, or numerical form. Summarizing: Making a mental or written summary of information gained through listening or reading. Deduction: Applying rules to understand or produce language or solve problems. Imagery: Using visual images (either mental or actual) to understand and remember new information or to make a mental representation of a problem. Auditory representation: Playing in back of one’s mind the sound of a word, phrase, or fact in order to assist comprehension and recall. Elaboration: Relating new information to prior knowledge, relating different parts of new information to each other, or making meaningful personal associations with the new information. Transfer: Using what is already known about language to assist comprehension or production. Inferencing: Using information in the text to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes, or complete missing parts.
Social and Affective Strategies Questioning for clarification: Eliciting from a teacher or peer additional explanation, rephrasing, examples, or verification. Cooperation: Working together with peers to solve a problem, pool information, check a learning task, or get feedback on oral or written performance. Self-talk: Reducing anxiety by using mental techniques that make one feel competent to do the learning task.
Social affective strategies work as a medium for social activities and interacting with other people. Asking for clarification and cooperation are some of the strategies under this umbrella. This can be further detailed into more specific strategies like cooperating with peers to solve a problem, pooling information, checking a learning task and getting feedback on a learning activity.
The taxonomy presented by O’Malley and Chamot (1990) is closely related to the aspects of psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic in acquiring a target language. Metacognitive and cognitive strategies are of the behavioural and mental domains which reflect the aspects of psycholinguistic. Social affective strategies on the other hand, represent social domain that is closely linked to the aspects of sociolinguistic.
2.2.2
The Language Learning Strategies Model of Oxford
Based on her earlier classification, Oxford (1990a) has devised a comprehensive language learning strategies system that is closely tied to the four main language skills. The taxonomy is considered to be the most comprehensive to date (Ellis 1994) and the foundation is based on a very sound LLS theory.
Oxford’s taxonomy classifies language learning behaviours according to their purpose and use. The development of the taxonomy took into consideration the view of the learners and not merely based on metacognitive and cognitive aspects.. I. Memory Strategies
Direct Strategies
II. Cognitive Strategies III. Compensation Strategies
Learning Strategies
Indirect Strategies
I. Metacognitive Strategies II. Affective Strategies III. Social Strategies
Figure 1. Diagram of the Strategy System: Overview (taken from Oxford: 1990)
Furthermore it also employed the use of cognitive, emotion and physical resources. Oxford (1990a) classified language learning strategies into two main categories which are direct and indirect strategies. Under the two categories, she has further divided language learning strategies into six main groups. Memory, cognitive and compensation strategies are under direct strategies while metacognitive, affective and social strategies are categorised as indirect strategies. These are further subdivided into 19 different strategies that are based on further 62 specific strategies. This is best explained in the figure 1.
Table 2.2 explains direct language learning strategies where these strategies are seen to have direct impact with the target language and require mental processing. In this system, memory strategies are used to store and retrieve information, transform information in the form of facts to skills. A good example of this is grouping verbs into transitive or intransitive. Cognitive strategies are used to manipulate language and they allow students to make sense of learning. An example of this type of strategy is contrastively analysing words in mother tongue that have similarities with the words in the target language in terms of sound and meaning. Compensation strategies assist learners to tackle loopholes in their knowledge to sustain communication. The strategies help the learners to read and speak in the target language even without having commanding knowledge of the target language. Through the use of linguistic clues for instance, a learner may be able to guess the topic of a conversation through the verbs used.
Table 2.2 Direct strategies Main Strategies
Sub-strategies Creating mental linkages
Strategies -grouping -associating/elaborating -placing new words into context
Applying images and MEMORY
sounds
-using imagery -semantic mapping -using keywords -representing sounds in memory
Reviewing well Employing Action
-Structured reviewing -using physical response -using mechanical tricks/sensation
Practice
-repeating -formally practicing with sounds and writing system
COGNITIVE
-recognising and using formulas and patterns -recombining -practicing naturalistically Receiving and sending messages
-getting the idea quickly -using resources for receiving and sending messages
Analyzing and reasoning
-reasoning deductively -analyzing expressions -analyzing contrastively -translating -transferring
Creating structure for input -taking notes and output
-summarizing -highlighting
Table 2.3 illustrates indirect strategies that would provide indirect support to language learning through concentration, planning, evaluation and many more. Metacognitive strategies would help learners to manage their learning through planning and evaluation. An example of this is the delay of speech to give more attention to listening. For a learner who lacks the confidence to speak in the target language, listening to his friends’ conversation would provide input and perhaps some silent practice. Affective strategies deal with learners’ affective domains like managing emotion, attitude, and motivation. Making positive statements after making a mistake like saying ‘everybody makes mistake’ exemplifies this. Social strategies encourage learning through interactions with others. Students may be able to
increase their knowledge of the target’s language culture by conversing with the native speakers.
As shown in table 2.3, Oxford has separated O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) socioaffective strategy into two main strategies that are social and affective strategies. Furthermore, she has included more strategies into the two main strategies compared to only three proposed by O’Malley and Chamot (refer to table 2.1). Oxford’s model has given more emphasis on the two strategies and this was based on thorough research on cognitive and educational psychology (Oxford 1990a).
All the strategies proposed by Oxford complement, complete and interact with each other. For instance, metacognitive strategies help the learners to manage their learning through the assessment of how they learn and plan their language learning tasks. The assessment and planning which are metacognitive would usually require mental processing which is very much a cognitive strategy. Similarly, the strategy of guessing the meaning of unfamiliar word which is considered compensational requires cognition and also awareness towards the socio cultural background of the target language which belongs to social strategy (Oxford 1990a).
Table 2.3 Indirect language learning strategies Main Strategies
Sub-strategies Centering your learning
Strategies -overviewing and linking with already known materials -paying attention -delaying speech production to focus on listening
Arranging and planning your learning METACOGNITIVE
-finding out about language learning -organizing -setting goals and objectives -identifying purpose of task -planning for the task -seeking practice opportunities
Evaluating your learning
-self monitoring -self evaluating
Lowering your anxiety
-using progressive relaxation, deep breathing or meditation -using music -using laughter
Encouraging yourself
-making positive statements -taking risks wisely
AFFECTIVE
-rewarding yourself Taking your emotional temperature
-listening to your body -using a checklist -writing a language learning diary -discussing your feeling with someone
Asking questions
-asking for clarification /verification -asking for correction
SOCIAL Cooperating with others
-cooperating with peers -cooperating with efficient users of the new language
Empathizing with others
-developing cultural understanding -becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings.
Even though Oxford’s taxonomy (1990a) is considered quite comprehensive and advanced, the researcher admitted that there is no ultimate consensus as to how many strategies there are, how they should be defined and also categorized. There is also no agreement on the definite and scientifically valid way of constructing the hierarchy for language learning strategies.
Based on the classification, Oxford had developed two versions of LLS’s survey that is famously known as SILL (Strategy Inventory of Language Learning). Version 5.1 which contains 80 items was designed for learners of foreign languages and whose mother tongue is English. Version 7.0 which consists of 50 items was devised for students who learn English as second or foreign language.
Hsiao and Oxford (2002) conducted a research to compare three different classifications of language learning strategies (Rubin 1981; O’Malley and Chamot 1990; and Oxford 1990a) and discovered that Oxford’s LLS taxonomy is more effective and efficient in identifying the various strategies employed by learners. This may be the compelling reason for the success of Oxford’s model which has been widely used by researchers and educators around the globe. SILL has been translated into 23 languages and has been used in more that 120 dissertations (Lan 2005). Apart from that, not less than 50 researches involving more than 8000 learners of language have been conducted using various statistical methods to test the usability, validity and reliability of SILL (Oxford & Burry-Stock 1995).
2.2.3
The Language Learning Strategies Model of Mohamed Amin
Mohamed Amin (1996, 2000) believes that the environment, the setting and the atmosphere of learning a language would largely influence learners’ choice of strategies. Therefore he opines that the use of LLS should be analysed and researched based on the varying settings and atmospheres. Indirectly he preceded Macaro (2001) with the assertion that LLS domains should not be rigidly tied to stereotypical classification based on cognitive learning theories only. Whilst admitting that Oxford’s taxonomy is the most comprehensive classification of LLS to date, he reserves his own opinion that certain categories in Oxfords’ taxonomy are unsuitable for second or foreign language learning.
Mohamed Amin (1996, 2000) developed his taxonomy based on the second language acquisition model by Ellis (1994). This particular model outlines that individual differences along with social factors and situations influence the choice and the use of learning strategies. The frequency and the type of LLS used would determine the level of success in learning and acquiring a target language.
By employing unstructured classroom observations, semi structured interviews and questionnaire, Mohamed Amin (1996) carried out an interpretative-descriptive research to identify the LLS used by secondary school students in Malaysia while learning English. For that purpose, he divided LLS into three main strategies namely classroom LLS, out-of-class LLS and exam LLS (refer to table 2.4).
Among the strategies listed under classroom learning strategies are sitting near students who are proficient in the target language, asking for a friend’s or teacher’s clarification and answer silently to oneself. Examples of out-of-class strategies are conversing in English with the parents at home, discussing with friends after class and watching English movies. Exam language learning strategies are strategies that are related to the learner’s preparation leading to an examination such as joining a discussion group, doing exercises in workbooks and memorising essay format.
Later on Mohamed Amin (1996) carried out a factor analysis to gain insights into the dimensions that would explain the outcomes of the research. As a result he managed to identify nine themes or dimensions that possess high shared variance such as the use of the target language, preparation for exam and focussed learning (refer to table 2.4).
Environment and setting are some of the more dominant factors in determining the readiness of learning a particular language. Hence, the classification somewhat brings a new dimension to the field of LLS. It successfully links the two factors to the LLS used without giving too much attention to the concept of cognitive, metacognitive, memory and so on.
Table 2.4 the Classifications of LLS by Mohamed Amin (1996, 2000) Main Strategies
Dimensions of Strategies - Language use
Classroom LLS (CLLS)
-Exam preparation -The use of media -Dealing with new words
Out-of-class LLS(OLLS)
-Focussed learning -Social learning outside the class -Social learning in the class
Exam LLS (ELLS)
-Early preparation before class -Physical structuring in the class
This classification has become the basis of many researches on LLS in Malaysia involving several languages. Some of these researches are Mohd Nazali (1999) and Zamri (2004) for LLS in learning the Malay language, Faizahani (2002, Punithavalli (2003), and Ismail (2004) for LLS in learning English, and Kamarul Shukri (2009) for LLS in learning Arabic.