Please note: This post was co-authored with Dylan Vinales of Garden Internationa School

Last week I had one of those weird out-of-the-body experiences whereby you watch and listen to yourself teach. To my dismay, during my quiz-starter I was uttering to my very keen year 7 French students – armed with MWBs- the sentence: “j’aime les lapins car ils sont mignons, poilus et joueurs” (= I like rabbits because they are cute, furry and playful”). My heart sank. Mon Dieu ! What was I teaching them?

Truth is, I was following the Expo-One- based schemes of work – Unit 3 animals, etc. And, fortunately, our students are intrinsically motivated third-culture kids who love learning languages! Still, why would 21^st century teen-agers want to spend six weeks of their French learning talking about pets? How relevant is that to their daily life, personal interests, academic goals? Do not get me wrong, I am an animal lover and I do believe that the topic lends itself to the teaching of some useful linguistic content; however, emotional response to and relevance of the to-be-learnt information to one’s personal interests and goals being important components of motivation in any learning, I wondered: what’s in it for them? Why should they be interested in this?

The same applies to many other topics included in current MFL course-books based on the England and Wales curriculum. Take for example the topic ‘house-chores’ notoriously one of the things teenagers hate the most about their daily life – how inspiring is such a topic going to be for year 8 students of French, Spanish or German? Even the topic ‘Jobs and future career’. Yes, I see the value of reflecting on their future life in year 9 as this is the time in which they usually choose their GCSE options and a lot of career orientation goes on. But really? Does anyone in their right mind think that teen-agers would enjoy talking about future careers – in French! – at the age of 13?

The list of uninspiring topics and sub-topics that books and teachers teach in foreign language lessons is endless and is partly influenced by the GCSE examinations topics. However, in my opinions, the main culprits are textbook writers and, to a less degree, teachers who are often not in touch with teen-agers’ lifestyle, interests and aspirations. Yet teachers often complain about students not being engaged and motivated. Would you be, if you were in their shoes? Having to talk in your early teens about pets, house-chores, pencil case objects, part-time jobs or future careers, a fictitious boy or girl’s trip to Normandy (to see the Bayeux tapestry of all things!) and other topics which are kind of useful but do receive, in my view, too much emphasis when one considers the relevance and the surrender value that they hold for pubescent language learners.

Teachers and curriculum designer, especially when they are not blessed with intrinsically motivated children, should ask themselves the following questions, when creating schemes of work: what topics and/or sub-topics are my students REALLY interested in? What words do they really need to learn and which ones would they enjoy learning? How may meeting their needs and preferences impact their preparation for GCSE or whatever examinations they will sit later on?

Of course, no curriculum should be entirely based on students’ preferences; adults do have the ethical responsibility to ensure that the teaching imparts knowledge, values and skills that student may not necessarily see as relevant or interesting. However, I wonder to what extent, as adults, curriculum designers and teachers are truly aware of what their teen-age students actually do outside school, what they watch on television or on Youtube; what books they read; what music they listen to; what they share on their favourite social media; what their main concerns and anxieties are; what they truly enjoy about life. And if they are mindful of this in their short-, medium- and long-term planning.

After all, although the new 21^st centuries technologies and societal changes have exacerbated the already big generational gap that has always existed between parents and their children, the textbooks topics and vocabulary content has not massively changed. Take the Tricolore series – apart from some cosmetic changes, it is basically the same book I used to teach from 25 years ago…

For some teachers the answer would be to adopt a PBL approach. I do not agree, however, as I have strong reservations about it that I have already expressed in previous posts. The main ones: (1) students do not get enough aural and oral practice; (2) they spend too much time producing artefacts; (3) the focus is often on developing the final product rather than on language skills.

As far as I am concerned, in an ideal world the solution would be for curriculum designers, textbook creators and teachers to find out what students are really interested in; what they see as relevant to their personal needs, goals and aspirations; what they enjoy talking about; and use this information to create more motivating and inspiring linguistic content and learning activities.

Please note: this paper has been written in collaboration with Steve Smith of http://www.frenchteacher.net and my G.I.S.K.L. colleague Dylan Vinales.

 

In this paper I shall compare two different language teaching methodologies, the Grammar-Translation methodology, still used in quite a lot of institutions worldwide ( e.g. some UK and Malaysian universities) and the Communicative Language Teaching approach, possibly today’s most popular instructional method worldwide . It should be pointed out that the labels ‘Grammar Translation’ (GT) and ‘Communicative Language Teaching’ (CLT) do not refer to two fixed sets of instructional frameworks whose principles have been formally and permanently codified by their founders or proponents. On the contrary, GT is a term used by specialized authors in their reviews of the history of Applied Linguistics (e.g Brown, 1994) to describe the oldest documented form of L2 teaching in man’s history.

The label CLT, on the other hand, does indeed designate meaning-based methodologies described in great detail by its many proponents and supporters in numerous manuals, papers and conferences. However, it has been applied very flexibly over the last 30 years or so to losely describe teaching methods that share a common core of pedagogic principles but can in fact differ greatly from one other in a number of ways. Some approaches, for instance, ban grammar teaching and correction altogether and employ communicative tasks with little or no structure which aim at fostering spontaneous interaction (Littlewood’s, 1984, ‘strong’ CLT approaches); others are less radical and do include some grammar teaching and correction and employ more structured activities in order to exercise some control over learner output (Littlewood’s, 1984, ‘weak’ CLT appraoches).

It is beyond the scope of this post to discuss all the many shapes and forms that GT and CLT over the decades. Thus, in discussing both approaches I shall limit my focus to the main pedagogic principles both methodologies rest upon and the basic teaching activities they employ, evaluating their merits in the light of current theories of L2 –acquisition and cognitive psychology. After discussing each methodology I shall proceed to compare them drawing my conclusions as to which one of them I consider as the more conducive to effective language learning providing the rationale for my choice. In my conclusions I shall also discuss my views on how elements of each methods could be combined in order to produce an integrated teaching methodology which, I believe, has greater potential for learning than either one of the two approaches.

Grammar Translation (GT)

This approach is based on the Classical Humanistic educational philosophy which views teaching as the passing-on of a body of knowledge from one generation to the next; not as the passing of skills necessary to function effectively and independently in the real world in a way which is beneficial for society. In this educational paradigm, language is therefore taught as something to know, as a set of rules and words to memorize rather than an instrument to use in a real-life communicative context.

As the name suggests, this instructional methodology focuses mainly on the explicit teaching of grammar in the belief that the mastery of the morphology, syntax and the other mechanics of the target language (TL) is the key to effective L2-acquisition. In its purest form this methodology will follow a Structural Syllabus (White, 1998) that is a syllabus in which each unit of work centres around a core grammatical structure. The teaching of lexis usually co-occurs, but holds a peripheral role and receive less emphasis and recycling within a typical lesson.

Although instruction rarely concerns itself explicitly with the teaching of translation skills and dictionary use, the learners are often engaged in translation activities from the L1 to the L2 and vice versa, aimed at reinforcing the target grammatical structures. Such activities typically follow the explanation of a morpheme / grammar rule which is usually taught deductively rather than inductively. Other activities of election are grammar exercises which train the learners in the manipulation of the morphology of the various parts of speech with model phrases which are usually learnt out of context. Such model phrases are usually void of communicative value and rather than being selected for their surrender value usually serve a purely demonstrative purpose. Aural/ oral skills are rarely if ever practised. The only oral work the students are likely to engage in is usually when the teacher addresses one of the students to ask them to demonstrate their grasp of a grammar structure through a translation task.

The elective form of correction is explicit error correction, possibly supplemented with rule explanation; in other words, the/a correct TL alternative is provided. The teacher usually practises all-out correction and would prioritize accuracy over fluency, form over communication, product over process. Hence, in the assessment of learner output the teacher would particularly penalize grammar mistakes.

The typical GT classroom sees the teacher as the ‘dictator’ of learning and the students as the passive recipients of his/her input. The learners usually commit lexical items to memory by rehearsing wordlists and are tested on their ability to recall them totally out of contexts. Pronunciation is taught through parroting and the learners usually are taught phonetics and practice reading the phonetic transcriptions of words found in the dictionaries and textbooks. L2-Writing tasks consist of: (a) translating words with the dctionary or (b) writing model sentences over and over again manipulating their morphology or syntax to obtain formally corrected (but not necessarily meaningful) output.

It should also be pointed out that in this instructional methodology the L2 taught is normally the standard variety in its purest and prescriptive form and in its highest register. Thus, the syntax the students will learn is more than often the language of literature or academia. Occasionally, both the lexis and the syntax taught is anachronistic and may occasionally sound flawed to a non-scholarly native ‘ear’.

In evaluating the merits of this methodology one needs to consider that the epistemological foundations of Grammar Translation approaches are not rooted in any systematic theory or model of L2-acquisition. Rather, they are based on the pre-cognitivist overly simplistic assumption that a grammatical rule can be acquired by simple explanation and rote learning. The main shortcomings of this approach stem from these epistemological premise: that by understanding and/or memorizing a grammar rule students ‘acquire’ it.

Today, cognitive research in the way humans acquire and process languages rules out that L2-grammar can be acquired by simply accruing (declarative) knowledge about it. Although cognitive theory does allow for declarative knowledge (conscious knowledge about the L2 grammar) to become proceduralised (i.e. automatic), the proceduralization process is very long and requires extensive practice (Anderson, 2000). Also, Cognitivist theory postulates that unless a learner is developmentally ready to acquire a given structure, teaching it to him/her is likely to be a sheer waste of time (just as you would not ask a beginner driver to drive a Ferrari on a busy highway). GT is not usually mindful of this.

Moreover, current psycholinguistic research has clearly demonstrated that language is a complex cognitive skill involving a series of psycho-motor sub-skills (de Bot, 1992) and that performing these sub-skills effectively is a function of the power law of practice (Anderson, 2000). Since a language is processed through four different modalities (speaking, hearing, reading and writing) each of them governed by different processes, it is flawed to presume that what is learnt by writing or reading can be effectively used by the other two modalities. Information processing theory clearly indicates that processing language effectively in each of the above modalities requires more than knowing words by heart. The brain’s working memory’s ability to process language in each modality requires a lot of modality-specific practice (Anderson, 2000).

It should also be pointed out that apart from very few studies (e.g. Lighbown and Spada, 1992), most experimental research in the effectiveness of explicit grammar teaching has yielded little evidence that it actually works (Brown, 1994; Ellis, 1994, Macaro, 2003). The same applies to error correction research (Truscott, 1994).

Finally, in GT students are usually assessed based on the number of errors in their output. The teacher/assessor has a pre-conceived target language model and the learners’ translation, utterance or composition are evaluated on the basis of how deviant they are from that model. This encourages the learners to prioritize the development of accuracy over fluency and may inhibit risk-taking (a valuable learning strategy – Brown, 1994). Moreover, teacher feedback which is product\-based does not help the students improve the skills (i.e. the process) involved in the execution of the target task. Teacher feedback, to be helpful, needs to identify the issues relative to the various processes involved in task performance, identify the flaws and advice the learners on how to address those issues.

In conclusion the main features of GT are:

1. It is teacher centred and does not aim to cater for every learner’s individual needs

2. The emphasis is on grammar learning through verb drills, the translation of written texts and the memorization of wordlists

3. The focus is on the product rather than the process of learning

4. Language is viewed as a body of knowledge rather than an instrument for communicating and functioning effectively in the real world

5. Linguistic practice is confined to the memorization of words and rules

6. Instruction aims at the mastery of the written medium rather than oral communication

7. Accuracy rules over fluency

8. Correction is all-out and punitive

9. The L2-model adopted is elitist and so is the educational philosophy

10. Feedback on learner performance is not likely to be helpful as it is solely accuracy-based

Its main shortcomings are that (1) it does not train learners in using the language to communicate; (2) it does not provide enough practice in oral and aural skills; (3) the emphasis on grammar may alienate students who are not analytical learners; (4) the emphasis on accuracy and correction may demotivate less able learners more prone to inaccuracies ; (5) it does not develop independent learners. Its main strength is that it develops grammar and lexical accuracy. However, by not promoting oral/aural skills, the students’ are likely to be very slow at producing spoken output and seriously impaired when confronted with the task of understanding L2-native speakers .

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

CLT has altogether different objectives to GT as it rests on diametrically opposite educational philosophy and epistemological assumptions. In fact, unlike GT, it prioritizes teaching skills rather than knowledge (Littlewood, 1994). Moreover, this approach is based on Social Constructivism, a pedagogical philosophy which aims at empowering the learners with the tools which allow one to function effectively in society (White, 1998). Consequently, in CLT L2- grammar knowledge becomes a secondary concern; language use across the four core skills of Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing takes priority because conveying and understanding messages is what makes one get by in the real world. Thus, the teaching of Functions (e.g. expressing an opinion, apologizing, giving directions, ordering), Notions (e.g. Time, Size, Space) and of the vocabulary (words and lexical phrases) needed to express those functions and notions is the primary instructional focus. Also, since the learners will one day have to cope with the challenges that the real world will pose to them, the target functions, notions and language items are usually contextualized in situations and tasks which replicate real-life.

CLT’s epistemological premises rest on the Skill-theory postulate that language is a complex goal-orientated cognitive skill, made up of sub-skills which are acquired after extended practice (Anderson, 2000). CLT translates this postulate into its instructional practice as follows: (a) since ‘goal-orientated’ implies that language has to be used for a purpose, learning activities must have a clear and tangible communicative goal; (b) since each skill involved in language reception and production has to be automatized in order to be acquired, the CLT teacher must give learners plenty of opportunities for practicing all four skills.

CLT is also based on cognitive models of L2 acquisition which posit that declarative knowledge about the L2 and procedural knowledge (the ability to use it) are two different abilities. Thus, acquiring declarative knowledge does not automatically lead to being able to use the L2.

The emphasis on empowering the individual with skills that will render him self-reliant and the skill-theory assumption that skills must be practised frequently and meaningfully in order to be acquired are at the root of CLT’s pupil-centred orientation. Unlike GT, in fact, CLT aims at obtaining productive learning outcomes from all the students in the classroom (Littlewood, 1994). They all have to take part in the tasks-in-hand. This entails that the teacher, in order to practise speaking, must set group-work tasks which involve interpersonal negotiation of meaning; thus, the students talk to each other rather than to the teacher (as happens in the traditional L2 classroom).

Consequently, unlike the GT teacher, the CLT teacher does not spend most of the lesson at the front of the classroom. S/he sets the students communicative tasks designed to practise the target lexis, morpheme, function, phoneme, etc. and then goes around the classroom HELPING the students, FACILITATING their learning. In fact, the proponents of the CLT approach (e.g Littlewoods, 1984) reiterate – often ad nauseam –  the concept that the CLT teacher is a facilitator not a dictator of learning. In this capacity, s/he abdicates part of the responsibility for the learning to the students as they have to manage the group-work activities set.

This ‘facilitator’ role also entails a different approach to error correction. The proponents of the CLT approach criticized the GT and Audio-lingual approaches for being too intolerant of error (Edge, 1992). ‘Facilitating’ the development of oral and written fluency calls for a different attitude to error, one which recognizes that correcting every single error a student makes can be harmful to their self-esteem and to the development of fluency (especially if the teacher’s correction interrupts their speaking). Thus, the CLT teacher corrects the learners selectively, prioritizing certain errors over others. Since CLT concerns itself with functioning effectively in real life, it gives priority to errors which impede meaning (Walz, 1982). Frequency and Irritability of errors, (respectively how often and how irritating they can be to the interlocutor/reader) are the next most important criteria adopted in selecting which errors to correct (Brown, 1984). Moreover, the correction must not disrupt the flow of conversation. Thus, the CLT teacher tends to delay the correction, making notes as s/he goes around the classroom from group to group ‘coaching’, advising, listening in. S/he will only interrupt the conversation when there are serious breakdowns in communication (Edge, 1992).

The ‘facilitator’ role has also implications for the CLT teacher’s general attitude towards the students. The CLT class being about collaboration and helping the learner to grow, the relationship between the teacher and the learners is different; the teacher is ‘closer’ to the students, sits with them, helps them by giving feedback on the process of their learning rather than simply on the product (Littlewood, 1984). S/he is less judgmental on the quality of their output because the CLT approach acknowledges an important principle of language acquisition: as they acquire the L2 learners build a system, called Interlanguage (Selinker, 2000) which is bound to contain mistakes as it is based on hypotheses and guesses based on their L1 and of their approximate knowledge of the L2 (Brown, 1984). Thus, CLT recognizes that learners need a nurturing, motivational, tolerant environment rather than the academic environment of the humanistic GT classroom. In such an environment, the learners will not feel intimidated by bad marks and lots of red ink and will take risks as they speak or write. Krashen (1981) expressed in his affective-filter theory his belief that such an environment is a categorical imperative for L2-learning to happen. An overly intolerant, critical environment would, on the contrary, ‘raise’ the learner’s ‘affective filter’ serious hindering learning.

Krashen (1981) and other educators have stressed the importance of avoiding correcting learners‘ output altogether in the belief that in order to motivate learners one has to let them talk and write at length and without any interruption. This stance is accepted by strong CLT approaches (Prabhu, 1987). Most CLT instruction still supports the use of correction but emphasizes giving the learners fluency-orientated instruction where the learner’s recourse to survival communication strategies such as Coinage (coining new words), Approximation (using words close in meaning to the target word), Paraphrase, Foreignization (adapting an L1 word to make it sound L2-like) is not only tolerated but even encouraged as they often allow an individual to put the intended message across effectively (Macaro, 2003).

The oral/written activities adopted by CLT usually include all of the following features:

1. They involve an information gap that the learners have to fill through interaction in the L2. For example, two learners need each other’s information to complete a table. Their task is to elicit the needed information by means of asking each other questions in the L2;

2. They have a communicative purpose . Language is an instrument to complete them not the main outcome ( as in a grammar exercise or translation task)

3. They are inspired by real-life tasks (e.g. asking for directions., describing a criminal to a policeman, ordering food, etc.)

The aural/reading comprehension tasks often involve authentic or pseudo-authentic materials in order to better prepare the learners to cope with the challenges posed by the target language environment.

The CLT assessment of learner performance is usually criterion based. The learners are usually graded based on multi score proficiency scales (e.g. Polio, 1997) which identify the skills/proficiency areas (e.g. grammatical accuracy, range of vocabulary, fluency, style) involved in the performance. The learners are awarded marks on each trait which are finally added up. Each mark refers to a level which is described in detail to make the grading process more accountable to the learner. For example, a top mark on the accuracy scale could be described as follows: accurate use of complex structures; very few mistakes, mostly involving mistakes not impeding intelligibility. An average of the scores is calculated. The learners are usually given both the total and the trait-specific scores thereby obtaining an insight in the area of their performance they should pay more attention to in the future. This type of evaluation has a greater potential learning outcome for the students than GT’s.

In conclusion, the main pedagogical principles advocated by CLT are:

1. It is pupil-centred rather than teacher-centred

2 The emphasis is on communication and effective interactional skills

3. The focus is on the process rather than the product of learning;

4. Language is viewed as a skill to learn rather than a body of language

to pass on to the pupil

5. Linguistic practice occurs through communicative activities

6. Instruction aims at the mastery of all of the four core language skills

7. Fluency rules over accuracy

8. Correction is selective and non-judgmental

9. The L2-model adopted is flexible and can deviate from the L2-standard

Form

Its main weakness relates to the fact that by prioritizing communication and fluency development it does not emphasize grammar sufficiently. Thus, learners often develop a pidgin ridden with grammatical flaws at morphological and at grammatical level. Because the teacher corrective intervention is selective and focuses mainly on errors that impede understanding, learner’s mistakes often become automatized and consequently difficult to eradicate. Also, the scarce focus on grammatical knowledge does not help the learners develop the metalinguistic and analytical skills necessary for L2-students to learn grammar independently and to produce and comprehend texts that contain sophisticated syntax. In other words, whereas it may train students to successfully cope at survival and basic conversational level, it may fail to prepare the learners for communication in professional or academic contexts where accuracy and sophisticated language and register are required.

Conclusions and Implications for L2-pedagogy

In conclusion, the two methodologies are very different in their philosophy, goals, and in the way they conceptualize language acquisition. CLT appears, at least in theory, as a more effective approach because it aims at preparing the learners for effective interaction in the real world. Moreover, being based on current models of language acquisition it advocates methods and procedures that are more likely to lead to successful acquisition because they are consistent with the way humans learn and process information and language. However, in my opinion it does not focus learners on accuracy as much as it should. This is particularly counterproductive in acquisition-poor learning environments, that is environments where the learners’ exposure to the target language is minimal (e.g. the two hours a week of a typical secondary school course).

Unlike students learning the L2 in an L2-speaking country, learners receiving instruction in acquisition-poor environments (i.e. with little contact with the L2) do not have many opportunities to internalize grammar subconsciously through frequent exposure; for the latter type of learners error correction and focus on L2 morphemes are crucial in order to learn accurate syntax.

Moreover, current theories of second language acquisition posit that Noticing is often crucial to L2 learning (Schmidt, 1990). Noticing refers to the process whereby the learners realize that a structure works differently in the L2 system compared to its L1 equivalent. This realization, which often marks the beginning of L2 acquisition, is not fostered by strong meaning-based methods like CLT. Explicit grammar instruction on the other hands promotes Noticing, especially when it presents students with bilingual input illustrating the usage of the target L2 structures.

Thus, I believe that CLT and GT should be integrated within an eclectic syllabus with a variable focus  where functions and notions are still prioritised over form. In a seminal article that every language teacher should read, Lighbown and Spada (2008) provide very interesting suggestions as to how this can be done through both inductive and deductive approaches (http://www.ub.edu/GRAL/Naves/Courses/ELTM/Miscelaneous/Spada-Lightbown2008Form-Focused-Instruction.pdf). One approach involves addressing grammar instruction as of when it arises from the context the class is operating in; so, for example, the teacher would not teach a given grammar structure because the books or the schemes of work say so, but simply because the specific topic or text one is dealing with require the students to understand and/or being able to use it. This approach is referred to as ‘Focus on form’ as opposed to ‘Focus on forms’ (the more traditional grammar teaching approach).

The bias should still be on communication, though, and teachers should find creative ways to teach grammar through communicative activities. There should be, however, space for drills and other behaviouristic (habit-forming) activities which serve the purpose of paving the way for less structured information-gap based activities involving negotiation of meaning in the  context of learner-to-learner oral or written activities. Translations also should be used, if sparingly, in order to focus learners on grammatical, lexical and stylistic accuracy. Also, as Conti (2001,2004) maintains, instruction should include an emphasis on modelling self-monitoring skills to ensure that learners become more effective editors and auditors of their output.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th edition). New York: Worth Publishing.

Brown, H.D. 1994. Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd edition). Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

de Bot, K. 1992. A bilingual production model: Levelt’s ‘Speaking’ model adapted. Applied Linguistics. 13(1): 1-24.

Edge, J. 1989. Mistakes and correction. London: Longman.

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Eysenck, M.W. and Keane, M.T. 1995. Cognitive psychology: A Student’s Handbook (4th edition). Hove: Psychology Press.

Ferris, D.R. 1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing. 8(1): 1-11.

Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon press.

Lightbown, P. M. and Spada N. 1992. How Languages are Learned. (2nd Ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and second language learning, language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Macaro, E. (2003) Teaching and Learning a Second Language: a guide to current research and its applications. London: Continuum

Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 6(3): 186-214.

Polio, C. 1997. Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing. Language Learning. 47(1): 101-143.

Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walz, Joel. 1982. Error correction techniques for the foreign language classroom. Washington: Centre for Applied Linguistics

White, Ronald V. 1998: The ELT Curriculum: Design, Innovation and Management. London: Blackwell. Applied Language Studies. Editors: Crystal & Johnson

 

1. Introduction- Why a post on Learner Training (aka Learning-to-learn)

The rationale for this post is that although the hype about Learner Training (henceforth LT) has somewhat died down many educators advocate the importance of equipping learners with subject specific and non-subject-specific learning strategies and skills which cut across various dimension of human cognition and experience (e.g. organization, independent enquiry, resilience, self-regulation, collaboration, empathy).

Although many theorists and education providers concur on the importance of including the teaching of strategies and skills in the curriculum many schools struggle to find a principled framework for the teaching of such skills. This is because a lot of the research relative to strategies-based instruction has largely gone unnoticed by the international teaching community, with the exception of a few areas of the world (e.g. Canada).

In this very long post I review the literature on LT outlining the research framework that the advocates and proponents of Learning-to-learn have implemented and tested in several studies. This framework could be adapted by schools in their effort to integrate both language learning strategies and generic skills in their curricula.

2. What are Learning Strategies?

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) view Learning Strategies (LSs) as complex procedural skills whose functioning occurs as follows: in the presence of a learning problem, the brain (working memory) matches the data pattern relative to that problem with a suitable strategy in LTM (long-term memory) which is then activated and retrieved. The following is an example of how the production systems conceptualised by O’Malley and Chamot would operate in the application of one of the learning strategies I taught as part of my PhD study (segmenting)

IF a sentence is long and contains a lot of complex structures

THEN check it more carefully by breaking it up into smaller units

O’Malley and Chamot conceptualise the following categories of LSs, based on the way they affect the learning process: Cognitive, Metacognitive, Affective and Social strategies.

Cognitive strategies refer to operations in learning or problem-solving which involve analysis, interpretation, manipulation, or synthesis of learning materials (Palincsar and Brown, 1984). Examples of these strategies in the area of Editing are: repeating an L2-item aloud to check if it sounds right; translating a sentence in an essay into the mother tongue in order to check that it conveys the intended meaning correctly; taking notes of a correction and seeking the help of the textbook to find out more about the grammar rule broken, etc.

Metacognitive strategies refer to the regulation of cognition: through them learners coordinate their own language learning process. Thus, they play a major role in learning and the frequency and effectiveness of their deployment have been seen to often make a difference between successful and unsuccessful L2-learning/performance (Oxford and Leaver, 1996). Examples of Metacognitive strategies are Directed Attention, i.e. consciously directing one’s own attention to the learning task; Self-evaluation, or appraising the successes and difficulties in one’s own learning efforts; Devising an action plan in order to eradicate a specific error.

Social strategies refer to the social interactions L2-learners use to assist in the comprehension, learning, or retention of information. For instance, seeking someone’s help when one is ‘stuck’.

Finally, Affective strategies are deployed to exercise mental control over personal affect that interferes with learning. For instance, calming oneself before an exam by watching a comedy or taking a walk; reading an inspirational quote to motivate yourself to study.

In what follows, I shall adopt the following working definition of LSs:

Learner (Learning) strategies are approaches, techniques, operations or actions that learners engage in, both consciously and subconsciously, in order to: (1) understand and learn the L2-system; (2) organize and direct their learning; (3) facilitate the analysis, recall, comprehension, production, organization and storage of L2-material; (4) alter their affective state in a way which may enhance their learning or task performance; (5) relate to and interact with the learning environment (including people) in a way that is conducive to learning.

3. What is Learning-to-learn?

Ellis and Sinclair (1989:45) observed that Learner Training (LT) ‘means different things to different people’. This has led to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding’ (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989: 44). In an attempt to clarify the issue, they defined LT according to its goals, stating:

LT aims to help learners consider the factors which may affect their learning and discover the learning strategies which suit them best so that they may become more effective learners and take on more responsibility for their learning’ (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989: 45).

Thus, LT aims at preparing students for Self-Direction by providing them with the LSs which give them the potential to become more effective and autonomous learners. It sets out to trigger a process of self-discovery, whereby the learner, helped by the instructor, becomes aware of the way s/he learns best and is able to make an informed choice as to which strategy (or strategies) may work more effectively for him/her in given contexts. This concept implies a radical departure from traditional instructional models where the L2-learner is viewed as a ‘passive’ recipient of knowledge and a teacher a dictator of learning, imposing his/her views and values on the students (Holec, 1981). Writers have defined this role change in various ways: learners should be prepared to share the burden of learning (Little, 1991); to take an active role in the learning process (Eriksson, 1993); to make the most of the time and resources available for learning (Cohen, 1998); to make decisions about their learning goals and become self-reliant (Benson, 1996).

4. The Rationale for LT

I shall now discuss the rationale for LT. More specifically, I shall focus on the following arguments put forward by LT theorists:

1. LT promotes self-direction in the L2-classroom
2. It enhances L2-learning /proficiency/performance
3. It enhances learner self-esteem and motivation

5. Learner Training promotes Metacognition (Self-direction)

Self-direction has been defined by Holec (1981) as the ability to: (1) fix objectives; (2) define the content and progression of one’s learning; (3) select the methods and techniques to be used; (4) monitor the acquisition procedure; (5) evaluate what has been acquired. The importance of fostering Self-direction in L2-learning has been emphasized by many writers in the belief that L2-instruction should equip the learners with the linguistic and learning skills which will enable them to function effectively in the real world:

…it is essential for students to be able to control their own learning process so that they can learn outside the classroom once they are on their own. If students are dependent on teachers to shape language to suit them and to provide them with proper input, they cannot begin to take charge of their own learning when the teacher is not there. (Wenden, 1987: 17)

Another reason for fostering autonomous learning relates to the mounting research evidence indicating that more successful learners generally exhibit higher levels of Self-direction (Wenden, 1987). If there is a causal relationship between the latter and success in L2-learning, as it has been suggested, then developing learners’ self-regulatory skills (metacognitive strategies) through LT, may impact positively on their L2-performance.

The development of Self-direction has important implications for the notion, central to most current pedagogical theories (see Rogers, 1969; Littlewood, 1984; Oxford, 1990), that teachers should cater for learner individual needs. The implementation of this principle entails: (a) being able to identify every learner’s needs, and (b) having the time and resources to address them. Both tasks are difficult to carry out effectively in teacher-centred classes, since the teacher cannot hope to match his/her teaching to the learning styles, interests, strengths and weaknesses of all the class at the same time. This issue can be addressed by rendering learners more self-directed.

6. Teaching learners more effective strategic behaviour will improve their learning

This claim is based on the finding that ‘good language learners’ have a wider repertoire of strategies than less effective learners and deploy them more frequently and more skilfully – that is: in the right contexts and, most importantly, by ‘orchestrating’ the strategies more effectively (Nykos, 1996). In fact, ineffective strategic behaviour has been identified as the main cause of the failure to develop language proficiency by learners with high language aptitude scores (Oxford and Leaver, 1996). Based on these findings, LT theorists assert that there is a causal relationship between strategy use and effective learning and that, consequently, if less effective learners are taught more effective strategic behaviour their language performance and/or proficiency will improve.

The validity of this argument is controversial, as efforts to improve L2-learner linguistic proficiency and performance through LT have met with mixed success. McDonough (1995) concluded his review of LT studies by asserting that improvements in language proficiency caused by LT were relatively weak and only showed up on certain measures. In his review of LT studies Gu (1996:2) described empirical work in the field as ‘fragmentary, unsystematic and narrow in scope’. Cohen (1998) was more optimistic observing that more interventionist studies have appeared in the literature since those cited in McDonough (1995) and Gu (1996), which have tended to be more fine-tuned than the preceding ones. McDonough (1999) concurred with Cohen (1998) that the results of the more recent interventionist studies are more encouraging and reliable.

7. Strategy Instruction can enhance learner self-esteem and motivation

It has been asserted that giving L2-students access to strategies may enhance their motivation if they perceive those strategies to be effective in facilitating their learning performance. Chamot et al. (1996) noted that L2-students’ metacognitive awareness of the link between strategy use and positive learning outcomes plays a particularly important role in this regard, since self-control over strategy use is an important factor in perceiving oneself as a successful learner. If by noticing this link learners believe that they have acquired an effective approach to the performance of a given L2-task, they may develop positive beliefs about their capability to engage in similar tasks in the future. In this sense, strategy instruction may lead to expectancy of success, a phenomenon which appears to significantly influence learners’ academic attainment (Pajares, 1997, 2002) and is viewed as a crucial component of the structure of internal motivation (Crookes and Schmidt, 1989).

The relationship between expectancy of success and motivational and academic practices has been investigated in the context of educational research on self-efficacy beliefs (e.g. Zimmermann, 1994; Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997). These beliefs relate to a learner’s ‘level of confidence in successfully completing a task’ (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary and Robbins, 1996: 178) and appear to influence the use of self-regulatory learning strategies. In fact, as Pajares (2002) observed, learners with high self-efficacy have been found to make greater and more effective use of metacognitive strategies such as Goal-setting, Self-monitoring and Self-evaluation (Pajares, 2002). Furthermore, they exhibit greater commitment to learning and to the pursuit of their learning goals; select more challenging goals; deploy more cognitive strategies; display lower levels of academic anxiety (Schunk and Ertmer, 2000).

As O’Malley and Chamot (1990) warn, although there is some empirical evidence that LT can significantly enhance learners’ level of self-efficacy and motivation (Nyikos, 1996; Nunan, 1996), it would be simplistic to assume that LT is the ultimate panacea to motivational deficits in the L2-classroom; several complex factors are at play in determining low learner motivation and lack of strategic competence is only one of them.

8. Approaches to LT

Learner Training can be carried out implicitly or explicitly. In Implicit LT the learners are involved in activities designed to elicit the use of the target strategies without knowing what the rationale and aims of the activities actually are. So, for example, in the context of an Implicit LT programme in editing strategies, the learners may be asked to translate a given L2-composition back into the L1 (my ‘Backtranslating’ strategy) in order to check if it makes sense, but they are not presented this technique as an editing strategy that may help them in the future, nor are they explicitly encouraged to incorporate it in their L2-writing strategies repertoire.

The Explicit approach, on the other hand, is based on the Skill-theory axiom that the initial phases of any skill instruction must involve the learner in the conscious application of problem solving and other interpretive strategies. Thus, Explicit Learner Training, as Oxford and Leaver (1996) pointed out, addresses at least one of the following levels of consciousness identified by Schmidt (1994): Awareness of strategy use; Attention to the issues involved in strategy use; Intentionality to deploy strategies in L2-learning or production; Control over strategy use. The latter component is deemed to be the most crucial determinant of effective strategy use since it refers to the ability to evaluate the success of using a certain strategy and also having the ability to transfer that strategy to other relevant situations and tasks (Oxford and Leaver, 1996).

Assessment, Awareness-Raising and Planning

The first step in an explicit LT programme usually involves the assessment of learner needs through one or more of the following means: observation, questionnaires/surveys, interviews, diaries, note-taking, concurrent/retrospective think-aloud. Since the techniques deployed in strategy assessment (usually the verbal reports mentioned above) are likely to bring the issue of strategy use into learner focal attention, this diagnostic phase usually marks the beginning of the Awareness-Raising component of LT. This phase is viewed as crucial in the development of Self-direction since, it is believed, in order to learn how to learn, one need to know how one operates as a learner and what one’s needs, strengths and learning styles are (Dickinson, 1987; Eriksson, 1993; Cotteral, 1990). It is also recommended that in this phase learners are helped to become aware of their beliefs about learning and of their schemata, since these factors have been shown to interfere with LT success (Wenden, 1991; Gremmo and Riley, 1995;Victori and Lockhart, 1995).

Other factors to consider at this stage are the learners’ individual agenda and expectations about learning (Victory and Lockhart, 1995). It has been found that learners’ participation in LT is based on the learners’ perception of its relevance to their own goals (Wenden, 1991, 1995). Reporting on the outcome of one of the CRAPELS’ first experiments in self-directed learning, Stanchina (1976) noted that learners who remained motivated had clear and immediate goals, which were being served by the experiment. Therefore, it becomes important to understand the nature of the learners’ goal structure.

Other learner characteristics normally assessed in this phase include: their academic background, levels of proficiency, levels of motivation and any other biographical information that might have any bearing on their learning – surveys like Oxford’s (1990) SILL can be used to elicit information about all the above personal characteristics. In addition, in designing the training, a number of curricular and extracurricular constraints must be taken into consideration. These include: amount of time available; resources available; syllabus structure; culture of the target educational setting. These factors need to be examined in tackling the following issues which, as Oxford (1990) and Cohen (1998) point out, are crucial in planning the training:

1.Which strategies will learner trainers select?

2.Will the LT involve a short-term intervention or extensive training?

3. Will the training have a broad or narrow focus?

As far as strategies selection is concerned, Oxford (1990) provides the following guidelines, based more on common sense or intuition than on research findings:

1. select strategies related to learner needs and characteristics;
2. choose more than one kind of strategy to teach
3. choose strategies that are generally useful for most learners and transferable

to a variety of language situations and tasks;

4. choose easily learnable strategies, and strategies that are very valuable but

might require a bit more effort.

(adapted from Oxford,1990: 205)

Theorists also recommend that LT include an effective motivational component in order to develop will as well as skill for learning (Paris, 1988: O’Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford 1990; Cohen, 1998). In L2-strategy instruction, the importance of attitude and motivation is illustrated in Wenden’s (1987) account of her LT experience at Columbia University where she gave students an intensive ESL course instruction and practice in metacognitive strategies. The feedback she received from the students via questionnaire indicated that the students did not perceive any value in LT. Wenden (1987) attributed these results to the fact that her programme was not closely linked to the language learning objectives of the course. Thus, students did not clearly understand why and how the training could improve their language learning. The importance of socio-affective factors in determining the success of strategy instruction is the reason why, in this preparatory phase, it is paramount to address learner beliefs about L2-learning, strategies and about their self-esteem (Wenden, 1987; Flaitz and Feyten, 1996; Oxford and Leaver, 1996).

Oxford and Shearin (1994) recommend that the following factors should be taken into consideration in drafting action plans for belief and attitudinal change:

(1) learners see the target strategy as helpful in a specific task

(2) learners see the strategy as transferable to other tasks

(3) learners perceive the potential gains as greater than the effort

(4) learners see themselves as self-efficacious and capable

of working independently

(5) learners are interested in the materials and activities adopted in the LT

(6) learners see the connection between the target strategy and success

In addition, Paris (1988) identified the following four instructional techniques as the most commonly used in strategic instruction to provide cognitive/affective support. Trainers need to plan carefully for them taking into account the information gathered during the assessment phase.

1.Modeling, in which the trainer shows the learners how to effectively use the

strategy, usually by thinking aloud about the goals and mental processes involved;

2.Direct Explanation, in which the teacher explains to the students the potential

benefits of the target strategies so that they become convinced of their usefulness;

3.Scaffolding Instruction, in which the teacher provides cognitive and affective

support to students as they practise the new strategies; the support is then phased out;

4.Cooperative Learning, in which students work in groups to solve a problem or execute a task.

Presentation and modeling

In this phase the trainer usually explains the strategy by naming it, showing how to use it, providing a rationale for strategy-use and finally demonstrating (modelling) it (as in, for instance, Jones et al., 1987; O’Malley and Chamot, 1988). Jones et al. (1987) suggest as a modelling technique that trainers verbalise their own thought processes while doing the task, thinking aloud as they encounter problems and work out solutions.

Practice with scaffolding

In order for the learners to proceduralise (automatise) the use of the target strategies, extensive practice is needed. The failure of a number of interventionist studies has indeed been blamed by some authors (e.g. (O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford, 1992) on the insufficient amount of practice given to learners). In most studies, this stage usually consists of a first phase in which the trainer provides support while student practice; this phase is usually referred to as ‘Scaffolding’ (Jones et al, 1987; Paris, 1988). The importance of ‘scaffolding’ instruction relates to affective issues (motivation) but also to the cognitive and metacognitive domain: while trying out new strategies, learners receive cognitive and affective support in the development of problem-solving but also self-directing, self- monitoring and self-evaluative skills.

As illustrated in O’Malley and Chamot (1988; 1990) the development of student skills in using strategies can be developed through cooperative learning tasks; think-alouds while problem solving; peer tutoring in academic tasks; group discussion. Also, checklists are often used so as to view at a glance the possible range of strategies to select from; learners are encouraged to use such checklists as reminders throughout the scaffolding phase (Rubin, 1997). In most courses the scaffolding materials are designed to encourage this kind of activity. Several strategic instructional frameworks also include embedded training tasks which aim at eliciting the use of the target strategies without any metacognitive component (i.e. no explicit reference to the target strategies is made in the instructions the learners receive about the task).

As far as the affective domain of the scaffolding is concerned, Jones et al (1987) have suggested that learner trainers may develop learners’ motivation during this phase by attempting to provide the learners with as many successful experiences as possible (especially at the beginning of their experimentation with the target strategies) and by relating strategy use to improved performance (i.e. emphasizing in their feedback to students the causal link between the improvements in their linguistic output and their deployment of the target strategies). Grenfell and Harris (1999) emphasize the importance of cooperative learning/group-work in providing affective support, especially when dealing with younger learners. Finally, in some instructional frameworks (e.g. Harris, 1997; Grenfell and Harris, 1999) during the scaffolding phase the learners are required to draw up an action plan. In devising this action plan learners may need some help in identifying which strategies are most appropriate to their goals (Grenfell and Harris, 1992, 1999)

The Autonomous phase

In the second part of the Practice phase, the strategy use reminders and any other scaffolding are removed and the learners decide autonomously whether to use the target strategies or not. This is a necessary step since it is only if learners keep using the strategies independently over a relatively long period of time that one can truly say that the training has been successful.

Evaluation

Wenden (1987: 62) provides a useful framework for evaluating learner strategy training which is representative of the approaches taken by most researchers/educators in the field:

1.Has learners’ appreciation of LT changed?

2.Has the learning strategy being learned?

3.Does the skill facilitate performance of the task?

4.Does the skill continue to be utilized?

5.Is the skill utilised in different contexts?

The above questions relate to the following issues: (1) learner attitudes towards strategic instruction, and particularly the issue of willingness/reluctance to take responsibility for one’s own learning; (2) strategy acquisition: how often and how effectively the strategies are deployed; (3) task improvement: not just better linguistic performance but also more autonomy in the performance and greater ease in terms of cognitive and affective load; (4) durability, that is, whether the strategies are used spontaneously without any reminders from the teacher, and (5) transfer of strategy use or expansion, i.e. the strategies are applied by the learner spontaneously to other contexts, again without any prompts from the teacher.

In single group pre-test/post-test designs (e.g. Carrell, Pharis and Liberto. 1989), the evaluation is usually carried out by comparing the outcome of pre-treatment and post-treatment assessments performed on the experimental group using the same instrument(s) and measure(s). In multiple group pre-test/post-test designs (e.g. Macaro, 2001), the same operation is carried out for both groups in an attempt to verify if the treatment group(s) was more successful than the non-treatment one(s). In multiple measurement single group designs, the treatment group is assessed at several points throughout the duration of the training in an attempt to identify trends overtime. In multiple group designs the trend(s) identified for the experimental group(s) are compared with those observed for the control group(s). The merits of these evaluative approaches will be discussed in 6.3 below in much greater detail.

9. Insights from research as to the effectiveness of Learning-to learn

The issues / findings I shall discuss here emerged from an examination of twenty-one Explicit LT studies I located in the core literature: Cohen and Aphek (1980), Hosenfeld et al. (1981), O’Malley et al. (1985), Carrell (1989), Carrell et al. (1989), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), Fujiwara (1990), Wenden (1991), Oxford, (1992), Aziz (1995), Cohen, Weaver and Li (1995), Ferris (1995a), Klohs (1995), Chamot et al. (1996), Oxford (1996), Dörnyei (1995), Cohen et al. (1996), Dadour and Robbins (1996), Nunan (1996), Thompson and Rubin (1996), Macaro (2001).

9.1 Relatively few LT studies have been carried out to-date,

The most important issue emerging from my literature review is that a relatively small number of LT studies have been carried out. Notably, only five focused on writing strategies (O’Malley et al. 1990; Aziz, 1995; Klohs, 1995; Ferris, 1995a; Macaro, 2001). Furthermore, the result of these studies does not prove that LT is effective. The necessity for further research has thus been invoked by the advocates of LT (e.g. Cohen, 1998, Macaro, 2001) in order to validate the notion that this instructional approach can significantly benefit L2-learners. The need for further research is particularly great in editing strategies research since only one study was conducted in this area (Ferris, 1995)

9.2 Many of the successful LT studies were quasi-experimental

Few of the more successful LT studies were purely experimental in design with subjects randomly assigned to a treatment and non-treatment group. Most studies carried out opportunistic sampling and adopted one of the following quasi-experimental designs: (1) single group pre-test / post-test (e.g. Carrell et al. 1989);(2) single group multiple measurement (e.g. Ferris, 1995); (3) multiple group pre-test/post-test (e.g. Macaro, 2001); (4) multiple group with multiple measurement (e.g. Flaitz and Fleyten, 1996). As I shall discuss in greater detail in Chapter 6, the above research-design types have a number of intrinsic flaws which pose significant threats to their validity.

The obvious implication for future research is that true experimental designs (i.e. with random assignment to experimental and control group) should be adopted. However, this is often difficult in the context of LT interventionist studies since they have to adapt to constraints determined by the curriculum, enrolment procedures, course-structure and logistics of the target educational institution. When such constraints pre-empt the possibility of a purely experimental design, as in the case of my study, the researcher can attempt to enhance the validity of quasi-experimentation through a number of measures aimed at minimizing the effects of any interfering/confounding variables.

9.3 Test/Practice effect (task-familiarity) may significantly contribute to treatment-groups’ gains at post-test

Some of the studies adopting a pre-test/post-test design evaluated target strategy uptake and effectiveness testing their treatment groups through tasks which the training had made them more familiar with than the control group(s) (e.g. Carrell, 1989; Macaro, 2001). For instance, Carrell et al. (1989) tested one of their target reading comprehension strategies, ‘Semantic Mapping’, through the same type of activity (‘cloze-semantic-map’) used in the modelling and (extensive) practice of that strategy. The experimental group outperformed the control group; interestingly, though, no gains were observed on two other independent evaluative measures. In cases like this, it is difficult to discern whether task-familiarity rather than effective strategy use determined any positive results. It should be noted that this issue of task familiarity is related to the recurrent criticism of LT that it is problematic, in assessing the validity of the more successful studies, to discern whether the improvements were caused by the target strategies themselves or by the greater and more focused practice the subjects received by virtue of the training (Rees-Miller, 1993).

The main implication for future research is that, in order to avoid threats to validity from this task-familiarity factor, more than one procedure should be used to evaluate the impact of the training on the dependent variable(s). The results from the different procedures can then be triangulated so as to verify their validity. Furthermore, multiple measurements of the effects of the independent variable may be taken between pre-test and post-test through procedures other than the assessment/training task.

9.4 LT studies have often relied heavily on questionnaire and interview data to evaluate their impact

Many studies claimed to have been successful based mainly or exclusively on data obtained through questionnaires, interviews and/or journals (e.g. Fujiwara, 1990; Nunan, 1996; Chamot et al. 1996). This is problematic since, as I shall discuss below, pre-test/post-test designs using this kind of self-reports as evaluative instruments are particular vulnerable to the risk of validity threats arising from researcher bias/expectancy and subject expectancy issues (defined in 6.2 below). The obvious implication for future studies is that more objective data collection instruments should be adopted (essays and documents in my study). When the logistics of the experiment do not permit the use of such instruments, researchers should at least use two or more forms of self-reports administered at different moments in time in order to provide some sort of data triangulation.

9.5 Most of the successful studies have failed to identify the single aspect of the training which determined their success

Many ‘succesful’ LT studies have taught combination of strategies; this is not useful to teachers as it is extremely difficult to establish which aspect of its design or execution was crucial to their success.

9.6 There is no evidence that the effects of LT are long-lasting

This is particularly the case for those studies which did not include an autonomous phase (e.g. Ferris, 1995; Cohen and Aphek, 1980; Carrell et al. 1989) or included only a relatively short one (e.g. Macaro, 2001). Unless a significant amount of time elapses between the removal of any strategy use reminders and post-test it is difficult to claim that the learners incorporated the target LSs in their strategic repertoire. The obvious implication for future studies is that a sufficiently long autonomous phase should be included.

9.7 Some learners may resist LT

Learner resistance to LT has been identified by some researchers as a major problem (Wenden, 1987; Oxford, 1990). Its causes have been related to the following issues: (a) the learners’ perception that LT was not relevant to their goals and/or needs (Wenden, 1987); (b) learners had a negative attitude towards the concept of autonomy and LT determined by their belief systems and previous learning experience (e.g. O’Malley, 1985); (c) learners preferred continuing using their strategies as they perceived them as effective or more effective than the target strategies (O’Malley, 1985). Not enough is known about the interaction of LT with individual characteristics, such as learning styles, age, cultural background, gender, L2-proficiency, personality types (Oxford, 1996). As mentioned above, LT professionals usually tackle this issue by identifying learner attitudes, history, beliefs, levels of motivation, task-related self-esteem and other individual factors. They then devise an action plan in order to tackle any possible source of resistance to training. In my study I try to tackle this issue by finding out through a questionnaire and an interview as much as I can about my learners. On the basis of the information gathered I shall present and implement the training in a way which will suit their personal characteristics and academic goals.

9.8. Many LT studies may have been too short to impact significantly learner performance

It has been suggested that some LT studies have been too short to be successful. Future studies need to be longitudinal and covering a longer period of time than the past ones.

10. Concluding remarks

Most LT theorists and researchers recommend the following framework for the implementation of strategy training:

• An awareness / needs ‘analysis phase which assesses the target students’ strategies repertoire
• A presentational phase in which a rationale for the training is given and the strategies are named and presented
• A modelling phase in which the trainer shows the students how the strategies can be used effectively to enhance task performance or learning in general
• An extensive scaffolded practice base in which the students receive reminders to use the target strategies and cognitive and affective support by the trainer and peers
• An autonomous phase in which support and reminders are phased out and the students are left to their own devices (to see if they are going to use the strategy independently)
• An evaluative phase which assesses whether the target strategies have been internalized

My review of the literature has identified a number of important issues in interventionist strategy research. The most important and most relevant to the present study were:

(1) Test/Practice effect (task-familiarity) may significantly contribute to treatment-groups’ gains at post-test

(2) LT studies have often relied heavily on questionnaire and interview data to evaluate their impact

(3) There is no evidence that the effects of LT are long-lasting

(4) It is problematic to identify which strategies bring about performance/learning

enhancement

(5) Many LT studies may have been too short to impact significantly on learner performance

(6) Students may resist training

LT studies have met with mixed success. The learning gains and the barriers discussed above may prompt teachers to wonder whether strategy-based instruction is actually worth the time and effort they involve. In my view, the answer is ‘no’. As an LT researcher myself, having implemented a fairly successful nine-month LT program as part of my Ph.D, I have experienced first-hand how much work and time it requires; much more than busy practitioners in secondary schools can afford to spare.