See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354131191

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: A REVIEW ON DEFINITIONAL AND

THEORETICAL CONFLICTS

Conference Paper · January 2021

CITATION READS

1 401

1 author:

Rifat Kamasak
University of the West of England, Bristol
75 PUBLICATIONS 1,142 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rifat Kamasak on 25 August 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: A REVIEW ON DEFINITIONAL

AND THEORETICAL CONFLICTS

Rıfat KAMAŞAK
ORCID: 0000-0001-8768-3569
Prof. Dr., Yeditepe Üniversitesi Ticari Bilimler Fakültesi

Abstract
This paper aims to review a number of recent studies on language learning strategies to
evaluate whether the related criticisms about strategy use in language learning and teaching are
still justified. In the last thirty years researchers have paid considerable attention to use of
strategies in learning (i.e. Cohen, 1998; Dörnyei, 2005; Lin, Zhang, & Zheng, 2017; Macaro,
2006; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Oxford et al., 2014; Rose et al., 2018; Teng
& Zhang, 2016; Tseng, Dörnyei & Schmidt, 2006) to explore unexplained variance in second
or foreign language acquisition (SLA) performance. The rationale behind research was that
“learning strategies could make language learning more effective, efficient, and enjoyable”
(Oxford et al., 2014, p. 11). However, LLS research was criticised because of some weaknesses
it possesses (Dörnyei, 2005; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007; Tseng et al., 2006; Woodrow, 2005).
Definitional fuzziness and theoretical inconsistency, and methodology and measurement
problems were frequently mentioned in the language learning strategy literature. The
emergence of these problems will be investigated in details. Finally, based on this review, some
implications by which language learning strategy research can be strengthened are also
recommended.
Keywords: Language Learning Strategy, Self-regulated Learning, Motivation,
Literature Review

1. INTRODUCTION
Language learning strategies (LLS) are generally defined as “activities consciously
chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating their own language learning” (Griffiths, 2013,
p. 36). This definition may not be accepted by every researcher in the field but “it touches the
heart of the matter” (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014, p. 2). There have been repeated and ambitious
attempts to define learning strategies, offer strategy classification schemes and strategy
frameworks in the field. A number of theorists (i.e. Anderson, 1980; O’Malley & Chamot,
1990; Wenden, 1987) have situated learning strategies within the field of cognitive psychology
and have stated that “strategies are located in the brain” Macaro (2006, p. 323) and are produced
through mental processes and structures. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) primarily focused on
the use of cognitive elements (i.e. working memory and mental frameworks) for processing
information and on meta-cognitive elements “such as planning and evaluating for executive
management of language learning” (Oxford et al., 2014b, p. 31). According to O’Malley and
Chamot (1990), LLS are “special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help them
comprehend, learn, or retain new information” (p. 1). As we can see different definitions
regarding language learning strategies have led to a vague phenomenon in the field. In
particular, the integration of other social and psychological elements by Rebecca Oxford’s

141
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

model (1989) created more turbulent ground. Thus, the problematic issues in the field of
language learning strategy are discussed with a number of main headings below.

2. DEFINITIONAL FUZZINESS AND THEORETICAL INCONSISTENCY

In addition to cognitive and meta-cognitive elements, Oxford (1989) takes into account
the emotional, affective and social aspects of language learning which comprise anxiety
reduction, self-encouragement and asking questions, and defines learning strategies as
“behaviours or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-
directed, and enjoyable” (p. 235). Oxford (1989) and O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990)
conceptualisations have differed from each other (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). While Oxford
(1989) conceptualised cognitive strategies of language learning in a more functional and
practical way, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) grounded their conceptualisation more technically
on cognitive psychology theory and measured cognitive strategy selection of learners by
examining how learners recall their prior knowledge (schemata) and use selective attention
(Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Macaro, 2006). Besides, consideration of the impact of skilful
management of social, emotional and affective states for a more successful learning strategy
raised the question of “where learning strategies [actually] occur, inside the brain or outside it”
(Macaro, 2006, p. 325). Cohen (1998) mentioned a further aspect of learning strategies that is
“element of choice”.
Cohen (1998) aimed to distinguish a learner’s strategic learning behaviour from a
teacher-owned task activity or from another aim through investigating whether a learner
voluntarily, “appropriately, and purposefully engages in a behaviour to enhance the
effectiveness of language learning” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 146) or not. Hence,
understanding the difference between an ordinary process of language learning and strategic
learning behaviour has become another challenge for the linguistics researchers. Riding and
Rayner (1998) aimed to clarify the issue by highlighting “appropriateness” of a learner’s
activity towards his belief in increasing his individual learning effectiveness. Notwithstanding,
because of the “fluid nature of the term appropriateness” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 144),
appropriateness as a research element became a rather vague construct to operationalise in
research designs. As the number of variables that might be influential on learning strategies
increased, the emergence of new definitions aiming to encompass every variable led to a further
definition and theorising problem with strategy research. All-encompassing models of LLS did
not only make strategy definitions and classifications more complex and less understandable
(Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003), but the interchangeable use of terms “like strategy, operation,
routine, process, procedure, action, [behaviour], tactic, technique, plan, and step” (Macaro,
2006, p. 324) in these models also created a semantic dilemma and confusion among
researchers. Finally, Dörnyei and Skehan’s (2003) argument stating that a strategy cannot be
either cognitive or emotional or behavioural opened another pessimistic window in the field.

3. METHODOLOGY AND MEASUREMENT PROBLEMS

The measurement of learning strategies have suffered from lack of consensus among
researchers as well (Dörnyei, 2005; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). In the 1980s and 1990s, the
claim was that “strategies were identifiable and quantifiable” (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007, p. 17)

142
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

and the identified strategies such as memory, cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive,

affective and social strategies would explain the relationship between strategy use and
achievement (Cohen, 1998; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Especially, Oxford’s
(1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire was employed
ambitiously by a rich body of studies (i.e. Ardasheva & Tretter, 2013; Glenn, 2000; Takeuchi
et al., 1999) to measure the strategy use in language learning. However, a number of theorists
(i.e. Dörnyei, 2005; Macaro, 2006; Woodrow, 2005) argue that language learning success
cannot be assessed through an individual learner’s frequency of strategy use. Besides,
overlapping classifications were observed in the SILL and The Cognitive Academic Language
Learning Approach (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990) (CALLA) questionnaires (Dörnyei, 2005;
Grenfell & Macaro, 2007). Yamamori et al. (2003) and Dörnyei (2005) highlight the
idiosyncratic and individualistic nature of language learning behaviour and criticise the use of
standard methods, measurement instruments, and taxonomies across different cultural and
learning contexts. They state that “low reported strategy use is not always a sign of ineffective
learning. Also reportedly high-frequency use of strategies does not guarantee that the learning
is successful” (Yamamori et al., 2003, p. 384). Given the context-specificity of L2 learning and
the unique characteristics of learners, Tseng et al. (2006) suggest that a learning strategy “can
only be defined relative to a particular agent, because a specific learning activity may be
strategic for one and non-strategic for another” (p. 81). In light of these arguments, the efforts
of linguistics scholars seeking new definitional and theoretical developments ended up with so
many unknowns in LLS research which provided grounds for Dörnyei’s (2005) criticisms
about the existence of definitional fuzziness, controversial taxonomies, and lack of rigorous
theorising in the field.

4. THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS DÖRNYEI’S (2005) CRITICISMS

In 2007, Cohen and Macaro affirmed that given the employment of a strategy as the unit
of analysis in most strategy research, it is unlikely to reach a complete definitional consensus,
thus “researchers should state clearly the theoretical framework on which they are basing their
research and why there might be a need to use different terminology rather than building on
established terminology” (p. 283). Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008), and Gu (2012)
acknowledged this definitional fuzziness as “a natural occurrence rather than a reason to
dismiss them outright” (Rose, 2015, p. 431). In a similar line, Griffiths (2013) who described
conspicuous characteristics of different language learning strategies in a framework called
other researchers to focus on “the essential characteristics of language learning strategies and
to incorporate them into a workable definition” (p. 6) instead of falling into trap of fuzziness
and striving to find additional new terms. Among these inconclusive struggles Oxford et al.’s
(2014a) metaphor-based strategy definition attempt has reflected the very subjective nature of
the issue. So, the exhaustive efforts of researchers on the way of finding a “standard definition”
seemed to end and the concern has shifted to “working definitions” (Cohen, 2011) of learning
strategies. Griffiths and Oxford (2014) stress that “in order to conduct meaningful research, a
definition of the construct being researched is essential” (p. 2). Obviously, a complete
consensus in defining language learning strategies could still not be achieved so far however,

143
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

improvements on the issue are considerable (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014;
Teng & Zhang, 2016).
According to Dörnyei (2005), the most fundamental problem of LLS literature was its
“inability to explain the difference between engaging in an ordinary learning activity and a
strategic learning activity” (Grenfell & Macaro, 2007, p. 25). Several researchers who
emphasise the unique characteristics and psychological reality of language learning (i.e.
Dörnyei, 2005; Tseng et al., 2006; Yamamori et al., 2003) link this problem to lack of
psychometrically sound measures in existing LLS research. The rating scales that are based on
frequency of strategy use were “not cumulative and [their] computing mean scale scores were
psychometrically not justifiable” (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 182). Therefore, a new approach that shifts
the direction of related research from “learner’s use of strategies to their self-regulation in
language learning” (Gao, 2006, p. 615) emerged.

5. NEW WAVE OF STRATEGY RESEARCH: SELF-REGULATED

LANGUAGE LEARNING
Self-regulated learning (SRL) is an active and constructive process which includes
“cognitive, meta-cognitive, motivational, behavioural, and environmental processes that
learners can apply to enhance academic achievement in different learning contexts” (Dörnyei,
2005, p. 101). LLS research considers the trait facet of learners which refers to “their relative
stable knowledge of strategy use across occasions” (Gao, 2006, p. 616) but it remains silent
about the states facet representing the deployment of strategies in different learning contexts.
In this sense, SRL research adopts a more integrative approach that takes other aspects
of language learning into account compared to LLS research. Language learning is a process
which is shaped by a series of self-determined individual actions such as commitment to
learning related goals or intentions, the efforts to reach these goals, control of the emotions
during the process, activities followed for learning, and creating the best fit with environmental
influences (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Woodrow, 2005). In order to organise the mentioned
actions, “some kind of strategic potential” or a self-regulation capacity of the learner (Dörnyei
& Ryan, 2015, p. 164) is also needed. In light of these explanations, Tseng et al.’s (2006) SRL
framework that consists of psychological constructs such as commitment control, meta-
cognitive control, satiation control, and emotion control offers a more psychometrically sound
measure of strategic learning than traditional LLS research. The predictive value of the self-
regulation in language learning was tested by several researchers (i.e. Lin et al., 2017;
Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2012; Seker, 2016; Teng & Zhang, 2016; Ziegler, 2015) in different
contexts and self-regulation capacity was generally accepted as a valid and reliable measure to
predict language learning.
Some authors (i.e. Ranalli, 2012; Rose, 2012) presented different conceptualisations of
self-regulation either by integrating additional constructs to see “what else a new construct may
offer to the field” (Ranalli, 2012, p. 361) or by designing unique frameworks to address the
context-specific research needs of language learning. For example, Ranalli (2012) who
included L2 motivation as another construct and used information processing theory as a new
theoretical lens re-conceptualised the self-regulation model. Ranalli (2012) contrasted to
Dörnyei’s (2005) trait-based model claiming that a strategy cannot be either cognitive or

144
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

emotional or behavioural, and showed how “the dynamic descriptions of the interplay of
cognitive, motivational and behavioural phenomena” (p. 365) can be facilitated through self-
regulation by explaining the role of information processing in his model. With a
methodological concern in SRL, Rose (2012) conducted a research which employs “a mixed-
method qualitative approach in a case study context” (Rose, 2013, p. 983) on strategic learning
of Japanese writing character, kanji. Considering the idiosyncratic and context-specific self-
directed learning behaviours of learners and using the interview data, his framework
incorporated both LLS-based “notions of cognitive and memory strategies with SRL-based
notions of self-regulation and motivation control” (p. 141). After the emergence of SRL
approach, Oxford (2011) also modified her famous model with the new “self-regulated L2
learning strategies” framework. This framework included new constructs such as “generating
and maintaining motivation” and “overcoming knowledge gaps in communicating” Oxford
(2011, p. 12). However, this conceptual broadening added more complexity to the existing
learning strategy literature (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015).
In a more recent study, Teng and Zhang (2016) offered the Writing Strategies for Self-
Regulated Learning Questionnaire (WSSRLQ) as a new instrument and tested its validity
through a confirmatory factor analysis CFA). CFA yielded nine SRL strategies and six of them
were associated with EFL writing performance. The results did not only reveal the multi-
faceted structure of SRL but it also confirmed the applicability of new psychometric constructs
such as “peer learning, feedback handling, and interest enhancement” to the SRL approach.
The study provided a robust statistical testing of psychometric constructs, but again new
constructs which require further examination are added to the SRL field.

DISCUSSION
Against the contributions of SRL framework in understanding better the processes
underlying language learning, working with psychometric constructs, using rich qualitative
data through open questions, and bringing a more dynamic model to explore changing strategic
behaviours of learners in response to changing learning environments, the framework does not
seem to resolve the problems of traditional LLS. Firstly, the SRL framework does not
completely address the measurement weakness of the self-reported data. Secondly, as a result
of the synonymous use of the concepts “such as self-management, self-control, action control,
volition, self-change, self-directed behaviour, coping behaviour, and even meta-cognitive and
problem solving” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 167) SRL opens another door to definitional
fuzziness issue of strategy literature. Moreover, some elements of overlaps in action control
strategies (Rose, 2012) and in the relationship between strategic behaviour and achievement
(Ranalli, 2012) can be observed.
Based on the review, it can be concurred that strategy use in language learning is a highly
individualised activity which includes environment and context specificities. Given this
situation, instead of using standard inventories and seeking to add another definition to the
existing ones, researchers should develop individualised research designs that are adaptable to
situational factors. In line with the arguments of Rose et al. (2018) about the “underuse of
qualitative, in-depth measures” (p. 158) in SRL research, this can be achieved through
employing qualitative methods such as stimulated recall and structured observation (Gass &

145
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

Mackey, 2017; Rose, 2013) which can provide rich and insightful data or other unique hybrid
designs which combine qualitative and quantitative methods. The use of self-reported data
about achievement or performance may lead to misleading results besides the performance
related construct may change over time. For this reason, conducting longitudinal studies should
be the target of strategy researchers.
SRL-based strategy use and achievement are generally linked to each other with direct
relationship assumptions (i.e. Filate, 2012; Ping & Siraj, 2012; Seker, 2016) in strategy
research. However, investigation of the mediating or moderating roles of strategy use between
other influential constructs and performance may offer insightful findings. More research to
understand interactions between the dimensions of SRL is also needed. Finally, different
elements of different frameworks (i.e. cognitive strategies of LLS and self-regulation of SRL)
may play complementary roles in explaining strategic language learning of learners. Therefore,
given the strategy selections may vary according to tasks (Cohen & Macaro, 2007), researchers
should further investigate the interplay of strategy combinations and their effects on learning
performance.

REFERENCES
[1] Anderson, J. (1980). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman & Co.
[2] Ardasheva, Y., & Tretter, T. (2013). Strategy inventory for language learning–ELL
student form: testing for factorial validity. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2): 474–489.
[3] Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Harlow:
Longman.
[4] Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language (2nd,
ed.). London: Longman.
[5] Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years
of Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[6] Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences
in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[7] Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The Psychology of The Language Learner Revisited.
New York: Routledge.
[8] Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning.
In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (eds), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, (pp.
589-630). Oxford: Blackwell.
[9] Filate, Y. A. (2012). The impact of students’ self-regulated language learning on their
reading achievement: Grade 9 students in focus. ELT Research Journal, 1(3), 175–188.
[10] Gao, X. (2006). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response
to Tseng, Dörnyei. Applied Linguistics, 28(4): 615–620.
[11] Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2017). Stimulated Recall Methodology in Applied
Linguistics and L2 Research (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
[12] Glenn, W. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language
learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50(2): 203–243.

146
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

[13] Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critiques. In A. D. Cohen, & E.
Macaro (eds), Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice, (pp. 9-
28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Griffiths, C. (2013). The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
[15] Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of
language learning strategies: introduction to this special issue. System, 43(1): 1–10.
[16] Gu, Y. (2012). Learning strategies: prototypical core and dimensions of variation.
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4), 330–356.
[17] Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[18] Lin, C-H., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, B. (2017). The roles of learning strategies and
motivation in online language learning: a structural equation modelling analysis. Computers &
Education, 113: 75–85.
[19] Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: revising
the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 90(3): 320–337.
[20] Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2012). Adaptation and validation of Self-regulating
Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale. Applied Linguistics, 33(1): 83–91.
[21] O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[22] Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, 17(2): 235–247.
[23] Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should
Know. New York: Newbury House.
[24] Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies.
Harlow: Longman.
[25] Oxford, R. L., Griffiths, C., Longhini A., Cohen, A. D., Macaro, E., & Harris, V.
(2014a). Experts’ personal metaphors and similes about language learning strategies. System,
43(2): 11–29.
[26] Oxford, R. L., Rubin, J., Chamot, A. U., Schrammd, K., Lavine, R., Gunning, P., &
Nel, C. (2014b). The learning strategy prism: perspectives of learning strategy experts. System,
43(3): 30–49.
[27] Ping, A. M., & Siraj, S. (2012). Exploring self-regulatory strategies for vocabulary
learning among Chinese EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1211–
1215.
[28] Ranalli, J. (2012). Alternative models of self-regulation and implications for L2
strategy research. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(4): 357–376.
[29] Riding, R., & Rayner, S. G. (1998). Cognitive Styles and Learning Strategies:
Understanding Style Differences in Learning and Behaviour. London: David Fulton.
[30] Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:
throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics, 33(1): 92–
98.

147
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY
 [Pearson Journal International Conference on 22-23 January
Social Sciences & Humanities] 2021

[31] Rose, H. (2013). L2 learners’ attitudes toward, and use of, mnemonic strategies
when learning Japanese Kanji. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4): 981–992.
[32] Rose, H. (2015). Researching language learner strategies. In B. Paltridge, & A.
Phakiti (eds), Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A practical Resource, (pp. 421-437).
New York: Bloomsbury.
[33] Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018).
A systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System,
72(1): 151–163.
[34] Seker, M. (2016). The use of self-regulation strategies by foreign language learners
and its role in language achievement. Language Teaching Research, 20(5): 600–618.
[35] Takeuchi, O., Mine, H., Yoshida, H., & Yoshida, S. (1999). Toward the
establishment of country-by-country SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) norms.
Language Laboratory, 36(1): 51–62.
[36] Teng, L. S., & Zhang, J. L. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of
multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal,
100(3): 674–701.
[37] Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing
strategic learning: the case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
27(1): 78–102.
[38] Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin
(eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, (pp. 31-42). London: Prentice Hall.
[39] Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies.
Foreign Language Annals, 38(1): 90–100.
[40] Yamamori, K., Isoda, T., Hiromori, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). Using cluster
analysis to uncover L2 learner differences in strategy use, will to learn, and achievement over
time. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 41(4): 381–409.
[41] Ziegler, N. (2015). The predictive value of the Self-regulating Capacity in
Vocabulary Learning Scale. Applied Linguistics, 36(5): 641–647.

148
Full Texts Book Ankara, TURKEY

View publication stats