LEARNING STRATEGIES

Learning methods research has a lot of promise, both in terms of language pedago
gy and in terms of explaining individual differences in L2 learning. However, it is pro
bably correct to state that it is still in its infancy. Perhaps this is why most discussions
on learning strategies end with the issues that have surfaced and must be addressed be
fore progress can be made.

What defines a "learning approach" is a topic of discussion. Although O'Malley a

nd Chamot have anchored their own work, with some success, in a cognitive theory of
information processing, and Brown and Perry have shown how depth-of-processing th
eory can inform the study of vocabulary-learning strategies, there is no widely accepte
d theoretical basis for identifying and describing strategies. The work done thus far ha
s primarily been descriptive, reflecting the wide range of data corpora that have been i
dentified.

In spite of this, significant progress has been made in the development of learning
strategy taxonomies. The later research classifies where the earlier research listed. Th
e three-way differentiation between cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective stra
tegies proposed by O'Malley and Chamot is valuable and widely recognized. The clas
sification of strategies within these general groups, on the other hand, is more difficult.

A lot of the study has assumed that there are ‘good' learning mechanisms. Howev
er, this is debatable. The effectiveness of tactics may be dependent on the tasks in whi
ch they are used. Some tactics, for example, may be effective in activities focused at i
mproving linguistic competence while others may be effective in tasks with a more co
mmunicative goal. The flexible deployment of the proper strategies in the right task m
ay be the key to effective strategy utilization, but nothing is known about this at the m
oment. Different tactics may be necessary for classroom and naturalistic language dev
elopment, as well as for children versus adults.

The idea that effective strategy use necessitates frequent strategy use is likewise
debatable. It's more likely that when and for what purpose learners utilize methods
matters more than how often they employ them. It's also likely that technique will be
most effective when deployed in clusters, albeit the exact groups that function best are
unknown.

The notion that tactics are causal is implicit in much of the study. However, as the
writer have shown, there's a case to be made for treating them as a result of learning.
As a result, advanced students may apply specific tactics just because they are
advanced.

With the exception of several studies on kids, most researchers have found
observation unproductive, therefore much of the study has depended on learner self-
reports. Retrospection and introspection have yielded a wealth of knowledge on
learning mechanisms, but their credibility has been questioned. Furthermore, there is
always the risk that these methodologies confound learners' strategies with their
capacity to self-report.
 Furthermore, almost all of the study has been cross-sectional, so we don't know
much about how learners develop their ability to employ learning techniques over
time or what influence this has on L2 learning. If solutions to the difficulties stated
above are to be identified, more longitudinal case studies are definitely needed.