Applied Linguistics 2019: 0/0: 1–6

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
doi:10.1093/applin/amy024

FORUM

Language Learning Strategies: Is the Baby

Still in the Bathwater?
1,2,
CAROL GRIFFITHS
1
The University of Leeds, 2Auckland Institute of Studies

E-mail: carolgriffiths5@gmail.com, or www.carolgriffiths.net

When it was suggested that the concept of self-regulation should replace the
language learning strategy concept early in the new millennium, there were
fears that strategy research had come to an end. Nevertheless, research,
debate, and publication on the subject have continued. Although some issues
remain (especially regarding definition, underpinning theory, classification, and
research methodology), current opinion tends to suggest that language learning
strategies remain vibrant and compatible with self-regulation. This article dis-
cusses the controversies and concludes by arguing for the need to acknowledge
diversity and to engage in productive debate.

1. INTRODUCTION
When Rose (2012: 92) wrote his article appealing against ‘[t]hrowing language
learning strategies out with the bathwater’, he was reacting to the suggestion
made by Tseng et al. (2006: 78) that a ‘new approach to assessing strategic
learning’ should be adopted, which, in turn, had prompted Gao (2007: 615) to
pose the somewhat desperate question: ‘Has language learning strategy research
come to an end?’. Now, several years after Rose’s appeal, it is timely for us to
enquire whether our strategy baby is still in the proverbial bathwater or not.
Language learning strategies have been controversial since they were launched
into the language learning landscape in the mid-70s (Rubin 1975; Stern 1975;
Naiman et al. 1978). By the mid-80s, however, O’Malley et al. (1985: 22) were
complaining of definitional ‘confusion’. By the 1990s, Wenden (1991: 7) was
describing the concept as ‘elusive’, and, by the new millennium, this ‘conceptual
ambiguity’ had prompted Dörnyei and Skehan (2003: 610) to recommend aban-
doning the term strategy in favour of self-regulation.
Winne (1995), however, had argued more than a decade before that strate-
gies are characteristic of the self-regulating learner, bringing the argument full
circle. Similar arguments were advanced by Zimmerman and Risemberg
(1997) and Boekaerts et al. (2000). The enduring appeal of strategies has
been clearly indicated by an ongoing stream of books (Gao 2010; Cohen
2011; Oxford 2017; Griffiths 2018), articles (Macaro 2006; Plonsky 2011;
Gu 2012; Cohen and Griffiths 2015, Griffiths 2015; Teng and Zhang 2016;
ß The Author(s) (2019). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
2 FORUM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
Rose et al. 2018), and special journal issues (System 2014; Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching 2018), among many others.
Some issues remain, however, perhaps foremost being the very basic ques-
tion of definition.

2. WHAT ARE LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES?

At this point in time, a review of the literature suggests that there is general
agreement on four key defining characteristics:
 Language learning strategies are ‘active’: they are what students ‘do’
(Rubin 1975).
 Language learning strategies are ‘chosen by learners’ (Cohen 2011;
Oxford 2017).
 Language learning strategies are ‘goal oriented and purposeful’ (Macaro
2006; Oxford 1990, 2017).
 As the very name clearly indicates, language learning strategies are used
to ‘learn language’.

These four basic elements might be combined into a concise definition of

language learning strategies as ‘actions chosen by learners for the purpose of
learning language’, and they might be considered what Gu (2012) calls the
‘prototypical core’. In addition, however, there are ‘dimensions of variation’
(Gu 2012), about which there remains more debate, including:
 the distinction between strategies and styles, between ‘ordinary’ and stra-
tegic activities, and between strategies and skills;
 the issue of consciousness;
 the nature of the activity (whether strategies are exclusively mental or
whether they include physical—and, therefore, observable—behaviour);
and
 the relationship to other kinds of strategies (e.g. communication, com-
pensation, or language use strategies).

Although reduced here to minimal bullet points, the areas of debate noted above
have been extensively waged. Each is discussed more in-depth in Griffiths (2018).
It is sufficient to propose here that, a ‘dimensions of variation’ perspective allows
for diversity as long as it is explained and theoretically justified.
In addition to the definition, there have been other major areas (e.g. theor-
etical basis, classification, and research methodology) of controversy related to
language learning strategies. This article does not have space to debate these
areas in detail (for a more thorough discussion, see Griffiths 2018), so a very
brief discussion of each is included here.
 FORUM 3

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
3. THEORETICAL BASIS
Since the language learning strategy field has been accused of being atheore-
tical ( Dörnyei and Skehan 2003; Macaro 2006), let us have a brief look at the
main theoretical paradigms which underpin strategy theory.
At the time that Rubin (1975), Stern (1975), and Naiman et al. (1978) published
their landmark work, the prevailing theoretical paradigm was undoubtedly cog-
nitivism. Other important essentially Cognitivist ideas soon followed, including
the role of error, interlanguage, schema theory, information processing, and the
noticing hypothesis. All these cognition-based theories have potential implications
for strategy theory, in terms, perhaps, of selecting effective actions to learn from
errors, manage interlanguages, develop and access schemata, process incoming
information, and sustain attention and notice important details.
Although cognitivism remains an important influence in the field of language
learning, by the 70s, another very influential concept which has come to be
known as socioculturalism was developing (Lantolf 2000). Sociocultural theory
includes concepts of communicative competence, the acculturation model, the
zone of proximal development, and activity theory. Socioculturalism is evident in
strategy theory as social strategies such as seeking conversation partners, learning
about the culture, or asking for help, activities chosen as tools to achieve lan-
guage learning goals within sociocultural contexts.
Awareness of learners as individuals (humanism) has also been steadily
growing (Pawlak 2012; Gregersen and MacIntyre 2014). Learners are emi-
nently individuals and different from each other, even within the same socio-
cultural context, driven by individual factors such as gender, age, motivation,
beliefs, nationality/ethnicity, personality, style, aptitude, identity, and emo-
tion. Humanism is, perhaps, most evident in strategy theory as affective
strategies, such as maintaining motivation, positive self-talk, or developing
self-confidence.
Language learning strategy theory eclectically combines all these theoretical
traditions, viewing learners as cognitively active individuals, operating within
a social environment according to their own individual human characteristics.
In addition, strategy theory retains traces of other theories, such as behaviour-
ism (e.g. repetition), structuralism (e.g. finding grammar rules), post-structur-
alism (e.g. emphasizing meaning), and self-regulation (the need for learners to
manage their own strategy choices). In other words, we might argue that the
theory underpinning language learning strategies is highly complex, dynamic,
and eclectic, drawing inclusively on insights from many different theoretical
traditions.

4. CLASSIFICATION
Yet another major area of contention has been strategy classification. Rubin
(1981) produced what was probably the first classification scheme: direct and
indirect. O’Malley et al. (1985) identified 26 strategies, divided into three
4 FORUM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
groups: cognitive, metacognitive, and social/affective. The Strategy Inventory
for Language Learning or SILL (Oxford 1990) divided strategies into six groups:
memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social. None
of these taxonomies has escaped serious criticism on the grounds of reliability
and validity (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003; Woodrow 2005), and the question of
strategy classification remains contentious (see Griffiths 2018 for more detail).

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Over the years, probably the most common method used in strategy research
has been the Likert-type questionnaire, the use of which has been widely
debated. Reid (1990: 323) was among the first to question the ‘dirty laundry
of ESL survey research’, while Gu, Wen, and Wu (1995) questioned the terms
of reference, and Woodrow (2005) questioned contextual appropriacy.
Jamieson (2004) argues that Likert scales are often abused, since they produce
ordinal data for which non-parametric rather than parametric statistical tests
are appropriate. This is another big area of debate for which there is insufficient
space here, but again, it is dealt with in more detail in Griffiths (2018).

6. LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: WHERE IS THE

BABY NOW?
So, to return to the question posed in our title, is the baby still in the bathwater
or not? With some surprise, given the storms which have rocked the bath in
recent times, the answer seems to be yes. Although at one time facing severe
competition from the self-regulation front, Rose’s (2012: 96, 97) argument that
‘self-regulation [is] not incompatible with language learning strategies’ seems
to have prevailed, and strategies have continued to be a fertile area of research
and publication. As Oxford (2017) argues, diversity is not necessarily a bad
thing: on the contrary, it can stimulate creativity and enquiry. Sealey (2015: 8)
also suggests that ‘there should be scope for courteous disagreement, con-
structive criticism, and productive debate’.
Can we, therefore, assume that the storm in a bathtub is finally over? That
might be a little premature, as some issues remain. However, as we enter the
fifth decade since our strategy baby’s arrival, there are signs that she/he is
‘alive and kicking’ (Dörnyei and Ryan 2015: 140, 141) and still firmly in the
bathwater.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

REFERENCES
Boekaerts, M., P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds). Cohen, A. 2011. Strategies in Learning and Using a
2000. Handbook of Self-Regulation. Academic Press. Second Language, 2nd edn. Longman.

Cohen, A. and C. Griffiths. 2015. ‘Revisiting
LLS research 40 years later,’ TESOL Quarterly
49: 414–29.
Dörnyei, Z. and S. Ryan. 2015. The Psychology of
the Language Learner Revisited. Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z. and P. Skehan. 2003. ‘Individual
differences in second language learning’ in
C. Doughty and M. Long (eds): Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell, pp.
589–630.
Gao, X. 2007. ‘Has language learning strategy
research come to an end? A response to
Tseng et al,’ Applied Linguistics 28: 615–20.
Gao, X. 2010. Strategic Language Learning: The Roles
of Agency and Context. Multilingual Matters.
Gregersen, T. and P. MacIntyre. 2014.
Capitalizing on Language Learners’ Individuality.
Multilingual Matters.
Griffiths, C. 2015. ‘What have we learnt from
good language learners?,’ ELT Journal 69:
425–33
Griffiths, C. 2018. The Strategy Factor in Successful
Language Learning: The Tornado Effect, 2nd edn.
Multilingual Matters.
Gu, Y. 2012. ‘Learning strategies: Prototypical
core and dimensions of variation,’ Studies in
Self-Access Learning Journal 3: 330–56.
Gu, Y., Q. Wen, and D. Wu. 1995. ‘How often is
Often? Reference ambiguities of the Likert-
scale in language learning strategy research’
in Occasional Papers in English Language
Teaching, vol. 5. ELT unit, Chinese University
of Hong Kong, pp. 19–35.
Jamieson, S. 2004. ‘Likert scales: How to
(ab)use them,’ Medical Education 38: 1217–18.
Lantolf, J. (ed.). 2000. Sociocultural Theory in Second
Language Learning. Oxford University Press.
Macaro, E. 2006. ‘Strategies for language learn-
ing and for language use: Revising the theor-
etical framework,’ The Modern Language Journal
90: 320–37.
Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. Stern, and
A. Todesco. 1978. The Good Language
Learner. Research in Education Series No.7. The
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
O’Malley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. Stewner-
Manzanares, L. Kupper, and R. P. Russo.
1985. ‘Learning strategies used by beginning
and intermediate ESL students,’ Language
Learning 35: 21–46.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What
Every Teacher Should Know. Newbury House.
FORUM 5
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
Oxford, R. 2017. Teaching and Researching
Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in
Context, 2nd edn. Routledge.
Pawlak, M. (ed.). 2012. New Perspectives on
Individual Differences in Language Learning and
Teaching. Springer
Plonsky, L. 2011. ‘The effectiveness of second
language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis,’
Language Learning 61: 993–1038.
Reid, J. 1990. ‘The dirty laundry of ESL survey
research,’ TESOL Quarterl 24: 323–38.
Rose, H. 2012. ‘Reconceptualizing strategic
learning in the face of self-regulation:
Throwing language learning strategies out
with the bathwater,’ Applied Linguistics 33:
92–8.
Rose, H., J. Briggs, J. Boggs, L. Sergio, and
N. Ivanova-Slavianskaia. 2018. ‘A system-
atic review of language learner strategy re-
search in the face of self-regulation,’ System
72: 151–63.
Rubin, J. 1975. ‘What the ‘good language lear-
ner’ can teach us,’ TESOL Quarterly 9: 41–51.
Rubin, J. 1981. ‘Study of cognitive processes in
second language learning,’ Applied Linguistics II/
2: 117–31.
Sealey, A. 2015. ‘Book reviews and forum con-
tributions in applied linguistics—Continuity
and change,’ Applied Linguistics 36: 478–87.
Stern, H. 1975. ‘What can we learn from the
good language learner?,’ Canadian Modern
Language Review 31: 304–18
Teng, L. and L. Zhang. 2016. ‘A Questionnaire-
Based Validation of Multidimensional Models
of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies,’ Modern
Language Journal 100: 674–701.
Tseng, W., Z. Dornyei, and N. Schmitt. 2006.
‘A new approach to assessing strategic learn-
ing: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary
acquisition,’ Applied Linguistics 27: 78–102.
Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner
Autonomy. Prentice Hall.
Winne, P. 1995. ‘Inherent details in self-regu-
lated learning,’ Educational Psychologist 30:
173–87.
Woodrow, L. 2005. ‘The challenge of measuring
language learning strategies,’ Foreign Language
Annals 38: 90–8.
Zimmerman, B. and R. Risemberg. 1997. ‘Self-
regulatory dimensions of academic learning and
motivation’ in G. Phye (ed.): Handbook of
Academic Learning. Academic Press, pp. 105–25.
6 FORUM

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/applij/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/applin/amy024/5288402 by Dupre Library Serials Dept user on 15 January 2019
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTOR
Carol Griffiths has been a teacher, manager, and teacher trainer of ELT for many years.
She has taught in many places internationally, including New Zealand, Indonesia,
Japan, China, North Korea, UK, and Turkey. She has presented at numerous confer-
ences and published widely on learner issues and teacher education. Address for corres-
pondence: Carol Griffiths, 4B/19 Morning Star Place, St Lukes, Auckland 1025, New
Zealand. <carolgriffiths5@gmail.com>