Applied Linguistics 23/1: 32±55 # Oxford University Press 2002

Learner Development in
Language Learning
ANITA L. WENDEN
York College, City University of New York

The notion of learner-centred instruction in foreign and second languages grew

out of the recognition that language learners are diverse, in their reasons for
learning another language, their approach to learning, and their abilities. This
article is about learner development, a learner-centred innovation in FL/SL
instruction that responds to learner diversity by aiming to improve the language
learner's ability to learn a language. First, an overview of concepts and practices
that de®ned learner-centred language teaching are provided. Then, the
foundational ideas that shaped early practice in learner development and the
changes in the ®eld that resulted as these ideas were implemented in language
programmes in various world regions are described. An evaluation of the theory
and practice in learner development from the perspective of selected theories in
SLA follows. The conclusion provides suggestions for future development.

INTRODUCTION
Re¯ecting on trends in foreign language education that began in the 1970s,
Altman (1980: 1) notes that terms, such as `learner-centred', `student-
centred', `personalized', `individualized' and `humanized', appeared as
frequent modi®ers of instruction in the main themes of language conferences
and publications. In fact, the introduction of these new terms into the
discourse on FL/SL teaching marked an emerging recognition of the centrality
of the language learner to the teaching/learning process, with proponents of
learner-centred language teaching advocating that the diversity of learnersÐ
their needs, abilities, and interestsÐbe taken into account in shaping the
language curriculum (e.g. McNeil 1977 cited by Dubin and Olshtain 1986;
Altman 1980).
However, despite this common understanding of the learner's importance
to language learning, the implementation of learner-centred teaching has
revealed di€erent views regarding how it should in¯uence classroom practice.
Earlier views referred to the need to individualize or personalize instruction
(Altman 1980; Strevens 1980). This meant that the goals, means, and rate of
learning were to be determined so as to allow learners taking the same course
to pursue their unique goals in di€erent ways and at a pace appropriate to
their rate of learning. In addition, evaluation of such learning was to be
tailored by the learner's goals (Altman 1980). More recent views have further
elaborated on how learner-centred teaching should in¯uence language
learning tasks and materials. Besides drawing on learners' interests (e.g.
 ANITA L. WENDEN 33

Campbell and Kryszewska 1992), a notion proposed by earlier proponents of

individualization, learner-centred tasks should also be based on learning style
preferences (Reid 1995; Nunan 1996), require active learner involvement
(Scarcella and Oxford 1992), engage learners in self-assessment (Nunan 1988;
Thomson 1996), or allow for creativity and self-direction (Thomson 1992). In
addition, materials in a learner-centred classroom should be authentic (Nunan
1988; Cathcart and Vaughan 1993), usable at di€erent pro®ciency levels,
suggestive rather than de®nitive, re¯ective of learners' sociocultural context,
and foster independent learning (Nunan 1988). Learner-centred teaching also
came to mean that learners should be involved in curricular decisions, for
example the choice of what to study and how (Thomson 1996; Clarke 1991;
Nunan 1988), course management (Littlejohn 1983), the assessment of their
learning (Miller and Ng 1996). In sum, while understandings of how to
implement learner-centredness have varied, overall this new perspective on
the role of the learner converged with other changesÐin the view of language
as communication (e.g. Hymes 1972; Wilkins 1976; Widdowson 1978), in the
perception of the psychology of learning (Bruner et al. 1966; Selinker 1972),
and with the development of humanistic language pedagogies (e.g. Stevick
1976)Ðto considerably change the methods and materials used in the
language classroom.
Curriculum design was also changed by learner-centred approaches to
selecting content for instruction. In¯uenced by insights on the communicative
nature of language, the needs-based model, one type of learner-centred
curriculum, is based on an analysis of the communicative needs of speci®c
groups of learners rather than of the target language. In practice, however,
approaches to needs analysis vary. Some gather objective information about a
learner with the learner being viewed as a stereotype of a speci®c category of
learners (e.g. Munby 1978; Mackay and Bosquet 1981; Hutchinson and
Waters 1987). Others also include subjective information gathered from
particular groups of learners, for example what they already know about the
selected content and their learning process to make ®nal decisions about
curriculum content (e.g. Breen and Candlin 1980; Breen 1987a). Others, yet,
choose to place a major emphasis almost exclusively on subjective
information obtained from a group of learners one is assigned to teach (cf.
Tarone and Yule 1991; Faerch, Haastrup and Phillipson 1984). While also
taking into account the objective and subjective needs of speci®c groups of
learners, the negotiated curriculum, another approach to learner-centred
curriculum design, is de®ned by the notion that learners should be involved
in the decision making regarding both the content, method, and evaluation of
the curriculum. Nunan's (1988) learner-centred curriculum and Breen's
process syllabus (Breen 1987b; Clarke 1991) are examples of negotiated
approaches.
Learner centredness also in¯uenced research in SLA. While earlier studies
had examined learners' interlanguage (e.g. Corder 1967; Selinker 1972),
researchers now also sought to understand which learner characteristics could
34 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

distinguish learners from one another and how they might in¯uence second
language acquisition. Seminal research in this area, which set the direction for
research on learner di€erences conducted throughout the 1980s and 1990s,
yielded insights on socio-a€ective and cognitive variables, such as attitudes
and motivation (Gardner and Lambert 1972); social distance (Schumann
1978); language aptitude (Carroll 1981); intelligence (Genesee, 1976);
cognitive style (Hansen 1984; Willing 1988); perceptual learning styles
(Reid 1987); communication strategies (Tarone 1980; Faerch and Kasper
1983) and learning strategies (Rubin 1975; Naiman et al. 1978).1
Indeed, these developments have had such a profound e€ect on foreign and
second language education that learner-centredness may be considered to
have acquired the status of an educational valueÐa measure by which the
appropriateness and e€ectiveness of teaching methods, tasks, materials, and
curricula are determined (cf Benson 1997; Pennycook 1997 for similar views).
However, it should also be noted that though learner-centred, in fact, these
innovations are intended to improve teaching and the curriculum. Although
learners were expected to bene®t from these changes, they did not intend to
improve the learner as learner. They did not directly attempt to develop the
learner's ability to learn.
The aim of this paper, therefore, is to extend the discussion on learner-
centredness in foreign and second language teaching by reviewing the theory,
research, and practice in learner development, a learner-centred innovation
which intends to help learners learn how to learn.2
The paper will, ®rst, provide a retrospective on the ®eld, describing its
foundational ideas, and the developments that resulted as these ideas were
implemented in language programmes in various world regions. These
developments will, then, be evaluated from the perspective of selected
theories in SLA. Finally, suggestions for future development will be provided.

FOUNDATIONAL IDEAS
Foundational ideas that shaped the research and practice in the ®eld of
learner development have been provided by two distinct learner-centred
educational innovations referred to in the literature as self-directed language
learning (SDLL) and learner strategies in language learning (LSLL). SDLL is
one of the outcomes of social and political trends which in¯uenced adult
education in Europe in the 1970s. The practical need for permanent education
came to be recognizedÐprompted by the problems and demands of social and
technological change and the existence within the population of a
substantially large group of educationally underprivileged (Trim 1980). The
task of responding to this educational need was assigned to adult education.
At the same time, the ®eld was in¯uenced by a broader social movement,
which viewed progress not only as material well-being but also as quality of
life based on a respect for the individual in society. It was, therefore, proposed
that adult education also contribute to the development of `responsible
 ANITA L. WENDEN 35

autonomy' (Schwartz 1977 cited in Holec 1981: 1), a term with a social, rather
than a purely educational signi®cance. As Holec noted, the learner needs to
acquire the ability to `act more responsibly in running the a€airs of society in
which he lives' (1981: 1), and e€orts were directed towards devising
educational structures that would prepare adults for this more active role in
social a€airs. SDLL is an application of these basic notions from adult
education to learner development, and it is the early work of applied linguists
in Europe and the United Kingdom, e.g. Henri Holec (1980, 1981) and Leslie
Dickinson (Dickinson and Carver 1980; Carver and Dickinson 1982), which
outlined the conceptual parameters that shaped subsequent research and
practice in the ®eld.
On the other hand, cognitive science is the theoretical base for LSLL. One
outcome of intellectual trends in North America in the 1960s which led to the
questioning of the behaviourist paradigm of learning, cognitive science views
human cognition as the active processing of information (cf Johnson-Laird
and Watson (1977) for a discussion of these trends). The study of cognitive
development and functioning prompted by this view of cognition led to
research which documented the use of learning strategies by young children,
adolescents, and adults (cf Brown et al. 1983 for a review of this research
dating back to the early 1950s). In addition, theoretical models of mind
developed by experts in the ®eld of arti®cial intelligence posited the notion of
an executive function which coordinates and regulates mental processes. As a
result, the notion of metacognition was introduced into the discourse on
learning processes and a distinction between cognitive learning strategies and
metacognitive learning strategies was recognized (cf Brown et al. 1983).
Learner strategies in language learning (LSLL) is an application of insights
derived from this research to instruction in language learning.
In addition, the research on LSLL is part of the body of good language
learner research initiated by Rubin (1975) and Naiman et al. (1978).
Motivated by studies that had shown that improved teaching methods did
not result in more e€ective learning outcomes (cf. Naiman et al. 1978 for a
description of the work done by Scherer and Wertheimer, Smith, Lambert
and Tucker, and Baric and Swain) and by learner-centred trends in language
teaching, Naiman et al. (1978) aimed to document the strategies of good, that
is, successful, language learners. Early research on LSLL had the same goals.
It was hoped that ®ndings from such studies would reveal the key to
e€ective learning and provide teachers guidance in improving the learning
skills of less successful language learners. Other than the work of Rubin
(1975) and Naiman et al. (1978) cited above, the foundational research that
provided the basis for this second approach to learner development includes
studies by Carol Hosenfeld (1977; 1979a), Andrew Cohen (Cohen and
Aphek 1980, 1981), Rubin (1981), O'Malley et al. (1983), O'Malley et al.
(1985).
Though both place primary emphasis on improving the learner, the
approaches of SDLL and LSLL to the implementation of learner development
36 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

di€er. The following description of these di€erences is mainly a synthesis of

ideas presented in the early writings of the above mentioned innovators.3

Educational goal
Early proponents of SDLL were explicit that learner autonomy, generally
de®ned as the ability to take charge of one's learning, was their basic
educational goal, with self-directed learning being seen as the realization of a
learner's potential for autonomy (Holec 1981; 1985; Dickinson and Carver
1980; Carver and Dickinson 1982; Carver 1984). On the other hand, the
educational goal of early researchers and practitioners of language learner
strategies was a successful learner, that is, a learner who could approach the task
of language learning competently and e€ectively (e.g. Rubin 1975; Naiman et
al. 1978).

Learning objectives
The early literature in SDLL is unanimous in the belief that self-direction
requires that learners be able to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning
(Dickinson and Carver 1980; Holec 1980, 1981). These three skills were to be
the main objectives of learning plans which aimed to promote learner
autonomy. Planning referred to decisions that must be made before actually
engaging in any kind of learning, for example decisions regarding learning
objectives, content and progression of learning, place and time, materials and
tasks (Holec 1981; Carver and Dickinson 1982). According to Holec (1981:
16), monitoring was a process whereby a learner `adjusts his learning rhythm
to his acquisition rhythm'. Evaluation was viewed as the end stage in a
learning project whereby a learner determines whether the results achieved
are in line with a selected objective and how e€ectively the selected means of
learning contributed to the desired outcome (cf. Henner-Stanchina and Holec
1977).
The learning objectives of LSLL are based on ®ndings from the research on
successful language learners which revealed that these learners deploy a
variety of strategies to deal with the learning problems they encounter.
Therefore, teachers are encouraged to help students learn to use learning
strategiesÐto attend to incoming information to be learned, comprehend it,
and to store and retrieve what is learned.

Learning outcomes
In helping students to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, SDLL
intends that learners learn to manage their language learning. This means
taking charge of a language learning task which extends over time and
consists of multiple language learning activities that aim to respond to a
learner's particular linguistic needs. In an account of two early experiments in
 ANITA L. WENDEN 37

SDLL at the University of Nancy, Stanchina (in Abe et al. 1975: 59) lists
examples of the needs of the participating professionals as follows:

. directing a factory in Iran with English speaking colleagues;

. directing a postal system in Thailand with English speaking colleagues;
. participating in a training course on orthodontic techniques in the United
States;
. continuing scienti®c research and keeping up with the international
conferences;
. working as a maitre d'hotel in a French restaurant abroad;
. attending business meetings held by multinational ®rms and conducted in
English.

In contrast, learning strategy instruction aims to enhance the processing of

learning required to complete discrete pedagogical tasks. Therefore, learners
are helped to acquire task speci®c strategies, such as guessing the meaning of
the new words in a passage, reading and outlining the key ideas in a
paragraph, comparing ways in which particular tenses are used in di€erent
contexts. (For inventories of learning strategies, cf. O'Malley and Chamot
1990; Rubin 1987; Oxford 1990).

Setting
At the University of Nancy, where one of the ®rst self-directed learning
schemes was developed, learner needs and preferences led to the conclusion
that the traditional classroom, where group instruction was the norm, was
inadequate as a setting to promote SDLL. That is, some learners had very
speci®c linguistic needs that would not be addressed in a group setting; others
preferred not to work in a group or felt they were capable of learning English
on their own if provided with adequate resources. Others, yet, who did not
have speci®c reasons for acquiring English, were not motivated by classroom
instruction (Henner-Stanchina 1976). Therefore, it was decided that SDLL
should take place outside the classroom setting and that individual students
would consult with a teacher at a time of their own choosing (Abe et al. 1975).
Central to the operation of these SDLL systems was a self-access centre.
Developed in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, these centres (also known as
resource centres) were established to provide materials for direct use by
learners, without teacher supervision (Gremmo and Riley 1995). The
resources in these centres were now adapted to the implementation of
SDLL and the self-access centre came to be associated with this mode of
learning. On the other hand, the research on learning strategies was intended
to serve as a basis for instructional interventions in the classroom. Less
successful learners would be provided with skills for learning which had
proved e€ective for successful learners. Therefore, LSLL was originally
associated exclusively with the classroom.
38 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

Learner/teacher roles
The idea that learners were to self direct their language learning outside of the
traditional classroom implied a major change in the roles of both teacher and
learner. Learners were expected to become their own teachers, taking over
the management tasks that had been the prerogative of the teacher. Of course,
it was recognized that learners were not at all prepared for this new role. As
Holec (1981) noted, it would be necessary for learners to be `deconditioned',
that is, freed from prior judgements and prejudices about learning that would
impede their taking responsibility, and to develop a new perspective on
teaching and learning. It was expected that teachers would do the
`deconditioning process' and, in addition, prepare learners to bear their new
responsibilities, that is to help them to learn how to learn. For teachers,
therefore, this meant reconceiving their role as that of a helper whose task it
was to provide learners methodological and psychological preparation and
ongoing advice (Gremmo and Abe 1985; Holec 1981).
LSLL did not initiate a discussion on radically changing the role of the
teacher. It was assumed that besides providing language instruction, teachers
would instruct learners to use learning strategies (cf for example Rubin 1975;
Hosenfeld 1979b). Therefore, at the outset, the ®rst concern was the
preparation of methods and materials for doing so, and, secondly, the
development of guidelines for e€ective strategy instruction which teachers
could follow in devising their own materials (cf. Hosenfeld et al. 1981; Rubin
& Thompson 1982; Stewner-Manzanares et al. 1985; Willing 1985 for
examples of early materials and O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990;
Wenden 1991 for guidelines).

DISSEMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT

As these approaches to learner development were disseminated and
implemented, questions were raised regarding (1) the appropriateness and/
or manner of incorporating SDLL and LSLL into language learning and (2)
undeveloped curricular components in both practices. The following devel-
opments were a response to these concerns.

Institutionalization
How to incorporate learner development with language instruction in the
language classroom, what the purpose of self-access centres should be, and
how the role of teachers would have to changeÐthese questions about the
setting and teacher roles for learner development needed to be addressed if
SDLL and LSLL were to become an integral part of the teaching and learning
of second and foreign languages.
 ANITA L. WENDEN 39

Learner development in the classroom

At the outset, it appeared that SDLL was in potential opposition to the culture
of the classroom. Its goal was an autonomous language learner, and to that
end it advocated that learners learn to take charge of the planning,
monitoring, and evaluating of their learning. However, these tasks are
traditionally assigned to the teacher, and in a school setting, very often,
even the teacher cannot autonomously decide what is to be learned as
language syllabi may be pre-set. Moreover, classroom instruction is directed
towards groups of learners whose needs are expected to be similar while the
practice of SDLL in the self-access centre focused on the needs of the
individual learner. Thus, it appeared that SDLL was incompatible with
language learning in the classroom.
However, with the dissemination and implementation of SDLL, these views
were challenged. From the outset, there were experiments aimed towards
partial incorporation of SDLL with language instruction in traditional school
settings. These included, for example, self-assessment training (Oskarsson
1980), needs analysis questionnaires (Allwright 1981), specialized materials
for reading instruction (Long 1982), as well as tasks that engaged students in
decisions regarding speci®c aspects of their learning (cf Holec 1988 for an
account of these earlier experiments). While these experiments began the
process of introducing instruction for SDLL into the language classroom, this
instruction remained separate from language instruction. Other experiments,
however, moved beyond partial to comprehensive incorporation of SDLL in the
classroom. The work of Huttunen (1986, 1988), Dam (1995a) and colleagues
(e.g. Dam and Gabrielsen 1988; Dam and Legenhausen 1996) is especially
known for demonstrating how it (SDLL) can be used as the organizing
principle in the design and implementation of FL instruction in the language
classroom. In providing useful models for the incorporation of SDLL with
language instruction, these developments led to the recognition that the
classroom was an appropriate setting for SDLL.4 As a result, in the 1990s,
learner autonomy, the goal of SDLL, attained the buzz-word status enjoyed by
notions such as `communicative' and `authentic' for several years (Little 1991)
and `developing the learner's autonomy' was included as a general objective
in most national curricula for modern languages in Europe (Gremmo and
Riley 1995).
Incorporating LSLL into language learning presented a di€erent challenge.
Initially, the development of e€ective methods and materials to provide
strategy instruction was the focus of concern (cf p. 38). However,
dissemination and implementation led to the recognition that these materials
needed to be integrated with language instruction if LSLL was to become a
part of the language curriculum (O'Malley and Chamot 1990, Rubin 1994,
Yang 1998). In this regard, Chamot and O'Malley's Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach, that is, the CALLA model (Chamot and
O'Malley 1987, 1993a), which outlines methods for incorporating the
40 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

teaching of learning strategies and language skills with subject matter content,
has strongly contributed to the acceptance of learner strategy instruction into
the language curriculum for limited English pro®ciency students in
elementary and secondary schools in North America. According to Chamot
(2000) in ®ve states, ten school districts in the North American school system
either have implemented or are in the process of implementing CALLA (i.e.
Massachusetts, North Dakota, New York, Texas, Virginia), and Idaho is using
CALLA in its migrant education project. Additionally, CALLA workshops are
preparing teachers to integrate learning strategies into their teaching of
language skills and subject matter in nine more school districts in New York
City, Texas, and Michigan.
While CALLA provides strategy instruction to learners of English, strategies-
based instruction (SBI) has contributed to integrating strategies into the
curricula of foreign languages. According to Cohen and colleagues, SBI has a
twofold aim: explicit strategy instruction and strategy integrationÐembed-
ding strategies into language activities to provide for contextualized strategy
practice (Cohen et al. 1995; Cohen 1999), and as a result of training provided
at annual SBI institutes, teachers from kindergarten through university are
now implementing this approach in FL programs at their respective levels.
(For other examples of procedures which incorporate strategy instruction
with FL/SL instruction, cf Rubin et al. 1988; Oxford 1990; Cohen 1990;
Cotterall 1990; Wenden 1991; Hosenfeld et al. 1993; Chamot et al. 1993;
Mendelsohn 1995; Kidd and Marquardson 1996).
Other than issues relating to the feasibility and manner of incorporating
SDLL and LSLL into language training, the institutionalization of learner
development further required that assumptions about the role of the teacher
be addressed. How could teachers socialized into the role of teaching a foreign
or second language be expected to help learners to self-direct their learning?
Did this not mean preparing them to learn to take on the tasks of planning,
monitoring, and assessment that are a teacher's responsibilities? How would
their relationship with their students change once they assumed this new
role? Clearly if learners needed to be `deconditioned' to take on the self-
direction of their learning, so did teachers, if they were to help them take on
this role. As for LSLL, among the several issues they list as related to the actual
implementation of learning strategies, O'Malley and Chamot (1990) state that
`the most important issue is developing in teachers the understanding and
techniques for delivering e€ective learning strategy instruction to students'
(O'Malley and Chamot 1990: 154; also see Thompson and Rubin 1996 for a
similar view).
Indeed, as more language educators became involved in learner develop-
ment, it was acknowledged that teachers were not prepared to take on the
task of incorporating SDLL or LSLL into a language curriculum, neither in
classroom settings nor in a self-access centre. They required attitudinal and
methodological preparation (e.g. Biddle and Malmberg 1990; Huttunen 1990;
1993; Rubin 1994). Attitudinal preparation included facilitating a change in
 ANITA L. WENDEN 41

role perception. Teachers would need to understand that promoting learner

development required that they diversify though not necessarily relinquish
their traditional functions (Wenden 1985; Eriksson 1993). Their added
pedagogical challenge would be to ®nd ways of developing their learners'
ability to learn. In addition, referring speci®cally to SDLL, language educators
noted that teachers had developed counterproductive attitudes about the
implementation of self-direction in the classroom and advocated that e€orts
be made to deal with these, for example lack of con®dence, self-esteem
(Carver 1984; Dam 1995a; Lyne 1995); unwillingness and fear (Dam 1995a);
uncertainty about how students will react (Miller and Ng 1996; Huttunen
1993); fear that learner training will lead to anarchy (Kenny 1993) or that it is
a threat to one's professionalism (Eriksson 1995).
As regards methodological preparation, language educators preparing
teachers to implement SDLL or LSLL recognized that training in the design
and implementation of e€ective procedures and/or materials for learner
development, while essential, was not sucient. Teachers also needed to
develop a new understanding of the process of teaching (Hosenfeld in Rubin
1994), and of learning (cf Holec 1985; Wenden 1991; Moreira et al. 1999).
Finally, teacher preparation programmes, it was recommended, should also
aim toward the development of teacher autonomy (Moreira et al., 1999;
Thavenius 1999).5

Learner development in institutional settings other than the

classroom
With the establishment of self-access centres for SDLL, questions were raised
about the nature of their contribution to an institution's mission to provide
foreign language instruction. Would they remain ancillary to the classroom as
they were often perceived (Sturtridge 1997) or would they be accepted as
alternatives to the classroom? As an increasing number of such centres were
established, notably in south-east Asia, where as Gremmo and Riley (1995:
157) noted, `new resource centres seem to spring up daily', perception of their
ancillary role began to change. Self-directed language learning came to be
referred to as self-access language learning (Pemberton et al. 1996; Sturtridge
1997) or independent language learning (Ravindran 1996, 1998). These
newer designations emphasized the setting for learner development, that is,
self-access language learning instead of classroom language learning or independ-
ent language learning instead of learning with a teacher, whereas the term self-
directed language learning emphasized the content and goal of the process.
While this shift in designation did not deny the importance of the process or
goal, subtly and implicitly, it was being suggested that settings which allow for
learning outside a classroom setting and/or without a teacher should be seen
as a viable institutional alternative in the development of language
programmes.
A unique innovation in this regard is the certi®cate for independent
42 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

learning o€ered by the Centre for Individual Language Learning at the

Temasek Polytechnic Institute in Singapore (Ravindran 1998). The certi®ca-
te's recognition of students' e€orts at taking responsibility for their own
learning is innovative in that it fosters learning how to learn and learner
independence through language development. In making language develop-
ment the means to learning to learn in an independent mode, it reverses the
end±means relationship that has traditionally stood between language
learning and SDLL. Thus, it further reinforces the notion of independent
language learning and self-access language learning as a viable institutional
alternative to classroom language learning. In fact, according to Sturtridge
(1997), self-access centres have become the only alternative on some
campuses where university administrations can neither hire professional
teachers nor train teachers in sucient numbers to meet the increased
demand for language instruction. Sturtridge cites Mexico, where there were
already 34 resource centres in operation by 1997.6
The implementation of SDLL in self-access centres also raised questions
about the role of the teacher. Clearly this new setting required new ways of
interacting with students and what this entailed evolved with the expanding
understanding of the preparation learners needed to work independently.
Thus, at the outset teachers were expected to advise students on the choice of
materials and guide them to their location (Sturtridge 1997). However, later, a
more complex role was proposed (Kelly 1996; Riley 1997; Sturtridge 1997).
According to Kelly (1996), teachers in a self-access centre should function as
language counsellors, their task being essentially similar to that of a
therapeutic counsellor. Just as the latter are expected to enable an individual
to make the changes and decisions necessary to manage a problem, in the
same way, the language counsellor is expected to help language learners
manage the problem of learning independently, that is, of changing their
beliefs about their role as learners and making the decisions necessary to
assume responsiblity for their learning. To that end teachers would need to
acquire the competencies that derive from a counselling model of one-to-one
helping (cf Kelly 1996 and Riley 1997 for examples of these competencies.)

Curricular and theoretical developments

The implementation of SDLL and LSLL led to the recognition that a€ective
factors had been ignored in the curricula for learner development. It was also
acknowledged that the practice needed theoretical justi®cation.

The a€ective dimension

From the outset the LSLL literature had recognized a€ective factors as key to
e€ective language learning. In Naiman et al.'s (1978) seminal study, learners'
ability to manage their feelings was documented as one of the characteristics
of successful language learners. Rubin and Thompson's (1982) learner manual
 ANITA L. WENDEN 43

included a€ective factors in their discussion of psychological dispositions for

good language learning. None the less, the early strategy taxonomies
emphasized cognitive factors almost exclusively, that is, cognitive and
metacognitive strategies (e.g. O'Malley et al. 1985; Rubin 1987). Findings
from additional studies, however, led O'Malley and Chamot (1990) to expand
social mediation strategies, one of the three categories of strategies that
constituted their taxonomy, to social-a€ective strategies and, from the outset,
Oxford's (1990) taxonomy of language learning strategies included three
a€ective strategy setsÐto help manage anxiety and low self-esteem and to
diagnose one's emotional temperature (Oxford 1990: 141). On a theoretical
level, Dickinson (1995) sought to establish the link between motivation and
autonomy. Drawing upon Deci and Ryan's (as cited in Dickinson 1995)
intrinsic/extrinsic view of motivation, he noted that learners who view the
learning context as facilitating rather than controlling self-determination are
more likely to be intrinsically motivated. He further explained that when
students believe that success or failure in learning depends on personal e€ort
and, therefore, accept responsibility for their learning, successful outcomes
appear to lead to greater motivation, a notion based on the attribution theory
of motivation.

Theory development
Referring to both research and instruction in LSLL, O'Malley and Chamot
(1990) noted that in the early 1980s, at the onset of their investigations, there
was no SLA theory that provided an explanation for the role of learning
strategies in language learning. While it was true that some of the existing
theoretical explanations in SLA did incorporate a cognitive component, these,
they noted, did not include the question of learning strategies. In addition,
predominant models of SLA, in¯uenced by universal grammar, viewed the
acquisition of another language as, primarily, an unconscious process very
similar to a child's acquisition of an L1. These models discounted the role of
conscious processes in SLA. Implicitly, such a view questioned the ecacy of
strategy instruction and strategy use. This matter needed to be addressed. A
link between the theory and research on how individuals learn and
instructional practice needed to be made. Therefore, drawing upon cognitive
theory, particularly the work of John Anderson, O'Malley and Chamot (1990)
outlined an information processing theory of memory to explain how second
languages are learned and how learning strategies contribute to their
acquisition. The theory stresses the active and deliberate nature of mental
processes and considers the learning of language as being similar to the
learning of procedural knowledge or other complex cognitive skills.
On the other hand, Little (1996, 1999) sought to establish the psychological
basis for SDLL and its underlying goal, the development of learner autonomy,
and at the same time, to discount the belief that autonomy was simply the
product of either a particular pedagogical approach or a particular setting and
44 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

appropriate only for adults. His theoretical views are derived from the literature
on developmental learning in children (cf. Little 1996 for a description of work
done by Bruner, Karmilo€-Smith, Wells, Vygotsky, and Tharp and Gallimore).
According to Little (1996), the explicit fostering of learner autonomy through
learner development builds upon the learner's capacity for autonomous
behaviour manifested in the child's biological imperative to interact and
create opportunities for learning, speci®cally for L1 acquisition, socialization,
and acculturation. Citing research which shows that children initiate and end
these interactions, he states that this biological imperative makes young
children psychologically and socially autonomous from birth though, at the
same time, they depend on their social environment to support and give
continuity to their e€orts to learn. What applies to the child, Little argued, must
also apply to learning at the more advanced stages when the metaprocesses
underlying the child's innate and autonomous tendency to learn become
explicit and conscious. In other words, while learning is autonomous from
infancy, it is initially unconscious and involuntary. However, with formal
schooling and the acquisition of literacy, naturalistic autonomy is supplemen-
ted with an autonomy that is the product of deliberate re¯ection and analysis.
Thus, according to Little, autonomy, the goal of SDLL, is an extension of the
child's innate tendency to act independently. It is a universal human potential
and, as such, is not dependent on a way of teaching, a particular setting, or
limited to a particular age or culture group.

LEARNER DEVELOPMENT AND SLA THEORY

This section will review the developments described above from the perspect-
ive of selected theories in SLA which focus either on the role of learning
processes or learner di€erences to indicate the relationship between the two
®elds and so, to provide a broader perspective on questions regarding the
relevance of SDLL and LSLL.

Perspectives on learner processes

While not discounting the role of the teacher and the curriculum, SDLL and
LSLL have made learning the main construct for planning and evaluating
foreign and second language instruction, and fostering the learner's capacity
for a more active, re¯ective, and self-directed approach to learning the main
goals of this process. By thus emphasizing the process rather than the
outcome of language learning, learner development may be viewed as the
instructional counterpart of SLA theories that give centrality to learner
processes. However, according to some of the earlier theories, for example
Universal Grammar, the Monitor Theory and Interlanguage Theory (cf
Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991; Ellis 1994), learner processes are beyond
conscious manipulation. This view, as noted on p. 43, is in direct opposition to
the notion of deliberate action on the part of the learner advocated by LSLL.
 ANITA L. WENDEN 45

Controversial when originally proposed, this latter understanding of the

learner's role in language learning became part of a broader discussion on the
role of conscious learning in SLA (e.g. Smith 1981; McLaughlin 1987; Schmidt
1991) which has led to an acceptance of LSLL as a ®eld of research and the
emergence of theoretical explanations of the learning process which assign a
role to consciousness in second language acquisition, for example Gass's
general framework for investigating SLA (cited in Ellis 1994); skill learning
models (cf Ellis 1994 for a description of work by McLaughlin and Anderson);
focus on form (Long 1991; Doughty and Williams 1998); sociocultural theory
(Lantolf 2000). Thus, these more recent theories reinforce the view of the
learner as deliberately involved in the acquisition process proposed by LSLL.

Perspectives on learner differences

Acculturation theory (e.g. Schumann 1978; 1986) and the socio-educational
model of language learning (e.g. Gardner 1979; 1985), SLA theories derived
from social psychology, have identi®ed a€ective (e.g. motivation and
attitudes), cognitive (e.g. language aptitude, intelligence), and social factors
(e.g. social distance) as distinguishing language learners one from the other
and in¯uencing the outcome of language acquisition. These learner
di€erences, however, operate below consciousness and are not easily
changed. In contrast, with the acceptance of LSLL as a ®eld of research, a
learner di€erence that is accessible and changeable has been added to this list
of factors, that is, learning strategies.
Little's (1996, 1999) theoretical justi®cation for SDLL also suggests a learner
di€erence, which, like learning strategies, is distinct from those proposed by
SLA theory. While the latter refer to learner characteristics that are expected
to in¯uence behaviour, Little refers to what learners actually do, that is their
role in regulating the language learning process. His focus on the linguistic and
cultural socialization of children suggests a link with creative construction
theory, which also highlights learner autonomy in arguing for the creativity of
the mental processes in L1 acquisition (Dulay and Burt 1977). Little's view of
autonomy as a biological imperative in infants and toddlers, which leads them
to take initiatives to interact and learn, appears to complement this notion,
thus adding another dimension to the autonomy of mental processing in L1
acquisition.
On the other hand, the inclusion of a€ective factors into the theory and
practice of learner development ®nds its justi®cation in SLA theory,
speci®cally Gardner's socio-educational model. While initially derived from
the literature on cognitive motivation, Dickinson's theoretical arguments
about the relationship between autonomy and motivation (see p. 43) link the
intrinsic/extrinsic explanation to the notions of integrative and instrumental
motivation proposed by Gardner and his associates noting that the latter are
subject speci®c examples of the former (Gardner 1985; Gardner and
Macintyre 1992, as cited in Dickinson 1995). His explanation of the role of
46 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING

motivation in fostering autonomy draws on SLA theory indirectly. In contrast,

key arguments in Oxford's rationale for including a€ective strategies in
learner development are based directly on SLA literature on the a€ective
domain (e.g. Gardner 1985; Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcroft and Evers 1985 as
cited in Oxford 1990).

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
While acknowledging the value of both the foundational ideas of SDLL and
LSLL and the changes that occurred with their dissemination, it is necessary to
recognize the challenges that remain. This retrospective has suggested four
areas which should be addressed.

Curricular integration of SDLL and LSLL

As originally conceived, instruction for learner development would focus
either on self-directed learning skills or on learning strategies. There was no
overlap in educational goals, learning objectives and outcome. However, with
the dissemination and implementation of the two approaches, a trend towards
curricular integration was begun. This was articulated in statements of
purpose with proponents of SDLL (e.g. Dickinson 1987) including ecient
learning as one of the stated aims of self-instruction and proponents of LSLL
referring to the goal of learning strategy instruction as the promotion of
overall self-direction (Oxford 1990) or the development of students' ability to
become autonomous or self-regulated learners (O'Malley and Chamot 1994).
Such statements of educational purpose were re¯ected in learning plans
which provided instruction in both cognitive strategies and skills for self-
direction (e.g. Dickinson 1987; Ellis and Sinclair 1989; Wenden 1991; Chamot
et al. 1993; Hosenfeld et al. 1993; Havranek 1995; Nunan 1997). This trend
towards integration of goals and practice should continue.

Metacognitive knowledge in learner development

Metacognitive knowledge is a notion that refers to what learners know about
language learning: the nature of the task, how best to approach it, and
personal factors that may inhibit or facilitate the process. While its
importance has generally been acknowledged, for the greater part the
practice in learner development has given primacy to planning, monitoring
and evaluating, and to cognitive strategies. However, Rubin's (1999)
theoretical model of self-management in language learning, which assigns
a major role to metacognitive knowledge, research dating back to the mid-
1980s, which has documented the knowledge language learners hold (e.g.
Wenden 1986; Horwitz 1987, 1988; Tumposky 1991; Park 1994; Cotterall
1995; Victori 1995) and more recently, studies which show the relationship
between knowledge and strategy use (e.g. Victori 1999; Yang 1999),
knowledge and readiness for autonomy (e.g. Cotterall 1999), and the
 ANITA L. WENDEN 47

emergence of metacognitive knowledge in monitoring (Platt and Brooks

1994) suggest the need to expand e€orts to include metacognitive
knowledge among the curricular components essential to learner develop-
ment.

Planning and monitoring

The subprocesses that constitute planning should be reconsidered and
expanded. Typically pre-task engagement planning has been viewed as
consisting of a series of decisions about goals, means, time (cf. p. 36). This
understanding does not make explicit the process of task analysis, a pre-
requisite to these planning decisions by which learners determine the purpose
of the task (Breen 1987a; Nicholls 1984), the nature of the problem the task
poses (Paris and Byrnes 1989), and the task's demands (Shih 1986; Grabe
1991; Kirkland and Saunders 1991). These subprocesses of task analysis
should be included in a revised understanding of planning.
Monitoring is an area that remains relatively unde®ned in the SDLL and
LSLL literature. The few attempts to do so thus far have revealed di€erent
views regarding the procedures that constitute monitoring, and, implicitly, the
scope of its processes (Rubin 1987; Oxford 1990; Wenden 1991; Chamot
1994; Thomson 1996). On the other hand, a synthesis of selected research in
cognitive literature and SLA shows that there is agreement that the following
cyclical and interactive subprocesses constitute the monitoring that takes
place in the completion of a learning task, that is self-observation (e.g. Palinscar
and Brown 1984; Ertmer et al. 1996); assessment (e.g. Schoenfeld 1989; Block
1992); decision to take action and how (e.g. Casanave 1988; Block 1992);
implementing the decision (e.g. Zimmerman 1989; Corno and Kanfer 1993).
E€orts towards helping learners acquire the ability to monitor their learning
would bene®t by taking these subprocesses into account.

Research
As noted above, research has begun to look at relationships between
metacognitive knowledge, learning strategies, and, to a lesser extent, the
skills for self-direction. Future research on the processes of learner
development should continue to document this interactionÐas it is
manifested in particular language learning tasks. For example, how does
evaluating in¯uence the choice of cognitive strategies in the acquisition of
pro®ciency in writing? or listening? the change of pre-set plans? How does
monitoring in¯uence evaluation? the choice of learning objectives? self-
assessments? And how do the various categories of metacognitive knowledge
come into play in the deployment of these skills and strategies in each case? It
is expected that the outcome of such research will provide a more
comprehensive view of how learner development may be facilitated or
inhibited. It should allow for a more accurate analysis of factors leading to
48 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
instances of success and failure and, therefore, re®ne the quality of present
and future practice aimed at enhancing the role learners play in second
language acquisition.
NOTES
1 For an extended review of the research on
each of these learner characteristics done in
the 1980s and 1990s, see Ellis 1994; Larsen-
Freeman and Long 1991 (ninth printing in
1997).
2 While the practice that implements these
two approaches is most commonly referred
to as learner training, alternative terms, such
as `learner development', `learner education',
`learning to learn' have been suggested. This
paper uses one of these alternative terms,
that is, learner development.
3 In highlighting the work of these particular
innovators, it is not being suggested that
there were not others practising and
researching along similar lines at the time.
However, it is their writings on this topic
that are prominent in the literature starting
REFERENCES
Abe, D., C. Henner-Stanchina, and P. Smith.
1975. `New approaches to autonomy: two
experiments in self-directed learning.' Mel-
anges Pedagogiques 73±82. CRAPEL, Univer-
sity of Nancy, France.
Allwright, R. 1981. `What do we want
teaching materials for?' English Language
Teaching Journal 36: 5±18.
Altman, H. 1980. `Foreign language teaching:
focus on the learner' in H. Altman and C. V.
James (eds): Foreign Language Teaching: Meet-
ing individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Ltd.
Benson, P. 1997. `The philosophy and politics
of learner autonomy' in P. Benson and
P. Voller (eds): Autonomy and Independence
in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Biddle, M. and P. Malmberg. (eds) 1990.
Learning to Learn: Investigating learner strategies
and learner autonomy: Report on workshop 2a.
Language Learning for European Citizen-
ship. Council for Cultural Co-operation.
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Block, E. 1992. `See how they read: Compre-
(Revised version received June 2001)
from about the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.
More recent work, which contributed to the
development of SDLL and LSLL, is cited in
section 2.
4 See Vieira (1999) for a more recent discus-
sion on how to reconcile pedagogy with
autonomy in the language classroom.
5 See Chamot and O'Malley (1993b) for a
report on studies that evaluate three di€er-
ent approaches to teacher education and
Nyikos (1996) for a study that describes
how teachers incorporate strategy instruc-
tion suited to their students' needs into their
practice.
6 For descriptions of other language pro-
grammes that o€er language learning in a
setting other than the classroom, see Karls-
son et al. (1997) and Kenny (1993).
hension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers'.
TESOL Quarterly 26: 319±44.
Breen, M. 1987a. `Learner contributions to
task design' in C. Candlin and D. Murphy
(eds): Language Learning Tasks. Lancaster
Practical Papers in English Language Educa-
tion. Volume 7. London: Prentice-Hall Inter-
national.
Breen, M. 1987b. `Contemporary paradigms in
syllabus design, part II.' Language Teaching
20: 157±74.
Breen, M. and C. Candlin. 1980. `The essen-
tials of a communicative curriculum in
language teaching.' Applied Linguistics 1: 89±
112.
Brown A., J. D. Bransford, R. Ferrara, and
J. C. Campione. 1983. `Learning, remem-
bering and understanding' in J. H. Flavell
and E. M. Markman (eds): Carmichael's
Manual of Child Psychology: Volume 1. New
York: Wiley.
Bruner, J. S., R. R. Olver, and P. M. Green-
field. 1966. Studies in Cognitive Growth. New
York: Wiley.

Campbell, C. and H. Kryszewska. 1992.
Learner-Based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Carroll, J. B. 1981. `Twenty-five years of
research on second language aptitude' in
K. C. Diller (ed.): Individual Differences and
Universals in Language Learning Aptitude.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Carver, D. 1984. `Plans, learner strategies, and
self-direction in language learning'. System
12: 123±31.
Carver, D. and L. Dickinson. 1982. `Learning
to be self-directed' in D. Carver and
L. Dickinson (eds): Self-directed Learning:
Collected Papers in Self Directed Learning in
English Language Learning. Scottish Centre for
Education Overseas, Moray House, College
of Education, Edinburgh.
Casanave, C. P. 1988. `Comprehension mon-
itoring in ESL reading: a neglected essential.'
TESOL Quarterly 22: 283±302.
Cathcart, R. and S. Vaughan. 1993. Real
Conversations: Beginning Listening and Speaking
Activities. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Chamot, A. 1994. `CALLA: An instructional
model for linguistically diverse students.'
English Quarterly 26: 12±14.
Chamot, A. 2000. Personal communication.
Chamot, A. and M. O'Malley. 1987. `The
cognitive academic language learning
approach: A bridge to the mainstream'.
TESOL Quarterly 21: 227±49.
Chamot, A. and M. O'Malley. 1993a. The
CALLA Handbook: How to Implement the
Cognitive Language Learning Approach. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Chamot, A. and M. O'Malley. 1993b. `Teach-
ing for strategic learning' in J. E. Alatis (ed.):
Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages
and Linguistics 1993. Washington, DC: Geor-
getown University Press.
Chamot, A., J. Robbins, P. B. El-Dinary,
M. Omori, S. Shudo, and F. Yuasa. 1993.
Learning Strategies in Japanese Foreign Lan-
guage Instruction. Washington, DC: George-
town University Press.
Clarke, D. 1991. `The negotiated syllabus:
what is it and how is it likely to work?'
Applied Linguistics 12: 13±28.
Cohen, A. 1990. Language Learning: Insights for
Learners, Teachers, and Researchers. New York:
Newbury House.
Cohen, A. 1999. `Language learning strategies
instruction and research' in S. Cotterall and
ANITA L. WENDEN 49
D. Crabbe (eds): Learner Autonomy in Lan-
guage Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting
Change. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.
Cohen, A. and E. Aphek. 1980. `Retention of
second language vocabulary over time:
investigating the role of mnemonic associa-
tions.' System 8: 221±35.
Cohen, A. and E. Aphek. 1981. `Easifying
second language learning.' Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 3: 221±36.
Cohen, A., S. J. Weaver, and T. Y. Li. 1995.
The Impact of Strategies-Based Instruction on
Speaking a Foreign Language. National Re-
source Centre, CARLA, University of Min-
nesota.
Corder, P. 1967. `The significance of learners'
errors.' International Review of Applied Lin-
guistics V: 161±9.
Corno, L. and R. Kanfer. 1993. `The role of
volition in learning and performance.'
Review of Research in Education 19: 301±41.
Cotterall, S. 1990. `Reciprocal teaching: A
problem-solving approach to reading.' Guide-
lines 12: 30±9.
Cotterall, S. 1995. `Readiness for autonomy:
investigating learner beliefs' in L. Dickinson
and A. Wenden (eds): System: An Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Learner
Autonomy 23: 195±206.
Cotterall S. 1999. `Key variables in language
learning: what do learners believe about
them?' in A. Wenden (ed.): System: An
International Journal of Educational Technology
and Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Meta-
cognitive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language
Learning 27: 493±514.
Dam, L. 1995a. Learner Autonomy 3: From
Theory to Classroom Practice. Authentik Lan-
guage Learning Resources Ltd. Trinity Col-
lege, Dublin.
Dam, L. 1995b. `Where are we now? where
are we going?' In R. Eriksson and J. Milander
(eds): Fourth Nordic Conference on Developing
Autonomous Learning in the Foreign Language
Classroom. University of Karlstad, Sweden.
Dam, L. and Gabrielsen, G. 1988. `Developing
learner autonomy in a school context: a six
year experiment beginning in the learners'
first year of English' in H. Holec (ed.):
Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: Present
fields of application. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe, Publications and Documents Divi-
sion.
50 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
Dam, L. and L. Legenhausen. 1996. `The
acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous
learning environmentÐthe first months of
beginning English' in R. Pemberton, E. Li,
W. Or, and H. Pierson (eds): Taking Control:
Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Dickinson L. 1987. Self-Instruction in Language
Learning. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Dickinson L. 1995. `Autonomy and Motiva-
tion: A Literature Review' in L. Dickinson
and A. Wenden (eds): System: An Interna-
tional Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Learner
Autonomy 23: 183±94.
Dickinson L. and D. Carver. 1980. `Learning
how to learn: steps towards self-direction in
foreign language learning in schools.' English
Language Teaching Journal 35: 1±7.
Doughty, C. and J. Williams. (eds) 1998. Focus
on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dubin, F. and E. Olshtain. 1986. Course Design:
Developing Programs and Materials for Language
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1977. `Remarks on
creativity in language learning' in M. Burt,
H. Dulay, and M. Finocchiaro (eds): View-
points on English as a Second Language. New
York: Regents Publishing Company.
Ellis, G. and B. Sinclair. 1989. Learning to
Learn English: A Course in Learner Training.
London: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eriksson, R. 1993. Teaching Language Learning:
Inservice Training for Communicative Teaching
and Self-directed Learning in English as a Foreign
Language. Goteborg Studies in Educational
Sciences 92. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgen-
sis, Box 5096, S-402 22 Goteborg, Sweden.
Eriksson, R. 1995. `Learner autonomy. Where
have we come from, where are we now?' in
R. Eriksson and J. Milander (eds): Fourth
Nordic Conference on Developing Autonomous
Learning in the Foreign Language Classroom.
University of Karlstad, Sweden.
Ertmer, P. A., T. J. Newby, and M. Mac-
Dougall. 1996. `Students' responses and
approaches to case-based instruction: the
role of reflective self-regulation'. American
Educational Research Journal 33: 719±50.
Faerch, C. and G. Kasper. (eds) 1983. Strategies
in Interlanguage Communication. London:
Longman.
Faerch, C., K. Haastrup, and R. Phillipson.
1984. Learner Language and Language Learn-
ing. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R. C. 1979. `Social psychological
aspects of second language acquisition' in
H. Giles and R. St. Clair (eds): Language and
Social Psychology. Baltimore: University Park
Press.
Gardner, R. 1985. Social Psychology and Second
Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and
Motivation. London: Edward Arnold Pub-
lishers.
Gardner, R. C. and W. E. Lambert. 1972.
Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language
Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Genesee, F. 1976. `The role of intelligence in
second language learning.' Language Learning
26: 267±80.
Grabe, W. 1991. Current development in
second language reading research. TESOL
Quarterly 25: 375±406.
Gremmo, M. J. and D. Abe. 1985. `Teaching
learning: Redefining the teacher's role' in
P. Riley (ed.): Discourse and Learning. New
York: Longman Inc.
Gremmo, M. J. and P. Riley. 1995. `Auto-
nomy, self-direction and self-access in lan-
guage teaching and learning: the history of
an idea' in L. Dickinson and A. Wenden
(eds): System: An International Journal of
Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics:
Special Issue on Learner Autonomy 23: 183±94.
Hansen, L. 1984. `Field dependence±independ-
ence language testing: evidence from six
Pacific Island cultures.' TESOL Quarterly 18:
311±24.
Havranek, G. 1995. `Self-access study and
learner autonomy within the foreign lan-
guage teacher education curriculum'. in
R. Eriksson and J. Milander (eds): Fourth
Nordic Conference on Developing Autonomous
Learning in the Foreign Language Classroom.
University of Karlstad, Sweden.
Henner-Stanchina, C. 1976. `Two years of
autonomy: practice and outlook.' Melanges
Pedagogiques 73±82. CRAPEL, University of
Nancy. Reprinted in P. Riley (ed.) Discourse
and Learning. New York: Longman Inc. 1985.
Henner-Stanchina, C. and H. Holec. 1977.
`Evaluation in an autonomous learning
scheme.' Melanges Pedagogiques 73±84.

CRAPEL, University of Nancy. Reprinted in
P. Riley (ed.) Discourse and Learning. New
York: Longman Inc. 1985.
Holec, H. 1980. `Learner training: meeting
needs in self-directed learning' in H. B.
Altman and C. V. James (eds): Foreign
Language Learning: Meeting Individual Needs
Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language
Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Holec, H. 1985. `On autonomy: some elemen-
tary concepts' in P. Riley (ed.): Discourse and
Learning. New York: Longman.
Holec, H. 1988. Autonomy and Self-Directed
Learning: Present Fields of Application. Council
of Europe, Council for Cultural Cooperation,
Strasbourg.
Horwitz, E. K. 1987. `Surveying student beliefs
about language learning' in A. Wenden and
J. Rubin (eds): Learner Strategies in Language
Learning. London: Prentice-Hall Interna-
tional.
Horwitz, E. K. 1988. `The beliefs about
language learning of beginning university
foreign language students.' The Modern Lan-
guage Journal 72: 283±94.
Hosenfeld, C. 1977. `A preliminary investiga-
tion of the reading strategies of successful
and non-successful learners.' System 5: 110±
23.
Hosenfeld, C. 1979a. `Cindy: a learner in
today's foreign language classroom' in
W. Born (ed.): The Foreign Language Teacher
in Today's Classroom Environment. Montpelier,
Vermont: Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Hosenfeld, C. 1979b. `A learning-teaching
view of second language instruction.' Foreign
Language Annals 12: 51±4.
Hosenfeld, C., V. Arnold, J. Kirchofer,
J. Laciura, and L. Wilson. 1981. `Second
language reading: A curricular sequence for
teaching reading strategies. Foreign Language
Annals 4: 415±22.
Hosenfeld, C., I. Cavour, D. Bonk, L. Baker,
and M. Alcorn. 1993. Activities and Materials
for Implementing Adapted Versions of Reciprocal
Teaching in Beginning Intermediate and
Advanced Levels of Instruction in English,
Spanish, and French as a Second/Foreign Lan-
guage. ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED
370354.
Hutchinson, T. and A. Waters. 1987. English
for Specific Purposes: A Learning-Centred
ANITA L. WENDEN 51
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huttunen, I. 1986. Towards Learner Autonomy in
Foreign Language Learning in Senior Secondary
School. Department of Teacher Education,
University of Oulu, Finland.
Huttunen, I. 1988. `Toward learner autonomy
in a school context' in H. Holec (ed.):
Autonomy and Self-directed Learning: Present
Fields of Application. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe, Publications and Documents Divi-
sion.
Huttunen, I. 1990. `Aspects of Learner Auto-
nomy 1'. In M. Biddle and P. Malmberg
(eds): Learning to Learn: Investigating Learner
Strategies and Learner Autonomy: Report on
Workshop 2a. Language Learning for Euro-
pean Citizenship. Council for Cultural Co-
operation. Uppsala University, Uppsala,
Sweden.
Huttunen I. (ed.) 1993. Learning to Learn
Languages: Investigating Learner Strategies
and Learner Autonomy: Report on Work-
shop 2b. Council for Cultural Cooperation.
Council of Europe. Strasbourg.
Hymes, D. 1972. `On communicative com-
petence' in J. Pride and J. Holmes (eds)
Sociolinguistics. New York: Penguin.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. and P. C. Watson. (eds)
1977. Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karlsson, L., F. Kjsik, and J. Nordlund. 1997.
From Here to Autonomy: A Helsinki University
Language Centre Autonomous Learning Project.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Kelly, R. 1996. `Language counselling for
learner autonomy: the skilled helper in
self-access language learning' in
R. Pemberton, S. L. Li., W. Or, and
H. Pierson (eds): Taking Control: Autonomy in
Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Kenny, B. 1993. `For more autonomy.' System:
An International Journal of Educational Techno-
logy and Applied Linguistics 21: 431±42.
Kidd, R. and B. Marquardson. 1996. `The
Foresee Approach for ESL strategy instruc-
tion in an academic proficiency context' in
R. L. Oxford (ed.): Language Learning Strat-
egies Around the World: Cross Cultural Perspect-
ives. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii
Press.
Kirkland, M. R. and Saunders, M. A. 1991.
`Maximizing student performance in
52 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
summary writing: managing the cognitive
load.' TESOL Quarterly 25: 101±21.
Lantolf, J. (ed.) 2000. Sociocultural Theory and
Second Language Learning. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. Long. 1991. An
Introduction to Second Language Acquisition
Research (ninth impression 1997). London:
Longman.
Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy: Definitions,
Issues, and Problems. Authentik Language
Learning Resources Ltd. Trinity College,
Dublin.
Little, D. 1996. `Freedom to learn and compul-
sion to interact: promoting learner auto-
nomy through the use of information
systems and information technologies' in
R. Pemberton, S.L. Li, W. Or, H. Pierson
(eds): Taking Control: Autonomy in Language
Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Little, D. 1999. `Learner autonomy is more
than a Western cultural construct' in
S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds): Learner
Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the
Field and Effecting Change. Frankfurt, Ger-
many: Peter Lang.
Littlejohn, A. P. 1983. `Increasing learner
involvement in course management.'
TESOL Quarterly 17: 595±607.
Long, M. N. 1982. `Self-directed learning':
Suitable materials and suggested
approaches for reading skill improvements'
in D. Carver and L. Dickinson (eds): Self-
directed Learning: Collected Papers in Self
Directed Learning in English Language Learn-
ing. Scottish Centre for Education Overseas,
Moray House, College of Education, Edin-
burgh.
Long, M. 1991. `Focus on form: A design
feature in language teaching' in D. De Bot,
R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds): Foreign
Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective.
Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Lyne, J. 1995. `Feeling socially secureÐan
important issue when developing learner
autonomy' in R. Eriksson and J. Milander
(eds): Fourth Nordic Conference on Developing
Autonomous Learning in the Foreign Language
Classroom. University of Karlstad, Sweden.
Mackay, R. and M. Bosquet. 1981. `LSP
curriculum developmentÐfrom policy to
practice' in R. Mackay and J. D. Palmer
(eds): Language for Specific Purposes: Program
Design and Evaluation. Rowley, MS: Newbury
House Publishers, Inc.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second Lan-
guage Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Mendelsohn, D. 1995. `Applying learning
strategies in the second/foreign language
listening comprehension lesson' in D. J.
Mendelsohn and J. Rubin (eds): A Guide for
the Teaching of Second Language Learning.
California: Dominie Press, Inc.
Miller, L. and R. Ng. 1996. `Autonomy in the
classroom: peer assessment' in R. Pemberton,
E. Li, W. Or, and H. Pierson (eds): Taking
Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Moreira, M.A., F. Vieira, and I. Marques.
1999. `Pre-service teacher development
through action research.' The Language
Teacher 23: 15±18, 36.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Naiman, N., M. Frohlich, H. H. Stern, and
A. Todesco. 1978. The Good Language Lear-
ner. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Nicholls, J. G. 1984. `Achievement motiva-
tion: conceptions of ability, subjective
experience, task choice and performance.'
Psychological Review 91: 328±46.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-Centred Curric-
ulum: A Study in Second Language Teaching.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 1996. `Towards autonomous learn-
ing: some theoretical, empirical and practical
issues' in R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or, and
H. Pierson (eds): Taking Control: Autonomy in
Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Nunan, D. 1997. `Designing and adapting
materials to encourage learner autonomy'
in P. Benson and P. Voller (eds): Autonomy
and Independence in Language Learning.
London: Longman.
Nyikos, M. 1996. `The conceptual shift to
learner-centered classrooms: Increasing
teacher and student strategic awareness' in
R. L. Oxford (ed.): Language Learning Strat-
egies Around the World: Cross Cultural Perspect-
ives. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii
Press.
O'Malley, M. and A. Chamot. 1990. Learner
Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, M. and A. Chamot. 1994.

`Language learner and learning strategies' in
N. C. Ellis (ed.): Implicit and Explicit Learning
of Languages. London: Academic Press.
O'Malley, M., R. P. Russo, A. U. Chamot,
G. Stewner-Manzanares, and L. Kupper.
1983. A Study of Learning Strategies for
Acquiring Skills in Speaking and Understanding
English as a Second Langauge: Uses of Learning
Strategies for Different Language Activities by
Students at Different Language Proficiency Levels.
Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research Associ-
ates.
O'Malley, M., A. U. Chamot, G. Stewner-
Manzanares, R. P. Russo, and L. Kupper.
1985. `Learning strategies used by beginning
and intermediate ESL students.' Language
Learning 35: 21±46.
Oskarsson, M. 1980. Approaches to Self-
assessment in Foreign Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies:
What Every Teacher Should Know. New York,
Newbury House.
Park, G. 1994. `Beliefs and learning strategies:
what can we do to help our students be
more effective self-directed learners?'
Unpublished manuscript. University of
Texas at Austin, TX.
Palinscar, A. S. and A. L. Brown. 1984.
`Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fos-
tering and comprehension monitoring activ-
ities.' Cognition and Instruction 1: 117±75.
Paris, S. G. and J. Y. P. Byrnes. 1989 `The
constructivist approach to self-regulation of
learning in the classroom' in B. J. Zimmer-
man and D. H. Schunk (eds): Self-Regulated
Learning and Academic Achievement. New
York: Springer Verlag.
Pemberton, R., S. L. Li., W. Or, and H.
Pierson. (eds). 1996. Taking Control: Auto-
nomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Pennycook, A. 1997. `Cultural alternatives and
autonomy' in P. Benson and P. Voller (eds):
Autonomy and Independence in Language Learn-
ing. London: Longman.
Platt, E. and F. B. Brooks. 1994. `The acquisi-
tion-rich environment revisited.' The Modern
Language Journal 78: 497±511.
Ravindran, R. 1996. `First steps towards
learner independence in language learning.'
Paper presented at the British Council/
IATEFL Special Interest Group Symposium,
Vienna.
ANITA L. WENDEN 53
Ravindran, R. 1998. Report on Certificate on
Independent Language Learning. Language and
Communication Division, Temasek Poly-
technic, Singapore.
Reid, J. 1987. `Learning style preferences of
ESL students.' TESOL Quarterly 21: 87±112.
Reid, J. (ed.) 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/
EFL Classroom. Boston, Massachusetts:
Heinle and Heinle.
Riley, P. 1997. `The guru and the conjurer:
aspects of counseling for self-access' in
P. Benson and P. Voller (eds): Autonomy
and Independence in Language Learning. New
York: Longman.
Rubin, J. 1975. `What a good language learner
can teach us?' TESOL Quarterly 9: 41±61.
Rubin, J. 1981. `The study of cognitive
processes in second language learning.'
Applied Linguistics 2: 117±31.
Rubin, J. 1987. `Learner strategies: theoretical
assumptions, research history and typology.'
in A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds): Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. London: Pre-
ntice Hall International.
Rubin, J. 1994. Components of a Teacher Educa-
tion Curriculum for Learner Strategies. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED
376 701.
Rubin, J. 1999. Promoting Increased Learner Self-
Management in Language Learning. Unpub-
lished manuscript. Prepared as a Mellon
Fellow at the National Foreign Language
Centre, John Hopkins University, Washing-
ton, DC.
Rubin, J. and I. Thompson. 1982. How to be a
More Successful Language Learner. Boston,
Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle. (2nd edn
1994).
Rubin, J., J. Quinn, and J. Enos. 1988.
Improving Foreign Language Listening Compre-
hension. A report prepared for the US
Department of Education, International
Research and Studies Program, Washington,
DC. Project No. 017AH70028.
Scarcella, R. and R. Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry
of Language Learning: The Individual in the
Communicative Classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle
& Heinle.
Schmidt, R. 1991. `The role of consciousness in
second language learning.' Applied Linguistics
11: 129±58.
Schoenfeld, A. H. 1989. `Teaching mathemat-
ical thinking and problem solving' in L. B.
Resnick and L. E. Klopfer (eds) Toward the
54 LEARNER DEVELOPMENT IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research.
Yearbook of the Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development. 83±103.
Schumann, J. H. 1978. `The acculturation
model of second language acquisition' in
R. C. Gingras (ed.): Second Language Acquisi-
tion and Foreign Language Teaching. Arlington,
Va, Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Schumann, J. H. 1986. `Research on the
acculturation model for second language
acquisition.' Journal of Multilingual and Multi-
cultural Development 7: 379±92.
Selinker, L. 1972. `Interlanguage.' International
Review of Applied Linguistics X: 209±30.
Shih, M. 1986. `Content based approaches to
teaching academic writing.' TESOL Quarterly
20: 617±48.
Smith, M. S. 1981. `Consciousness-raising and
the second language learner.' Applied Lin-
guistics 11: 160±8.
Stevick, E. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method.
Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers,
Inc.
Stewner-Manzanares, G., A. U. Chamot, J. M.
O'Malley, L. Kupper, and R. P. Russo.
1985. Learning Strategies in English as a
Second Language Instruction: A Teacher's
Guide. National Clearing House for Bilingual
Education, Rosslyn, Virginia.
Strevens, P. 1980. `The paradox of individual-
ized instruction' in H. Altman and C. V.
James (eds): Foreign Language Teaching: Meet-
ing Individual Needs. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Ltd.
Sturtridge, G. 1997. `Teaching and learning in
self-access centres: changing roles?' in
P. Benson and P. Voller (eds): Autonomy
and Independence in Language Learning.
London: Longman.
Tarone, E. 1980. `Communication strategies,
foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage.'
Language Learning 30: 417±31.
Tarone, E. and Yule, G. 1991. Focus on the
Language Learner: Approaches to Identifying and
Meeting the Needs of Second Language Learners.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thavenius, C. 1999. `Teacher autonomy for
learner autonomy' in S. Cotterall and
D. Crabbe (eds): Learner Autonomy in
Language Learning: Defining the Field and
Effecting Change. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter
Lang.
Thompson, I. and J. Rubin. 1996. `Can strat-
egy instruction improve listening compre-
hension?' Foreign Language Annals 29: 331±
42.
Thomson, C. K. 1992. `Learner-centred tasks
in the foreign language classroom.' Foreign
Language Annals 25: 523±31.
Thomson, C. K. 1996. `Self-assessment in self-
directed learning' in R. Pemberton, E. Li,
W. Or, and H. Pierson (eds): Taking Control:
Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Trim, J. 1980. `The place of needs analysis in
the Council of Europe Modern Languages
Project' in H. Altman and C. V. James (eds):
Foreign Language Teaching: Meeting individual
needs Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Tumposky, N. R. 1991. `Students' beliefs
about language learning.' Carleton Papers in
Applied Language Study 8: 50±65.
Victori, M. 1995. `ESL Writing Knowledge and
Strategies: An integrative study.' Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation. Department of
English Philology. Autonomous University
of Barcelona, Spain.
Victori, M. 1999. `An analysis of writing
knowledge in EFL composing: a case study
of two effective and two ineffective writers'
in A. Wenden (ed.): System: An International
Journal of Educational Technology and Applied
Linguistics: Special Issue on Metacognitive Know-
ledge and Beliefs in Language Learning 27: 537±
56.
Vieira, F. 1999. `Pedagogy and autonomy: can
they meet?' Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses
38: 13±35.
Wenden, A. 1985. `Facilitating learning com-
petence: perspectives on an expanded role
for second language teachers.' Canadian
Modern Language Journal 6: 981±91.
Wenden, A. 1986 `What do second language
learners know about their language learn-
ing? A second look at retrospective
accounts.' Applied Linguistics 7: 186±205.
Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner
Autonomy. London: Prentice-Hall Interna-
tional.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as
Communication. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wilkins, D. A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willing, K. 1985. Helping Adults Develop Their
Learning Strategies: A practical guide. Sydney:
Adult Migrant Education Service.
Willing, K. 1988. Learning Styles in Adult

Education. National Curriculum Resource
Centre Adult Migrant Education Program,
Adelaide, South Australia.
Yang, N. D. 1998. `Exploring a role for teachers:
Promoting learner autonomy' in R. Oxford
(ed.) System: An International Journal of Educa-
tional Technology and Applied Linguistics: Special
Issue on Language Teachers: New Roles, New
Perspectives 26: 127±35.
Yang, N. D. 1999. `The relationship between
EFL learners' beliefs and learning strategy
ANITA L. WENDEN 55
use' in A. Wenden (ed.): System: An Inter-
national Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics: Special Issue on Metacogni-
tive Knowledge and Beliefs in Language Learning
27: 515±36.
Zimmerman, B. J. 1989. `Models of self-
regulated learning and academic achieve-
ment' in B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk
(eds): Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice.
New York: Springer-Verlag.