Self-regulation in language learning strategy research

Xuesong (Andy) Gao
School of Education
University of New South WalesOverview Language learning strategy research problematized The rise of self-regulation
 The rise of self-regulation in language education research
problematized Alternative perspectives to self-regulation in language
learning strategy research2Language learning strategy
research problematizedLanguage learning strategy research problematized An explosion of studies on Language Learning Strategy (LLS) (Cohen & Macaro, 2007)
As strategy use is closely associated with language learning achievements.

 Studies explored:

language learners’ metacognitive
cognitive strategy use

significantly improved
understanding of learners’
contributions to their own
language learning(Chamot, 2001)

Language learning strategy research problematized Psychological features emphasized
Conceptualized LLS as...‘psychological features of the individual that canchange through practice and strategy instruction’ Quantitative methodological approaches adopted
 Learner-completed, summative rating scales commonly used.
E.g. Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (‘SILL’), the mostpopular method of data collection.

Language learning strategy research problematized
1. Strategy taxonomies
developed

CONTRIBUTIONS:

2. Systematic investigationof the various factors that
influence strategy use’

3. Individual differences

Language learning strategy research problematized Criticism of studies on correlations between learners’ strategy use and otherindividual factors (e.g. motivation):

These studies tend to present these attributes as relatively fixed and stable
across contexts.
Studies often present strategy use as “largely pertained to individual will andknowledge”.
To what extent the choice is mediated by the particular social contexts isconcerned.
(Parks & Raymond, 2004)

Language learning strategy research problematized
Criticisms of questionnaire:•

The frequency of individual learners’ strategy use measured by thesequestionnaires cannot be cumulative. (Dörnyei, 2005)•

Blurred boundaries between different categories of strategies in popularquestionnaires (Hurd, 2007)•

Need for development of tailor made questionnaires

Language learning strategy research problematized LLS as behavioral and cognitive construct“Specific plans or steps, either observable, such as taking notes or seeking
a conversation partner, or unobservable, such as mentally analyzing a wordthat L2 learners intentionally employ to improve reception, storage,
retention and retrieval of information.” (Oxford, 2003 p. 81)

 Critically scrutinized by researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) Quite marginalized since the heyday of LLS research in the 1990s.
 One of key criticisms: Under-theorization of the construct

Language learning strategy research problematized
Problematic to characterize the construct as behavioural, affective andcognitive simultaneously.

No longer regard LLS as an individual difference factor in second
language acquisition

Consider it a tool or construct for pedagogical practices
Replace LLS with Self-regulation* One of the key contributions that language learners can make to affect language
learning achievements
Dörnyei (2005), Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt (2006)

Language learning strategy research problematized Possible response Increasing awareness of the necessity explore strategy use among particular
cultural groups of learners in specific socio-cultural contexts and/or task settings

Social Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SSILL)

Language learning strategy problematizedSocial Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SSILL)✓ To expand social strategies, one of the six categories in SILL, to three major
contexts: in class, outside classrooms on campus & outside campus.

✓ “students’ social strategy use is highly context bound✓ should be used together with follow-up interviews to explore why social
strategies are used or not used in a specific socio-cultural context. (Harish, 2014, p.
72)

Language learning strategy research problematized Another possible response Sociocultural perspectives offers
 “a robust framework for investigating and explaining the development and use of
strategies” (Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 462)

 have the potential for revealing ‘a new dimension to the study of learning strategies’ inresearch. (Palfreyman, 2003, p. 245)

Language learning strategy problematized Sociocultural perspectives allow researchers to conceptualize language
learning...
as cognitive and meta-cognitive activities unfolding in individual brains
as social acts that are meaningfully related to learners’ identity formation.
(Norton & Toohey, 2001; Oxford, 2003)

 They encourage researchers to view learners as social agents in active pursuitof language-related competence and non-linguistic objectives.
(Palfreyman, 2003; Zuengler & Miller, 2006)

Language learning strategy research problematized It regards Learners’ strategy use as a cognitive choice made by individuals & an
emergent phenomenon ‘directly connected to the practices of culturalgroups’(Donato & McCormick, 1994, p. 453)

 It helps capture the dynamic nature of learners’ strategy use emerging frominteractions between the agency and the contextual conditions.(Gao, 2010; Gao &Zhang, 2011)

Language learning strategy research problematized The importance of contextual mediation on language learners’ strategy use
highlighted
The availability and accessibilityof material and cultural
artifacts, such as learningmaterials
Discourses about language
learning, reflecting the dominantvalues, attitudes and beliefs
attached to the learning of aforeign language in particular
contexts
Various social agents’ actions

è

Helps language learners adopt strategies different from what
they use when these materials and artifacts are not available oraccessible.

Influence individual language learners’ (values, attitudes andbeliefs) and strategy use.
èèMediate contextual discourses to language learners and provide
material support and assistance crucial for acquiring linguisticcompetence

The rise of self-regulation

The rise of self-regulation
 Self-regulatory learning capacity as an individual difference factor in
explaining variations in individual language leaners’ achievements (Tseng etal. 2006)

 Self-regulation as a dynamic concept to capture language learners’ “strategic
efforts to manage their own achievement through specific beliefs andprocesses” (Zimmerman & Risemberg, 1997, p. 105, also see Dörnyei, 2005)

 Researchers either “embraced self-regulation theory as central to the researchframework” or “utilized traditional language learner strategy constructs, while
acknowledging contributions from self-regulation” by “developing new
instruments, exploring new structures, or examining relationships between
strategic learning and other theories” (Rose et al, 2018, p. 155)

The rise of self-regulation
 Research has explored learners’ self-regulation experiences (Bown & White 2010)
 the interaction among self-regulation and other variables suchas
 English learning motivation (Kormos & Csizér 2014),
 conceptions of English learning (Zheng, Liang, Yang & Cai, 2016),
 autonomous learning behavior (Kormos & Csizér, 2014)

The rise of self-regulation
 Research has also explored the distinguished features of self-regulation among learners with
 different social-economic backgrounds (Kormos & Kiddle, 2013),
 bilingual experiences (Melzi, Schick & Escobar, 2017) English proficiency levels (Falout, Elwood & Hood. 2009).

 Efforts to enhance self-regulation through pedagogy or curriculum
design (Lam 2015; Mak & Wong 2018).

The rise of self-regulation
 It has met some resistance: the promotion of ‘self-regulation’ needs to consider other competing
constructs such as metacognition in the field.

 Language learning strategy research can ‘meaningfully complement theadvance of self-regulation in research on learners’ strategic learning’ since“such research shows what constitutes a learner’s self-regulatory mechanismand how it operates within the self-regulated learning framework” (Gao, 2007,
p. 619).

 Rose (2012) further criticizes the definition fuzziness of ‘self-regulation’ : therelationships among the categories included in the concept are complex andunclearThe rise of self-regulation
research problematizedThe rise of self-regulation research problematized The definition of self-regulation: often defined implicitly.
 Self-regulation is defined in association with terms such as: regulate,metacogntive capacity, manipulate, self-regulatory behavior, self-monitoring,
directing Requires readers to infer Often describe what self-regulated language learners do to define what selfregulation is A mixture of learning behaviors and cognitive efforts
 Behaviors are used to infer what cognitive processes and propensity are alike

The rise of self-regulation research problematized It is still necessary to clarify the connection between self-regulation and otherconstructs, including metacognition, self-regulated learning Is metacognition just about cognition?
 Does self-regulation relate to emotion, social behavior, motivation andenvironment as well?

 Does self-regulated learning cover both metacognition and self-regulation?

The rise of self-regulation research problematized Tseng et al (2006) argued that strategic and non-strategic language learners cannot
be distinguished by their behaviors

 Most items in the Self-regulating capacity in Vocabulary learning scale: I feelsatisfied… I can… I know… I am confident…
 These items apparently assess language learners’ self-efficacy for self-regulation
to infer their capacity for self-regulation or perceived capacity of using selfregulatory strategies

 Other (behavioral) items: I look for a good learning environment, I cope with … I
try to…
 Self-regulated learning behavior vs. self-regulated learning capacity?
 How does such operationalization differ from that of language learning strategy
research?

The rise of self-regulation research problematized Tseng et al (2006) critiqued LLS measurement instruments for their inclination to“ask respondents to generalize their actions across situations rather than referencing
singular and specific learning events” (p. 82)

 Questioned whether the frequencies of strategy use can be used to measure
psychometric property reliably, yet some scales still ask about general language learning the rating scales of self-regulation do not always indicate whether frequency orextent was asked about

 “there is no widely used, agreed-on, standardized, and normed measure of selfregulation” (Woltering & Shi, 2016, p.1087),

The rise of self-regulation research problematized Tseng et al (2006) does provoke the thinking about the connotation, the nature, andthe measurement issue of language learning strategy

 But the rise of self-regulation:
 Should not leave “the reader …to infer the meaning of the term” (Dinsmore et al.,2008, p. 398)

 Have not solved the problems associated with language learning strategy research Self-regulated language learning research also needs to consider alternative
theoretical perspectives

Alternative perspectives
 Do language learning strategies have to be self-regulated? (Thomas & Rose, 2019)

 TESOL Quarterly, Volume: 53, Issue: 1, Pages: 248-257,, DOI: (10.1002/tesq.
473)

Alternative perspectives
 Even self-regulated language learning can be seen as “a learner’s socially mediatedplan or action to meet a goal” in the language learning process (Oxford &Schramm, 2007, p. 48)

 Language learner’s engagement (associated with agency) and contextual mediation
 Sociocultural theory/activity theory as a lens to make sense of language learners’
self-regulated (strategic) language learning: mediating sources
 community
 rules
 division of labor Interactions

Alternative perspectives
 Lei (2016): skilled student writers assumed a variety of roles and engaged withdifferent social agents for help (other-mediated?) Liu’s (2015): Chinese students adopted different strategies in different contexts as
mediated by peers and teachers in the language learning process (other-mediated).

 I have recently explored how high- and under-achievers appropriate resources for
self-regulated learning of language and academic subject content in a bilingual
education context in Hong Kong (Hu & Gao, 2017).

Alternative perspectives
 Figure 1 (adapted from Engeström, 1999, Hu & Gao, 2017, p. 3

Alternative perspectives
 The perspective allows us to pay attention to the participants’ strategic use ofartefacts such as textbooks, learning notes, dictionary, linguistic resources (e.g. L1and L2) in the learning process

 These artefacts, which can be further classified into (physical) tools (e.g. textbooks
and dictionary) and (symbolical) signs (e.g. L1 and L2)

 Artefacts- (or resources-) mediated strategies
 High achievers and underachievers have different perceptions about relevant
resources Use these resources differently (in particular, in terms of frequency)

Alternative perspectives
 Different levels of engagement: Underachievers: just wrote down what was relevant to the question” after he“looked for the words” he could recognize in the textbook (Hu & Gao, 2017, p. 6).

 When high achievers use online tools or dictionary: … before this lesson was taught, I browsed it. … [There were] these words, such asvertebrates, invertebrates, etc…normally I just browse it. Sometimes I don’t know
the words. It doesn’t matter. Sometimes I search for them on the internet if I reallywant to know [their meaning]. (Daniel, stimulated recall) (Hu & Gao, 2017, p. 6).

 Under achievers can be easily confused when the word has so many different
meanings listed in it and many of these meanings are “not related to IS (Integrated
Sciences’)” (Hu & Gao, 2017, p. 7).

Alternative perspectives
 The participants appropriated various rules such as evaluation criteria tostrategically regulate their learning process Examination-oriented learning High achievers can be strategically selective in selecting language points andsubject content for memorization

 Much information the teacher gives orally will be covered in the examinations…
sometimes he doesn’t write it down, but sometimes he provides orally. If you jot it
down and memorize, you will get scores. If you don’t, but only memorize what isin the textbook, you won’t know [what to write in the examinations]. (Katty,
interview) (Hu & Gao, 2017, p. 8)

Alternative perspectives
 Different understandings of rules
 High achievers understand the relevant rules very clearly Underachievers have difficulties in working out the rules Both learners know what they should do (e.g. memorization)
 Underachieves often attempted to cover everything and end up with coveringnothing in the end

Alternative perspectives
 Who drew this figure? High achievers or underachieversAlternative perspectives
 The mediation of various social agents
 Strategy use is not purely self-regulated as it could be other-regulated (Thomas &Rose, 2019) Underachievers usually have a particular group of social agents (usually their peers
or siblings)

 [The meaning of the word found in the dictionary] did not look like a scientificterm, so I asked my elder sister, but she didn’t know. And then I asked myclassmates. They didn’t know either. (Cindy, stimulated recall) (Hu &Gao, 2017,p. 12).

Alternative perspectives
 High achievers access more social agents (e.g. peers, teachers, siblings, andparents)

 My mom understands [the questions] better. She knows more [than my classmates]… Sometimes they [my classmates] may not know [the correct one], but just giveme a wrong answer. (Katty, interview)” (Hu & Gao, 2017, p.11)

 Helpful individuals are social resources The comparison reveals the profound mediation of contextual conditions (i.e.
access to resources) on the participants’ strategic learning

Alternative perspectives
 Individual participants’ self construction and role-taking

 In the context of the study, the participants can regard themselves as subject content
learners, language learners, or both (with varying degrees) high achievers who were committed to excellence in learning subject content onlyused self-regulated learning strategies that might affect their learning of subject
content and related assessment performanceAlternative perspectives
 Previous research on self-regulation: focus too much on cognitive and metacognitive
processes such as planning, organizing, monitoring and evaluating The participants’ self-regulated strategic learning is both cognitive and social,
developmental

 One participant did not take notes until she learnt from her experience that her
examination result was negatively undermined by her failure to take good notes
 her use of notes (artefact-mediated strategy)
 her awareness of the role of note-taking in achieving examination success (rulemediated strategy).

 Self-regulated strategic learning rests on the students’ self, or various social agents suchas parents, peers and teachers?

Conclusion The self-regulated turn in strategic language learning research may go through similar
processes that language learning strategy research had gone through The rise of self-regulation may help us to deepen our research engagement with thecognitive and metacognitive processes in language learning but it does not solve theidentified problems in language learning strategy research Self-regulated strategic language learning vs. self-regulation in strategic language
learning?

 We need alternative perspectives to engage with and understand language learners’
strategic learning process

 How and why in strategic language learning

Conclusion
 Some final comments on ‘self vs. others’ in strategic language learning research Language learners' strategy use is often a constrained choice or a choice made possible
by contextual conditions, but nevertheless a choice made by individual learners (Gao,2010)

 Both ‘self’ and ‘others’ are important in helping us understand language learners’
strategic learningA special collection of articles in System

Lawrence Jun Zhang, Nathan Thomas,
Tony Limin Qin: Language learning
strategy research in System: Looking
back and looking forward
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/
system/special-issue/10LL51R8LLN

A special collection of articles in System
 Syafi'ul Anam, Elke Stracke (2016):Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self











efficacy beliefs
Andrew D. Cohen, Isobel Kai-Hui Wang (2018): Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies
Sara Cotterall, Garold Murray (2009): Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self
Carol Dabarera, Willy A. Renandya, Lawrence Jun Zhang (2014):The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitring
on reading comprehension
Radhika De Silva, Suzanne Graham (2015): The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students ofdifferent proficiency levels
Jihua Dong(2016): A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance
Hsueh-chao Marcella Hu, Hossein Nassaji (2014): Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus lesssuccessful inferencers
Xiaoli Jiang, Richard Smith (2009): Chinese learners’ strategy use in historical perspective: A cross-generational interviewbased study
John-Michael L. Nix (2016): Measuring latent listening strategies: Development and validation of the EFL listening
strategy inventory
Heath Rose, Jessica G. Briggs, Jill A. Boggs, Lia Sergio, Natalia Ivanova-Slavianskaia(2018): A systematic review oflanguage learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation
Elsa Tragant, Marilyn S. Thompson, Mia Victori (2013). Understanding foreign language learning strategies: A validation
study
Kai-Hui (Isobel) Wang (2015). The use of dialogic strategy clusters for vocabulary learning by Chinese students in the UKMany many thanks for your attentionReferences













Bown, J., & White, C. J. (2010). Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System, 38(3), 432–443. doi:10.1016/j.system.
2010.03.016.
Chamot, A. U. (2001). The role of learning strategies in second language acquisition. In M. Breen (Ed.) Learner contributions to language
learning (pp. 25-43). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Cohen, A. D. & Macaro, E (2007). Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A. & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409. doi: 10.1007/s10648-008-9083-6
Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 453-464.
Dörnyei, Z. (Ed.). (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Falout, J., Elwood, J. & Hood, M. (2009). Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes. System, 37(3), 403–417. doi: 10.1016/
j.system.2009.03.004.
Gao, X. (2007). Has language learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. (2006). Applied Linguistics, 28(4),615-620. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm034.
Gao, X. (Ed.). (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learnerautonomy. In Murray, G., Gao, X., & Lamb, T. (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp.25-41). Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Hu, J. & Gao, X. (2017). Appropriation of resources by bilingual students for self-regulated learning of science. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. doi: 10.1080/13670050.2017.1386615.
Hu, J. & Gao, X. (2018). Self-regulated strategic writing for academic studies in an English-medium-instruction context. Language and
Education, 32(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/09500782.2017.1373804.

References
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learnergroups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275–299. doi: 10.1002/tesq.129.
Kormos, J., & T. Kiddle. (2013).The role of socio-economic factors in motivation to learn English as a foreign language: The case of Chile. System,
41(2), 399–412.doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.03.006.
Harish, S. (2014). Social strategy use and language learning contexts: A case study of Malayalee undergraduate students in India. System, 43(1), 64–73.
Hurd, S. (2007). Distant voices: Learners’ stories about the affective side of learning a language at a distance. Innovation in Language Learning andTeaching, 1, 242-259.
Lam, R. (2015). Feedback about self-regulation: Does it remain an "unfinished business" in portfolio assessment of writing? TESOL Quarterly,49(2), 402–413. doi:10.1002/tesq.226
Lei, X. (2016). Understanding writing strategy use from a sociocultural perspective: The case of skilled and less skilled writers. System, 60, 105–16.
doi:10.5353/th_b4308567.
Liu, J. (2015). Reading transition in Chinese international students: Through the lens of activity system theory. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 17, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2014.11.004.
Mak, P., & K. M. Wong. (2018). Self-regulation through portfolio assessment in writing classrooms. ELT Journal , 72(1), 49-61.doi: 10.1093/elt/
ccx012.
Melzi, G., Schick, A. R. & Escobar, K. (2017). Early bilingualism through the looking glass: Latino preschool children’s language and selfregulation skills. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 93-109. doi: 10.1017/S0267190517000083.
Oxford, R. (Ed.). (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House/Harper & Row.
Oxford, R. (2003). Towards a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy acrosscultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 75-92). Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Oxford, R. & Schramm, K.(2007). Bridging the gap between psychological and sociocultural perspectives on L2 learner strategies. In A. D. Cohen& E. Macaro (Eds.) Language learner Strategies (pp.47–68). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

References
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden. Applied Linguistics, 24,
243-248.
Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by non-native English speaking students in an MBA program: notbusiness as usual. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 374-389.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: Throwing language learning strategies
out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 92–98. doi: 10.1093/applin/amr045.
Rose, H., Briggs, J.,Boggs, J.A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language learnerstrategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151-163. doi:10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002.
Tseng, W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in
vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27, 78–102.
Woltering, S., & Shi, Q. (2016). On the neuroscience of self-regulation in children with disruptive behavior problems:
implications for education. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1085–1110. doi: 10.3102/0034654316673722.
Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). The relationship between Chinese university students’conceptions of language learning and their online self-regulation. System, 57, 66-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
2016.01.005.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Risemberg, R (1997). Becoming a proficient writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 22,73-101. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1997.0919.
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds. TESOL Quarterly,
40, 35-58.