Naturally occurring language learning strategy
instruction (LLSI) in an advanced EFLclassroom

Agnieszka Kaldonek-Crnjakovic
Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland

SSU3, Osaka, October 2019• Background information• Pilot• The study – aim, data analysis, research questions• Findings• Discussion/conclusion

2

Background information• Plonky’s review (2019) – LLSI studies were mainly quantitative and focused on thelearner• So-far LLSI studies that focused on the teacher – quantitative, strategy categories teachers
promote (Psaltou-Joycey et al., 2017, 2018; Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi & Gavriilidou, 2016):- cognitive and metacognitive strategies most promoted• little is known about teachers’ LLS instructional practices –how they are presentedand practised (Chamot & Harris, 2019; Psaltou-Joycey, et al., 2018)• Naturalistic evaluations of such are desirable (Hassan et al., 2005)
3

Background information
Student teachers:
What do I need to do? How do I do it? What should I say to my students?

• Dialogic episodes (e.g. Macaro, 2001)• Teacher’s Guide (Psaltou-Joycey et al., 2015); guidelines (Psaltou-Joycey, 2019)4

The present study therefore attempts• to broaden our understanding of the practical application of an L2 strategy
instruction in an adult EFL classroom

5

Pilot• 4 lessons recorded – a bilingual high school in Warsaw• Aim – reliability of data collection through natural observation (Chaudron, 2003);
the length of the recorded material

6

PilotFindings:• evidenced only 1 event that would suggest LLSI
• Limited quality of recording
Therefore:• Longer period of recording (RQs)• Two recording devices – attached to the teacher and with the researcher(different types of interactions, dynamic nature of LLSI, Coyle, 2019)• Video recording (to capture ‘potentially unintelligible linguistic information’, Chaudron,
2003: 766) – observational notes
7

The study• 10 adult learners (aged 31 to 55) with advanced English language skills (B2+- C1;CEFR)• Course – pre-preparatory for CAE exam (30 60-min lessons); facilitated by a private FL
school in Warsaw• Teacher – a female, a Polish native speaker, with an MA degree in teaching EFL andmore than 10 years of teaching experience• Minimal information about the research aim was revealed to the participants –observation for dialogic episodes
8

The study
Aim – to investigate LLSI that occurs naturally in an EFL advanced adultclassroom
RQs:
1. How frequent will LLSI be?
2. What language skills will it concern?
3. What forms will it take?
4. What model(s) will it represent?
5. Will there be any evidence of the effect of LLSI?
9

Data analysis• material for analysis – recordings (the entire course) and observational notes• 3 course cycles (CC1, CC2, CC3 – each 10 lessons)• mixed-methods approach
LLSI event – a dialogic episode that indicated strategy instruction
the eligibility criteria – at least one of the essential four elements of strategy
instruction listed by Rubin et al. (2007) and some degree of explicitness(the scale proposed by Magnusson et al., 2019: 194)
• Coding – two separate occasions and an external verifier
10Findings
Frequency (RQ1)

37 LLSI (5.5% of the entire corpus)
2054%

1130%
616%

CC1CC2CC31129 potential LLSI events

1448%
931%

621%

CC1

CC2CC31213Language skills (RQ2)
LLSI events that occurred

2054%• No listening strategies• No strategies for free writing

513.5%
Vocabularygrammar411%

pronunciation2
5.5%
spelling

speaking

reading
14

LLSI events that could have occurred
1034%

621%
414%

vocabulary

310%

grammar414%
27%

spelling

reading

writinglistening
15

Forms of LSSI (RQ3)• Interaction type (Coyle, 2019)• Degree of explicitness (Gu, 2019; Harris, 2019; Magnusson et al., 2019)• Presence of the essential elements of LLSI (Macaro, 2019; Rubin et al., 2007)• Strategy category (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Wenden &Rubin, 1987)16

Interaction type
Teacher-Student (T-S) – 12 (32.5%)
Teacher-Whole class (T-W) – 12 (32.5%)
Teacher-Group of students (T-G) – 9 (24%)
Between Students (S-S) – 4 (11%)

17Degree of explicitness
1 little explicit Reference to a strategy without discussion of why or when to use them
instruction (EI)
2 limited EIIntroduction of a strategy or prompting the use of a strategy
3 some EIProvision of explicit, but limited, instruction about a strategy, including
the discussion how to use it
4 strong EIProvision of explicit and detailed instruction about a strategy, including
how, and often why or when, to use them

Based on the PLATO Rubric for the Strategy Use and Instruction Element(Magnusson et al., 2019: 194)18

CC1 – 2.8
CC2 – 2.7
CC2 – 2.5

1849%

p=0.690

1335%

513%

13%

1 little

2 limited

3 some4 strong
19

Essential elements of LLSI

1. Identification
2. Presentation / modelling
3. Practice
4. Evaluation(Macaro, 2019; Rubin et al., 2007)20

In all language skills

In all language skills
but speaking

3492%
2670%

2670%
1540.5%

Indentification

Presentation/modelling

Practice

Evaluation
21

Strategy category
112 strategies were identified
59%
by Teacher

8778%
89%
by Students

1816%

cognitivemetacognitive(O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990; Wenden & Rubin, 1987)

76%

86%
by Studentssocial22

Model(s) of the instruction (RQ4)‘Strategic Content Learning’, Butler, 2002

O’Malley and Chamot (1990)
Top-down (CALLA)

Bottom-up (SCL)

1.Starting point

Useful strategies for bothcontent and language tasks

Content learning task

2.What strategies should betaught?

Predetermined

As they arise in problemsolving

3.Who selects the strategies tobe taught?

Expert/teacher

Teacher-learner joint problemsolving

4. Instructional approach

Deductive teaching of usefulstrategies

Inductive discovery of usefulstrategies

5. Nature of the strategies
being taught

More generalized and task
independent

More specific and task
embedded(Gu, 2019: 30)

23

24

26 events; 70% - mixed approach
more SCL - 60%

more SCL - 100%

12
more SCL - 80%
more CALLA - 60%

118

62scl/3calla

3scl/2calla

4scl/1calla

5scl/0calla
25

Effect of LLSI (RQ5)5 episodes were identified that evidenced the effect of LLSI:• spelling,• pronunciation,• vocabulary, and• reading comprehension.

26

The episode that happened in Lesson 13 shows the effect of the LLSI event fromLesson 12 (spelling strategies for the words stationary and stationery):

S1: I actually thought about the letter, which is moving or which is not.
S2: Actually, this is what you said last time.
T: Ok. I’m glad this strategy worked.
S3: I remember the hand move and moving pencils.

27

Discussion /conclusion• Was the LLSI frequent? Was it frequent enough?
- only 5.5% of the entire corpus;- 37 events and 29 potential events;
But- less potential events identified in the 1st cycle of the course and LLSI more
frequent and explicit at the beginning of the course- SCL approach – when the problem arouse and more task/situation-embedded28

• The role of the teacher / student in LLSI- Interaction type – dynamic, different combinations (S-S-11%)‘strategic interaction’; ‘dynamic learning space’ – strategy instruction is teacher- or student-led(Coyle, 2019: 57)• Dominance of cognitive strategies and the teacher’s role in teaching them (Macaro,2001); no instruction for listening and writing skills

corroborate with previous studies (Psaltou-Joycey et al., 2017, 2018; Psaltou-Joycey, Penderi&Gavriilidou, 2016; Plonsky, 2019)• Essential elements – little evaluation

29

Bottom-up approach (SCL) dominant:- problem-solving oriented and task-embedded, inductive discovery of
useful strategies
More suitable for experienced teachers (Gu, 2019);
Is it more suitable approach for adult learners?

30

Thank you for your attention

a.kaldonek2@uw.edu.pl31

References• Butler, D. L. (2002). Individualizing Instruction in Self-Regulated Learning, Theory Into Practice, 41:2, 81-92, doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4102_4• Chamot & Harris, 2019
• Chaudron, C. (2003). Data Collection in SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 762-828). Malden, USA:Blackwell Publishing, pp..
• Coyle, D. (2019). Designing strategic classroom: Self-assessment in enabling self-regulated learning. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (eds.) Learning Strategies Instructionin the Language Classroom: Issues and Implementation (pp. 53-67). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters• Gu, P. (2019). Approaches to learning strategy instruction. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (eds.) Learning Strategies Instruction in the Language Classroom: Issues andImplementation (pp. 53-67). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters• Hassan, X., Macaro, E., Mason, D., Nye G., Smith, P., Vanderplank, R. (2005). Strategy training in language learning: a systematic review of available research.
In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
• Macaro, E. (2001). Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London, UK: Continuum.
• Magnusson, C., Roe, A., and Blikstad‐Balas, M. (2019). To What Extent and How Are Reading Comprehension Strategies Part of Language Arts Instruction? A Study ofLower Secondary Classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 187-212.
• Plonsky, L. (2011) The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A metaanalysis. Language Learning, 61, 993–1038.
• Rubin, J., Chamot, A.U., Harris, V. and Anderson, N.J. (2007) Intervening in the use of strategies. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (eds.) Language Learner Strategies:Thirty Years of Research and Practice (pp. 141–160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Psaltou-Joycey, A. ed. (2015). Foreign Language Learning SI: A Teacher’s Guide. Kavala: Saita Publications. http://www.saitabooks_eu/2015/ebook.162.html.
• Psaltou-Joycey, A. (2019). Designing materials and guidelines for language learning strategy instruction. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (eds.) Learning Strategies
Instruction in the Language Classroom: Issues and Implementation (pp. 171-183). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters• Psaltou-Joycey, A., E. Penderi and Z. Gavriilidou. 2016. Development of a questionnaire to investigate FL teachers’ pro-motion of language learning strategies. The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 5(1), 193–211.
• Psaltou-Joycey, A., E. Agathopoulou, K. Petrogiannis and Z. Gavriilidou. 2017. Teachers’ and learners’ reported language learning strategy use: how do they match? InZ. Gavriilidou, K. Petrogiannis, M. Platsidou and A. Psaltou-Joycey (eds.), Language Learning Strategies: Theoretical Issues and Applied Perspectives, 71–95. Kavala:
Saita Publications.
• Psaltou-Joycey, A., Agathopoulou, E., Joycey, E., Sougari A.-M., Kazamia, V., Petrogiannis, K., and Gavriilidou, Z. (2018). Promotion of language learning strategies inthe classroom: EFL teachers’ perceptions, The Language Learning Journal, 46(5), 557-568, doi: 10.1080/09571736.2018.1503114• Wardle, M., Cederbaum, K., and de Wit, H. (2011). Quantifying talk: developing reliable measures of verbal productivity. Behavior research methods, 43(1), 168–178.
32
doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0019-y