Evolving directions inlanguage learning
strategies: Theinterplay between selfregulation and learnerstrategies in teaching
and research
Heath Rose
Department of Education
The University of Oxford

Content of today’s talk
Evolving models
Evolving definitions
Evolving research
Future evolution

Drawing on three projects
A study of kanji
learning (Rose 2013;
Rose & Harbon 2013,
Rose, 2017)

Papers on
research impactof self-regulation(Rose 2012,Roseet al., 2018)

A study on
evolving
definitions(Thomas & Rose,
2019; Thomas etal. 2019)

Part OneEVOLVING MODELS OF STRATEGIES:FROM ‘THE GOOD LANGUAGELEARNER’ TO THE ‘SELF-REGULATEDLEARNER’LLS as an individual difference
A common observation is that not only are somelanguage learners more successful than others,
but also that good language learners sometimes
do different things than poorer language
learners. The term commonly used in second
language acquisition literature to refer to what
learners do that underlies these differences islearning strategies. (Gass and Selinker 2009:439)

Seminal research by Joan Rubin
The differential success of second/foreign
language learners suggests a need to examine indetail what strategies successful language
learners employ. In addition to the need ofresearch on this topic, it is suggested thatteachers can already begin to help their lesssuccessful students to improve theirperformance by paying more attention tolearner strategies already seen as productive(Rubin, 1975: 41).

Early work
• After Rubin’s (1975) examination of learning strategies,
research began to investigate a wide range of different
strategies for different aspects of language learning,such as overall strategies, vocabulary learning
strategies, cognitive strategies and social strategies (see,for example, Bialystok, 1979; Hosenfeld, 1976; Naiman et al., 1975;
Selinger, 1977).

• This work lead to the development of the firsttaxonomy of language learning strategies by Rubin(1981).
• Grenfell and Macaro (2007: 11) have since observed
Rubin’s taxonomy was a list of “what might be termed
academic or study skills.”

First theory-driven taxonomy?
• Research continued into the 1980s, withparticular emphasis on cognitive strategies for
ESL learning (see Chamot & Kupper, 1989; Chamot & O'Malley,
1987; O'Malley, et al., 1985)• This led to the O’Malley and Chamot(1990)
classification of language learning strategies,
which was underpinned by Anderson’s work in
cognitive psychology.

O’Malley & Chamot (1990)
Metacognitive strategies, which
involved thinking about (orknowledge of) the learning process,planning for learning, monitoring
learning while it is taking place, or
self-evaluation of learning after thetask had been completed.

Cognitive strategies, which invokedmental manipulation ortransformation of materials or
tasks, intended to enhancecomprehension, acquisition, or
retention.

“Affective strategies are of less interest in an analysis such asSocial/affective strategies, which
ours which attempts toportray
strategies
consistedof usingsocial in a cognitive theory.
to assisthowever,in theFor the purposesinteractionsof discussion,
we present acomprehension, learning orclassification schemeretention
that includes
the full range of strategies
of information.
identified in the literature” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 44)

Rebecca Oxford (1989-2001)

Cognitive

Mnemonic

Metacognitive

Compensatory

Affective

SocialThis taxonomy reigns supreme• It created an explosion in the number ofpublished papers on strategy research• It is still by far the most widely used framework instrategy research, despite Oxford’s own
theoretical updates in 2011 (Rose et al., 2018)• It has somewhat overshadowed the many models
developed for skill-specific language learning:reading, listening, vocabulary learning, kanji
learning, etc

Critical perspectives on theory
1. The conceptualization of learning strategies is ‘rather
inconsistent and elusive’ (Dörnyei & Skehan 2003, p. 608)
2. The ‘term has been used in far too broad a sense, including
a number of different things that do not necessarily belong
together’ (Dörnyei & Skehan 2003, p. 610)
3. Lack of consenus whether learner strategies consist ofknowledge, intention, action, or all three (Macaro 2006)
4. Past studies have attempted to describe and quantify
strategies rather than to incorporate them into a model ofpsycholinguistic processing (Ellis 1997)

Abandon strategy research?
• Dörnyei and his collaborators have been
particularly vocal that the concept of strategies
be abandoned in place of self-regulation, which
they argue is a more stable field (Dörnyei 2005;
Dörnyei & Skehan 2003; Tseng et al. 2006).
• Self-regulation is argued to examine underlying
intentions that manifest in strategy use, rather
than examining the actual strategies themselves.

What is self-regulation?
• The strategies used to control (regulate)behaviour– They can help in the pursuit of a long-term goal
– They can help to monitor your response to obstacles,
and stimuli– Have been used extensively in psychology (drugaddiction, fitness etc)

• In language learning:– Self-regulation is the degree to which learners areactive participants and are proactive in their pursuit oflanguage learning (Dörnyei, 2005).

Delay of gratification• The ability to forego immediate gratification
for a larger, more important future goal.

Delay of Gratification: The
Standford Marshmellow
Experiments (Mischel)Delay of Gratification
When children were tracked later in life,• Those who could delay gratification:– Had higher verbal and math SAT scores– Were better able to concentrate– Were better able to cope with frustration andstress– Had greater cognitive and social competence
ratings

Self-regulation in language learning• Self-regulation in language learning refers to theprocesses the learner uses to exercise control
over learning• Dörnyei (2005) posits that self-regulation is “amultidimensional construct, including cognitive,
metacognitive, motivational, behavioral, andenvironmental processes that learners can apply
to enhance academic achievement” in different
learning contexts (p. 101).

Self-regulation (Dornyei 2005: 113)
• Commitment control strategies for helping preserve or
increase learner’s goal commitment.
• Metacognitive control strategies for monitoring andcontrolling concentration and for curtailing unnecessary
procrastination.
• Satiation control strategies for eliminating boredom andadding extra attraction or interest to the task.
• Emotion control strategies for managing disruptive
emotional states or moods and for generating emotions
that are conducive to implementing one’s intentions.
• Environmental control strategies for the elimination ofnegative environmental influences by making anenvironment an ally in the pursuit of a difficult goal.

Criticisms do not mean the end of
LLS• LLS and self-regulation are looking at two
different parts of the learning process (Gao,2007)

Two compatible, not competing,paradigms• Gao (2006) argued that self-regulation is looking
at the initial driving forces, while learning
strategies examine the outcome of these forces.
– Weinstein, Acee and Jung, (2011, p. 47) describing
self-regulation as “both the glue and the engine thathelps student manage their strategic learning”• Some researchers have integrated notions of selfregulation into existing paradigms of strategies(Oxford, 2011).
• It is possible to look at a learning task throughboth lenses: this is direction I took in 2007

Strategic learning of kanji(Rose, 2013; Rose & Harbon, 2013)
アイルランド共和国（アイルランドきょうわこく、アイル
ランド語: Éire、英語: Ireland、またはアイルランドは、
北大西洋のアイルランド島に存在する立憲共和制国家である。北東に英国北 アイルランドと接する。首都はアイルランド島中東部の都市ダブリン。ナショナル
カラーは緑。独立時の経緯によりアイルランド島の北
東部北アイルランド六州は英国を構成するが、アイ
ルランド共和国は1998年のベルファスト合意以前は全島の領有権を主張していた。2005年の英エコノミス
ト誌の調査では最も住みやすい国に選出されている。

アイルランド共和国（アイルランドきょうわこく、アイル
ランド語: Éire、英語: Ireland）、またはアイルランドは、
北大西洋のアイルランド島に存在する立憲共和制国家である。北東に英国北 アイルランドと接する。首都はアイルランド島中東部の都市ダブリン。ナショナル
カラーは緑。独立時の経緯によりアイルランド島の北
東部北アイルランド六州は英国を構成するが、アイ
ルランド共和国は1998年のベルファスト合意以前は全島の領有権を主張していた。2005年の英エコノミス
ト誌の調査では最も住みやすい国に選出されている。

アイルランド共和国（アイルランドきょうわこく、アイル
ランド語: Éire、英語: Ireland）、またはアイルランドは、
北大西洋のアイルランド島に存在する立憲共和制国家である。北東に英国北 アイルランドと接する。首都はアイルランド島中東部の都市ダブリン。ナショナル
カラーは緑。独立時の経緯によりアイルランド島の北
東部北アイルランド六州は英国を構成するが、アイ
ルランド共和国は1998年のベルファスト合意以前は全島の領有権を主張していた。2005年の英エコノミス
ト誌の調査では最も住みやすい国に選出されている。

Literacy for the second language
learner• Kanji is a major obstacle for second language
learners (Bourke, 1996)• It is the cause of high drop out rates in Japanese
language courses at universities (Kato, 2002)• It takes three to four times as long to reach thesame level of proficiency in Japanese than other
European language languages, partly because ofgrammatical differences in language but largely
because of kanji. (Everson, 2011)• Literacy may never be achieved (large fluent, but
illiterate foreign community in Japan)

Kanji: Fitting a square peg in around holee.g. Kanji do not suit a language whose verbs andadjectives conjugate

黒Cognitive strategies à
Encoding…

木
白

母

父

六

穴

B

部

言五口

語

泳河汗池

流

Blue /calm

青Self-regulation in kanji learning

Breakdown incommitment control

Affect leads to re‐assessmentof believability of goals

Breakdown insatiation control(Boredom)

Lack of short‐term goals leads
to procrastination
Procrastination leads to re‐assessment of achievability ofgoals

Boredom leads toprocrastination

Breakdown inemotional control(Stress, frustration, self‐criticism)

Inability to control
procrastination leads
to negative affectMagnitude andlength of goals leads
to boredom

Boredom leads to re‐assessment ofdesirability of goals(Goal setting)

Lack of progress toward goals
leads to negative affectBreakdown inmetacognitive control(Procrastination)

Some practical implications• Highlights the importance of setting
believable, achievable, conceivable anddesirable goals (McCombs and Pope, 1994).
Teachers can assist in– setting goals– testing previous knowledge– tracking progress• Highlights the importance of self-evaluationand self-efficacy beliefs (Zimmerman, 2000).

Some theoretical implications?
Not one instance of environmental control was
reported in the study where it was not being
used to regulate another form of motivation
control. Such results indicate environmental
control may not be a separate category ofcontrol in itself, but a self-regulatory mechanismor strategy to control other forms of motivation.

Dual research not the only path:Three categories of research (Rose et al.,2018)

e.g. validation ofself-regulation(Mizumoto &Takeuchi, 2012)

e.g. my own
research (a 2-in-1
approach)

1.Embrace selfregulation theory inresearch

Utilize traditional
language learnerstrategy constructs withacknowledgement ofcriticisms

Hybrid research that explores both; or explores
relationships between strategies and regulatory
processes

e.g. Ardasheva
and Tretter’s(2013)
adaptation of theSILLe.g.(Writing
Items (strategies)
within structures(the ‘glue andengine’) (Teng &Zhang, 2016)

Part Two

EVOLVING DEFINITIONS: MOVEMENTSTOWARDS LEARNER AGENCY

Evolving definitions
The definition of language learning strategies hasdeveloped over the years since Rubin’s original
investigation in the field.
• Rubin (1981: 42) defines language-learning
strategies as “the techniques or devices that alearner may use to acquire language.”• A further definition is “the special thoughts or
behaviors that individuals use to help themcomprehend, learn, or retain new
information” (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990: 1).

A widely adopted definition
Language learning strategies are “thoughts andactions, consciously chosen and operationalized
by language learners, to assist them in carryingout a multiplicity of tasks from the very onset oflearning to the most advanced levels of targetlanguage performance” Cohen (2012, p. 136)

Issues?
• There is contention over definitions• Strategies have been defined as special thoughts,
behaviors, techniques and devices– Definitions of learning strategies are ‘ad hoc andatheoretical’ (Ellis 1994, p. 533)

• Strategies have been perceived as cognitive,
metacognitive, psychological, affective, and social– There is has been no coherent agreement on thedefining criteria for a language learning strategy,
which is still the situation today (Tseng et al. 2006)

Criticism
Dornyei (2005) noted that:• “In the absence of a tight definition, it isunclear what different researchers mean by
the term language learning strategy (p. 188)”

Striving for Consensus• Oxford (2017) conducted a content analysis ofdefinitions for language learning strategies
and semantically related words/phrases• Thirty-three existing definitions werecompiled analyzed, and coded• Using the findings, she proposed a new
definition

Oxford (2017)
L2 learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts
and actions, selected and used by learners with somedegree of consciousness in specific contexts in order toregulate multiple aspects of themselves (such as
cognitive, emotional, and social) for the purpose of (a)accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language
performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term
proficiency. (p. 48)

Oxford (2017)
L2 learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts
and actions, selected and used by learners with somedegree of consciousness in specific contexts in order toregulate multiple aspects of themselves (such as
cognitive, emotional, and social) for the purpose of (a)accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language
performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term
proficiency. (p. 48)

Tracing the chronologicaltrajectory (earlier)
Early definitions appear largely simplistic. They use phrases that do
not imply an integration of self-directedness with language learning
strategies:• which a learner may use (Rubin, 1975);• employed by the language learner (Stern, 1983);• that a learner engages in (Weinstein & Mayer, 1986);• that students take (Chamot, 1987);• used by the learner (Chamot, et al., 1988);• which students use (Chamot & Kiipper, 1989);• which learners use (Oxford, 1989);• that individuals use (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990); and• used by language learners (Okada, Oxford, & Abo, 1996)

Tracing the chronologicaltrajectory (later)
Assumed self-directedness (self-regulation, agency, autonomy)• selected by the learner (Cohen, 1998);• selected by learners (Gao, 2003);• chosen by learners (Griffiths, 2008; Griffiths & Oxford, 2014);• that learners choose (Oxford, 2011);• chosen and operationalized by learners (Cohen, 2011);• that can be employed autonomously (Plonsky, 2011);• chosen by learners for the purpose of regulating (Griffiths,
2013);• chosen by a language learner (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014);• chosen by learners (Griffiths, 2017); and• selected and used by learners (Oxford, 2017)

Implicit Conceptualizations(Thomas et al, 2019)• pre-1997 vs post-1997 (Cohen, 1998; the element ofchoice)• PRE corpus - 13 texts (86,432 words)• POST corpus - 20 texts (184,202 words)• Two keyword lists of the PRE and POST corpora ranked
by a log-likelihood keyness statistic were generated by
AntConc (Anthony, 2014)• The keyword lists extracted important concepts whichwere significantly more frequent in PRE compared to the
POST, and the POST compared to the PRE(Thomas, Rose, Pojanapunya, forthcoming)

Emergent keywords in the PRE and POST corpus
associated with differences in strategy research
Keywords in the PRE-corpus,
compared to POST corpus

Keywords in the POST-corpus,
compared to PRE corpus

words indicating general concerns comprehension, strategies,of language learningtechniques, inferencing, recall,memory, elaboration, implicit,
explicit, solving, monitoring,guessing, notetaking, andinferences
words indicating actors/agents in students, readers, children,
language learningteachers, teacher, childregulation, meta, regulated,autonomy, style, sociocultural,self, metastrategies, independent,
identity, styles, behavior, control,
regulation, sociocultural,metastrategies
learners

words indicating learning
processes/activities

interaction, interactive

teaching, training, taught, direct,
practice, presented, trained,
reading, described, identifying,
instruction(Thomas, Rose, Pojanapunya, 2019)

What does this mean?
• Not surprising• A growing interest in self-regulated learning in
educational psychology in the 1990s (e.g.
Zimmerman, 1990)• Criticisms increase, more concepts get pulledin:– self-regulation, agency, autonomy, self-efficacy,
mindsets, resilience, hope, and internal
attributions

Sits well with long held notions in strategy
instruction: That is Instruction requires guided
Strategies
asdynamic
practice and teacher support before students canuse strategies independently(see Gunning & Oxford, 2014)“Many learners do not independently achieve selfregulation, and the presence of others in metacognitive
decision-making appears to be indispensable. Others
can bridge the process from other-regulation to coregulation to self-regulation,(Thomas
and ultimately& Rose, 2019,L2
p. 253)internalization” (Takeuchi & Ikeda, 2018, p. 98)[*concluded from study of 132 Japanese university over 9 weeks]

We need more research like this – in the classroom – which looks at theability of ‘others’ to scaffold self-regulated learning strategies to help
students move along the strategy continuum

Self-Regulation and Autonomy• Mak and Wong (2018)• Qualitative analysis of data collected over one
academic year
• The effect of using portfolio assessment for nurturing
self-regulation development among elementary
students in Hong Kong
• “[T]he ability to self-regulate requires scaffolding” (p.
12)• Learners may be unlikely to continue their learning“unless care were taken to facilitate the internalizationof regulation through support of the learner’sautonomy, competence, and relatedness” (p. 57)

Part Three

EVOLVING RESEARCH: ENTERING AN
IMPROVED ERA OF STRATEGYRESEARCH

Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning• Strategy Inventory of Language Learning (SILL)—a questionnaire that could be used bylearners to measure their own strategy use
and to increase their awareness of language
learning strategies utilized by other language
learners.
• SILL is “without doubt the most widely used
instrument in language learner strategy
research” (White et al., 2007: 95).

Cautions over questionnaires• “the actual language learning strategy measurespresented in the various studies tend not to havesufficient psychometric properties.”– The SILL scales are not cumulative and computing
mean scores is not justifiable psychometrically(Dornyei 2006).
– “the more the better is not always the case in strategy
use” (Yamamori et al., 2003)– Need to distinguish ‘state aspects’ and ’trait-aspects’of strategies in questionnaires (Mizumoto, 2018)

Criticism: SILL
• BUT… As Amerstorfer (2019) contests: “The SILL has not
expired yet, but perhaps needs a modern touch, for instance,in the form of adaptation or combination with other researchmethods ”– See Ardasheva & Tretter (2013)• Mizumoto (2018) agrees that “state-like” specific behaviours
can be measured by questionnaires, but researchers need tobe careful whether to treat them as single-item or multi-item
scales:– Teachers are still drawn to measures that capture quantity ofstrategies available to learners

Other measures• Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
was developed by a team of researchers (Pintrich et al.
1991). Used widely in educational psychology.
• Language Strategy Use Inventory (Cohen et al. 2006),
sometimes referred to as the Language Strategy Use
Survey, was developed to have a more practical focus.
• Survey of Reading Strategies (SORS) (Mokharti & Sheorey2002): this survey is an example of an attempt to moveaway from a one-size-fits-all questionnaire• Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (MALQ):
specifically measures strategies deployed in listening tasks• Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire: developed by Gu andJohnson (1996)

Self regulation & vocabulary(Tseng, Dornyei & Schmitt, 2006)
Self-regulation & vocabulary learning• Instrument developed by Tseng et al. (2006)– SRCVoc• Confirmed in a number of subsequent studies
to be a robust instrument– Mizumoto & Takeuchi (2012)– Ziegler (2015)

Strongly
agree

Agree

Partlyagree

Slightly
disagreeDisagreeStrongly
disagree1.

Once the novelty of learning vocabulary is gone,
I easily become impatient with it.
When I feel stressed about vocabulary learning,
I know how to reduce this stress.
When I am studying vocabulary and the learning
environment becomes unsuitable, I try to sort out
the problem.
When learning vocabulary, I have special techniques
to achieve my learning goals.
When learning vocabulary, I have special techniques
to keep my concentration focused.
I feel satisfied with the methods I use to reduce thestress of vocabulary learning.
When learning vocabulary, I believe I can achieve
my goals more quickly than expected.
During the process of learning vocabulary, I feelsatisfied with the ways I eliminate boredom.
When learning vocabulary, I think my methods ofcontrolling my concentration are effective.
When learning vocabulary, I persist until I reachthe goals that I make for myself.
When it comes to learning vocabulary, I have my
special techniques to prevent procrastination.
When I feel stressed about vocabulary learning,
I simply want to give up.
I believe I can overcome all the difficulties related
to achieving my vocabulary learning goals.

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

2.
3.

4.
5.
6.

A state-based focus need not be lost in multi-item
scales: For example, Mizumoto (2018) praises Tseng andSchmitt’s (2008) questionnaire which explore mastery invocabulary learning, shifting the scale item focus fromquantity to quality, and using multiple items to explore
the same construct…
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ

Downloaded from http://applij.oxfordjournals.org/ at Bodleian Library on December 7, 2015

7.

SELF-REGULATION IN VOCABULARY ACQUISITION

Learning experience

98

Item

Is there a ‘problem’ withquestionnaires??
• There may be a lack of reliability of studies
using questionnaires, as they are not sample
specific.
• A qualitative approach is recommended tomeasure language learning strategies morerichly (Woodrow, 2005)

Think-alouds• Gu (2014, p. 74) claims that it is ‘widely agreed
that various versions of thinking aloud are themost direct and therefore best tools available inexamining the on-going processes and intentions
as and when learning happens’.
• Hyland (2010, p. 197) supports this notion in his
assertion that think aloud techniques have been
extremely productive in the investigation of thewriting strategies that students deploy when
composing, planning, and revising texts.

Retrospective interviews• Takeuchi et al. (2007, p. 94) make thefollowing observation: “As the field moves
towards a deeper understanding of strategy
use influenced by particular cultural,contextual, and individual factors,
retrospective interviews re-emerge as animportant tool providing opportunities for
exploration and elaboration of aspects ofstrategy use.”

Stimulated recall• Tseng et al. (2006), observe that stimulated
recall is a highly promising but yet underutilized data collection technique– I have found that, when used effectively,
stimulated recall data are more revealing andmore reliable than other self-report instruments,
such as questionnaires and interview

Technological advances• Eye-tracking is becoming increasingly popular inapplied linguistics research to explore topics that weretraditionally done via think aloud protocols (Conklin
and Pellicer-Sánchez, 2017):– Eye-tracking technology can add new insight into strategic
processes when learning reading• Keystroke logging “logs and time stamps keystrokes,
pauses, cutting, pasting, and deleting and mouse
activity, allowing the researcher to reconstruct text
production processes” (Hyland, 2016: 118-119):– Keystroke logging can add new insight into strategic
behavioural practices when writing

Systematic review(Rose et al., 2018)• 18 predominately quantitative (11 exclusively so)– Ardasheva (2016) used tests, achievement scores, astrategy, motivation and background questionnaire• 6 exclusively qualitative– Lam’s (2015) study of Hong Kongese learners usedstimulated recall, interviews, learner histories and text
analysis• Questionnaires the most prevalent data collection:– the SILL in 11 studies, MSLQ in 4 studies, and SRCVoc in 3
studies• Qualitative data were more varied but often notreported systematicallyPart Four

FUTURE EVOLUTION:IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND
RESEARCH

1. Opportunities for theoreticaldevelopment• Very few researchers have looked at skillspecific self-regulation beyond vocabulary
learning, despite evidence that this is a fruitfulendeavor• Very few researchers have explored selfregulation from other theoretical standpoints

Ranalli (2012), makes the following
assertion:

*Rui Zhang

Source: Dornyei & Ryan, 2015

2. Resolving (?) definitional issues
Gu (2012) contends: “The definition quibble isgoing beyond the advancement of knowledge indelineating conceptual boundaries.” (Gu, 2012)• Like any field, it may be up to researchers to
adopt definitions that suit their needs:– SLA researchers may prefer SR-like constructs– TESOL researchers may prefer product-likeconstructs• We cannot dismiss the importance of teachers andstudents desire for teachable/learnable ‘strategies’Bringing back space for theclassroom• As a TESOL researcher, I prefer to keep mydefinition ‘basic’ for now to allow for breadthin explorations of dynamic change in strategyuse:– ‘thoughts and actions used by learners with somedegree of consciousness for purposes associatedwith language learning’ (Thomas & Rose 2019)3. Opportunities formethodological innovation• Of the 556 articles published on LLS, 16 per cent met rigorous
research criteria (Hadwin and Winne, 1996: 711)
– Rose et al. (2018) didn’t look at all studies, but exclusion process paints asimilar picture– Need more systematic reviews and meta-analyses to make strong
recommendations of methodology• Eye-tracking in strategy research has not been utilized as much as
in other areas of SLA• We still need a body of good qualitative research (despite calls forover 15 years for this)• Maturation in the field of advanced quantitative data analysis
opens up avenues to explore strategies in relation to other key
constructs and also as a dynamic construct itself (see calls byPlonsky; Mizumoto)Where to now?
(1) continue vis-à-vis historical methodsà this does notharness the advancements in the field driven by criticism(2) abandon language learner strategy research in favour ofself-regulation à loss of research base; loss of cognitive
strategies; loss of teachable strategies as ‘products’(3) acknowledge self-regulation within conceptualizations oflanguage learner strategies re-conceptualize language
learner strategy(4) continue language learner strategy research with sensitivity
to criticisms

Where to now?
(1) continue vis-à-vis historical methodsà this does notharness the advancements in the field driven by criticism(2) abandon language learner strategy research in favour ofself-regulation à loss of research base; loss of cognitive
strategies; loss of teachable strategies as ‘products’(3) acknowledge self-regulation within conceptualizations oflanguage learner strategies re-conceptualize language
learner strategy(4) continue language learner strategy research withsensitivity to criticisms

Thank you… if you want to read
more…

www.heathrose.net
or find me on
ResearchGate