System, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.

235-247,
Printed in Great Britain

1989

0346-251X/89
$3.00 f 0.00
0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

USE OF LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES: A SYNTHESIS

OF STUDIES WITH IMPLICATIONS
FOR STRATEGY TRAINING
REBECCA L. OXFORD*
Intensive English Communication

Program, Pennsylvania

This article addresses two questions: What

use? What factors affect choice of language
questions, the author reviews and synthesizes
strategies, including a number of new and

State University, USA

strategies do good language learners

learning strategies? To answer these
existing research on language learning
unpublished studies.

This article centers on two important and interrelated questions: What strategies do good
language learners use? What factors affect choice of language learning strategies? Although
evidence regarding the first question has been extensively published, the second question
offers an even greater wealth of research answers, not all of which are widely known. Our
purpose is to synthesize published and unpublished research evidence touching on both
these questions and to offer implications for strategy training.
Learning strategies are operations used by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, or
retrieval of information, according to one familiar definition (Rigney, 1978). Language
learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning
more successful, self-directed, and enjoyable. For simplicitys sake, we will use the term
language learning strategies in relation to more formal language learning and less formal
language acquisition; learning strategies are relevant to both.

WHAT STRATEGIES

DO GOOD LANGUAGE

LEARNERS

USE?

Good language learners use more and better learning strategies than do poor language
learners. Rubin (1975) suggested the good language learner is a willing and accurate guesser;
has a strong, persevering drive to communicate; is often uninhibited and willing to make
mistakes in order to learn or communicate; focuses on form by looking for patterns; takes
advantage of all practice opportunities; monitors his or her own speech as well as that
of others; and pays attention to meaning. Rubin (1981, 1987) also identified strategies
contributing to language learning success either directly-e.g. inductive inferencing, practice,
memorization-or
indirectly-e.g.
creating practice opportunities, using production tricks.
Naiman et al. (1975) named six strategies of good language learners: selecting language
situations that allow ones preferences to be used; actively being involved in language
learning; seeing language as both a rule system and a communication tool; extending and
*Present address: College of Education, University of Alabama, USA.
235

236

REBECCA

L. OXFORD

revising ones understanding of the language; learning to think in the language; and
addressing the affective demands of language learning.
Finally, Oxford (forthcoming) has synthesized earlier work on good language learning
strategies in general (see above; also Ramirez, 1986; Stern, 1983) and in relation to each
of the four language skills (e.g. Tyacke and Mendelsohn, 1986; Hosenfeld, 1977b; Papalia
and Zampogna, 1977). Tlie resulting strategy system suggests that good language learners
use strategies in six broad groups: metacognitive, affective, social, memory, cognitive and
compensatory. Good language learners manage their own learning process through
metacognitive strategies, such as paying attention, self-evaluating, and self-monitoring.
They control their emotions and attitudes through affective strategies, such as anxiety
reduction and self-encouragement. They work with others to learn the language, using social
strategies like asking questions and becoming culturally aware. They use memory strategies,
such as grouping, imagery, and structured review, to get information into memory and
to recall it when needed. They employ the new language directly with cognitive strategies,
such as practicing naturalistically, analysing contrastively, and summarizing. Finally, they
overcome knowledge limitations through compensatory strategies, like guessing meanings
intelligently and using synonyms or other production tricks when the precise expression
is unknown. Keeping in mind the research on good language learning strategies, let us turn
to factors affecting the choice of language learning strategies.

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT CHOICE OF LANGUAGE

LEARNING

STRATEGIES?

Many factors influence learning strategy choice: language being learned; duration; degree
of awareness; age; sex; affective variables, such as attitudes, motivation level/intensity,
language learning goals, motivational orientation, personality characteristics, and general
personality type; learning style; aptitude; career orientation; national origin; language
teaching methods; and task requirements.
Language being learned
The language being studied has an influence on the strategies that are used. Chamot and
her colleagues (1987) found that students of Russian reported greater strategy use than
students of Spanish. Likewise, Politzer (1983), in examining the learning strategies of
students of French, Spanish, and German, discovered that students of Spanish engaged
in fewer positive strategies than did students of the other languages. However, it is likely
that language of study interacts with a host of other variables. For instance, brighter or
more strategy-wise students might tend to take Russian (or other difficult languages) rather
than Spanish, which is known to be easier for English speakers. Teachers of various
languages, especially if they are native speakers, might use different teaching methods,
which are likely to influence students learning strategies. Students might be learning
different languages for different purposes, which will be reflected in choice of strategies.
Duration
Duration includes both course level and number of years of language study. Duration
sometimes implies proficiency level, but proficiency level is not necessarily measured
precisely in the studies mentioned here.

LANGUAGE

LEARNING

STRATEGY

SYNTHESIS

237

As language students progress to higher course levels, they use somewhat different strategies,
according to several researchers. For instance, Politzer (1983) discovered that course level
influenced foreign language learning behaviors (strategies), with higher-level students using
more positive strategies, Chamot et al. (1987) found that cognitive strategy use decreased
and metacognitive strategy use rose as the foreign language course level increased, but socialaffective strategy use remained very low across all course levels. The specific kinds of
cognitive and metacognitive strategies also shifted somewhat across course levels.
McDonough and McNerney (reported by Tyacke and Mendelsohn, 1986) discovered that
more advanced language learners diminished their use of less useful strategies and geared
their strategy use more directly to the language learning task at hand. In another study
(Nyikos, 1987) university students showed developmental trends in strategy use, with
decreasing and increasing use of various strategies as the semesters progressed. Tyacke and
Mendelsohns (1986) diary study showed that lower-level students generally depended much
more on their teacher and on the linguistic code than did higher-level students.
Bialystok (1981) found differences in strategy use as learners advanced in French. Formal
practice with rules and forms was less and less effective as students advanced, but functional
practice with authentic, communicative language displayed no such limitation. The findings
of Oxford and Nyikos (1989) support Bialystoks result; these researchers discovered that
foreign language students who had studied the new language for a minimum of four or
five years used communication-oriented
strategies (i.e. functional practice strategies and
conversational/input elicitation strategies) significantly more often than did less experienced
students.
Advancement in course level or years of study does not necessarily mean that students use
better strategies in every instance. Cohen and Aphek (1981), in studying English speakers
who were learning Hebrew, discovered that both good and bad learning strategies appeared
across course levels. Nevertheless, most of the research does indeed show that, in general,
the more advanced the language learner, the better the strategies used. At least three possible
explanations exist. First, language students might spontaneously develop new and better
strategies as they become more advanced. Second, the nature of the task requirements might
change (often becoming more communicative, though not necessarily!) in higher-level
courses, and students might respond with strategies tailored to the task requirements. Third,
students with poorer strategies might perform worse than students with better strategies
and therefore drop out of language study before reaching higher level courses.
Degree of awareness
Metacognitive awareness also influences strategy use. What learners know about themselves
and about their own learning process-for
instance, kinds of language used, proficiency
level, the outcomes of learning, and learners own proficiency, feelings, aptitude, physical
state, age, learning style, social role, character, and personal theory of language learningcan affect their use of language learning strategies (Wenden, 1986b).
Researchers dispute learners level of strategy awareness. Nyikos (1987) found that
learners used only a narrow range of strategies and were generally unaware of the strategies
they used. Tyacke and Mendelsohn (1986) reported a diary study in which only one of

238

REBECCA

L. OXFORD

the learners showed increasing awareness of strategies as they became more advanced. In
contrast, Chamot and her colleagues (1987) discovered that even ineffective learners were
aware of and used a number of strategies, with the only difference between effective and
ineffective students being that the effective learners reported greater frequency and greater
range of strategy use. These conflicting results might be explained by use of different
research methods in the studies above.

Very few studies have explored the effect of age on choice of language learning strategies,
although age (albeit a rather narrow age span) is sometimes implied by course level. Ehrman
and Oxford (1989) and Oxford (1986) studied adult language learners, who seemed to use
somewhat more sophisticated language learning strategies than did younger learners in other
studies; however, the motivational orientation of the adult learners, who were learning
languages for immediate career purposes, might have been a greater factor than age. Leaver
(forthcoming) directly examined the results of age as a factor in strategy choice by comparing
the strategies used by adults and children learning foreign languages. She concluded that
their differences in strategies were due not to age but to the way that these individuals
gained their language skills: the younger subjects in a natural way and the adults in a
classroom setting.
Sex
Most researchers have not investigated sex differences in language learning strategy use,
or have ignored the sex differences they found. Politzer (1983) reported that females used
social learning strategies significantly more often than males-a difference which was
dismissed without any explanation, but which might be associated with womens stronger
social orientation.
However, sex differences in strategy use may be more important and more prevalent than
previously thought. In a study of adult language learners, Ehrman and Oxford (1989) found
that females, compared with males, reported significantly greater use of language learning
strategies in four categories: general study strategies, functional practice (authentic language
use) strategies, strategies for searching for and communicating meaning, and selfmanagement strategies. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) found that females, as contrasted with
males, used language learning strategies significantly more often in three of five possible
strategy factors: formal rule-based practice strategies, general study strategies, and
conversational/input
elicitation strategies. These sex differences in Ehrman and Oxford
(1989) and Oxford and Nyikos (1989) might have been associated with womens greater
social orientation, stronger verbal skills (including proper rule usage), and greater conformity
to norms, both linguistic and academic, demonstrated by earlier research. Nyikos (1987)
discovered significant sex differences in her training study of the use of mnemonic strategies
for German vocabulary learning among university foreign language students. After training,
men outperformed women in the color-plus-picture mnemonic combination, which was
explained as potentially relating to mens greater visual-spatial acuity. However, women
surpassed men in the color-only condition, which was explained by womens documented
interest in color as an attractor.
In short, the sex difference findings to date show that in typical language learning situations

LANGUAGE

LEARNING

STRATEGY

SYNTHESIS

239

women use significantly more learning strategies than men and use them more often; but
that after strategy training, men and women both show distinct strategy strengths. For
a more complete discussion on these four studies, see Oxford el al. (1988).
Affective variables
Several affective variables are important in choice of language learning strategies: attitudes,
motivational level/intensity, language learning goals reflecting motivational orientation,
specific personality traits, and general personality type.
Attitudes. Attitudes strongly influence language learning in general and therefore are likely
to influence the choice of strategies. Bialystok (1981) found that learners attitude was highly
influential in choice of language learning strategies-more
influential than language
aptitude. Little other empirical research has been done on the influence of attitudes on
strategy choice, but Wenden (1987) has convincingly argued that unless negative attitudes
toward learner self-direction are changed, no amount of training in better learning strategies
will have a sustained effect on learning strategy use.
Motivational level/intensity. The prime determining factor [in language learning success]
is motivation (Gardner, 1985: p. 83, because motivation, along with attitudes, determines
the extent of active personal engagement in language learning. Despite this well-known
fact, few language learning strategy studies have examined the role of motivational
level/intensity on strategy choice.
In one of these rare studies, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) found that of all the variables
measured, motivational level had the most powerful influence on reported use of language
learning strategies. Motivational level significantly affected the tendency of language
students to use (or not use) strategies in four out of five factors: formal rule-related practice
strategies, functional practice (authentic language use) strategies, general study strategies,
and conversational/input
elicitation strategies. Highly motivated learners used these types
of strategies significantly more often than did less motivated learners.
Even when communication-oriented
strategies are encouraged, students may reject those
strategies-possibly
due to low motivation. University learners of Spanish, taught by
communicative methods and possessing abundant naturalistic practice possibilities, stuck
to highly traditional language learning strategies, like using the dictionary as a basis for
learning words, and avoided authentic practice (McGroarty, 1987). We speculate that the
problem was low motivation for language learning. (Complementary explanations might
be that the students were not able to switch gears when they encountered a new language
teaching method, or their language learning goal might not have been communicative
competence.)
Language /earning goals reflecting motivational orientation. In the Oxford and Nyikos
(1989) study mentioned earlier, the most popularly used strategies were formal rule-related
practice strategies and general study strategies, Least popular were functional practice
(authentic language use) strategies, which involved a greater personal investment in the
target culture and demanded more extracurricular effort in finding naturalistic practice
opportunities. These results were attributed to what appeared to be a purely instrumental

240

REBECCA L. OXFORD

motivation for language learning, reflected in the overriding goals of most students in the
sample: to fulfill the language requirement and to earn good grades in a highly traditional
academic environment which stressed analytical rule-learning
skills. Developing
communicative competence was not a goal of most of the students; this might have been
the case with McCiroartys (1987) sample mentioned above.
Two other related studies provide insights about the effects of motivational orientation
on learning strategies, although motivational orientation was only indirectly observed in
those studies. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) and Oxford (1986) found much more frequent
use of functional practice (authentic language use) strategies among two sets of adult
language learners, who were learning foreign languages for career reasons. These learners
appeared instrumentally motivated to learn a new language, rather than integratively
motivated to identify with people of the target culture. None the less, their instrumental
motivational orientation led them to use communication-oriented
strategies, in contrast
with the instrumental motivational orientation toward grade-getting demonstrated by the
university students in the Oxford and Nyikos (1989) study.
Politzer (undated) studied the language learning strategies of Oriental and Hispanic graduate
students learning English. He found that they were instrumentally rather than integratively
motivated to learn the language, that instrumental motivation accounted for course gains,
but that little evidence existed for a link between strategies used and motivational orientation
(instrumental vs integrative). However, in a different study, Politzer and McGroarty (1985)
stressed the importance of language learning goals in determining strategy use; a given
strategy might be viewed as differentially appropriate for various language goals. As an
example, Politzer and McGroarty stated that the strategy of asking a teacher how an
expression is used might be associated with the goal of developing aural/oral communication
skills but might not be seen as relevant for a student whose language learning goal is to
develop skill in reading technical literature.
Thus, mixed findings exist about the influence of language learning goals and motivational
orientation on language learning strategy use. Clearly this is an area needing greater
exploration.
Personalitycharacteristics.Some personality characteristics are long-term traits, while others
are more situationally related to the demands and pressures of given language learning
circumstances. The relationship between personality characteristics, either long-term or
situational, and language learning strategy choice has not been fully or systematically mined.
Lack of inhibition has often been named as a personality characteristic of good language
learners. Rubin (1975) suggested that good language learners are uninhibited and willing
to appear foolish or make mistakes in order to communicate and learn; see Oxford
(forthcoming) for a demonstration of how these personality features can be encouraged
through the use of affective strategies, such as self-encouragement.
In examining the
language learning strategies of good university-level foreign language learners, Reiss (1985)
found that these good learners were not as uninhibited as anticipated and that they paid
more attention to form than meaning. Nevertheless, they did use some good language
learning strategies, such as using guessing and taking advantage of practice opportunities.

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY SYNTHESIS

The personality trait of inhibition might have been situational,

university environment.

241

related to the academic

Bailey (1983) used learner diaries to examine personality features of anxiety and
competitiveness, which often appeared related. Although Bailey was not looking directly
at language learning strategies, her evidence suggests that these personality characteristics
were reflected in language learning behaviors. For example, strong competitiveness and
anxiety caused some learners to give up active efforts toward learning the language but
caused other learners to try harder.
General personality type. Ehrman and Oxford (1989) studied how overall personality type,
as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), affects the language learning
strategies of adults. In this study, extroverts reported significantly greater use of affective
strategies and visualization strategies than did introverts, but introverts reported significantly
more frequent use of strategies involving searching for and communicating meaning.
Compared with sensing people, intuitive people used significantly more strategies in four
categories: affective, formal model-building, functional practice (authentic language use),
and searching for and communicating meaning. Feeling-type people, compared with
thinkers, showed significantly greater use of general study strategies. Perceivers, defined
as those who do not need to come to closure rapidly, used significantly more strategies
for searching for and communicating meaning than did judgers, who require more rapid
closure; but judgers showed significantly more use of general study strategies than did
perceivers. Obviously, there are some important linkages between personality type and
learning strategies which need to be further studied.
We have just described a number of affective variables related to language learning strategy
use. Now we will turn to a cognitive variable, learning style, which has much in common
with general personality type as measured by the MBTI.
Learning style
The MBTI is sometimes viewed as a measure of learning or problem-solving style as well
as personality type. Thus, Ehrman and Oxfords (1989) study reveals something about the
relationship between language learning strategy use and learning style. However, the MBTI
measures only certain aspects of learning style: extroversion/introversion,
intuition/sensing,
feeling/thinking, and perceiving/judging. There are many other aspects of learning style,
such as field independence vs dependence (ability to separate the background details from
the main features), learning modality preferences (aural/visual/kinesthetic/tactile),
reflection vs impulsivity, social vs independent learning preferences, right vs left brain
dominance, and so on. It is likely that a strong relationship exists between the individuals
use of learning strategies and the individuals learning style; the former refers to specific
behaviors and the latter to more general learning and problem-solving tendencies. Sadly,
little research has been dedicated to the relationship between learning strategy use and
learning style. A possible exception is a current, multi-year Language Skill Change Project
conducted by the Defense Language Institute and the Army Research Institute. This study
is measuring at least one of these learning style aspects (field independence vs dependence),
with the future possibility of correlating it with learning strategy use.

242

REBECCA

L. OXFORD

Aptitude
Aptitude has not been extensively studied as a predictor of language learning strategy choice.
As mentioned earlier, Bialystok (1981) considered aptitude in her study of high school
language learners but found that it was not as influential as attitude in terms of the strategies
chosen by students. On the other hand, Politzer (1983) suggested that intelligence (i.e. general
aptitude) might relate to self-reported language learning behaviors (strategies), as well as
to language achievement. Leino (1982) analyzed foreign language learning strategies and
found that individuals of high conceptual levels (which reflect high intelligence or aptitude)
were much more able to give descriptions of their strategies than individuals with low
conceptual levels.
Career orientation
Depending on the age and status of the subjects, career orientation might mean field of
specialization (usually university major) or current career position. Several studies have
shown that career orientation influences choice of language learning strategies. Politzer
and McGroarty (1985) found that field of specialization (engineering/science vs social
science/humanities) had a significant effect on strategy choice of ESL students, with
engineers avoiding language learning strategies usually viewed as positive; these researchers
also noted an overlap with national origin, since many of the engineers in their sample
were also Oriental.
In their study of foreign language learners, Oxford and Nyikos (1989) discovered that
students
university
major directly
affected
strategy
use. Humanities/social
science/education majors used two different categories of strategies-independent
strategies
and functional practice (authentic language use) strategies-significantly
more often than
did students majoring in other areas.
Ehrman and Oxford (1989) found that current career position influenced foreign language
learning strategy choice. Professional linguists used a wider variety of strategies than did
adult language learners and native-speaking language teachers not trained in linguistics.
Specifically, professional linguists used significantly more of the following general categories
of strategies: functional practice (authentic language use), searching for and communicating
meaning, formal model-building, and affective strategies.
Reid (1987) found that ESL students fields of specialization, influenced learning modality
preferences (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile), which, as already mentioned, are probably
related to choice of language learning strategies.
National origin
Numerous studies have shown that national origin or ethnicity has a strong influence on
the kinds of strategies used by language learners. For instance, Oriental students seem to
prefer strategies involving rote memorization and language rules (Politzer, undated; Politzer
and McGroarty, 1985; Tyacke and Mendelsohn, 1986) as opposed to more communicative
strategies. Orientals, compared with Hispanics, responded less positively to strategy training
(Russo and Stewner-Manzanares,
1985; OMalley et al., 1985a; OMalley et al., 1985b).
Sutter (1987) found that if the learning strategies being trained were opposed to the learners
initial strategy preferences, especially those related to national origin or cultural background,

LANGUAGE

LEARNING

STRATEGY

SYNTHESIS

disaster resulted; Sutter found it necessary to camouflage

guise of old, familiar ones.

243

the new strategies under the

Differences in learning strategy use by national origin caused Politzer and McGroarty (1985)
to ask whether our conceptions of good language learning strategies might be
ethnocentrically biased. The answer might lie in what we perceive as the goal of language
learning, discussed earlier. If language learning is for the purpose of social communication,
certain types of strategies are seen as good, and if language learning is for other purposes,
other strategies are labelled as good.2
In a slightly different vein, Reid (1987) found that ESL students learning modality
preferences (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile)-which
are probably related to choice
of specific strategies for language learning-were
strongly influenced by national origin.
In addition, people of certain nationalities preferred working independently and resisted
social, cooperative learning, according to Reid.
Language teaching methods
Language teaching methods, as well as unspoken expectations permeating the instructional
environment,
often influence language learning strategy use. Sutter (personal
communication, January 1988) stated that the longer students remained in a language
program, the more they tended to prefer the language learning strategies subtly suggested
by that programs instructional methods. Politzer (1983) noted a complex interaction
between language teaching methods and learning behaviors (strategies) for students of
French, Spanish, and German. Oxford and Nyikos (1989) found that students language
learning strategies mirrored analytical, rule-based language instructional methods used in
the university.
In contrast with the learning strategies revealed by the university studies, greater use of
communication-oriented strategies was found by Ehrman and Oxford (1989) among adults
who were expected to learn languages for later use on the job and whose teachers used
more communicative instructional methods. Leaver (forthcoming) found that the methods
by which language skills were developed, formal analytical classroom work vs naturalistic
acquisition, influenced students preferred language learning strategies. Cooperative
instructional methods have been shown to facilitate cooperative and communicative learner
behaviors and to improve attitudes toward language learning (Bejarano, 1987; Gunderson
and Johnson, 1980; Jacob and Mattson, 1987). However, even when communicative
language teaching practices are used in the classroom, language learners sometimes ignore
those practices and continue to use traditional, analytic language learning strategies
(McGroarty, 1987); see previous discussion.
We have shown that language teaching methods frequently affect use of language learning
strategies. However, most language teachers are not aware of their students learning
strategies, or how these strategies result in particular kinds of errors (Cohen and Robbins,
1976; Cohen et al., 1979; Hosenfeld, 1976; Hosenfeld, 1977a; OMalley et al., 1985a;
OMalley et a/., 1985b; Chamot et a/., 1987). Because teaching methods often influence
how students learn, teachers should become more aware of their students learning strategies
in order to orient teaching methods more appropriately.

2A4

REBECCA

L. OXFORD

Task requirements
The immediate requirements of language tasks can influence the use of language learning
strategies. Bialystok (1981) found that students responded to different task requirements
with different strategies. Some strategies were useful only for certain kinds of tasks; for
instance, monitoring ones errors was more useful for writing tasks than for reading
or speaking tasks. However, functional practice promoted language achievement on all
language tasks. As noted earlier, McDonough and McNerney (reported by Tyacke and
Mendelsohn, 1986) found that more advanced students keyed their strategy use to particular
language task requirements more so than did less advanced students.
So far, we have examined a myriad of factors related to language learning strategy use:
language being learned; duration; degree of awareness; age; sex; affective variables, such
as attitudes, motivation level, language learning goals, motivational orientation, personality
characteristics, and general personality type; learning style; aptitude; career orientation;
national origin; language teaching methods; and task requirements. Now we will describe
some implications for strategy training.

IMPLICATIONS

FOR STRATEGY

TRAINING

For those students fortunate enough to receive training in language learning strategies,
the nature of strategy training is extremely important in determining the strategies used
after training. Extensive research (e.g. Brown and Palinscar, 1982; Dansereau, 1985; Derry
and Murphy, 1986; OMalley et al., 1985a; ONeill, 1978; Weinstein et al., 1988; Wenden,
1986a) reveals that the most effective strategy training explicitly teaches learners why and
how to do the following: (1) use new strategies, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of different
strategies, and (3) decide when it is appropriate to transfer a given strategy to a new situation.
This explicitness results in completely informed training. In addition to explicitness, strategy
training should provide sufficient practice to help the new strategies stick and in most
cases should be integrated with activities of the regular language learning program.
Strategy training must also be geared to learners own needs, as reflected in the factors
described in this article. Affective factors are especially important to consider in designing
and conducting strategy training. Negative attitudes toward new concepts such as selfdirection and learning strategies can make strategy training ineffective (see Wenden, 1987);
strategy training must help learners to develop a positive view of these concepts and to
determine their personal goals for language learning. Additional factors, such as national
origin, sex, and course level are also crucial to consider in designing and presenting strategy
training.
How can teachers be sensitive to all these individual differences? We suggest three kinds
of assessment, the results of which can be used to guide strategy training. First, assess
students current learning strategies, using one or more techniques such as diaries,
observations, interviews, or surveys (see Oxford, 1986; Oxford, forthcoming; Cohen, 1987).
Second, determine learners existing goals, motivations, attitudes, and personality type
through informal discussions or through more formal assessment techniques (see Gardner,
1985; Oxford, forthcoming).
Third,, consider carefully students language learning

LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGY SYNTHESIS

245

experience, national origin, sex, age, and other background factors; most teachers are
already familiar with such details. These three assessments do not have to take a prohibitive
amount of time or effort. The results-in
terms of more successful strategy training,
improved use of language learning strategies, and increased motivation and proficiency-will
make the investment worthwhile.
NOTES
This article does not present a methodological critique of ways to collect or analyze data on language learning
strategies; for details on such issues, see Cohen (1987) and Oxford (forthcoming). Also, this article is not intended
as a thorough review of existing language learning strategy research; for this, see Oxford (forthcoming). See
Wenden and Rubin (1987) for excellent background on language learning strategies and Holec (1981) and Dickinson
(1987) for information on autonomy and language learning. In this article we will use the term strategy training
to refer to what is sometimes called learner training or learning-to-learn
training.
Language learning purposes, even in a single country or a single part of the world, change significantly over
time. For specifics, Kellys (1976) history of language instruction.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BAILEY, K. N. (1983) Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: looking at and through
the diary studies. In Seliger, H. W. and Long, M. H. (eds), Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language
Acquisition, pp. 67-103. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
BEJARANO, Y. (1987) A cooperative small-group methodology in the language classroom. TESOL Quarterly
21, 483-504.
BIALYSTOK, E. (1981) The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal
65, 24-35.
BROWN, A. L. and PALINSCAR, A. S. (1982) Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of informed
self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities 2, 1-17.
CHAMOT, A. Il., OMALLEY, J. M., KUPPER, L. and IMPINK-HERNANDEZ, M. V. (1987) A study of
Learning Strategies in Foreign Language Instruction: First Year Report. Rosslyn, VA: InterAmerica Research
Associates.
COHEN, ,A. (1987) Studying learner strategies: how we get the information. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 31-40. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
COHEN, A. and APHEK, E. (1981) Easifying second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquksition

3, 221-236.
COHEN, A., GLASMAN, H., ROSENBAUM-COHEN, P. R., FERRARA, J. and FINE, J. (1979) Reading
English for specialized purposes: discourse analysis and the use of student informants. TESOL Quarterly 13,
551-564.
COHEN, A. and ROBBINS, N. (1976) Toward assessing interlanguage performance: the relationship between
selected errors, learners characteristics, and learners explanation. Laguage Learning 26, 45-66.
DANSEREAU, D. F. (1985) Learning strategy research. In Segal, J. W., Chipman, S. F. and Glaser, R. (eds),
Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating Learning to Basic Research, pp. 209-240. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
DERRY, S. J. and MURPHY, D. A. (1986) Designing systems that train learning ability: from theory to practice.
Review of Educational Research 56, l-39.
L. (1987) Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EHRMAN, M. and OXFORD, R. (1989) Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on
adults language learning strategies. Modern Language Journal 73, l-13.

DICKINSON,

C. and KASPER, G. (eds) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.

GARDNER, R. C. (1985) Social Psychological Aspects of Language Learning: the Role of Attitudes and
Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
FAERCH,

GUNDERSON, D. and JOHNSON, D. (1980) Building positive attitudes by using cooperative learning groups.
Foreign Language Annals 13, 39-43.

246

REBECCA 1. OXFORD
H. (1981) Autonomy

HOLEC,

HOSENFELD,
second-language

and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford:

C. (1977a) A learning-teaching
learners with reading-grammar

HOSENFELD,
C. (1977b) A preliminary
investigation
second language learners. System 5, 110-123.
JACOB,

E. and MATTSON,

from the Field. Washington,

of the reading

B. L. (forthcoming)

LEINO, A. L. (1982) Learning

The acquisition/learning

N., FROHLICH,

dichotomy:

process in terms of styles and strategies.

McGROARTY,
M. (1987) Patterns
at the annual meeting of Teachers
NAIMAN,

Press.

strategies

of successful

and unsuccessful

B. (1987) Using Cooperative Learning with Language Minority Students: a Report

DC: Center for Language Education and Research, Center for Applied Linguistics.

L. G. (1976) 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley,

KELLY,
LEAVER,

Pergamon

view of second language instruction:

the learning strategies of
tasks. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University.

MA: Newbury
another

look.

House.
(Article

in progress.)

Research Bulletin No. 59. Helsinki, Finland.

of persistent second language learners: elementary Spanish.

of English to Speakers of Other Languages,
Miami, FL.

M. and TODESCO,

A. (1975) The good second

language

Paper presented

TESL Talk 6,

learner.

58-75.
NYIKOS, M. (1987) The effect of color and imagery
items in German. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,

as mnemonic stratgies on learning and retention

Purdue University,
West Lafayette,
IN.

of lexical

OMALLEY,
J. M., CHAMOT, A. U., STEWNER-MANZANARES,
G., KUPPER, L. and RUSSO, R. (1985a)
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate
ESL students. Language Learning 35, 21-46.
OMALLEY,
J. M., CHAMOT,
A. U., STEWNER-MANZANARES,
Learning strategy applications
with students of English as a second
H. F. (ed.) (1978) Learning Strategies. New York:

ONEILL,

OXFORD,
R. L. (1986) Development
AR1 Technical Report 728. Alexandria,

G., RUSSO, R. and KUPPER, L. (1985b)

language.
TESOL Quarterly 19, 557-584.

Academic

Press.

and psychometric
testing of the strategy inventory for language learning.
VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

OXFORD,
R. L. (forthcoming)
Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York:
Newbury House/Harper
& Row.
OXFORD, R. L. and NYIKOS, M. (1989) Variables
students. Modern Language Journal 13.

affecting

choice of language

learning

strategies

OXFORD,
R. L., NYIKOS, M. and EHRMAN,
M. (1988) Five la difference? Reflections
in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals 21, 321-328.

by university

on sex differences

PAPALIA,
A. and ZAMPOGNA,
J. (1977) Strategies used by foreign language students in deriving
from a written text and in learning vocabulary.
Language Association Bulletin, pp. 7-8.
POLITZER,
R. L. (1983) An exploratory
study of self reported language
to achievement.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, 54-65.
POLITZER,
Unpublished

R. L. (undated) Motivation, language learning

manuscript,
Stanford
University,
Stanford,

behavior,
CA.

learning

behaviors

and achievement

REID,

J. M. (1987) The learning

strategies

style preferences

REISS, M.-A. (1985) The good language

learner:

used by adolescents
of ESL students.

studying

and their relation

in an intensive ESL course.

POLITZER,
R. L. and McGROARTY,
M. (1985) An exploratory study of learning behaviors
to gains in linguistic and communicative
competence.
TESOL Quarterly 19, 103-124.
RAMlREZ,
A. G. (1986) Language learning
Foreign Language
Annals 19, 131-141.

and their relationship

French in New York schools.

TESOL Quarterly 21, 87-111.

look. Canadian Modern Language Review 41,51 l-523.

another

H. F. (ed.), Learning Strategies,

RlGNEY, J. W. (1978) Learning strategies: a theoretical

pp. 165-205. New York: Academic Press.

perspective.

RUBIN.

J. (1975) What

can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9, 41-51.

RUBIN,

J. (1981) Study of cognitive

the good

language

learner

processes

meaning

in second

language

In ONeill,

learning.

Applied Linguistics 11, 110-131.

RUBlN, J. (198?) Learner strategies: theoretical

assumptions,
research history, and typology.
In Wenden, A.
and Rubin, J. (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, pp. 1%30.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
RUSSO, R. and STEWNER-MANZANARES,
as a second language in a military context.
Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
STERN,

Paper

G. (1985) The training and use of learning strategies for English

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

H. H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts in Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford

SUTTER, W. (1987) Learning Styles in Adult Refugees in North Jutland. Denmark:

(in Danish).

University

County

Press.

of North

Jutland

LANGUAGE

LEARNING STRATEGY

SYNTHESIS

TYACKE, M. and MENDELSOHN, D. (1986) Student needs: cognitive as well as communicative.

Journal 1, 171-183.

247

TESL Cunudu

WEINSTEIN, C. E., GOETZ, E. T. and ALEXANDER, P. A. (eds) (1988) LeurningundStudy Strutegies: Issues
in Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press.
WENDEN, A. (1986a) Incorporating learner training in the classroom. System 14, 315-325.
WENDEN, A. (1986b) What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look
at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics 7, 186-205.
WENDEN, A. (1987) Conceptual background and utility. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds), Learner Strutegies
in Language Learning, pp. 3-13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
WENDEN, A. and RUBIN, J. (eds) (1987) Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.