## Watching the Wheels Go Round

## -

## Observing

## Metacognitive Strategies in Class

### ChristopherHellman

学習ストラテジーが英語教員の指導技術一つとして、広まってきている。しかしながら、 それらがどのように活用されるべきかについては、多くの問題がある。また、さまざまな研

究において、多様性（variable）の重要性が強調されている。本論では、学生間で見られる

ストラテジーが十分に生かされていない使用例を検証し、多様性に関する情報提供のため に、その結果を分析した。そして、戦略アプローチを含む、成功へとつながるさまざまな要 因を議論した。

**Introduction**

**LearningStrategies**

Learningstrategieshavebecomealargelyacceptedpartoftheteacher’stoolkit,appearing inanumberoftextbooksandstudyguides.However,despitethelargenumberofstudiesthat havebeenconducted,thereisalackofclearempiricalevidencetosupporttheirroleinsecond languageacquisition(Ellis1994;Rees-Miller1994).Developingoutof‘goodlearner’studies, which studied the behaviour of ‘good’ language learners on the premise that it could be duplicatedandtaughttootherlanguagelearners,researchonlearningstrategiestendedto concentrateonthedifferentstrategiesusedbylearnersorthenumberofstrategiestheyused,

equatingfrequencywithsuccess(Wenden1985;Rost&Ross1991;Dreyer&Oxford1996),but only a few of these studies succeeded in directly correlating strategy use with language improvements(exceptinthefieldofreading).Indeed,somestudies(Vann&Abraham1990) foundevidenceofextensivestrategyusenotonlyamonggoodlearners,butamongpoorlearners too.Thereisalsoevidencethatexplicitstrategyinstructionmaybeseenasunnecessaryora wasteoftimebythelearnersthemselves(Rees-Miller1994).

categories:cognitive,whichdealswiththeprocessingofinformationandincludesstrategiessuch aspredicting,groupingandinferencing;metacognitive,whichistheexecutivefunctionand involvesmanagingthelearningprocess,includingmonitoringandevaluating;andaffective,which dealswithsocialandemotionalfactors.Thesedistinctionsprovideausefulstartingpointfor

assessingstrategyuse.Wheremostapproachessufferisnotintheunderstandingofstrategies themselves,butinfailingtoaddresswhatastrategicapproachmightbe.Ifweacceptatypical definitionoflearningstrategiessuchasthatgivenbyChamot: “techniques,approaches,or deliberateactionsthatstudentstakeinordertofacilitatethelearningandrecallofbothlinguistic andcontentareainformation”(Chamot1987:71)wecanseehowbroadarangeofbehavioursthis actuallyincludes.Infactitcouldincludevirtuallyanytechnique,tiporstudyskill.Suchabroad

definitiongiveslittlesenseofwhatconstitutesthe‘strategic’aspectoflearningstrategies.Given thatstrategyinitsgenerallyusedsenseimpliesgainingadvantageatminimalcost,thiskindof collectionoftechniquesseemstobelittlemorethanacatalogueofmethods,ratherthanwhat mightbecategorisedasastrategicapproach.

**ThePresentStudy**

Researchers of learning strategies recognise there are many “learner, context, task,

teacherandtextvariables”(Rubin&Chamot1994:771),withoutgivingmanyindicationsofwhat theseare.Clearly,forateachertohaveconfidenceinthestrategiesthattheyareteaching,these variablesmustbeaddressed.Giventheconceptofastrategicapproachtostrategyuse,my interestinthepresentstudywasinidentifyingandexaminingasituationwherestrategyuse couldprovideaclearadvantagetostudentsandtoinvestigatesomeofthevariablesmentioned aboveinthehopeofclarifyingfactorsinvolvedinsuccessfulstrategyinstructionanduse.

Thetaskthatwaschosenwasonethathadexcitedmycuriosity.Studentsinvolvedina

taskwouldaskforhelp,notrealisingthattheanswerstotheirquestionswereavailableonthe previouspageoftheirtextbook,intheanswertoanexercisetheyhadcompletedbarelyten minutesbefore.Thisseemedasituationwhereasimplestrategicinterventioncouldreaplarge benefits.Advisingthemtochecktheearlierexercisewasasimpleandtimeefficientexampleof metacognitivestrategyuse.AsthisseemedtoembodywhatIregardedasastrategicapproachto usinglearningstrategies,Idecidedtoinvestigatefurther,toseetowhatextentstudentswere

**TheTask**

Thetaskconsistedoftwopartswhichwereundertakensequentiallyandsharedthesame theme.Theyweredesignedtoutilisesimilaroridenticalgrammaticalpatterns,sothequestions whichappearedinPart1couldbetransferreddirectlytopart2togivecorrectanswersin7out of10ofthequestions.Bothpartswerecompletedontheappropriatepagesofthestudents’ textbook.Part2appearedonthefollowingpagetoPart1,soitwasnecessarytoturnthepageto refertothemodelquestionsintheearlierpart.Thismadeiteasytoseewhenstudentsreferred toPart1.

Part1tooktheformofageneralknowledgequiz.Thequestionswerereadouttothe students,whowererequiredtowritethemdownandthensupplytheanswers.Thequestions werereadseveraltimesandstudentswereencouragedtoasktheteachertorepeatpartsthey

didn’tcatchorexplainorspellwordstheydidn’tknow.Theteacherthenelicitedanswersfrom theclass,correctingthemasnecessary.

Part2consistedofaseriesofanswers.Studentswereaskedtoformaquestionthatwould matcheachanswer.Severalcorrectsolutionswerepossibleforeachanswer.Forexample,the answer‘12’producedquestionssuchas:

Howmanymonthsarethereinayear? Howmanyisadozen?

Howmanystar-signsarethere?

Duringthistime,theteachercirculatedandgavehelpwhenitwasrequested.(Duringa normalclass,theteacherwouldhavebeenmoreactiveinhelpingstudents,butforthepurposes ofthestudy,refrainedfromofferinghelpifitwasnotrequested).Afterasuitablelengthoftime, answerswereelicitedorgivenbytheteacher,andstudentscheckedandcorrectedtheirwork. Subsequentlythestudents’booksweretakeninandtheworkchecked.

First,bothpartswerecheckedforaccuracy.Part2wasalsocheckedforrelevance- studentswererequiredtowritegeneralknowledgequestions,soquestionssuchas“Howoldis mydog?”(answer:12)or“Whatismyfavoritenumber?(Answer:12)weremarkedwrong. Next,Part1andPart2werecomparedandnotetakenofwhichquestionsinPart2 appearedtohavebeencopiedfromPart1.Thesewerethendividedaccordingtowhetherthe modelsinPart1werecorrectornot,andwhetherthecopieswereaccurateornot.Onefinal figurewascalculated-whatscoreeachstudentwouldhavereceivedhadalltheircopiesbeen

**Results**

**Fig.1**

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Total Number OfCopies

3 3 2 2 4 2 3 2 2 3 1 3 5 3 4 3 2

Accurate

Copies 1(0) 1(0) 0(0)2(2) 1(0) 3(2) 2(2) 1(1) 2(2) 1(1)1(1) 3(2) 5(5)2(2) 4(3) 3(2) 1(1) Inaccurate

Copies 2(2) 2(2) 2(2)0(0) 3(2) 1(1) 2(1) 1(1) 0(0) 2(2)1(1) 0(0) 0(0)1(1) 1(1) 0(0) 1(1) Correct

Answers 2 4 2 4 1 7 7 6 7 5 5 6 8 5 5 5 1

Potentially Correct Answers

4 6 4 4 3 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 8 6 6 5 2

Theresultsweretabulatedinfig.1,showingthetotalnumberofcopies,accuratecopies andinaccuratecopies-withthenumberofcopiesbasedoncorrectmodelsindicatedinbrackets afterthenumberofcopieseg.1(1),thenumberofcorrectanswersonpart2oftheexercise,and thenumberofanswerswhichwouldhavebeencorrectifallthecopieshadbeenaccurate (potentiallycorrectanswers).

Theseresultswerethendisplayedinanumberofdifferentwaystoclarifytherelationships betweenthem.

Comparingcopiestocorrectanswers

**Fig.2**

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Student Number Number

of

Answers Number of copies

Correct Answers

finalscores.

CorrectandIncorrectCopies

Totalnumberofanswers 170

Totalnumberofcopies 52

Accuratecopies 33

Inaccuratecopies 19

Copiedanswersthatwereincorrect 26

Thesefiguresshowthatrelativelyfewoftheanswerswerecopied:52outofapossible

170,andthatmorethanathirdoftheanswersthatwerecopiedweredonesoinaccurately.When thetotalnumberofcopiedanswersthatwereincorrectisconsidered,wecanseethat26(50%) ofallcopiedanswerswereincorrect,eitherasaresultofinaccuratecopyingorcopyingan incorrectmodelfromPart1ofthetask.

CorrectModelsandIncorrectModels

TheaccuracyofthemodelquestionssuppliedinPart1oftheexerciseseemedrelevant, asthefiguresindicatedcopiesweremadefrombothcorrectandincorrectmodels.Obviously, copyinganincorrectmodel,accuratelyornot,wouldnotincreaseastudent’sscore.Accordingly the models from which the answers were copied, either accurately or inaccurately, were examinedandthefollowingfiguresobtained:

Numberofcopiesofcorrectmodels 43

Numberofcopiesofincorrectmodels 9

Improvementofscoresthroughcopying

Althoughcopyingdidnotcorrelatedirectlywiththenumberofcorrectanswers,theabove resultsmakeitclearthataccuracyincopyingwasasignificantfactor.Thereforethepotential score,asifallcopieshadbeenmadeaccurately,wascalculatedforeachstudent.Theactualscore

wasdeductedfromthis,toseeifaccuratecopyingwouldhaveproducedasignificantincreasein score.

**Fig.3**

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Students

0 1 2

Score improvement

Ascanbeseenfromfig.3,12ofthe17studentswouldhavebenefitedfromanincreasein scoreiftheyhadcopiedthemodelanswersaccurately,whilethescoresof5ofthestudents wouldhaveremainedunchanged.Thisappearstoconfirmmyintuitionastothevalueofcopying inthisexercise.

Indiscriminatecopyingvsfocussedcopying

If,asthepreviousresultsshowed,copyingcouldproducebetterresultsinthemajorityof

**Fig.4**

0 2 4 6 8 10

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

Student Score

Indiscriminate Copying Actual Score

Potential Score

Aswecansee,indiscriminatecopyingwouldhaveproducedincreasedscoresin13outof the17studentsagainstbothactualandpotentialscores.Insomecasesthegainwouldhavebeen ashighas7pointsmorethantheactualscore(6morethanthepotentialscore),whichisavery substantialincrease.Theaggregatescoreoftheclasswouldhaverisensubstantially.However,in

thecaseoffourofthestudents,thisstrategywouldhavehadtheoppositeeffectanddecreased theirscore.Adetailedbreakdownofthegainsandlossesisgiveninfig.5below.

**Fig.5**

0 1 2 3 4 5

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Gains Number of

Students

**Analysis**

Theresultsrecordedabovewentsomewaytowardsconfirmingmyinitialobservation abouttherelativelysmallamountofreferencetoprevioustasks,andalsoshedlightonsome surprisingaspectsofthisareaofthestudents’useofstrategies.

As noted above, there seemed to be no direct correlation between the incidence of copyingandthenumberofcorrectanswers.Thoughsomeofthestudentswhocopiedmoredid getgoodmarks,otherswhocopiedanequalnumberoftimesdidnot.Possiblefactorswhich

1ofthetask.Likewise,anincorrectanswerdoesnotautomaticallyindicatethestudentwould havedonebetterbycopying.Owingtoinaccuratecopyingorcopyinganincorrectanswer,itis possibleforstudentstolowertheirfinalscoresinsteadofraisingthem.

Successfulcopyingseemstodependontwokeyfactors:whichanswersarechosenas

modelsandhowaccuratelythesemodelsarecopied.Althoughmoreofthecopieswereaccurate thannot,theproportionofinaccuratecopieswasfairlyhigh-morethanathirdofallcopieswere madeinaccurately.Ifwelookatthetotalnumberofwronganswersthatweretheresultofcopies (includingaccuratecopiesofincorrectquestions)thefigurejumpsto50%.Thiscombinedrateof success/failureissignificantbecauseitrepresentsthesuccessofcopyingasthestudentswould perceiveit.Notbeinginapositiontoanalysetheirownresultstoseewherethestrategyhad

failed,theywouldobservethatsometimescopyingwassuccessfulandsometimesnot,inroughly equalproportions(thoughdifferingfromstudenttostudent).Thiswouldputcopyingintothe categoryofriskystrategiesandmightgosomewaytoexplainthelowincidenceofcopying amongstthestudents.

Lookingatthenumberofstudentswhomadeinaccuratecopies,wecanseethatitisfairly high:12outof17.Itisinterestingtonotethatthosewhodidnotmakemistakesincopyingwere typicallyhighscoring.Thoughthereappearstobesomecorrelationonthispoint,thereisno

evidenceofdirectcausality,anditmightreasonablybeassumedthatstudentswhoexercisemore careinoneareaoftheirworkarelikelytodosoinothersandthustendtoscorehighlyontasks thatinvolveaccuracyinareassuchasgrammarandspelling.

The results which proved most surprising were those that showed the relationship betweenthecopiesofcorrectmodelsandthecopiesofincorrectmodels.Thedegreetowhich studentswereabletodistinguishbetweencorrectandincorrectmodelstocopyfromappears quitesophisticated.Thisisevenmoreapparentwhenthetotalnumberofpossiblemistakesis

considered.Ifthestudentsassumedalltheanswerstothefirstexercisetobecorrect,wemight expectthatthechoiceofcorrectmodelstocopywouldreflecttheproportionofcorrectmodel questions:incorrectmodelquestionsinpart1,whichwas75:95.However,thiswasnotthecase. Theactualproportionwas43:9.Thesurprisingsuccessofstudentsinchoosingcorrectmodel answerstocopywasobscuredbyotherfactors.Itwentunnoticedintheclassroomandina preliminaryreviewoftheresultsasitwasnotreflectedinotherareasofthetask.Thiswas

presumablyaresultofi)thelowincidenceofcopying,andii)theinaccuracyofcopying.This suggeststheusefulnessoffocussingstrategyinstructiononspecific(andnarrowlydefined)areas toachieveimprovedresults.

copying.Wasthisausefulstrategyornot?Theseresultsdonotallowacomparisonofstudents whodidnocopyingwiththosewhodid,howevertheydoshowthatover75%ofstudentswould haveimprovedtheirfinalscoreiftheyhad,simply,copiedaccurately.Ofthose,7wouldhave improvedby1pointand5by2points.Thissupportsthesuppositionthatinstructionorspecific encouragementtocopymoreaccuratelywouldhavebeeneffective.

Thedegreeofcopyingwasalsorelevant.Wecanseefromfig.6thathadthestudents simplycopiedallthemodelsfrompart1indiscriminately,regardlessofwhethertheywere correctornot,theirscoreswould,inmostcaseshaveimproved(assumingaccuratecopies). However,thiswasnotthecasefor4ofthestudents,allofwhomimprovedtheirscorethrough copying the models they chose, and would have received increased benefit from accurate

copying,butwhosescoreswouldhaveworsenediftheyhadchosentocopyindiscriminately.This bringshomethedangersofover-simplifiedstrategyinstruction,whereoneapproachistaughtas applicabletoeverystudent.Whatworksforsomestudentsisineffectiveforothers.Clearly,for thesestudents,instructiontocopyindiscriminatelywouldhavereducedtheirscorebyinterfering withapartiallysuccessfulapproachwhichtheyalreadyemployed.Interestingly,thereduced scoresforthese4studentswouldbeamongthefivelowestintheclass,fallingfrom4to3;7to5;

7to6;and5to4respectively.Thepotentialdrop(ifallcopieswereaccurate)wouldbeeven greater:6to3;8to5;8to6and7to4.

Themajorityofstudents,however,standtogainfromthisstrategy-theincreasedcopying creatingsubstantialadvantage.Thisisparticularlyevidentinthestudentswhohadthelowest scores.Theywouldhaverisenfrom2to7;2to8;1to5;and1to7respectively.Thegainsof otherstudentsrangedfrom1to3,withanaveragegainof2pointswithrespecttotheiractual scores.

Onceagain,thisshowsthatstrategiesconfervaryingadvantagesondifferentstudents.

Thoughitseemsthosewhowouldbenefitmostwerethosestudentswhoachievedthelowest actualscores,andthusmaybesuitablefortargetedinstruction,thedatagatheredseemstooffer nosurewayofpredictingthosewhosescoreswouldsufferthroughuseofthisindiscriminate strategy.Thesamplesizewastoosmalltomakeanystrongstatisticalpredictions,butitmaybe noteworthythatitappearsequalnumberswouldhavefoundthestrategyofindiscriminate copyinghighlyadvantageousanddisadvantageous,whileforthemajorityitwouldhaveconferred

**Discussion**

Theprecedinganalysisraisesanumberofquestionsthatbeardirectlyontheteachingof learningstrategies.Therearealsoseveralissuesthataresuggestiveoftheneedforfurther research.

Firstitisnecessarytosayawordortwoabouttheflawsofthisresearch.Primaryamongst theseisthattheresultscannotclaimtoshowunequivocallywhichanswerswerecopiedand whichwerenot.SimilaritybetweenmodelquestionsinPart1andquestionswrittenbystudents inPart2areassumedtobetheresultofcopying,butitispossiblethattheywerearrivedat withoutdirectreferencetoPart1.Thisassumptionisbasedonthesubjectivejudgementofa teacher-thoughthisisitselftheresultofafamiliaritywiththestudentsandlikelybehaviourin theclass,aswellasdirectobservationofthestudentsengagedinthetask.However,evenifsome

oftheanswerswerewronglyascribedastheresultofcopying,theconclusionsregardingthe effectivenessofcopyingandthegainspossiblefromdoingso,remainvalid,asdomostifnotall, theotherobservationsonstrategyuse.Ifanything,theylendmoreweighttothevalueofthis strategyandreinforcetheconceptoftargetedstrategyinstruction

Someinaccuracymayalsohavebeenintroducedbyvaryingdegreesofhelpthatwere giventostudentsundertakingthetask.Asitwasconductedduringalessonandwasnotintended tobeatest,studentswerefreetohelponeanotherandasktheteacherforhelp.Thisisoneof

theinevitablecorollariesofclassroomresearch,wheretheeducationofstudentsmustassume priorityoverresearch.Inthiscase,assuchinterventionwould(itishoped)haveservedto increasestudentscores,theconclusions,onceagain,remainvalid.

Asdiscussedabove,oneoftheproblemsfoundinresearchintolearningstrategiesis establishingthecircumstancesinwhichstrategiescanbeusedmostsuccessfullyandhowthey shouldbetaught.Infact,manyofthelesssuccessfulexamplesofstrategyinstructionappearto

betheresultofablanketapproachtostrategyinstruction.Themostcommonantidotetothis (Chamot&Rubin1994)appearstohavegonetoofarintheoppositedirection,requiringan extensiveinvestmentoftimethatmightbebetterspentindirectlanguageinstructionand practice.

Myinitialaiminconductingthisresearchwastoidentifyanareainwhichsimple,time efficientstrategyinstructionmightproducemeasurableimprovementinresults.Further,Ihoped thisstrategywouldbebroadlyapplicableacrossarangeofsituations.Havingobservedstudents

ThoughIanticipatedmorecopyingwouldproducebetterscores,Ihadnotrealisedhow inaccuratemanyofthecopieswere.Clearlythiswouldmaketheprimarystrategylesseffective. Fortunately,itseemslikelythatasimpleinterventioncouldimprovethesituationandproduce increased scores - this is supported by the results showing potential scores (fig.5). In instructionalterms,thiskindofinterventionisbothquickandeasy,andneedconsistoflittle morethanaverbalreminderdeliveredtotheclassortoindividualstudents.Ifitwasperceivedto beacontinuingproblem,morespecificinstructionalmethodscouldeasilybedevised.Thisis,of course,standardfareformostteachers,butitembodiestheessenceofstrategyinstruction- functionalefficiency.

Similarly,encouraginggreateruseofcopyingwouldonlyrequireasimplereminderthat

themodelsforthequestionsforPart2couldbefoundbyturningthepagebacktoPart1.This couldbeexpectedtoproducemorecopyingand,assumingthecopieswereaccurate,increased scores.Indiscriminatecopying,thoughclearlyeffectiveinthemajorityofcases,wasshowntobe aflawedstrategyandnotuniversallyapplicable,thusprovidingausefulwarningagainstoverly prescriptiveinstructioninstrategyuse.Itsuggeststhatcaremustbetakeninthewaythe strategyisadvocated.Inthiscase,itwouldbeeasytoremindstudentsthatmanyofthe‘answers’ couldbefoundinPart1andadvisethemtocheckitiftheywerestuckorwhentheyfeltitwas appropriate.Ifeelitisimportanttorememberthatstudentsalreadypossessasetoflearning strategiesthathavebeensuccessfulinthepast.Introductiontonewstrategiesandwaysof learningispartofeducation,butforcingateacher’swayofdoingthingsontostudentsisnot alwaysappropriate.

Althoughcopyingprovedtobeeffective,andwouldhavebeenmoresohadthecopies beenmoreaccurate,theresultsshowthiswasnotnecessarilycleartothestudentsthemselves. Thismaypartlyexplainthecomparativelylowincidenceofcopying,asastrategythathadbeen

triedinthepast,butdidnotprovetobeparticularlysuccessful.Itisalsopossiblethatthe studentswerenotsufficientlyconfidentofthecorrectnessofthemodelsinPart1toadoptthem asmodelsonamorewidespreadbasis.Theproportionofcorrectmodelsthatwerechosento copyseemstoimplysomedegreeofchoicewasinvolvedinthedecisiontocopyornot,rather thansimplyforgettingthattheoptionwasavailable.Itwouldbeinterestingtoseewhetheraset ofcorrectmodel‘answers’suppliedbytheteacherwouldproduceahigherincidenceofcopying.

Ifso,thiswouldsuggeststudentconfidenceinthecorrectnessofthemodelisafactorinthe incidenceofcopying,andthuschangethethrustofinstructionfromawarenessofaresourceto trustingthatresource.

indicatedahighlevelofproficiencyatdistinguishingcorrectanswersfromincorrectones.Thisis presumablytheresultofpreviousexperiencewiththistypeoftask,andsuggestsahighly developedsetofstrategiessuitableforthetypesoftasktheyhadtodealwithinearlierstagesof theireducation.Thelackofaccuracyincopyingmayindicatetheemphasisofmultiplechoice

typequestionsoveronesthatrequiretheanswerstobewritten.Inthistask,however,thisskill wasobscuredasitwasusedatanintermediatestageofthetaskandnottranslatedintothefinal results.Thequestionofwhatotherskillsorstrategiesstudentspossessandwhetheritispossible toutilisetheminawaydirectlyrelatedtoclassobjectives,isonethatwillbeofgreatinterestto teachers.Althoughthisisatopicthatfallsoutsidethescopeofthisresearch,itseemsworthyof futureinvestigation.

Thequestionofstrategychoiceingeneralisveryimportanttotheimplementationof learnerstrategyinstruction.Thisstudyexaminedataskwhichcouldbeperformedeffectively throughtheuseofaparticularstrategy.Thefailureofmanystudentstousethisstrategywas easilyobservableandamenabletodirectintervention.Thepotentialsuccessofthestrategyand thusitsvalueandthereasonitcanbesuccessfullytaughtisthatitwassolittleusedbystudents intheclass.Inaclasswheremostofthestudentsalreadyusedthestrategyfreely,therewould belittletogainfromteachingittotheclassasawhole,thoughindividualstudentswhowerenot

using it would still stand to benefit. The ability to ascertain relevant strategies and target studentsneedswouldappeartobeamajorindicatorofsuccess,suggestingneedsanalysisof somedescriptiontobeanecessarypartofsuccessfulstrategyinstruction.

**Conclusion**

Theresultsofthisstudymakeitclearthatthisparticularstrategydidconferanadvantage tousers,anddespitethelackofdirectcorrelationbetweenthenumberofcopiesandthefinal

score,itwasclearthatmoreaccuratecopyingwouldhaveproducedhigherscores,andthat indiscriminate copying would have produced even greater gains on aggregate, (although significantly,thesegainswouldnothavebeenenjoyedbyallstudents,suggestingextracare shouldbegiventoensuringthatstrategyuseispresentedasanoption,andnotamust).However theeffectivenessofthestrategywascompromisedbystudents’inaccuracyincopying,whichwas anunexpectedcomplicationhighlightingtheimportanceofsubsidiaryskillsthatallowthemain strategytobeusedsuccessfully.

strategiesingroupsratherthansingly?Whatproportionofstudentstypicallyexperiencenegative resultsfromusingstrategiesandhowcantheseeffectsbereduced?

Perhapswhatwasclearest,fromthepointofviewofateacher,isthatstrategiescanbe usefulifsensitivelyandimaginativelyapplied.However,maximumvaluecanonlybeobtained

withafirmgraspofthepurposeofthetaskandknowledgeofthe‘chokepoints’,orwherethe studentsarehavingmostdifficultywiththetask.Withthiskindofdiagnosis,strategiesmaybe appliedatthepointwhereminimuminterventioncanproducethegreatestresult.Itisthiskind ofapproachtotheuseofthewidevarietyoftechniquescommonlycalledlearningstrategiesthat deservesthelabel‘strategic’.

Bibliography

Chamot,A.U.(1987)‘TheLearningStrategiesofESLStudents’inWenden&Rubin,71-83.

Chamot,A.U.,andJ.Rubin(1994)‘CommentsonJanieRees-Miller’sACriticalAppraisalofLearner
training:TheoreticalBasesandTeachingImplications’*TESOLQuarterly*28:4,771-776.

Chamot,A.U.,S.Barhardt,P.El-DinaryandJ.Robbins(1996)‘MethodsforTeachingLearningStrategies intheForeignLanguageClassroom’inOxford,175-187.

Dreyer,C.andR.L.Oxford(1996)‘LearningStrategiesandOtherPredictorsofESLProficiencyamong AfrikaansSpeakersinSouthAfrica’inOxford,61-74.

Ellis,R.(1994)*TheStudyofSecondLanguageAcquisition*.Oxford:OUP

Oxford,R.L.,ed.(1996)*LanguageLearningStrategiesAroundtheWorld:CrossCulturalPerspective*
(TechnicalReport#13)Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘i,SecondLanguageTeachingandcurriculum
Centre.

Rees-Miller, J. (1993) ‘A Critical Appraisal of Learner training: Theoretical Bases and Teaching
Implications’*TESOLQuarterly*27:4,679-689.

Rost, M. and S. Ross (1991) ‘Learner Use of Strategies in Interaction: Typology and Teachability’

*LanguageLearning*41,235-273.

Vann,R.J.andR.G.Abraham(1990)‘StrategiesofUnsuccessfulLanguageLearners’*TESOLQuarterly*
24:2,177-198.

Wenden,A.(1985)‘LearnerStrategies’*TESOLQuarterly*19:5,1-7.