3.4 Research into learning strategies

Unlike the previous chapters, this section will serve towards only one end – to explain why we are definitely not going to include this aspect of autonomy explicitly into our research. In our discussion of learner roles, we have addressed the interpersonal aspect of modern communicative teaching. For a learner to adapt to the different patterns of interaction in a modern classroom, he will need to acquire – consciously or unconsciously – a number of techniques, or social strategies. To deal with his emotions (such as stress, anger, pessimism), he will need to master a number of affective strategies. Similarly, one needs a variety of cognitive strategies to go about his learning, and metacognitive strategies to manage it and reflect upon it.

Wenden defines learning strategies as "mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so" (1991: 18). As we have shown above, they can be broken down into a number of types, and researchers vary considerably as to their different taxonomies of learning strategies. Both Wenden (1991) and Benson (2001: 80-84) provide an extensive treatment of the issue.

We would agree with Wenden that "they are one type of learning content that should be included in plans to promote learner autonomy" (1991: 18). While what we have studied in the previous sections amounts to certain predispositions, attitudes and beliefs about learning, strategies are specific techniques that help the learner go about his learning goals independently. Certainly, offering learners a choice of strategies may do little harm to their learning process. However, certain criticisms have been voiced as to the teaching of learning strategies, as Benson documents, quoting Rees-Miller:

1. There is no empirical evidence for a causal relationship between awareness of strategies and success in learning.

2. Some of the characteristics associated with success in learning, such as being active in the learning process, cannot be defined as specific behaviors and may therefore be unteachable.

3. Case studies of unsuccessful learners suggest that the use of strategies employed by successful learners is insufficient in itself to lead to more effective learning.

4. Successful learners do not necessarily use recommended strategies and often use non-recommended strategies.

(Rees-Miller qtd. in Benson 2001: 145)

In this discussion, points 2 and 4 are of special interest to us. First, it seems that not all aspects of learner autonomy can be broken down into easily identifiable techniques. And also, it might be difficult to devise strategies which are helpful and separate them from those which are not. Let us expand on one of these points further.

One of the most highly acclaimed instruments to assess strategy use has been, to date, Rebecca Oxford's SILL, or, Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford 1989). It consists of a 50-item questionnaire broken up into six parts. Although we have mentioned earlier that acquiring any new strategies may lead to a more successful pursuit of independent learning (and thus, the study of strategies is, in its entirety, valid to the study of learner autonomy), Benson notes that "the last three sections of the SILL […] might be used to assess the degree to which students report that they take control of elements of their own learning" (2001: 84). Looking closely at the questionnaire, items in Part D might be subsumed under the heading of "active involvement with learning", while Part E lists a number of affective strategies and Part F deals with social strategies (see Benson 2001: 83 for reference). This leads us to assume that Benson infers that in the study of strategies, only the three categories listed above have a direct relation to control over learning, that is (in Benson's terms), learner autonomy.

However, if we take a detailed look at Part F, we find out it lists items which are embedded in the issue of learner/teacher roles that we discussed in the previous chapter. Therefore, answers in this section may report on a wider issue – that is, beliefs about the roles of teachers and learners – rather than merely reporting on observable behaviors. In analyzing Part D, we might again refer to Rees-Miller's argument, stating a very similar point of view – rather than with behaviors, we are dealing with attitudes towards learning that seem to be largely "unteachable". To take a brief example, the item "I look for people I can talk to in English" might report on issues such as anxiety, active involvement or integrative motivation, but it can hardly be reduced to a technique that needs to be acquired.

Let us illustrate our point with another example. In her report on the Masaryk University Internationalization Project, Smíšková concludes that "a lot of [the students] have not had the necessary training in effective strategies, and expect the teacher to lead them by the hand at all times" (2005: 232). However, in the course of my intimate collaboration with the aforementioned project, I could observe that certain students deliberately avoided certain strategies, rather than displaying a lack of knowledge of thereof; this suggests that any strategy training should be preceded by a thorough treatment of learner beliefs and attitudes that determine the choice of particular learning strategies – for these seem to be only behaviors that report on much wider issues within the learning context.

In this chapter, we have shown that unlike beliefs and attitudes – the antecedents of autonomous behavior – the study of learning strategies devises specific techniques to be used by autonomous learners. Also, we have given evidence that in order to take control of their learning, learners need to master a number of active-involvement, social and affective strategies. In the course of our discussion, we have made attempts to link these with previous chapters. And last but not least, we have hinted at a number of problems that may arise if we attempt to link learning strategies with research into learner autonomy. First, the issue of strategies is too vast and open-ended to be fully included in the study of autonomy. If we do undertake the project, referring to a universally valid and reliable instrument to assess strategy use, we run into the problem of assessing attitudes rather than behaviors. Then, it seems wiser to study the wider issue of beliefs, rather than strategies that make it explicit. Also, the taxonomy of strategies is largely inconsistent. And finally, a number of objections have been raised regarding strategy training that makes us take the study of learning strategies with a grain of salt.