Language-learning strategies:

theory and perception

Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr

This article looks at how the theory of language-learning strategies (LLS ), as

used by speakers of other languages (SOL ), has developed alongside other
theories of language teaching and learning, and at the place of LLS in the eld
of contemporary eclectic language teaching and learning. The article then
looks at one aspect of LLS in practice by reporting on a study conducted with
speakers of other languages, aimed at discovering the kinds of LLS they use. It
also compares these results with those of a survey of teacher perceptions of
students use of LLS .

Background

It was dicult not to feel for Peter Grundy when he complained recently
in the ELT Journal that changes in language teaching and learning theory
have made him feel like Teacherosaurus Rex (1999: 55). Grundy (p. 54)
suggested that the contemporary thrust to develop learner independence
is particularly hard on a teachers self-condence. He nds himself
hankering after the days when there was a structuralist theory of
language and a behaviourist theory of learning from which to derive that
perfect, unquestionable method (ibid.).

Grammar translation It is true that, over the years, many dierent methods and approaches to
the teaching and learning of language to and by speakers of other
languages (SOL ), each with its own underlying theoretical basis, have
come and gone. The structure-based grammar translation method, as its
name suggests, relied heavily on teaching grammar and practising
translation as its main teaching and learning activities. The major focus
of this method tended to be on reading and writing, with relatively little
attention paid to speaking and listening. Vocabulary was typically taught
in lists, and a high priority given to accuracy, and the ability to construct
correct sentences. Consideration of what students might do to promote
their own learning had little or no place in grammar-translation theory,
which tended to assume that, if students simply followed the method,
learning would result as a matter of course.

Audiolingualism

The audiolingual method grew partly out of a reaction against the

limitations of the grammar-translation method, and partly out of urgent
war-time demands for uent speakers of other languages. The Army
Method was developed to produce military personnel with
conversational prociency in the target language. Later, this method
ELT Journal Volume 55/3 July 2001 Oxford University Press

247

attracted the attention of linguists already looking for an alternative to

grammar-translation, and became known as the audiolingual method.
This method depended heavily on drills, repetition, and substitution
exercises. These were justied according to behaviourist theories,
whereby language was seen as a system of habits which can be taught
and learnt on a stimulus/response/reinforcement basis.
Audiolingualism tended to view the learner as a passive entity waiting to
be programmed. As such, it paid scant, if any, attention to the possibility
that learners might have any useful contribution to make to the
programming process. If anything, learner attempts to become involved
in the learning process were viewed with suspicion, and discouraged on
the grounds that conscious intervention on the part of the learner might
interfere with the desired automatic response outcome.

The development
of communicative
teaching

Finding this behaviourist view of language quite inadequate, Chomsky

(1968: 84) developed a theory of the learner as a generator of rules. This
notion was taken up by Corder (1967) who argued that language errors
made by students indicate the development of underlying linguistic
competence, and reect the learners attempts to organize linguistic
input. The intermediate system created while the learner is trying to
come to terms with the target language was later called interlanguage by
Selinker (1972), who viewed learner errors as evidence of positive eorts
by the student to learn the new language. This view of language learning,
which allowed for the possibility of learners making deliberate attempts
to control their own learning, contributed to a thrust by researchers such
as Rubin (1975), who aimed at discovering how learners employ
language-learning strategies (LLS) to actively promote their own
learning.
However, at much the same time, as researchers such as Rubin were
working to develop an awareness of language learning strategies,
Krashen (1976) dealt the edgling LLS movement a body blow. Building
on the concept of communicative competence introduced by Hymes
(1971), Krashen insisted that language cannot be learnt, but only acquired
through natural communication. Many of Krashens ideas have been
soundly criticized over the years, but in spite of the many challenges, his
views have been, and remain, very inuential in the language teaching
and learning eld. In so far as he believed that language develops
through natural communication, Krashen might be considered to be one
of the driving forces behind the communicative language teaching (CLT )
movement which is in vogue to the present day.

Eclecticism

In addition to grammar-translation, audiolingualism, and communicative

language teaching, there have been, and continue to be, many other less
widely adopted methods and approaches to the teaching and learning of
language, such as the natural method, the direct method, the total
physical response method, the silent way, and suggestopoedia. All of
these various methods and approaches have, in varying degrees, had
some inuence on contemporary language teaching and learning. In
recent years the eld has tended to move away from dogmatic positions
of right or wrong, better or worse, becoming much more eclectic in
its attitudes, and more willing to recognize the potential merits of a wide

248

Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr

variety of possible methods and approaches. This contemporary

tendency to eclecticism has resurrected the interest in the contribution
made by the learners themselves in the teaching/learning dichotomy,
and in the learning strategies which learners employ in the process of
learning language.

Theoretical
assumptions behind
learning strategies
Language learning
as a cognitive
process

There are two main theoretical assumptions which underlie

contemporary ideas on LLS . To comment that some students are more
successful at learning language than others is, of course, to do no more
than state the obvious. LLS theory postulates that, other things being
equal, at least part of this dierential success rate is attributable to the
varying strategies which dierent learners bring to the task. From this
perspective, which views students as being able to consciously inuence
their own learning, the learning of language becomes a cognitive
process, similar in many ways to any other kind of learning (McLaughlin
1978). It is a view diametrically opposed to Krashens Monitor and
Acquisition/Learning Hypotheses (Krashen 1976, 1977) which state that
language cannot be consciously learnt but only acquired through natural
communication, and therefore, by implication, that conscious learning
strategies are not useful in the development of language.

Learning strategies
can be learnt

Following on from the observation that some students are more

successful than others, and the hypothesis that some of this success may
be as a result of more eective LLS , it is further assumed that the
strategies employed by the more successful students may be learnt by
those who are less successful, and that teachers can assist the languagelearning process by promoting awareness of them, and encouraging
their use. This teachability component of language-learning strategy
theory means that contemporary educators and researchers are
increasingly keen to harness the potential which LLS would seem to have
for enhancing an individuals ability to learn language.

Learning
strategies and
language teaching

With the exception of the Monitor and Acquisition/Learning

Hypotheses, LLS theory operates comfortably alongside most other
language-learning and teaching theories, and ts easily with a wide
variety of dierent methods and approaches. For instance, memory and
cognitive strategies are involved in the development of the vocabulary
and grammar knowledge on which the grammar-translation method
depends. Memory and cognitive strategies can be involved to make the
patterning of automatic responses which are characteristic of the
audiolingual method more eective. Learning from errors, developed
from interlanguage theory, involves cognitive and metacognitive
strategies. Compensation and social strategies can easily be assimilated
into communicative competence theory and the communicative
language-teaching approach. Methods such as suggestopoedia involve
aective strategies. The fact that learning strategy theory can work so
easily alongside other theories, methods, and approaches means that it
has the potential to be a valuable component of contemporary eclectic
syllabuses.
In recent years the importance of LLS in the teaching and learning
process has been argued by writers such as Oxford (1990), who divided
Language-learning strategies

249

LLS into six groups (memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,

aective, and social), and developed the questionnaire known as the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL ). It was this
questionnaire which was used as the basic instrument in the present
study.

The investigation

The study aimed to explore how language-learning strategy theory relates

to the practice in terms of learners and teachers perceptions.
Specically, the research questions asked were:
1 Which groups of LLS are believed to be used most frequently by
students who are speakers of other languages?
2 How do teachers beliefs concerning the LLS of their students
correspond with what students report?

Participants

A large sample of students of English for speakers of other languages

(n=569), drawn from a variety of English-language learning situations
(private language schools, tertiary institutions, and high schools) in New
Zealand, completed the SILL (ibid.: 2936). There were males and
females who ranged in prociency from beginner to advanced and in
ages from 14 to 64. Participants came from 31 dierent nations, and
expressed a wide variety of reasons for wanting to study English. For
some, the motivation was down-to-earth and practical, such as work,
immigration, travel, or further study. For others the reasons were
personal and sometimes sweeping, such as I want to change my life!
In addition, 30 teachers involved with students who speak other languages
completed the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS ). These
teachers were drawn from private English language schools or tertiary
institutions, and many of them also had high school experience.
By spreading the net widely in this way we hoped to gather a truly
representative sample of speakers of other languages studying English,
and their teachers, in order to provide an adequate base for
generalizing about LLS . It was also hoped that such a large and varied
sample might be broken down later into signicant groups, for closer
examination of the varying factors involved in LLS use, and in beliefs
about such use.

Data collection
instruments

The basic instrument for the current study was the speakers of other
languages version of the SILL (ibid.). This is a self-scoring paper-andpencil survey which consists of statements such as I start conversations
in English, or I ask questions in English, to which students are asked to
respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never, or almost never)
to 5 (always, or almost always). The 50 items of the ESL/EFL version of
the SILL are divided into the following six groups:
memory strategies: relating to how students remember language, such as
I use ashcards to remember new English words, or I review English
lessons often.

250

Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr

cognitive strategies : relating to how students think about their learning,

such as I read for pleasure in English, or I try to nd patterns in
English.
compensation strategies : these enable students to make up for limited
knowledge, such as I read English without looking up every new word,
or To understand unfamiliar English words I make guesses.
metacognitive strategies : relating to how students manage their own
learning, such as I notice my English mistakes and use that information
to help me do better, or I plan my schedule so that I will have enough
time to study English.
aective strategies : relating to students feelings, such as I try to relax
whenever I feel afraid of using English, or I give myself a reward or treat
when I do well in English.
social strategies : these involve learning by interaction with others, such as
I ask English speakers to correct me when I talk or I try to learn about
the culture of English speakers.
In order to probe teacher beliefs regarding LLS , a survey was designed
called the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies (ILLS ). The ILLS
lists the SILL s six strategy groups, with a brief denition, and asks the
question in your professional opinion, which of these strategy groups
would you say your students use most frequently? Teachers respond by
ranking them on a scale from 6 to 1, where 6 is the most frequent, and 1
is the least frequent (see Appendix).

Procedure

Teachers were asked to explain to their classes the research function of

the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, after which it was
presented as a normal classroom activity designed to stimulate students
awareness of their existing language-learning strategies (LLS ), and of the
potential of LLS to improve language-learning ability. The anonymous
questionnaire forms were later collected so that the data could be collated
and analysed. Average frequency of use was calculated for each strategy
group across all questionnaires (n=569), and the averages ranked in
order from 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent).
The teachers questionnaire (ILLS ) was distributed at sta meetings and
at workshops. Like the students survey, it was anonymous, and teachers
were asked to complete it and hand it in at their convenience. The
collection was closed when 30 questionnaires had been returned.
Average responses for each strategy group were calculated across the 30
questionnaires, and, as with the student questionnaires, ranked in order
from 6 (most frequent) to 1 (least frequent).

Results

As can be seen by an examination of the data set out in Table 1, students

report using memory strategies least. Most frequently used are social
strategies, followed by metacognitive strategies. Students rank
compensation and cognitive strategies in the middle-frequency range,
while aective strategies come only one rank higher than memory
strategies.

Language-learning strategies

251

table 1
Rank ordering of rate
of language learning
strategy group usage, as
reported by students

6 (most frequent)

Social strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Compensation strategies

Cognitive strategies

Aective strategies

1 (least frequent)

Memory strategies

Teachers typically reacted with surprise when presented with these

results. As a consequence, the Inventory of Language Learning Strategies
(ILLS ) was drawn up and completed by 30 teachers who had not been
exposed to the results of the students survey. According to this survey
(see Table 2), teachers believe that their students use memory strategies
most frequently, while cognitive strategies are ranked second. Teachers
believe students use social and metacognitive strategies quite frequently,
while compensation and aective strategies are ranked lowest.

table 2
Rank ordering of teacher
perceptions of students
rate of language-learning
strategy usage

6 (most frequent)

Memory strategies

Cognitive strategies

Social strategies

Metacognitive strategies

Compensation strategies

1 (least frequent)

Aective strategies

It is interesting to note that while students report using memory

strategies least, their teachers believe they are used the most. Conversely,
whereas students report using social strategies most, they are ranked
only third by teachers in terms of what teachers believe their students do.
Metacognitive strategies, which students rank second to top, are ranked
second to bottom by teachers, and cognitive strategies, which teachers
rank second to top, are ranked only fourth by students. Compensation
strategies are ranked third by students but only second to bottom by
teachers. The only point at which teacher and student perceptions almost
concur are with aective strategies which are ranked second to bottom by
students, and bottom by teachers. Student and teacher rankings are
compared in Figure 1.

Discussion and
conclusion

Interesting parallels might be drawn between the results of this study,

which seem to indicate discrepancies between student and teacher
perceptions of language learning strategy use, and the results of a study
reported by Nunan (1988) which explored teacher and student
perceptions of the importance of selected learning activities. Teachers
were asked to complete a questionnaire which required them to rate ten
selected learning activities according to their degree of importance.
These data were then compared with student ratings of the same
activities. It was discovered that in only one instance was there a match
between the ratings of the students and the teachers, and that was for
conversation practice, which was considered very important by both
teachers and students. All of the other ratings (that is, nine out of the ten)

252

Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr

figure 1
A comparison of student
and teacher rankings of
LLS group usage

did not match, and in some cases the mismatches were dramatic,
especially in the case of language games, which teachers rated as highly
important, but which students rated as quite unimportant.
A similar conclusion regarding dierences in perception between
students and teachers was reached by OMalley et al. (1985) in a study of
the learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate students in
an American high school. Teachers and students were interviewed, and
LLS noted. It was discovered that both beginning and intermediate
students identied and reported using an extensive variety of learning
strategies (ibid.: 41), but that teachers were generally unaware of their
students strategies (ibid.: 21).
It is possible that some of the discrepancies discovered in the present
study may be due to diering interpretations of the strategy groupings. It
is possible, for instance, that a strategy such as I read for pleasure in
English might be classied as a metacognitive or an aective strategy,
rather than as a cognitive strategy, as it is classied in the SILL . This
reservation notwithstanding, such levels of discrepancy in perception
between teachers and students (as indicated in the studies by Nunan
1988, OMalley et al., and in the present study) have to be of concern.
In theory, LLS have great potential to enhance language-learning ability
and, in practice, students have been shown to use a wide range of LLS
strategies, some of them quite frequently. Perhaps one way for us, as
teachers, to avoid the postmodern displacement to which Grundy (1999)
refers, might be to work to increase our awareness of our students
strategy usage and needs, in order to be able to facilitate the languagelearning process more eectively in line with contemporary eclectic
developments in the theory and practice of English language teaching.
Final version received March 2000
Language-learning strategies

253

References
Brown, H., C. Jorio, and R. Crymes (eds.). 1977. On
TESOL . Washington DC .
Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The signicance of learners
errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics 5:
16070.
Grundy, P. 1999. From model to muddle. ELT
Journal 53/1: 545.
Hymes, D. 1971. On Communicative Competence.
Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Krashen, S. 1976. Formal and informal linguistic
environments in language acquisition and
language learning. TESOL Quarterly 10: 15768.
Krashen, S. 1977. Some issues relating to the
Monitor Model in H. Brown et al. eds.). 1445.
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor model: some
methodological considerations. Language Learning
28: 14458.
Nunan, D. 1988. The Learner-centred Curriculum.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OMalley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. StewnerManzanares, L. Kupper, and R. P. Russo. 1985.
Learning strategies used by beginning and
intermediate ESL students. Language Learning
35/1: 2146.
Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies:
What every teacher should know. New York:
Newbury House.
Rubin, J. 1975. What the good language learner
can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9: 4151.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International
Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 20930.
The authors
Carol Griths has a BA in English and French
(Massey University) and a Diploma in Teaching
(Auckland). After working for a number of years as
a high school teacher, she transferred to the ESOL
eld. She then completed a Diploma in English
Language Teaching (University of Auckland) and
an MA (Hons) in Applied Linguistics (Waikato
University). Currently the Director of Studies with
International Language Academies (ILA ) in
Auckland, New Zealand, she is also working on a
PhD researching language learning strategies.
Email: williamg@iconz.co.nz

254

Dr Judy M. Parr is a senior lecturer in the School of

Education at the University of Auckland, New
Zealand. She has an MA and Diploma in Teaching
from Auckland and a BSc (Hons) and PhD in
Psychology from the Australian National
University. Her published areas of research
include the development of expertise in language,
particularly written language, literacy, and
technology, and technology in education.
Email: jm.parr@auckland.ac.nz

Appendix
Inventory of language-learning strategies (ILLS )
Language-learning strategies (LLS ) have been
dened as operations employed by the learner to
aid the aquisition, storage, retrieval and use of
information (Oxford 1990). Oxford divides
language learning strategies into six groups:
memory strategies (strategies used by students to
help them remember new language items)
cognitive strategies (strategies which help students
think about and understand the new language)
compensation strategies (strategies used by
students to help them compensate for lack of
knowledge)
aective strategies (strategies relating to how
students feel about the new language)
social strategies (strategies used by students which
involve interaction with other people)
Question: in your professional opinion, which of
these strategy groups would you say your students
use most frequently? Could you please number
them from 6 to 1, where
6 = most frequent
1 = least frequent

Carol Griths and Judy M. Parr