The&Role&of&Learning&Strategies&In&Second&Language&Acquisition
Early research into Second Language Learning Strategies (SLLS)
attempted to identify common characteristics of "the good language
learner". (Naiman et al. 1978; Rubin 1975). Researchers used
various methods of data collection such as classroom observation,
learner diaries, interviews, think-aloud tasks etc. to discover how
students worked on the second language, in terms of organisation,
memorisation, practising, seeking opportunities for practice and so
on. The reults of such early research were lists of strategies that
students employed for various language learning tasks.
emerged from these early studies that language learners were very
able to talk about how they organized and processed second language
input (for a discussion on problems associated with self-report
data, see Stevick 1989 and Ericsson and Simon ), and only
in the mid-1970's was it suggested that different ways of cognitive
processing may influence success in Second Language Acquisition
(SLA). In other words, the "good language learner" may be
successful precisely because of using effective strategies for
particular tasks and not because he has an 'ear for languages'
(Stern 1975; Rubin 1975).
A great deal of
progress has been made in the field of SLLS during the last 20
years. During the late 1980's, research emerged integrating
cognitive theory with second language acquisition research in
language learning strategies.
order to understand the role of learning strategies in SLA and to
gain some insight into how they relate to proficiency in a second
language, learning strategies must be able to be accounted for
within a theory of second language acquisition. Furthermore, the
theory should be able to account not only for learning strategies,
but also for other major concepts discussed in the literature on
SLA. Thus the paper aims to 1) locate learning strategies within a
global theory of SLA and show that learning strategy research is
entirely compatible with existing views of interlanguape
deve1 2) examine language leaning strategies at a more
specific level, and 3) look briefly at attempts in strategy
&Cognition is often
referred to in SLA literature as being a necessary or possible
component in acquiring some aspects of a second language, for
example, Cummins (1984), Bialystok (1978), Krashen (1982). However,
language itself is rarely seen as a cognitive skill as such and
indeed this is a controversial issue in applied
linguistics.
is important at this stage to make it clear that in this paper we
are concerned with the acquisition of foreign or second languages
by adults. Selinker (1972) maintained that few adults could access
Universal Grammar and so for language learning, they utilized a
general learning mechanism which he termed latent psychological
structure (in contrast to latent language structure). According to
Selinker, this method of language acquisition is the only available
route for adults who do not have access to UG. Language is thus
viewed as a skill to be learned just like flying a plane, playing
chess or calculating arithmetic geometry.
Research into SLA has repeatedly disproved the myth that learners
learn what the teacher teaches (see Ellis 1992). Learners'
contribution to the learning process is crucial to success in L2
acquisition, and the success depends on the learners' active mental
processes. The fact that learners can verbalize and select their
learning strategies suggests that language is treated by them as a
skill that requires mental organization, planning and practice,
processes of which they are consciously aware. There exists,
however, strong opposition to viewing language in this way. The
major reasons for refuting the notion of language as a complex
cognitive skill may be summarized as follows (Cook 1993; Bialystok
1) In order for a cognitive skill to be learned, the learner needs
to problem solve different possibilities at each stage of learning
and gain negative feedback to arrive at the correct hypothesis.
Children learning a LI do not receive (and therefore do not need)
negative feedback.
2) Seeing language as a skill denies the modularity of the mind
where language is thought to have special properties which are
supposedly unable to be taught /learnt through cognition, i.e.
grammatical universals of language which comprise Chomsky's
Universal Grammar.
3) Production systems and methods of retrieving and storing
language are features of performance (based on Chomsky's competence
to performance distinction) and are therefore not worthy of
linguistic research.
4) Viewing language as a cognitive skill does not explain the
complexity of the linguistic system, it only explains acquisition
of language.
6) Language acquisition occurs naturally through input. Proficiency
in a language cannot be achieved through conscious attention to
&The first reason cited
above for refuting language as a cognitive process is not
applicable here since we are dealing with adults learning a second
language. Also, the fact that children do not require negative
feedback for L1 acquisition does not imply that it would not
beneficial. Indeed, Long (1990a) suggests that a focus on form,
which is encouraged by error correction, improves rate and ultimate
attainment in the SL. The second reason cited is more a question of
personal beliefs. It is possible to accept both the positions of
modular and unitary theories of language acquisition if we accept
that a critical period exists for grammatical rules (syntax and
morphology) which the literature does suggest (Long 1990b). Thus,
one could argue for the existence of a specialized language
acquisition device in children, which is only partially or not
available in adults. Adults therefore treat language as a complex
skill. Since complex skills take a long time to master and the
learner of the skill needs a great deal of practice and access to
all the information at the correct level, it is not surprising that
second language learners rarely achieve a level of native-like
proficiency.
competence versus performance argument is well known. However, the
dichotomy intended by Chomsky is often misunderstood, as
demonstrated by Bialystok (1990a). Competence refers to mental
representations of grammatical knowledge in the mind of an
idealized speaker/listener, and it is this (idealized competence)
which Chomsky identified as the focal point of linguistic enquiry.
Performance, on the other hand, refers to the actual use of
language in specific contexts, and this aspect of language,
according to Chomsky, is of less importance in constructing a
theory of the linguistic system. Information processing approaches
to language acquisition, which see language as a complex cognitive
skill, are prone to be dismissed as performance theories, according
to the competence/performance dichotomy. Bialystok argues, however,
that theories have been wrongly classified according to the
dichotomy, and explains how information processing theories can be
regarded as competence theories. Pragmatic competence refers to the
ability to use those representations of grammatical knowledge which
constitute grammatical competence, and Chomsky (1980, p59) suggests
that "pragmatic competence is characterized by a certain system of
constitutive rules represented in the mind, as has been suggested
in a number of studies." Thus, both competence and performance may
be seen as mental representations in the mind, and they both
interact with each other.
& If Bialystok's appeal
for reclassification of linguistic theories is accepted, then
argument 3) above against accepting language as a cognitive skill
is no longer valid. Furthermore, it could be argued that from
Chomsky's descriptions, grammatical competence has similarities to
declarative knowledge, and pragmatic competence has similarities
with procedural knowledge.
The fourth argument in the list requires a definition of goals of
research. Studies in SLA aim to discover how second language
learners learn a language, so the fact that this is what we are
attempting to do does not really constitute a criticism. However,
SLA research must be compatible with descriptive linguistics
research, i.e. the system that is learnt by language students is
the same system that is described by descriptive linguists! Two
points should be raised: 1) As Rivers 1990 points out, we are
dealing with real students actually attempting to learn, not with
an idealized (therefore official) concept, 2) Even though our aim
is not to describe in detail the structure of language as such, the
complexity is nonetheless apparent from the length of time language
takes to learn, if indeed it is ever thoroughly mastered by SL
learners. Language, compared to other skills is very complex
fact that not all the rules of a language can be formulated is
true, as is the fact that increasingly fewer SL students learn
through formal instructional methods. However, O'Malley and Chamot
(1990) demonstrate that informal rules and learners' intuitions
about language, which they may not be able to state formally, are
incorporated in procedural knowledge. They explain that language
can be treaded as a complex cognitive skill, which can be acquired
through formal and informal rules:
....production systems can be used to explain communicative
competence and its manifestations in sociolinguistic knowledge
discourse knowledge, strategic knowledge, and grammatical
knowledge. Individuals generate their own rules for language
formations, whether learning takes place within or outside formal
classroom environments, and they use these rules in language
comprehension or production whenever they are needed. (O'Malley and
Chamot 1990, p28)
1.2. Cognitive learning
Anderson's (1983) ACT* model is the most widely discussed
information processing theory in second language acquisition
research. It provides us with the basic outline of cognitive theory
as it applies to all forms of skill processing and representation
(O'Malley and Chamot 1990; O'Malley 1990, Schumarm 1990; Rivers
1990), though it does not hold all the answers for second language
acquisition.
Anderson's ACT* model is a three stage process which describes how
learnt knowledge is transformed into a skill. Knowledge is divided
into two types: declarative and procedural. Both of these are
stored in long term memory (LTM) as declarative memory and
procedural memory respectively.
Declarative knowledge refers to facts that one knows, that can be
declared or described. The information may have been learnt through
language based communication, from observation and comparison to
existing knowledge, or from sense impressions. Whatever the medium
of knowledge, the ideas are 'distilled' via a mental encoding
process, and represented in meaning-based form, as propositions
(Kintsch 1974). Propositions form interrelated network of schemata,
such that propositions are organized and linked to similar ideas,
and all the information about a particular object or fact may be
connected. When a concept is evoked, other concepts linked to it in
the network will also be activated through a process called
'spreading activation'. Declarative knowledge is therefore easy
(relative to procedural knowledge) to acquire, because associations
with existing knowledge may be readily formed. On the other hand,
retrieval of declarative knowledge is relatively slow due to the
time required for the firing of neurons in spreading activation.
However, declarative knowledge does not produce competence in a
skill: it is 'knowing that', but not knowing how'. It is also more
readily forgotten, as can be witnessed from most people's personal
experience of learning school subjects.
goal-oriented nature of production systems are expressed as
condition-action sequences, i.e. if X, then Y. Two important points
about production systems should be mentioned:
a) Neither goals nor procedures are static. As goals are either
satisfied or reformulated, the sets of stored conditions will
change, so that a previously stated if clause will result in a new set
of procedures. Thus production systems modify themselves as a
result of experience.
The Cognitive Stage.
the initial stages of learning a skill, the learner has to obtain
information on how to perform a task. The required information may
be modeled by an expert, given in the form of a rule, encountered
in text or mentally formulated by the student. This knowledge may
allow the learner to verbalize (if possible) the requirements of
performing a skill or subskill, but is not adequate to enable him
to perform the action. At this stage the knowledge is largely
declarative, but as the skill is practised, the declarative
knowledge of condition-action sequences is copied and converted
from propositional networks into production systems.
The Associative Stage.
this stage two predominant changes occur. Firstly, errors in the
original declarative knowledge are detected and corrected, and
secondly, the links between the components of the production
systems are strengthened. This strengthening of connections allows
the skill to be performed with fewer and fewer errors, and the
execution will become increasingly efficient and less
time-consuming.
The Autonomous Stage
this stage the errors are eliminated and the production systems
required to perform the skill are almost automatic. They are
combined into a single production in order to reduce further the
load on short term memory. This stage is sometimes referred to as
automatic processing since there is little conscious attention
required at this stage of skill acquisition.
this three-stage process explains, declarative knowledge is
transformed into increasingly efficient production systems. The
process through the stages is known as knowledge compilation', and
the two major processes are (1) proceduralisation—the entire system
of storing declarative knowledge as propositional representations,
and creating efficient production systems, and (2) composition- the
combining and organizing of already automatised short production
systems into single larger production systems.
following is a second look at Anderson's ACT* model, with
references to language during each of the stages.
1) The Cognitive Stage
Faerch and Kasper (1985) identify two essential ingredients for
second language acquisition: modeling and hypothesis testing. It
seems that both these aspects occur during the first important
stage of skill acquisition, and hypothesis testing continues also
in the associative Stage. Whether by a teacher, native speaker or
from a text, the learner may come into contact with chunks of
vocabulary, new use of a tense etc. which his attention may be
drawn to. The learner acquires information on how to communicate in
a new language, but must develop procedural knowledge in order to
use the new information appropriately. This is achieved by problem
solving - assessing the interlocutor's feedback to various attempts
at incorporating the new information into communication.
Declarative memory comprises rules, cultural knowledge, and
concepts. O'Malley (1990) stresses that the 'rules' in declarative
knowledge constitute not only grammatical rules but those for all
aspects of what Canale and Swain (1980) term communicative
competence: sociolinguistic kowledge, discourse knowledge,
strategic knowledge and grammatical knowledge. The concepts, as
mentioned earlier, are meaning based, yet link with the range of
words which may convey their meaning, across and between languages
(Rivers 1983). This may explain why SL learners sometimes retrieve
a word of the same meaning in a different language, (i.e. the
correct conceptual node is firing but the wrong 'label' is
retrieved). Rivers (1990) suggests that 'spreading activation' of
schemata may shed some light on the 'tip of the tongue' phenomenon
described by Brown (1970).
The Associative Stage.
mentioned above, hypothesis testing continues into this stage of
language acquisition, thus strengthening the connections between
the various elements of the production systems. Based on the
reactions of native speakers to one's utterances, the original
rules may need to be altered with regard to semantic or grammatical
accuracy, appropriacy, etc. An example of a production system for
communicative competence is given in Appendix.
The Autonomous Stage
Production systems that are already automatic are combined during
this stage. This aspect in SLA is crucial in achieving greater
fluency, and the chunking of production systems overcomes memory
problems and increases speed of retrieval. As the individual areas
of a learner's competence increases, the number of production
systems decreases, so that the second language becomes more and
more like a single skill father than a selection of subskills. As
can be seen, simple repetition or rote learning of rules is not
effective in learning a language, if the above model is accepted.
Vocabulary, however, can and should be memorized since this will
connect to meaning based nodes and be available for retrieval.
&&&Knowing
and doing are intimately associated. Memories become stronger and
more efficient as they are used and in contrast, associations which
are not used actively will weaken. Performance displays control of
language, drawing on knowledge of language. This implies that
students should continually practise all the language they know,
not only what they are currently working on, so that as new
material is presented, it may be compared to existing knowledge,
and the existing knowledge may be modified. Another reason for
constantly recycling existing knowledge is to allow students to
recombine what they know into fewer production system.
regard to SLA, it is not difficult to find the compatibility of
cognitive theory with accepted notions on interlanguage. According
to Faerch and Kasper (1985) the development of interlanguage is one
component of procedural knowledge in SLA. Their analysis, cited in
O'Malley and Chamot (1990, p58), contains five separate components
as follows:
Reception procedures, such as the use of inferencing to extrapolate
2) Production procedures, such as planning and monitoring speech
3) Conversational procedures, such as following linguistic
principles that produce coherent text, performing discourse
regulatory functions, and using repairs to remove conversational
4) Communication strategies, which are intended to solve problems
in speech comprehension, and may involve pauses in communication or
direct appea
5) Learning procedures, such as the development of
interlanguage
knowledge through hypothesis formation and testing, and learning
through modeling or imitation."
the above components resemble strategy types which are incorporated
in Oxford's classification of strategies (1990a PP 18-21). 1) and
4) are types of compensation strategies, 2) describes metacognitive
strategies, 3) appears to describe both social and compensation
strategies, whilst 5) identifies cognitive ones.&&&&&
The similar can be seen in Selinker (1972). It includes all
learning strategies and social strategies as processes in the
development of interlanguage (Ellis 1985, Bialystok 1990b). The
five processes it identifies are as follows:
Language transfer
Overgeneralization of target language rules
Transfer of training
Communication strategies
Learning strategies.
the discussion presented in this part, it may be concluded that
language can plausibly be seen as a complex cognitive skill, not
only because it suits our purpose to do so in terms of needing to
fit it into a cognitive framework, but because this view of
language is compatible with known concepts about language and
acquisition, and it is in line with the theoretical work of major
linguists. This view is further supported by the fact that a model
designed to account for the acquisition of any complex cognitive
skill can adequately explain the process of second language
acquisition in adults, and language use. Conscious processing and
practice are required by the learners acquiring a new skill, until
the skill becomes automatic. In second language acquisition the
route of development in a second language from beginning to
native-like proficiency is known as interlanguage, and
interlanguage has been identified as the associative stage in
Anderson's ACT* model. The conscious processes performed on
language and practising language are defined as learning
strategies. Learning strategies in turn are identified as key
ingredients in interlanguage, and interlanguage is identified in
cognitive theory. It cannot therefore be denied that language
connection between good strategy use and proficiency has been made
implicitly by the fact that it was deemed useful to examine what it
was that "good language learners" do that is different to weaker
language learners. If effective strategies can be identified, and
further more that we gain a solid understanding of how different
strategies combine for different tasks at different levels, then
the next logical step would be to see how the strategies of good
learners can be taught to anyone. As language teachers wishing all
our students to progress quickly and become as proficient as
possible, the results of strategy training efforts and knowledge on
how to encourage strategy use can not be ignored.
Although these characterisitics (except for "uninhibited") still
hold true in more recent analyses of learning strategies, the
current taxonomies are much more developed. Duing the early 1980's,
researchers in cognitive psychology were already formulating
theories incorporating general leading strategies into
information-processing models (Brown and Palinscar 1982; Dansereau
1985). Three different categories of strategies were
identified:
Metacognitive strategies
These involve planning and orgainsation of learning, as well as
monitoring and evaluation. These types of strategy are crucial,
since they give direction to the entire learning process. Evaluahon
allows for redefining goals using other strategies.
Cognitive strategies
Cognitive strategies are those which directly manipulate the
material that is &being learned, for
example practicing, analysing and recombining
information.
Social affective strategies
These involve co-operation and interaction with others to achieve
learning goals, asking for clarification or correction.
predominant classification systems of SLLS now use this framework
(O'Malley et al (1985a, 1985b); O'Malley and Chamot (1990)). Oxford
(1990b) developed it further and identified a total of six strategy
types, which are divided into direct and indirect strategies.
Oxford stresses that although strategies may be identified and
classified individually, the process of acquisition depends on a
highly orchestrated use of ditterent strategies. Their
interconnected nature is expressed in the following diagram:
(Diagram 1)
<img WIDTH="484" HEIGHT="224" src="/blog7style/images/common/sg_trans.gif" real_src ="file:///C:/Users/ZHANGB~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image002.jpg" V:SHAPES="_x"
ALT="The&Role&of&Learning&Strategies&In&Second&Language&Acquisition"
TITLE="The&Role&of&Learning&Strategies&In&Second&Language&Acquisition" />
&&Learning a skill is
learning how to perform complicated subskills in an integrated
manner. Practice in the skill leads to more automatic performance.
However, if the students cannot perform appropriate metalinguisitc
strategies, i.e. planning, monitoring and evaluating their own
learning, the cognitive strategies they employ may not be the most
beneficial. In the studies (Wenden,1986b, 1987; O'Malley, et al.
1985a; Abraham and Vann, ; Chamot et. al. 1987; O'Malley
and Chamot,1990) we noted that good language learners select
appropriate strategies for the task in hand, combine strategies,
and that based on their own assessment of using strategies, their
subsequent use is either reinforced or rejected. The fact that
experience with using strategies leads one to adopt better ones, is
further supported by the fact that both students who have learnt
other second languages and more advanced learners are more
effective strategy users. Strategies change then over time, as the
learners gain more knowledge of the language and experience and
evaluation of their original strategies. This process is a long
one, and for some, their lack of success in using ineffective
strategies might deter them from pursuing their second language
learning. Others may continue, but at a slower pace than might be
possible if effective strategies were pointed out and used from the
outset of their learning. Success tends to breed motivation,
another important component of SLA, so a successful cycle could
evolve. If a good language learner is differentiated from a poor
language learner by strategy use, and strategies can be taught,
then maybe more second language learners could be classed as "good
language learners"
Currently, learner training elements are incorporated into some
language teaching textbooks. The strategies included, however, are
usually limited, focussing on reading and listening skills.
Teachers in general also seem to have little awareness of the
importance of strategy training and the use of strategies by
students (O'Malley et. al. 1985a) This leads to two important
issues in learner training:- materials and teacher training. Choice
of materials in learner training is dependent on decisions
concerning the curriculum and methodology.
&IF the goal is to
engage in conversation with Sally, and Sally is& monolingual in
English, Then the subgoal is to use my second language.
IF the goal is to use my second language, THEN the subgoal is to
initiate a &conversation.
(sociolinguistic competence)
the goal is to initiate a conversation, THEN the subgoal is to say
a memorized greeting formula. (discourse competence)
the goal is to say a memorized greeting formula, and the context is
an informal one, THEN choose the appropriatelanguage
IF the goal is tO choose an aPPropriate language style, THEN the
subgoal &is
to say "Hi, how's it going, Sally?" (sociolinguistic
competence)
the goal is tO say "Hi, how's it going, Sally?", THEN the subgoal
is to &&pay
attention tO Pronouncing the selltChce as much like a native
speaker as possible. (grammatical competence for
pronunciation)
the goal is tO Pronounce the sentence as much like a native speaker
as possible, THEN the subgoal is to check Whether my pronunciation
is accurate enough tO commUnicate the meaning' (socinlinguistic
competence)
IF the goal is to check whether my pronunciation is accurate enough
to communicate the meaning of my greeting, THEN the subgoal is to
pay careful attention to Sally's response. (sociolinguistic
competence)
IF the goal is to pay careful attention to Sally's response, and
her response indicates that she has understood my meaning,
the subgoal is to wait for Sally to finish her conversational turn'
(discourse competence)
SOUECE: O'Malley and Chamot
(1990), p74
Bibliography
Abram, R. G. and Vann, R. J.
1987. Strategies of Two Language Learners: A Case Study. In A.
Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds) Learner Strategies in Language
Learning, pp85-102. London: Pren tice Hall
Anderson, J. R. 1983. The Architecture of Cognition.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Bialystok, E. 1990 a. The Competence of Processing:
Classifying Theories of Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quartely, 24, 4,
pp635-648.
b. Communication
Strategries. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Brown, A. L. and Palinscar A. S. 1982.
Inducing Strategies learning form texts by means of informed,
self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning
Dasabilities, 2, 1, pp1-17.
Brown, R. 1970. Psycholinguistics. New York: Fred
Brown, T. & Perry, F.
1991. A Comparison of Three Learning Strategies for ESL Vocabulary
Acquisition. TESOL
QUARTERLY, 25, 4, pp655-669.
Canale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical
bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied
Linguistics, 1, pp1-47.
Chamot, A. 1987. The Learning Strategies
of ESL Students. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds) Learner Strategies in Language
Learning, pp85-102. London: Pren tice Hall
1990. Cognitive Instruction in the Second Language Classroom: the
Role of Learning Strategies. In Gerogetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics 1990. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University
Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and Representations. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Cohen, G. 1977. The Psychology of Cognition. New
York: Academic Press.
Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language
Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
Cummings, J. 1984. Billingualism and Special
Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. Multilingual
Dansereau, D. F. 1985. Learning strategy research.
In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, and R. Glaser (Eds.) Thinking and Learning skills (Vol.
1, pp209-39). Hilldale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-Instruction in Language
Learning. Cambridge: CUP
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language
Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Ellis, E. & Sinclair, B.
1989. Learning to Learn
English. A course in Learner Training. CUP.
Faerch, c. and kasper, G. 1985. Procedual
knowledge as a component of foreign language learners'
communicative competence. In H, Boete and W, Herlitz (Eds.),
Kommunikation im (Sprach-)
Unterricht, pp169-99. Utrecht: University of
Kintsch, W. 1974. The representation of meaning in
memory. Hillsdale, N.J.:Erlbaum.
Ericsson, K. & Simon. H.
1980. Verbal reprots as data. Psychological Revies,
87,3,pp215-251
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second
Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Long, M. H. 1990a. The Least a second
Language Acquisition Theory Needs to Explain. TESOL Quartely, 24, 4,
___1990b. Maturational constraints on
language development. Studies
in Second Language acquisition, 12, pp251-285
Naiman N. et al. 1978. The Good Language Learner.
Toronto: The Ontario Institure for Studies in Education
O'Malley, J. & Chamot, A.
1990. Learning Strategies in
Second language Acquisition. Cambridge University
Oxford, F. 1990a. Language
Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Heinle
& Heinle Publishers.
___1990b. Styles, Strategies, and
Aptitude: Connections for Language Learning. In T. Parry
& C. Stansfield (Eds.) Language Aptitude
Reconsidered.
___1990c. The Missing Link: Evidence from
Research on Language Learning Styles and Strategies. In Gerogetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics 1990. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University
___1993. Research on Second language
Learning Strategies. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics (1993), 13, pp175-187. Cambridge
University
Rivers, W. 1990. Mental Representations
and Language in Action. In Gerogetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics 1990. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University
Rubin, J. 1975. What the "Good Language
Learner" Can Teach Us. TESOL
Quartely, 9,pp41-51
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage.
International Review of
Applied Linguistics, 10, pp209-231
Stern, H. 1975. What Can We Learn From the
Good Language Learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31,
pp304-318.
Stevic, E. 1989. Success With Foreign Languages—Seven
who achieved it and what worked for them. Hemel Hempstead:
Pretice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Tarone, E. & Yule, G.
1989. Focus on the Language
Learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Wenden, A. 1986a. Helping Language
Learners Think About Learning. ELT Journal, 40,
____1986b. What Do Second Language
learners Know About Their Second Language learning? A Secnod Look
at Retrospective Accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7, 2,
____1987. How to be a Successful Language Learner: Insights
and Prescriptions from L2 Learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin
(Eds.), Learner Strategies in
Language Learning, pp103-17. London: Prentile Hall
___1991. Learner Strategies for Learner
Autonomy. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
已投稿到：
以上网友发言只代表其个人观点，不代表新浪网的观点或立场。