CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGBES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM

8/16/2019 CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGBES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/childrens-learning-strategbes-in-the-primary-fl-classroom 1/36

CHILDREN S LEARNING STRATEGBES

IN THE

PRIMARY

FL

CLASSROOM

Y V ETTE CO Y LE A N D M A RIS O L V A LCÁ RCEL*

University of Murcia, Spain

ABSTRACT

This paper begins with a revisión of the learning stra tegy l i tera ture and

highl ights the over lapping which current ly charac te r izes the f ie ld as regards i s -

sues considered cri teria l for their defini t ion. The role of consciousness in learn-

ing s t ra tegy use i s d i scussed and the te rms process , s t ra tegy and technique a re

defined in the l ight of a c lassroom-based empirical s tudy carried out with chi l -

dren aged be tween e ight and ten . From verba l repor t da ta ga thered individua l ly

and in groups , a c lass i f ica t ion scheme i s presented of chi ldren ' s metacogni t ive ,

socio-affect ive and cognit ive s t ra tegies and techniques.

RES U M EN

En este art ículo se hace una revisión de la l i tera tura sobre las estra tegias

de aprendiza je , des tacando e l a l to grado de superpos ic ión en cuanto a las ca -

racterís t icas que las definen. Anal izamos el papel de la consciencia en e l uso

de es t ra tegias y ofrecemos una def in ic ión de proceso, es t ra tegia y técnica , ba -

sada en un es tudio empír ico l levado a cabo con niños de ocho a d iez años

en el marco formal de aula . Se incluye una c lasif icación detal lada de estra tegias

y técnicas metacognit ivas, socioafect ivas y cognit ivas, ident i f icadas en los niños

mediante e l uso de ent revis tas individua les y en grupo.

RESUME

Cet art ic le est une revisión de tout ce qui a é té écri t jusqu'á présent á

propos des s t ra tegies d ' apprent i ssage ; i l nous fa i t remarquer á que l point l e s

carac té r i s t iques qui dé f in i ssent ees s t ra tegies peuvent se superposer . I l ana lyse

• Yvette Coyle and Marisol Valcárcel curren tly lecture in English Studies an d

Teaching English to Young Learners at the University of Murcia, Faculty of Education.

Yvette gained her Ph.D. in Education in 1998 from the University of Murcia where she

works as an associate professor. Marisol holds a Ph.D. in English Philology which she

obtained in 1986 and is a professor in the same department. Their research interests

include teaching English at pre-school and primary level and language acquisition in

children. They have published several books and articles in these áreas.

4 3

CAUCE,

Revista

de

Filología

y su Didáctica, ti 25,

2002

/

págs. 423-458

CAUCE. Núm. 25. COYLE, Yvette and VALCÁRCEL, Marisol (Spain). Children's learning ...



Y V E T T E C O Y L E A N D M A R I S O L V A L C Á R C E L

également le role de la conscience dans l'usage de stratégies et propose une

définition de processus, de stratégies et de techniques, basée sur une étude

empirique menee auprés d'enfants de 8 á 10 ans dans le cadre formel de la

classe. II offre aussi une classification détaillée de stratégies et de techniques

métacognitives, socio-affectives et cognitives, détectées chez les enfants á tra-

vers des entretiens individuéis et en groupe.

1. INTRODUCTION

Despi te the profusión of r ich and var ied research on the role of

Learning Stratégies (LS) in second language acquisi t ion (SLA), today,

some twenty years on f rom the f i rs t a t tempts at explor ing how learners

go about the task of learning a second language, researchers are s t i l l

s t ruggl ing to agree upon a universal ly accepted déf ini t ion for the con-

cept of

strategy.

In 1991 Sel iger complained that the indiscr iminate use

of the word strategy in SLA l i terature had brought us to a point of

'semantic satiatiorí in wh ich the t e rm had be co m e devoid of any rea l

m e a n i n g

(1991,

p- 36). Less pessimistically, but in the same vein, Ell is

(1994) referred to the concept of 'strategy' as 'fuzzy ... and not easy to

tie dowrí

(1994, p. 529).

The confusión surrounding the déf ini t ion of 'strategy' arises from the

research l i terature i tself where the term has often been substi tuted for sy-

nonyms which have b lur red the inherent meaning of the word by equat -

ing i t with other similar concepts. Wenden (1987) has pointed out the

multi-purpose use of the term to refer to al l of the following: techni-

que s, tactics, potentially conscious plans, consciously e mploye d operations,

problem-solving procedures, etc. (1987, p. 7). In fact a closer look at the

definit ions of Learning Stratégies offered by different researchers indicates

the high degree of overlapping and lack of precisión in their choice of

terminology. While for Naiman et al. (1978), Stern (1983), Schmeck (1988)

and Seliger (1991) stratégies are seen as genera l l earn ing approaches ,

with the more specific learner actions receiving the ñame of techniques

or tactics, Rubin (1981) refers to general cognit ive processes and specific

stratégies. In her définit ion Wenden (1987) refers to language learning

'behaviours' while O'Malley and Chamot (1990) speak about 'thoughts or

behaviours', leaving us in doubt as to whether s t ratégies are to be consi-

dered as behavioural or mental or both. Finally Chesterfield and Chester-

field's (1985) définit ion reflects their concern with learner interaction

while Oxford (1990) stresses the affective side of learning.

4 4




C H I L D R E N ' S L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G I E S I N T H E P R I M A R Y F L C L A S S R O O M

Unable, then, to agree upon one generally accepted definition of

Learning Strategies, researchers have had to resort to listing what seem

to be their main characteristics in an attempt to solve this conceptual

problem (Wenden, 1987; Ellis, 1994). This has clarified very little, how-

ever, as the characteristics cited tend to be contradictory and vague.

For example, Ellis (1994) states that 'Strategies refer to both general ap-

proaches and specific actions or techniques to learn an L2'

or that

'Some

strategies are behavioural while others are men tal. Thu s som e are di-

rectly observable while others are noí (1994, p. 532). Wenden (1987)

lists problematicity (potential), consciousness and the directness/indirect-

ness of their effect on learning as among their defining characteristics.

The persistence of such ambiguity around the construct of strategy is

detrimental to the concerns of empirical research in the fields of second

and foreign language development. Researchers have recognized the

need to try to achieve some coherence across the field in terms of both

the descriptive terminology and the conceptual characteristics inherent

to the construct of strategy and w hile attemp ts in this direction have

been made (Willing, 1989; Bialystok, 1990; Oxford and Cohén, 1992)

as yet no consensus has been reached.

Given the diverging opinions of individual researchers on a series

of important, yet conflictive, issues relating to the definition of Learn-

ing Strategies, it is vital that any discussion of strategies, in whatever

context, should begin with an explicit statement of the position adopted

with respect to these crucial conceptual and classificatory problems.

The most serious points of contention in Language Learning Strategy

research include:

1.

The overlapping which occurs betw een term s such as process,

strategy, tactic and technique.

2.

Th e issue of con sciou sness as criterial to the definition of Learn-

ing Strategies.

3.

The distinction betw een Learning, Produ ction and Com m unica-

tion Strategies.

Each of these áreas has important implications for the nature of our

understanding of LS and the role they play in the language learning

process.

Among the aims of the present study is that of proposing a frame-

work for the classifieation of children's FL Learning Strategies which is

both coherent and psychologically plausible. In order to do this it is

essential to provide a clear set of criteria for categorizing and distin-

425





guishing between various types of strategies. To arrive at a compre-

hensive characterization of LS w e w ill begin b y reviewing current th eo-

retical arguments on the issues highlighted above before going on to

outline our own position on these matters.

2. LEARNING STRATEGIES: PROBLEMS O F DEF INITION

One of the most glaring problems in SLA research, then, has been

the failure to make clear distinctions between the terms 'process', 'strategy'

and 'tactic' or 'technique'. These labels have been used inconsistently

by researchers to refer both to the

same

and to

different

mechanisms

of language processing. The confusión over which behaviours are to

be classified as learning strategies is indicative of the terminological and

conceptual differences which characterize both theory and research in

the Learning Strategy paradigm. These differences first emerged with

the investigations of the 'Good Language Learner' in the late 1970's.

This early work produced what initially appeared to be very different

inven tories of Learning Strategies (Rubin, 1981; Naiman et al., 1978; Stern,

1983),

but which on closer inspection were seen to comprise the same

basic categories of behaviour which had been classified in different

terms.

Rubin's (1981) work describes general cognitive processes and

their underlying strategies, w hile Naiman et al. (1978) and Stern (1983)

refer to general strategies and speciñc, o bservable learner techniques.

However, as Skehan (1989) has shown, and as we shall discuss later,

the actual behaviours described are not that unalike. The principal dif-

ferences between this early research lie essentially in the terms chosen

to describe more general and speciñc levéis of learner behaviour.

For other researchers (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990)

strategy

has be en used as a general cover-term for different learn erop -

erations irregardless of levéis of generality/ specificity. Their approach

has been to divide strategies into different categories or groups accord-

ing to the type of behaviour they represent. Since O'Malley and Chamot

(1990) are concerned primarily with strategies for learning the L2, they

describe Metacognitive, Cognitive and Socio-affective strategies. Oxford

(1990),

however, aims to account for the whole repertoire of strategies

available for learning and using language, and so presents a multi-lev-

elled classification schem e of M emory, Cognitive, Com pensation, M etacog-

nitive, Affective and Social strategies. Oxford's taxonomy is interesting,

though at times confusing, in this respect as it includes a wide range

426





of both general and specific thoughts and behaviours, all of which are

termed strategies.

More recently, however, Oxford and Cohén (1992) have argued in

favour of abandoning the a priori categorization of learning strategies

into generic groups and have opted for a classification which differen-

tiates between broad bands of strategies and their related tactics. Their

distinction, based on the difference in military usage of the words strategy

and tactic, leads them to define strategy as the 'long-range art of learn-

ing more easily and effectively by using major clusters of behaviours',

while tactic is used to refer to the 'short-term art of u sing specific beha-

viours or devices' (1992, p. 4). This return to the separation of language

processing behaviour on the general/specific dimensión would seem,

superficially at least, to coincide with the same distinction posed by

Naiman et al. (1978) and Stern (1983). A more detailed analysis of their

proposal, however, reveáis that what has actually happened is that the

concept of strategy has been raised to the level of what other researchers

(for example Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983) have termed process (for

example 'forming concepts and hypotheses'; 'testing hypotheses'; 'em-

bedding new material in long-term memory'), and tactics to what has

generally been thought of as strategy (for exam ple 'inferencing '; asking

for clarification/verification'; 'repetitive rehea rsaP , etc .).

In adopting this new emphasis on

tactics

to desribe what in pre-

vious theory and research (including their own) had been referred to

as strategy, Oxford and Cohén (1992) follow the precedent created by

Seliger (1991) and Schmeck (1988). Both of these researchers have posited

the need for a theoretical distinction between higher level, general ap-

proaches to learning and more specific learner activity, and both have

coincided in the choice of the terms strategy and tactic to label these

differences. Once again, however, we find that the actual behaviours

described as strategies and tactics in their accounts are the counterpartsof what to others are more accurately described as processes and strate-

gies. Seliger (1991) for example talks about the strategies of 'hypo thesis

testing', 'simplification', and 'overgeneralization' while Schmeck (1988)

cites those of 'conceptualizing', 'personalizing' and 'memorization', all

of which have traditionally been thought of as more general cognitive

operations.

This inconsistency in the use of the m etalanguage involved in Learner

Strategy research is symptomatic of the vagueness of the constructs

themselves (Ellis, 1986). Researchers have called for theoretical accounts

of Learning Strategies to attempt to disentangle the concepts inherent

4 7





to this área of SLA research (Bialystok, 1983; Oxford and Cohén, 1992)

but there is still much to be resolved. A priority in any study of Learning

Strategies, then, must be to provide explicit definitions of the way in

which processes, strategies and tactics or techniques are conceptualized

and understood in the research work. The position we advócate in the

present study is that the description of children's strategies of Foreign

Language Learning can be integrated within a theoretical framework for

SLA based on cognitive accounts of language learning which describe

language learning in terms of the acquisition of a complex skill, and

highlight the learner's active role in the process.

3. PRO CKS S, STRATEGY AND TECHN IQUE IN CHILDREN'S FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

The cognitive paradigm for the explanation of SLA has emerged

from information-processing models of learning and from develop-

mental studies on the role of cognitive processes in learners, bothof

which have sought to explain the mechanisms by which the mind

acquires and stores new information. In cognitive theory learners

are said to process information and the thoughts involved in this ac-

tivity are referred to as

mental processes

(O'Malley and Chamot, 1990).

One of the fundamental principies of cognitive theory holds that

while all learners possess the same internal mechanisms for the ma-

nipulation of incoming information (sensorial register, short-term or

working memory, long-term memory) variation in the storage capac-

ity and functioning ability of these components exist across indivi-

duáis.

These differences are caused by the processes and strategies

the learner activates, more or less effectively, while learning (Beltrán,

1993).

Although cognitive psychologists do not coincide in either the nura-

ber or ñames they attribute to these processes, there is tacit agreement

as to the importance of their role in human learning. Processes are said

to act as mediators between instructional and informative input andthe

learner's output to the extent that the quality and quantity of any learn-

ing experience will be determined by the degree of active cognitive

processing the learner engages in and the effective employment of

appropriate strategies to enhance and develop these processes (Pérez,

1993,

in Beltrán). It is in this sense that learning strategies are described

as special ways of processing, storing, retrieving and using information

(O'Malley and Chamot, 1990).

428





In the present study, our use of the term process coincides with

the definitions prevalent in cognitive discussions of learning which refer

to the processes by which individuáis

comprehend, store

and

retain

and

use information. In the same way, and following Willis (1989, p. 139),

we understand

learning strategies

to refer to the

goal-directed thoughts

or actions used by the learner to transform language input into internally

available resources for the comprehension, retention and use of the for-

eign language . However, given the context of our study -the learning

of a FL in a classroom setting; the age of the subjects involved- children

of 8-10 years; and our ultimate pedagogical motivation, we believe it

is essential to go beyond the scope of the definition cited above in our

description of learning strategies in an attempt to describe the

precise

nature of the ways in which our young learners convert the input

they receive in the classroom context into knowledge of the foreign

language. For this reason, we have opted to use the construct learning

technique to arrive at a more finely-grained analysis of the strategic

behaviour involved in FL learning. Learning techniques, then, as used

throughout this study can be defined as specific, primarily task-related

and (mostly) observable forms of language learning . In a classroom

setting learning techniques are those manifestations of the learning

process in action, as for example when the learner voluntarily repeats

a linguistic model or identifies content words for the understanding of

context-specific discourse.

The position we adopt in this respect coincides with that of Beltrán

(1993) who has theorized on the relationships of technique, strategy and

process as applied to general school-based learning. For Beltrán (1993)

learning strategies are central to the process of learning, their true def-

inition lying in their mediating role between the invisible, concealed

processes of learning and specific task-related learner techniques. Strate-

gies, in turn, are affected by the use of specific learner techniques. In

Beltrán's model techniques are said to actívate strategies in that they

are actions linked to classroom activities, which when underway, reveal

the presence of particular strategies in learners. They are distinguishable

from strategies in that they are observable learner operations ciosely

linked to the study activities suggested by the teacher in the classroom

environment.

One of the assumptions underlying our work is that this rationale,

as applied to the description of the instructional process in general, can

be adapted to provide an explanation for the learning which occurs in

the foreign language classroom. In our study of children's foreign lan-

429




Y V E T T E C O Y L E A N D M A R I S O L V A L C A R C E L

guage learning strategies we acknowledge the connections outlined by

Beltrán between process, strategy and technique. Strategies, as we have

defined them above, are the special thoughts or actions which indivi-

duáis use to help them learn. They can take the form of mental oper-

ations (inferencing) or behaviours (repetition) which act to facilítate the

processing of information. How ever, our definition of techniq ues exp and s

on Beltran's original definition to include learner operations which, al-

though not directly observable, such as guessing meanings from the

teacher's gestures or associating vocabulary with a physical action, can

still be considered as learning techniques on the grounds that: 1) they

can be inferred from detailed analysis of the learning context and the

instructional strategies used by the teacher in the presentation and prac-

tice of the TL input and 2) the behaviours have been explicitly verbal-

ized by the children themselves. Although not all children will neces-

sarily emply ñor decribe all their learning techniques, it is assumed that

many, especially the 'good langauge learners', will do so. Learning tech-

niques, the smallest component of the student's processing mechanisms,

are directed, then, at promoting the appearance in the learner of effec-

tive strategies for understanding and using the FL. Their role, as conceived

from a cognitive perspective, has acquired much greater prominence

that that contemplated by Naiman

et al.

(1978) and by Stern (1983).

It is hoped that the preceding discussion has clarified the interpre-

tation given in our research to the terms process, strategy and technique.

The approach taken in the present study is a variation on current po-

sitions in the field of SLA strategy research. While sharing many of the

features suggested by leading learning strategy researchers, we do not

coincide exactly with any one position. We agree, for example, with

Schmeck's view that 'a learning strategy is a higher level cluster of learn-

ing tactics that work together toprovide a unified learning outcom e'

and

that

'the term tactic refers to the sp ecific activities of the learners'

(1988,

p.

171), but the interpretation we have made is different to the

long/short term distinction expressed by Oxford and Cohén (1992), and

reflects our prime concern to connect the study of learning strategies

with its implications for teacher-training and practice.

4. TH F. ROLE O F CON SCIOUSN ESS IN DEFINITION S OF LEARNING STRATEGIES

The idea which emerges from the previous discussion is that we

consider both learning strategies and techniques as goal-directed actions

43





aimed at facilitating the acquisition, retrieval and use of knowledge. This,

in fact, would seem to be the accepted view of Learning Strategy re-

searchers in the fields of both cognitive psychology and SLA (Weinstein

and Mayer, 1986; Beltrán, 1993; Derry and Murphy, 1986; O'Malley and

Chamot, 1990; Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983; Ellis, 1986; Oxford and

Cohén, 1992). Yet discussions of language learning strategies have not

always coincided in the acceptance of other features cited by theorists

and researchers as criterial to their definition. The feature which has

been most conflictive in this respect is that of consciousness.

Two opposing views have emerged which differ as regards the im-

portance they attach to consciousness as an essential feature of LS. One

group of researchers assert that LS are delibérate actions which are

consciously selected (i.e. with awareness) by the learner (Weinstein

and Mayer, 1986; McCombs, 1988; Beltrán, 1993; Cohén, 1990; Oxford

and Cohén, 1992). Oxford and Cohén (1992), for example, argüe for a

learner action to be considered as strategic, learners must have some

degree of awareness that they are employing a particular strategy. In

their opinión unconscious learning behaviours are more accurately de-

scribed as automatic processes rather than strategies.

Exponents of the opposite view propose that either:

1. strategy use need not always involve con cious awareness o nthe

part of the learner (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983; Wenden

and Rubin, 1987; Willing, 1989; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990;

Ellis,

1896) or

2. that consciousness is no t a feature of strategy use (Bialystok, 1983,

1990).

Within this first group of researchers are Faerch and Kasper (1980,

1983) and Wenden and Rubin (1987) who describe LS as being 'po-

tentially conscious'. Faerch and Kasper (1983) recognize an indetermi-

nacy about the use of consciousness as a defining criteria of strategic

behaviour. They suggest that consciousness is not constant among in-

dividuáis and that some learners are more aware than others of their

mental functioning. In his discussion on LS, Ellis (1986), states that

some strategies are conscious while others are not but gives no indica-

tion as to which particular LS he is referring to in either case. Wenden

and Rubin (1987) take a similar stand to that of O'Malley and Chamot

(1990) who, on outlining their position from within a cognitive theory

of learning, recognize the variability inherent to the feature of con-

sciousness.

431





Willing 's (1989) view is much less of a compromise . He s ta tes that

the consc ious /subconsc ious d ichotomy is mis lead ing and asse r ts tha t LS

can function at both conscious and subconscious levéis of mental pro-

cess ing. Will ing 's c la im is that there are

'no absolute theoretical criteria

for deny ing these activities to the subcons cious'

(1989, p . 141), argu ing

that a lmost a l l mental functioning does , in fact , take place outs ide the

rea lms of consc ious awareness . In h is op in ión subconsc ious processes

are jus t as capable as conscious ones of functioning in pursuit of a

lea rn ing goa l .

The idea tha t lea rn ing involves sh i f t s be tween subconsc ious and

consc ious behaviour i s c lose ly re la ted to the ques t ion of automatic and

controlled processing

(Schiffrin and Schneider, 1984, in O'Malley and

Chamot, 1990) . In cognit ive theory consciousness is c losely re la ted to

attention, the control process which brings information into focal awa-

reness (Schmidt , 1990) . A d is t inc t ion is made be tween lea rn ing tasks

which require high levéis of a t tention, controlled processing, and thos e

wh ich do no t ,

automatic processing.

In this view skil ls which are less

familiar to the learner require greater control of process ing, while more

automat ic p rocess ing is pe rformed wi thout awareness . For theor ies such

as Anderson 's three-s tage model of ski l l acquis i t ion (Anderson, 1983,

1985, in O'Malley and Chamot, 1990) learning is characterized by a

shift

from controlled to automatic processing,

through the procedura l iza t ion

of the skil l . Researchers a lso point out that automatic process ing asso-

cia ted with high levéis of ski l l learning may become

conscious

(con -

trol led) if the learner comes across new or unfamiliar information in

the course of a learning task (Anderson, 1985, in O'Malley and Chamot;

Faerch and Kasper, 1987; McLaughlin, 1983, in Willing, 1989).

Wil l ing (1989) , whi le accep t ing the d is t inc t ion be tween au tomat ic

(subconsc ious) and contro l led (consc ious) p rocess ing , ins is ts tha t the

re la t ions h ip be tween them s hou ld be v iewed a s a con t inuum ra the r than

a quest ion of e i ther/or . Will ing 's theory is based on the idea of cognit ive

uni ty which sees no need to d i f fe ren t ia te be tween subconsc ious and

consc ious process ing . He a rgües tha t

It is true certain learning strategies, particularly those which appear

to he virtually universal such as associating or simplifying, most often

arise without deliberation and will thus he seen as operating, mos t typically

on a relatively less conscious level. Other strategies, for exam ple, such as

certain mo des of inferencing, m ay at first he exercised consciously and

deliberately, and can later become more nearly second nature through

use an d familiarity. Still others will always continué to requ ire larger

43




C H I L D R E N ' S L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G I E S I N T H E P R 1 M A R Y E L C L A S S R O O M

amou nts of cognitive effort; therfore these wül continué indefinitely to

be controlled processe s. How ever, tbe d ifferences amo ng these various

sorts of strategy can be seen as a matter of degree rather than of type

(1989, p. 142).

Bialys tok has argued s trongly agains t the inclus ión of consciousness

as a defining criteria of strategic behaviour. She states that

'...language

learners use a num ber of system atic strategies for tvhich consciousnes s

is not a featuré

(1985, in Willing, 1989, p . 141) an d cites as an e xam -

ple the s t ra tegy of re la t ing new vocabula ry to p r io r knowledge to as -

s is t recall , which in her opinión

'need not be conscious for the learnef.

Bia lys tok 's v iews on consc iousness s tem from her a t tempts to deve lop

a theore t ica l f ramework which could account fo r the Learn ing and Com-

munication Stra tegies (Ll and L2) of both adults and children (Bialys tok

and Ryan, 1985, in Ellis , 1994; Bialystok, 1990, 1991). Bialystok's main

l ine of reasoning is in tended to descr ibe s t ra teg ies o f Communica t ion ,

but we believe her ideas deserve careful considerat ion in that they are

explic i t ly re la ted to children 's learning. Bialys tok 's assert ion that the use

of CS by adults learning a L2 is s imilar to the use of s tra tegies by young

children when acquiring their Ll , necessari ly rules out for her the im-

porta nce a t tr ibuted to the role of consc iousne ss in other theo ries . Bialys tok

sta tes her point thus ,

Using consciousne ss as a criterion also has the rather restricting im-

plícatíon that strategy use is available only to those speakers for whom

conscious reflection is possible. The major group excluded by this feature

is children, for whom it is usually claimed that conscious monitoring of

their cognitive processing is not

possible (1990, p. 4).

The issue of consciousness in Learning Stra tegy theory and research

is c learly a complex one. Oxford and Cohén (1992) would have i t that

a l l LS, to be considered s tra tegic a t a l l , must necessari ly be conscious .

Bialystok (1990), s tating the case for children learning their first language,

argües that consciousness is not criterial to definitions of LS. Willing

(1989) claims much the same in his discussion of the múltiple shifts be-

tween consc ious and subconsc ious processes in language lea rn ing . From

a cognitive theory of skill acquisition O'Malley and Chamot (1990) state

tha t LS begin as consc ious processes bu t can bec om e au tom at ic th ro ugh

practice . Faerch and Kasper (1983) and Wenden and Rubin (1987) pre-

fer the term 'potentia l ly co nscio us ' to refer to LS. Th e theoret ical posi t ion

taken in the present s tudy wil l depend, natural ly , on the fact that the

subjeets of our research, are young primary school children. This ra ises

433




Y V E T T E C O Y I . E A N D M A R I S O L V A I . C Á R C E L

the q uest ion of w heth er or not children 's use of LS can b e sa id to be

fully conscious , or subconscious or whether there is in fact an aware-

ness of learning in the cognit ive sense .

The research conducted so far in the f ie ld of SLA has centred a l-

mos t exc lus ive ly on adul t lea rn ing and as such cannot p rov ide answers

to these ques t ions . Before we can asc r ibe to any of the v iews expressed

above we mus t look to the l i te ra ture on ch i ld ren 's lea rn ing for deeper

ins ights into the learning process . In this sense , Miller and Ceci and

Howe ( in Schmidt , 1990) ins is t that young children learn essentia l ly

wi thout consc ious awareness , sugges t ing tha t as they mature they lose

t h e m o r e o p e n a w a r e n e s s o f e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s e a r l y

' incidental ' learning (McLaughlin , 1990) , and acquire , around the age of

thirteen, the ability to allocate their attention strategically as occurs in

adult consciousness . Similarly , Nisbet and Shucksmith (1986) , in a s tudy

of children's learning in British primary schools, have argued that strategic

behaviour is largely intui t ive unti l the age of fourteen, and determined

largely by the teachers , e i ther through procedures taught explic i t ly or

th rough approaches impl ic i t in the i r p resen ta t ion of c lass room tasks .

They suggest further, that children 's increas ing capacity for conscious

p lanning and d i rec t ion of the i r own lea rn ing beg ins to emerge by the

age of 10. In the light of these observations, and given that the subjects

in the presen t s tudy a re aged be tween e igh t and n ine years o íd , the

posit ion we take here is that consciousness is not considered cri teria l

for our defini t ion of learning s tra tegies as used by the children in their

a t tempts to cons t ruc t knowledge of the FL.

5. LANGLIAGK LEARNING AN O LANGUA GE USK: AN INTKGRATIVK VIEW

A dis tinc tion has often bee n m ade wi th in secon d lan guag e lea rn-

ing s t ra tegy research be tween Learn ing , Produc t ion and Communica t ion

stra tegies (Tarone, 1980; Faerch and Kasper, 1983) . The term learning

stra tegies has been used to refer to the operat ions by which the learner

processes the target language (TL) input for language learning ( i .e . im-

proving l inguis t ic knowledge) . Dis t inct from these are production and

communication s tra tegies which are s tra tegies of language use . Production

stra tegies enable the learner to use previously acquired l inguis t ic knowl-

edge to accomplish communication goals (Ell is , 1986) . Examples include

simplif icat ion or discourse planning. Communication s tra tegies are em-

ployed when the lea rner fa i l s to ach ieve a communica t ive goa l because

434




C H I L D R E N ' S L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G 1 E S I N T H E P R I M A R Y F L C L A S S R O O M

of a gap in his or her l ingis t ic knowledge. They have been c lass if ied as

e i ther reduc t ion s t ra teg ies (eg . top ic avoidance) o r ach ievement s t ra te -

gies (eg. paraphrase , code-switching, e tc . ) (Faerch and Kasper, 1984) .

Researchers have been divided in their in terpreta t ions of the effect

of these s t ra teg ies on the lea rn ing process . Some main ta in tha t p ro-

duc t ion and communica t ion s t ra teg ies cannot be cons idered as lea rn-

ing s tra tegies on the grounds that they do not contribute direct ly to the

learning process (Selinker, 1972; O'Malley and Chamot, 1989) , that is ,

they a re s t ra teg ies mot iva ted by the lea rner ' s des i re to communica te

ra ther than to lea rn . Others , however , a rgüe tha t th is language lea rn ing

vs.

language use dichotomy is overly s implis t ic and diff icult to sus ta in

(Oxford and Cohén, 1992). They affirm that it is almost impossible to

determine a learner 's in tention in us ing a part icular s tra tegy and that

even i f a s t ra tegy is employed for the purpose of language use , lea rn ing

may in fact take place anyw'ay (Tarone, 1981, 1983; Littlewood, 1979;

Corder, 1983) . This integrat ive view of learning, production and com-

munication s tra tegies is implic i t in the work of several s tra tegy researchers

who s ee communica t ion and p roduc t ion s t r a teg ie s a s complemen ta ry

to the learning process (Wong Fil lmore, 1976; Stern, 1983; Chesterf ie ld

and Chesterfield, 1985; Oxford, 1990).

In v iew of th is background of conf l ic t ing theore t ica l pe rspec t ives

and conceptua l confus ión , a pos i t ion is needed which might media te

s omehow be tween the more ex t reme pos i t ions o f thos e who advóca te

either the tota l separat ion of LS, CS and PS or those who propose their

complete integrat ion within broader s tra tegy defini t ions . If , as we have

a l ready sugges ted , s t ra teg ies a re to be unders tood as goa l -d i rec ted ac -

t ions , then our posi t ion in this s tudy must , necessari ly , be c loser to the

theore t ica l pe rspec t ive he ld by those who descr ibe s t ra teg ies in te rms

of the goals they are sa id to pursue. Will ing (1989) has described the

goals of LS as the

'comprehe nsion, internalization, storage and setting

up of accessingpotentialfor usable data' and that of CS as 'the success-

ful transm ission and receiving of me ssages'

(1989, p. 143), but goes on

to rriake the very valid point that the realities referrecl to by these terms

can and do, in fact , overlap. In his opinión

'It is of course possible to

act in pursu it of two purpos es at once

(1989, p. 143).

From the perspective of our s tudy this overlapping is exactly what

occurs in an instructional setting such as that described in this research

where learning can be seen to take place through the act ive

and pur-

poseful use of the

FL

in meaningful situations.

If this is so, then how jus-

tifiable is it to sepárate strategies of learning from those of language use?

435




Y V E T T E C O Y L E A N D M A R I S O L V A L C Á R C E I .

Such a distinction may be appropriate in naturalistic SLA or in instructio-

nal settings which emphasize the formal study of language as a system

and where little communication takes place, but it is perhaps not the case

in classrooms w here , as Faerch and Kasper (1983) have suggested, learners

engage in communicative activities expressly for the purpose of learning.

This is the position held by Willing (1989) and the one to which

we ascribe in this study. What we are suggesting is that, in the primary

classroom, the goals pursued by strategies of language learning and

strategies of language use are essentially interrelated. Willing argües the

same point by describing how communicative classroom tasks in which

learners are expected to use the FL for a particular purpose (decision-

making, describing, exchanging information, etc.) involve the

joint

operation of both cognitive and communication strategies

for the actual

performance of the task itself and the linguistic resources needed for

doing so. In this sense he highlights the important links between the

processing and linguistic demands of classroom activities in which lan-

guage learning and language use are part of the same phenomenon.

The classification of children's strategies we propose in our research

does not distinguish between Learning and Communication Strategies,

but suggests that in the realization of classroom activities which focus

on the

use

of the FL, all the strategies employed by the pupils will nec-

essarily contribute to their FL learning.

6. ST UD IES O F CIIILDRKN'S LANGU AGE LEARNING STRATF.GIF.S

With very few exceptions the majority of research work on lan-

guage learning strategies has concentrated on the strategy use of young

adolescents and adults in ESL or L2 French situations. There are only

three studies that we know of which have looked at children's use oflearning strategies, and all within an ESL context (Wong Fillmore, 1976,

1979; Chesterfield and Chesterfield, 1985; Chamot and Beard El-Dinary,

1999). Given the scarcity of research work with young learners these

studies take on immense importance for their insights into children's

second language learning in a classroom context.

In the first of these studies Lily Wong Fillmore studied five Mexican

children aged between five and seven learning English at school in the

United States. The children were each paired with a native speaking

child and their interactions were recorded for one hour every week for

a period of nine months. These interactions enabled Wong Fillmore

436





to highlight the cognitive and social strategies used by these children

which she felt were responsible for improvements in their communicative

competence. Wong Fillmore emphasizes the importance of the social

strategies in this study, as the children's primary interest was in estab-

lishing friendships with their classmates. Learning the language was

their means of doing that. Linked to each social strategy is one or more

cognitive strategies which reflect important differences with the research

which has focused on adult strategy use. Given the age of the children

and the immersion situation of the bilingual classroom the cognitive

strategies identified here are related more to language comprehension

and use than to metacognitive awareness or the analysis of language

as a formal system. They suggest the imp ortance of the imm ediate context

of speech for understanding the linguistic input, C-l Assume what peo-

pie are saying is relevant to the situation at hand Metastrategy: Guess,

and the significant role played by formulaic speech in language produc-

tion, C-2 Get some expressions you understand and start talking. As

Skehan (1989) has pointed out underlying the Wong Fillmore study is

the theory that 'learning to talk involves talking to learn' (1989, p. 82)

for communication is facilitated by the use of ready-made expressions

which are then gradually broken down into their constituent parts, C-3

Look for recurring parts in the formulas you know, a process by which

children infer rather than analyze the rules of the linguistic system.

Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) have also examined the use of

learning strategies by young children in a bilingual classroom situation.

They studied both the range of strategies used by fourteen 5-6 year oíd

Mexican-American childrenand the order in which these strategies em erged

as the children's knowledge of the L2 improved. Eight of the fourteen

children were observed on three different occasions during their first

year at school and their strategy use recorded. This allowed the researchers

to compare and contrast the learning strategies of the eight children at

any one time and to analyse the variation in each of the children over

a longer period. The results of this study indicated that there did seem

to be a natural order for the emergence of learning strategies in young

children over a period of time. Chesterfield and Chesterfield reported

that children, regardless of their L2 proficiency, employed strategies foliow-

ing the same general pattern. The sequence of strategy use ranged from

primarily receptive, independent strategies such as Repetition and Me-

morization, to strategies such as Formulaic expressions and Verbal atten-

tion getters which permitted children to initiate and sustain interactions.

Those strategies which required greater linguistic competence, for example

437




Y V E T T E C O Y L E A N D M A R I S O L V A I . C Á R G E L

Elaboration, Appeal for assistance, Request for clarification or some degree

of metacognitive awareness, Monitoring, were the last to emerge, and

even then were developed by only a few children.

In the light of these findings the 'natural order' theory can be seen

to have important implications for classroom teaching. Chesterfield and

Chesterfield feel that the child's progress in the TL would be enhanced

by educational experiences constructed to foster the development of

these learning strategies. They suggest that language teaching methods

which generally emphasize the more elementary strategies of repetition

and memorization may be neglecting those strategies, which according

to their study, promote greater interaction (and henee learning) among

children. What the Chesterfields seem to be implying is the need for

instruction to encourage children to engage in, in O'Malley's terms, more

active mental processing.

More recently, Chamot and Beard El Dinary (1999) have carried out

a study of children's learning strategies in foreign language classroom

immersion classrooms in the USA. The focus of their study was on iden-

tifying the strategies that more and less effective learners use for reading

and writing tasks in French, Japanese and Spanish FL classrooms. Using

think aloud protocols, Chamot and Beard analysed the children's appre-

ciations of how they approached different tasks and, in doing so, were

able to identify a hierarchically organized coding scheme of Metacogni-

tive and Cognitive learning strategies. Qualitative analyses of the inter-

view transcripts revealed important differences between more and less

effective learners as regards the appropriateness of their use of learn-

ing strategies for specific tasks. Effective learners were seen to be more

flexible in their strategy use and better at monitoring and inferencing

than less effective learners who tended to cling to single strategies such

as laborious decoding of individual words, seemingly unaware of its

uneffectiveness for the task in hand.

The Chamot and Beard study is important for the insights it pro-

vides into the language learning processes of young children in immer-

sion education. It is also relevant to our study on a number of accounts.

Firstly, the coding scheme developed by the researchers is the first of

its kind to be applied to children's learning and it is significant that

many of the learning strategies identified there have much in common

with the findings of our research. Secondly, as regards the data collec-

tion techniques used, we too share the satisfaction expressed by Chamot

and Beard on the successful use of 'think aloud' procedures in children.

This aspect of our study is discussed below.

438





7 . S T U D Y P A R T IC I PA N T S A N D D A TA C O U . K C T I O N I' R O C E D U R E S

The study reported on in this paper formed part of a larger two

year longitudinal research project on the teaching and learning of

English as a foreign language in the primary classroom. Specifically, it

focuses on identifying and classifying the LS used by young children

in their attempts to learn English. The present study was carried out

with a sample of eight children from the same class, identified by their

teacher to be effective language learners, during their first two years of

EFL instruction in a Spanish state primary school.

Data for the main study included classroom observations of over

50 hours teaching, all of which were video recorded for transcription

and analysis. The sub-study described here used data gathered from

these observations as well as from retrospective and think-aloud interviews

(see Table 1), which have been favoured by LS researchers for the rich

information they can provide of students' mental processing. It was

hoped that this would also be the case here, in spite of the age limi-

tations of the subjects involved. The interviews we conducted were de-

signed to access the children's reported thoughts

while

or

immediately

after

working on activities (storytelling, playing games, writing a com-

position) they were familiar with in the classroom. The children were

encouraged to verbalize their thoughts aloud, using their Ll, and were

prompted by the interviewer to clarify and elabórate on their comments

when necessary. All seven interviews were either video taped (1-3) or

audio taped (4-7), and transcribed for analysis.

8 . D A T A A N A L Y S I S P R O C K D U R E S

The analysis of the observation and interview data proceeded as

follows. Three raters working together first viewed 30 hours of class-

room interaction, corresponding to three complete Teaching Units,

in order to identify and agree on observable behaviours (eg. spon-

taneously ini t ia t ing an exchange with the teacher) which would

suggest that children were using, albeit subconsciously, part icular

learning s t ra tegies . Then, working independent ly, the same three

raters analysed all the interview protocols, marking each occurrence

of a potential learning technique and transferring the verbal data onto

coding sheets for each interview. Through discussion the raters com-

pared and contrasted their data to reach an agreement on the nature

439





Table 1.

N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Technique

Stimulated

Recall

Immediate

Retrospection

Immediate

Retrospection

Immediate

Retrospection

Immediate

retrospection

Delayed

Retrospection

Evaluative

Participant

Stnicture

Small

group (3)

2 small

groups (4)

4 pairs

Individual

4 pairs

Individual

Individual

Activity

Song

Oral description of

model house

Story

S tuden t s ' wr i t t en

compositions

Board game

FL contents worked

on in class

Focus

Initial exploration of children's

ability to verbalize information

on processes of FL compre-

hension, retention.

Strategies used in FL oral pro-

duction; influence of Ll on

FL production; FL rehearsal;

Ss reaction to error; etc.

Strategies for retention and oral

production; importance of Ss

previous knowledge.

Strategies for FL written pro-

duction; strategies of analysis.

Oral FL production; social

strategies.

General questions on children's

attitude and motivation towards

EFL learning

Evaluation of the children's EFL

competence.

of the learning techniques and the appropriateness of the discursive

examp les identified, eliminating any techniques w hich w ere con sidered

ambiguous or which had been marked by only one rater. The inter-

views were then anaysed once again using the revised list of learn-

ing techniques.

In order to créate a typology of interrelated actions, the learning

techniques identified from the empirical data were then grouped into

the b roader category of Learning Strategies, again after previous discussion

and consensus of opinión. These categories were theoretically driven

and included M etacognitive, Social/Affective and Cognitive learning strate-

gies previously identified in the research literature on learning strategies.

The definitions w e have u sed in our classification of children's FL learning

strategies are presented below.

44




CHILDKEN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM

Metacognit ive Strategies

Strategy

S E L F M A N A G E M E N T

O'Malley

et al.

(1985); Chamot

et al.

(1987); O 'Malley

&

Chamot (1990); Oxford

(1990);

Wenden (199D; Oxford

Cohén

(1992); Chamot

Beard (1999)

P L A N N I N G

O'Malley

etal.

(1985); Chamot

etal.

(1987,

1988); O'Malley

Chamot (1990); Oxford

(1990); Wenden (199D; Oxford

and

Cohén

(1992); Chamot

Beard (1999)

S E L F M O N I T O R I N G

Naiman

et al.

(1978); Rubin (1981,

1987); Chesterfield

Chesterfield (1985);

O'Malley

et al.

(1985); Chamot

et al.

(1987, 1988); O'Malley

Chamot (1990);

Ellis (1986); Oxford (1990); Wenden

(1991);

Chamot

Beard (1999)

Stude nt-initiated strategic behav iour

The child's ability to regualte or support

his

own

learning process

by

developing

an understanding of the conditions or

circumstances that will promote better

or

more successful learning

Deciding in advance to attend to a learning

task

and

ignore distractions

and

proposing

strategies

for

carrying

out a

language task

individually

or in

groups.

The child's awareness of 'on-line' diffi-

culties

or

problems

in the

performance

of a language task as well as their at-

tempts

to

correct their

own

speech

for

accuracy

in

pronunciation, grammar

or

vocabulary.

Social /Affective Strateg ies

Strategy

COOPERATING WITH OTHERS

Wong Fillmore (1976); O'Malley

et al.

(1985); Chamot

etal.

(1987, 1988); O'Malley

and Chamot (1990); Oxford (1990)

R E G U L A T I N G C L A S S R O O M B E H A V I O U R

Cathcart (1985)

D E V E L O P I N G A P O S I T I V E A T T I T U D E T O W A R D S

THE

FL

Oxford (1990)

S E L F - C O N F I D E N C E

Naiman

et al.

(1978); Chesterfield

and

Chesterfield (1985); Oxford (1990);

SHOWING INTEREST IN THE FL OUTSIDE THE

CLASSROOM

Naiman

et al.

(1978)

Stude nt-initiated strategic behav iour

Helping other children

to

understand

or

use

the FL or to

solve

a

problem

in

class

Trying

to

control

the

behaviour

of

other

children

by

getting them

to

comply

to

their ideas, beliefs, class rules, etc.

Expressing positive feelings towards

the

study

of the FL

Using

the FL

confidently w ithout fear

or

anxiety

Being aware

of and

interested

in

examples

of

the

FL

outside

the

school environment

441




YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL

Cognit ive

Strategy

U S I N G P R I O R K N O W L E D G E

O'Malley etal. (1985); Chamot etal. (1987,

1988);

O'Malley

&

Cham ot (1990); Oxford

(1990);

Oxford and Cohén (1992); Chamot

& Beard (1999)

I N F E R E N C I N G

Wong Fillmore (1976); Rubin

(1981,

1989);

O'Malley

et al.

(1985); Chamot

et

al.

(1987, 1988); O'Malley

Chamot

(1990);

Oxford (1990); Chamot

Beard

(1999)

U S I N G V I S U A L ,

A U D I T O R Y A N D

K I N E T I C

IMA GERY

Rubin

(1981,

1989); O'Malley

etal.

(1985);

Chamot

et al.

(1987, 1988); O'Malley

Chamot (1990); Oxford (1990); Oxford

Cohén (1992)

REPETUION

O'Malley

etal.

(1985); Chamot

etal.

(1987,

1988);

O'Malley & Chamot (1990); Chester-

field & Chesterfield (1985); Rubin (1989);

Oxford

Cohén (1992)

L A N G U A G E A N A L Y S I S

Wong Fillmore (1976); Rubin

(1981,

1989);

O'Malley

et al.

(1985); Chamot

et al.

(1987,

1988); O'Malley

Chamot (1990);

Oxford (1990); Oxford

Cohén (1992);

Chamot

Beard

BUILDING AUTONOMOUS DlSCOURSE

O'Malley

et

al .

(1985); Oxford (1990)

OVERCOMING LlMITATIONS

IN FL

K.NOWLEDGE

Faerch

and

Kasper (1983) ; C order

(1983);

Oxford

and

Cohén (1992); Tarone

(1977);

Oxford (1990); Oxford

and

Cohén

(1992)

S t r a t e g i e s

Student-initiated strategic behaviour

Relating

new

information

to

previous

knowledge

to

understand meaning

in the

FL

Using contextual

or

physical clues

to

make

sense

of the

m eanings being expressed

in

the FL

The retention

and

recall

of

specific

FL

vocabulary

and

expressions

by

means

of

physical, visual

and

gestural imagery

Voluntary

on

task repetition

of FL

voca-

bulary

and

m odels

and

voluntary repeti-

tion

of

FL input outside

the

class

The application

of

learned

or

self-dev-

eloped rules

to

understand

or

produce

the

FL

Constructing meanings

in the

FL

by

com-

bining known vocabulary

and

patterns

in

a

new way.

Attempts

to

communicate

in the FL in

spite

of

having only limited linguistic

knowledge

44




C H IL DR E N' S L E AR NING S T R AT E G IE S IN T H E P R IM AR Y F L C L AS S R OOM

9 . R E S U L TS A N D D I S C U S S I O N

As far as we are aware, the typology of Learning Strategies pre-

sented in this study is the first to have highlighted the types of thoughts

and behaviours used by children as young as eight and nine years oíd

for learning English in a foreign language classroom setting. The analy-

sis of the interview transcripts, coupled with the classroom observation,

has revealed a variety of techniques and strategies being put into prac-

tice by young EFL learners. The typology we present here includes

Metacognitive and Social/Affective strategies on the one hand and Cog-

nitive strategies on the other, with the latter classified according to the

higher level processes of

Comprehension, Retention and Language Use

which they work to enhance and develop. At a more specific level, most

strategy types are manifested through several different learning techni-

ques.

The following tables ¿Ilústrate the hierarchical grouping we have

made of Process, Strategy and Technique and include examples for each

technique extracted from the interview and classroom data. The number

after each excerpt refers either to the interview or to the Teaching Unit

from which the example was taken.

443




M

e

a

v

S

a

e

e

S

r

a

e

e

S

E

L

F

M

A

N

A

G

E

M

E

N

T

ñ

q

D

d

n

n

a

t

o

u

t

h

F

n

t

h

c

a

m

M

a

n

a

e

o

t

o

c

o

c

a

m

a

v

e

w

D

d

n

t

o

p

a

e

n

o

t

o

t

h

te

h

n

c

a

D

d

n

t

o

p

a

e

n

o

t

o

o

h

c

h

d

n

s

o

p

o

t

o

le

n

f

r

m

t

h

m

E

m

e

S

S

h

a

m

e

e

p

e

b

o

p

a

q

n

n

o

g

E

o

S

á

ú

a

q

h

a

e

e

p

E

¿

T

n

h

a

e

e

p

n

E

o

E

o

A

p

n

p

o

c

e

a

m

p

y

e

m

m

a

d

n

é

s

p

o

a

a

y

n

A

a

y

s

m

b

e

y

o

q

n

e

e

m

s

o

d

m

a

D

M

a

a

y

é

n

o

e

c

e

i

n

é

(5

I

n

¿

Q

h

p

a

c

e

b

e

a

u

p

o

e

o

?

E

Y

n

e

o

h

o

o

d

e

I

n

¿

Y

e

c

a

q

h

E

P

n

o

h

o

d

o

d

o

m

o

p

b

e

P

q

y

q

e

o

q

m

v

q

s

o

s

o

(

6

S

P

y

n

e

o

n

e

o

o

p

b

e

p

a

p

e

e

o

l

a

p

a

o

a

p

a

a

e

n

é

n

e

o

c

v

a

e

m

J

V

(

R

e

n

o

h

e

C

d

c

a

g

q

n

h

m

d

e

o

p

e

o

m

a

e

ó

(

6

I

n

¿

C

e

q

p

a

e

d

o

c

m

o

Y

S

I

n

¿

P

q

Y

P

q

h

a

g

q

s

o

m

s

o

q

o

o

y

o

q

s

o

m

s

o

p

s

y

n

s

d

u

f

a

p

s

a

d

c

e

o

b

e

p

y

c

m

o

h

o

d

v

a

v

p

s

d

c

a

(

6

n O >•

z

O

J n




P

N

S

E

M

O

T

O

N

M

e

n

a

y

r

h

n

t

h

a

n

d

d

t

o

p

c

p

e

n

a

u

c

m

i

n

a

v

y

T

n

n

n

L

t

o

p

p

w

t

e

n

o

p

o

C

n

y

o

w

m

i

s

a

n

t

h

c

m

p

h

n

o

p

t

o

p

a

o

o

t

h

F

I

n

C

e

s

q

h

a

y

s

s

q

D

M

v

a

p

e

a

a

o

¿

e

e

a

c

o

q

v

s

a

e

o

e

p

á

s

a

q

o

p

e

e

y

e

o

e

m

s

a

p

?

E

N

e

a

m

p

a

v

o

q

v

m

a

d

Y

y

p

e

o

l

o

q

v

a

d

p

q

a

o

m

o

e

á

m

o

p

e

o

y

s

e

o

s

o

d

q

e

p

o

d

g

I

n

V

m

a

v

J

o

V

c

e

c

e

á

e

b

e

e

b

e

e

n

é

¿

e

á

p

e

e

p

y

u

o

v

p

e

e

n

é

o

e

á

p

d

e

a

m

e

e

n

é

J

V

P

e

o

p

m

o

u

p

e

e

p

I

n

P

m

o

u

p

e

e

p

¿

Y

u

q

h

o

a

J

V

S

(

4

I

n

¿

S

a

s

d

e

n

é

c

e

h

s

d

o

p

o

e

m

S

D

o

d

e

ó

m

s

o

m

L

c

m

H

J

V

H

(

3

O

S

O

>

z o

A

T

í

t

1

5




S

a

A

e

v

S

a

e

e

S

r

a

e

e

C

N

W

I

T

O

R

G

N

C

R

M

B

O

D

O

N

A

P

O

T

V

A

T

T

O

W

A

L

N

T

T

q

H

p

n

o

h

c

h

d

n

w

h

c

a

r

m

a

v

e

(

c

m

p

h

n

o

r

n

o

p

o

C

n

o

h

c

h

d

n

s

m

i

s

t

a

(

c

m

p

h

n

o

p

c

a

o

u

o

t

h

F

I

n

s

n

t

h

o

h

c

h

d

n

u

F

d

n

c

a

m

a

v

e

E

n

a

p

e

n

f

o

E

l

s

h

o

o

h

s

u

e

E

m

e

S

(

T

k

n

a

a

c

m

o

h

h

w

e

n

c

a

C

m

v

a

c

n

a

e

e

a

e

o

m

c

m

o

J

u

P

o

t

a

m

é

v

a

c

n

a

e

e

c

q

y

n

e

e

y

é

s

a

s

p

y

s

a

p

e

o

y

a

c

q

é

n

s

y

y

s

m

a

p

e

a

y

a

v

a

c

q

n

e

e

m

e

e

l

o

d

a

p

m

a

e

(

4

S

(

R

e

n

o

a

s

o

h

v

e

n

n

c

a

y

u

d

c

t

w

t

n

w

n

w

q

s

o

S

q

s

o

a

s

a

J

P

S

(

o

b

n

s

o

a

v

a

(

1

(

A

n

a

a

w

n

q

o

a

p

c

u

h

h

d

a

v

o

t

h

r

d

m

h

S

B

g

n

s

m

b

o

m

F

b

o

m

b

o

m

B

g

o

s

m

d S

B

g

o

s

m

?

J

L

J

u

P

o

¿

C

a

p

a

a

e

u

c

J

P

O

S

E

s

h

n

S

s

h

(

U

I

n

¿

P

q

e

g

a

e

n

é

m

q

a

o

a

a

g

u

a

Y

P

q

h

u

e

o

p

b

e

v

c

n

a

d

v

d

e

l

a

o

a

e

q

e

a

s

e

m

e

e

u

a

h

e

d

e

h

c

e

e

e

c

c

o

(

6

O

O e O

> sn




S

E

C

D

S

H

O

W

I

N

I

N

T

I

N

T

F

O

D

T

C

R

M

H

n

c

d

n

n

y

a

y

t

o

u

a

a

u

t

h

F

U

n

t

h

F

n

c

a

w

h

b

n

f

r

g

e

n

d

o

m

a

n

m

i

s

t

a

A

c

p

n

a

a

w

t

o

t

h

t

e

h

s

q

o

U

n

t

h

F

a

h

m

e

w

h

f

a

m

y

m

e

m

b

o

n

t

h

p

a

w

h

f

r

e

n

N

c

n

e

m

p

e

o

t

h

F

o

t

h

t

e

e

s

ó

n

a

s

m

e

n

s

o

e

c

E

E

b

p

o

e

o

p

q

a

a

m

s

m

n

o

o

s

m

m

c

q

y

s

o

h

p

e

a

a

o

o

c

o

d

o

a

e

c

a

q

n

o

s

a

o

n

e

á

a

e

e

a

o

c

m

n

o

o

S

Y

p

e

o

q

y

s

m

d

n

é

q

p

e

e

m

o

a

a

g

e

g

h

a

(

6

I

n

¿

T

e

m

e

a

e

v

e

c

h

a

e

n

é

J

L

N

s

m

e

v

y

s

q

m

h

e

v

o

d

g

b

e

E

C

n

e

á

g

a

e

v

d

m

d

g

q

m

e

v

q

(6

I

n

¿

T

g

a

e

a

a

m

p

a

c

e

a

o

n

J

L

L

o

a

m

y

e

m

e

a

d

m

m

m

p

e

(

6

S

D

g

e

c

o

o

q

s

o

o

q

p

p

a

p

e

o

z

m

p

a

a

o

a

a

g

u

a

y

a

m

é

p

a

p

a

e

m

c

y

m

v

e

o

s

o

a

y

u

e

m

s

p

e

y

t

o

e

o

y

y

e

m

e

a

h

a

e

n

é

e

m

e

a

d

e

o

a

m

e

q

h

a

e

d

o

n

e

m

e

a

c

a

e

c

o

e

m

e

a

c

a

e

m

c

y

e

o

a

m

s

p

A

m

s

p

e

l

e

d

m

g

o

p

q

m

s

p

e

q

e

e

q

y

s

a

c

e

a

d

d

p

o

e

o

a

(

6

I

n

¿

F

a

d

c

a

e

n

e

e

v

c

e

n

é

E

o

S

p

q

m

a

u

a

m

g

m

o

m

d

o

u

c

n

a

q

o

e

a

q

o

e

a

e

n

é

y

y

a

e

S

T

m

é

c

h

p

c

a

E

q

y

e

u

c

n

g

é

(6

5

z

z z

>

j

o




C

v

S

a

e

e

C

M

P

R

H

N

O

S

r

a

e

e

U

N

P

R

O

L

K

W

L

I

N

N

T

q

U

n

p

o

k

w

e

d

o

t

h

a

v

y

s

r

u

u

(

g

m

e

s

o

e

U

n

p

o

k

w

e

d

o

t

h

t

o

c

o

c

e

G

u

n

m

e

n

f

r

m

t

h

t

e

h

s

g

a

m

o

a

e

d

o

p

(

n

o

o

v

u

m

e

p

s

r

G

n

m

e

n

f

r

m

p

c

u

r

o

e

b

a

k

d

d

w

n

v

d

s

q

n

E

m

e

I

n

¿

V

o

o

e

s

u

d

e

o

e

c

S

Y

s

e

e

u

d

a

o

q

e

p

e

d

a

é

e

J

P

Y

y

I

n

Y

ú

a

m

é

E

o

ú

s

p

a

r

e

a

o

p

q

s

u

?

S

P

q

s

m

o

u

(

5

I

n

(

A

n

h

w

h

h

u

o

h

s

o

T

V

H

C

t

e

p

a

¿

E

o

e

o

s

a

p

q

y

s

a

o

q

p

a

u

o

u

E

A

p

o

e

o

y

y

o

s

a

I

n

¿

D

o

h

a

e

u

a

E

P

e

q

a

m

é

y

c

e

e

e

m

p

d

o

g

p

y

c

o

g

y

u

h

e

e

c

o

y

u

s

e

a

m

p

y

y

p

h

I

n

¿

Y

c

m

o

s

d

c

c

o

e

n

é

E

C

(

3

I

n

(

C

n

t

h

r

c

m

o

o

a

s

o

h

h

e

n

i

n

c

a

¿Y

e

o

q

e

d

p

n

d

?

J

P

P

q

e

u

p

a

a

y

u

d

c

q

e

e

o

a

g

a

S

E

o

D

M

s

p

a

(

c

c

e

h

e

w

h

h

h

J

L

E

a

e

o

y

v

o

q

h

d

o

(

1

J

P

D

M

e

u

p

e

e

a

p

z

a

a

g

c

S

D

b

a

y

m

a

d

d

m

s

w

p

y

s

e

w

v

h

m

J

P

Y

D

M

n

o

p

a

e

d

b

o

y

u

n

o

o

e

a

m

q

d

o

(

1

•

n

O > c

p




R

N

O

A

R

E

S

r

a

e

e

V

S

A

T

O

K

N

C

I

M

A

T

q

A

o

a

n

v

a

a

a

g

m

o

s

w

h

h

e

h

s

g

u

R

n

v

a

a

a

g

m

o

s

r

m

b

a

k

d

d

w

n

a

p

c

u

n

s

o

b

s

d

v

d

m

a

e

c

R

n

v

a

a

a

g

m

o

s

n

a

o

a

o

w

h

t

h

h

m

a

c

c

e

n

w

c

h

t

h

w

r

n

r

d

A

o

a

n

v

a

a

a

g

m

o

s

w

h

p

c

a

t

o

E

m

e

J

P

A

m

D

M

,

c

c

a

a

c

ó

c

d

a

b

d

h

a

a

(

p

e

o

d

g

w

h

a

s

p

(

2

I

n

¿

Y

c

m

o

o

a

d

s

d

c

o

ú

q

o

h

c

a

s

n

m

r

a

o

c

m

o

e

a

d

d

o

S

P

y

m

e

a

d

p

q

o

v

m

o

d

v

y

o

v

d

v

e

e

v

d

y

D

M

a

v

n

p

c

m

o

a

v

n

n

a

d

m

o

b

e

d

a

c

n

p

e

v

d

y

o

r

e

c

d

m

o

y

u

y

m

e

a

d

p

q

c

y

d

a

g

d

n

é

s

m

a

e

y

s

m

e

m

e

e

a

c

y

n

s

m

o

v

d

(

3

I

n

(

A

n

a

v

a

A

v

J

V

¿

ú

d

c

e

e

a

d

m

o

?

J

V

D

a

q

s

e

e

e

c

o

y

a

g

o

a

(

3

E

O

a

c

q

n

a

a

r

e

d

e

a

c

D

M

.

c

a

u

n

m

b

e

s

ú

o

d

a

y

o

a

a

u

o

p

a

e

e

p

p

e

o

a

m

é

n

a

a

m

(

3

n

O

i z

w

•

o

5

C

J

s

o

OOS




C

v

S

a

e

e

(

c

)

R

N

O

A

R

E

V

S

r

a

e

e

R

T

O

T

q

V

u

a

n

c

a

r

p

o

o

v

c

a

a

m

o

s

p

s

n

e

d

b

h

e

h

P

a

u

y

r

p

n

o

o

o

w

h

r

e

n

o

d

c

a

n

w

w

d

n

m

b

s

o

e

c

R

r

n

c

a

e

s

b

t

o

r

m

e

m

b

n

w

v

a

V

u

a

y

r

p

n

h

e

h

s

c

v

e

d

k

E

m

e

T

F

m

g

n

o

b

d

a

h

S

w

h

a

s

o

n

r

o

T

w

h

a

c

m

a

S

w

h

a

c

m

a

T

s

o

n

r

o

S

s

o

n

r

o

T

o

(

T

U

J

L

y

m

u

v

y

v

p

e

o

n

m

e

o

c

o

m

a

(

e

a

v

h

e

p

o

w

h

e

f

o

f

v

v

c

á

o

(

1

I

n

¿

Q

e

u

a

o

f

n

d

s

m

S

S

y

a

v

c

m

o

m

e

o

e

(

e

n

o

h

e

s

b

p

a

a

d

c

e

o

s

o

a

p

m

e

p

a

e

u

a

y

a

n

e

o

a

d

I

n

Y

c

d

c

q

e

u

a

¿

h

v

o

d

b

o

o

e

o

?

S

N

y

a

p

n

p

o

v

o

d

b

o

y

a

o

re

d

o

q

e

y

l

u

m

e

p

a

e

y

y

s

o

q

e

I

n

¿

Y

e

b

a

m

é

o

n

S

C

n

c

c

m

s

a

m

e

e

m

a

a

e

h

e

m

d

c

a

d

n

é

e

o

y

m

u

v

c

o

e

á

z

y

u

h

a

o

m

p

e

b

o

y

e

m

p

e

a

d

c

a

d

h

a

y

u

c

d

p

d

e

o

m

p

a

e

o

y

y

m

o

s

(

3

T

F

e

m

e

I

w

o

b

s

a

m

o

s

e

e

w

e

d

I

g

J

L

p

o

c

T

I

g

o

h

p

o

c

J

L

I

g

o

h

p

o

c

(

T

U

n




U

O

L

A

F

O

O

W

R

T

N

C

M

M

U

C

O

S

r

a

e

e

L

A

S

B

L

N

A

O

M

O

D

S

C

E

ñ

q

I

n

n

p

o

c

r

u

e

f

r

m

t

h

a

n

A

y

n

e

n

d

r

u

e

t

o

u

s

a

p

t

h

F

U

n

u

y

d

f

o

m

u

a

S

a

y

n

a

n

a

e

c

h

w

h

t

h

t

e

h

o

a

o

h

p

n

t

h

F

I

n

p

n

t

h

t

e

h

s

f

e

d

b

k

n

o

w

e

n

p

o

E

m

e

I

n

V

o

o

d

s

p

s

e

m

e

y

e

o

o

v

m

r

a

o

J

L

P

o

e

n

é

s

e

b

d

u

m

a

a

y

u

g

s

d

c

d

o

a

m

a

a

S

S

a

c

c

m

o

m

e

s

d

c

g

e

p

o

a

m

g

a

s

p

o

a

d

s

n

o

(

1

I

n

¿

H

s

o

d

a

D

M

d

a

e

a

e

¿

Y

s

s

c

e

a

d

e

e

a

e

e

e

y

a

e

?

J

V

Q

a

e

e

q

c

m

ó

y

e

e

q

c

m

e

I

n

B

e

m

b

e

¿

Y

c

m

o

o

s

J

V

P

q

a

m

c

d

a

e

e

o

m

o

d

o

(

3

I

n

A

p

(

p

n

n

o

h

b

a

d

T

s

W

e

d

¿

q

e

e

d

?

Y

Y

s

a

d

T

s

W

e

d

p

o

i

s

n

s

a

m

b

e

l

o

q

s

g

c

(

4

T

D

d

y

e

o

y

w

S

M

.

s

R

s

h

b

h

o

y

(

n

n

h

b

h

t

o

y

T

I

s

R

s

b

h

o

c

a

u

a

o

h

b

h

(

T

U

3

J

V

(

T

k

n

a

a

c

m

o

h

h

w

e

a

h

s

o

w

v

l

a

n

w

c

h

e

h

c

e

s

a

w

d

a

e

s

o

a

w

c

h

h

p

h

m

o

w

e

a

s

c

m

o

a

h

s

d

v

a

C

m

e

b

s

o

e

A

q

a

a

p

a

m

y

M

a

a

l

a

p

o

b

e

y

m

a

d

d

c

m

o

s

e

b

a

A

g

c

m

a

c

m

a

y

é

m

d

o

c

m

o

a

e

a

q

p

(

4

r

p

Z

O

O

> T

i

OO s




C

v

S

a

e

e

(

c

)

U

O

L

A

F

O

O

W

R

T

N

C

M

M

U

C

O

S

r

a

e

e

B

L

N

A

O

M

O

D

S

C

E

O

M

I

N

L

M

I

T

O

I

N

K

W

L

T

q

R

m

b

n

n

n

s

c

p

e

m

s

a

v

a

U

n

s

m

a

c

s

m

p

c

o

(c

e

n

w

d

O

n

z

d

u

o

s

A

k

n

h

e

h

o

a

h

p

o

h

p

U

n

g

u

E

m

e

I

n

W

h

d

y

k

d

n

a

h

w

S

L

se

o

m

c

s

u

E

s

h

a

m

h

m

c

W

a

c

n

e

e

v

s

ó

o

g

o

m

h

c

c

o

g

o

h

a

h

s

w

m

n

p

(

6

I

n

D

y

r

e

m

e

m

b

h

s

o

y

o

h

c

e

p

U

?

C

y

e

m

e

a

b

o

h

s

o

y

E

O

o

d

o

M

o

o

s

a

w

y

T

d

w

b

o

W

e

d

f

o

o

m

a

o

o

o

T

d

f

o

e

o

F

d

f

v

o

y

I

n

a

w

h

E

O

S

u

d

O

S

u

d

l

e

s

b

g

a

c

o

S

b

e

y

(

6

S

{

D

b

n

a

m

h

h

h

m

n

g

o

J

P

J

L

a

m

s

h

c

m

e

S

T

c

m

h

c

m

h

c

o

b

a

s

m

e

(

2

I

n

Y

c

e

á

s

h

a

y

d

r

e

e

u

p

a

a

n

s

s

d

a

¿

h

s

E

P

d

e

c

m

o

s

d

c

e

n

é

L

d

c

H

w

d

y

s

t

h

s

n

E

s

h

y

e

o

d

c

(

3

I

n

P

o

e

e

v

d

o

h

v

s

o

u

y

h

s

a

(

g

u

¿

N

h

á

s

p

s

Y

S

c

a

g

v

n

o

s

m

o

s

o

d

m

a

D

M

p

s

(

5

w

n

O

5

>

D

n




O

M

I

N

L

M

I

T

O

I

N

K

W

L

C

w

c

h

n

P

n

A

m

n

t

h

L

w

d

F

g

z

n

A

d

n

t

h

t

o

c

I

n

C

n

s

s

d

a

c

e

n

é

¿

m

a

d

s

Y

A

g

v

c

n

s

d

u

c

p

a

d

g

e

m

o

n

é

m

o

e

p

(

5

I

n

A

e

y

h

o

d

o

h

y

n

y

f

a

m

y

J

V

O

o

d

a

o

s

m

I

n

A

y

I

n

h

m

d

e

J

V

Y

(

7

I

n

W

h

a

y

b

o

m

W

h

f

u

n

u

e

c

y

f

n

E

T

w

b

a

w

d

o

w

I

n

A

h

n

e

s

E

N

a

n

a

I

n

L

g

E

Y

(

7

I

n

W

h

f

o

d

y

n

k

E

L

m

a

f

s

h

a

p

z

(

7

I

n

(

A

n

a

b

s

m

h

W

h

c

o

s

h

h

?

E

M

n

r

e

m

m

I

n

W

h

s

n

S

s

h

E

C

a

I

n

B

o

w

(

7

o

o

ü 3

o

z T n

i




Y V E T T E C O Y L E A N D M A R I S O L V A L C A R C E L

The children who took part in the research had been identified by

their teacher as 'good language learners', and so the techniques and

strategies they reported to be using can provide us with useful infor-

mation about the cognitive processes involved in initial EFL learning.

It would appear that effective learners are good at

managing their own

learning

both inside and outside the classroom, since they tend to

plan

for learning activities and monitor their use of the FL. Similarly they

enjoy cooperating with peers either helping with problems, correcting

mistakes or simply insisting that classroom rules are respected by all.

Affectively, these children are

highly motivated

by their English classes

and

confident

in their ability to use the FL, extending their enthusiasm

for learning to the world outside the classroom, where many of them

pay attention to the English they hear in songs or on televisión and

they actively seek out opportunities to try out their growing knowledge

of the language with friends and family. It is significant that there is a

certain amount of overlapping between the social and affective strate-

gies shown by these children and the Attitudinal Contents contained

in the Official Curriculum for foreign languages at primary level, in-

dicating, consequently, that one way of developing this área of the

curriculum would be by explicitly promoting such strategy use in the

classroom.

Indeed, an important finding, coinciding with Nisbet & Shucksmith

(1986),

was that the learning techniques reported by these effective

learners appeared to be closely linked to the classroom methodology

they experienced, that is to the type of communicative activities they

experienced and more importantly, to the way in which they were pre-

sented and carried out. Since English was the médium of instruction

used in this classroom, these children relied on their

background knowl-

edge

and

inferred meanings

from pictures, gestures, intonation and con-

textual information which helped them both understand and remember

the FL models and vocabulary, as did

self initiated repetition

in class

and home. Since oral production was a high priority in this classroom,

the children's speech revealed strategic interlanguage use in the form

of unanalysed formulas, recombinations of known patterns and vocabu-

lary,

use of

content words

or

compensatory

techniques to convey mes-

sages with their limited linguistic resources. Interestingly, some children

also showed evidence of having explicitly begun to form hypotheses

about the rules underlying their use of English. The question then is

not so much whether teachers can help children to learn or not, the

results of our research suggest that, at primary level, they already do,

454




CHILDREN'S

LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM

s ince many of the learn ing s t ra teg ies developed by these ch i ld ren seemed

to be mode l l ed on the t eacher ' s me thodo logy and app roach to l ea rn ing

English.

CONCLUSIONS

The importance of th is s tudy l ies , we bel ieve, in the insights i t can

offer for teachers of English to young learners. By explicit ly identify-

ing the types o f techniques and s t ra teg ies used by ch i ld ren to learn the

FL, and by making them avai lab le to teachers , we can help to ra i se

thei r awareness o f the ways in which they can promote successfu l

learning in their classrooms. Pedagogical ly , then, the resul ts of th is

s tudy po in t to a number o f immediate impl ica t ions . These include the

need for teachers to créate a supportive and affective learning environ-

ment; to establ ish explicit links betw een the FL con tent and the chil-

dren s previous knowledge; to make effect ive use of extralinguistic and

gestural support

to fac i l í t a te comprehension in the

FL;

to enco u rage the

product ive use o f Engl i sh by teach ing (and expla in ing)

routine formu-

las a n d b y encouraging children to express themselves as best they can,

despi te their l imited knowledge of the FL. Clearly , what is needed is

for teachers to incorpórate sound learn ing s t ra teg ies in to thei r t each ing ,

so that the in tui t ive use of these st rategies as shown by the more ef-

fec t ive learners cou ld be extended to all ch i ld ren and au tomat i zed a t

an ear ly age .

We wou ld l i ke to conc lude th i s paper by ind ica t ing ou r awareness

that the resul ts of th is s tudy have been obtained from only a small sam-

ple of eight learners . However, we also bel ieve that the ident i f icat ion

of these chi ldren 's learning st rategies represents a s ignif icant s tep in ed-

ucat ional research wi th in the área o f fo re ign languages . We also cons i -

der that fur ther s tudies of th is k ind, carr ied out with a greater number

of chi ldren, both more and less effect ive learners , would most cer tainly

provide fur ther insights in to the cogni t ive processes involved in in i t ial

FL learn ing in p r imary schools .

REFERENCES

BELTRÁN LLERA, J. (1993). Procesos, Estrategias y Técnicas de Aprend izaje,

Madrid, Síntesis.

455





BIALYSTOK, E. (1983). Som e factors in the select ion an d im plem enta t ion of

com m un ica t ion s t ra tegies , in Faerch, C ; Kasper, G. , Strategies in Inter-

language Communication,

L o n d o n , L o n g m a n .

—, (1990). Com mu nication Strategies, Oxford, Basi l Blackwell .

— , an d RYAN, E. B. (198 5). To w ard a definit ion of m etaling ua l skill , Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 3 1 , p p .

229-251.

CATHCART, R. (1986). Si tuat ional differences and th e sam pling of you ng chi l -

dren 's school l anguage , in Day, R . (ed. ) , Talking to Learn. Conversation

in Second Language Acquisition, Rowley Mass, New bury Hou se .

CHAMOT, A. U.; KÜPPER, L; IMPINK-HERNANDEZ, M. V. (1988). A study of

learning strategies in foreign language instruction: first year report,

Mclean, Va. Interstate Research Associates.

CHAMOT, A. U.; O'MALLEY, M. J.; KÜPPER, L; IMPINK-HERNANDEZ, M. V.

(1987). A study of learning strategies inforeign language instruction: find-

ings of the longitudinal study, Mclean, Va. Interstate Research Associates.

CHAM OT, A. U.; BEARD EL DINARY, P. (199 9). Ch ildren 's Learn ing Strategies

in Langu age Imm ers ion C la s srooms , Modern Language Journal, 8 3 / 3 ,

p p . 319-338.

CHESTERFIELD, R.; CHESTERFIELD, K. B. (198 5). Natural or de r in ch ildre n's us e

of second language learning st rategies , Applied Linguistics, 6, 1, pp. 45-59-

COHÉN, A. (1990). Langu age Learning: Lnsights for learners, teachers and re-

searchers, New York , Newbury House .

CORDER, P. (1983). Strategies of Co m m un icat ion , in Faerch , C ; Kasper, G.,

Strategies in Interlanguage Com mu nication,

London , Longm an.

DERRY, S. J.; MURPHY, D . A. (198 6). D esign ing System s that train lear nin g

Abil i ty: From Theory to Pract ice , Review of Edu cational Research, 56, 1,

p p . 1-39.

ELLIS,

R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford

Universi ty Press.

—, (1994). T he Study of Second Languag e Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford Uni -

versi ty Press.

FAERCH, C ; KASPER, G. (1980 ). Proc esses an d Strategies in foreign lan gu ag e

l ea rn ing an d com m unica t ion ,

The Lnterlanguage Studies Bulletin,

5, 1,

p p . 47-118.

—, (1983). Strategies in Lnterlanguage Communication, L o n d o n , L o n g m a n .

—, (1984) . Tw o w ays of def ining co m m unica t ion s t ra tegies ,

Language Learn-

ing, 3 4 / 1 , p p .

45-63.

—, (1987) . From pro du ct to pro cess - in t rospec t ive m eth od s in sec on d lan-

gu ag e research , in Faerch , C ; Kasper, G., Lntrospection in second lan-

guage research, Clevedon, UK. Mult i l ingual Matters .

MCCOM BS, B. L. (1988). M otivat ional Skills Training: Co m bining M etacog ni-

tive, Cognitive and Affective learning Strategies , in Weinstein, C. E.; Goetz,

E. T.; Alexander, P. (eds.), Learning and Study Strategies. Lssue s in Assess-

ment, Lnstruction and Evaluation, New York, Academic Press .

456




C H I L O R E N ' S L E A R N I N G S T R A T E G I E S I N T H E P R I M A R Y F L C L A S S R O O M

MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1990). 'Con scious ' versus 'un co ns cio us ' learning , TESOL

Quarterly, 24/4, pp. 617-634.

NAIMAN, N.

;

FROLICH, M.; STERN H. H.; TODESCO, A. (1978).

The good lan-

guage learner, Toronto, Ontario Inst i tute for s tudies in Educat ion.

NISBET, J.

;

SHUCKSMITH, J. (1986). Learning Strategies, London , Rout l edge ,

Kegan & Paul .

O'MALLEY, J. M.; CHAMOT, A. U.; STEWER-MANZANARES, G.; KÜPPER, L;

RUSSO, R. (1985a). Learning st rategies use d by beg inn ing an d interm e-

diate ESL students , Language Learning, 35, pp. 21-46.

—, (198 5b). Learning st rategy app l icat ions with stud en ts of Engl ish as a sec-

ond l anguage , TESO L Quarterly, 19, pp. 285-296.

O'MALLEY, J. M.; CHAMOT, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second lan-

guage Acquisitíon,

Cam bridge , CUP.

OXFORD, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every Teacher

should Know, New York , Newbury House .

—, an d COHÉN , A. (1992). Langu age Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues of

Concept and Classif icat ion , Applied Language Learning, 3/1-2, pp. 1-35.

RUBÍN, J. (1981). Study of cogn i t ive pro cess es in sec on d lan gu ag e learning ,

Applied Linguistics, 11 , pp . 117-131.

—, (1987). Learner s t rategies: The oret ical A ssum ptions Research History an d

Typology , in Wenden, A.; Rubin, J . , Learner Strategies in Language Learn-

ing, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall .

SCHMECK, R. (19 88 ). Ind ividu al Differences an d Learn ing Strategies , in

Weinstein, C. E.; Goetz, E. T.; Alexander, P. (eds.), Learning and Study

Strategies. Lssues in Assessm ent, Instruction and Evaluation, New York,

Academic Press .

SCHMIDT, R. (1990). The role of con scio usn ess in lang uag e learning , Applied

Linguistics, 11, pp. 129-158.

SELIGER, H. (199 1). Strategy an d Tactics in Se co nd La ng uag e Acqu isition , in

Malave, L. M.; Duquet te , G. (eds.) , Language, Culture and Cognition,

Clevedon, Mult i l ingual Matters .

SELINKER, L. (19 72). In terla ng ua ge , International Review of Applied Linguis-

tics,

X / 3 , p p .

201-231.

SKEHAN, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Langu age Learning, Lon-

don , Edward Arnold .

STERN, H. H. (1983). Fund amental Concepts of Language Teaching, Oxford,

Oxford Universi ty Press.

TARONE, E. (1977). Con scious com m un icat ion st rategies in Interla ng uag e: A

Progress Report , in Brown, H. D. et al. (eds . ) , On Tesol '77, Washington

D.C., TESOL.

—, (1980). Co m m unicat ion st rategies, foreigner ta lk an d repair in interlangu age ,

Language Learning, 30/2, pp.

417-431.

—, (1981) . Some tho ug hts on the not ion of com m un ica t ion s t rategies ,

TESOL

Quarterly, 15/3, pp. 285-295.

457





—, (1983)- On the variabil ity of interlang uag e system s ,

Applied Linguistics,

4/2, pp. 142-163.

WEINSTEIN, C. E.; MAYER, R. E. (1986 ). The T eac hin g of L earning Strategies ,

in Wittrock, M. C. (ed.),

Hand book of Research on Te aching,

New York ,

MacMillan.

WENDEN, A. (1987). Incorporat ing learn er t raining in the classroom , in W ende n,

A.; Rubin, J.,

Learner Strategies in Language Learning,

Englewood Cliffs,

N.J., Prentice Hall.

—, (1991)-

Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy,

N ew York, Pren t ice Hall .

—, and RUBÍN, J. (1987).

Learner Strategies in Language Learning,

E n g l e w o o d

Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.

WILLING, K. (1989).

Te aching H ow to Learn. Learning Strategies in ESL,

M ac-

quarie Universi ty, Sydney, National Centre for English Language Teaching

and Research .

WONG FILLMORE, L. (1976).

T he second time

around:

C ognitive and social

strategies in second language acquisition,

unpubl i shed Ph.D. d isser ta t ion ,

Stanford University.

—, (1979). Individual differences in sec on d lang uag e acquisi t ion , in Fi l lm ore,

C. J.; Wang, W.-S. Y.; Kempler, D. (eds.),

Individu al differences in lan-

guage ahility and language hehaviour, New York , Academic Press .

—, (1982). The lang uag e learn er as an individual: Im plicat ions of rese arch on

individual differences for the ESL teacher , in Clark, M.; Handscombe, J .

(eds . ) ,

On TESOL '82,

Washington, DC, TESOL.

Documents

CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGBES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM