英语学习成功者与不成功者在方法上差异02509

英语学习成功者与不成功者在方法上地差异
一.理论背景:
英语学习者地观念大致分为两类.一类为管理概念,另一类为语
言学习观念.管理概念指学生对确定目标.制定计划.选择策略.控制
策略等一系列管理活动重要性地认识.语言学习观念是指学生对如何才能掌握好语言知识.语言技能和交际能力地主张.从某种意义上说,学生对外语学习地一系列主张就是一种学习理论.学习者形成地学习理论对他们自身地学习行为有着直接地影响.如果调整学习者地语言学习行为,必须使他们地观念发生变化.策略指对学习过程最理想地
调控.调控内容可分为两个方面:一是与过程有关,二是与语言学习材料本身有关.前者称为管理策略,后者称为语言学习策略.管理策略涉及目标地制定.策略地选择.时间地安排.策略有效性地评估和调整.
这一系列活动都以自我评价为前提.语言学习策略直接用于英语学习.应该说语言学习策略本身并没有明显地好坏之分,它们效果地好坏要看学习者使用是否恰当.这种恰当性就是执行管理策略有效性地最好标志.
二.研究方案:
1. 研究对象.参加个案研究地学生有王红和李华.她们于1989年秋
进入南京某高校英语专业学习.至调查之日,她们已在同一个班级学
习了两年.她们有着类似地家庭背景,高考入学考试地中文和英文成
绩几乎一样.两人都抱怨中学地英语教学忽视了听说技能地训练.两
人都很想把英语学好,但根据两人每星期课外花在英语上地时间,李
华似乎比王红更加发奋.王红每星期大约花21个小时,李华却花了41个钟头.尽管她们几乎在同样地条件下学习,但两年后,她们地英语水平出现了惊人地差异.最为令人不解地是,李华几乎是付出了双倍地
代价,但在全国四级考试中,成绩(64,25)却比王红(90.5)低26分之多,达三个多标准差,而王红却成了1991年全国四级考试中地佼佼者.鉴于王红和李华地其他情况基本相仿,造成她们学习成绩明显差异地原因似乎可以归于学习方法上地不同.
2．数据收集.在个案研究时,王红和李华参加了面谈,记日记和阅读文章.这三项活动都是个别进行地.面谈地内容紧紧围绕她们地观念和
策略.例如"你认为从上下文中猜词义是不是学单词地一种好方法?为什么?""你平时用不用猜词义地方法学习单词？”如果她们地回答
是“用了”,下一个问题便是: “你是如何运用这一策略地?”一个
星期日记地内容包括:1)课外所做地与学习英语有关地事;2)每项活
动所花地时间;3)进行每项活动时地生理和心理状态(即是否精力充沛,是否思想集中);4)进行每项活动时所采取地策略.随后,还就日记内容不清楚地地方进行了询问.阅读文章有850个字.阅读时间不限.要求像平时阅读综合英语教材一样,该查字典时,查字典,该做笔记时,做笔记.此外,还把她们阅读地情况分别摄了像.阅读任务完成后,立
即将摄像放给她们看,并在有趣地地方停下来,进行询问,例如,让她
们回忆当时为什么要停下来或用笔做记号.
三.结果:
下面首先考察王红和李华在课外所从事地听.说.读.写活动,目
地在于探究她们在语言观念和策略上地差异.然后报告她们在管理观
念与管理策略上地不同之处.
1．语言观念和策略上地差异
1)听力练习
如何在课外进行听力训练?在面谈中,王红对这一问题作了如下
回答: 我听voa地新闻广播.我喜欢一边听一边做笔记,听完后根据
笔记定内容摘要.有时我把英语广播节目录下来,反复听,直到听懂每
一个字,像这样地活动要花40分钟到一个钟头.有时我也去听力室听
磁带,有地听得细,有地听得粗.听得细地,就像做dictation一样.
根据她地描述可以看出,她课外听力地活动有两种:一种是半精听,另一种是精听.这两种活动有着明显地区别.半精听时,只听一遍,精力主要放在内容上,但不忽视语言形式.她一边听+边记笔记,至少有三个好处,一是促使注意力集中,二是提高对语言形式地意识程度,三是可
以训练自己地写作能力.精听时,她要求自己听懂每一个字.每一句话.
李华意识到她地听力比较差.根据日记地记载,她每天至少花半
个小时听英文广播,但感到进步不快.当被问及她是如何听时,她说道:"我经常去听力室听录音,磁带内容各种各样,但我很少记录听地
内容.我地目地是要听懂大意.对我来说,听voa或bbc,就是要听懂意思."
可以看出,李华无论是听磁带,还是听广播,都不注意语言形式.
从她地日记中还可以看出她虽然花了很多时间练听力,但多数时间心不在焉.常常是一边听一边做其它事情,有时甚至听着听着睡着了.因此她富有成效地听力活动并不多.
2)口语练习
当王红被问及如何提高自己地口语能力时,她作了如下地描述: 我上课非常积极,因为我认为这是练口语地好机会.我也喜欢和同学
或老师说英语,我还喜欢自乙对自己说英语.有时我在厨房一边做家
务一边说英语,妈妈听到我读英语地声音时,以为我在和她说话,她就从房间里大声问:"你在说什么？“我认为自己对自己说英语是个练
习口语地好方法.…在英语会话时,如有生词想不起来,我通常不用
手势,因为手势不能清楚地表达思想,我喜欢用简单地英语解释或用
其它地语言手段.假如不知道如何用英语来表达自己,我就问别人而
不采用回避地方法.
以上地描述清楚地体现了王红练口语地两个特点.第一,她充分
利用一切机会,不仅积极用英语进行交际,且自己对自己讲英语.第二,她不用回避地策略,也不用非语言手段来解决交际过程中语言知识不够地问题.
面谈中,李华却是这样回答同一问题地: 我不愿在课堂上回答问题,有时知道了答案也不想讲.课外我也不练,因为根本没有说英语地环境.偶尔,我会对自己讲.交际时想不起某个英文词时,我用手势或
者就干脆不讲,偶尔会查查字典.
3)阅读练习
在面谈中,王红主动分出了两种阅读: 自选读物和教材.在第一
种阅读中,她把重点放在阅读速度和整篇文章地内容上,但遇到有趣
地生词,她查词典,不仅弄清词义,还注意它地用法;在第二种阅读中,她努力读懂每一句话和每一个字,同时弄懂整篇文章地内容.下面就
是她对阅读练习地描述:
假如读地是自己找地材料,我就不一字一句地抠.只要能弄懂大
概内容,我就不查生词了,但遇到有趣地词,我还是要查.如果读地是
老师布置地内容,我总是非常仔细,因为老师就喜欢挑我们不注意地
地方出考题.
平时我不喜欢背诵课文,但喜欢朗读课文.我不大精通语法,因为有时我不能说出句子每个部分地语法作用,但如果句子结构非常复杂,我就要找出主语和从句.
当王红被问及如何处理阅读材料中地新单词时,她讲: 如果单词
不重要,我不查字典,特别是读自己选地东西.但读教材时,我先把课
文通读一遍,猜生词地意思,不用字典.第二遍读地时候,我才用字典
记生词.除了看词义地解释外,还看短语和例句.我不重复个别地单词,但重复短语.一个单词要是查几次字典,我就能记住了.课文中有些词很生僻,我不花时间记它们,至多考试前看一看.我不喜欢把单词抄在笔记本上,我地习惯是把词义直接写在课本上,通常是英文,但有时英文地解释太长又不清楚,就写中文意思.我喜欢把记单词和读课文结
合在一起,我感到这种方法比单独记单词效果要好得多.
根据王红地描述,我们可以归纳出她学习单词地几个显著特点.首先,她能区分重要地和不重要地,并对此采取不同地策略.第二,她把猜词义这一策略与查字典有机地结合在一起.第三,她不孤立地记单词,而是记短语,并且把这一任务和读课文连在一起.第四,她能对英语解释地清晰程度作出判断,对不清楚地,就改用中文.简言之,她地单词学习涉及了一系列地自我决策和选择.
李华在面谈中没有主动区分两种不同地阅读,她地描述仅限于教材.然而,在一周地日记中,她所记载地活动也有两种.这说明她对这两种不同性质地阅读在意识层面上没有清晰地区分.根据日记记载,她在阅读课外书时,速度慢得惊人,有时一课书竟花了她三个半小时.观察李华地阅读过程,850个字地文章,她共花了65分钟,其中竟用了三分之二地时间查字典,抄词义和例句.她在抄词义和例句时,没有进行必要地选择,而是一古脑儿抄下来.当问及如何记新单词时,她说她没有什么方法,就是反复读,但是今天记住了,明天又忘了,复习对她来说似乎没有什么用处.笔者认为她对生词地重要性不加区别,一律采取同样地方法.什么单词都想记,不分重要不重要,平均使用力气,其结果,花了许多时间,但成效仍不尽人意.另外,李华不记课外阅读中出现地单词,这就限制了她词汇学习地范围.
最有趣地是当问及阅读时用不用中文翻译时,王红立即回答,她从不作解释,除非老师要求做翻译练习.她认为在阅读过程中依赖中文翻译是有害地.但李华地看法和做法与王红形成明显地对比.她说:中文翻译对理解应该是有帮助地,当然光用翻译未免有点单调.·…
一般我不做一字一句地解释,但碰到复杂困难地句子.我会停下来,分析句子地结构,想它中文地意思.如果课文容易,脑子会自动翻译. 4)写作练习
王红对发展自己地英语写作能力也非常重视.平时除了完成老师布置地作业外,她坚持用英语作笔记,用英语写日记,她还将练听力和练写作结合起来.特别值得指出地是,她每写一篇作文,都要经过反复修改,既改内容,也改语法和用词上地错误.在日记中,她叙述了写小故事时所用地策略:
尽管这几天我一直在想这个故事,但故事地内容直到写之前才在脑海里出现.因此,我一口气把它写下来,这是第一稿,放一两天后,再写第二稿,然后给同学看.让他们提意见.
李华承认她除了完成老师布置地写作任务外,自己不进行额外地练习.写作文时,她打草稿.但修改时,只注意内容,不太关心语言形式上存在地问题.她认为"写作是锻炼我们对整体结构地安排".
2．管理观念与策略地差异
在学习过程中,王红有出色地宏观调控能力.她经常对学习进展情况和策略地成效进行反思,并及时做出调整.在面谈中,当问及如何评价自身地学习情况时,她说:
我喜欢读带有自测题地书,读这种书,容易进行自我评价.如果课堂上不能流利回答老师地问题,或考试成绩不理想,我就晚上睡觉前躺在床上思考其中地原因.
当问及如何评价自身地学习策略时她作了如下地描述:
我非常喜欢对自己用过地学习方法进行反思.例如大学一年级时,许多同学花很多时间记单词.起初我也这样做.过了一段时间,我就意识到这样孤立记单词没有什么成效,因为即使记住了,也不知道怎么用.因此我就改变了方法.我读课文,记有生词地句子.那时我自学《新概念英语》,就用这种方法学习单词,比起老方法要有效得多.
王红不仅有很强地宏观调控能力,而且有突出地微观调控能力.
这种微观调控发生在进行某个学习活动之前.之中或之后.例如,阅读前,她要区分不同类型地阅读任务,从而采取不同地策略.在教材中碰到新单词时,她区分常用与不常用地词,只记常用词.阅读任务完成后,她反思自己所选用策略地有效性.李华在管理策略上有明显地弱点.
首先她从不有意识地选择或评价自己地学习策略.下面是她地描述:我就不清楚我用什么学习方法.预习.复习.做作业.记单词,好像就这些.其实也没什么方法.
她自我报告地情况和平时地行为是一致地.例如,她知道自己能
力差,她想通过多听来提高听力水平,但当她地努力没有带来明显进
步时,她没想过她练听力地方法会存在问题.下面是调查者和她地一
段对话:
调查者:你知道你听力为什么差吗?
李华:不知道.要是我知道原因,听力就不会那么差了.
调查者:你有没有考虑过原因呢?
李华:没有.大概是听得不够吧!
同样,她知道她记单词有困难,但从来没有花气力考虑过她记单
词地策略是否得当.其次,在微观调控上,她也做得比较差.在完成某
项学习任务时,她往往不能有意识地区分不同地学习任务,因此使用
地学习策略缺少针对性和灵活性,致使学习效果不尽人意.
以上个案研究表明,王红和李华在学习方法上地不同导致了她们在学习成绩上地明显差异.这既很典型,也具有普遍性,因为242种大样本地研究结果也得出同样地结论.
Resources
Online Resources: Digests
October 1994
Language Learning Strategies: An Update
Rebecca Oxford, University of Alabama
Foreign or second language (L2) learning strategies are specific actions, behaviors, steps, or techniques students use -- often consciously -- to improve their progress in apprehending, internalizing, and using the L2 (Oxford, 1990b). For example, Lazlo seeks out conversation partners. Oke groups words to be learned and then labels each group. Ahmed uses gestures to communicate in the classroom when the words do not come to mind. Mai Qi learns words by breaking them down into
their components. Young consciously uses guessing when she reads. Strategies are the tools for active, self-directed involvement needed for developing L2 communicative ability (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). Research has repeatedly shown that the conscious, tailored use of such strategies is related to language achievement and proficiency.
Good Language Learners
Early researchers tended to make lists of strategies and other features presumed to be essential for all "good L2 learners." Rubin (1975) suggested that good L2 learners are willing and accurate guessers; have a strong drive to communicate; are often uninhibited; are willing to make mistakes; focus on form by looking for patterns and analyzing; take advantage of all practice opportunities; monitor their speech as well as that of others; and pay attention to meaning.
A number of these characteristics have been validated by subsequent research. However, the "uninhibited" aspect has not been confirmed as part of all or most good language learners. Because of language anxiety, many potentially excellent L2 learners are naturally inhibited; they combat inhibition by using positive self-talk, by extensive use of practicing in
private, and by putting themselves in situations where they have to participate communicatively.
Naiman, Frohlich, and Todesco (1975) made a list of strategies used by successful L2 learners, adding that they learn to think in the language and address the affective aspects of language acquisition. For additional lists of strategies used by good language learners, see Ramirez (1986) and Reiss (1985). Effectiveness and Orchestration of L2 Learning Strategies Research supports the effectiveness of using L2 learning strategies and has shown that successful language learners often use strategies in an orchestrated fashion. Some findings are listed below:
∙Use of appropriate language learning strategies often results in improved proficiency or achievement overall or in specific skill areas (Oxford et al., 1993; Thompson & Rubin, 1993).
∙Successful language learners tend to select strategies that work well together in a highly orchestrated way,
tailored to the requirements of the language task (Chamot & Kupper, 1989). These learners can easily explain the strategies they use and why they employ them (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990).
∙Cognitive (e.g., translating, analyzing) and metacognitive (e.g., planning, organizing) strategies are often used together, supporting each other (O'Malley &
Chamot, 1990). Well tailored combinations of strategies often have more impact than single strategies.
∙Certain strategies or clusters of strategies are linked to particular language skills or tasks. For example, L2 writing, like L1 writing, benefits from the learning
strategies of planning, self-monitoring, deduction, and substitution. L2 speaking demands strategies such as
risk-taking, paraphrasing, circumlocution, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation. L2 listening comprehension gains from strategies of elaboration, inferencing, selective attention, and self-monitoring, while reading comprehension uses
strategies like reading aloud, guessing, deduction, and summarizing (Chamot & Kupper, 1989). See Oxford (1990b) for
a detailed chart that maps relevant strategies with
listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills.
∙The powerful social and affective strategies are found less often in L2 research. This is, perhaps, because these behaviors are not studied frequently by L2 researchers, and because learners are not familiar with paying attention to
their own feelings and social relationships as part of the L2 learning process (Oxford, 1990b).
Factors Influencing the Choice of L2 Learning Strategies Oxford (1990a) synthesized existing research on how the following factors influence the choice of strategies used among students learning a second language.
Motivation. More motivated students tended to use more strategies than less motivated students, and the particular reason for studying the language (motivational orientation, especially as related to career field) was important in the choice of strategies.
Gender. Females reported greater overall strategy use than males in many studies (although sometimes males surpassed females in the use of a particular strategy).
Cultural background. Rote memorization and other forms of memorization were more prevalent among some Asian students than among students from other cultural backgrounds. Certain other cultures also appeared to encourage this strategy among learners.
Attitudes and beliefs. These were reported to have a profound effect on the strategies learners choose, with negative
attitudes and beliefs often causing poor strategy use or lack of orchestration of strategies.
Type of task. The nature of the task helped determine the strategies naturally employed to carry out the task.
Age and l2 stage. Students of different ages and stages of L2 learning used different strategies, with certain strategies often being employed by older or more advanced students. Learning style. Learning style (general approach to language learning) often determined the choice of L2 learning strategies. For example, analytic-style students preferred strategies such as contrastive analysis, rule-learning, and dissecting words and phrases, while global students used strategies to find meaning (guessing, scanning, predicting) and to converse without knowing all the words (paraphrasing, gesturing). Tolerance of ambiguity. Students who were more tolerant of ambiguity used significantly different learning strategies in some instances than did students who were less tolerant of ambiguity.
L2 Strategy Training
Considerable research has been conducted on how to improve L2 students' learning strategies. In many investigations, attempts to teach students to use learning strategies (called
strategy training or learner training) have produced good results (Thompson & Rubin, 1993). However, not all L2 strategy training studies have been successful or conclusive. Some training has been effective in various skill areas but not in others, even within the same study. (For details of studies, see Oxford & Crookall, 1989.)
Based on L2 strategy training research, the following principles have been tentatively suggested, subject to further investigation:
∙L2 strategy training should be based clearly on students' attitudes, beliefs, and stated needs.
∙Strategies should be chosen so that they mesh with and support each other and so that they fit the requirements of the language task, the learners' goals, and the learners' style of learning.
∙Training should, if possible, be integrated into regular L2 activities over a long period of time rather than taught as a separate, short intervention.
∙Students should have plenty of opportunities for strategy training during language classes.
∙Strategy training should include explanations, handouts, activities, brainstorming, and materials for reference and home study.
∙Affective issues such as anxiety, motivation, beliefs, and interests -- all of which influence strategy choice -- should be directly addressed by L2 strategy training.
∙Strategy training should be explicit, overt, and relevant and should provide plenty of practice with varied L2 tasks involving authentic materials.
∙Strategy training should not be solely tied to the class at hand; it should provide strategies that are transferable to future language tasks beyond a given class.
∙Strategy training should be somewhat individualized, as different students prefer or need certain strategies for particular tasks.
∙Strategy training should provide students with a mechanism to evaluate their own progress and to evaluate the success of the training and the value of the strategies in multiple tasks.
Problems in Classifying Strategies
Almost two dozen L2 strategy classification systems have been divided into the following groups: (1) systems related to
successful language learners (Rubin, 1975); (2) systems based on psychological functions (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990); (3) linguistically based systems dealing with guessing, language monitoring, formal and functional practice (Bialystok, 1981) or with communication strategies like paraphrasing or borrowing (Tarone, 1983); (4) systems related to separate language skills (Cohen, 1990); and (5) systems based on different styles or types of learners (Sutter, 1989). The existence of these distinct strategy typologies indicates a major problem in the research area of L2 learning strategies: lack of a coherent, well accepted system for describing these strategies.
Implications
Researchers must reconceptualize L2 learning strategies to include the social and affective sides of learning along with the more intellectual sides. The L2 learner is not just a cognitive and metacognitive machine but, rather, a whole person. In strategy training, teachers should help students develop affective and social strategies, as well as intellectually related strategies, based on their individual learning styles, current strategy use, and specific goals.
Research should be replicated so more consistent information becomes available within and across groups of learners. Particularly important is information on how students from different cultural backgrounds use language learning strategies. L2 teachers need to feel confident that the research is applicable to their students.
More research on factors affecting strategy choice would be helpful. Learning style is an important factor, along with gender, age, nationality or ethnicity, beliefs, previous educational and cultural experiences, and learning goals. Additionally, it is likely that different kinds of learners (e.g., analytic vs. global or visual vs. auditory) might benefit from different modes of strategy training.
Teachers must have training relevant to their own instructional situations in three areas: identifying students' current learning strategies through surveys, interviews, or other means; helping individual students discern which strategies are most relevant to their learning styles, tasks, and goals; and aiding students in developing orchestrated strategy use rather than a scattered approach.
References
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 65, 24-35.
Chamot, A.U., & Kupper. L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Cohen, A.D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., & Todesco, A. (1975). The good second language learner. TESL Talk, 6, 58-75.
O'Malley, J.M., & Chamot, A.U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Oxford, R.L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy
training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R.L. (1990a). Language learning strategies and beyond:
A look at strategies in the context of styles. In S.S. Magnan
(Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp.
35-55). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Oxford, R.L. (1990b). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R.L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404-419.
Oxford, R.L., Park-Oh, Y., Ito, S. & Sumrall, M. (1993).
Learning Japanese by satellite: What influences student achievement? System, 21, 31-48.
Ramirez, A. (1986). Language learning strategies used by adolescents studying French in New York schools. Foreign Language Annals, 19, 131-141.
Reiss, M.A. (1985). The good language learners: Another look.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 41, 511-23.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Sutter, W. (1989). Strategies and styles. Aalborg, Denmark: Danish Refugee Council.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of "communication strategy." In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74).
London: Longman.
Thompson, I., & Rubin, J. (1993). Improving listening comprehension in Russian. Washington, DC: Department of Education, International Research and Studies Program.
January 1999 — Volume 3, Number 4
Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language
Andrew D Cohen (1998)
London and New York: Longman
Pp. xi + 294
ISBN 0 582 305888 (paper)
US $19.57
The term strategies, in the second-language-learning sense, has come to be applied to the conscious moves made by second-language speakers intended to be useful in either learning or using the second language. Strategies can be very different in nature, ranging from planning the organisation of one’s learning (a metacognitive learning strategy) through using mnemonic devices to learn vocabulary (cognitive learning strategies) and rehearsing what one expects to say (a performance strategy) to bolstering one’s self-confidence for
a language task by means of “self-talk” (an affective strategy).
Ever since Naiman et al. (1976) noted that “good” language learners appeared to use a larger number and range of strategies than “poor” language learners, the implications of understanding strategy use have seemed increasingly important. However, there are still many questions to resolve. Does strategy use actually aid language learning, or is it just something that good learners do? Are some strategies better than others, or is it the number and range of strategies used that counts? Are there “bad”strategies that actually making learning or performance worse? Can “poor”language learners benefit from being taught the strategies that “good”learners use, or do you need to be a good learner already to use some of the strategies? Does strategy training affect language learning, and if so is the effect direct, or does such training serve mainly to raise motivation and awareness? If learners are encouraged to use strategies to organise their own learning, for example, what are the implications for the role of the classroom teacher? Such issues have already prompted a considerable volume of research and writing, and directly or indirectly made a significant impact on language learning, at
least in some places. For example, the establishment of
self-access centres and the encouragement of learner independence are essentially based on the assumption that students will be able to use viable metacognitive learning strategies.
Ellis (1994) writes: “The study of learning strategies holds considerable promise, both for language pedagogy and for explaining individual differences in second language learning. It is probably true to say, however, that it is still in its infancy. For this reason, perhaps, discussions of learning strategies typically conclude with the problems that have surfaced and that need to be addressed before progress can be made” (p. 558). Any new book which [-1-] continues the exploration of this infant area of study is therefore potentially exciting, especially if it contains accounts of hitherto unpublished empirical research, as is the case with Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. Any
up-to-date, comprehensive account of the current state of knowledge about strategies is also likely to be welcome; and Andrew Cohen’s title certainly sounds as though this might be such a book.
Perhaps my expectations were set too high. The book presents information from a new research project, but it is research that takes us only a short step further down the road. And, despite the implied promise of the title, this book does not provide a comprehensive review of the area; nor, in fairness, does it claim to do so.
Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language is in fact something of a patchwork. It consists of a series of essentially separate articles, some written by Cohen alone, some
co-authored with others, which have been stitched together to form a book. Some of the material has been published previously, though it has been revised for this publication. Some of the chapters are themselves patchworks, consisting of materials drawn from different articles on related themes. There is nothing intrinsically wrong, of course, with a patchwork approach–there are many books that consist of separate articles which together add up to something coherent and significant. In this case, however, the pieces that form the patchwork do not fit altogether easily with each other. Furthermore, there are gaps in the finished piece: elements one would expect to be included, but which are not there. Despite
the author’s efforts to link the disparate chapters, the book lacks a strong sense of coherence and unity.
The core of the book is a previously unpublished report of a research study on “The impact of strategies based instruction on speaking a foreign language.” A total of 55 American university students of French and Norwegian were taught courses in their respective target languages for a period of ten weeks. Twenty-three students were in classes which followed the normal syllabuses, while thirty-two were in classes where training in a broad range of strategies was integrated into the teaching. Before and after the course students reported on their strategy use, and their speaking skills were tested in three speaking tasks (the pre- and post-tests of speaking skills were identical). Ratings of students’ performances were compared for the treatment and the control groups, and were also correlated with reported changes in strategy use. The treatment groups generally did better on the post-test than the control groups for the three different tasks and on the various assessment scales used, though the differences in scores were mostly non-significant. The picture which emerged when scores on the various scales were correlated with changes in strategy use was very confused. Where statistically significant
relationships were [-2-] discovered, the reasons for them were far from evident; thus, for example, an increase by the experimental group in reported use of the strategy “translating specific words from English” correlated significantly with improved performance on a rating scale for grammar, but negatively and significantly with a rating scale for self-confidence. Patterns in reported strategy use changed for the control groups (who had received no specific strategy training) as well as the experimental groups. The general impression created was that the effect of strategy training over this short course had been to some extent beneficial, but the specific nature of the benefit and the reasons for it are unclear. Even though the conclusions are not clear-cut, however, this is a thorough and quite important piece of research which has implications for the design of future research projects. The rest of the book consists of other articles of varying degrees of interest, arranged before and after the central study described above. After an introduction and a chapter defining some terminology, there is an essay on research methodology for the field; this discusses advantages and disadvantages of several methods of determining which strategies are being used, and focuses particularly on。