二语习得

二语习得中学习策略的研究摘要随着自主学习的概念成为语言教育研究和实践的主流,关于学习策略在第二语言习得中的研究引起了广泛关注。

这篇文章主要论述了以下基本内容:学习策略的定义和分类。

首先回顾了关于学习策略的定义和分类，在此基础上介绍了Cohen根据学习策略的典型特征定义的学习策略的概念。

关键词：学习策略定义分类引言近几年，二语习得教学已经由一种追求完美的教学方法转变为语言学习者的内部因素。

按照Michael H. Long 和Jack C. Richards (O’Malley & Ch amot, 2001, preface)对于学习者的研究，研究内容主要倾向1)、学习者如何开展学习，在教室或者教室以外的地方 2)、他们在进行二语习得中所使用的策略和认知过程。

当语言教学的理论与实践进入了一个崭新的世纪,帮助学习者在发展自主学习的领域获得成功的想法成为了教育教学领域的一个突出的主题。

对于行为者涉及自主语言学习的研究在很大程度上取决于学习策略的研究（Benson, 2005）。

学习策略在二语习得中的研究大概从1970年开始，(例如，Rubin 1975; Wong Fillmore 1976 and 1979; Stern 1975)。

它旨在识别策略的范围。

许多研究明显受到认知心理学的发展。

学习策略的出现追溯到对这个问题的回答：为什么有些人的学习效率比其他人高？高效的学习不仅仅依赖于高智商。

更重要的是学习者对于特定学习状况的反应和对自己学习行为的正确监控的能力。

最近的研究更多地倾向于把注意力集中在学习者在完成特殊任务时所采用的策略。

三十年来，可以说关于学习策略的研究尚处于起步阶段。

在策略训练有效地开展之前还有许多论题需要解决（Ellis, 1994），其中最重要的问题是学习策略的定义与分类。

本文旨在加强和补充现有的理论。

1、定义并重新定义学习策略给学习策略下定义不是一件容易的事，在一定程度上是由于“策略”这个概念本身是有点模糊的，另外由于一些术语，如：技能、策略、过程和方法，不同的人有不用的用法。

研究者没有获得一个关于学习策略的共识。

看法的大相径庭使Ellis（1994）指出，“学习策略的定义势必比较特别，应该是非理论的”（P.533）。

一些研究者对于学习策略的不同定义：Tarone（1980）：语言学习策略是在目标语言里发展语言学和社会语言能力的一种尝试。

使用这种策略的动机是学习的欲望。

Stern（1983）：在我们看来，策略应该是语言学习者所采用的一般的或特殊的学习方法，是一种特殊的、不可见的学习行为。

Chomot（1987）：学习策略是学习者为了使学习更加容易所采用的方法、途径或刻意行为。

Rubin（1987）：学习策略直接影响了学习者的学习，并且有助于发展学习者建构的语言体系。

Oxford（1989）：语言学习策略是学习者的使语言学习更有趣、更自主、更成功的行为。

Cohen（1998）：学习策略是学习者有意识地选择的学习过程。

“有意识地选择”这几个字非常很重要，因为他们显示出了策略的特征。

Wenden（1998）：学习策略是大脑内部的步骤与运转，学习者学习一种新的语言时，用学习策略来监控和调节他们的学习行为。

(Ellis, 1994, P.531)上述定义说明研究人员定义语言学习策略方式都不完全相同。

所有这些定义提供了对语言学习过程的理解。

如何定义学习策略成为了研究框架中至关重要的支柱。

一个明确的定义是研究领域的基础。

然而，这些关于语言学习策略的定义揭示了一些问题。

“学习策略”是这样的一个宽泛的词，对语言学习来说，它可以指一般的方法或特定的技巧。

或许，这就是为什么这些定义都是非理论的主要原因。

还有其他的两个问题：学习策略是否像行为或心理活动一样可以感知？学习策略是有意识的、刻意的、还是潜意识的？没有一个关于学习策略的完整的定义。

也许给学习策略下定义的最好的方法是列出学习策略的主要特征（Ellis, 1994）。

这样，共识就大于分歧了。

Cohen（2005），他给一部分资深的二语学习者做了一个调查问卷，来判定他们如何在策略研究和实践中使用这些术语并将它们概念化。

这个调查问卷提供了一个不完全的、被认为是可有可以的学习策略的概念，这是一个根据学习策略的典型特征所下的定义。

A．目的性：大多数的受访者认为学习策略是目标导向。

B. 一系列的行为：被调查者普遍认为策略所表现出的行为是单一行为的连续或者是一系列的行为。

C. 注意力的集中：被调查者一致认为策略包括了注意力的集中，注意力连续地从一个焦点转移到另一个焦点。

D. 程度的监控：被调查者相对一致地认为对状态的监控是策略的一个典型特征。

在一定范围内的监控行为很可能在实际的策略行为中被发现。

E. 水平的可观测性：这个特征很少被承认和接受，在一个连续的过程中，策略的可观测水平是多种多样的，可能会涉及大量的心理过程。

F．刻意的行为：这是一个有争议的关于刻意的还是自动的区分。

一些受访者坚持认为,一旦一个过程是自动进行的，在此背景下它就不再是一种策略，“自动”指的是习惯性的，也包含无意识的。

G. 程度的评估：只有一些受访者认识到评价是策略的一个重要维度，因为事实上学习者不经常反省如何才能有效地使用给定的策略。

F. 自我调节：自我调节从哪儿来？从老师那儿，同伴还是学习者自己？根据策略类型的来源可以获得关于策略指导价值的深刻见解。

H. 程度的规划：关于这个问题的看法不一。

一些人认为，那些凭直觉获知的学生，只要他们立即理解了任务，就不会规划和使用策略。

计划的连续性可能有点过分单纯化，实际上需要学习者真正了解计划的使用是一种策略方法。

Cohen试图对策略的典型性描述对定义学习策略的研究又向前迈进了一步。

由于问卷调查的结果来源于资深的二语习得者，结果反映出了学习策略性质的范围非常大。

情况确实如此，有些问题仍然存在。

例如，Cohen如何对特征的典型性进行选择？对于特征F，自我调节或许并没有太多地参与到策略中。

然而，关于典型性的问题将在未来的研究中被弄清楚，对这个问题的研究会带来更大的共识。

2、学习策略的分类2.1分类的一般介绍Ellis（1994）指出，学习策略在很多方面都不同，反映了学习者的学习类型，学习环境和研究者的特殊兴趣。

因此，不同的研究者对学习策略的分类有着不同的框架。

Rubin（1975,1981），Wenden (1983)， Oxford (1985, 1990)，O’Malley和 Chamot （1990）为学习策略的研究作出了很大的贡献。

在他们的研究成果中,Oxford的STLL可以说是当时关于学习策略最综合的分类（Ellis）。

Oxford把学习策略分为两大类：直接策略和间接策略。

直接策略包括直接涉及目标语言的潜意识策略，间接策略通过更多的可以意识到的策略（如聚焦、计划、评估）为语言学习提供了间接的支持。

这两类还可以细分为六个子类：记忆、认知、补偿、社交、情感和元认知。

一个大问题是，STLL还是不能提供关于语言学习策略与任何特定的语言的相关细节。

更重要的是，Oxford的分类不能对策略是为了学习第二语言还是只是为了使用策略作出区分（Ellis）。

最后一个问题是,补偿策略被视为直接式学习策略，而不是一种生产类型的策略，这其中有些混乱。

尽管存在这些问题，Oxford的STLL给了我们一个关于学习策略比较简单易懂的分类。

2.2 O'Malley和Chamot的框架和分类与Oxford不同，O'Malley和Chamot根据有关的处理加工水平和类型把策略分为三类：元认知、认知和社会情感。

他们在建构主义模型的基础上研究学习策略。

元认知策略在学习任务中有意识地引导了个体的努力方向。

这些策略是一种更高的技能，它可能要求计划学习、监控学习过程，评估一个特定的策略是否成功。

他们有一个执行功能。

在O'Malley 和Chamot关于学习策略的框架中，元认知策略包括先前的组织者、指向性注意、选择性注意力、自我管理、先前准备、自我监测、生产延迟和自我评价的过程。

认知策略被定义为一种“直接对外来信息起作用，并且利用这些信息来增强学习”的策略（O’Malley和Chamot 1990:44）。

他们有一个有效的或者说是认知过程的功能，直接与特定学习任务的执行相联系。

认知策略包括重复、资源整合、分组、记录、转换、阐述、整理、翻译、转让和推断。

社会情感策略关注的是学习者与以英语为母语的人之间和学习者之间的相互影响或者是学习者在进行语言学习时，控制个人情感的方法。

O 'Malley和Chamot的三分法非常有用，并已被普遍接受（Ellis, 1994）。

原因可能是该分类更为符合学习者所使用的策略。

它意味着二语习得是一个主动的、动态的心理过程，对教师而言，这一分类对描述如何整合教学非常有益。

（O'Malley和Chamot, 2001）。

但他们对策略的分类仍然存在问题。

首先，与其他的分类一样，没有清楚的表达关于策略的范围是否是有限的还是无限的。

第二，即使O’Mally和Chamot对他们的问题进行了阐述（2001, P.144），事实上，元认知和认知这两者的区别始终没有一个明确的界限。

一个研究者认为的元认知很可能是另一个研究者所认为的认知。

可见，对于学习策略，并没有形成一致的看法。

Ellis（1994：558）对这个现象进行了如下分析：没有广泛的理论基础去定义和描述策略。

目前的研究基本上是描述性的，反映在不用研究者获得的数据中。

也就难怪会使分类策略处在混乱的状态下。

结论如上所述，关于学习策略的研究尚处于起步阶段，所以我们有很多研究要做。

如何定义和分类术语“学习策略”是一个有价值的研究领域。

也许我们应当基于一些理论框架和通用的标准来探索这个问题。

参考文献[1] Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. From http://www.cal. org/resources/digest_pdfs/0110_Anderson.pdf/ survey2007-7.[2] Cohen, A. D. (2005). Coming to terms with language learner stategies: What do strategy experts think about the terminology and where would they direct their research? Working paper No. 12. From http;///research_ paper/Andrew. Cohen/WP12.pdf/survey2007-7.[3] Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.[4] O’Malley, J.M.& A. U. Chamot. (2001). Learning Srrategies in Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.[5] Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.[6] Oxford, R. & D. Crookall. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73(iv), 404—419.[7] Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart. (2000). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Reaearch Press.[8]Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31.A Study of Learning Strategies in L2 AcquisitionAbstractWith the concept of autonomy being part of the mainstream of research and practice within the field of language education, the study of learning strategies in L2 acquisition has drawn much attention. This paper discusses the issues covering the fundamental aspect: identification and classification of learning strategy. The problems are reviewed concerning the definition and classification of learning strategies and then the paper tentatively introduces Cohen’s approach to defining learning strategies in terms of prototypicality of features of learning strategies.Key words: learning strategies definition classificationIntroductionSecond language teaching in recent years has shifted from the quest for the perfect teaching method to the internal factors of learners. According to Michael H. Long and Jack C. Richards (O’Malley & Chamot, 2001, preface), research in the case of learners has led to the study of 1) how learners approach learning, both in and out of classrooms, and 2) the kinds of strategies and cognitive processing they use in second language acquisition. As the theory and practice of language teaching enters a new century, the idea of helping leaners succeed in developing autonomy has become one of the prominent themes in the field of teaching education. Research on the behaviours involved in autonomous language learning has to a large extent drawn upon research on learning strategies (Benson, 2005).The study of learning strategies in second language acquisition started around the 1970s (for example, Rubin 1975; Wong Fillmore 1976 and 1979; Stern 1975). It aimed at identifying the range of strategies. Much of the study has clearly been influenced by developments in cognitive psychology. The emergence of learning strategies traced back to answering the question: Why are some people more effective at learning than others? Effective learning is not merely a matter of a high IQ. What seems to be more important is the learners’ ability to respond to the particular learning situation and to manage their learning in an appropriate manner. More recent studies have tended to focus on the strategies when learners perform particular tasks. Over 30 years, it is probably true to say that the study of learning strategies is still in its infancy. There are many issues that need sorting out before strategy training can be implemented effectively (Ellis, 1994), one of the most essential issues is the definition and classification of learningstrategy. This paper aims to enhance and complement the current theory.1. Definitions and redefinition of learning strategiesIt is not easy to tie down the definition of learning strategies partly because the concept of “strategy” itself is somewhat fuzzy and partly because terms such as skills, strategies, processes, and approaches are used differently by different people. Researchers have not gained a common understanding of learning strategies. Perspectives are so different that Ellis (1994) states that “definitions of learning strategie s have tended to be ad hoc and atheoretical” (p. 533).Some definitions of learning strategies produced by different researchers are as follows:Tarone (1980): A language learning strategy is an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the target language. The motivation of the use of this strategy is the desire to learn.Stern (1983): In our view strategy is best reserved for general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to particular forms of observable learning behaviour.Chomot (1987): Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning, recall of both linguistic and content area information.Rubin (1987): Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the development of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly.Oxford (1989): Language learning strategies are behaviours or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable.Cohen (1998): Learning strategies are learning processes which are consciously selected by the learner. The words “consciously select” are important because they demonstrate the special character of strategy.Wenden (1998): Learning strategies are mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so. (As cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 531)The above definitions show that no researchers define language learning strategies in exactly the same way. All these definitions provide insights into understanding the process of learning a language. How to define learning strategies is crucial in underpinning the framework of re searchers’ study. Definition isfundamental to laying the foundation for the areas of research. However, these definitions of language learning strategies reveal some problems. “Learning strategies” is such a broad word that it can refer to the general app roaches or specific techniques used to learn a language. Maybe it is the main reason why the definitions are atheoretical. There are other two problems: Are learning strategies to be perceived of as behavioural or mental? Are learning strategies conscious and intentional or subconscious?A complete definition of learning strategies is not available. Perhaps one of the best approaches to defining learning strategies is to list the main charcteristics (Ellis, 1994). In this case, it would appear that the areas of consensus outweigh those of disagreement. Cohen (2005), when he made a survey questionnaire among a group of second-language learner strategy experts to determine how they conceptualize and use the terminology in strategy research and practice, proposed a construct of learning strategy which was viewed not as an absolute, all-or-nothing feature but in terms of how far along a continuum a feature could possibly go before it stopped being descriptive of a strategy. This is an approach of defining learning strategies in terms of how prototypical the feature was. These features as follows are arranged in a descending order of agreement, with the features receiving the lowest level of agreement last.A. purpose or goal orientation: Most of respondents think learning strategies are goal-directed.B. sequence of actions: There was general consensus among respondents strategic behavior could fall along a continuum from a single action or a sequence of actions.C. focus of attention: There was relatively solid consensus for including attention as a feature on a continuum from focus on to focus away.D. degree of monitoring: There was relative consensus that monitoring deserves status as a prototypical feature of a strategy. The concern was for the extent of monitoring likely to be found in actual strategy behavior.E. level of observability: This feature received fewer acceptances because strategies are at various levels of observability along a continuum. There may be numerous strategies that involve mental processes.F. deliberateness: This proved to be a problematic distinction between deliberateness and automation. Some respondents strongly hold that once a process is automatic, it can no longer be a strategy since in this context “automatic” means habitual and unconscious.G. extent of evaluation: Only some respondents recognize evaluation as a necessary dimension for a strategy because in fact learners do not often reflect on how effectively they use the given strategy.F. self- initiation: What is the source of intiation? From the teacher, a peer or themselves? Tracking the source of types of strategies might provide useful insights about the value of strategy instruction.H. degree of planning: There are mixed views about the item. Some respondents hold the view that some intuitive students are not planning as much as they instantly understand the task and knowing the strategy to use; such a planning continuum might be a bit simplistic and require to really understanding what planning the use of a strategy actually means.Cohen’s attempt to describe the prototypicality of strategies is a step forward concerning defining learning strategies. It might reflect the nature of learning strategies to a large extent because the answers to the questionnaire come from strategy experts. It is true that some problems still exist. For example, how does Cohen select some features as prototypicality? In the item F, self-intiation maybe has not much to do with strategies. However, the prototypicality sheds light on the further study. Greater clarity can serve the action along, and bring about greater consensus.2．Classification of learning strategies2.1 General introduction to its classificationsEllis (1994) notes that learning strategies differ in a number of ways, reflecting the type of learners under study, the setting and the particular interests of the researchers. Therefore, different researchers form different frameworks to classify learning strategies.The work of Rubin (1975, 1981), Wenden (1983), Oxford (1985, 1990), and O’Malley and Chamot (1990) has made great contributions to the knowledge of learning strategies. Among their work, Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is perhaps the most comprehensive classification of learning strategies to date (Ellis). Oxford divided learning strategies into two main groups: direct strategies and indirect strategies. Direct strategies consist of subconscious strategies directly involving the target language while indirect strategies provide indirect support for language learning through more conscious strategies such as focusing, planning, and evaluating. These two classes are subdivided into six subcategories: memory, cognitive, compensation, social, affective and metacognitive. A big problem is that SILL fails to provide detailsof language learning strategies related to any specific language. What’s more, Oxford’s taxonomy fails to make a distinction between strategies directed at learning the L2 and those directed at using it (Ellis). The last problem is that compensation strategies are considered as a direct type of learning strategies rather than one type of production strategies, which is somewhat confusing. Despite these problems, Oxford’s inventory has a well-understood organization of specific strategies into a hierarchy of levels.2.2 O’Malley and Chamot framework of classificationUnlike Oxford, O’Malley and Chamot have differentiated strategies into three categories depending on the level or type of processing involved: metacoginitive, cognitive and social/affective. They grounded the study of learning strategies within the information-processing model of learning developed by Anderson. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s efforts into the learning task. These strategies are higher order executive skills that may entail planning learning, monitoring the process of learning, and evaluating the success of a particular strategy. They have an executive function. In O’Malley and Chamot framework of learning strategies, metacognitive strategies include advance organizers, directed attention, selective attention, self-management, advance preparation, self-monitoring, delayed production and self-evaluation.Cognitive strategies are defined as learning strategies tha t “operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990:44). They have an operative or cognitive-processing function, directly linked to the performance of particular learning tasks. Cognitive strategies include repetition, resourcing, grouping, note-taking deduction/induction, substition, elaboration, summarization, translation, transfer and inferencing.Social/affective strategies concern the ways in which learners interact with other leaners and native speakers or take control of one’s own feelings on language learning.O’Malley and Chamot’s three-way distinction is useful and has been generally accepted (Ellis, 1994). Perhaps the reason is that this classification is more consistent with a le arner’s use of strategies. It implies that second language acqusition is active and dynamic mental processes. For teachers, the classification is found to be useful for describing how to integrate strategies into instruction (O’Malley and Chamot, 2001).Their classification of strategies still remains problematic, however. First,like other classifications, this classification still has the problem that it is not clear whether the range of strategies is finite or infinite in number. Second, even O’Malley an d Chamot talked about their problems (2001, p.144). In fact, the distinction between metacognitive and cognitive strategies is obscure without precise boundaries. Possibly what is metacognitive to one researcher is cognitive to another.Obviously, there is no agreement on what constitute learning strategies. Ellis (1994:558) analyzed the phenomonon as follows: There is no widely accepted theoretical basis for identifying and describing strategies. The work done to date has been essentially descriptive, reflecting the corpora of data that different researchers have worked on. No wonder that there is a state of confusion in the classification of strategies.ConclusionAs mentioned above, the study of learning strategies is still in its infancy, so there is a lot of work to do. How to define and classify the term “learning strategy” is a worthwhile undertaking. Probably we should explore the issue based on some theoretical framework and generic criteria.References[1] Anderson, N. J. (2002). The role of metacognition in second language teaching and learning. from http://www.cal. org/resources/digest_pdfs/0110_Anderson.pdf/ survey2007-7.[2] Cohen, A. D. (2005). Coming to terms with language learner stategies: What do strategy experts think about the terminology and where would they direct their research? Working paper No. 12. from http;///research_ paper/Andrew. Cohen/WP12.pdf/survey2007-7.[3] Ellis, R. (1999). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.[4] O’Malley, J.M.& A. U. Chamot. (2001). Learning Srrategies in Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: 上海外语教育出版社.[5] Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.[6] Oxford, R. & D. Crookall. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: methods, findings and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal, 73(iv), 404—419.[7] Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart. (2000). Reflective Teaching in Second LanguageClassrooms. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Reaearch Press.[8]Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review 31.。