CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGBESIN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL*University of Murcia, Spain
ABSTRACT
This paper begins with a revisión of the learning strategy literature andhighlights the overlapping which currently characterizes the field as regards is-sues considered criterial for their definition. The role of consciousness in learn-ing strategy use is discussed and the terms process, strategy and technique aredefined in the light of a classroom-based empirical study carried out with chil-dren aged between eight and ten. From verbal report data gathered individuallyand in groups, a classification scheme is presented of children's metacognitive,socio-affective and cognitive strategies and techniques.
RESUMEN
En este artículo se hace una revisión de la literatura sobre las estrategiasde aprendizaje, destacando el alto grado de superposición en cuanto a las ca-racterísticas que las definen. Analizamos el papel de la consciencia en el usode estrategias y ofrecemos una definición de proceso, estrategia y técnica, ba-sada en un estudio empírico llevado a cabo con niños de ocho a diez añosen el marco formal de aula. Se incluye una clasificación detallada de estrategiasy técnicas metacognitivas, socioafectivas y cognitivas, identificadas en los niñosmediante el uso de entrevistas individuales y en grupo.
RESUME
Cet article est une revisión de tout ce qui a été écrit jusqu'á présent ápropos des strategies d'apprentissage; il nous fait remarquer á quel point lescaractéristiques qui définissent ees strategies peuvent se superposer. Il analyse
• Yvette Coyle and Marisol Valcárcel currently lecture in English Studies andTeaching 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 sheworks as an associate professor. Marisol holds a Ph.D. in English Philology which sheobtained in 1986 and is a professor in the same department. Their research interestsinclude teaching English at pre-school and primary level and language acquisition inchildren. They have published several books and articles in these áreas.
423CAUCE, Revista de Filología y su Didáctica, ti" 25, 2002 / págs. 423-458
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
également le role de la conscience dans l'usage de stratégies et propose unedéfinition de processus, de stratégies et de techniques, basée sur une étudeempirique menee auprés d'enfants de 8 á 10 ans dans le cadre formel de laclasse. II offre aussi une classification détaillée de stratégies et de techniquesmétacognitives, socio-affectives et cognitives, détectées chez les enfants á tra-vers des entretiens individuéis et en groupe.
1. INTRODUCTION
Despite the profusión of rich and varied research on the role ofLearning Stratégies (LS) in second language acquisition (SLA), today,some twenty years on from the first attempts at exploring how learnersgo about the task of learning a second language, researchers are stillstruggling to agree upon a universally accepted définition for the con-cept of strategy. In 1991 Seliger complained that the indiscriminate useof the word strategy in SLA literature had brought us to a point of'semantic satiatiorí in which the term had become devoid of any realmeaning (1991, p- 36). Less pessimistically, but in the same vein, Ellis(1994) referred to the concept of 'strategy' as 'fuzzy ... and not easy totie dowrí (1994, p. 529).
The confusión surrounding the définition of 'strategy' arises from theresearch literature itself where the term has often been substituted for sy-nonyms which have blurred the inherent meaning of the word by equat-ing it with other similar concepts. Wenden (1987) has pointed out themulti-purpose use of the term to refer to all of the following: techni-ques, tactics, potentially conscious plans, consciously employed operations,problem-solving procedures, etc. (1987, p. 7). In fact a closer look at thedefinitions of Learning Stratégies offered by different researchers indicatesthe high degree of overlapping and lack of precisión in their choice ofterminology. While for Naiman et al. (1978), Stern (1983), Schmeck (1988)and Seliger (1991) stratégies are seen as general learning approaches,with the more specific learner actions receiving the ñame of techniquesor tactics, Rubin (1981) refers to general cognitive processes and specificstratégies. In her définition Wenden (1987) refers to language learning'behaviours' while O'Malley and Chamot (1990) speak about 'thoughts orbehaviours', leaving us in doubt as to whether stratégies are to be consi-dered as behavioural or mental or both. Finally Chesterfield and Chester-field's (1985) définition reflects their concern with learner interactionwhile Oxford (1990) stresses the affective side of learning.
424
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
Unable, then, to agree upon one generally accepted definition ofLearning Strategies, researchers have had to resort to listing what seemto be their main characteristics in an attempt to solve this conceptualproblem (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 'Somestrategies are behavioural while others are mental. Thus some 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 isdetrimental to the concerns of empirical research in the fields of secondand foreign language development. Researchers have recognized theneed to try to achieve some coherence across the field in terms of boththe descriptive terminology and the conceptual characteristics inherentto the construct of strategy and while attempts in this direction havebeen 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 seriesof important, yet conflictive, issues relating to the definition of Learn-ing Strategies, it is vital that any discussion of strategies, in whatevercontext, should begin with an explicit statement of the position adoptedwith respect to these crucial conceptual and classificatory problems.The most serious points of contention in Language Learning Strategyresearch include:
1. The overlapping which occurs between terms such as process,strategy, tactic and technique.
2. The issue of consciousness as criterial to the definition of Learn-ing Strategies.
3. The distinction between Learning, Production and Communica-tion Strategies.
Each of these áreas has important implications for the nature of ourunderstanding of LS and the role they play in the language learningprocess.
Among the aims of the present study is that of proposing a frame-work for the classifieation of children's FL Learning Strategies which isboth coherent and psychologically plausible. In order to do this it isessential to provide a clear set of criteria for categorizing and distin-
425
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
guishing between various types of strategies. To arrive at a compre-hensive characterization of LS we will begin by reviewing current theo-retical arguments on the issues highlighted above before going on tooutline our own position on these matters.
2. LEARNING STRATEGIES: PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION
One of the most glaring problems in SLA research, then, has beenthe failure to make clear distinctions between the terms 'process', 'strategy'and 'tactic' or 'technique'. These labels have been used inconsistentlyby researchers to refer both to the same and to different mechanismsof language processing. The confusión over which behaviours are tobe classified as learning strategies is indicative of the terminological andconceptual differences which characterize both theory and research inthe Learning Strategy paradigm. These differences first emerged withthe investigations of the 'Good Language Learner' in the late 1970's.This early work produced what initially appeared to be very differentinventories of Learning Strategies (Rubin, 1981; Naiman et al., 1978; Stern,1983), but which on closer inspection were seen to comprise the samebasic categories of behaviour which had been classified in differentterms. Rubin's (1981) work describes general cognitive processes andtheir underlying strategies, while Naiman et al. (1978) and Stern (1983)refer to general strategies and speciñc, observable 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 chosento describe more general and speciñc levéis of learner behaviour.
For other researchers (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990)strategy has been used as a general cover-term for different learnerop-erations irregardless of levéis of generality/ specificity. Their approachhas 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, theydescribe Metacognitive, Cognitive and Socio-affective strategies. Oxford(1990), however, aims to account for the whole repertoire of strategiesavailable for learning and using language, and so presents a multi-lev-elled classification scheme of Memory, Cognitive, Compensation, Metacog-nitive, Affective and Social strategies. Oxford's taxonomy is interesting,though at times confusing, in this respect as it includes a wide range
426
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
of both general and specific thoughts and behaviours, all of which aretermed strategies.
More recently, however, Oxford and Cohén (1992) have argued infavour of abandoning the a priori categorization of learning strategiesinto generic groups and have opted for a classification which differen-tiates between broad bands of strategies and their related tactics. Theirdistinction, based on the difference in military usage of the words strategyand 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 using specific beha-viours or devices' (1992, p. 4). This return to the separation of languageprocessing behaviour on the general/specific dimensión would seem,superficially at least, to coincide with the same distinction posed byNaiman et al. (1978) and Stern (1983). A more detailed analysis of theirproposal, however, reveáis that what has actually happened is that theconcept of strategy has been raised to the level of what other researchers(for example Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983) have termed process (forexample 'forming concepts and hypotheses'; 'testing hypotheses'; 'em-bedding new material in long-term memory'), and tactics to what hasgenerally been thought of as strategy (for example 'inferencing'; askingfor clarification/verification'; 'repetitive rehearsaP, etc.).
In adopting this new emphasis on tactics to desribe what in pre-vious theory and research (including their own) had been referred toas strategy, Oxford and Cohén (1992) follow the precedent created bySeliger (1991) and Schmeck (1988). Both of these researchers have positedthe need for a theoretical distinction between higher level, general ap-proaches to learning and more specific learner activity, and both havecoincided in the choice of the terms strategy and tactic to label thesedifferences. Once again, however, we find that the actual behavioursdescribed 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 'hypothesistesting', 'simplification', and 'overgeneralization' while Schmeck (1988)cites those of 'conceptualizing', 'personalizing' and 'memorization', allof which have traditionally been thought of as more general cognitiveoperations.
This inconsistency in the use of the metalanguage involved in LearnerStrategy research is symptomatic of the vagueness of the constructsthemselves (Ellis, 1986). Researchers have called for theoretical accountsof Learning Strategies to attempt to disentangle the concepts inherent
427
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
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 LearningStrategies, then, must be to provide explicit definitions of the way inwhich processes, strategies and tactics or techniques are conceptualizedand understood in the research work. The position we advócate in thepresent study is that the description of children's strategies of ForeignLanguage Learning can be integrated within a theoretical framework forSLA based on cognitive accounts of language learning which describelanguage learning in terms of the acquisition of a complex skill, andhighlight the learner's active role in the process.
3. PROCKSS, STRATEGY AND TECHNIQUE IN CHILDREN'S FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
The cognitive paradigm for the explanation of SLA has emergedfrom information-processing models of learning and from develop-mental studies on the role of cognitive processes in learners, bothofwhich have sought to explain the mechanisms by which the mindacquires and stores new information. In cognitive theory learnersare 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 thatwhile all learners possess the same internal mechanisms for the ma-nipulation of incoming information (sensorial register, short-term orworking 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 strategiesthe 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 agreementas to the importance of their role in human learning. Processes are saidto act as mediators between instructional and informative input andthelearner's output to the extent that the quality and quantity of any learn-ing experience will be determined by the degree of active cognitiveprocessing the learner engages in and the effective employment ofappropriate strategies to enhance and develop these processes (Pérez,1993, in Beltrán). It is in this sense that learning strategies are describedas special ways of processing, storing, retrieving and using information(O'Malley and Chamot, 1990).
428
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
In the present study, our use of the term process coincides withthe definitions prevalent in cognitive discussions of learning which referto the processes by which individuáis comprehend, store and retain anduse information. In the same way, and following Willis (1989, p. 139),we understand learning strategies to refer to the 'goal-directed thoughtsor actions used by the learner to transform language input into internallyavailable resources for the comprehension, retention and use of the for-eign language'. However, given the context of our study -the learningof a FL in a classroom setting; the age of the subjects involved- childrenof 8-10 years; and our ultimate pedagogical motivation, we believe itis essential to go beyond the scope of the definition cited above in ourdescription of learning strategies in an attempt to describe the precisenature of the ways in which our young learners convert the inputthey receive in the classroom context into knowledge of the foreignlanguage. For this reason, we have opted to use the construct learningtechnique to arrive at a more finely-grained analysis of the strategicbehaviour involved in FL learning. Learning techniques, then, as usedthroughout this study can be defined as 'specific, primarily task-relatedand (mostly) observable forms of language learning'. In a classroomsetting learning techniques are those manifestations of the learningprocess in action, as for example when the learner voluntarily repeatsa linguistic model or identifies content words for the understanding ofcontext-specific discourse.
The position we adopt in this respect coincides with that of Beltrán(1993) who has theorized on the relationships of technique, strategy andprocess 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, concealedprocesses of learning and specific task-related learner techniques. Strate-gies, in turn, are affected by the use of specific learner techniques. InBeltrán's model techniques are said to actívate strategies in that theyare actions linked to classroom activities, which when underway, revealthe presence of particular strategies in learners. They are distinguishablefrom strategies in that they are observable learner operations cioselylinked to the study activities suggested by the teacher in the classroomenvironment.
One of the assumptions underlying our work is that this rationale,as applied to the description of the instructional process in general, canbe adapted to provide an explanation for the learning which occurs inthe foreign language classroom. In our study of children's foreign lan-
429
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCARCEL
guage learning strategies we acknowledge the connections outlined byBeltrán between process, strategy and technique. Strategies, as we havedefined 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 theprocessing of information. However, our definition of techniques expandson Beltran's original definition to include learner operations which, al-though not directly observable, such as guessing meanings from theteacher's gestures or associating vocabulary with a physical action, canstill be considered as learning techniques on the grounds that: 1) theycan be inferred from detailed analysis of the learning context and theinstructional 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 thatmany, 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 conceivedfrom a cognitive perspective, has acquired much greater prominencethat 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 thefeatures suggested by leading learning strategy researchers, we do notcoincide exactly with any one position. We agree, for example, withSchmeck's view that 'a learning strategy is a higher level cluster of learn-ing tactics that work together toprovide a unified learning outcome' andthat 'the term tactic refers to the specific activities of the learners' (1988,p. 171), but the interpretation we have made is different to thelong/short term distinction expressed by Oxford and Cohén (1992), andreflects our prime concern to connect the study of learning strategieswith its implications for teacher-training and practice.
4. THF. ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING STRATEGIES
The idea which emerges from the previous discussion is that weconsider both learning strategies and techniques as goal-directed actions
430
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
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 (Weinsteinand Mayer, 1986; Beltrán, 1993; Derry and Murphy, 1986; O'Malley andChamot, 1990; Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983; Ellis, 1986; Oxford andCohén, 1992). Yet discussions of language learning strategies have notalways coincided in the acceptance of other features cited by theoristsand researchers as criterial to their definition. The feature which hasbeen 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. Onegroup of researchers assert that LS are delibérate actions which areconsciously selected (i.e. with awareness) by the learner (Weinsteinand Mayer, 1986; McCombs, 1988; Beltrán, 1993; Cohén, 1990; Oxfordand Cohén, 1992). Oxford and Cohén (1992), for example, argüe for alearner action to be considered as strategic, learners must have somedegree of awareness that they are employing a particular strategy. Intheir 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 concious awareness onthepart of the learner (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, 1983; Wendenand Rubin, 1987; Willing, 1989; O'Malley and Chamot, 1990;Ellis, 1896) or
2. that consciousness is not 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 strategicbehaviour. They suggest that consciousness is not constant among in-dividuáis and that some learners are more aware than others of theirmental functioning. In his discussion on LS, Ellis (1986), states thatsome strategies are conscious while others are not but gives no indica-tion as to which particular LS he is referring to in either case. Wendenand Rubin (1987) take a similar stand to that of O'Malley and Chamot(1990) who, on outlining their position from within a cognitive theoryof learning, recognize the variability inherent to the feature of con-sciousness.
431
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
Willing's (1989) view is much less of a compromise. He states thatthe conscious/subconscious dichotomy is misleading and asserts that LScan function at both conscious and subconscious levéis of mental pro-cessing. Willing's claim is that there are 'no absolute theoretical criteriafor denying these activities to the subconscious' (1989, p. 141), arguingthat almost all mental functioning does, in fact, take place outside therealms of conscious awareness. In his opinión subconscious processesare just as capable as conscious ones of functioning in pursuit of alearning goal.
The idea that learning involves shifts between subconscious andconscious behaviour is closely related to the question of automatic andcontrolled processing (Schiffrin and Schneider, 1984, in O'Malley andChamot, 1990). In cognitive theory consciousness is closely related toattention, the control process which brings information into focal awa-reness (Schmidt, 1990). A distinction is made between learning taskswhich require high levéis of attention, controlled processing, and thosewhich do not, automatic processing. In this view skills which are lessfamiliar to the learner require greater control of processing, while moreautomatic processing is performed without awareness. For theories suchas Anderson's three-stage model of skill acquisition (Anderson, 1983,1985, in O'Malley and Chamot, 1990) learning is characterized by a shiftfrom controlled to automatic processing, through the proceduralizationof the skill. Researchers also point out that automatic processing asso-ciated with high levéis of skill learning may become conscious (con-trolled) if the learner comes across new or unfamiliar information inthe course of a learning task (Anderson, 1985, in O'Malley and Chamot;Faerch and Kasper, 1987; McLaughlin, 1983, in Willing, 1989).
Willing (1989), while accepting the distinction between automatic(subconscious) and controlled (conscious) processing, insists that therelationship between them should be viewed as a continuum rather thana question of either/or. Willing's theory is based on the idea of cognitiveunity which sees no need to differentiate between subconscious andconscious processing. He argües that
"It is true certain learning strategies, particularly those which appearto he virtually universal such as associating or simplifying, most oftenarise without deliberation and will thus he seen as operating, most typicallyon a relatively less conscious level. Other strategies, for example, such ascertain modes of inferencing, may at first he exercised consciously anddeliberately, and can later become more nearly second nature throughuse and familiarity. Still others will always continué to require larger
432
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PR1MARY EL CLASSROOM
amounts of cognitive effort; therfore these wül continué indefinitely tobe controlled processes. However, tbe differences among these varioussorts of strategy can be seen as a matter of degree rather than of type"(1989, p. 142).
Bialystok has argued strongly against the inclusión of consciousnessas a defining criteria of strategic behaviour. She states that '...languagelearners use a number of systematic strategies for tvhich consciousnessis not a featuré (1985, in Willing, 1989, p. 141) and cites as an exam-ple the strategy of relating new vocabulary to prior knowledge to as-sist recall, which in her opinión 'need not be conscious for the learnef.Bialystok's views on consciousness stem from her attempts to developa theoretical framework which could account for the Learning and Com-munication Strategies (Ll and L2) of both adults and children (Bialystokand Ryan, 1985, in Ellis, 1994; Bialystok, 1990, 1991). Bialystok's mainline of reasoning is intended to describe strategies of Communication,but we believe her ideas deserve careful consideration in that they areexplicitly related to children's learning. Bialystok's assertion that the useof CS by adults learning a L2 is similar to the use of strategies by youngchildren when acquiring their Ll, necessarily rules out for her the im-portance attributed to the role of consciousness in other theories. Bialystokstates her point thus,
"Using consciousness as a criterion also has the rather restricting im-plícatíon that strategy use is available only to those speakers for whomconscious reflection is possible. The major group excluded by this featureis children, for whom it is usually claimed that conscious monitoring oftheir cognitive processing is not possible" (1990, p. 4).
The issue of consciousness in Learning Strategy theory and researchis clearly a complex one. Oxford and Cohén (1992) would have it thatall LS, to be considered strategic at all, must necessarily be conscious.Bialystok (1990), stating 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 conscious and subconscious processes in language learning. Froma cognitive theory of skill acquisition O'Malley and Chamot (1990) statethat LS begin as conscious processes but can become automatic throughpractice. Faerch and Kasper (1983) and Wenden and Rubin (1987) pre-fer the term 'potentially conscious' to refer to LS. The theoretical positiontaken in the present study will depend, naturally, on the fact that thesubjeets of our research, are young primary school children. This raises
433
YVETTE COYI.E AND MARISOL VAI.CÁRCEL
the question of whether or not children's use of LS can be said to befully conscious, or subconscious or whether there is in fact an aware-ness of learning in the cognitive sense.
The research conducted so far in the field of SLA has centred al-most exclusively on adult learning and as such cannot provide answersto these questions. Before we can ascribe to any of the views expressedabove we must look to the literature on children's learning for deeperinsights into the learning process. In this sense, Miller and Ceci andHowe (in Schmidt, 1990) insist that young children learn essentiallywithout conscious awareness, suggesting that as they mature they losethe more open awareness of environment that characterizes early'incidental' learning (McLaughlin, 1990), and acquire, around the age ofthirteen, the ability to allocate their attention strategically as occurs inadult consciousness. Similarly, Nisbet and Shucksmith (1986), in a studyof children's learning in British primary schools, have argued that strategicbehaviour is largely intuitive until the age of fourteen, and determinedlargely by the teachers, either through procedures taught explicitly orthrough approaches implicit in their presentation of classroom tasks.They suggest further, that children's increasing capacity for consciousplanning and direction of their own learning begins to emerge by theage of 10. In the light of these observations, and given that the subjectsin the present study are aged between eight and nine years oíd, theposition we take here is that consciousness is not considered criterialfor our definition of learning strategies as used by the children in theirattempts to construct knowledge of the FL.
5. LANGLIAGK LEARNING ANO LANGUAGE USK: AN INTKGRATIVK VIEW
A distinction has often been made within second language learn-ing strategy research between Learning, Production and Communicationstrategies (Tarone, 1980; Faerch and Kasper, 1983). The term learningstrategies has been used to refer to the operations by which the learnerprocesses the target language (TL) input for language learning (i.e. im-proving linguistic knowledge). Distinct from these are production andcommunication strategies which are strategies of language use. Productionstrategies enable the learner to use previously acquired linguistic knowl-edge to accomplish communication goals (Ellis, 1986). Examples includesimplification or discourse planning. Communication strategies are em-ployed when the learner fails to achieve a communicative goal because
434
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEG1ES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
of a gap in his or her lingistic knowledge. They have been classified aseither reduction strategies (eg. topic avoidance) or achievement strate-gies (eg. paraphrase, code-switching, etc.) (Faerch and Kasper, 1984).
Researchers have been divided in their interpretations of the effectof these strategies on the learning process. Some maintain that pro-duction and communication strategies cannot be considered as learn-ing strategies on the grounds that they do not contribute directly to thelearning process (Selinker, 1972; O'Malley and Chamot, 1989), that is,they are strategies motivated by the learner's desire to communicaterather than to learn. Others, however, argüe that this language learningvs. language use dichotomy is overly simplistic and difficult to sustain(Oxford and Cohén, 1992). They affirm that it is almost impossible todetermine a learner's intention in using a particular strategy and thateven if a strategy is employed for the purpose of language use, learningmay in fact take place anyw'ay (Tarone, 1981, 1983; Littlewood, 1979;Corder, 1983). This integrative view of learning, production and com-munication strategies is implicit in the work of several strategy researcherswho see communication and production strategies as complementaryto the learning process (Wong Fillmore, 1976; Stern, 1983; Chesterfieldand Chesterfield, 1985; Oxford, 1990).
In view of this background of conflicting theoretical perspectivesand conceptual confusión, a position is needed which might mediatesomehow between the more extreme positions of those who advócateeither the total separation of LS, CS and PS or those who propose theircomplete integration within broader strategy definitions. If, as we havealready suggested, strategies are to be understood as goal-directed ac-tions, then our position in this study must, necessarily, be closer to thetheoretical perspective held by those who describe strategies in termsof the goals they are said to pursue. Willing (1989) has described thegoals of LS as the 'comprehension, internalization, storage and settingup of accessingpotentialfor usable data' and that of CS as 'the success-
ful transmission and receiving of messages' (1989, p. 143), but goes onto rriake the very valid point that the realities referrecl to by these termscan and do, in fact, overlap. In his opinión 'It is of course possible toact in pursuit of two purposes at once (1989, p. 143).
From the perspective of our study this overlapping is exactly whatoccurs in an instructional setting such as that described in this researchwhere learning can be seen to take place through the active 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
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEI.
Such a distinction may be appropriate in naturalistic SLA or in instructio-nal settings which emphasize the formal study of language as a systemand where little communication takes place, but it is perhaps not the casein classrooms where, as Faerch and Kasper (1983) have suggested, learnersengage in communicative activities expressly for the purpose of learning.
This is the position held by Willing (1989) and the one to whichwe ascribe in this study. What we are suggesting is that, in the primaryclassroom, the goals pursued by strategies of language learning andstrategies of language use are essentially interrelated. Willing argües thesame point by describing how communicative classroom tasks in whichlearners are expected to use the FL for a particular purpose (decision-making, describing, exchanging information, etc.) involve the jointoperation of both cognitive and communication strategies for the actualperformance of the task itself and the linguistic resources needed fordoing so. In this sense he highlights the important links between theprocessing 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 researchdoes not distinguish between Learning and Communication Strategies,but suggests that in the realization of classroom activities which focuson the use of the FL, all the strategies employed by the pupils will nec-essarily contribute to their FL learning.
6. STUDIES OF CIIILDRKN'S LANGUAGE 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 youngadolescents and adults in ESL or L2 French situations. There are onlythree 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 thesestudies take on immense importance for their insights into children'ssecond language learning in a classroom context.
In the first of these studies Lily Wong Fillmore studied five Mexicanchildren aged between five and seven learning English at school in theUnited States. The children were each paired with a native speakingchild and their interactions were recorded for one hour every week fora period of nine months. These interactions enabled Wong Fillmore
436
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
to highlight the cognitive and social strategies used by these childrenwhich she felt were responsible for improvements in their communicativecompetence. Wong Fillmore emphasizes the importance of the socialstrategies in this study, as the children's primary interest was in estab-lishing friendships with their classmates. Learning the language wastheir means of doing that. Linked to each social strategy is one or morecognitive strategies which reflect important differences with the researchwhich has focused on adult strategy use. Given the age of the childrenand the immersion situation of the bilingual classroom the cognitivestrategies identified here are related more to language comprehensionand use than to metacognitive awareness or the analysis of languageas a formal system. They suggest the importance of the immediate contextof 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. AsSkehan (1989) has pointed out underlying the Wong Fillmore study isthe theory that 'learning to talk involves talking to learn' (1989, p. 82)for communication is facilitated by the use of ready-made expressionswhich are then gradually broken down into their constituent parts, C-3Look for recurring parts in the formulas you know, a process by whichchildren infer rather than analyze the rules of the linguistic system.
Chesterfield and Chesterfield (1985) have also examined the use oflearning strategies by young children in a bilingual classroom situation.They studied both the range of strategies used by fourteen 5-6 year oídMexican-American childrenand the order in which these strategies emergedas the children's knowledge of the L2 improved. Eight of the fourteenchildren were observed on three different occasions during their firstyear at school and their strategy use recorded. This allowed the researchersto compare and contrast the learning strategies of the eight children atany one time and to analyse the variation in each of the children overa longer period. The results of this study indicated that there did seemto be a natural order for the emergence of learning strategies in youngchildren over a period of time. Chesterfield and Chesterfield reportedthat children, regardless of their L2 proficiency, employed strategies foliow-ing the same general pattern. The sequence of strategy use ranged fromprimarily 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
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VAI.CÁRGEL
Elaboration, Appeal for assistance, Request for clarification or some degreeof metacognitive awareness, Monitoring, were the last to emerge, andeven then were developed by only a few children.
In the light of these findings the 'natural order' theory can be seento have important implications for classroom teaching. Chesterfield andChesterfield feel that the child's progress in the TL would be enhancedby educational experiences constructed to foster the development ofthese learning strategies. They suggest that language teaching methodswhich generally emphasize the more elementary strategies of repetitionand memorization may be neglecting those strategies, which accordingto their study, promote greater interaction (and henee learning) amongchildren. What the Chesterfields seem to be implying is the need forinstruction to encourage children to engage in, in O'Malley's terms, moreactive mental processing.
More recently, Chamot and Beard El Dinary (1999) have carried outa study of children's learning strategies in foreign language classroomimmersion classrooms in the USA. The focus of their study was on iden-tifying the strategies that more and less effective learners use for readingand writing tasks in French, Japanese and Spanish FL classrooms. Usingthink aloud protocols, Chamot and Beard analysed the children's appre-ciations of how they approached different tasks and, in doing so, wereable 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 lesseffective learners as regards the appropriateness of their use of learn-ing strategies for specific tasks. Effective learners were seen to be moreflexible in their strategy use and better at monitoring and inferencingthan less effective learners who tended to cling to single strategies suchas laborious decoding of individual words, seemingly unaware of itsuneffectiveness 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 ofits kind to be applied to children's learning and it is significant thatmany of the learning strategies identified there have much in commonwith the findings of our research. Secondly, as regards the data collec-tion techniques used, we too share the satisfaction expressed by Chamotand Beard on the successful use of 'think aloud' procedures in children.This aspect of our study is discussed below.
438
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
7 . STUDY PARTICIPANTS AND DATA COU.KCTION I'ROCEDURES
The study reported on in this paper formed part of a larger twoyear longitudinal research project on the teaching and learning ofEnglish as a foreign language in the primary classroom. Specifically, itfocuses on identifying and classifying the LS used by young childrenin their attempts to learn English. The present study was carried outwith a sample of eight children from the same class, identified by theirteacher to be effective language learners, during their first two years ofEFL instruction in a Spanish state primary school.
Data for the main study included classroom observations of over50 hours teaching, all of which were video recorded for transcriptionand analysis. The sub-study described here used data gathered fromthese observations as well as from retrospective and think-aloud interviews(see Table 1), which have been favoured by LS researchers for the richinformation they can provide of students' mental processing. It washoped 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 immediatelyafter working on activities (storytelling, playing games, writing a com-position) they were familiar with in the classroom. The children wereencouraged to verbalize their thoughts aloud, using their Ll, and wereprompted by the interviewer to clarify and elabórate on their commentswhen necessary. All seven interviews were either video taped (1-3) oraudio taped (4-7), and transcribed for analysis.
8. DATA ANALYSIS PROCKDURES
The analysis of the observation and interview data proceeded asfollows. 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 initiating an exchange with the teacher) which wouldsuggest that children were using, albeit subconsciously, particularlearning strategies. Then, working independently, the same threeraters analysed all the interview protocols, marking each occurrenceof a potential learning technique and transferring the verbal data ontocoding sheets for each interview. Through discussion the raters com-pared and contrasted their data to reach an agreement on the nature
439
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
Table 1.
N"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Technique
StimulatedRecall
ImmediateRetrospection
ImmediateRetrospection
ImmediateRetrospection
Immediateretrospection
DelayedRetrospection
Evaluative
ParticipantStnicture
Smallgroup (3)
2 smallgroups (4)
4 pairs
Individual
4 pairs
Individual
Individual
Activity
Song
Oral description ofmodel house
Story
Students' writtencompositions
Board game
FL contents workedon in class
Focus
Initial exploration of children'sability to verbalize informationon processes of FL compre-hension, retention.
Strategies used in FL oral pro-duction; influence of Ll onFL production; FL rehearsal;Ss reaction to error; etc.
Strategies for retention and oralproduction; importance of Ssprevious knowledge.
Strategies for FL written pro-duction; strategies of analysis.
Oral FL production; socialstrategies.
General questions on children'sattitude and motivation towardsEFL learning
Evaluation of the children's EFLcompetence.
of the learning techniques and the appropriateness of the discursiveexamples identified, eliminating any techniques which were consideredambiguous 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 learningtechniques identified from the empirical data were then grouped intothe broader category of Learning Strategies, again after previous discussionand consensus of opinión. These categories were theoretically drivenand included Metacognitive, Social/Affective and Cognitive learning strate-gies previously identified in the research literature on learning strategies.The definitions we have used in our classification of children's FL learningstrategies are presented below.
440
CHILDKEN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
Metacognitive Strategies
Strategy
SELF MANAGEMENT
O'Malley et al. (1985); Chamot et al.(1987); O'Malley & Chamot (1990); Oxford(1990); Wenden (199D; Oxford & Cohén(1992); Chamot & Beard (1999)
PLANNING
O'Malley etal. (1985); Chamot etal. (1987,1988); O'Malley & Chamot (1990); Oxford(1990); Wenden (199D; Oxford and Cohén(1992); Chamot & Beard (1999)
SELF MONITORING
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)
Student-initiated strategic behaviour
The child's ability to regualte or supporthis own learning process by developingan understanding of the conditions orcircumstances that will promote better ormore successful learning
Deciding in advance to attend to a learningtask and ignore distractions and proposingstrategies for carrying out a language taskindividually or in groups.
The child's awareness of 'on-line' diffi-culties or problems in the performanceof a language task as well as their at-tempts to correct their own speech foraccuracy in pronunciation, grammar orvocabulary.
Social /Affective Strategies
Strategy
COOPERATING WITH OTHERS
Wong Fillmore (1976); O'Malley et al.(1985); Chamot etal. (1987, 1988); O'Malleyand Chamot (1990); Oxford (1990)
REGULATING CLASSROOM BEHAVIOUR
Cathcart (1985)
DEVELOPING A POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE FL
Oxford (1990)
SELF-CONFIDENCE
Naiman et al. (1978); Chesterfield andChesterfield (1985); Oxford (1990);
SHOWING INTEREST IN THE FL OUTSIDE THE
CLASSROOM
Naiman et al. (1978)
Student-initiated strategic behaviour
Helping other children to understand oruse the FL or to solve a problem inclass
Trying to control the behaviour of otherchildren by getting them to comply totheir ideas, beliefs, class rules, etc.
Expressing positive feelings towards thestudy of the FL
Using the FL confidently without fear oranxiety
Being aware of and interested in examplesof the FL outside the school environment
441
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
CognitiveStrategy
USING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
O'Malley etal. (1985); Chamot etal. (1987,1988); O'Malley & Chamot (1990); Oxford(1990); Oxford and Cohén (1992); Chamot& Beard (1999)
INFERENCING
Wong Fillmore (1976); Rubin (1981,1989); O'Malley et al. (1985); Chamot etal. (1987, 1988); O'Malley & Chamot(1990); Oxford (1990); Chamot & Beard(1999)
USING VISUAL, AUDITORY AND KINETIC IMAGERY
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)
LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
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 F L K.NOWLEDGE
Faerch and Kasper (1983); Corder(1983); Oxford and Cohén (1992); Tarone(1977); Oxford (1990); Oxford and Cohén(1992)
Strategies
Student-initiated strategic behaviour
Relating new information to previousknowledge to understand meaning in theFL
Using contextual or physical clues to makesense of the meanings being expressedin the FL
The retention and recall of specific FLvocabulary and expressions by means ofphysical, visual and gestural imagery
Voluntary on task repetition of FL voca-bulary and models and voluntary repeti-tion of FL input outside the class
The application of learned or self-dev-eloped rules to understand or producethe FL
Constructing meanings in the FL by com-bining known vocabulary and patterns ina new way.
Attempts to communicate in the FL inspite of having only limited linguisticknowledge
442
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
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 thoughtsand behaviours used by children as young as eight and nine years oídfor 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 includesMetacognitive and Social/Affective strategies on the one hand and Cog-nitive strategies on the other, with the latter classified according to thehigher level processes of Comprehension, Retention and Language Usewhich they work to enhance and develop. At a more specific level, moststrategy types are manifested through several different learning techni-ques. The following tables ¿Ilústrate the hierarchical grouping we havemade of Process, Strategy and Technique and include examples for eachtechnique extracted from the interview and classroom data. The numberafter each excerpt refers either to the interview or to the Teaching Unitfrom which the example was taken.
443
Met
acog
niti
ve
Str
ateg
ies
Stra
tegi
es
SELF
MAN
AGEM
ENT
Tec
h ñi
ques
Dec
idin
g in
adv
ance
to
use
the
FL in
the
cla
ssro
om
Mak
ing
an e
ffor
t to
car
ry o
utcl
assr
oom
act
iviti
es w
ell
Dec
idin
g to
pay
atte
ntio
n to
the
teac
her
in c
lass
Dec
idin
g to
pay
atte
ntio
n to
oth
erch
ildre
n's
oral
pro
duct
ions
to
lear
n fr
om t
hem
Exa
mpl
es
Sil:
Si h
abla
mos
en
espa
ñol
es b
ajito
par
a qu
e no
nos
oig
a.E
loy:
Ser
ás t
ú la
que
hab
las
en e
spañ
ol.
Ent:
¿Tú
no h
abla
s en
esp
añol
nun
ca E
loy?
Elo
y: A
l pr
inci
pio
cuan
do
era
más
pe
queñ
o y
empe
zába
mos
a
dar
ingl
és s
í, pe
ro a
hora
ya
no.
Aho
ra y
a sa
bem
os b
ien
y lo
que
no e
nten
dem
os s
e lo
dec
imos
a D
on M
atía
s y
él n
os l
o ex
plic
a en
ingl
és.
(5)
Int:
¿Qué
hac
es p
ara
caer
le b
ien
a tu
pro
feso
r?El
: Y
o in
tent
o ha
cer
todo
s lo
s de
bere
sIn
t: ¿Y
en
clas
e qu
é ha
ces?
El:
Pues
in
ento
hac
erlo
de
ntro
de
lo
mej
or
posi
ble.
.. Po
rque
yo
quie
ro q
ue m
e ve
a qu
e so
y lis
to.
(6)
Sor:
Pues
yo
inte
nto,
int
ento
lo
posi
ble
para
pod
er e
nten
der
toda
sla
s pa
la...
to
das
las
pala
bras
en
ingl
és,
inte
nto
cada
vez
apr
ende
rm
ás.
JV:
(Ref
erri
ng to
the
tea
cher
) C
uand
o di
ce a
lgo
que
no h
emos
dad
oen
tonc
es p
rest
o m
ás a
tenc
ión.
(6)
Int:
¿Cre
es q
ue p
uede
s ap
rend
er d
e lo
s co
mpa
ñero
s?Y
ol:
Sí.
Int:
¿Por
qué
?Y
ol:
Porq
ue h
ay a
lgun
os q
ue s
on m
ás l
isto
s qu
e ot
ros
y lo
s qu
eso
n m
ás l
isto
s pu
es,
si y
o no
sé
deci
r un
a fr
ase
pues
si
la d
icen
ello
s bi
en
pues
yo
, co
mo
lo h
e oí
do v
aria
s ve
ces,
pue
s sé
de-
cirla
. (6
)
n O > •z,
O 2 J8 n
PLA
NN
ING
SELF
MO
NIT
OR
ING
Men
tally
reh
ears
ing
the
lang
uage
need
ed t
o pa
rtic
ípat
e in
an
up-
com
ing
activ
ity
Thi
nkin
g in
Ll
to p
repa
re w
rit-
ten/
oral
pro
duct
ion
Cor
rect
ing
your
ow
n m
ista
kes
inth
e co
mp
reh
ensi
on/p
rod
uc-
tion
/pro
nunc
iati
on o
f th
e FL
Int:
Cua
ndo
tené
is q
ue h
abla
r y
sabé
is q
ue D
on M
. va
a p
regu
ntar
a to
dos,
¿va
s en
saya
ndo
en l
a ca
beza
lo
que
vais
a e
cir
o es
perá
isa
que
os p
regu
nte
y en
tonc
es e
mpe
záis
a p
ensa
r?El
: N
o. e
stam
os p
ensa
ndo
a ve
r lo
que
vam
os a
dec
ir. Y
o, y
o pi
enso
lo q
ue v
oy a
dec
ir p
orqu
e a
lo m
ejor
est
á m
al,
lo p
iens
o y
si e
stoy
segu
ro d
e qu
e es
pue
s lo
dig
o.
Int:
Vam
os a
ver
Jos
é V
icen
te c
uand
o es
tás
escr
ibie
ndo,
esc
ribi
endo
en i
nglé
s ¿q
ué e
stás
pen
sand
o, e
n es
paño
l y
lueg
o lo
vas
pon
iend
oen
ing
lés
o es
tás
pens
ando
dir
ecta
men
te e
n in
glés
?JV
: Pi
enso
pri
mer
o un
poc
o en
esp
añol
.In
t: Pr
imer
o un
poc
o en
esp
añol
. ¿Y
lueg
o qu
é ha
ces
lo t
radu
ces?
JV:
Sí.
(4)
Int:
¿Sab
ríais
dec
ir e
n in
glés
cuá
les
han
sido
los
pro
blem
as?
San:
Dol
or d
e es
tóm
ago,
sto
mac
hach
e. L
a ca
beza
, m
m,
Hea
dach
e.JV
: /H
ill/
ill.
(3)
O SO > 50 z o A Tí t-1
50
Soci
al /A
ffec
tive
Str
ateg
ies
Stra
tegi
es
CO
OPE
RA
TIN
GW
ITH
OT
HE
RS
REG
ULA
TIN
GC
LASS
RO
OM
BEH
AV
IOU
R
DE
VE
LO
PIN
GA
PO
SIT
IVE
AT
TIT
UD
ET
OW
AR
DS
LE
AR
NIN
GT
HE
FL
Tec
hniq
ues
Hel
ping
oth
er c
hild
ren
wit
h cl
ass-
room
act
ivit
ies
(com
preh
ensi
on;
read
ing;
ora
l pr
oduc
tion
)
Cor
rect
ing
othe
r ch
ildre
n's
mis
-ta
kes
(com
preh
ensi
on;
pron
un-
ciat
ion;
use
of
the
FL)
Insi
stin
g th
at o
ther
chi
ldre
n us
eFL
dur
ing
clas
sroo
m a
ctiv
itie
s
Exp
ress
ing
a pr
efer
ence
for
Eng
-lis
h ov
er o
ther
sub
ject
s
Exa
mpl
es
Sor:
(Tal
king
abo
ut a
com
posi
tion
they
hav
e w
ritt
en i
n cl
ass)
Com
o,va
rias
cosa
s no
las
ent
endí
a en
tonc
es,
mi
com
pañe
ro J
uan
Pedr
ota
mbi
én v
aria
s co
sas
no l
as e
ntie
nde,
cos
as q
ue y
o no
ent
iend
o y
él s
i la
s sa
be p
os y
o se
las
pre
gunt
o y
las
cosa
s qu
e él
no
sabe
yyo
sí
me
las
preg
unta
y a
sí v
aria
s co
sas
que
no e
nten
dem
os e
ntre
los
dos
las
pode
mos
apr
ende
r. (
4)
Sor:
(Ref
erri
ng to
a s
ong
they
've
lear
ned
in c
lass
) y
lueg
o di
ce '
two
tiny
win
dow
s' q
ue s
on...
Son:
que
son
las
sill
as.
JP &
Sor
: (t
oget
ber)
no
son
las
vent
anas
. (1
)
(Ask
ing
and
answ
erin
g qu
esti
ons
abou
t pic
ture
s th
ey h
ave
drai
vn o
fth
eir
drea
m h
ousé
)So
r: B
ig,
no,
smal
l be
droo
m.
Four
bed
room
, be
droo
ms.
Big
or
smal
ldo
or.
Son:
Big
or
smal
l?JL
: Ju
an P
edro
¿C
uánt
as p
lant
as t
iene
tu
casa
?JP
: O
ne.
Sor:
Eng
lish,
no
Span
ish.
(U
D1)
Int:
¿Por
qué
te g
usta
el
ingl
és m
ás q
ue a
otr
as a
sign
atur
as?
Yol
: Po
r qu
e ha
ces
jueg
os,
te l
o pa
sas
bien
, ve
s ci
ntas
de
vide
o, e
nla
s ot
ras
tiene
s qu
e es
tar
siem
pre
estu
dian
do,
haci
endo
deb
eres
, ha
-ci
endo
eje
rcic
ios.
(6)
O O 2 2 en O > se n
SELF
CO
NFI
DE
NC
E
SHO
WIN
GIN
TE
RE
STIN
TH
E F
LO
UT
SID
E T
HE
CLA
SSR
OO
M
Hav
ing
conf
iden
ce i
n yo
ur a
bilit
yto
und
erst
and
and
use
the
FL
Usi
ng t
he F
L i
n cl
ass
wit
hou
tbe
ing
frig
hten
ed o
f m
akin
g m
is-
take
s
Ant
icip
atin
g an
ans
wer
to
the
teac
her'
s qu
esti
ons
Usi
ng t
he F
L at
hom
e w
ith
fam
ilym
embe
rs o
r in
the
pla
ygro
und
wit
h fr
iend
s
Not
icin
g ex
ampl
es o
f th
e FL
on
the
tele
visi
ón; i
n ad
vert
isem
ents
;so
ngs,
etc
.
El:
Es b
uen
prof
esor
, po
r qu
e ah
ora
mis
mo
noso
tros
sa
bem
osm
ucha
s co
sas
que
yo s
e lo
he
preg
unta
do a
otr
os c
rios
de o
tra e
s-cu
ela
que
no l
o sa
ben
tant
o,
no e
stán
ap
rend
iend
o ta
nto
com
ono
sotr
os.
Sor:
Yo
pien
so q
ue y
o sé
muc
ho d
e in
glés
que
por
eje
mpl
o a
al-
guno
s le
s ga
no h
abla
ndo.
(6)
Int:
¿Tie
nes
mie
do a
equ
ivoc
arte
cua
ndo
habl
as e
n in
glés
?JL
: N
o, s
i m
e eq
uivo
co y
sé
que
me
he e
quiv
ocad
o, l
o di
go b
ien.
El:
Cua
ndo
no e
stá
grab
ando
el
vide
o m
e da
igu
al q
ue m
e eq
uivo
-qu
e. (
6)
Int:
¿Te
gust
a le
vant
ar l
a m
ano
para
con
test
ar o
no?
JL:
Lev
anto
la
man
o y
empi
ezo
a de
cir
'me,
me,
me
plea
se'.
(6)
Sor:
Dig
o en
cas
a to
do l
o qu
e sé
, to
do l
o qu
e pu
edo
para
pod
eres
forz
arm
e pa
ra a
prob
ar l
a as
igna
tura
, y
tam
bién
par
a...
para
... e
nm
i ca
sa,
yo m
ucha
s ve
ces
esto
y so
la y
lue
go,
llega
n m
is p
adre
s y
todo
eso
, y
yo e
mpi
ezo
a ha
blar
en
ingl
és,
empi
ezo
a de
cirle
s lo
san
imal
es q
ue h
e ap
rend
idio
nue
vos,
em
piez
o a
cant
arle
s ca
ncio
nes,
empi
ezo
a co
ntar
les
muc
has
cosa
s y
eso
a m
is p
ad...
A m
is p
adre
sle
s da
muc
ho g
usto
, po
r qu
e m
is p
adre
s qu
iere
n qu
e yo
saq
ue l
aca
rrer
a de
... d
e pr
ofes
ora.
(6)
Int:
¿Fue
ra d
e cl
ase
te i
nter
esa
ver
cosa
s en
ing
lés?
Eloy
: Sí
por
que
mira
un
amig
o m
ío m
e de
jo u
na c
inta
que
tod
oer
a...
que
todo
era
en
ingl
és y
yo
la e
scuc
hé.
Son:
Tam
bién
cua
ndo
hay
pelíc
ulas
. Es
que
yo
teng
o un
can
al i
n-gl
és.
(6)
50 z z z 2? > jo
00C
ogni
tive
St
rate
gies
CO
MPR
EH
EN
SIO
N
Stra
tegi
es
USI
NG
PRIO
R L
lK
NO
WL
ED
GE
INFE
RE
NC
ING
Tec
hniq
ues
Usi
ng p
rior
kn
owle
dge
of
th
eac
tivi
ty s
truc
ture
(ga
mes
, sto
ries
)
Usi
ng p
rior
kn
owle
dge
of
the
topi
c or
con
text
Gu
essi
ng
mea
nin
gs
from
th
ete
ache
r's
gest
ares
, mod
ulat
ed o
ut-
put
(int
onat
ion;
vol
ume;
pau
ses;
stre
ss)
Gue
ssin
g m
eani
ngs
from
pic
tu-
res,
obje
cts
blac
kboa
rd d
raw
ings
,vi
deo
sequ
ence
s
Exa
mpl
es
Int:
¿Vos
otro
s te
néis
jue
gos
de e
stos
en
casa
?So
r: Y
o sí
, te
ngo
el j
uego
de
la o
ca q
ue e
s pa
reci
do a
ést
e.JP
: Y
yo.
Int:
Y tú
tam
bién
. E
nton
ces
tú s
abes
por
las
reg
las
o po
r qu
e sa
bes
juga
r?So
r: P
orqu
e sa
bem
os j
ugar
. (5
)
Int:
(Ask
ing
how
the
pupi
l ha
d un
ders
tood
the
sto
ry T
he V
ery H
ungr
y C
a-te
rpil
lar)
¿E
sto
te l
o sa
bías
por
que
ya s
abía
s lo
que
pas
aba
a un
a or
uga?
El:
Ah
pero
eso
yo
ya l
o sa
bía.
Int:
¿Dón
de l
o ha
bías
es
tudi
ado?
El:
Pue
s es
qu
e ta
mbi
én
yo
cuan
do
es
el
tiem
po
de
los
gusa
nos,
pues
yo
cojo
gus
anos
, y
lueg
o ha
cen
el,
el c
apul
lo y
lue
go s
ale
lam
arip
osa
y y
pone
hu
evos
.In
t: ¿Y
cóm
o se
dic
e ca
pull
o en
in
glés
?El
: C
ocoo
n.
(3)
Int:
(Che
ckin
g th
eir
com
preh
ensi
on
of a
son
g th
ey h
ave
lear
ned
incl
ass)
¿Y
eso
qué
es
de
'pee
p in
side
'?JP
: P
orqu
e es
una
pal
abra
y
lueg
o di
ce q
ue
entr
e o
algo
así
.So
r: E
nton
ces
Don
M s
e po
ne a
sí (
circ
les
her
eyes
wit
h he
r ha
nds)
.JL
: El
agu
jero
y
ver
lo q
ue h
ay d
entr
o.
(1)
JP:
Don
M e
stuv
o po
nien
do e
n la
piz
arra
alg
unas
cos
as.
Sor:
Dib
ujan
do...
yo
me
acue
rdo
de m
ucha
s: s
aw,
plye
rs,
scre
wdr
iver
,ha
mm
er.
JP:
Y D
on M
nos
lo
poní
a el
dib
ujo
y lu
ego
noso
tros
ten
íam
os
que
deci
rlo.
(1
)
•< < n O > c 2 pe
RE
TE
NT
ION
A
ND
R
ET
RIE
VA
L
Stra
tegi
es
VIS
UA
L,A
UD
ITO
RY
,K
INE
TIC
IMA
GER
Y
Tec
hniq
ues
Ass
ocia
ting
voc
abul
ary
and
lan-
guag
e m
odel
s w
ith
the
teac
her'
sge
stur
es
Rec
alli
ng v
ocab
ular
y an
d la
n-gu
age
mod
els
from
bla
ckbo
ard
draw
ings
and
pic
ture
s in
sto
ry-
book
s, s
lides
, vid
eo i
mag
es, e
tc.
Rec
alli
ng v
ocab
ular
y an
d la
n-gu
age
mod
els
in a
ssoc
iati
on w
ith
the
them
atic
con
text
in
wh
ich
they
wer
e fi
rst
intr
oduc
ed
Ass
ocia
ting
voc
abul
ary
and
lan-
guag
e m
odel
s w
ith
phys
ical
ac-
tion
Exa
mpl
es
JP:
Ade
más
Don
M,
cuan
do c
anta
ba l
a ca
nció
n, c
uand
o de
cía
'bui
ld'
hací
a as
í (p
rete
nds
to d
ig w
ith
a sp
adé)
. (2
)
Int:
¿Y c
ómo
os a
cord
áis
del
cuen
to,
tú q
ue l
o ha
s co
ntad
o si
n m
i-ra
rlo
cóm
o te
acu
erda
s de
tod
o?So
r:
Pue
s yo
m
e ac
uerd
o p
orq
ue
lo
vim
os
dos
vece
s yo
lo
vi
dos
vece
s en
el
vid
eo y
Don
M
a v
eces
nos
po
ne,
com
o a
vece
sno
no
s ac
orda
mos
bi
en
de
las
cosa
s no
s po
ne
el v
ideo
y
lo r
e-co
rdam
os
y lu
ego
yo
me
acue
rdo,
po
rque
cu
ando
yo
do
y al
gode
in
glés
se
me
apre
nde,
y
se m
e m
ete
en
la c
abez
a y
no
se
me
olvi
da.
(3)
Int:
(Ask
ing
abou
t vo
cabu
lary
) A
ver
JV
, ¿t
ú de
cu
áles
te
ac
uerd
asm
ejor
?JV
: D
e la
s qu
e sa
len
en e
l cu
ento
y a
lgun
a ot
ra.
(3)
El:
Otr
a co
sa
que
nos
ayud
ó a
reco
rdar
er
a cu
ando
D
on M
. co
gía
un n
ombr
e si
tú
lo d
ecía
s y
lo a
cert
abas
lue
go l
o po
nías
en
el p
a-pe
l, es
o ta
mbi
én
nos
ayud
ó, a
yudó
más
. (3
)
n O i z w •o 5 C/J so O O S
Cog
nitiv
e St
rate
gies
(co
nt.)
RE
TE
NT
ION
A
ND
R
ET
RIE
VA
L
Stra
tegi
es
RE
PET
ITIO
N
Tec
hniq
ues
Vol
unta
ry in
-cla
ss r
epet
itio
n of
vo
cabu
lary
, la
ngua
ge m
odel
s pr
e-se
nted
by
the
teac
her
Play
fully
rep
eati
ng t
o on
esse
lf o
rw
ith
frie
nds
outs
ide
clas
s (n
eww
ords
, num
bers
, so
ngs,
etc
.)
Re-
read
ing
clas
s ex
erci
se
book
to r
emem
ber
new
voc
abul
ary
Vol
unta
rily
rep
eatin
g th
e te
ache
r's
corr
ecti
ve f
eedb
ack
Exa
mpl
es
T:
Fm g
oing
to
buil
d a
hous
eSs
: w
ith
a sl
opin
g ro
ofT
: w
ith
a ch
imne
y ta
llSs
: w
ith
a ch
imne
y ta
llT
: sl
opin
g ro
ofSs
: sl
opin
g ro
ofT
: ok
? (T
U1)
JL:
yo m
ucha
s ve
ces
yo v
oy p
ensa
ndo
en l
os n
úmer
os,
cuen
to,
mir
a(s
e le
vant
a)
voy
haci
endo
pe
nsan
do,
one
two
thre
e fo
ur
five
, vo
yca
ntán
dolo
s.
(1)
Int:
¿Qué
est
udia
s, l
os f
ines
de
se
man
a?So
r: S
í y
a ve
ces
com
o m
e lo
lle
vo (
refe
rrin
g to
her
exe
rcis
e bo
ok)
por
las
tard
es c
uand
o es
toy
sola
pos
me
pong
o a
estu
diar
y a
sí n
oes
toy
abur
rida
.In
t: Y
cua
ndo
dice
s qu
e es
tudi
as ¿
qué
hace
s, v
es l
os d
ibuj
os o
lee
s o.
..?S:
No,
yo
al p
rinc
ipio
veo
los
dib
ujos
y
así
lo r
ecue
rdo
lo q
ue e
s y
lueg
o m
e po
ngo
a le
er y
ya
sé l
o qu
e es
.In
t: ¿Y
esc
ribe
s ta
mbi
én
o no
?S:
Cua
ndo,
no
, cu
ando
, co
mo
segu
ram
ente
m
ás
adel
ante
ha
rem
osdi
ctad
os
de
ingl
és
ento
nces
, yo
m
ucha
s ve
ces
cojo
el
láp
iz
y un
aho
ja,
o m
e po
ngo
el
libr
o y
empi
ezo
a di
ctar
do
s ho
jas
y lu
ego,
cuan
do,
desp
ués
de e
so.
me
pong
o a
leer
lo y
ya
me
lo s
é. (
3)
T:
For
exam
ple
if I
wan
t to
buy
sta
mps
to
send
let
ters
, w
here
do
I go
?JL
: po
st
offi
ceT
: I
go t
o th
e po
st
offi
ceJL
: I
go t
o th
e po
st o
ffic
e (T
U3)
8 > n
USE
OF
LA
NG
UA
GE
F
OR
O
RA
L/W
RIT
TE
N
CO
MM
UN
ICA
TIO
N
Stra
tegi
es
LAN
GU
AG
EA
NA
LYSI
S
BU
ILD
ING
AU
TO
NO
MO
US
DIS
CO
UR
SE
Tec
h ñi
ques
Indu
cing
pho
nolo
gica
l rul
es fr
omth
e la
ngua
ge i
nput
App
lyin
g le
arne
d ru
les
to u
nder
-st
and/
prod
uce
the
FL
Usi
ng u
nana
lyse
d fo
rmul
as
Spon
tane
ousl
y in
itia
ting
an
ex-
chan
ge w
ith
the
teac
her
or a
n-ot
her
pupi
l in
the
FL
Inco
rpor
atin
g th
e te
ache
r's
feed
-ba
ck i
n or
al /
wri
tten
pro
duct
ion
Exa
mpl
es
Int:
Vos
otro
s de
cís
'pee
p' s
iem
pre
y es
o lo
veo
muy
rar
o.JL
: P
ero
en i
nglé
s se
esc
ribe
de
una
man
era
y lu
esgo
se
dice
de
otra
man
era.
Sor:
Si
las
cort
icas
más
o m
enos
se
dice
igu
ales
per
o la
s m
ás g
rand
esse
pro
nunc
ian
dist
into
. (1
)
Int:
¿Hab
éis
oído
a
Don
M
dec
ir
'ate
', 'a
te?
¿ Y
sab
éis
cuál
es
la
dife
renc
ia
entr
e 'e
at'
y 'a
te'?
JV:
Que
'a
te'
es q
ue c
omió
y '
eat'
es q
ue
com
e.In
t: B
ien,
muy
bie
n. ¿
Y c
ómo
lo s
abes
?JV
: P
orqu
e a
mí
cuan
do d
ecía
'e
at'
ento
nces
m
e lo
dijo
. (3
)
Int:
Allí
pon
e (p
oint
ing
to t
he b
lack
boar
d)
Tod
ay i
s W
edne
sday
¿qu
équ
iere
de
cir?
Yol
: Y
o sa
bía
deci
r T
oday
is
Wed
nesd
ay'
pero
'is
' no
sab
ía m
uy b
ien
lo q
ue
sign
ific
a.
(4)
T. D
id y
ou
enjo
y yo
ur
wee
kend
?So
r: M
. it
's R
uben
's h
appy
bir
thda
y to
you
(si
ngin
g)
happ
y bi
rthd
ayto
you
.T
: It
's R
uben
's b
irth
day,
ok,
con
grat
ulat
ions
, ha
ppy
birt
hday
. (T
U 3
)
JV (
Tal
kíng
ab
out
a co
mpo
siti
on
he h
ad
wri
tten
ab
out
his
own
vil-
lage
in
w
hich
th
e te
ache
r ha
d co
rrec
ted
seve
ral
wor
ds
and
expr
es-
sion
s an
d w
hich
ha
s he
lped
him
to
wri
te a
sec
ond
com
posi
tion
ab
out
his
idea
l vi
llag
e) C
omo
escr
ibí
sobr
e A
lque
rías
las
pon
ía m
al,
y M
atía
sla
s pu
so b
ien
y m
e ac
orda
ba d
e có
mo
se e
scri
bían
...
Alg
unas
cos
asm
e la
s co
mía
y é
l m
e di
jo c
omo
las
tení
a qu
e po
ner.
(4
)
r. pe Z O O > Ti O O s
Cog
nitiv
e S
trat
egie
s (c
ont.)
USE
O
F L
AN
GU
AG
E
FO
R
OR
AL
/WR
ITT
EN
C
OM
MU
NIC
AT
ION
Stra
tegi
es
BU
ILD
ING
AU
TO
NO
MO
US
DIS
CO
UR
SE
OV
ER
CO
MIN
GLI
MIT
ATI
ON
SIN
FL
KN
OW
LE
DG
E
Tec
hniq
ues
Rec
ombi
ning
lin
guis
tic
patt
ems
and
voca
bula
ry
Usi
ng s
eman
tic
sim
plif
lcat
ions
(con
tent
wor
ds)
Ove
rgen
eral
ized
use
of
'is'
Ask
ing
the
teac
her
or a
noth
erpu
pil
for
help
Usi
ng g
estu
res
Exa
mpl
es
Int:
Wha
t do
you
li
ke d
oing
at
the
wee
kend
?So
r: L
iste
n to
mus
ic,
stud
y E
ngli
sh a
nd m
athe
mat
ics.
Wat
chin
g te
le-
visi
ón,
to g
o to
mas
s, t
he
chur
ch,
to g
o to
th
e...
at
the
sw
imm
ing
pool
(6)
Int:
Do
you
rem
embe
r th
e st
ory
of t
he c
ater
piU
ar?
Can
you
tel
l m
ea
bit
of t
he
stor
y?El
: O
ne o
ne d
ay,
on M
onda
y on
e st
raw
berr
y, T
uesd
ay t
wo
bana
nas,
on W
edne
sday
fo
ur
tom
atoe
s, o
n...
on T
hurs
day
four
eg
gs,
on F
ri-
day
five
lo
llyp
op..
.In
t: an
d w
hat
happ
ened
?El
: O
n Sa
turd
ay?
On
Sat
urda
y le
af,
is b
ig a
nd c
ocoo
n...
on
Sund
ay?
butt
erfl
y (6
)
Son:
{D
escr
ibin
g a
mod
el h
ouse
the
y ha
ve m
ade
in g
roup
s) J
P, J
L a
ndm
e is
the
ce
men
tSo
r: T
he c
him
ney,
th
e ch
imne
y,
the
colo
ur b
lack
is
me.
..
(2)
Int:
Y c
uand
o es
táis
hab
land
o y
de
repe
nte
una
pala
bra
no
sabé
isde
cirl
a, ¿
qué
hacé
is?
El:
Pue
s de
cirl
e có
mo
se d
ice
en i
nglé
s. L
e di
ces
'How
do
you
say
this
in
Eng
lish?
' y
te l
o di
ce.
(3)
Int:
Per
o en
el
vid
eo
os
he
vist
o ju
gar
y ha
céis
as
í (g
estu
res)
¿N
oha
blái
s po
r se
ñas?
Yol
: Sí
, cu
ando
alg
unas
vec
es n
o lo
sab
emos
se
lo d
ecim
os a
Don
M p
or s
eñas
(5)
w n O 5 > D n
OV
ERC
OM
ING
LIM
ITAT
IONS
INFL
KN
OW
LED
GE
Cod
e-sw
itchi
ng
Para
phra
sing
App
roxi
mat
ing
the
L2
wor
d
Fore
igni
zing
Avo
idin
g th
e to
pic
Int:
Cua
ndo
no s
abéi
s de
cir
las
cosa
s en
ing
lés
¿cóm
o la
s de
cís?
Yol
: A
lgun
as v
eces
cua
ndo
no s
é de
cir
una
cosa
pue
s la
dig
o en
med
io i
nglé
s m
edio
esp
añol
. (5
)
Int:
Are
you
the
old
est
or t
he y
oung
est
in y
our
fam
ily?
JV:
One
oíd
and
one
sm
all.
Int:
And
you
? In
the
mid
dle?
JV:
Yes
. (7
)
Int:
Wha
t ab
out
your
bed
room
? W
hat
furn
iture
can
you
fin
d?El
: T
wo
bed.
.. a
war
drob
e tw
o.In
t: A
nyth
ing
else
.El
: N
o, a
lin
k, a
lit.
Int:
Ligh
t.El
: Y
es.
(7)
Int:
Wha
t fo
od d
o yo
u no
t lik
e?El
: Le
gum
and
fish
and
piz
za.
(7)
Int:
(Ask
ing
abou
t bi
s m
othe
r) W
hat
colo
ur i
s he
r ha
ir?El
: M
e no
rem
embe
r.In
t: W
hat
is i
t in
Spa
nish
?El
: C
asta
ño.
Int:
Bro
wn.
(7)
o o ü 3 o z TI n i
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCARCEL
The children who took part in the research had been identified bytheir teacher as 'good language learners', and so the techniques andstrategies 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 ownlearning both inside and outside the classroom, since they tend to planfor learning activities and monitor their use of the FL. Similarly theyenjoy cooperating with peers either helping with problems, correctingmistakes or simply insisting that classroom rules are respected by all.Affectively, these children are highly motivated by their English classesand confident in their ability to use the FL, extending their enthusiasmfor learning to the world outside the classroom, where many of thempay attention to the English they hear in songs or on televisión andthey actively seek out opportunities to try out their growing knowledgeof the language with friends and family. It is significant that there is acertain amount of overlapping between the social and affective strate-gies shown by these children and the Attitudinal Contents containedin the Official Curriculum for foreign languages at primary level, in-dicating, consequently, that one way of developing this área of thecurriculum would be by explicitly promoting such strategy use in theclassroom.
Indeed, an important finding, coinciding with Nisbet & Shucksmith(1986), was that the learning techniques reported by these effectivelearners appeared to be closely linked to the classroom methodologythey experienced, that is to the type of communicative activities theyexperienced and more importantly, to the way in which they were pre-sented and carried out. Since English was the médium of instructionused 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 rememberthe FL models and vocabulary, as did self initiated repetition in classand home. Since oral production was a high priority in this classroom,the children's speech revealed strategic interlanguage use in the formof 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 childrenalso showed evidence of having explicitly begun to form hypothesesabout the rules underlying their use of English. The question then isnot so much whether teachers can help children to learn or not, theresults of our research suggest that, at primary level, they already do,
454
CHILDREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
since many of the learning strategies developed by these children seemedto be modelled on the teacher's methodology and approach to learningEnglish.
CONCLUSIONS
The importance of this study lies, we believe, in the insights it canoffer for teachers of English to young learners. By explicitly identify-ing the types of techniques and strategies used by children to learn theFL, and by making them available to teachers, we can help to raisetheir awareness of the ways in which they can promote successfullearning in their classrooms. Pedagogically, then, the results of thisstudy point to a number of immediate implications. These include theneed for teachers to créate a supportive and affective learning environ-ment; to establish explicit links between the FL content and the chil-dren's previous knowledge; to make effective use of extralinguistic andgestural support to facilítate comprehension in the FL; to encourage theproductive use of English by teaching (and explaining) routine formu-las and by encouraging children to express themselves as best they can,despite their limited knowledge of the FL. Clearly, what is needed isfor teachers to incorpórate sound learning strategies into their teaching,so that the intuitive use of these strategies as shown by the more ef-fective learners could be extended to all children and automatized atan early age.
We would like to conclude this paper by indicating our awarenessthat the results of this study have been obtained from only a small sam-ple of eight learners. However, we also believe that the identificationof these children's learning strategies represents a significant step in ed-ucational research within the área of foreign languages. We also consi-der that further studies of this kind, carried out with a greater numberof children, both more and less effective learners, would most certainlyprovide further insights into the cognitive processes involved in initialFL learning in primary schools.
REFERENCES
BELTRÁN LLERA, J. (1993). Procesos, Estrategias y Técnicas de Aprendizaje,Madrid, Síntesis.
455
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
BIALYSTOK, E. (1983). "Some factors in the selection and implementation ofcommunication strategies", in Faerch, C; Kasper, G., Strategies in Inter-language Communication, London, Longman.
—, (1990). Communication Strategies, Oxford, Basil Blackwell.—, and RYAN, E. B. (1985). "Toward a definition of metalingual skill", Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 31, pp. 229-251.CATHCART, R. (1986). "Situational differences and the sampling of young chil-
dren's school language", in Day, R. (ed.), Talking to Learn. Conversationin Second Language Acquisition, Rowley Mass, Newbury House.
CHAMOT, A. U.; KÜPPER, L; IMPINK-HERNANDEZ, M. V. (1988). A study oflearning 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.
CHAMOT, A. U.; BEARD EL DINARY, P. (1999). "Children's Learning Strategiesin Language Immersion Classrooms", Modern Language Journal, 83/3,pp. 319-338.
CHESTERFIELD, R.; CHESTERFIELD, K. B. (1985). "Natural order in children's useof second language learning strategies", Applied Linguistics, 6, 1, pp. 45-59-
COHÉN, A. (1990). Language Learning: Lnsights for learners, teachers and re-searchers, New York, Newbury House.
CORDER, P. (1983). "Strategies of Communication", in Faerch, C; Kasper, G.,Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, London, Longman.
DERRY, S. J.; MURPHY, D. A. (1986). "Designing Systems that train learningAbility: From Theory to Practice", Review of Educational Research, 56, 1,pp. 1-39.
ELLIS, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press.
—, (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford, Oxford Uni-versity Press.
FAERCH, C; KASPER, G. (1980). "Processes and Strategies in foreign languagelearning and communication", The Lnterlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 1,pp. 47-118.
—, (1983). Strategies in Lnterlanguage Communication, London, Longman.—, (1984). "Two ways of defining communication strategies", Language Learn-
ing, 34/1, pp. 45-63.—, (1987). "From product to process - introspective methods in second lan-
guage research", in Faerch, C; Kasper, G., Lntrospection in second lan-guage research, Clevedon, UK. Multilingual Matters.
MCCOMBS, B. L. (1988). "Motivational Skills Training: Combining Metacogni-tive, Cognitive and Affective learning Strategies", in Weinstein, C. E.; Goetz,E. T.; Alexander, P. (eds.), Learning and Study Strategies. Lssues in Assess-ment, Lnstruction and Evaluation, New York, Academic Press.
456
CHILOREN'S LEARNING STRATEGIES IN THE PRIMARY FL CLASSROOM
MCLAUGHLIN, B. (1990). "'Conscious' versus 'unconscious' learning", TESOLQuarterly, 24/4, pp. 617-634.
NAIMAN, N.; FROLICH, M.; STERN H. H.; TODESCO, A. (1978). The good lan-guage learner, Toronto, Ontario Institute for studies in Education.
NISBET, J.; SHUCKSMITH, J. (1986). Learning Strategies, London, Routledge,Kegan & Paul.
O'MALLEY, J. M.; CHAMOT, A. U.; STEWER-MANZANARES, G.; KÜPPER, L;RUSSO, R. (1985a). "Learning strategies used by beginning and interme-diate ESL students", Language Learning, 35, pp. 21-46.
—, (1985b). "Learning strategy applications with students of English as a sec-ond language", TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp. 285-296.
O'MALLEY, J. M.; CHAMOT, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second lan-guage Acquisitíon, Cambridge, CUP.
OXFORD, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every Teachershould Know, New York, Newbury House.
—, and COHÉN, A. (1992). "Language Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues ofConcept and Classification", Applied Language Learning, 3/1-2, pp. 1-35.
RUBÍN, J. (1981). "Study of cognitive processes in second language learning",Applied Linguistics, 11, pp. 117-131.
—, (1987). "Learner strategies: Theoretical Assumptions Research History andTypology", in Wenden, A.; Rubin, J., Learner Strategies in Language Learn-ing, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.
SCHMECK, R. (1988). "Individual Differences and Learning Strategies", inWeinstein, C. E.; Goetz, E. T.; Alexander, P. (eds.), Learning and StudyStrategies. Lssues in Assessment, Instruction and Evaluation, New York,Academic Press.
SCHMIDT, R. (1990). "The role of consciousness in language learning", AppliedLinguistics, 11, pp. 129-158.
SELIGER, H. (1991). "Strategy and Tactics in Second Language Acquisition", inMalave, L. M.; Duquette, G. (eds.), Language, Culture and Cognition,Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
SELINKER, L. (1972). "Interlanguage", International Review of Applied Linguis-tics, X/3, pp. 201-231.
SKEHAN, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second Language Learning, Lon-don, Edward Arnold.
STERN, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching, Oxford,Oxford University Press.
TARONE, E. (1977). "Conscious communication strategies in Interlanguage: AProgress Report", in Brown, H. D. et al. (eds.), On Tesol '77, WashingtonD.C., TESOL.
—, (1980). "Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage",Language Learning, 30/2, pp. 417-431.
—, (1981). "Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategies", TESOLQuarterly, 15/3, pp. 285-295.
457
YVETTE COYLE AND MARISOL VALCÁRCEL
—, (1983)- "On the variability of interlanguage systems", Applied Linguistics,4/2, pp. 142-163.
WEINSTEIN, C. E.; MAYER, R. E. (1986). "The Teaching of Learning Strategies",in Wittrock, M. C. (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York,MacMillan.
WENDEN, A. (1987). "Incorporating learner training in the classroom", in Wenden,A.; Rubin, J., Learner Strategies in Language Learning, Englewood Cliffs,N.J., Prentice Hall.
—, (1991)- Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy, New York, Prentice Hall.—, and RUBÍN, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall.WILLING, K. (1989). Teaching How to Learn. Learning Strategies in ESL, Mac-
quarie University, Sydney, National Centre for English Language Teachingand Research.
WONG FILLMORE, L. (1976). The second time around: Cognitive and socialstrategies in second language acquisition, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Stanford University.
—, (1979). "Individual differences in second language acquisition", in Fillmore,C. J.; Wang, W.-S. Y.; Kempler, D. (eds.), Individual differences in lan-guage ahility and language hehaviour, New York, Academic Press.
—, (1982). "The language learner as an individual: Implications of research onindividual differences for the ESL teacher", in Clark, M.; Handscombe, J.(eds.), On TESOL '82, Washington, DC, TESOL.
458
Recommended
