how identifying and developing effective learner strategies can instigate the appropriate english...

How Identifying and Developing Effective Learner Strategies can Instigate the Appropriate EnglishTeaching Methods for Poor L2 Learners of the Upper Secondary Level of Brunei Darussalam

______________________________________________________________________________________

01 INTRODUCTION

The classroom environment exhibits a collection of students with varying capacities

to learn yet at the same time they are expected to fulfil comparable levels of competency

towards the knowledge being imparted. Teachers know all too well that some learners

succeed while others struggle against failure. This division between good learners and poor

learners causes complications in teaching and oftentimes the poor learners get the short end

of the stick. Lowering the expectation is impractical as this will lower the quality of students’

learning. The other option, albeit the more challenging, is to have the poor learners achieve

the expectation and consequently place them in parallel with good learners. Thus the aim of

this paper is ‘to turn poor learners into good learners.’ Before the paper proceeds it is

practical to establish my target learners in hopes of maintaining along the lines of realistic

rationales and therefore realistic conclusions.

01.1 Identifying the Learning Context and the Target Learners

My country Brunei employs an educational system whereby students are streamed

into classes according to their academic capacities. Competency in English is the main

determinant. As a result there are good classes and there are weak classes. This paper deals

with the weakest class where the students exhibit comparable traits.

Students are in the upper secondary level within the age range of 16 to 18 years old.

Their level of English is exceptionally poor and can be attributed to L1 interference and

fossilization. Their English vocabulary repertoires are usually insignificant and are

comparable to that of a 5 year old native English speaker. As a result they face extreme

difficulty in comprehending task instructions. They lack aptitude towards English therefore

they lack motivation to pursue competency in English. They are unaware of the opportunities

in practicing English and always resort to L1 or silence in English-condensed

communication. Many disciplinary problems arise from their shortcomings and this, in

01


______________________________________________________________________________________

addition to their lack of English competency, further reinforces the school’s view that the

students are hopeless and are doomed to fail irrespective of the efforts that could be invested.

However, from my experiences in teaching these poor students, they are not to be

fully blamed. Their competency is measured by standardised assessments that are in favor of

the good learners. Teachers have the tendency to employ similar methods to teach students

across the streaming spectrum because the expectations are the same. Good learners who

have developed good learner strategies are able to cope while poor learners whose learner

strategies are in disarray tend to struggle. Thus one of the foci of this paper is to determine

these learner strategies in hopes of remedying the students’ dilemma.

01.2 The Limitations and Scope

Before the paper proceeds it is best to stress on several limitations particularly on

literature. Literature on ‘learner identification’ is abundant 20 years ago but the current

direction being taken by ‘best methods’ and ‘appropriate methods’ literature have deviated

the focus from the learners to the teaching methods. Furthermore, recent literature on learners

usually employs socio-cultural perspectives. As a common teacher, the socio-cultural variable

is beyond my control and my limitations are governed by the classroom environment. Thus,

discussions will be supported by nuances of literature abiding to the aforementioned

limitations which accordingly determines the scope of this paper.

The stance of this paper is in support of the notion that there is no best teaching

method. In fact, for the time being, teaching methods will be of second priority. The

discussions of this paper will revolve around the students and their learner strategies with the

assumption that the knowledge gathered would determine the appropriate teaching methods

to be employed. Therefore the scope of this paper is on learner strategies and the processes

involved include (1) the analysis of the learners and their learner strategies, (2) investigations

on what learner strategies make a good learner, and (3) the identification of good learner

strategies and how to elicit them from poor learners.

02


______________________________________________________________________________________

02 THE POOR LEARNERS AND THE GOOD LEARNERS

From observations during my teaching some students are able to learn English sans

textbooks or teachers, which Rubin (1975, p.42) verifies as an attribute of a good learner.

Apparently, the learners employ strategies that make them self-directed and less dependent

on teaching. The importance of being self-directed is emphasised in assessment situations

where the learner relies on his strategies. Rubin (1975, p.42) states that “if we know more

about what the ‘successful learners' did, we might be able to teach these strategies to poorer

learners to enhance their success records.” Therefore, the questions that we need to consider,

based on those enquired by Norton and Toohey (2001, p.308) and Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern &

Todesco (1978, p.4), are as follows:

What characteristics of learners predisposed them to good or poor

learning?

With regards to learner strategies, how do good learners approach

language learning tasks differently from poor learners?

02.1 What Makes a Good Language Learner?

In all simplicity good learners are students who learn the language without much

struggle. Good learners are said to have native-like fluency even though complete

competence is hardly ever reached (Naiman et al., 1978, p.2). This trait is evident in the

students who have been streamed in the higher end of the upper secondary level spectrum.

The success of good learners are attributed by them having (1) the aptitude to learn

English, (2) the motivation to learn and (3) the desire to use opportunities to practise English

(Rubin, 1975, p.42-44). Of the three variables, the most difficult characteristic to transfer to

the poor language learner would be the aptitude to learn as it is seen as a natural talent

(Hedge, 2000, p.17) and “it is not easily manipulated” (Rubin, 1975, p.42). However, once a

learner becomes motivated to learn and consequently use opportunities to practise English,

03


______________________________________________________________________________________

aptitude can be enhanced. Having control of these variables will lead to the development of

good learner characteristics.

Naiman et al. (1978, p.2) characterise good learners by (1) their intuitive mastery of

the forms of a language, (2) their intuitive mastery of the linguistic, cognitive, affective and

sociocultural meanings expressed by the language forms, (3) their capacity to use the

language with maximum attention to meaning and minimum attention to form and (4) their

creativity of language. Since I have also taught top classes, I am aware that these good

learners always converse in English, express their creativity in English through poetry and

writing and even think in English as proven by their habits of speaking to themselves.

Referring back to the variable of ‘motivation’ and ‘taking opportunities’ we can relate

that the more a poor learner is able to successfully attempt tasks, the more motivated he

becomes and consequently the more opportunities will he demand to practise English

(Pintrich, 1999). Therefore to help guide poor learners in successfully attempting tasks in

progression the teacher’s role is to ensure that the learners are using appropriate learner

strategies.

02.2 What Makes a Poor Language Learner?

Poor learners are the opposite of good learners. Therefore, poor learners can be

identified by what they do not have that good learners have in terms of learning capacity.

However, easily arriving to such conclusion created the biggest misconception regarding poor

learners, which I myself had preconceived during my teaching endeavours. The fallacy is that

good learners have learner strategies whereas poor learners do not (Wenden, 1985, p.7; cited

in Vann & Abraham, 1990, p.190)

Contrary to this belief, several studies have confirmed that poor learners in fact have

the same gamut of learner strategies as good learners. Vann and Abraham (1990, p.177)

04


______________________________________________________________________________________

confirmed from their microanalysis of students that the taxonomy of learner strategies

possessed by poor learners is “remarkably similar to successful learners”. They then

concluded that the poor learners are in fact “active strategy-users, but they often failed to

apply strategies appropriately to the task at hand”. This provides evidence that the learner

strategies do not need to be created by the teacher but are present to some extent to be trained

and developed.

We have established that poor learners use learner strategies that are inappropriate for

the task at hand. The next step is to make the learners become aware of the appropriateness of

certain strategies to certain tasks. We therefore need to determine the missing components

that have been preventing them from being aware all this while. Vann and Abraham (1990,

p.177) pinpoints the fact that poor learners lack “certain necessary higher-order processes,

what are often called metacognitive strategies or self regulatory skills which would enable

them to assess the task and bring to bear the necessary strategies for its completion.” This

statement regarding the importance of metacognitive strategies bears more credence as not

only it is claimed by Vann and Abraham as the prerequisite to effectively use learner

strategies but also, as Hedge (2000, p.77) points out, it is considered as a type of learner

strategy.

Hedge’s opinion on the types of learner strategy also hints that the learner strategies

that this paper is dealing with as the focal point is in fact a manifestation of cognitive

strategies. Therefore, this sets the scenario that, in order to identify and develop the effective

cognitive learner strategies, we must first identify the metacognitive strategies that the poor

learners lack.

02.3 Metacognitive strategies

05


______________________________________________________________________________________

Hedge (2000, p.78) describes metacognitive strategies as the strategies that involve

“planning for learning, thinking about learning and how to make it effective, self-monitoring

during learning, and evaluation of how successful learning has been after working on

language in some way.” From her statement we can deduce that metacognitve strategies are

used to analyse a task and determine what is appropriate to be carried out.

Using a war situation as an analogy, the metacognitive strategies are the scouts that

scrutinize the terrain and the enemy. They then report back to camp so that the most

appropriate attacking method, or in our case the most appropriate cognitive strategies, can be

executed. In other words, poor learners have an arsenal of attacking methods but lack the

scouts to guide them towards a successful attack.

Since metacognitive strategies are important prerequisites to effectively using learner

strategies they must then be acknowledged as being inside the scope of this paper. Moreover,

the taxonomy presented by authors on learner strategies seems to view both metacognitive

and cognitive strategies as intertwined to each other. The methods in developing these

strategies will be addressed in Chapter 3 since it is of best interest to juxtapose them and

consequently elaborate them in relation to the teaching situation as specified by this paper.

From here onwards, the learner strategies being discussed are distinctively cognitive learner

strategies with sporadic instances of metacognitive strategies where appropriate.

02.4 Identifying the Learner Strategies

Learner strategies are intangible concepts that are difficult to observe because “they

necessarily involve cognitive processes which neither the learner nor the teacher may be able

to specify” (Rubin, 1975, p.45). Hedge (2000, p.77) distinguishes learner strategies as either

mainly metacognitive or cognitive but for the interest of discussion our focus will fall mainly

on the cognitive side. Learner strategies have always been associated with the ‘good learner’

06


______________________________________________________________________________________

concept and thus the progression of this section will be supported by the influential research

of Naiman et al. (1978), among others.

Rubin’s (1975, p.43) definition on learner strategies as being “the techniques or

devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge” aided in the fine-tuning of

subsequent taxonomies on good learner strategies. Naiman et al. (1978), presented two

taxonomies with the first one consisting of 10 unrefined strategies (p.5), and the second one

consisting of 5 refined strategies that were based on research (p.30). In the interest of

precision the second taxonomy will be applied and complemented with brief accounts of the

target poor learners and a few prominent learner techniques based on these strategies will be

dealt with in Chapter 3.

The first good learner strategy states that students must have an ‘active task approach’

(Naiman et al., 1978, p.30). Good learners actively involve themselves in the language

learning task. The state of our target poor learners is between being active and passive. Due

to the constant failure in attempting tasks the students see their involvement as futile.

Therefore, these students need to be trained appropriate learner strategies to lessen the failure

rates and consequently motivate them into approaching tasks in an active manner. A lot of

improvements can be achieved using this approach outside the classroom through constant

exposure and practice and these behaviours can be groomed by the teacher. In the classroom,

the same approach of constant practice and exposure applies.

The second good learner strategy is the ‘realization of language as a system’ (Naiman

et al., 1978, p.31). Good learners develop or exploit an awareness of English as a language

system. One way of achieving this strategy is by utilizing the first language as a comparative

system. Fortunately, the L1 of our target learners has many similar technical constructs as

well as noticeable discrepancies. Therefore, they can use their knowledge of L1 to make

inferences or comparisons that would create a system based on their understanding. An easier

approach to realization is to acknowledge that words are governed by concepts such as

synonyms, registers and parts of speech. Understanding these concepts would make English a

more systematic construct rather than a sporadic cluster of words in the students’ memory.

07


______________________________________________________________________________________

The third good learner strategy is the ‘realization of language as means of

communication and interaction’ (Naiman et al., 1978, p.32). The keyword ‘communication’

suggests that good learners constantly communicate to be aware of the input (Schmidt, 1990;

cited in Robinson, 1995, p. 285). The target poor learners must therefore expose themselves

to similar situations even though it means to “overcome the inertia of using English” (Naiman

et al., 1978, p.32). The target learners always avoid such situations. Training them in

developing this strategy would need witty teaching methods that would go under their anxiety

radar unnoticed.

The fourth learner strategy is the ‘management of affective demands’ (Naiman et al.,

1978, p.32). Good learners acknowledge that they must cope with the affective demands of

language learning and to do so means to overcome all inhibitions. The target poor learners are

known to have many inhibitions in using English. Making mistakes is a cause for

embarrassment to the group and they have a shared view that if one cannot speak proper

English one should not speak any English at all. Therefore the teaching methods to be

employed must either be cautious enough to prevent humiliation or be flexible enough that

errors do not cause embarrassment.

The fifth learner strategy is the ability to ‘monitor L2 performance’ (Naiman et al.,

1978, p.33). Good learners tend to maintain their English by constantly revising and asking

others who are more knowledgeable to revise their English for them. This final strategy is the

only strategy that is mainly utilised by the target poor learners. However, the target learners

are monitoring their English inappropriately and infrequently to the extent that their

monitoring is ineffective. These learners revise for the sake of revising and ask for the sake of

asking. Therefore, the teaching methods to be employed must place them in a state of

constant revision that befit their capacity.

Naiman’s (1978) taxonomy of the five learner strategies aforementioned can be

argued as being an oversimplification but it gave credence that the target poor learners are not

08


______________________________________________________________________________________

capable of analysing the language due to inappropriately using strategies. Several taxonomies

(Ellis, 1985; Oxford, 1990) have pinpointed the same flaw of poor learners. Nonetheless, a

more important contribution of the taxonomies is the effective learner techniques that have

been derived from them. These techniques will then be used as a guideline to determine the

appropriate teaching methods for our target learners.

03 IN THE POOR LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM

This final chapter delves into the process of using the knowledge gained on our poor

learners and their learner strategies to derive suggestions on the appropriate teaching methods

that could be employed. So far the paper has established a few points for consideration and

they are as follows:

The target poor learners do have learner strategies and techniques but they use

them inappropriately.

The target poor learners cannot analyse the language properly.

Assuming that they need to develop techniques that would enable them to analyse

the language, the teaching methods must then encourage the use of these

techniques.

03.1 Preparing for the Training of Learner Techniques

Even though the taxonomies of learner strategies aim to filter the practical techniques

into a reasonable amount, the many requirements of English acquisition and the over

creativity of some educationists led to impractical lists that stretch beyond the constraints of

the classroom. Naiman (1978, p.33-37) himself listed 53 specific techniques relevant to

acquisitions of different areas such as grammar, vocabulary and writing. Thus, the deciding

process must consider several factors pertaining to the target learners and their teaching

context.

09


______________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly, the areas of acquisition where the techniques will be used must be identified.

Since this paper acts as a platform for further research, the techniques should be able to

encompass all areas of acquisition but grammar and vocabulary will be given the highest

priority due to their significance in written assessments and their dependence on learner

strategies (Gu, 1994).

Secondly, the limitations of the poor learners in terms of their mastery in learner

strategies must be considered. Therefore, the techniques must be almost instinctive in nature

and are cognitive processes of life. This will ensure that all the poor learners have equal

opportunities and the training of these techniques won’t lead to a quandary. Furthermore,

these basic techniques are expected to provide developments of more advanced techniques.

Thirdly, the techniques must provide opportunities for the learners to display

Naiman’s (1978) five learner strategies. The techniques must allow them to practice, to be

aware of and to monitor their English acquisition processes. Techniques that impede these

strategies will not be appropriate.

Fourthly, the implementation of these techniques must not overburden students’

cognitive load. Therefore, it is best to introduce 3 techniques at a time. Moreover, the burden

of training techniques might gradually reduce because acquired techniques can assist in the

training of newer techniques.

From these considerations I have opted to train the poor learners in developing the

three basic techniques that are used in everyday life. These techniques are (1) guessing, (2)

monitoring and (3) memorization which are cognitive constructs similar to Robinson’s (1995)

attention and memory constructs. Rubin (1981, p.119) elaborates on the three techniques

where guessing is the process of finding out meanings from the given context, from the first

language or from generalisation; monitoring is the process of observing errors and feedback;

010


______________________________________________________________________________________

and memorization is the process of arranging meanings and context in memory and retrieving

them easily because of their systematic organisation in memory. The techniques will

determine the first teaching method from the pool of teaching methods that could be derived

from knowledge of learner strategies.

03.2 A Suggested Insight for a Teaching Method

Since we are dealing with poor learners their cognitive load must not be

overburdened. Thus materials employed for the teaching method should use a bottom-up

approach. Furthermore, the teaching method used need not represent any approaches as far as

the target learners’ context is concerned. It should be a mere approach that befits the teaching

context and based on the teacher’s discretion. Assuming that students are about to experience

their first lesson in the training of learner strategies one theoretical progress of it will be as

such.

Students are first made aware of their metacognitive processes through discussion - in

L1 if need be. Not only will this ensure that students will have equal knowledge of

metacognitive strategies but also the time spent on this training is significant in appropriately

using cognitive strategies in the future (Hedge, 2000, p.92).

The next stage is to focus students on using guessing, monitoring and memorization to

accomplish given tasks. Apparently, other techniques will subconsciously play certain roles

but in the interest of training students are made aware of just the 3 techniques. The teacher

plays a crucial role in training these techniques because of the risky outcomes that could arise

such as overgeneralisation, random guessing, and unsystematic organisation of memory.

Thus a great expanse of time should be taken and appropriate materials should be used to

meticulously train the students.

011


______________________________________________________________________________________

One method of evoking these three techniques is through the use of one-paragraph

text passages, which is similar to Rubin’s strip-story technique (1981, p.120). Using this

passage, students are required to memorize every word, much like how easily they memorize

lyrics. The second stage would involve the same passage but with elicited words. Students are

then prompted to fill in the blanks with knowledge from their memorization stage as well as

from the context of the passage. At this stage, students are now demanded to be aware of the

context from memory and from inferences. The third stage involves the repetition of prior

stages with changes in the words being elicited or the amount elicited. At this stage, students

are made aware of their errors and repetitive attempts on the task should evoke the students to

monitor their progress.

This example is a basic approach to training learner techniques. It can be elaborated

into larger scales or levels of difficulty and can either be a supplement or the main substance

of a teaching method as long as the factors that manage the training of these techniques are

always considered.

03.3 Conclusion

Interestingly, the direction we are headed seems to portray nuances that autonomous

learning is the final result. Moreover, good learners are usually autonomous learners (Hedge,

2000, Chapter 3). However in the case of our target learners I have only attempted to identify

the first step in determining the appropriate teaching methods. This paper falls short of

identifying a specific teaching method but identifying one was never this paper’s intention.

All other processes beyond its scope warrants further research and investigation.

Nonetheless, I have presented the rationales for why learner strategies must be

considered before presenting any teaching method and how the knowledge of them can

further specify the appropriate teaching methods. It is in light of this that priority should not

be stressed on what methods to use or the endless debates on which ones are the best but

rather priority should first fall on to the learner, especially in my teaching context where the

012


______________________________________________________________________________________

gap between good learners and poor learners is widening. Rubin (1975, p.44) expresses her

unease when she states that “many foreign language teachers are so concerned with finding

the best method (..) that they fail to attend to the learning process.”

As a teacher, I will now put more focus on my learners than my teaching and hope

that by finding out how my poor learners work I am able to obtain the appropriate teaching

methods to develop their learner strategies, which in turn would provide access to the

teaching methods used for good learners.

REFERENCES

013


______________________________________________________________________________________

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gu, Y. (1994). Vocabulary Learning Strategies of Good and Poor Chinese EFL Learners. Paper Presented at TESOL’94 The Twenty-Eight Annual Convention and Exposition.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford Handbooksfor Language Teachers Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H.H. & Todesco, A. (1978/1996). The Good Language Learner (Rev. Ed.). Research in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 307-322.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston, Massachusetts : Heinle & Heinle.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research 31, 459-470.

Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning 45(2), 283-331.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41-51.

Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive process in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2), 117-131.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Vann, R. J. & Abraham, R. G. (1990). Strategies of unsuccessful language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 177-198.

Wenden, A. L, (1985). Learner strategies. TESOL Newsletter, 19(5), 1,4,5,7.

014