Oxford mentioned a number of so-called terms for the training of language learning strategies such as “strategy training”, “learner training”, learning-to-learn training”, “learner methodology training”, and “methodological training” (p. 200). The current study employed the term “strategy training” as it can cover the focuses of the study, namely a strategy course integrated with metacognitive and cognitive strategies.
A myriad of research has been conducted to examine the good language learners’ use of strategies and their performance in language learning. Though the results of the studies investigating the relationship between language learning strategy and strategy training are mixed (Wong and Nunan, 2011), findings from those studies share a premise that there is a significant relationship between students’ use of learning strategies and high performance in language learning.
Oxford (1990) pointed out the “teachability” of learning strategies (p. 12) which means that the learners can be taught to learn how to use specific types of learning strategy to improve their competence and performance. Thus, a training course is vital so that learners regardless of their levels can benefit from the positive effects of learning strategies.
21
Oxford (1990) argued that it is not difficult to train learners with strategies and the strategies can be constantly adjusted during the training course. Learners regardless of their levels can benefit from the training course. Oxford also (1990) pointed out the values of strategy training by indicating that learners “need to learn how to learn” and teachers should nurture students’ needs (p. 201). The author suggested that strategy training which can be applied in all four skills is vital in the all aspects of second and foreign language learning. The key thing is that students should be provided chances to sharpen their strategies to enhance their performance.
Another factor needed to be considered is that the process of learning strategy affects students’ learning result regardless of their levels. Chamot (2004) maintained that all learners can gain benefits from learning strategy, especially metacognitive strategies that help them plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning process. This viewpoint suggests that strategy training course is appropriate for all the students. Another vital reason for the need of a strategy training course emerges from students' insufficient knowledge of strategy use which prevents them from selecting appropriate strategies to boost their reading performance. Thus, this is where the strategy training course fits the gap. In this way, the role of teachers in such course is crucial.
Chamot (2004) claimed that this role is vital as teachers are the ones who need to detect students’
current use of strategies, diagnose students’ problems in using strategies and help them overcome the obstacles, widen their strategies with comprehensive knowledge of strategies, and provide enough strategy practice for them. In the classroom contexts, it is widely acknowledged that teachers play a pivotal role in providing students conditions for strategy practice.
Previous research has emphasized the significant relationship between language learning strategies and students’ performance in second language learning. It is mentioned somewhere in this study that students can gain greater performance provided that they are aware of and able to select appropriate strategies. This process of using strategies may take learners a great amount of time as they tend to lack a comprehensive knowledge of strategies. However, this does not mean that they should be trained with as many strategies as possible. In contrast, teachers should ponder that too many strategies integrated in the training course cause great difficulties to students and possibly mislead them. On one hand, they may introduce inappropriate strategies to the right tasks without notice. On the other hand, they may wrongly believe that they are using the right strategies. Besides, it is worth noticing that students may not have enough strategies practice. They can be provided with comprehensive knowledge of learning strategies but they are
22
not able to use learning strategy due to the lack of practice. Thus, students need both strategy instructions and a strategy training course to help them master the use of strategy so as to advance further in their leaning process. Indeed, students are taught the strategies in the classrooms but mostly in a fragmentary way, which explains why students may encounter strategy use and use them without notice in the first school year (Veenman, Vanhout –Wolters,
& Afflerbach, 2006). Another important issue is that strategies exist in every tasks in second language learning (David & Nunan, 2011) so students themselves have the great chance of using strategies in a language task. Thus, students cannot completely avoid the use of strategy in their learning. As a result, they partly develop their own systems of learning strategies. However, the ability to use strategies in second language reading is a skill that students can only develop though time and practice (McNamara, 2009). However, students’ own systems of learning strategies are fragmentary and not systematic. And perhaps they mainly grasp the use of basic learning strategies which are easy to use. As students move to higher stage of academic school years, they need more sophisticated strategies to help them unblock the obstacles in their learning. So to build a systematic and scientific bank of strategies, they need more chance to learn and practice those complex strategies before they can use them automatically. Goh (1997) highlighted that strategy is an effective tool that students lack so as to move further in second language learning. Thus, strategy instructions and training courses are vital to help them master such an efficient tool. As for reading, Macalister (2011) claimed that it is important to equip leaners with skills and strategies for future reading.
Research has been conducted to examine students’ use of strategies during reading process. However, these studies were designed to examine students’ use specific strategies in particular contexts such as in the English tests. This is widely known as students’ state, not the trait (Phakity, 2003). Hence, results yielded from these research are not valid enough to throw light on students’ strategy acquisition and their use the strategies introduced in the training course into not only the tests but also other reading activities. Thus, more research integrating teaching students strategies in a long-term period can shed light on those issues. Grape (2009) suggested that learning strategies should be investigated under “the executive control mechanism” (p. 60). Learning strategies can be taught and students are capable of learning them regardless of the variation among their language levels, which is one of the prominent features of learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990). Grape (2009) also suggested that learning
23
strategies should be integrated into a language curriculum. Students should be instructed to learn, practice, and monitor the new strategies. Other researchers suggested that students can gain significant benefits from “learning how to use metacognitive strategies to plan, monitor, and evaluate themselves throughout their learning efforts" (Chamot, 2004, p. 18). Chamot (2004) also noted that teachers should explicitly instruct readers to learn strategies and integrate strategies in the course.
One of the distinctive features of strategic learners is the ability to use strategies automatically to solve the problems occurring during the reading process. The strategic learners are also in meta-level as they show their high awareness “in relation to reading goals and applies sets of strategies appropriately to enhance comprehension of difficult texts." (Grape, 2009, p.220). The ability and the high level of metacognition derive from the long time of using and sharping the strategies that learners are instructed to master. In this paradigm, Anderson (2000) indicated that the more automatic the reading process is, the more efficient reading will be (as cited in Phakity, 2006, p. 55). In a similar vein, Grape (2009) defined this automatic process as a high level in which readers can automatically monitor and direct their strategies to adjust their reading. This automatic process requires a remarkable amount of time to achieve, which means that students need a training course of strategy use to better their reading performance.
With respect to strategy instructions, a number of researchers have conducted a lot of studies to investigate the effect of strategy instructions during a certain period of time. The research is normally framed in the design of experimental research with the participation of two groups, namely one control and one experimental group. Usually, the difference between the two groups is used to shed light on the relationship between the effect of strategy instruction and learning performance. Following this theme, Agor (2014) carried out a one-year longitudinal student in Ghana to throw light on the effects of strategy instruction on students' English learning achievement. Finding from his study indicated that students of the experimental group who were given strategy instructions achieve higher performance than students in the control group. The researcher suggested that students need to be “exposed" (Agor, 2014, p. 175) to the strategies so that they can increase their level of autonomy in their own process of learning. The significant relationship between language learning strategies and students’ performance can be explained via the fact that language learners can draw meaningful ideas from strategy instruction to better
24
perform in their learning (Ago, 2014). The researcher went further by noting that teachers can teach their students strategies so that the students can use and develop their new systems of strategies in learning. It is clear that most of the students lack sufficient knowledge of strategies and are likely not to see their positive effects in learning. In this way, strategy instruction and practice of strategy use in a training course are vital to them. Hence, there is a consensus that both strategy instructions and a train course should be integrated in language curriculum (Zare- ee, 2007; Aldelrahman & Bshara, 2013; Agor, 2014; Ghafounia, 2014). Prominent benefits yielded from strategy instructions and training course have been found in a number of studies by researchers in the field. Zare-ee (2007) in his study examining the relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategy and students’ performance in Iranian context stated that strategy functions as the most prominent factor contributing greatly to students’ reading performance. Hence, strategy needs to be integrated in language curriculum due to its effectiveness. Meanwhile, Agor (2014) suggested that strategy training should be provided in language classrooms so that learners can gain comprehensive knowledge of strategy. As students possess a profound knowledge of strategy, they are likely to gain full insights of the strategy. In addition, there is a great chance that they can use the correct strategy in right manner. Agor (2014) pointed out that learners who are given chance and time to learn and practice with strategy are likely to gain better performance in second language learning. This conclusion is in line with Graham’s viewpoint of strategy and learning performance. Graham (1997) claimed that students do not know how to use the appropriate strategies. And this could be solved by providing a training course with systematic instructions so that students know how to use strategies in the right time and at the right place. Focusing on EFL learners’ reading achievement in Iranian context, Ghafounia (2014) remained that strategy instructions are required to be included in language curriculum as they play a vital role in boosting students’ reading ability.
It is safe to assume that the effects of specific strategies on students’ reading comprehension are not always stable. Hence, providing students with particular strategy instruction or training them with the use of specific strategies on second language reading can yield different results. Momtaz and Garner (2010) in their study focusing on the relationship between collaborative learning and reading performance at a classroom in Iraq pointed out that several particular strategies defined as processes are what readers frequently employ in collaborative learning. Though the researchers failed to show the relationship between these
25
strategies and reading performance, it is undeniable that these strategies are related to reading performance. Baha and Daud (2012) concluded that the use of different strategies (using background knowledge, summarizing, asking and answering questions, evaluating, monitoring, using visualization, predicting) can boost reading comprehension. Examining two kinds of speed reading strategy (namely skimming and scanning) in Jordanian context, Aldelrahman and Bshara (2013) noted that these speed reading strategies possess a significant relationship with students’
reading performance. Thus, they suggest that training of these specific strategies can help students bridge the gaps in cohesion. Meanwhile, Liu and Chen (2014) highlighted that the use of specific kinds of strategies, especially metacognitive strategy, can help minimize students’
anxiety in second language learning. Hence metacognitive strategy instructions should be integrated in language curriculum so that students can gain greatest benefit from it.
The forms of strategy instructions have been investigated in a myriad of research specialized in learning strategy. The role of strategy instructions have been documented in a number of research. It is mentioned in this study that students themselves had the great chance to already know and use the strategy. However, they are not sure that whether they are using the correct strategy or not (Wong & Nunan, 2011). Choosing to use inappropriate strategy in a context can leave long-term negative impacts in second language learning which possibly take a long time to fix. Hence, clear strategy instructions from teachers can save students from these issues. Another thing needs to take into consideration is the forms of strategy instructions. Agor (2014) highlighted the positive effects of the two forms of strategy instructions, explicit and implicit instructions can generate equally positive impacts on students’ reading performance. He pointed out that both explicit and implicit strategy instructions can better students’ achievement.
Chamot (2004) claimed that strategy instructions should be explicit and well integrated in students’ language course rather than being provided separately. Related to strategy instructions, they should be given right in classroom contexts, of course (Mudzielwana, 2013). With the aids of teachers, classroom contexts seem to the best places for strategy practice. It is right in their classrooms that students are provided with comprehensive strategy instructions and practice.
Mercer (2012) confirmed this viewpoint by adding that if learners receive enough environmental supports (positive feedback, praise, good materials and curriculum) they can develop their language learning effectively.
26
Students’ use of language learning strategy is not as straight as a line but “recursive”
(Klinger, Vaughn & Boardman, 2007), which indicates that students may struggle to use one strategy for a long time for before they can fully master it. In particular contexts, the degree that students use strategy varies. Liyanage (2012) pointed out that students show higher frequency in using strategy in out-of-class contexts compared to in-class contexts. This can be explained that students are likely to have greater amount time for strategy practice than their limited allocated time in classrooms. However, the practice of strategy use outside classroom contexts is not stable as students possibly use incorrect strategies. This could take place as students lack the guide from their teachers, peers to help them go in the right track.
Apart from the contexts of strategy use, the degree of automaticity of strategy use is worth paying attention to. This degree of automaticity is usually framed under the light of Anderson’s ACT model (Ellis, 1999). Under the light of Anderson's ACT, learners are required to be cognitive about the strategies at the declarative stage. As they are able to enhance the use of strategies gradually, they become less conscious and more automatic in using strategies. The process that students need to go through so that they can use the strategy without any pauses can takes a long time with a high degree of practice. This conclusion is aligned with the viewpoint of strategies as procedures (Liu & Chang, 2013) that students must pass in order to attain their learning goals.
The effects of strategy on students’ performance in second language learning are still open to debate. Although it is commonly believed that strategy training can yield beneficial impacts on students’ performance, a number of researchers doubt this relationship. In the framework of second language reading, students after the strategy training course can have better reading performance thanks to a numbers of factors such as their familiarity of the text, the development of their cognition, and the enlargement of their vocabulary. It is not just the strategy but others factors mentioned above possibly make great contributions to students’ reading performance. However, if the strategy training course is mainly based on the strategy, which can directs students’ attention to the strategies taught in the training, researchers are able to minimize the effects of others factors on students’ performance. It is drawn in previous literature that several factors are not correlated with the strategy training courses. Students’ intelligence which is commonly referred as the main factors that helps distinguish the profile of good learners from poor learners is not the variable affecting strategy training course. Veenman, Van Hout- Wolters,
27
and Afflerbach (2006) noted that one of the prominent factors in second language learning, the development of students’ intelligence, is not affected by the strategy training course.
Another thing needed to take into consideration is how much both teachers and students focus on strategy during the training course. It is mentioned above that teachers and students are expected to mainly focus on strategies to eliminate the effects of other variables. However, this viewpoint should be interpreted carefully and thoroughly. In fact, too much attention on strategies may yield harmful results. As a result, frequent review of strategies during the training course is not necessary (Duke, et al, 2011). In a similar vein, Learned, Stockdill and Moje (2011) argued that too much focus on strategies learning may lead to the neglect of the meaning of the reading text, which may hinder reading comprehension. Hence, the proportion of strategy instructions and the focuses of strategy during their training course should be considered mindfully. Strategy instructions are much beneficial provided that they are given at the good time to make learners become more strategic learners. Hence, strategies certainly yield greater benefits as learners are instructed to use them to overcome the challenges right in their reading process (Duke, el at, 2011). Besides, it is noteworthy that reading strategies should not be taught separately. In contrast, McNamara suggested the reading strategies are required to be taught in combinations so that they can field ultimate effects on readers’ performance. Meanwhile, Mikulecky (2008) argued that students should be instructed to use on particular strategies at one time and encouraged to use the strategy to solve problems in different contexts. In this way, students can transfer the strategy they have learned into a new context.
Oxford (1990) argued that learners’ ability to monitor their learning strategies in second language learning develop gradually. This ability cannot be seen clearly in one particular situation such as answering a questionnaire, taking part in an interview or doing a text. Thus a longitudinal study is needed to examine this ability.