Studia paedagogica
vol. 18, n. 4, 2013
www.studiapaedagogica.cz
DOI: 10.5817/SP2013-4-6
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES
OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES: AN EXPLORATORY
ANALYSIS
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER,
MANUEL VÖLKLE
Abstract
The present paper provides a comparison of common taxonomies of foreign language learning strategies using
empirical data from a Czech adaptation of the strategy inventory SILL (Oxford, 1990). In an initial
analysis none of the traditional taxonomies received strong empirical support. Based on an exploratory followup
analysis we thus propose a basic three factorial model of foreign language learning strategies distinguishing
1) elaboration strategies, organisation strategies and self-control, 2) strategies of cooperative learning, and
3) motivational-emotional strategies. This three factorial model bears some similarity to O’Malley’s and
Chamot’s (1990) classification of strategies into cognitive, metacognitive, and socioaffective strategies, although
cognitive and metacognitive strategies were primarily represented by a single factor, while social and affective
strategies appear to be two separated groups of strategies. Based on these first results we suggest better ways
to assess foreign learning strategies in future research.
Keywords
classification of learning strategies, second language acquisition, factor analysis
94 KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
Introduction
Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of foreign language learning strategies is one of
the most widely used taxonomies in teaching practice and research on
language learning. In an influential article, Hsiao and Oxford (2002)
compared different classification theories of language learning strategies
and showed that although this taxonomy did not produce a fully adequate
fit to the data, Oxford’s 6-factor model of learning strategies “is the most
consistent with learners’ strategy use” (p. 368). However, Hsiao and Oxford
(2002) also suggest that “other possible approaches should be considered as
well” (p. 368). The purpose of the present paper is to follow up on this work
and to explore the factor structure of foreign language learning strategies
using data collected in the Czech Republic.
Theoretical background
Second and foreign language learning strategies can be understood as “any
set of operations, steps, plans, routines used by the learner to facilitate the
obtaining, storage, retrieval, and use of information” (Wenden & Rubin,
1987, p. 19). They are intentional (Cohen & Macaro, 2007) and (at least to
some degree) conscious procedures by which a learner reaches his or her
learning goal. Strategies can be placed on a continuum in terms of the degree
of planning and control involved and strategy size (i.e., macro to micro) or
specificity (general strategies or specific for the learnt subject). Strategies do
not occur in isolation but in sequences or clusters and the quality of their
orchestration is important for learning. Accordingly, the definition and
especially classification of language learning strategies is a major issue in
language learning strategy research and theory.
	Learning strategies represent one of the key determinants of language
acquisition and educational achievement. From a pedagogical point of view,
learning strategies are often considered as more easy to modify as compared
to individual learning styles1
or even cognitive styles.2
The acquisition of
1
	 Learning style is an individual’s natural or habitual pattern of acquiring and processing
information in learning situations (e.g., individuals differ in how they learn) (James &
Gardner, 1995).
2
	 Cognitive style refers to psychological dimension representing consistencies in an
individual’s manner of cognitive functioning, particularly with respect to acquiring
and processing information (Ausburn & Ausburn, 1978).
95CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
effective learning strategies is a central goal at every level of the educational
system in the Czech Republic (see the Framework Educational Programmes,
for example RVP ZV, 2010), but also of educational policies of the EU or
OECD.
	 Parallel to development in research in cognitive psychology, research on
second and foreign language learning strategies has increased tremendously
since the end of the 1960’s. While early research was primarily concerned
with the identification of strategies used by “good language learners” these
initial classifications became more and more refined in recent research.
Classifications of second/foreign language learning strategies
There exist several international second and foreign language (L2)3
learning
strategies classifications (Wenden & Rubin, 1987; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares,
Küpper, & Russo, 1985; Oxford, 1990; Stern, 1992; Ellis, 1990
etc.). The differences are primarily due to different research methods (such
as observation, interviews, or questionnaires) or measuring strategies at
different language tasks and in different contexts (such as foreign language
learning or second language acquisition or on learners with different L2
level of competence). Differences and ambiguities of strategy classifications
appear as well at the unification process concerning to which category or
strategy group individual concrete strategies belong and which strategies form
the logical whole. Classification criteria are important and they can differ
considerably. According to O’Malley and Chamot (1990), great differences
can be observed, for example in learning strategy classifications between
linguists and psychologists as linguistics often fails to implement new findings
from the general learning theory (e. g., classification of strategies are not
sufficiently based on current theories of information processing and
learning). The most frequently referenced classifications of L2 learning
strategies in foreign language literature are classifications by Naiman,
Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco (1978), Rubin, & Wenden (1987), Oxford (1990),
O’Malley et al. (1985), Stern (1992) or Cohen & Weaver (2006). These
classifications are briefly summarised in Table 1.
3
	L2 is used as abbreviation for second as well as foreign language. L2 is the language
a person knows or is learning or acquiring in addition to their native language (L1).
96
Table 1
Overview of the most widely used classifications of second/foreign language learning strategies
Authors Strategies classification
Naiman et al.
(1978)
Active task approach, realisation of language as system, realisation
of language as a mean of communication, management
of affective demands, monitoring of L2 performance.
Dansereau
(1985)
Primary and support strategies are differentiated and further
subdivided according to a language task (reading, writing,
vocabulary learning, etc.).
O´Malley et al.
(1985)
Metacognitive, cognitive and socioaffective.
Weinstein &
Mayer (1986)
Primarily building upon the difference between learning
strategies and teaching strategies. The major 6 groups of learning
strategies are differentiated according to whether they are
suitable for basic or complex learning tasks (rehearsal, elabora-tion,
and organisational strategies). Further 2 groups
are comprehension monitoring strategies (e.g., checking for
comprehension failures), and affective and motivational
strategies (such as being alert and relaxed, to help overcome test
anxiety).
Rubin &
Wenden (1987)
Direct strategies, that is learning strategies: cognitive and
metacognitive.
Indirect strategies: communication strategies, social strategies.
Oxford (1990)
Direct strategies: memory, cognitive, compensation.
Indirect strategies: metacognitive, affective, social.
Stern (1992)
Managementandplanningstrategies,cognitive,communicationexperimental,
interpersonal and affective.
Wild, Schiefele,
& Winteler (1992,
in Wild, 1997)
Primary strategies (cognitive and metacognitive) and secondary
strategies.
Bimmel &
Rampillon (2000)
Direct strategies: memory, language processing.
Indirect strategies: self-regulatory, affective, social, language
use strategies.
Cohen & Weaver
(2006)
a) Retrieval, rehearsal, communication and cover strategies.
b) Listening, reading, writing, speaking, vocabulary, and
translating strategies.
The classifications illustrated in Table 1 differ in the degree of clarity and
complexity of involvement of single learning strategies as well as higher order
groups of strategies. Most of the classifications do not provide a detailed
categorisation of single strategies but only mention some examples from
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
97
a group of strategies (where the observed strategies usually result from
a specific research method). A problematic aspect in the classifications on
process is the assignment of single strategies both to subgroups and sometimes
to the main group of direct or indirect strategies. The strategy assignment
often depends on a chosen interpretation of a certain strategy. Some strategies
are classified as direct as well as indirect strategies depending on the intention
of their use by a learner. Moreover, classifications by psychologists, linguists,
and education scientists are often different, involving different definitions,
and implying different theories of second language acquisition.
	 At least five basic classification types of language learning strategies can
be identified: 1) classifications connected with research of good language
learners (e.g., Rubin, 1975), 2) classifications based on psychological functions
(e.g., O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), 3) classifications with a linguistic background
dealing with meaning mapping, language monitoring, formal and functional
practice (e.g., Bialystok, 1981), or communication strategies such as paraphrasing
and loanwords (e.g., Tarone, 1983), 4) classifications connected with language
skills (e.g., Cohen, 1990; Cohen & Weaver, 2006), 5) classifications based
on the distinction of learning styles or types of learners. The variety of
classifications indicates the essential problem in strategy research, that is, the
field reveals a wide and ambiguous learning strategies concept and nondisjunction
of dimensions of strategy classifications while a psychometrically
founded and generally accepted classification system for strategy description
is absent.
General methodological background
Building upon the seminal research by Hsiao and Oxford (2002) with the
present study, we set out to explore different classifications of language
learning strategies by means of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.
For the purpose of the present paper, and in line with Hsiao and Oxford
(2002), we decided to focus on three of the most widely used taxonomies of
L2 learning strategies: Rubin’s (1981), Oxford’s (1990) and O’Malley and
Chamot’s (1990) classification of language learning strategies. Whereas Rubin’s
classification distinguishes rather roughly between direct and indirect
strategies, Oxford’s taxonomy (see Table 4 and 5) postulates six main factors
(metacognitive, cognitive, memory, compensation, social, and affective).
In contrast, O’Malley and Chamot’s classification proposed a slightly
simpler taxonomy which differentiates between metacognitive, cognitive,
and socioaffective strategies. In this paper we provide a more detailed
comparison of the three taxonomies.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
98
Comparison of Rubin’s, O’Malley and Chamot´s,
and Oxford’s language learning strategy classification
Beside the two main groups of strategies (direct and indirect), Rubin (1981)
distinguishes further between eight subgroups of strategies (Table 2). Each
of these subgroups is comprised of more specific strategies (for details see
Rubin, 1981).
Table 2
Rubin’s (1981) classification of language learning strategies
Groups of strategies Subgroups of strategies
Direct strategies
1)Clarification/verification,2)monitoring,3)memorisation,
4) guessing/inductive inferencing, 5) deductive reasoning,
6) practice
Indirect strategies 1) Creating opportunities for practice, 2) production tricks
O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classification is adapted from O’Malley et al.
(1985) and based on cognitive concepts of learning by Brown and Palincsar
(1982). O’Malley and Chamot (1990) distinguish three broad types of learning
strategies: cognitive, metacognitive, and socioaffective. These main strategies
are further divided into several substrategies (Table 3).
Table 3
O’Malley & Chamot’s classification (1990, pp. 119–120)
Groups Subgroups Learning strategy
Metacognitive Planning
Advance organisers, directed attention, selective
attention, self-management, functional planning
Monitoring Self-monitoring
Evaluation Self-evaluation
Cognitive –
Repetition, resourcing, translation, grouping, note
taking, summarising, deduction, recombination,
translation, imagery and auditory representation,
keyword method, contextualisation, elaboration,
transfer, inferencing
Socioaffective
Question for
clarification
–
Cooperation –
Self-talk –
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
99
Oxford (1990) distinguishes two main group of strategies (direct and indirect),
which she however defines differently than Rubin (see table 2 and 4) and
which comprised of six other groups further divided into additional subgroups
(see Table 4) which are further subdivided. A more detailed description is
provided in Table 5.
Table 4
Oxford’s (1990) strategy classification
Main group Strategy groups Subgroups
Direct Memory
Creating mental linkages, applying images and
sounds, reviewing well, employing action
Cognitive
Practising, receiving and sending messages,
analyzing and reasoning, creating structures for
input and output
Compensation
Guessing intelligently, overcoming limitations
in speaking and writing
Indirect Metacognitive
Centering your learning, arranging and planning
your learning, evaluating your learning
Affective Lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself,
taking your emotional temperature
Social
Asking questions, cooperating with others,
empathising with others
Oxford’s (1990) detailed taxonomy originates in the attempt to integrate all
known strategies into a single taxonomy. She linked her taxonomy of
strategies to four language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening)
and took into account linguistic as well as communicative aspects of L2
learning strategies and the psychological functions which strategies fulfil
in information processing. Some strategies in her taxonomy (especially
memory and metacognitive strategies) reflect various learning styles and good
learner’s strategies.
	 In comparison with Oxford’s (1990) and Rubin’s (1981) classifications,
Oxford (1990) decided to not use Rubin’s dichotomy of direct and indirect
strategies in the construction of her Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning – SILL (Oxford, 1990), because she found it not detailed enough
for research operationalisation of single strategy items; she refers to the
dichotomy direct vs. indirect strategies only in theory. Also their placement
of strategies into categories differs. For example, Oxford did not classify
clarification/verification and monitoring into direct strategies as Rubin did,
but into indirect strategies: first a social strategy, second a metacognitive
strategy. Furthermore, production tricks in Rubin’s classification belong to
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
100
the indirect strategies, whereas in Oxford’s system the compensation strategies
are one of the three subgroups of direct strategies.
	 When comparing O’Malley and Chamot’s and Oxford’s classification, it
becomes apparent that cognitive strategies in the O’Malley and Chamot’s
classification are in Oxford’s classification distinguished as memory and
cognitive strategies. Similarly socioaffective strategies are separated and
some cognitive strategies (e.g., inferencing) are classified into compensation
strategies (e.g., guessing from context) in Oxford’s system. Metacognitive
strategies are generally consistent in both classifications.
	 A more detailed comparison of Rubin, O’Malley and Chamot’s and
Oxford’s classifications is provided by Hsiao and Oxford (2002).
Methodological approach
The purpose of the following analyses is to (1) provide new empirical evidence
for or against the three taxonomies of foreign language learning strategies
by Rubin (1981), O’Malley & Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990), and to (2)
propose a modified version of the Czech SILL inventory, which may provide
a basis for further research.
Sample
Data used in the article stem from research into foreign language learning
strategies used at upper secondary comprehensive schools in Brno in the Czech
Republic in 2004 (Vlčková, 2007). The sampling procedure was non-random
and included a total of 606 students in 14 schools, 29 classes of 3rd
graders
and corresponding grades at eight-year comprehensive secondary school.
Fifty-two percent of the sample were female. During data collection, learners
were asked to report learning strategies for a foreign language of their choice,
ideally their preferred foreign language. English was the language chosen
most often, probably because students have learned it for the longest time,
they like it, or because it is the most used language in the world. On average,
students had learned their preferred foreign language for 8.2 years. The sample
contained multiple cases with missing values and five cases with missing
values on every item. These five cases were dropped from the analysis.
Measures
The data was collected using a Czech adaptation (Vlčková, 2007) of the strategy
inventory SILL (version 5.1; Oxford, 1989). The Czech inventory measures
the use of 85 single item learning strategies on a five-point scale (1 never or
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
101
almost never to 5 always or almost always) with the possibility to answer I don’t know,
I’m not capable of assessing. Table 5 provides an overview of the learning strategies
taxonomy by Oxford adopted in the Czech version, together with the items’
codes used in the following analyses. Table 6 provides several examples of
items, along with the number of items assessed in each of the six main
categories. Data management was carried out in R (version 2.5.3), and Mplus
(version 6.1) was used for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.
Table 5
Overview of foreign language learning strategies (according to Oxford, 1990, pp. 18–21) with items
of the modified inventory (see Vlčková, 2007, pp. 212–213)
Strategy
groups
Subgroups Strategies
Item
code
Memory
strategies
Creating mental
linkages
Grouping p1
Associating/elaborating p2
Placing new words into context p3
Applying images
and sounds
Using imagery p4,5,6
Semantic mapping p7
Using key words p8
Representing sounds in memory p9,10
Reviewing well Structured reviewing p11,12,13
Employing action
Using physical response or sensation p14
Using mechanical techniques p15
Cognitive
strategies
Practising
Repeating kg1,2,3
Formally practising with sounds
and writing systems
kg4,5
Recognising und using formulas
and patterns
kg6
Recombining kg7
Practising naturalistically
kg8,9,10,
11,12,13
Receiving and
sending messages
Getting the idea quickly kg14,15
Using resources for receiving and
sending messages
kg16
Analyzing
and reasoning
Reasoning deductively kg17,18
Analyzing expressions kg19
Analyzing contrastively
(across languages)
kg20
Translating kg21
Transferring kg22
Creating
structures for
input and output
Taking notes kg23
Summarising kg24
Highlighting kg25
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
102
Compensation
strategies
Guessing
intelligently
Using linguistic clues k1
Using other clues k2
Overcoming
limitations
in speaking
and writing
Switching to the mother tongue k3
Getting help k4
Using mime or gesture k5
Avoiding communication partially
or totally
k6
Selecting the topics k7
Adjusting or approximating the
message
k8
Coining words k9
Using a circumlocution or synonym k10
Metacognitive
strategies
Centering your
learning
Overviewing and linking with
already known material
m1
Paying attention m2,3
Delaying speech production to focus
on listening
m4
Arranging and
planning your
learning
Finding out about language learning m5
Organising m6,7,8,9
Setting goals and objectives m10,11
Identifying the purpose of
a language task (purposeful listening
/reading/speaking/writing)
m12
Planning for a language task m13
Seeking practice opportunities m14,15
Evaluating your
learning
Self-monitoring m16,17
Self-evaluating m18
Affective
strategies
Lowering your
anxiety
Using progressive relaxation, deep
breathing, or meditation
a1
Using music
Using laughter
Encouraging
yourself
Making positive statements a2
Taking risks wisely a3
Rewarding yourself a4
Taking your
emotional
temperature
Listening to your body a5
Using a check-list a6
Writing a language learning diary a7
Discussing your feelings with
someone else
a8
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
103
Social
strategies
Asking questions
Asking for clarification
or verification
s1,2
Asking for correction s3
Cooperating
with others
Cooperating with peers s4,5
Cooperating with proficient users
of the new language
s6,7
Empathising
with others
Developing cultural understanding s8
Becoming aware of others’ thoughts
and feelings
s9
Table 6
Examples of SILL items (Oxford, 1990)
Strategy group
Number
of items
Item’s
codes
Example of SILL items
Memory 15 p1–p15
I use flashcards to remember new FL words.
(p15)
Cognitive 25 kg1–kg25
I find the meaning of an FL word by
dividing it into parts that I understand.
(kg19)
Compensation 10 k1–k10
To understand unfamiliar words, I make
guesses. (k1)
Metacognitive 18 m1–m18
I notice my FL mistakes and use that
information to help me do better. (m17)
Affective 8 a1–a8
I encourage myself to speak FL even when
I am afraid of making mistakes. (a3)
Social 9 s1–s9
If I do not understand something in
English, I ask the other person to slow
down or say it again. (s1)
Statistical analysis
The data analytic approach consists of three steps:
1) Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using all items.
2) Item selection and instrument modification on the basis of EFA
results in step 1.
3) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the revised instrument and
further post hoc modification.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
104
Ad 1) Exploratory factor analysis
Mplus 6.1 was used for exploratory factor analysis with geomin rotation
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010, see also Browne, 2001). As described before,
the data are clustered with individual students nested in classes, which in
turn are nested in schools. The mean intra-class correlation was .020 at the
school level, .034 at the class level, respectively. Due to the small intra-class
correlations, we decided to ignore the school level clustering, while controlling
for class differences between classes by group mean centering at the class
level. Missing values were handled via full information maximum likelihood
estimation (Arbuckle, 1996). Figure 1 shows the resulting scree plot, which
suggested the extraction of either three or five factors. A subsequent parallel
analysis suggested the extraction of 16 factors. As described above, previous
research provided somewhat mixed evidence for (classification by Oxford,
1990), three (classification by O’Malley & Chamot, 1990), or two (classification
by Rubin, 1972) factors. Together with the five factor solution suggested by
the scree plot in Figure 1, we thus decided to more closely examine a six, five,
three, and two factor solution, using orthogonal as well as oblique rotation.
Ad 2) Item selection and instrument modification
Initial results did not reveal a clear factor structure in line with any of the
three taxonomies of L2 learning strategies discussed before. In order to
improve the measurement instrument and to arrive at a substantively
meaningful classification, we excluded all items which had a factor loading
< .30, cross-loading > .30, and an item-total-correlation < .30. This procedure
was repeated five times, beginning with five factors. The scree plot based on
the selected items does not clearly indicate a three factor solution. However,
from the initial five factors solution two factors were dropped in the iterative
procedure described above due to a lack of items and subsequently a lack of
substantive relevance.
Ad 3) Confirmatory factor analysis and post hoc modification
In the last step the revised instrument was subject to a confirmatory factor
analysis.
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
105
Results
Exploratory factor analysis using all items
The first factor explains 33.5 %, the second factor 12.6 %, the third factor
9.4 %, the fourth factor 5 %, and the fifth factor 4.6 % of the total variance.
Figure 1 shows the corresponding scree plot.
Figure 1. Scree Plot and Parallel Analysis Based on All Items
Item selection and instrument modification
Figure 2 shows the scree plot resulting from a factor analysis of the revised
instrument with 42 items. The factor loading matrix is given in Table 7.
The first factor of the revised instrument explains 47.4 %, the second factor
19.4 %, and the third factor 11.8 % of the total variance.
	 Table 8 shows the corresponding factor correlations. In line with previous
research (Oxford, 1990; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002), the factors are not
independent from each other. The item-total-correlations are given in Table 9.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
106
Table 7
Factor loadings of exploratory factor analysis using oblique rotation
Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
p12 .43
p13 .35
kg1 .45
kg2 .40
kg5 .30
kg15 .33
kg23 .69
kg24 .53
kg25 .62
m1 .38
m2 .39
m3 .29
m5 .37
m6 .43
m8 .44
m9 .61
m13 .38
kg9 .47
kg11 .51
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
Figure 2. Scree Plot and Parallel Analysis Based on Selected Items
107
kg12 .58
kg13 .63
m15 .54
s5 .61
s7 .40
s8 .40
m11 .40
a1 .44
a2 .48
a4 .51
a5 .52
a6 .63
a7 .56
a8 .51
k3 .49 -.43
k4 .58 -.38
k5 .54
k7 .32
k8 .55
k9 .59
kg3 .39
kg7 .45
Note: Factor loadings < .30 are not displayed.
Table 8
Factor correlation matrix
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Factor 1 1
Factor 2 .20 1
Factor 3 .33 .29 1
Factor 4 .33 -.10 .08 1
Factor 5 .30 .34 .03 .24 1
Note: Factor correlations based on items provided in Table 7.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
108
Table 9
Item-Total-Correlations
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Item
Item-Total-
Correlation
Item
Item-Total-
Correlation
Item
Item-Total-
Correlation
p12
p13
kg1
kg2
kg5
kg15
kg23
kg24
kg25
m1
m2
m3
m5
m6
m8
m9
m13
.45
.42
.44
.47
.39
.45
.53
.48
.54
.48
.40
.45
.45
.48
.49
.50
.45
kg9
kg11
kg12
kg13
m15
s5
s7
s8
.42
.44
.47
.54
.56
.51
.40
.45
m11
a1
a2
a4
a5
a6
a7
a8
.45
.45
.57
.49
.56
.56
.36
.48
Note: Item-Total-Correlations were computed without the item itself and are based
on cases without missing values (listwise deletion).
Confirmatory factor analysis and post hoc modification
Figure 3 provides a graphical illustration of the confirmatory factor analysis
displaying understandardised and standardised factor loadings (in
parenthesis). With χ2
= 4745.41 (p = .000), CFI = .85, RMSEA = .046 and
SRMR = .058, the fit is moderate.
	 Modification indices reported in Mplus suggested a residual correlation
between two pairs of items (kg2 and k15 as well as kg23 and m9). Investigating
the very similar item formulations (kg2 “I read a foreign language text
many times until I understand. For example I try to get the main idea, then
answer questions about the text and then I look for the words” was correlated
with kg15 “First I scan the part of the text that I should read, to know what
it is about and get the main idea. Then I come back and read the text more
carefully”, while kg23 “I make notes in the foreign language class” was
correlated with m9 “I have a notebook where I write important language
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
109
information. For example vocabulary, new learning topics and assignments”),
correlated residuals of these item pairs seemed plausible and the model was
modified accordingly. All factors exhibit sufficient reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha = .85 for the first factor, .76 for the second factor, and .78 for the third
factor).
Figure 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (standardised coefficients in
parentheses)
* p < .001
Comparing the final model to Oxford’s SILL terminology and classification,
factor 1 consists of two of the memory strategies focused on reviewing
(p12, p13), seven cognitive strategies: three practising strategies (repeating
– kg1, kg2 and practising phonetics – kg 5), getting the idea quickly (kg15),
taking notes (kg23), summarising (kg24) and highlighting (kg25), and of
eight metacognitive strategies: overviewing and linking with already known
material (m1), paying attention (m2, m3) and arranging and planning your
learning (finding out about language learning – m5; organising – m6, m8,
m9) and planning for a language task (m13). These strategies can be summarised
as elaboration and organisation strategies, and self-control strategies.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
110
	 Factor 2 was named strategies of cooperative learning and consists of four
cognitive strategies, mainly practising in natural settings (watching television,
movies – kg9, out school activities with FL – kg11, writing in FL – kg13),
one metacognitive strategy – seeking practice opportunities (m15) and
three social strategies such as cooperating with others (cooperating with
peers – s5, cooperating with proficient users of the new language – s7,
developing cultural understanding – s8).
	 Factor 3 was called motivational-emotional strategies. It consists of seven
affective strategies: lowering own anxiety (a1), encouraging yourself (making
positive statements – a2, rewarding oneself – a4), taking own “emotional
temperature” (listening to your body – a5, using a check-list – a6, writing
a language learning diary – a7, discussing your feelings with someone else
– a8) and one metacognitive strategy (setting goals and objectives – m11).
	 Compensation strategies and many of the memory strategies were
eliminated (see Table 10). Only 56 percent from metacognitive strategies,
44 percent of cognitive, 13 percent of memory strategies, 33 percent of social
strategies, none of the compensatory and 88 percent of affective strategies
remain. Some of the remaining strategies come from hierarchically higher
groups: memory strategies of repetition (p12, p13), repeating of writing
and reading (kg1 a g2), practising (kg9, kg11, kg12, kg13) and attention (m2,
m3) and the organisation of learning (m6, m8, m9).
Table 10
Number of SILL items before and after the analyses
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
111
Discussion
The findings of the present study are somewhat mixed. Clearly, none of
the three taxonomies of foreign learning strategies discussed in this paper
received strong empirical support. As a matter of fact, the clear misfit between
the theoretically postulated factor structure and the results of the exploratory
factor analysis with all items is so striking that a formal comparison of the
three models by the means of confirmatory factor analyses, along the lines
of Hsiao and Oxford (2002), would have been pointless. Instead, we decided
to refine the measurement instrument in order to establish a more meaningful
taxonomy of foreign language learning strategies. As such, the analyses
presented in this article are primarily of an exploratory nature and it is up to
future research to cross-validate the findings using an independent sample.
In fact, it seems that the individual (sub)categories are often more closely
interrelated than postulated by some authors. Based on the final analyses,
it can be surprisingly stated that metacognitive strategies like self-control
and cognitive strategies like elaboration and organisation, even though
traditionally cognitive and metacognitive strategies were seen as separate
strategy groups and associated with the distinction of direct (before all
cognitive) and indirect (before all metacognitive) strategies. Because of the
similarity to the observed three factor solution in the present paper, we
consider O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classification as more promising
for future research than the rather detailed classification of Oxford (1990).
In conclusion, the statement regarding the quality of factor structure of
a modified questionnaire (i. e., construct validity) requires validation, which
is currently being realised.
Acknowledgment
Kateřina Vlčková was working on the project: Foreign Language Learning
Strategies and Achievement: Analysis of Strateg y Clusters and Sequences (Nr.
GAP407/12/0432) funded by the Czech Science Foundation while she
was researching this paper. Manuel Völkle conducted research for the paper
while at the University of Mannheim.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In A.
Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacher (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modelling (pp. 243–277).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
112
Ausburn, L. J., & Ausburn, F. B. (1978). Cognitive styles: Some information and implications
for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology, 26(4), 337–354.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern
Language Journal, 65(1), 24–35.
Bimmel, P., & Rampillon, U. (2000). Lernautonomie und Lernstrategien. Fernstudieneinheit 23.
München: Langenscheidt.
Brown, A. L. & Palincsar, A. S. (1982). Inducing strategic learning from texts by means of
informed, self-control training. Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2(1), 1–17.
Browne, M. W. (2001). An Overview of Analytic Rotation in Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150.
Cohen, A. D. (1990). Learner strategies: The role of the teacher. ERIC (ED326046). Available at
http://www.eric.ed.org
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research
and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Weaver, S. J. (2006): Styles- and Strategies-Based Instruction. A Teachers´ Guide.
Minneapolis: Centre for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition, University of
Minnesota.
Dansereau, D. F. (1985). Learning strategy research. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser
(Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills, vol. 1 (pp. 209–239). Hillsdale: Erlbraum.
Ellis, R. (1990). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hsiao, T.-Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies:
A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 368–383.
James, W., & Gardner, D. (1995). Learning styles: Implications for distance learning. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 67, 19–32.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2010). Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén &
Muthén.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language Learner.
Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
O´Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O´Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Küpper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning,
35(1), 21–46.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of studies with
implications for strategy training. System, (17)2, 235–247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston:
Heinle & Heinle.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the „good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics,
11(2), 118–131.
RVP ZV – Framework Education Programme for Elementary Education (2010). Praha: Výzkumný ústav
pedagogický v Praze. Retrieved at http://www.vuppraha.cz/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/
RVPZV_2007-07.pdf.
KATEŘINA VLČKOVÁ, JANEK BERGER, MANUEL VÖLKLE
113
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some though on the notion of “communication strategy”. In C. Faerch
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London: Longman.
Vlčková, K. (2007). Strategie učení cizímu jaz yku. Výsledky výzkumu používání strategií a jejich
efektivity na g ymnáziích [Foreign Language Learning Strategies: Research Results of
Declared Strategy Use and its Effectiveness at Upper Secondary Comprehensive Level of
Education]. Brno: Paido.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Witrock
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Wild, K.-P., Schiefele, U., & Winteler, A. (1992). LIST. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung von
Lernstrategien im Studium. Gelbe Reihe: Arbeiten zur Empirischen Pädagogik und
Pädagogischen Psychologie, Nr. 20. Neubiberg: Universität der Bundeswehr München,
Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.
Corresponding authors
Kateřina Vlčková
Institute for Research in School Education, Faculty of Education, Masaryk University, Czech
Republic
E-mail: vlckova@ped.muni.cz
Janek Berger
Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development, Germany
E-mail: jberger@mpib-berlin.mpg.de
Manuel Völkle
Center for Lifespan Psychology, Max-Planck-Institute for Human Development, Germany
E-mail: voelkle@mpib-berlin.mpg.de
CLASSIFICATION THEORIES OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES