System 84 (2019) 87e92

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back

and looking forward
Lawrence Jun Zhang a, *, Nathan Thomas b, Tony Limin Qin c
a
Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92601, Symonds Street, Auckland, 1150, New Zealand
b
Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, England, UK
c
School of Foreign Languages, Jinan University, 336 Nanxinzhuang Road West, Jinan, 250022, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The herald of the seminal work on language learning strategies by Rubin (1975) and Stern
Received 23 April 2019 (1975) has undoubtedly impacted how we view learning and teaching nowadays. Such
Received in revised form 9 June 2019 impact was not so much felt in the 1970s, when this work just started. Scholarly embracing of
Accepted 10 June 2019
such an approach was evidently witnessed in the very first article on reading strategies of
Available online 11 June 2019
successful and unsuccessful language learners by Hosenfeld (1977) published in System, with
other scholars’ work to follow thereafter. By 2019, the number of research articles on lan-
guage learning strategies in the journal has risen to 118. We briefly examine the historical
trajectory and analyse major trends and issues of this line of research in relation to the articles
published in System. As a way of showing how language learning strategy research has
contributed to the enterprise of language learning and teaching in its almost 45 year history
and anticipate what lies ahead as possible areas for further investigation, we have selected 13
“representatives” (with one already being an Open Access article) from a list of 59 research
articles published in System in the recent decade to help our readers to appreciate, critique,
and further ponder over this apparently mature terrain in our field.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2. This special virtual issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
3. Looking forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

1. Introduction

The study of language learning strategies has been an area of immense interest for quite some time. It appeals to both
practitioners and learners alike, as being strategic about one’s learning is always considered a positive attribute. Early studies

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lj.zhang@auckland.ac.nz (L.J. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.002
0346-251X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
88 L.J. Zhang et al. / System 84 (2019) 87e92

in the 1970s (e.g., Hosenfeld, 1976, 1977; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975) opened the door for researchers to explore strategic
behaviour in “good” language learners. Taxonomies of learning strategies were later developed (see Oxford, 1990; O’Malley &
Chamot, 1990; Rubin, 1981), and the number of published papers on strategic language learning continues to grow. A recent
book by Anna Uhl Chamot and Vee Harris (2019) is further testimony of its continuing popularity. Although this growth has
been relatively steady, research and theorisation regarding language learning strategies have been criticised, quite famously,
by a number of prominent scholars (e.g., Dornyei, 2005; Ellis, 1994; Skehan, 1989), on the grounds of terminology, definitions,
effectiveness, theoretical underpinnings, classification, and research methodology (for in-depth coverage, see Cohen, 2007;
Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007; Griffiths, 2018; Oxford, 2017; Zhang, 2003, 2010). One main argument from
some scholars was to have self-regulation as a sweepingly new construct to replace the traditional notion of individual
difference factors in second language acquisition. Language learning strategies, operationalised as strategic language learning
capacity (an individual difference factor in SLA) (see also Gao, 2010), would then be arguably replaced by the construct of self-
regulated learning capacityda notion Rose (2012) referred to as ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ (p. 92).
This movement towards a focus on self-regulation had direct implications for research and theoretical discussions in the
years that followed. Many researchers either shifted their focus or made noticeable integrations and/or links between lan-
guage learning strategies and self-regulation (see Oxford, 2011; Rose, 2017; Tseng at al., 2006). A number of researchers
remained optimistic, acknowledging these changes yet maintaining that language learning strategies as a field of study has
validity in its own right (e.g., Chamot & Harris, 2019; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Gao, 2007; Grenfell & Macaro, 2007; Gu, 2012;
Oxford, 2017). In an interesting pair of studies, Rose investigated language learning strategies and self-regulation indepen-
dently with what appears to be the same group of participants (see Rose, 2013; Rose & Harbon, 2013). Meanwhile, others such
as Zhang and associates have expanded the scope of strategy research by integrating learning strategies with elements of self-
regulated learning and metacognition (e.g., Zhang, 2010a; see also; Gao & Zhang, 2011; Teng & Zhang, 2016, 2018; Zhang &
Zhang, 2018) or by investigating specific types of strategies in relation to specific language skills (e.g., Aghaie & Zhang, 2012;
Sun, Zhang, & Gray, 2016; Zhang & Qin, 2018). Very recently, there have even been calls to disentangle language learning
strategies from self-regulation and view strategic learning on a continuum, acknowledging that other-regulated strategy use
may indeed be prevalent, especially in formal education settings (Thomas & Rose, 2019; Thomas, Rose, & Pojanapunya, 2019).
It goes without saying that these sometimes contradictory views and various interpretations of language learning strategies
are what make the field so interesting to follow. Few areas of inquiry can provide as many practical implications and as much
fuel for informed, theoretical debate.
An evident fixture in language learning strategy research is its application to pedagogy (e.g., strategy-based instruction),
although some scholars such as Thomas and Rose (2019) have argued that recent conceptualizations may not fully represent
this crucial aspect. Indeed, there are issues with the term “strategy”, especially how it can be defined more “scientifically”, as
the unit of analysis was always critiqued by scholars (see Cohen, 2017, for his reflection and response). Pedagogical appli-
cations of language learning strategies in the classroom and beyond appear to be the mainstay (Oxford, 2017; Zhang, 2003,
2008a, 2008b), as witnessed by the momentum and the number of publications that have been published in System as well as
in other journals or as edited books (Chamot & Harris, 2019; Cohen & Macaro, 2007; Zhang, 2001, 2002a2002b; 2002a;
2002b; Zhang, Gu, & Hu, 2008; Zhang, Aryadoust, & Zhang, 2016; Zhang & Xiao, 2006). Chamot and colleagues’ (Chamot
& O’Malley, 2009) Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach has been widely implemented in many schools in the
USA, as well as in other places. One of the key elements is the use of language learning strategies for boosting learning
effectiveness in language teaching and learning (Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999). Worthy of mention is the
fact that in this line of research on young learners are also given attention (Gu, Hu, & Zhang, 2005; Gu, Hu, Zhang, & Bai, 2011;
Zhang, 2010b; Zhang et al., 2008).
Throughout these twists and turns, System has continued to be an ardent supporter of research on language learning
strategies. It is an outlet for researchers from a variety of diverse backgrounds to share their work. In a recent bibliometric
analysis of System’s publications from 1973 to 2017, Lei and Liu (2019) found that some of the most highly cited System articles
have been written by strategy researchers (e.g., Griffiths & Oxford, 2014; Hosenfeld, 1977; Oxford, 1989; Oxford & Burry-stock,
1995). Moreover, Wong and Nunan’s (2011) article on learning styles and strategies has continued to hold the top place on the
System website’s most downloaded articles in the past 90 days page for quite some time, despite being published nearly eight
years ago. Another testament to the journal’s commitment to strategy research is Oxford and Griffith’s (2014) often-cited
special issue, Language Learning Strategy Research in the Twenty-First Century: Insights and Innovations. This discussion
shows that there is still great interest in learning strategies from both the journal and journal’s readership (see Cohen &
Griffiths, 2015).
As Fig. 1 shows, since the launch of its inaugural issue in 1973, System published its very first article on language learning
strategies in 1977 (Hosenfeld, 1977). Statistics show that articles on language learning strategies exhibited an upward trend in
the history of the journal, with a cumulative total of 118 articles that had appeared in System by the time this introduction was
written. Given the increasing scholarly interest in language learning strategies, System published its first Special Issue on the
topic in 2014, co-edited by Rebecca Oxford and Carol Griffiths, as mentioned above. In the last 10 years, the journal has
published a total of 59 strategy-themed articles. That means that 50% of the studies on language learning strategies in System
were published during the last decade. Such a summary echoes Lei and Liu’s (2019) bibliometric analysis of the journal’s
publication trends from 1973 to 2017. To better represent the information, we show specific numbers of publications on
language learning strategies that have appeared in System summed up in Table 1.
 L.J. Zhang et al. / System 84 (2019) 87e92 89

Fig. 1. Articles on language learning strategies from 1973 to 2019.

Table 1
Articles on language learning strategies in System from 1973 to 2019.

1973e1978 1979e1984 1985e1990 1991e1996 1997e2002 2003e2008 2009e2014 2015e2019

1 4 5 9 16 24 28 31

2. This special virtual issue

As a way to highlight some of the many valuable contributions to the journal in recent years, we are proud to make a
number of previously published articles in the field of language learning strategies freely available for a limited period in this
special virtual issue. We deliberately have decided to select 13 from a long list of 118 articles, focusing on those published in
the last 10 years. In doing so, we hope to introduce this area of inquiry to a new readership that may not have access to all of
System’s publications. We are grateful to Elsevier for allowing us to make this possible.
In selecting the articles for this special virtual issue, we hand searched System’s journal issues over the past 10 years for
articles related to language learning strategies and chose papers that we felt had interesting findings, discussion, and/or
methods. We should be clear that these articles have not been chosen because we feel they are the “best” or “better” than
others in the journal, but each one has something unique to offer. Furthermore, we must admit that deciding on what articles
to include was not an easy process and required several discussions among us before a final list could be compiled. There are
many wonderful articles that could not be included due to space restrictions, but we encourage interested readers to perform
their own searches and explore the rest of the content System has to offer. The articles that have been included are presented
in chronological order of original appearance in the journal, with the exception of two (see explanations below), concluding
with Rose et al.‘s (2018) systematic review working almost as a summary piece.
To begin the special virtual issue, Jiang and Smith (2009) use a historical perspective to investigate Chinese students’
strategy use. This article responds to past calls for more qualitative research into learners’ strategy use (e.g., Gao, 2003, 2006).
What is truly unique is the authors’ investigation of strategy use from three generations of learners, situating the discussion in
the Chinese cultural and historical tradition. The second article by Tragant, Thompson, and Victori (2013) shows that when
done right, questionnaires can be still be used effectively in strategy research. The authors report on a validation study with a
large, multi-sample design. The findings provide evidence to support a delineation between deep and surface level strategy
clusters. In the third paper, Hu and Nassaji (2014) explore the differences between learners’ use of successful and less suc-
cessful lexical inferencing strategies. Hu and Nassaji use think-aloud measures with the data analysed quantitatively for the
number and frequency of strategies used, and qualitatively to determine the quality of strategy usage. This study does not use
an existing taxonomy and, therefore, provides a good model for researchers looking to go beyond existing collections of
strategies in their studies.
Moving forward, Dabarera, Renandeya, and Zhang (2014) examine the effect of metacognitive strategy instruction on
secondary school students’ reading comprehension. The authors use an existing questionnaire and follow-up interviews to
demonstrate how explicit instruction can enhance metacognitive awareness and improve reading comprehension. Using
both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, Wang (2015) explores strategy clusters for vocabulary learning. She uses
classroom observations, interviews, and multimodal blogs to provide a holistic view of strategy use in a situated context. In
the first article in this set to focus solely on writing, De Silva and Graham (2015) report on a study that looked into the impact
90 L.J. Zhang et al. / System 84 (2019) 87e92

of writing strategy use among students at different proficiency levels (high/low). The authors use stimulated recall to elicit
strategy use, showing that strategy instruction can be beneficial for both high and low proficiency learners.
In the seventh study, Zhong (2015) delves deep into the interactions between the beliefs, learning strategies, and language
learning achievement of two Chinese migrants in New Zealand. Benefiting from a longitudinal case study, and by using eight
different data collection measures, Zhong captures the nuanced learning trajectory of the participants in great detail.
Conversely, in another large-scale validation study, Nix (2016) reports on the process of developing a new inventory of trait
listening strategies of L2 learners. The findings are quite robust, showing, as with Tragant et al. (2013) above, that quantitative
studies of this nature still have a place in learning strategy research (see also Gao, 2006). Anam and Stracke (2016) further
confirm this statement in a large-scale study of how Indonesian primary school students’ strategy use relates to their self-
efficacy beliefs. Two modified questionnaires are used and the results show clear links between self-efficacy beliefs in self-
regulated learning and strategy usage. These findings are corrobarated by several latest studies, as reported elsewhere
(see e.g., Teng & Zhang, 2016, 2018; Zhang & Qin, 2018).
The first study in this collection to use dynamic systems theory as a lens through which to view strategy use comes from
Dong (2016). The author explores the strategy use and listening performance of one Chinese EFL student over 40 weeks. Dong
uses a battery of dynamic systems techniques to illustrate the learner’s non-linear development over time. Cohen and Wang’s
(2018) study of the functions of language learner strategies in a vocabulary fine-tuning task also demonstrates dynamic
strategy usage, as single, simultaneous, linear, and non-linear functions, and the fluctuations of functions of learner strategies
are exemplified. This study shows, at the very micro-level, how learning strategies can be investigated outside of the realm of
self-regulation.
The penultimate study in this issue by Cotterall and Murray (2009) almost did not make the first collated list because of its
primary focus on metacognition rather than learning strategies. However, after acknowledging that the learning strategies
students use plays a significant role in their metacognitive knowledge, this study was situated back into the issue. Cotterall
and Murray describe their three-year study, the longest in this collection, involving more than 400 participants in Japan, as
examining the development of metacognitive knowledge (and subsequently, strategy use) in language learning. Quantitative
and qualitative analyses are presented of data from six different sources. The authors conclude by presenting a taxonomy of
affordances describing conditions conducive to developing metacognitive knowledge, conditions that we feel could be
extrapolated in studies of self-directed strategy usage.
Finally, Rose, Briggs, Boggs, Sergio, and Ivanova-Slavianskaia’s (2018) systematic review of ‘language learner strategy
research in the face of self-regulation’ provides a logical conclusion to the collection. Rose et al. report on a review of strategy
research after the ‘dust had settled’ (2010e2016), regarding calls for researchers to focus on self-regulation (e.g., Dornyei,
2005; see discussion above). The authors describe the impact these calls have had on the field. They conclude with future
directions that strategy researchers can take and leave readers feeling optimistic about the wide array of frameworks and
perspectives to which researchers can adhere. It can be said with new titles continuously being published by leading pub-
lishers on this topic (e.g., Chamot & Harris, 2019; Griffiths, 2018; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018), the field of language learning
strategies and its related pedagogical endevour will continue to be one key area of interest among researchers and practi-
tioners despite their similar and yet different foci in the work they do to understand language learning as a process and to
improve learning outcomes.

3. Looking forward

The articles included in this special virtual issue demonstrate the “looking back” portion of this review. To conclude, we
would like to acknowledge the “looking forward” aspect briefly. In its Aims and Scope, System emphasises that it is an in-
ternational journal that publishes research on all languages as well as issues pertaining to the teaching and learning of
English. In compiling the papers for this special issue, we could not help but notice the predominance of articles with teaching
and/or learning English as the focus. Although it is true that the spread of English and its use as a global lingua franca makes
researching it increasingly popular, looking forward, we would like to encourage researchers to continue to investigate the
strategic learning of languages other than English. A small body of research does exist for non-English language learning, but
we feel there is still plenty of work that needs to be done. Authors in developing countries are especially encouraged to
explore the teaching and learning of their home languages in addition to conducting research on strategies for learning
English in their contexts. It is this commitment to publishing research from all parts of the world that makes System a truly
globally-oriented journal.
Another theme that stands out in System’s Aims and Scope is the journal’s support of educational technology that may
enhance teaching and learning. As this area continues to develop at an extremely rapid pace, we expect to see more studies
exploring emergent technologies by integrating them with strategic learning practices (e.g., Zhang & Qin, 2018). While
technological affordances may indeed aid in the learning process, we believe these affordances are best harnessed when
coupled with sound pedagogical principles and procedures. Best practices in exploiting new technologies through the use of
language learning strategies is an area we expect to gain traction in the years to come. Conversely, we also do not want to
imply that learning which takes place in contexts with few technological resources is somehow less important. Doing so
would send the message that only learners in privileged contexts are worth reading about, a stance we certainly do not
support. Being strategic about one’s learning undoubtedly helps to mitigate inherent issues in resource-scarce contexts. We
hope that this line of research will continue as well.
 L.J. Zhang et al. / System 84 (2019) 87e92 91

Finally, as research design methodology has long been an area of fervent debate in the field of language learning strategies,
it would be remiss to conclude without sparing a few words. Calls for more qualitative studies on language learning strategies
continue to be made by scholars in the field (e.g., Rose, 2015; see also; Zhang, 2003), and rightfully so, as more researchers
emphasise the importance of the context and individual differences in strategy usage (see Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018).
Various research methods have been employed for collecting data on learners’ use of language learning strategies in general
settings as well as with reference to specific language skill areas, as reported in the papers included in this virtual special
issue. Nonetheless, using particular research methods or techniques to analyse moment-by-moment language learners’
strategy use in relation to specific learning tasks will be especially valuable. Where such techniques are affordable, re-
searchers might also want to look for tools that will enable them to delve deeper into language learners’ processing capacity,
especially the processes of strategy use. One typical technique is well-known as events-related episodes (ERP), and the other
is eye-tracking, among others. Uses of techniques such as ERP and eye-tracking may offer possible new developments in the
years to come. However, as some of the studies in this special virtual issue have shown, it is possible that large-scale,
quantitative studies still have a place in language learning strategy research.
All in all, it is a wonderful time to be strategy researchers. Nearly 45 years of research and theoretical debate have already
been conducted, which means there is a rich history of scholarly work to explore. Nevertheless, in nearly every volume of the
journal, emergent scholars continue to add to this body of work and subsequently join in ongoing discussions. Though re-
searchers might not always agree on every issue, well-intentioned scrutiny is what has and will continue to keep the field
thriving. At the end of the day, we are all working towards a common goal: To make learning a second or foreign language as
efficient and as effective as possible through the use of learnig strategies.

References

Indicates an article that has been included in this special issue.

Aghaie, R., & Zhang, L. J. (2012). Effects of explicit instruction in cognitive and metacognitive reading strategies on Iranian EFL students’ reading perfor-
mance and strategy transfer. Instructional Science, 40(6), 1063e1081.
(*) Anam, S., & Stracke, E. (2016). Language learning strategies of Indonesian primary school students: In relation to self-efficacy beliefs. System, 60, 1e10.
Chamot, A. U. (2009). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chamot, A. U., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P. B., & Robbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Chamot, A. U., & Harris, V. (Eds.). (2019). Learning strategy instruction in the language classroom: Issues and implementation. Bristol, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Cohen, A. D. (2007). Coming to terms with language learning strategies: Survey the experts. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learners strategies:
30 years of research and practice (pp. 29e46). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 414e429.
Cohen, A. D., & Macaro, E. (Eds.). (2007). Language learners strategies: 30 years of research and practice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
(*) Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2018). Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies. System, 74, 169e182.
(*) Cotterall, S., & Murray, G. (2009). Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System, 37(1), 34e45.
(*) Dabarera, C., Renandya, W. A., & Zhang, L. J. (2014). The impact of metacognitive scaffolding and monitoring on reading comprehension. System, 42,
462e473.
(*) De Silva, R., & Graham, S. (2015). The effects of strategy instruction on writing strategy use for students of different proficiency levels. System, 53, 47e59.
(*) Dong, J. (2016). A dynamic systems theory approach to development of listening strategy use and listening performance. System, 63, 149e165.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Gao, X. (2003). Changes in Chinese students’ learner strategy use after arrival in the UK: A qualitative inquiry. In D. S. Palfreyman (Ed.), Learner autonomy
across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 41e57). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gao, X. (2006). Understanding changes in Chinese students’ uses of learning strategies in China and Britain: A socio-cultural re-interpretation. System, 34(1),
55e67.
Gao, X. (2007). Has Language Learning strategy research come to an end? A response to Tseng et al. (2006). Applied Linguistics, 28, 615e620.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In G.
Murray, X. Gao, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 25e41). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Grenfell, M., & Macaro, E. (2007). Claims and critques. In A. D. Cohen, & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 9e28). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Griffiths, C. (2018). The strategy factor in successful language learning: The tornado effect. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43, 1e10.
Gu, Y. (2012). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3, 330e356.
Gu, Y. P., Hu, G., & Zhang, L. J. (2005). Language learner strategies among lower primary school pupils in Singapore. Language and Education, 19(4), 281e303.
Gu, Y. Q., Hu, G., Zhang, L. J., & Bai, R. (2011). Strategy-based instruction: Focusing on reading and writing strategies. Beijing, China: Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press.
Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 117e129.
Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5(2), 110e123.
(*) Hu, M., & Nassaji, H. (2014). Lexical inferencing strategies: The case of successful versus less successful inferencers. System, 45, 27e38.
(*) Jiang, X., & Smith, R. (2009). Chinese learners’ strategy use in historical perspective: A cross-generational interview-based study. System, 37(2), 286e299.
Lei, L., & Liu, D. (2019). The research trends and contributions of system’s publications over the past four decades (1973-2017): A bibliometric analysis.
System, 80, 1e13.
(*) Nix, J. L. (2016). Measuring latent listening strategies: Development and validation of the EFL listening strategy inventory. System, 57, 79e97.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235e247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies (1st ed.). Harlow, England: Longman.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (Eds.). (2018). Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situating strategy use in diverse contexts.
London, England: Bloomsbury.
Oxford, R. L., & Burry-stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1e23.
92 L.J. Zhang et al. / System 84 (2019) 87e92

Special Issue: Language learning strategy research in the twenty-first century: Insights and innovationsOxford, R. L., & Griffiths, C. (Eds.). System, 43, (2014).
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation: Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied
Linguistics, 33(1), 92e98.
Rose, H. (2013). L2 learners’ attitudes toward, and use of, mnemonic strategies when learning Japanese kanji. The Modern Language Journal, 97(4), 981e992.
Rose, H. (2015). Researching languge learner strategies. In B. Paltridge, & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp.
421e437). New York: Bloomsbury.
Rose, H. (2017). The Japanese writing system: Challenges, strategies and self-regulation for learning kanji. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
(*) Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-
regulation. System, 72, 151e163.
Rose, H., & Harbon, L. (2013). Self-regulation of the kanji-learning task. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 96e107.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. Tesol Quarterly, 9, 41e51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117e131.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Arnold.
Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 304e318.
Sun, P. P., Zhang, L. J., & Gray, S. M. (2016). Development and validation of the speaking strategy inventory for learners of Chinese (SSILC) as a second/foreign
language. Asia Pacific Educational Researcher, 25(4), 593e604.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language
Journal, 100(3), 674e701.
Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of
writing in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 213e240.
Thomas, N., & Rose, H. (2019). Do Language Learning strategies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL
Quarterly, 53(1), 248e257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.473.
Thomas, N., Rose, H., & Pojanapunya, P. (2019). Conceptual issues in strategy research: Examining the roles of teachers and students in formal education
settings. Applied Linguistics Review. forthcoming.
(*) Tragant, E., Thompson, M. S., & Victori, M. (2013). Understanding foreign language learning strategies: A validation study. System, 41(1), 95e108.
Tseng, W., Do €rnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 78e102.
(*) Wang, I. K.-H. (2015). The use of dialogic strategy clusters for vocabulary learning by Chinese students in the UK. System, 51, 51e64.
Wong, L. L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39, 144e163.
Zhang, L. J. (2001). Awareness in reading: EFL students’ metacognitive knowledge of reading strategies in an acquisition-poor environment. Language
Awareness, 10(4), 268e288. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410108667039.
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Exploring EFL reading as a metacognitive experience: Reader awareness and reading performance. Asian Journal of English Language
Teaching, 12, 65e90.
Zhang, L. J. (2002). Metamorphological awareness and EFL students’ memory, retention, and retrieval of English adjectival lexicons. Perceptual & Motor
Skills, 95(3), 934e944. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.934.
Zhang, L. J. (2003). Research into Chinese Efl learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional issues. RELC Journal, 34(3), 284e322. https://doi.org/10.
1177/003368820303400303.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Constructivist pedagogy in strategic reading instruction: Exploring pathways to learner development in the English as a second language
(ESL) classroom. Instructional Science, 36(2), 89e116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9025-6.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Making a case for the skills/strategies approach to L2 listening development. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 7(2), 99e109.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). A dynamic metacognitive systems account of Chinese university students’ knowledge about EFL reading. Tesol Quarterly, 44(2), 320e353.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.223352.
Zhang, L. J. (2010). Negotiating language, literacy and identity: A sociocultural perspective on children’s learning strategies in a multilingual ESL classroom
in Singapore. Applied Linguistics Review, 1(1), 247e270. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110222654.247.
Zhang, L. J., Aryadoust, V., & Zhang, D. (2016). Taking stock of the effects of strategies-based instruction on writing in Chinese and English in Singapore
primary schools. In R. E. Silver, & W. Bokhorst-Heng (Eds.), Quadrilingual education in Singapore: Pedagogical innovation in Language education (pp.
103e126). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-967-7_7.
Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245e271. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218179.
Zhang, L. J., & Qin, T. L. (2018). Validating a questionnaire on EFL writers’ metacognitive awareness of writing strategies in multimedia environments. In Å.
Haukås, C. C. Bjørke, & M. Dypedahl (Eds.), Metacognition in language learning and teaching (pp. 157e179). London, England: Routledge.
Zhang, L. J., & Xiao, Y. (2006). language Learning strategies, motivation and EFL proficiency: A study of Chinese tertiary-level non-English majors. Asian
Englishes, 9(2), 20e47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2006.10801187.
Zhang, L. J., & Zhang, D. (2018). Metacognition in TESOL: Theory and practice. In J. I. Liontas, & A. Shehadeh (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching, Vol. II: Approaches and methods in English for speakers of other languages (pp. 682e792). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
(*) Zhong, Q. (2015). Changes in two migrant learners’ beliefs, learning strategy use and language achievements in a New Zealand context. System, 53,
107e118.

Lawrence Jun Zhang, PhD, is Professor of Linguistics-in-Education and Associate Dean, Faculty of Education & Social Work, University of Auckland, New
Zealand, holding an Honorary Professorship at Xi’an Jiaotong University, China. A past Post-Doctoral Fellow at University of Oxford, he has published
extensively on the psychology of language learning and writing in Applied Linguistics Review, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Discourse Processes,
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Modern Language Journal, Instructional Science, System, TESOL Quarterly, Assessing Writing, Reading and Writing, and Journal
of Second Language Writing. His current interests lie in reading and writing development, especially the acquisition of L2 written language. He was the sole
recipient of the “TESOL Award for Distinguished Research” in 2011 for his article in TESOL Quarterly. He is a co-editor for System, TESOL Quarterly’s Brief
Research Reports, and serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Second Language Writing, Applied Linguistics Review, Pedagogy and Writing, Metacognition &
Learning, and RELC Journal. He reviews manuscripts for Applied Linguistics, Language Learning, Modern Language Journal, ESP, JEAP, Reading & Writing, Reading &
Writing Quarterly, and Review of Educational Research, among other journals.

Nathan Thomas is a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Education at the University of Oxford. He is also Director of EFL for a private educational
consulting company in Beijing, China. His publications have appeared in top academic journals such as Applied Linguistics, Applied Linguistics Review, Language
Teaching, System, and TESOL Quarterly. Additionally, he is a manuscript reviewer for System and TESOL Quarterly, serving on TESOL’s Research Professional
Council. Nathan’s research interests are wide-ranging, but current projects pertain to language learning strategies, self-/other-regulation, and English
medium instruction.

Tony Limin Qin, PhD, is currently an assistant professor in the School of Foreign Languages at the University of Ji’nan. His research interests lie in L2 writing
development, metacognition, second/foreign lanuage learning strategies, multimedia-mediated teaching and learning. His publications have appeared in top
academic journals such as Technology Enhanced Foreign Language Education, Language, Culture and Curriculum. He is also a manuscript reviewer for TESOL
Quarterly.