The Best and the Worst An Exercise to T
z
zy
zy
“The Best
the Worst”:
xercise to
Perceptions
of Language-Learning
Experiences and Strategies
Rebecca L. Oxford
The University of Alabama
zyxwvu
zyxwvut
zy
zyxwvutsrq
when we were language students. Though feelings and attitudes about language-learning experiences are very important to proficiency
(Gardner, 3), they are often ignored.
Another relatively untouched area in many
language classrooms, and in many discussions
among language teachers, is that of languagelearning strategies-the steps or actions taken by
learners to enhance their own learning (Oxford,
4; Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall 5; Wenden and
Rubin, 8). These strategies might include
behaviors as disparate as arranging the optimal
environment by turning down the radio while
studying, seeking out conversation partners in
the new language, organizing a language noteAs language teachers, we don’t often ask our book, guessing the meaning of an unknown
students to describe their best and their worst phrase, using imagery to remember new words,
language-learningexperiences and their feelings and working up the courage to speak despite intoward these expe1,iences.Maybe we don’t real- evitable mistakes. The use of language-learning
ly want to know what they have to say, or maybe strategies can have a great influence on the qualiwe have just not considered asking. Even less ty and success of language-learning experiences.
often do we take time to talk with other teachers
The purpose of this article is to share an exerabout attitudes toward the language-learning cise which 1have used in six major staff developexperiences we ourselves enjoyed or endured ment workshops around the U.S. within the last
year: two regional teacher training conferences
Rebecca L. Oxjord(Ph.D., University of North Carolina) is
in
Glastonbury, Connecticut, and Greeley, ColAssociate Professor of 1.anguage Education and Russian at
orado, sponsored by the American Council on
the llniversiry of’ Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
AUSTRACT Thiy article presents an exercise
useful for rapping perceptions of participants’
hest und worst lunguage-learning experiences
and thestrulegies these individuals used in such
experiences. Inforrnal results across six training
sessions are presented. Positive languagelearning situations stimulated the use of a wide
range of learning strategies, while negativesituationsstunted strategy use, restricting it mainly to
strategies that helped learners cope with their
da-v-to-daystruggle with the dysfunctional environment. Possibr‘ejutureuses of “TheBest and
the Worst” exercise with students, as well asfor
teacher training, are discussed.
zyxwvutsrqp
Foteigrr Lunguage Annuis, 22, No. 5 , 1989
447
448_----
zyxwv
-
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL); an
ACTFL workshop for government language
teachers and supervisor:, at Linthicum, Maryland; an all-day workshop at the ACTFL annual
meeting in Monterey, California;a workshop for
foreign language teachers in Jacksonville,
Florida; and a workshop sponsored by the Northem Colorado Consortium of Foreign Language
Teachers. Called “The Best and the Worst:’ this
exercise generated strong Interest and excitement
among the 275 teachers and administrators who
participated, representing government agencies,
universities, high schools, and middle schools
throughout the US. Most participants were native
speakers of English, though about one-fifth were
native speakers of other languages. The exercise
touched a nerve in the participants, uncovering
emotional aspects of language learning that lay below the surface. It also provided
many teachers and administrators with their first
exposure to the area of language-learning strategies. This exercise can be used with students, or
it can be a device for staff development as shown
here. In either case, the exercise raises participants’
awareness about their own learning experiences
and strategies.
The steps in the exercise are outlined below,
followed by data interpreted in terms of a comprehensive typology of language-learning
strategies.
took place, when, who was involved, what
you felt like in the situation, and what
elements made the experience profitable or
exciting.
b) Jot down a list of several learning
behaviors or strategiesyou used in the best
language-learning situation. For each
strategy, write a plus sign (+) if the strategy
helped learning and a minus sign (-) if the
strategy hindered learning.
Make sure everyone understands and completes the task. Participants usually have little or
no trouble with this. Then announce that each
person will now have 3 to 5 minutes to follow the
same process with the very worst languagelearning situation, first writing down the
characteristics of the experience and second the
learning strategies used in that setting, with (+)
or (-) signs to show whether the strategies
helped or hindered. My experience with this exercise indicates that participants can readily
describe their worst language-learning situation,
and they generally love the chance to vent their
frustration about it and to identify the strategies
they used, regardless of effectiveness. However,
you might find one or two lucky (or overly optimistic) participants who say, “But all my
language-learning experiences were wonderful!
I never had a bad one!” If this happens in your
group, urge such people to think of one single
language-learning experience that was less
positive than their other experiences, and ask
them to focus on that particular experience as
their worst.
STEP2 -Pairs. By now the participants have
written notes about their best and worst
language-learning experiences, the learning
strategies they used in each case, and whether or
not these strategies enhanced learning. Now ask
individuals to find a partner and exchange their
best and worst experiences, their strategies in
each case, and the helpfulness (+ or -) of these
strategies. Ask the partners to find any differences and commonalities in their experiences.
Encourage the pairs to explore the experiences
and strategies in as much detail as they can and
to take notes as they talk. Allow about 10
minutes for this step. Participants usually
become very involved and animated at this stage.
zyxwvutsr
zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
“The Best and the Worst”:
How the Exercise Works
There are four steps in this exercise. The total
time is forty-five minutes to an hour, depending
on the amount of time spent at each step.
STEP I-Individual.Ask all participants to get
out paper and pen and start thinking about the
best and the worst language-learning situations
they ever encountered as learners of a second or
foreign language. Explain that these situations
could be in classroom settings, on a trip abroad,
in the local community, or anywhere else. Announce that each participant working alone will
have about 3 to 5 minutes 10 do the following:
a) Write a few sentences about the
characteristics of the single best languagelearning experience you ever encountered.
Details might include where the situation
zyxwvut
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
You may have to cut off discussion in midstream,
but make sure each person in a given pair has had
a chance to share.
STEP 3 - Foursome. When the pairs have
shared their experiences and strategies internally, you can move on to the next stage. Ask each
pair to find another pair and repeat the exchange
process. Each person in the foursome shares the
best and the worst experience,the strategiesused
in each experience, and whether the strategies
helped or hindered. Make sure that each group
has at least one person taking notes, especially
on common themes. Allow about 15 to 20
minutes for this stage, so that all group members
have a chance to speak.
STEP 4 - Whole Group. Now reorganize
everyone into a whole group and conduct a
group discussion of the findings. To do this, ask
the group which type of experience they want to
discuss first, the best or the worst. Then take the
chosen experience (best or worst) and ask participants to report their findings. This can be
done by spokespersons (note-takers) from each
foursome, or via spontaneous individual volunteering. Either way can work effectively, depending on the group.
If the group has decided to discuss the worst
experience first, ask for participants to name all
the characteristics they have discovered for the
worst experience. As characteristics are named,
list them rapidly on a transparency or flipchart.
You will find that many characteristicswill be the
same throughout the group-fear, anger, confusion, domineering or uncaring teacher, etc. Then
jot down on the transparency or flipchart the
strategiesparticipants report that they used in the
worst situation. Do the same for the best situation: list characteristics of the situation and
strategies used.
Next, ask participants to consider any major
differences between the best and the worst experiences that were just reported. They may
brainstorm about how strategies helped or
hindered them in the two different experiences.
Try to come up with some conclusions or general
statements about the experiences and the
strategies.
This whole group reporting and discussion
can last 15 to 20 minutes, depending on how
449
much time is available. It is best to keep the
discussion moving quickly, so that participants
stay alert and involved.
Results and Discussion
From the six groups of teachers and administrators with whom I’ve used this exercise so
far, some very interesting results have emerged.
Note that the results are not couched in statistical
terms, nor were the groups organized as a
representative sample; nevertheless, my informal
data present a tantalizing and honest look at
language-learning processes, which can be
followed up by more formal investigations.
Framework for Understanding Results
Results obtained through “The Best and the
Worst” exercise are best understood by referring
to the framework offered by a comprehensive
typology of language-learning strategies. This
typology, displayed in a tree diagram in a
previous issue of this journal (Oxford, Lavine,
and Crookall, 5, pp. 31-32) and elsewhere (Oxford, 4) is summarized as follows:
1. Direct strategies-those behaviors which directly involve the target language and which directly enhance language-learning.
a) Memory strategies - strategies for
remembering and recalling new words and
structures: grouping, associating/elaborating, placing words into a context, using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords,
representing sounds in memory, structured
reviewing, using physical response, and using mechanical tricks.
b) Cognitivestrategies - strategies for
mentally processing the language to
receive and send meaningful messages:
repeating, formally practicing with sounds
and alphabets, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, practicing naturalistically, getting ideas quickly
(skimming and scanning), using resources
such as dictionaries for receiving and sending messages, reasoning deductively,
analyzing expressions, analyzing contrastively across languages, translating,
transferring, taking notes, summarizing,
and highlighting.
zyxw
459
zy
zy
zyxwvutsrq
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS --OCTOBER
~~-
c) Cnnipensation strategies - strategies
to compensate for missing knowledge:
guessing intelligently by using linguistic
clues and other clues, switching to the
mother tongue, getting help from someone
else, using mime or gesture, avoiding communication partially or totally selecting
the topic, adjusting or approximating the
message, coining words, and using circumlocution or a synonym.
1989
similar range of experiences and strategies. It w s
impossible to classify experiences by language
learned; the language itself (in these instances)
had little to do with whether the learning experience was perceived as positive or negative, or
what strategies were employed. The languages
learned were German, Russian, French, Spanish
Latin, and ESL. Results might have differed by
language if other languages, like Chinese, had
been involved, or if the exercise had asked about
attitudes and strategies specific to a given
language.
Participants remarked that this was the first
time anyone had inquired about their perceptions of their own language learning. Many indicated that this process opened doors in their
minds and started them wondering what their
students thought about their own learning
experiences.
Some participants were euphoric about their
best language-learning experiences and eager to
share positive ideas, but a number of participants
expressed surprise and relief when they discovered
that others had experienced language-learning
situations as awful as their own had been. It must
be remembered that the participants had all
chosen to enter the language instruction field, and
presumably they did so, in part, because their experiences were, by and large, more positive than
experiences of others who rejected the possibility. We might well wonder about attitudes toward
the quality of the language-learning experiences
of people who did not go into language teaching.
(For concerns about the quality of foreign
language instruction in general, see Rhodes and
Oxford, 6; Strength through Wisdom, 7; A
Nation at Risk, 1).
The exercise helped participants think more
clearly about their own language-learning
strategies as well. Most of them had not spent
much time considering the strategjesthey normally used to learn a language (or the strategies of
their students), and none had experienced any
specific training in strategy use. Nevertheless,
when given a few examples, most participants
spontaneously generated copious lists of their
own language-learningstrategies and found these
lists eye-opening. Participants found it fairly easy
t o determine whether a particular strategy
zyxwvut
2. Indirect strategies - those behaviors which do
not directly involve the target language but which
are nevertheless essential for effective language
learning.
a) Metacognitive strategies - strategies
for overall managemenl of learning: overviewing; paying attention; delaying speech
production to focus on listening; finding
out about language-learning principles;
organizingthe learning environment, learning materials, and schedule; setting goals
and objectives; identifying the purpose of
a language task; planning for a language
task; seeking practice opportunities; selfmonitoring; and self-evaluating.
b) Affective strategies - strategies for
controlling emotions, attitudes, and motivation: using progressive relaxation; using
music, deep breathing, or meditation; using
laughter; making positive statements; taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; listening to your body; using a checklist; writing
a language-learning diary; and discussing
your feelings with someone else.
c) Socialstrategies- strategies for learning with others: asking questions for
clarification or verification, asking for correction, cooperating with peers, cooperating with proficient users of the new
language, developing cultural understanding, and becoming aware of others’
thoughts and feelings.
None of the participants had seen this typology
prior to “The Best and Worst” exercise.
zyxw
zy
zyxw
zyxwvu
General Results and Discussion
One of the most remarkable findings was that
in all workshops, participants from different parts
of the country and from abroad showed a
zyxwvut
zyxwv
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
was useful or not.
Positive learning environments brought out a
wide range of language-learning strategies (including strategies fIom all six general categories
in the typology noted above) and set participants
free to use their abilities creatively. Poor learning
situations, on the other hand, carried such a
negative emotional loading that individuals
spent most of their energy simply trying to survive through a combination of affective, social,
and metacognitive strategies. The worst
language-learning situations put a damper on
almost all direct strategies (memory, cognitive,
and compensation strategies), since individuals
were consumed by a day-to-day struggle with the
learning environment. In both best and worst
language-learning situations, participants appeared to make 1es.sthan complete use of some
kinds of strategies, such as affective and memory
strategies.
The “forgetting” factor was not as strong as
expected among the workshop participants,
some of whom had not actively studied a new
language in twenty years. Their attitudes toward
and perceptions of their best and worst language-learning experiences were sharp, and their
memories of strategy use were equally keen for
both the best and the worst situations. Asking
about the most positive and the most negative
experiences unearthed a number of clear factual
details and affective reactions that would not
have been evoked if questions had been asked
about “typical” language-learning experiences
of the participants.
451
ing experientially through relevant communication; practicing real-life interaction; being
challenged; having adventure, variety, fun,
freedom, and autonomy; being inspired and enthusiastic; having a teacher and/or situation that
provided a host of emotional supports, such as
empathic guidance, low stress, encouragement
of self-confidence, sense of competence, concern
for individual needs, reduced anxiety, unthreatening atmosphere, positive reinforcement,
sympathy, motivation, and a sense of “feeling
good” as a learner; and finally using games,
simulations, pictures, and other kinds of learning aids.
Strategies used in the best experiences.
Strategies spontaneously mentioned in the best
language-learning situations were varied,
representing all six of the strategy categories in
the typology shown above, which participants
had not yet seen. All the strategies cited below
were seen as helpful in one way or another.
Memory strategies (called “mental hooks” by
one participant) were occasionally mentioned as
being used in the best experiences. These
strategies included use of interesting self-made
associations, imagery, rhyming (a form of
representing sounds in memory), structured
reviewing, and mechanical tricks such as colorcoding. Participants did not cite several memory
strategies such as grouping, semantic mapping,
the keyword technique, or physical response,
however. I n short, they made some use of
memory strategies but not others.
Cognitivestrategies were repeatedly mentioned
for the best learning situations. Practicing, one
of the key cognitive strategies described, took
many forms: repetitive drill, repeating to oneself
in silent rehearsal, naturalistic practice, and
recognizing and using formulas and patterns.
Participants cited cognitive strategies for receiving and sending messages, such as using dictionaries and other resources and skimming to
get the idea quickly. Analysis and reasoning
strategies were also popular: transferring from
the first language, comparing across languages,
analyzing expressions, and generating hypotheses through deductive reasoning were all mentioned; but one prevalent and sometimes
dysfunctional cognitive strategy, verbatim
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
Specific Results and Discussion
The specific findings can be explained according to the following clusters: characteristics of
the best experiences, strategies used in the best
experiences, characteristics of the worst experiences, and strategies used in the worst
experiences.
Characteristicsqf the best experiences. Characteristics of the best experiences were as follows
(summarized across all six groups): being in the
country where the target language was spoken or
in some other immersion or semi-immersion
situation; having a purpose for learning, using
meaningful and natural vocabulary, and learn-
452-
zy
zyxwvutsrq
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
zyxwvuts
translation, was surprisingly not mentioned.
Note-taking and paraphrased summaries were
the structure-creating cognitive strategies that
participants said they used.
Compensation strategies were used often in
positive learning situations, according to participants. As listeners or readers, they had
discovered that they could guess through context
and “go for the whole message, not each individual word!’ Participants listed several compensation strategies for speaking: gesturing,
reverting to the mother tongue, and circumlocution. They did not mention using compensation
strategies for writing.
Metacognitive strategies of certain types were
used in good learning settings, though the wide
range of available metacognitive strategies was
not fully tapped. Participants mentioned using
self-monitoring of errors; one person said this
was for “damage control? Some said they tried
hard to plan, prepare, and organize their
studying-all metacognitive strategies. Delayed
production, with a focus on listening, was mentioned by a few participants. Overviewing was
mentioned several times. Participants repeatedly
said that as learners they had sought opportunities to use the language, including travel and
other situations where they were forced to speak
and improvise in the target language. Several participants mentioned using “self-direction:’ which
is perhaps the best label: to summarize all the
metacognitivestrategiesas a group. Several kinds
of metacognitive stratregieswere notably absent
from participants’ lists: self-evaluation of progress, finding out about language learning, setting goals and objectives, and paying attention.
Affective strategies were mentioned as occasionally used in the best experiences. Self-reward,
taking risks wisely, and self-encouragement to
help oneself persevere were the three affective
strategies which came up in the discussions.
Strategies for lowering anxiety (using music,
deep breathing, meditation, relaxation, and
laughter) were not mentioned, probably because
in the best language-learningsituations anxiety
was already low. Participants did not mention
using any strategies for assessing their emotions
(checklists,diaries, discussing feelings, or checking physical symptoms).
Of the social strategies, question-asking was
the most popular in good learning situations,
followed by cooperating with peers. Developing
cultural understanding was cited. The strategy of
cooperating with proficient users of the language
such as native speakers was not directly mentioned (though it might be assumed in situations
such as traveling abroad).
Characteristics of the worst experiences.
Characteristics of the worst language-learning
experiences were divisible into two sets: concrete
details about the situation and negative emotional responses. In the former set of
characteristics, the following were mentioned:
lack of discipline or structure in the setting, no
challenge, boring topics, inadequate teaching
methods, lack of match between teaching
methods and the needs of the individual student,
no consideration of students’ desires or requirements, unreasonable expectations, overcorrection, negative reinforcement, incompetent
teacher, intimidating teacher, sarcasm, ridicule,
not enough time, lack of interaction, no
question-asking opportunity, no explanations,
no feedback, constant lecturing, vagueness, no
practical or natural use of target language, emphasis on translation, irrelevant materials, rote
memorization, heavy emphasis on grades, and
lack of cultural discussion.
Negative emotional responses included embarrassment, rejection, hostility, fear, anger,
boredom, frustration, stress, loneliness, exhaustion, withdrawal, immobilization, sense of being
lost, drop in self-esteem, sense of incompetence,
loss of confidence in the teacher and in other
students, psychosomatic pain, and negativity
toward the target language and culture.
Strategies used in the worst experiences:
Learning strategies which students reported using in their worst language-learningexperiences
were mainly indirect strategies, rather than direct
strategies. The indirect strategies which they
chose seemed focused on merely coping rather
than making significant progress. Some of the
strategies which were used made the situation
better, while other strategies made it worse or
resulted in entire removal of the student from the
situation.
The only memory-related strategy mentioned
zyxwvut
zyxwv
zy
zyxwvu
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
was rote memorization, which is actually more
like the cognitive strategy of repetition rather
than a real memory strategy. Only a few
cognitive strategies were mentioned by participants in reference to their negative learning
experience. Participants reported using some of
the weakest cognitive strategies, such as overrehearsal (a form of repetition). More creative
cognitive strategies were untouched. No compensation strategies were cited as being used in
the worst language-learning setting.
Metacognitive strategies were sometimes
evoked by participants in their worst languagelearning experience. These strategies helped give
participants a sense of control over their
language-learningprocess, even though external
learning circumcstances were negative. For instance, some participants reported planning
their work carefully, overviewing, and developing appropriate study schedules and other
organizational means for “digging in and working? No self-evaluating or self-monitoring
strategies were mentioned.
Some participants used a limited number of
affective strategies to help improve the situation,
such as making positive statements to encourage
themselves and to develop endurance; “fighting
back” through risk-taking; engaging in jogging,
centering exercises, and relaxation for stress
relief;and using self-reward to stimulate motivation. On the other hand, some participants used
negative affectivestrategies, such as negative selftalk (self-blame), blaming and criticizing others,
dropping out of the language program, avoiding
class, ignoring the situation, cheating, giving up,
getting sick, and even having a nosebleed at
strategic intervals in order to leave the scene.
(These negative affective strategies are not included in the above typology.)
The social strategy of cooperation was
popular for helping participants cope with poor
learning situations. Participants said they
banded together to form cohesive groups (often
against the teacher), sought help from peers and
experts, and pooled resources-all examples of
cooperation. However, the other social strategies
were not cited.
Some participants said that in a negative learning situation they felt they had “no strategies at
45 3
all:’ and that they simply floated along or
dropped out as learners. One astute participant
commented that bad learning experiences bring
extreme reactions, such as perfectionism vs.
avoidance.
Conclusions
“The Best and the Worst” exercise has been
fruitful in helping teachers and administrators
alike to consider their experiences as former
language learners. This exercise also enabled
them to understand better the strategies they
used in order to deal with what they perceived as
good and bad instructional experiences. Positive
situations encouraged the creative use of
strategies, while negative situations restricted
strategy use, especially among the direct
strategies, and fostered escapist behaviors.
Results of “The Best and the Worst” exercise
suggest important implications for our consideration. First, it is informative to look at our
own experiences and strategies as former
language learners. The results of such an exploration tell us a good deal about how we
ourselves behave and feel in instructionally
dysfunctional settings. Clearly, we act differently
in a positive situation than in a negative situation; the strategies we use to deal with the
language and to manage our own learning are
much more abundant in the former than the
latter.
Second, information such as that captured by
“The Best and the Worst:’ while obviously subjective, is very important because attitudes and
feelings appear to directly affect strategy choice,
which naturally influences the success of
language learning in the long run (Oxford,4;
Wenden and Rubin, 8; also Gardner, 3).
Third, the forgetting factor did not seem as
salient as might have been predicted, because the
best and the worst experiences of language learning had engraved significant factual and affective data into participants’ memories. Thus it
may be more possible than we might have
thought to probe the past for certain kinds of
understandings about language learning. (See
Cohen, 2, for background on verbal report data.)
Fourth, it seems clear that if language teachers
and administratorsare capable, even after a lapse
zyx
zy
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
of time, to analyze their former languagelearning situations, students who are currently
involved in language learning will be able to
describe their feelings, attitudes and perceptions
concerning the instructional process in which
they are engaged and the learning strategies they
are using in that process. Students have the ability to describe what they think and feel about
language learning, and they are eager to share
this information if we ask. Possible crosscultural
differences in learners’ reflections on their current language instruction may emerge if we
probe.
In the near future, students from many
cultural backgrounds at a major US.university
will be taking part in “The Best and the Worst’’
exercise as part of regular class activities. Such
self-exploration is needed, so that students can
understand more about their own learning, and
so we can learn from our students about their
perceptions of instructional effectiveness. “The
Best and the Worst’Land other self-exploration
tools such as diaries, discussions, think-aloud interviews, and surveys-can be entertaining
vehicles which provide important insights about
language teaching and learning.
Commission on Excellence in Education.
Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office, 1983.
Cohen, Andrew D. “Using Verbal Reports in
Research on Language Learning:’ in Claus Faerch
and Gabriele Kasper, eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, Avon,
England Multilingual Matters (1987): 82-95.
Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes
andkfotivation.London, Ontario, Canada: Edward Arnold, 1985.
Oxford, Rebecca L. Language Learning
Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York Newbury House - Harper & Row, 1989.
, Roberta Z. Lavine, and David
Crookall. “Language Learning Strategies, the
Communicative Approach, and their Classroom
Implicationsl’Foreign Laneage Annuls 22 (1989):
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvu
3.
4.
5.
29-39.
6.
7.
z
zyx
Rhodes, Nancy C. and Rebecca L. Oxford,
“Foreign Languages in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Results of a National Sum@.’ Foreign
Language Annals 21 (1988): 51-69.
Strength Through Wisdom A Critique of US.
capablity. Report to the President from the President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and In-
zyxwvutsrqpon
8.
REFERENCES
I.
2.
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Report of the National
ternational Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1979.
Wenden, Anita and Joan Rubin. Learner
Strategies for Language Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987.
IN MEMORIAM
II
,
We mourn the death of our esteemed colleague and beloved friend,
Michael Canale, whose superb leadership, rich talents and inspired
thought have contributed so greatly to the field of second language
education, whose achievements we reflect in our research and in our
classrooms, and on whose direction we have relied. To Michael’s
family and all of Michael’s many friends we extend our deepest sympathies for the loss of his warmth, his care, and his laughter. We will
remember him with great affection.
zy
zy
“The Best
the Worst”:
xercise to
Perceptions
of Language-Learning
Experiences and Strategies
Rebecca L. Oxford
The University of Alabama
zyxwvu
zyxwvut
zy
zyxwvutsrq
when we were language students. Though feelings and attitudes about language-learning experiences are very important to proficiency
(Gardner, 3), they are often ignored.
Another relatively untouched area in many
language classrooms, and in many discussions
among language teachers, is that of languagelearning strategies-the steps or actions taken by
learners to enhance their own learning (Oxford,
4; Oxford, Lavine, and Crookall 5; Wenden and
Rubin, 8). These strategies might include
behaviors as disparate as arranging the optimal
environment by turning down the radio while
studying, seeking out conversation partners in
the new language, organizing a language noteAs language teachers, we don’t often ask our book, guessing the meaning of an unknown
students to describe their best and their worst phrase, using imagery to remember new words,
language-learningexperiences and their feelings and working up the courage to speak despite intoward these expe1,iences.Maybe we don’t real- evitable mistakes. The use of language-learning
ly want to know what they have to say, or maybe strategies can have a great influence on the qualiwe have just not considered asking. Even less ty and success of language-learning experiences.
often do we take time to talk with other teachers
The purpose of this article is to share an exerabout attitudes toward the language-learning cise which 1have used in six major staff developexperiences we ourselves enjoyed or endured ment workshops around the U.S. within the last
year: two regional teacher training conferences
Rebecca L. Oxjord(Ph.D., University of North Carolina) is
in
Glastonbury, Connecticut, and Greeley, ColAssociate Professor of 1.anguage Education and Russian at
orado, sponsored by the American Council on
the llniversiry of’ Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
AUSTRACT Thiy article presents an exercise
useful for rapping perceptions of participants’
hest und worst lunguage-learning experiences
and thestrulegies these individuals used in such
experiences. Inforrnal results across six training
sessions are presented. Positive languagelearning situations stimulated the use of a wide
range of learning strategies, while negativesituationsstunted strategy use, restricting it mainly to
strategies that helped learners cope with their
da-v-to-daystruggle with the dysfunctional environment. Possibr‘ejutureuses of “TheBest and
the Worst” exercise with students, as well asfor
teacher training, are discussed.
zyxwvutsrqp
Foteigrr Lunguage Annuis, 22, No. 5 , 1989
447
448_----
zyxwv
-
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL); an
ACTFL workshop for government language
teachers and supervisor:, at Linthicum, Maryland; an all-day workshop at the ACTFL annual
meeting in Monterey, California;a workshop for
foreign language teachers in Jacksonville,
Florida; and a workshop sponsored by the Northem Colorado Consortium of Foreign Language
Teachers. Called “The Best and the Worst:’ this
exercise generated strong Interest and excitement
among the 275 teachers and administrators who
participated, representing government agencies,
universities, high schools, and middle schools
throughout the US. Most participants were native
speakers of English, though about one-fifth were
native speakers of other languages. The exercise
touched a nerve in the participants, uncovering
emotional aspects of language learning that lay below the surface. It also provided
many teachers and administrators with their first
exposure to the area of language-learning strategies. This exercise can be used with students, or
it can be a device for staff development as shown
here. In either case, the exercise raises participants’
awareness about their own learning experiences
and strategies.
The steps in the exercise are outlined below,
followed by data interpreted in terms of a comprehensive typology of language-learning
strategies.
took place, when, who was involved, what
you felt like in the situation, and what
elements made the experience profitable or
exciting.
b) Jot down a list of several learning
behaviors or strategiesyou used in the best
language-learning situation. For each
strategy, write a plus sign (+) if the strategy
helped learning and a minus sign (-) if the
strategy hindered learning.
Make sure everyone understands and completes the task. Participants usually have little or
no trouble with this. Then announce that each
person will now have 3 to 5 minutes to follow the
same process with the very worst languagelearning situation, first writing down the
characteristics of the experience and second the
learning strategies used in that setting, with (+)
or (-) signs to show whether the strategies
helped or hindered. My experience with this exercise indicates that participants can readily
describe their worst language-learning situation,
and they generally love the chance to vent their
frustration about it and to identify the strategies
they used, regardless of effectiveness. However,
you might find one or two lucky (or overly optimistic) participants who say, “But all my
language-learning experiences were wonderful!
I never had a bad one!” If this happens in your
group, urge such people to think of one single
language-learning experience that was less
positive than their other experiences, and ask
them to focus on that particular experience as
their worst.
STEP2 -Pairs. By now the participants have
written notes about their best and worst
language-learning experiences, the learning
strategies they used in each case, and whether or
not these strategies enhanced learning. Now ask
individuals to find a partner and exchange their
best and worst experiences, their strategies in
each case, and the helpfulness (+ or -) of these
strategies. Ask the partners to find any differences and commonalities in their experiences.
Encourage the pairs to explore the experiences
and strategies in as much detail as they can and
to take notes as they talk. Allow about 10
minutes for this step. Participants usually
become very involved and animated at this stage.
zyxwvutsr
zyx
zyxwvuts
zyxwvu
“The Best and the Worst”:
How the Exercise Works
There are four steps in this exercise. The total
time is forty-five minutes to an hour, depending
on the amount of time spent at each step.
STEP I-Individual.Ask all participants to get
out paper and pen and start thinking about the
best and the worst language-learning situations
they ever encountered as learners of a second or
foreign language. Explain that these situations
could be in classroom settings, on a trip abroad,
in the local community, or anywhere else. Announce that each participant working alone will
have about 3 to 5 minutes 10 do the following:
a) Write a few sentences about the
characteristics of the single best languagelearning experience you ever encountered.
Details might include where the situation
zyxwvut
zyxwv
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsr
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
You may have to cut off discussion in midstream,
but make sure each person in a given pair has had
a chance to share.
STEP 3 - Foursome. When the pairs have
shared their experiences and strategies internally, you can move on to the next stage. Ask each
pair to find another pair and repeat the exchange
process. Each person in the foursome shares the
best and the worst experience,the strategiesused
in each experience, and whether the strategies
helped or hindered. Make sure that each group
has at least one person taking notes, especially
on common themes. Allow about 15 to 20
minutes for this stage, so that all group members
have a chance to speak.
STEP 4 - Whole Group. Now reorganize
everyone into a whole group and conduct a
group discussion of the findings. To do this, ask
the group which type of experience they want to
discuss first, the best or the worst. Then take the
chosen experience (best or worst) and ask participants to report their findings. This can be
done by spokespersons (note-takers) from each
foursome, or via spontaneous individual volunteering. Either way can work effectively, depending on the group.
If the group has decided to discuss the worst
experience first, ask for participants to name all
the characteristics they have discovered for the
worst experience. As characteristics are named,
list them rapidly on a transparency or flipchart.
You will find that many characteristicswill be the
same throughout the group-fear, anger, confusion, domineering or uncaring teacher, etc. Then
jot down on the transparency or flipchart the
strategiesparticipants report that they used in the
worst situation. Do the same for the best situation: list characteristics of the situation and
strategies used.
Next, ask participants to consider any major
differences between the best and the worst experiences that were just reported. They may
brainstorm about how strategies helped or
hindered them in the two different experiences.
Try to come up with some conclusions or general
statements about the experiences and the
strategies.
This whole group reporting and discussion
can last 15 to 20 minutes, depending on how
449
much time is available. It is best to keep the
discussion moving quickly, so that participants
stay alert and involved.
Results and Discussion
From the six groups of teachers and administrators with whom I’ve used this exercise so
far, some very interesting results have emerged.
Note that the results are not couched in statistical
terms, nor were the groups organized as a
representative sample; nevertheless, my informal
data present a tantalizing and honest look at
language-learning processes, which can be
followed up by more formal investigations.
Framework for Understanding Results
Results obtained through “The Best and the
Worst” exercise are best understood by referring
to the framework offered by a comprehensive
typology of language-learning strategies. This
typology, displayed in a tree diagram in a
previous issue of this journal (Oxford, Lavine,
and Crookall, 5, pp. 31-32) and elsewhere (Oxford, 4) is summarized as follows:
1. Direct strategies-those behaviors which directly involve the target language and which directly enhance language-learning.
a) Memory strategies - strategies for
remembering and recalling new words and
structures: grouping, associating/elaborating, placing words into a context, using imagery, semantic mapping, using keywords,
representing sounds in memory, structured
reviewing, using physical response, and using mechanical tricks.
b) Cognitivestrategies - strategies for
mentally processing the language to
receive and send meaningful messages:
repeating, formally practicing with sounds
and alphabets, recognizing and using formulas and patterns, recombining, practicing naturalistically, getting ideas quickly
(skimming and scanning), using resources
such as dictionaries for receiving and sending messages, reasoning deductively,
analyzing expressions, analyzing contrastively across languages, translating,
transferring, taking notes, summarizing,
and highlighting.
zyxw
459
zy
zy
zyxwvutsrq
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS --OCTOBER
~~-
c) Cnnipensation strategies - strategies
to compensate for missing knowledge:
guessing intelligently by using linguistic
clues and other clues, switching to the
mother tongue, getting help from someone
else, using mime or gesture, avoiding communication partially or totally selecting
the topic, adjusting or approximating the
message, coining words, and using circumlocution or a synonym.
1989
similar range of experiences and strategies. It w s
impossible to classify experiences by language
learned; the language itself (in these instances)
had little to do with whether the learning experience was perceived as positive or negative, or
what strategies were employed. The languages
learned were German, Russian, French, Spanish
Latin, and ESL. Results might have differed by
language if other languages, like Chinese, had
been involved, or if the exercise had asked about
attitudes and strategies specific to a given
language.
Participants remarked that this was the first
time anyone had inquired about their perceptions of their own language learning. Many indicated that this process opened doors in their
minds and started them wondering what their
students thought about their own learning
experiences.
Some participants were euphoric about their
best language-learning experiences and eager to
share positive ideas, but a number of participants
expressed surprise and relief when they discovered
that others had experienced language-learning
situations as awful as their own had been. It must
be remembered that the participants had all
chosen to enter the language instruction field, and
presumably they did so, in part, because their experiences were, by and large, more positive than
experiences of others who rejected the possibility. We might well wonder about attitudes toward
the quality of the language-learning experiences
of people who did not go into language teaching.
(For concerns about the quality of foreign
language instruction in general, see Rhodes and
Oxford, 6; Strength through Wisdom, 7; A
Nation at Risk, 1).
The exercise helped participants think more
clearly about their own language-learning
strategies as well. Most of them had not spent
much time considering the strategjesthey normally used to learn a language (or the strategies of
their students), and none had experienced any
specific training in strategy use. Nevertheless,
when given a few examples, most participants
spontaneously generated copious lists of their
own language-learningstrategies and found these
lists eye-opening. Participants found it fairly easy
t o determine whether a particular strategy
zyxwvut
2. Indirect strategies - those behaviors which do
not directly involve the target language but which
are nevertheless essential for effective language
learning.
a) Metacognitive strategies - strategies
for overall managemenl of learning: overviewing; paying attention; delaying speech
production to focus on listening; finding
out about language-learning principles;
organizingthe learning environment, learning materials, and schedule; setting goals
and objectives; identifying the purpose of
a language task; planning for a language
task; seeking practice opportunities; selfmonitoring; and self-evaluating.
b) Affective strategies - strategies for
controlling emotions, attitudes, and motivation: using progressive relaxation; using
music, deep breathing, or meditation; using
laughter; making positive statements; taking risks wisely; rewarding yourself; listening to your body; using a checklist; writing
a language-learning diary; and discussing
your feelings with someone else.
c) Socialstrategies- strategies for learning with others: asking questions for
clarification or verification, asking for correction, cooperating with peers, cooperating with proficient users of the new
language, developing cultural understanding, and becoming aware of others’
thoughts and feelings.
None of the participants had seen this typology
prior to “The Best and Worst” exercise.
zyxw
zy
zyxw
zyxwvu
General Results and Discussion
One of the most remarkable findings was that
in all workshops, participants from different parts
of the country and from abroad showed a
zyxwvut
zyxwv
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
was useful or not.
Positive learning environments brought out a
wide range of language-learning strategies (including strategies fIom all six general categories
in the typology noted above) and set participants
free to use their abilities creatively. Poor learning
situations, on the other hand, carried such a
negative emotional loading that individuals
spent most of their energy simply trying to survive through a combination of affective, social,
and metacognitive strategies. The worst
language-learning situations put a damper on
almost all direct strategies (memory, cognitive,
and compensation strategies), since individuals
were consumed by a day-to-day struggle with the
learning environment. In both best and worst
language-learning situations, participants appeared to make 1es.sthan complete use of some
kinds of strategies, such as affective and memory
strategies.
The “forgetting” factor was not as strong as
expected among the workshop participants,
some of whom had not actively studied a new
language in twenty years. Their attitudes toward
and perceptions of their best and worst language-learning experiences were sharp, and their
memories of strategy use were equally keen for
both the best and the worst situations. Asking
about the most positive and the most negative
experiences unearthed a number of clear factual
details and affective reactions that would not
have been evoked if questions had been asked
about “typical” language-learning experiences
of the participants.
451
ing experientially through relevant communication; practicing real-life interaction; being
challenged; having adventure, variety, fun,
freedom, and autonomy; being inspired and enthusiastic; having a teacher and/or situation that
provided a host of emotional supports, such as
empathic guidance, low stress, encouragement
of self-confidence, sense of competence, concern
for individual needs, reduced anxiety, unthreatening atmosphere, positive reinforcement,
sympathy, motivation, and a sense of “feeling
good” as a learner; and finally using games,
simulations, pictures, and other kinds of learning aids.
Strategies used in the best experiences.
Strategies spontaneously mentioned in the best
language-learning situations were varied,
representing all six of the strategy categories in
the typology shown above, which participants
had not yet seen. All the strategies cited below
were seen as helpful in one way or another.
Memory strategies (called “mental hooks” by
one participant) were occasionally mentioned as
being used in the best experiences. These
strategies included use of interesting self-made
associations, imagery, rhyming (a form of
representing sounds in memory), structured
reviewing, and mechanical tricks such as colorcoding. Participants did not cite several memory
strategies such as grouping, semantic mapping,
the keyword technique, or physical response,
however. I n short, they made some use of
memory strategies but not others.
Cognitivestrategies were repeatedly mentioned
for the best learning situations. Practicing, one
of the key cognitive strategies described, took
many forms: repetitive drill, repeating to oneself
in silent rehearsal, naturalistic practice, and
recognizing and using formulas and patterns.
Participants cited cognitive strategies for receiving and sending messages, such as using dictionaries and other resources and skimming to
get the idea quickly. Analysis and reasoning
strategies were also popular: transferring from
the first language, comparing across languages,
analyzing expressions, and generating hypotheses through deductive reasoning were all mentioned; but one prevalent and sometimes
dysfunctional cognitive strategy, verbatim
zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
Specific Results and Discussion
The specific findings can be explained according to the following clusters: characteristics of
the best experiences, strategies used in the best
experiences, characteristics of the worst experiences, and strategies used in the worst
experiences.
Characteristicsqf the best experiences. Characteristics of the best experiences were as follows
(summarized across all six groups): being in the
country where the target language was spoken or
in some other immersion or semi-immersion
situation; having a purpose for learning, using
meaningful and natural vocabulary, and learn-
452-
zy
zyxwvutsrq
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
zyxwvuts
translation, was surprisingly not mentioned.
Note-taking and paraphrased summaries were
the structure-creating cognitive strategies that
participants said they used.
Compensation strategies were used often in
positive learning situations, according to participants. As listeners or readers, they had
discovered that they could guess through context
and “go for the whole message, not each individual word!’ Participants listed several compensation strategies for speaking: gesturing,
reverting to the mother tongue, and circumlocution. They did not mention using compensation
strategies for writing.
Metacognitive strategies of certain types were
used in good learning settings, though the wide
range of available metacognitive strategies was
not fully tapped. Participants mentioned using
self-monitoring of errors; one person said this
was for “damage control? Some said they tried
hard to plan, prepare, and organize their
studying-all metacognitive strategies. Delayed
production, with a focus on listening, was mentioned by a few participants. Overviewing was
mentioned several times. Participants repeatedly
said that as learners they had sought opportunities to use the language, including travel and
other situations where they were forced to speak
and improvise in the target language. Several participants mentioned using “self-direction:’ which
is perhaps the best label: to summarize all the
metacognitivestrategiesas a group. Several kinds
of metacognitive stratregieswere notably absent
from participants’ lists: self-evaluation of progress, finding out about language learning, setting goals and objectives, and paying attention.
Affective strategies were mentioned as occasionally used in the best experiences. Self-reward,
taking risks wisely, and self-encouragement to
help oneself persevere were the three affective
strategies which came up in the discussions.
Strategies for lowering anxiety (using music,
deep breathing, meditation, relaxation, and
laughter) were not mentioned, probably because
in the best language-learningsituations anxiety
was already low. Participants did not mention
using any strategies for assessing their emotions
(checklists,diaries, discussing feelings, or checking physical symptoms).
Of the social strategies, question-asking was
the most popular in good learning situations,
followed by cooperating with peers. Developing
cultural understanding was cited. The strategy of
cooperating with proficient users of the language
such as native speakers was not directly mentioned (though it might be assumed in situations
such as traveling abroad).
Characteristics of the worst experiences.
Characteristics of the worst language-learning
experiences were divisible into two sets: concrete
details about the situation and negative emotional responses. In the former set of
characteristics, the following were mentioned:
lack of discipline or structure in the setting, no
challenge, boring topics, inadequate teaching
methods, lack of match between teaching
methods and the needs of the individual student,
no consideration of students’ desires or requirements, unreasonable expectations, overcorrection, negative reinforcement, incompetent
teacher, intimidating teacher, sarcasm, ridicule,
not enough time, lack of interaction, no
question-asking opportunity, no explanations,
no feedback, constant lecturing, vagueness, no
practical or natural use of target language, emphasis on translation, irrelevant materials, rote
memorization, heavy emphasis on grades, and
lack of cultural discussion.
Negative emotional responses included embarrassment, rejection, hostility, fear, anger,
boredom, frustration, stress, loneliness, exhaustion, withdrawal, immobilization, sense of being
lost, drop in self-esteem, sense of incompetence,
loss of confidence in the teacher and in other
students, psychosomatic pain, and negativity
toward the target language and culture.
Strategies used in the worst experiences:
Learning strategies which students reported using in their worst language-learningexperiences
were mainly indirect strategies, rather than direct
strategies. The indirect strategies which they
chose seemed focused on merely coping rather
than making significant progress. Some of the
strategies which were used made the situation
better, while other strategies made it worse or
resulted in entire removal of the student from the
situation.
The only memory-related strategy mentioned
zyxwvut
zyxwv
zy
zyxwvu
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
was rote memorization, which is actually more
like the cognitive strategy of repetition rather
than a real memory strategy. Only a few
cognitive strategies were mentioned by participants in reference to their negative learning
experience. Participants reported using some of
the weakest cognitive strategies, such as overrehearsal (a form of repetition). More creative
cognitive strategies were untouched. No compensation strategies were cited as being used in
the worst language-learning setting.
Metacognitive strategies were sometimes
evoked by participants in their worst languagelearning experience. These strategies helped give
participants a sense of control over their
language-learningprocess, even though external
learning circumcstances were negative. For instance, some participants reported planning
their work carefully, overviewing, and developing appropriate study schedules and other
organizational means for “digging in and working? No self-evaluating or self-monitoring
strategies were mentioned.
Some participants used a limited number of
affective strategies to help improve the situation,
such as making positive statements to encourage
themselves and to develop endurance; “fighting
back” through risk-taking; engaging in jogging,
centering exercises, and relaxation for stress
relief;and using self-reward to stimulate motivation. On the other hand, some participants used
negative affectivestrategies, such as negative selftalk (self-blame), blaming and criticizing others,
dropping out of the language program, avoiding
class, ignoring the situation, cheating, giving up,
getting sick, and even having a nosebleed at
strategic intervals in order to leave the scene.
(These negative affective strategies are not included in the above typology.)
The social strategy of cooperation was
popular for helping participants cope with poor
learning situations. Participants said they
banded together to form cohesive groups (often
against the teacher), sought help from peers and
experts, and pooled resources-all examples of
cooperation. However, the other social strategies
were not cited.
Some participants said that in a negative learning situation they felt they had “no strategies at
45 3
all:’ and that they simply floated along or
dropped out as learners. One astute participant
commented that bad learning experiences bring
extreme reactions, such as perfectionism vs.
avoidance.
Conclusions
“The Best and the Worst” exercise has been
fruitful in helping teachers and administrators
alike to consider their experiences as former
language learners. This exercise also enabled
them to understand better the strategies they
used in order to deal with what they perceived as
good and bad instructional experiences. Positive
situations encouraged the creative use of
strategies, while negative situations restricted
strategy use, especially among the direct
strategies, and fostered escapist behaviors.
Results of “The Best and the Worst” exercise
suggest important implications for our consideration. First, it is informative to look at our
own experiences and strategies as former
language learners. The results of such an exploration tell us a good deal about how we
ourselves behave and feel in instructionally
dysfunctional settings. Clearly, we act differently
in a positive situation than in a negative situation; the strategies we use to deal with the
language and to manage our own learning are
much more abundant in the former than the
latter.
Second, information such as that captured by
“The Best and the Worst:’ while obviously subjective, is very important because attitudes and
feelings appear to directly affect strategy choice,
which naturally influences the success of
language learning in the long run (Oxford,4;
Wenden and Rubin, 8; also Gardner, 3).
Third, the forgetting factor did not seem as
salient as might have been predicted, because the
best and the worst experiences of language learning had engraved significant factual and affective data into participants’ memories. Thus it
may be more possible than we might have
thought to probe the past for certain kinds of
understandings about language learning. (See
Cohen, 2, for background on verbal report data.)
Fourth, it seems clear that if language teachers
and administratorsare capable, even after a lapse
zyx
zy
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS - OCTOBER 1989
of time, to analyze their former languagelearning situations, students who are currently
involved in language learning will be able to
describe their feelings, attitudes and perceptions
concerning the instructional process in which
they are engaged and the learning strategies they
are using in that process. Students have the ability to describe what they think and feel about
language learning, and they are eager to share
this information if we ask. Possible crosscultural
differences in learners’ reflections on their current language instruction may emerge if we
probe.
In the near future, students from many
cultural backgrounds at a major US.university
will be taking part in “The Best and the Worst’’
exercise as part of regular class activities. Such
self-exploration is needed, so that students can
understand more about their own learning, and
so we can learn from our students about their
perceptions of instructional effectiveness. “The
Best and the Worst’Land other self-exploration
tools such as diaries, discussions, think-aloud interviews, and surveys-can be entertaining
vehicles which provide important insights about
language teaching and learning.
Commission on Excellence in Education.
Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office, 1983.
Cohen, Andrew D. “Using Verbal Reports in
Research on Language Learning:’ in Claus Faerch
and Gabriele Kasper, eds., Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon, Avon,
England Multilingual Matters (1987): 82-95.
Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes
andkfotivation.London, Ontario, Canada: Edward Arnold, 1985.
Oxford, Rebecca L. Language Learning
Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
New York Newbury House - Harper & Row, 1989.
, Roberta Z. Lavine, and David
Crookall. “Language Learning Strategies, the
Communicative Approach, and their Classroom
Implicationsl’Foreign Laneage Annuls 22 (1989):
zyxwvu
zyxwv
zyxwvu
3.
4.
5.
29-39.
6.
7.
z
zyx
Rhodes, Nancy C. and Rebecca L. Oxford,
“Foreign Languages in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Results of a National Sum@.’ Foreign
Language Annals 21 (1988): 51-69.
Strength Through Wisdom A Critique of US.
capablity. Report to the President from the President’s Commission on Foreign Languages and In-
zyxwvutsrqpon
8.
REFERENCES
I.
2.
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Report of the National
ternational Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1979.
Wenden, Anita and Joan Rubin. Learner
Strategies for Language Learning. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987.
IN MEMORIAM
II
,
We mourn the death of our esteemed colleague and beloved friend,
Michael Canale, whose superb leadership, rich talents and inspired
thought have contributed so greatly to the field of second language
education, whose achievements we reflect in our research and in our
classrooms, and on whose direction we have relied. To Michael’s
family and all of Michael’s many friends we extend our deepest sympathies for the loss of his warmth, his care, and his laughter. We will
remember him with great affection.