Linnaeus University
School of Languages
English Language Didactics Supervisor: Ibolya Maricic Examiner: Helena Frännhag
Ground level thesis Course Code: 2UV90E Credits: 15
Date: 26 March, 2014
Assessing the Invisible
Teachers' views on the assessment of language-learning strategies in Swedish upper secondary school
Matilda Sahuric Bank
ABSTRACT
When revising the curriculum for the Swedish upper secondary school in 2011, language-learning strategies were added to the description of the subject of English. It was also added to the core content and to the grading criteria, which in its turn has added a new dimension to teaching and assessing L2. By problematizing the teachers’ subjective views on assessment of these new criteria, the hypothesis, according to which teachers find assessing language learning strategies, in English 5, difficult, is discussed. Skolverket’s policy documents, the Common European Framework of
Reference scale (CEFR scale) and researchers’ findings are compared to the teachers’ views. In order to provide an image of how teachers interpret the new assessment guidelines, and how teachers interpret problems related to assessment, six teachers from different upper secondary schools have been interviewed on their opinions about language-learning strategies. The interviews indicate that even though teachers are positive to the inclusion of language-learning strategies in the course description, the strategies are difficult to detect. One consequence is that the results of strategy use are assessed rather than actual strategy use.
Keywords: assessment, CEFR, curriculum, language-learning strategies, strategy
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION...1
1.1 Aim, hypothesis and research-questions ...1
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND...2
2.1. Defining the term language- learning strategies...2
2.1.1. The complexity of assessing language learning strategies...4
2.2. Skolverket’s policy documents...5
2.2.1. Strategies in the curriculum for the Swedish upper secondary school...5
2.2.2. Skolverket’s general advice on assessing language-learning strategies...6
2.2.3. The curriculum’s connection to CEFR...7
3. MATERIAL AND METHOD ...8
3.1. Material….. ...8
3.2. Method………..10
3.2.1. Conducting the interviews...10
3.2.2. Problems, limitations and ethical issues... ...11
4. RESULTS & ANALYSIS... ...12
4.1. Teachers’ definition of language-learning strategies...12
4.2. Identifying and assessing strategies...15
4.2.1. Reception...15
4.2.2. Production and interaction...18
4.3. Assessing language-learning strategies...21
5. CONCLUSION...26
REFERENCES...29
APPENDIX 1……….31
1 1. INTRODUCTION
In 2011, the Swedish school system adopted a new grading system and a new curriculum for upper secondary school, Gy2011 (the curriculum for upper secondary school). In the previous curriculum for English in upper secondary school, the different courses were called “Engelska A”, “Engelska B”
and “Engelska C”. In the current curriculum the different courses are named “Engelska 5”,
“Engelska 6” and “Engelska 7”. The new curriculum is inspired by the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) and its scale of second language (L2) learning. Instead of the previous “goal”1 there are “purpose”2, core content and requirements. The grading system changed from a four grade system into a six grade system, extending from grade A to grade F. This resulted in a complete revision and rephrasing of the old grading criteria.
In the new criteria for the English courses, there is a new distinct emphasis on language- learning strategies; the term is mentioned in the general description, in the core content, and in the grading criteria. However, language-learning strategies are internal and therefore it can be
troublesome to identify and them (Oxford 1990, Cohen 1998). This has created a new challenge for L2 teachers, to continuously provide students with tools to learn a second language and at the same time assess the students’ use of these tools.
However, through all the meetings I have attended in the different English departments during practice and when substituting, I have never encountered the term nor heard anyone discuss the teaching or assessment of language-learning strategies. This raises the question: why is it not discussed? During a conversation with an elementary school teacher, I was told that she did not understand how she was supposed to assess language-learning strategies according to the new grading criteria. This statement made me wonder if this was the reason why language-learning strategies were never discussed during those meetings I have attended. Starting from these preliminary questions a hypothesis and research questions were formulated.
1.1 Aim, hypothesis and research-questions
The aim of this study is to problematize the assessment of strategies according to the grading criteria for English 5, and investigate the challenges teachers encounter when assessing language-learning strategies. The starting-point is the following hypothesis: teachers find assessing language-learning strategies in English 5 difficult. The research questions are as follows:
1 Mål, 2 Syfte
2
1. How do teachers interpret the term language-learning strategy?
2. How have teachers prepared to assess English 5 according to the new curriculum (Gy2011) and grading criteria?
3. Which strategies do teachers notice in the classroom, and how do they assess them?
4. What difficulties, if any, do teachers encounter in assessing language-learning strategies?
5. What are the teachers’ views on the inclusion of language-learning strategies in the grading criteria for English 5?
Finally, to keep the subject manageable, the research has been limited to only concern English 5, which is the only English course in upper secondary school that is mandatory for both vocational and theoretical programs.
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section consists of two sub-sections, 2.1 and 2.2. In 2.1 the term language-learning strategies will be discussed and problematized. Oxford’s definition of the term language-learning strategies is the starting point when explaining the term. This is followed by previous research on assessing language-learning strategies. In 2.2, Skolverket’s policy documents will be presented followed by the curriculum’s connection to CEFR.
2.1. Defining the term language-learning strategies
Researchers define strategies in many different ways. However, according to Macaro (2001:18) the diversity creates difficulty when one tries to define the term at an international level. But a generally accepted definition is that it is ”the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information” (O´Malley & Chamot 1990:1). In this study Oxford’s definition of the term language-learning strategy is used, since her explanation of the term is one that is quite generally quoted.
The term strategies comes from the Greek word strategia which means “the art of war”
(Oxford 1990:7). Oxford (1990:8) further defines strategy as “a plan, step, or conscious action toward achievement of an objective”. In other words, a strategy is a plan for solving problems and being as successful as possible when moving towards a certain goal.
3
Oxford (1990) has identified six strategies that are important in language learning: three direct strategies and three indirect. The direct strategies are: memory strategies, cognitive strategies and compensation strategies. The indirect strategies are: social strategies, affective strategies and metacognitive strategies.
The direct strategies, even though they differ greatly from each other, all directly involve the target language, that is the language that is to be learned. As mentioned previously, the direct
strategies are memory strategies, cognitive strategies3 and compensation strategies. Memory
strategies – mnemonics - are for example “creating mental linkages” (associating, grouping, placing words into a context); “applying images and sounds” (semantic mapping, keywords); “reviewing well” (reading a text more than once); and “employing action” (acting out a new word) (Oxford 1990:38 -39). Cognitive strategies are “practising” (repeating, recombining); “receiving and sending messages” (using dictionaries and other resources, skimming when reading); “analysing and
reasoning” (translating words into the native language, using general grammatical rules) and
“creating structure for input and output” (taking notes, summarizing, highlighting) (Oxford 1990: 41 – 47).
The third of the direct strategies is compensation strategies, which aid the learner to interact, even if the learner lacks knowledge. The compensation strategies are “guessing intelligently” and
“overcoming limitations”, for example using the mother tongue, body language, circumlocution, synonyms, avoiding conversation and asking for help (Oxford 1990:47 – 51).
The indirect strategies support language learning without directly involving the target
language, and work side by side with the direct strategies (ibid 1990:135). As mentioned previously, the indirect strategies are: metacognitive strategies, social strategies and affective strategies. The metacognitive strategies are “centering the learning” (paying attention, listening to the target language, linking new material to what you already know); “arranging and planning your learning”
(learning about language-learning, organizing the learning, identifying the purpose of the task, thinking in the new language when working); and “evaluating your learning” (self-evaluation and self-monitoring) (ibid 1990:136 – 140). The social strategies are connected to communication and interaction. Oxford has put them into three sets, which she refers to as ACE (ibid 1990:145). The A stands for “asking questions” (asking for clarification, verification and correction), the C stands for
“Cooperating with others” (cooperating with other learners or native speakers), and the E stands for
3 It should be noted, however, some researchers use the term cognitive strategies as a general description describing all of what Oxford calls direct strategies (Börjesson 2012b:4). The cognitive perspective is closely connected to Piaget’s thoughts about the individual development from child to adult, as a progression from easy to harder (Lundahl 2012:197).
4
“empathizing with others” (developing cultural understanding) (ibid 1990:145). The affective strategies refer to emotions and motivations. The different strategies that Oxford speaks of are
“lowering your anxiety”, “encouraging yourself”, and “taking your emotional temperature” (ibid 1990:140 – 144). To sum up, many things can influence the student’s choice of strategy, for example motivation and awareness, as well as, the level the learner is on (ibid 1990:13).
2.1.1. The complexity of assessing language-learning strategies
Cohen (1998:26) claims that since strategies of language learning mainly are internal and mentalistic, it is difficult to provide adequate data reflecting learners’ use of strategies. In other words, it is
difficult to design tasks and tests where the teacher can assess language-learning strategies. However both Oxford (1990) and Cohen (1998) have identified certain methods that can be used, such as interviews, observation, verbal reports, note-taking and diaries (discussed further in sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.3).
Some communicative strategies can be detected via observation (Oxford 1990:146).
However, it proves to be more difficult to use observation to assess reading strategies. Then teachers may have to use other techniques, for example diaries (Oxford 1990:198). Interviews can be an effective way of making the students aware of their strategies, and are according to Cohen (1998:28) a good way of understanding the individual student, but could turn out to be time-consuming.
Another problem with interviews is that strategies the learner speaks of in an interview may be after- constructions.
There is no consensus as to whether language-learning strategies need to be conscious to be regarded as strategies (Cohen 1998:10). Cohen states that sometimes these strategies are peripheral and that the student can speak of the strategy when asked about it, however if the student cannot answer, it should not be considered to be a strategy but rather a process (ibid 1998:11). Oxford on the other hand recognizes that a learner who uses strategies will finally be so familiar with them that they will become automatic. She even emphasises that this is desirable in language-learning (Oxford 1990:12). In contrast to Oxford’s quite positive approach to automatised strategies, Cohen (1998:11) remarks that if the strategies become automatic, and the L2 learner is no longer aware of using them, the strategies lose their significance.
There is also some disagreement about which strategies should be included among language- learning strategies. Some researchers question whether communication strategies should be included, since their purposes are primarily to uphold communication, and therefore are not receptive skills (Camero 2001:18). Their reasons for questioning this are that in a conversation the learner is
5
dependent on feedback to actually develop the language. Camero claims that:
[s]imply saying something in a different way or using more words because you can't say exactly what you want to say, (circumlocution) increases neither your store of language nor your competence in expressing yourself. It is only if others correct you, or suggest alternatives, or simply provide you with more exposure to the language, that you learn (2001:19)
O´Malley and Chamot (1990:10) explain that learning strategies have learning as a goal and
communication strategies are focused on upholding communication. Oxford (1990:144 – 145) states that communication is an important part of language-learning because the students learn through the interaction and therefore it is an important part of the language-learning strategies.
Lundahl states that there is a division between language-learning strategies and
communicative strategies, but it is often difficult to see the difference between them when they are used. It appears that the purpose strategy has determines whether it is a communicative strategy or a language-learning strategy, and Lundahl mentions that it is difficult to see whether a student uses a strategy in order to communicate or to learn (2012:160 – 161).
Nevertheless, communicative and social strategies are part of Skolverket’s assessment criteria under production and interaction [see 2.3.1], and therefore one must assume that the strategies are viewed as equal parts of the language-learning strategies, even though they are
questioned by researchers. Communicative strategies will be treated in this study as an equal part of language-learning strategies.
To conclude, Oxford (1990:17) raises a finger of caution when speaking of assessing language-learning strategies, and states that there is no complete agreement on what strategies are, how many there are or how to categorize them. She even questions whether it is possible to create a scientifically certified hierarchy of strategies.
2.2. Skolverket’s policy documents
Gy2011 (the curriculum for upper secondary school) emphases language-learning strategies based on the CEFR (the Common European Framework of Reference) guidelines. The following section presents Skolverket’s policy documents and their connection to CEFR.
2.2.1. Strategies in the curriculum for the upper secondary school
The general description of the subject English states that one of the purposes is that students should
6
develop “[t]he ability to use different language strategies in different contexts” (Skolverket n.d, b: 1).
Language-learning strategies are also number three on the list of the subject’s purposes and the list is the foundation for all three English courses (Skolverket 2011:54).
In Gy2011 there is a core content added to the curriculum, which functions as a guideline for teachers when planning the course. In the course description for English 5 language-learning
strategies are mentioned twice in the core content: under reception and under production and interaction. For reception, it is stated that students should learn to use “[s]trategies for listening and reading in different ways and for different purposes” (Skolverket n.d,b:3). In production and interaction the students should develop their ability to use “[s]trategies for contributing to and actively participating in discussions related to societal and working life” (Skolverket n.d, b:4).
In the grading criteria for English 5, language-learning strategies are mentioned in the criteria for grade E, C and A. The criteria for grade E are formulated as follows: “[s]tudents can choose and with some certainty use strategies to assimilate and evaluate the content of spoken and written English [. . .] In addition, students can choose and use essentially functional strategies which to some extent solve problems and improve their interaction”(Skolverket, n.d,b:4). For grade C
“[s]tudents can choose and with some certainty use strategies to assimilate and evaluate the content of spoken and written English. [. . .] In addition, students can choose and use functional strategies to solve problems and improve their interaction” (Skolverket n.d,b:5). For grade A “[s]tudents can choose and with certainty use strategies to assimilate and evaluate the content of spoken and written English. [. . .]In addition, students can choose and use well functioning strategies to solve problems and improve their interaction, and take it forward in a constructive way” (Skolverket n.d,b:6).
2.2.2. Skolverket’s advice on assessing language-learning strategies Skolverket has produced a number of texts to aid the teacher when planning and assessing a course.
For the English 5 course, there is commentary material to the course and commentary material to the grading criteria. There are also general guidelines for the National tests, which the students take at the end of the course, as well as assessment guidelines for the different parts of the tests. To aid the assessment of strategies, Skolverket has also produced a text about language-learning strategies when learning English or another language as L2.
Börjesson discusses how teachers can work with strategies as well as how they can assess them. She mentions three groups of strategies: cognitive strategies, which are mainly the direct strategies Oxford speaks of, metacognitive strategies, which are mainly the indirect strategies
7
Oxford speaks of, and the socio-affective strategies which also are part of the indirect strategies that Oxford speaks of (Börjesson, 2011b:4). Thereafter she discusses practical ways of working with these strategies in the classroom. When speaking of assessment, first of all she mentions formative assessment. Formative assessment is when the teacher assesses the student work continuously during the work process in order to help the student develop. It stands in contrast to summative assessment, which measures the results of the learning at the end of a course or project (Skolverket 2012:43). Börjesson states that it important that teachers are clear when communicating with the students, use a wide variety of tasks and continuous documentation (Börjesson 2011b: 17 – 18). She remarks that it is important that teachers try to understand how students think, how they choose their strategies, and that the formative assessment can help students to move forward in their learning process (2011b:19). However, she also mentions that Skolverket’s guidelines are helpful when assessing.
The general assessment guidelines to Skolverket’s National Test state in more detail what the teacher should and should not assess. In the general advice to the teacher on how correct the
National Tests, it is clearly stated that no faulty strategies may be used, such as answering in Swedish, or mixing Swedish and English grammar and idioms (NAFSa n.d.). According to the general advice, is it not acceptable to use any other language than English in these particular
assessment situations.
In the guidelines for the written National Test, Focus Writing Eng 5, it is written quite distinctly that the strategies to be assessed in the test are communicative strategies, for example rephrasing, circumlocution and clarification (NAFSc n.d,). In the guidelines for the spoken test, Focus Speaking Eng 5, it is stated that the assessed strategies should be communicative strategies, to develop and continue a conversation, to solve linguistic problems for example through rephrasing, clarification and explanation (NAFSb n.d,).
In Skolverket’s policy documents there are no clear definitions of what exactly they mean with the different strategies, except for those examples that are in the guidelines to the National Test.
However, to find more clear information the teacher can turn to CEFR.
2.2.3. The curriculum’s connection to CEFR
The CEFR is a common basis for the creation of curricula for language learners in Europe. It provides an extensive description of what knowledge and skills you need to acquire to be able to communicate in an L2: “[b]y providing a common basis for the explicit description of objectives, content and methods, the Framework will enhance the transparency of courses, syllabuses and
8
qualifications, thus promoting international co-operation in the field of modern languages” (Council of Europe 2001:1). CEFR has produced a scale of language-learning containing six grades, A1 and A2 , B1 and B2, C1 and C2. These six grades represent a learning curve were the A1 student is a beginner, and C2 is fluent in the second language.
According to the commentary material on the curriculum for English there is a direct
connection between the curriculum and the CEFR. The CEFR’s scale of learning has been translated into the Swedish system, were English 5 is consistent with level B1.2 on the CEFR scale, English 6 is consistent with level B2.1 on the CEFR scale and English 7 is consistent with level B2.2 on the CEFR scale (Skolverket n.d,b:7). In CEFR the strategies for the levels of learning are identified for the different communications skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing (Council of Europe, 2001:57). Furthermore, the different terms, production, interaction and reception are direct translations from the CEFR's terms and the CEFR's descriptions have been used when possible (Skolverket n.d:3).
According to Skolverket, the purpose of using the CEFR's guidelines is that when Swedish youths study abroad, their grades can be harmonised with the CEFR scale. Börjesson (2012a:118) adds that it will also be easier for professionals within the different school systems in Europe to communicate about their own skills in L2 when using the CEFR scale.
3. MATERIAL AND METHOD This section is divided into two sub-sections, 3.1 and 3.2. In 3.1 the material used for the study is
presented. In 3.2 the interview as a method is discussed, followed by the conducting of the interviews. Finally, problems, limitations and ethical issues are discussed.
3.1. Material
Since the hypothesis and research questions of the present study concern how teachers in upper secondary school regard the inclusion of language-learning strategies in Gy2011, I have chosen to interview teachers who teach English in upper secondary school, and not students. The six teachers work at three different schools in the same school district in the south of Sweden. The schools have between 600 and 1300 students each, and they all have both vocational and theoretical programs.
Three of the teachers teach English in both theoretical and vocational programs, two teachers currently teach English only in a theoretical program, and one only teaches students who attend
9
preparatory programs4 and therefore she teaches at both upper and lower secondary school. Two of the teachers have not taught at upper secondary school before the change to Gy2011.
The teachers involved are anonymous, they will henceforth be called teacher followed by a number, for example teacher 1 and teacher 2. All the participants are women. This was not a
conscious decision, but rather a coincidence, since the teachers who accepted to be interviewed were all women. There are also very few men working as English teachers in the school district.
Teacher 1 is 60 years old and has been teaching in upper secondary school for twenty years.
She teaches English and Swedish in both vocational and theoretical programs. She teaches English 5 and 6. Teacher 2 is 34 years old and teaches English and P.E. She has been teaching for eight years, and only teaches English in theoretical programs. She teaches English 5, 6 and 7. Teacher 3 is 26 years old and has been teaching for two years. Her subjects are English and psychology, and she teaches English in both theoretical and vocational programs, where she teaches English 5 and 6.
Teacher 4 is 34 years old and has been teaching for seven years. She teaches English 5 and 6, as well as Swedish, in both vocational and theoretical programs. Teacher 5 is 48 years old and has been teaching for 20 years. She has taught at lower secondary school in what was called IV-programmet5. She recently took a complementary course6 to be able to teach upper secondary school as well. This is her first year teaching English 5, even though she is an experienced teacher. Teacher 6 is 40 years old and has been teaching for seven years. She teaches English, Swedish and history in the Social Studies Program for students with Asperger’s syndrome. However, she previously taught in the vocational programs: Aesthetic program Music, and the craft programs: Hairdresser, Styling and Media. In the vocational classes she had an average of 30 students, but currently she teaches no more than five students at a time.
Teacher 1, teacher 2 and teacher 6 teach at the same school, teacher 3 and teacher 4 teach at the same school and teacher 5 teaches at a third school, where teacher 3 also teaches one individual choice class. The teachers have an average of thirty students in the classroom, except for teacher 5 who has an average of 15 and teacher 6 who currently teaches no more than five students at a time.
4 Introduktionsprogrammet
5 Preparatory program, predecessor to Introduktionsprogrammet.
6 Lärarlyftet.
10 3.2. Method
To be able to further investigate the hypothesis, and to answer the research questions, I have chosen to mainly use a qualitative method when collecting data. Bryman (2011:40 - 41) explains that when using a qualitative approach the focus is on how individuals interpret their society and how
individuals constantly change their social reality. According to Bryman (ibid 40), when using a qualitative method, the interpretation and analysis of the results are in focus. He contrasts the qualitative method with the quantitative method, explaining that qualitative methods are used to interpret social reality, whereas quantitative methods are used to objectively view it (ibid 40).
Quantitative methods are often used in natural sciences where the results often need to be
measurable (ibid 40). In this study the teachers’ interpretation of their situation was of interest rather than measurable data and therefore a qualitative approach was used.
Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted, the responses were analysed and compared to the hypothesis and previous theories. The reason why qualitative interviews are used is because of the technique’s similarities to regular conversation will give the answers both depth and a range that could not be given in, for example, a questionnaire (Kihlström 2007:48). The
conversation interview is also useful when the interviewer wants to know how the interviewee perceives their world, as well as when the purpose is to develop a theory (Esaiasson et al. 2012:253 – 254). The interview is semi-structured, which means that it contains more open-ended questions than a structured interview. The form of the questions is weaker and more flexible with follow-up questions, and the interviewee’s answers dictate the order of the questions (Kihlström 2007:49).
3.2.1 Conducting the interviews
When preparing the interviews questions were put into a semi-structured interview guide (Esaiasson, et al. 2012:264). The reason for this was to make sure that there was some sort of structure in the interview, and that everything was covered during the interview. First of all, there were some warm- up questions regarding name, age, education and general information about the teachers’ working situations. These questions are supposed to create contact and a more comfortable situation for the interviewee (Esaiasson, et al. 2012:265). Thereafter, the questions were divided into three different categories.
First of all there were general questions about how the teachers and their English
departments interpreted the term language-learning strategies and how they had prepared to assess strategies according to the new grading criteria in Gy2011. In the second part, the questions
regarded the interviewee’s interpretation of Skolverket’s criteria. In the third part the
11
implementation of the assessment criteria in the classroom was discussed.
The interview guide is added as Appendix 1. Even though there were some semi-structured questions that functioned as guidelines, the main part of the interview was dependent on follow-up questions. The questions had an open formulation, which gave the participants an opportunity to speak freely (Esaiasson et al. 2012:265). The interviews were all recorded with a computer and later transcribed. The participants were also given the opportunity to choose how the interviews should be conducted, and whether or not they wanted to do the interview in English (Björkdahl Ordell
2007:26).
3.2.2. Problems, limitations and ethical issues
There may be some problems and limitations with the way this research was conducted. The subject may be too extensive for a research study of this size. However, it may give an indication of teachers’
general views regarding the assessment of strategies. And even though the number of interviewees is small, the conclusions are still valid because they are a representation of the reality in upper
secondary schools in Sweden. Esaiasson et al. (2012:259) claim that in this type of interviews it is important that one keeps the number of participants to a few, and stop interviewing when no more relevant facts appear.
The original plan was to interview two teachers from three different schools but due to a last minute cancellation made by an interviewee at one of the schools, that participant was replaced with a teacher from one of the other schools. Therefore the balance between the schools can seem a bit uneven, but since the schools are in the same school district many teachers work at more than one school and therefore belong to more than one English department, and the English departments have spent some time preparing for Gy2011 together.
The method of using qualitative semi-structured conversation interviews makes general assumptions harder to make, but on the other hand it can provide an in depth insight in how
individual teachers have prepared themselves and how they interpret the situation at their school. It can also render a wider picture of how teachers handle the problem. Esaiasson, et al.(2012:259) state that it is not the truth you are looking for in a conversation interview, but rather the interviewee’s interpretation of the situation and their own point of view.
Another problem that may occur with semi-structured interviews is that the interviewer angles the questions so that s/he is guiding the interviewee to an answer that the interviewer expects.
To avoid this, I have tried to keep the questions as open to the interviewees’ interpretation as
possible, and have used the phrasing: “how do you interpret” to allow the teachers to speak as freely
12 as possible.
However, the interviewees may still be affected by the fact that they are observed and
recorded when speaking. Labov detected that the act of observation influences the casual speech that is to be observed (Cukor-Avilla 2000:253). This is called the observer’s paradox. The interviewee may be influenced by knowing that s/he is being recorded or observed, this may affect or inhibit the natural conversation. Cukor-Avilla (2000:254) states that even the characteristics of the interviewer, as well as the form of interview, can affect the interviewee. Still, it is difficult to know to what extent the interviewer or recording device affects the interviewee (ibid 2000:254).
It is important to consider the ethical aspect of the interview and therefore the participants were all informed of the purpose of the interview and guaranteed anonymity (Esaiasson et al.
2012:258). The participants were also guaranteed that the gathered information was only to be used in research purposes (ibid 2007:27).
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
In this section, the six interviews will be analysed and discussed. The section is divided into three different sub-sections. The first sub-section concerns how the teachers define the term language- learning strategies, and how they have prepared to assess it according to Gy2011 and the grading criteria. The second sub-section concerns how the teachers detect and evaluate the strategies used in the classroom; what kind of assignments they use to detect language-learning strategies; and how they assess them in line with the grading criteria. The third sub-section concerns the teachers’ views on assessing language-learning strategies.
4.1 The teachers’ definition of the term language-learning strategy
In sections 2.1 and 2.1.2 the term language-learning strategy was explained as referring to different ways of solving problems when learning a second language. In the commentary material to the subject of English, strategies are described as ways of solving linguistic problems (Skolverket n.d,a:4 ). During the interviews, the teachers were asked how they would describe language-learning strategies. They explained language-learning strategies as something a person use to solve problems.
Teacher 4 explains the term the following way:
For me it's how students choose to go around problems, for example with language. If they don't know a word, how they try to communicate what they mean instead of saying it in Swedish for example.
Teacher 2 defines language-learning strategies as having a plan to accomplish something, and
13
teacher 6 defines it as tricks that students can use to help them solve problems. There appear to be some resemblance between the researchers’, Skolverket’s and the teachers’ descriptions of the term.
However, the teachers’ explanation of the term may give the impression of being somewhat simplified.
To the question concerning how they describe the term to the students, four of the teachers responded that they would explain it as a way for the students to develop their language skills and to solve problems in the classroom. Teacher 2 states that it can be difficult assessing according to the criteria if the teacher has not thoroughly explained to the students what the policy documents say, and what is going to be assessed. However, there appears to be a general uncertainty whether the teachers actually do explain the term to the students or not. Teacher 5, teacher 6 and teacher 2 report that they do not explain to their students what strategies are. Instead they show the students how to develop language-learning strategies without using the actual term.
According to the phrasing in the grading criteria, the students “can choose” strategies, which indicates that they must be aware of the strategies they use (Skolverket n.d,b). However, the
interviewed teachers believe it is not likely that students are aware of strategies. According to Cohen (1998:11), if the strategy used is not conscious, it loses all significance. If the language-learning strategies and their part in the curriculum and grading criteria are not properly explained to the students, one may ask whether they can be aware of strategy usage or not? Börjesson (2012a:128 – 129) states that teachers must be clear with students what is assessed in the course and to make visible connections between the grading criteria and the core content as well as when the strategies are to be assessed.
Börjesson (2012a:128), additionally states that it is important that teachers prepare
themselves to assess student work. She emphasizes collaboration between colleagues as absolutely essential. When asked about how the teachers have prepared to assess language-learning strategies the answers were no longer that homogeneous as when asked to describe the term. Teacher 1 states:
I have, of course, read a lot about it, for example Bo Lundahl, Patricia Hedge, not at least Skolverket, and I heard lectures from many different representatives from Skolverket.
Whereas teacher 4 answers:
I haven't really given it an effort in that way. I haven't really thought of preparing myself for that purpose.
Both teacher 3 and teacher 5 express that they have not given assessing learning strategies any
14
thought, whereas teacher 6 and teacher 2 have prepared together with their colleagues.
When asked how the English departments have prepared to assess language-learning strategies, the answers followed in a similar pattern. Teacher 1, teacher 2 and teacher 6 had all prepared to assess strategies together with colleagues. Teacher 1 says:
We have looked at every kunskapskrav7 for every course and discussed this, and we started quite a long while before the courses were implemented. And we have compared our thoughts about it and we have sort of come from the outskirts of the different thought to, eh, sort of agree on something in the middle of what we can think.
All three have also taken part in workshops were they have discussed the subject, as well as
discussing it at their weekly department meetings. Teacher 1 said, for instance, that two weeks prior to the interview, they had discussed strategies in several written essays. Teacher 3, teacher 4 and teacher 5 all declare that there has not been any time set aside in the English departments at their schools for discussing assessment of the strategies, and therefore it has not been discussed. Teacher 5 said that they of course had discussed assessment, but focused mainly on assessing the four skills rather than strategies in particular.
Even though all of the teachers seem to be in agreement on what language-learning strategies are, there seems to have been a difference between how the different schools, English departments and the individual teachers have prepared to assess strategies. There seems to be a difference between how much time and resources the English departments and schools have had when preparing for assessing strategies. Three of the interviewed teacher state that they have had no discussions with their colleagues concerning strategies and therefore lack preparation, which Börjesson (2012a:128) states is absolutely essential.
4.2. Identifying and assessing language-learning strategies
In the previous section the teachers’ interpretation of the term language-learning strategies and preparatory work were discussed. In this section, the implementation of the teachers’ prior
knowledge, of identification and assessment of students’ usage of strategies, will be presented and discussed.
7 Course requirements
15 4.2.1. Reception
Reading strategies and listening strategies are mostly internal. In the CEFR text there is no
illustrative scale of what strategies the students should use in the different stages of learning an L2.
Instead there are just a few examples of techniques that students could use. According to CEFR the students can read or listen “for gist; for specific information; for detailed understanding; for
implications” (Council of Europe 2001:65, 68). However, no more specific guidelines are written on how to detect or assess these strategies. In Skolverket's commentary material they refer to CEFR's different levels of learning L2, mentioned in 2.2.3 (Skolverket n.d,a:1).
When asked what receptive strategies the teachers could identify in the classroom, teacher 4 remarks that she finds strategies in reception difficult to recognize. This statement appears to agree with all teachers’ experiences. Teacher 1 is the only exception. She claims that by observing the students when they are listening, she can see if they are using listening strategies or not. She states:
if you observe the students you can see if they get stuck on something, when listening. If they do, then they are not using proper strategies for listening. She continues to say that to be certain of what she suspects, she needs to interview the students. According to Oxford (1990), Cohen (1998) and Macaro (2002), interviews are one of the most effective techniques when noticing and understanding the usage of learning strategies in the classroom, since more in-depth information concerning
strategy use can surface. However, it is time consuming, and as Cohen (1998:29) states, it is possible that the students could answer what they believe the teacher wants to hear. Teacher 1 claims that she uses questions to get past this particular problem. The following quote is an example of how she speaks to a student during what she calls a student interview:
So if I now play this to you, and you are to listen, how do you do it? How do you think?
How are you there? Do you listen from the beginning? Do you start listening for different words? Do you listen for sentences? Do you listen for content? And often they tell me that they listen and then they hear a word they don’t understand and then they’re stuck. So then of course I tell them: well now remember that you shouldn’t bother about what you can’t hear and understand, just think about what you can hear and understand, and try that.
Teacher 3 remarks that she finds identifying reading- and listening-strategies difficult because she has had no preparatory work together with her colleagues. She continues to say that she can evaluate the students’ strategies when they are doing other tasks. For example when answering questions that follow a text. She clarifies:
In a listening comprehension you can use some gap texts and then the student needs to
16
listen for some very specific information. Or you can have like open-ended questions in which the students must provide the overview picture of whatever they heard.
She continues:
I think that you notice quite quickly if the student is listening for specific information or if he or she is trying to get a wider perspective of it. [. . .] One usual problem is that students tend to listen for every single piece of information and then when they are to write about what they have heard they are just confused.
The question is whether it is possible for the teacher to detect underlying strategies only by looking at the result. Cohen's (1998:226) reflections on using this method of detecting strategies are that test questions do not necessarily reflect the comprehension of a text that has been read. Another issue that Cohen (1998:233) addresses is that sometimes reading strategies can be so time consuming that the answers may be incoherent. According to teacher 1, this is why interviews are important when identifying strategies. Teacher 6 uses interviews (or conversations as she calls them) as well as thorough explanations of how to listen for gist and for specific information before the actual listening or reading comprehension assignment. She explains that her current students are in great need of logical explanations of how to conduct certain tasks, including the use of strategies when listening and reading.
One technique, when assessing strategies, is using logbooks and diaries as a tool in the classroom. This can make students reflect upon how they read and listen (Oxford 1990:198).
Börjesson (2012:125) states that logbooks are an effective way for the teacher to communicate with the students about their learning process. Teacher 2 agrees with Börjesson and mentions that
logbooks can be an effective way to make the students aware of how they think while reading or working. All of the teachers confirm that they have used logbooks as a technique in the classroom.
However, four of the teachers have found it to be difficult to work with logbooks and diaries.
Teacher 3 comments:
I see that the students had come up with different conclusions about their work. But that wasn't very clear to the students. They thought it was unnecessary, but when I pointed to the main purpose of it then they kind of got it.
Although some of the teachers meet resistance towards using the students’ logbooks, all of them recognize it as a useful technique. Teacher 4 uses logbooks every lesson, even if the students object.
17
However, she uses it as a general technique, not just as a way of making the students become aware of language-learning strategies.
After recognizing the strategies used by the students when listening and reading, the teachers are required to assess these strategies. When asked what the teacher regarded to be acceptable strategies for grade E when assessing, teacher 3 replied that in listening it is to be able to listen for gist and specific information, whereas in reading it is:
[. . .] to basically understand what they are reading. What makes it a higher level is that you can see the nuances, that you can kind of see more aspects in a text and not just basic information. And perhaps you can also see thing between the lines.
Teacher 4 found it very difficult to detect strategies in reading and listening. She said that she mainly looked for whether students understand what they have read or listened to. She suggests monitoring if students take notes or not when performing a task that is to be assessed, but she never considered that to be a strategy. Teacher 2 also looks for if the students take notes during listening comprehensions. Furthermore, she mentions that she notices whether the students use strategies to listen for the correct information during a test situation, or not. Teacher 1 agrees that seeing whether the students take notes or not is an effective way of identifying if they use good strategies. Teacher 5 replies that she is lucky when it comes to being able to assess strategies in the classroom, since her classes are small. Therefore she has the time to closely observe and interview the students during the learning process. She also advises her students to take notes during listening and reading
comprehension tasks. Oxford (1990:47) has put this strategy into the cognitive strategies and claims that it is an important strategy when the student creates structure in what they have read or heard.
When speaking to the teachers, it appears that identifying strategies is not difficult. However, since they are mostly internal the assessment of the strategies comes across as being problematic. To be able to recognize strategies, the teacher needs to look for external signs of strategy use, for
example taking notes. Another example of external signs is answers to questions, connected to listening- and reading-comprehensions. The answers enable teachers to see whether students have understood the content of the text, in other words whether the student is able to listen for gist and for specific information or not. These strategies are also tested in the National Tests: Focus Reading and Focus Writing.
However, Lundahl (2012:177) criticizes Skolverket's decision to have the strategies for listening and reading in the grading criteria. He states that in the end it is not the actual strategies that are assessed, but rather the results of the strategy use. Lundahl (2012:177) continues to say that
18
the actual use of strategies is uncertain, since they are mainly internal and therefore the assessments of the strategies lack in reliability. Therefore, he states, it is unfortunate that Skolverket has included it into the grading criteria.
4.2.2 Production and Interaction
In spoken and written production and interaction, strategy use appears to be more visible than in the receptive skills (Cohen 1998:32). The strategies are still internal, but as production and interaction involves visible results the teachers can become more aware of the students’ use, or lack of use, of strategies. According to Börjesson (2012a:119 – 120), there is an emphasis on communication in the policy documents as well as in CEFR. Strategies concerning different parts of production and
interaction are added in the CEFR scales. The strategies described are so called achievement strategies, which are used when finding ways to cope when language knowledge is lacking.
All of the teachers articulate that they find it is easier to detect and assess strategies in production and interaction since the strategies are made visible to the observer and the strategies are less likely to be after-constructions when the teacher asks the students.
When assessing communicative strategies observation proves to be beneficial (Oxford 1990:194). Students’ cooperation with peers, asking questions and overcoming linguistic problems become visible to the observer. Nevertheless many strategies, such as associating or guessing, cannot be detected when observing students, since they are “invisible” (ibid 1990:194). Observation of students “may reflect a largely incomplete view of the learner’s actual strategy use” even though the strategies are thought to be more observable than other strategies (Cohen 1998:32). For example, circumlocutions can be very difficult for an observer to detect (ibid 1998:32).
Teacher 4 claims to use observation every lesson and finds it useful. Teacher 3 adds that now, when all of the students have their own computers, it is easier to make observations also in written production. Teacher 3 explains that with the aid of different Google applications, it is possible to observe students’ writing process. On the other hand, she explains that it may be too time-consuming to observe every student if the class is large. Apart from being time-consuming, there is an imminent risk that circumlocutions and other strategies can be difficult to detect even in writing (Cohen 1998:32).
Lundahl (2012:166 – 167) claims that a major part of interaction is the ability to interact through conversation. However, he finds Skolverket's policy documents and CEFR's scale not very descriptive. To be able to assess the teacher needs to be aware of what is included in a conversation, for example different ways of starting and ending a conversation and ways of moving a conversation
19 forward (ibid 2012:166 – 167).
Most of the teachers speak of what Lundahl calls “det goda samtalet” – ‘the good
conversation’ –when identifying communication strategies (ibid 2012:170). A good conversation is when a person is able to listen to the person or people they are speaking to and respond. Teacher 3 says:
I think social strategies are very noticeable. You notice social strategies in speaking because one way of developing strategies, that aspect is to ask questions for example and to get the conversation going, that is one strategy [. . .] and to see whatever you are talking about from different points of view. And to ask questions about different views as well
“what do you think about that” “why do you think so”.
Teacher 6 responds that for her current students, the good conversation technique is very difficult, since some of them have problems empathizing with others. However, she still emphasizes the importance of listening and reacting as a strategy. Teacher 1 states that the difference between the grades can be the ability to listen and react:
This is quite obvious in those who are good at using strategies and are at a higher level. So they have the capacity of both listening and participating and also use what they heard their partner say.
What teacher 3 and teacher 1 speak of is directly connectable to Lundhal’s (2012:166-167) comments of being aware of what is included in a conversation as well as taking part in a “good conversation”.
The strategies that are described in the National Test’s assessment guidelines are:
circumlocutions, synonyms and clarifications (NAFSb n.d., NAFSc n.d.), as well as the ability to move a conversation forward (NAFSb n.d.). What Oxford (1990:50,15) discusses as social and communicative strategies are similar to the ones in the assessment criteria for the National Test.
However she identifies circumlocution and explanations as compensatory strategies rather than communicative strategies and consequently recognizes that strategies are interrelated.
However, other interactive and communicative strategies are detectable in the classroom.
When asked what types of strategies the teachers can detect during lessons teacher 3 responds that she notices how the students look up words they do not understand and how they structure texts.
Teacher 4 also speaks of strategies to structure a text:
20
It could be like how you build up a text. If you have the purpose of a news article then you need to be aware of how a news article is built by structure and you can see that if a student chooses to look at other articles first to make sure they know the structure or if they follow the instructions given to them or not. That's kind of a strategy to follow the instructions as well.
Teacher 5 says that she sees whether the students use dictionaries or not when writing. She also sits down with the students and asks them to clarify and explain. Teacher 4 says that she never has the possibility to work in that way because of the size of her classes.
Teacher 1 says she mainly looks at the use of grammar and vocabulary. She especially finds code-switching horrendous. Code-switching is when a person uses L1 words in the middle of an L2sentence. Teacher 1 also sees the students’ ability to correct their own spelling errors, grammar mistakes and their continuous work with their vocabulary as effective strategies. But she also recognizes that the students’ motivation and language proficiency plays a big part when doing this.
Teacher 1 states that teachers must be aware that the strategies the students’ use need to develop. She emphasizes using the CEFR scale since Skolverket's grading criteria for the different courses are formulated in a similar way. Within the CEFR scales there is a development in the strategy use. For example, in the scale for turntaking it is written in the A2.2 column that the student
“Can initiate, maintain and close a simple, face-to-face conversation” whereas in the B1.1 column it is written that the student: “Can initiate, maintain and close a simple, face-to-face conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal interest”. The difference might be slight but it is still there.
When the teachers discussed how they assess the strategies teacher 6 states that she always uses Skolverket's guidelines to assess the National Tests. She states that she finds their guidelines helpful when assessing all parts of a course. However, as mentioned earlier, Lundahl finds both the CEFR’s scale and Skolverket’s guidelines lacking when it comes to practical advice.
When the teachers discussed what they considered to be acceptable strategies for level E, it became obvious that even though the strategies are easier to detect, the assessment is quite
subjective. For example, Teacher 4 found the usage of L1 (first language or mother tongue) during a conversation acceptable as long as it only happened now and then whereas teacher 1 found it to be unacceptable. However, in the guidelines for the assessment of the National Test (NAFSa n.d.), it is stated that the usage of L1 words and grammar is not acceptable in any L2 production or interaction.
The assessment criteria for the National Tests can be seen as guidelines to the assessment of the entire course, which several of the teachers mention.
Nevertheless, both teacher 2 and teacher 5 appear to be in agreement with teacher 4, when
21
saying that the students only need to show interactive strategies now and then when communicating.
Teacher 2 clarifies that she identifies the differences between the grades in whether the students can use strategies continuously or not. The grading criteria state that: “students can choose and use
essentially functional strategies which to some extent solve problems and improve their interaction”
(Skolverket n.d,b:4). The commentary material to the curriculum clarifies that the strategies that students choose function most of the time and that they partly solve the problem (Skolverket n.d,a:16). Consequently, teacher 2 uses Skolverket’s criteria indirectly when saying that the difference between the grades is that on an E-level the students can use the strategies sometimes, whereas for the higher grades they can use the strategies continuously. For example, they can always correct their grammatical errors when pointed out to them, or always correct themselves when noticing a frequently occurring error. This is called “self-correction” in the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001:63).
Teacher 1 also emphasizes the students’ ability to correct themselves. She explains that she underlines words or phrases in a written text and then allows the student to correct it. She says that if they have the ability to understand what is wrong with the text, then they are using good strategies.
Teacher 3 and 4 also states that they use similar techniques when assessing their students.
There appears to be unity between the teachers when it comes to working with interactive and communicative strategies. The teachers seem to work with what Lundahl calls “det goda samtalet”, with text-structure and correction of errors in written texts; also the adaption of language seems to be something the majority of the teachers work with. However, there appears to be
differences between the teachers’ assessment of the strategies and their interpretation of the grading criteria.
4.3 Assessing language-learning strategies
Teacher 1 says that first of all when preparing to assess language-learning strategies you constantly need to be aware of the fact that even though the phrasing sounds the same for the different courses of English, the students evolve in their language development. Therefore you need to compare the grading criteria to the European scale. As the students evolve, the strategies that are to be assessed must do the same.
The European scale Teacher 1 refers to is the CEFR scale, which was presented in Section 2.3.3. When speaking of the European scale and assessing strategies teacher 1 also mentions that many students are poorly prepared when starting upper secondary school. Therefore, she explains, it is sometimes difficult to start working with, and assessing strategies according to the scale.
22
Teacher 6 does not mention the CEFR's scale when she expresses that the difficulty with assessment is that teachers interpret the grading criteria differently and therefore it is difficult to assess the students equally. She says that when she and her colleagues have done their preparatory work and joined different workshops she has noticed that teachers’ views on the grading criteria differ remarkably:
Were one teacher puts an A grade on an essay another teacher gives it an F grade.
She explains that the reason for this is that the teachers have different views on what acceptable strategy use is, and that teachers have not prepared enough together with each other. As a result, they have not prepared joint guidelines. She continuous to say that she notices the differences now when she works in the Aspergers unit, and only meets the other teachers twice a term. She explains that if you are uncertain about how to assess strategies you should turn to Skolverket’s advice on how to assess the National Tests. However, she also states:
Perhaps the guidelines are not clear enough. Perhaps Skolverket should be even clearer on how to assess strategies. Many teachers feel uncertain how to assess strategies and
therefore there needs to be further guidance.
The fact that teachers view the strategies differently became obvious when they were asked what acceptable strategies for speaking and writing are. As mentioned, Teacher 4 finds it acceptable that students use L1 words when speaking and writing, as long as it does not happen too often. As mentioned in 4.2.2, this point of view is quite opposite to the guidelines for the National test
(NAFSa n.d.). In these guidelines it is emphasized that L1 words or grammar is not acceptable in L2 (NAFSa n.d.). Teacher 1 states that she finds the use of L1 as a compensation strategy “horrendous”, and thus not acceptable in English 5. Oxford (1990: 94-95) states that code-switching as a strategy makes it difficult for the learner to be understood by a native speaker of English, and that the code- switching strategy is mainly used in speaking. However, most of the interviewed teachers have noticed it in writing as well. And since, according to the guidelines for the National Test, the students need to be understood by a person who has English as mother tongue, code-switching is considered a faulty strategy (NAFSa n.d.).
Furthermore, both teacher 1 and teacher 2 agree with teacher 6 and say that assessment is always subjective. Teacher 2 states that it is easier to assess students if you teach them throughout all of the English courses. She explains that if the students have the same teacher in all of the courses then they know that:
23
[t]his is the way I work with the lesson plan and so on. It's a little bit harder if you have a new class for example in grade two, English 6, and then you have to clarify that again and they might have a different view of how to do certain things since they've had another teacher before. So it's easier to guide them from the start, for high school.
To follow up this statement, teacher 2 was asked if she thinks that the assessment of strategies is dependent on how the teacher interprets strategies, to which she replied:
That could be, yes. Not necessary but yes. That it takes longer to get them [the students] to understand the strategies if they're not your students from the beginning. That could be.
To reconnect to teacher 1's statement that teachers need to be aware of the CEFR scale when assessing, one may reflect on whether or not the general knowledge of the scale contributes to the difference and uncertainty when assessing.
Oxford (1990:200) claims that the best way of using strategy assessment is to utilize it as a way of helping the students improve their L2 learning. Börjesson (2011:19) also speaks of using formative assessment as a way of helping the students forward in their learning process. Teacher 1 states:
It can't always be that through assessment you are going to develop. Just through the action, through using English as the language of everything that you do actually is one of the best strategies.
Similarly Börjesson (2011b:9) mentions that the most important tool in the classroom is the usage of the L2 in the classroom. In addition, Rogoff (2005:74) emphasizes communication between
students and adults when learning. She argues that the teacher should provide the student with
support and tools when learning; that when students do not move forward with their use of strategies, the teacher should present different strategies to the student. Rogoff (2005:74) states that for the student to be willing to change strategy, s/he must be dissatisfied with the one s/he is using.
Communication between the teacher and the student can help the student become aware that there are other possible strategies to use.
The grading criteria state that students should choose strategies and that it should be a
conscious choice by the students. In contrast, Oxford states that when a student is used to a specific strategy, the s/he is no longer aware of it, which she finds positive (1990:12). As discussed in Section 2.1.1, Cohen (1998:11) suggests that if a student is no longer aware of the strategy, it loses
24
its significance. When the teachers were asked whether they thought the students were conscious or not of the strategies they used, the answer was unanimous: the students are not always aware of using strategies. Teacher 5 replies that a person cannot always be aware of strategies. She states that a student cannot always think: “Oh now I'm using this strategy in this assignment”. Teacher 1 develops it further when saying that some students just make lucky guesses, whereas other students really think about what strategies to use. She further explains that if the student is not aware of the strategies then it is harder for her to assess them:
I can guess, but I can’t guess if it’s going into the criteria for grading. I can have thought about, oh this student is very aware of the strategies, and that I can probably say and the student would totally agree.
Teacher 3 contemplates whether students use strategies just because they are used to that strategy.
Teacher 2 develops it further, saying that the teacher needs to tell the students to be aware of the strategies they use. Whereas teacher 4 explains:
I don't think that they are aware. I don't think that any student or teacher work with this, or some teacher perhaps do but I don't. I don't really give them terms for different strategies.
Because I don't know any different terms. I know that it's more important to know how to develop your English language.
When asked if this does not make the actual assessment of the students difficult teacher 4 responds:
It's difficult to identify their strategies, then you have to have some kind of document, or they have to make some kind of documentation. They have to document in some kind of way how they think and that's always difficult. It is always difficult to know what another person is thinking and how they are making choices. And you can't really stop them and tell them: I want you to tell me what you're thinking in this particular moment.
What teacher 4 speaks of is directly connectable to what Cohen (1998) and Oxford (1990) speaks of, i.e., that the ways of documenting the strategies are interviews, diaries/logbooks and observation, and even when using these techniques the teacher cannot observe or assess all strategies the students use. As discussed in 4.2.1, some of the teachers actually use these techniques in the classroom.
Teacher 4 states for example that she observes the students every time she meets them, and that the
25 students write in logbooks every lesson.
However, Lundahl (2012:500) states that since many of the strategies used during lessons are unconscious or subconscious, it is difficult for teachers to identify and define them. He questions whether teachers are able to assess these strategies or not. He mentions that in interaction it may be simpler to identify them but in reception the strategies tend to be after-constructions. Lundahl (2012:501) states, just as Börjesson and Oxford do, that formative assessment of strategies can be productive, whereas summative assessment is used to conclude whether or not the student reaches the course goals, is not constructive.
However, the majority of the interviewed teachers disagree with Lundahl. Teacher 1 states that she does not find assessing strategies difficult. She explains that she has a lot of experience and training when it comes to identifying strategies and assessing them. She claims that she easily can identify the students’ usage of strategies in production, tests and interviews, as well as guide students toward better strategies. She views strategies as part of the grading criteria as something positive, since they are an important part of language learning. Teacher 2, teacher 5 and teacher 6 agree with teacher 1 to a certain extent. All of them recognize that strategies are important in the grading criteria, and that it is important that students become aware of the strategies they use.
However, teacher 2 adds that it also gives rise to difficulties to include strategies in the grading criteria, since language-learning strategies can be difficult to recognize. Teacher 6 on the other hand, finds that the phrasing of the grading criteria could be more explicit and comprehensible.
In contrast, Teacher 3 and teacher 4 find strategies non-essential in the grading criteria. They both articulate that language-learning strategies are important. Nonetheless, they should not be assessed as part of a grade. Teacher 3 opines that the students use strategies in everything they do.
She argues that to be able to write an article the students need correct strategies in order to conduct the assignment properly, and since students use strategies in this way, strategies will be assessed anyway, but indirectly. Teacher 4 agrees with Lundahl’s theory, and says that she believes that the strategies are important, but should not be assessed in a summative way. However, she maintains that language-learning strategies should be emphasized in the course description.
There appears to be some disagreement between the teachers regarding the assessment of language-learning strategies. On the one hand, all of the teachers recognize the importance of
strategies when learning L2. On the other hand, they disagree whether or not the strategies should be in the grading criteria. This division seems to derive from the subjectivity of the actual assessment, and the absence of lucidity in the grading criteria and in the general guidelines. Preparatory work appears to underlie the difference between the teachers’ opinions. In conclusion, Börjesson
