












































Article  

 

Melissa Aberle-Grasse teaches in the Language Institute at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 
GA; email melissa.grasse@pe.gatech.edu. 
 
 

Empowering Language Learning 
Strategies Online 

GATESOL in Action Journal 
2020, Vol. 30(1), pp. 70–79 

ISSN: 2331-6845 

 
 
Melissa Aberle-Grasse 
Georgia Institute of Technology 
 

Abstract 
English language educators faced challenges unique to their discipline as well as difficulties shared 
with all teachers as they suddenly adjusted to 100% online learning environments in 2020. 
Language learning strategies (LLS), which are proven strategies for improving language learning 
as well as building self-efficacy and peer support (MacArthur et al., 2015; Rose et al., 2018), are 
presented here as tools to navigate this new challenge. The article opens with a brief review of 
several acute current needs of online learners that critical pedagogy and learning strategies may 
address. Next, the author provides concise definitions for language learning strategies and 
summarizes the historical and theoretical basis for LLS. A classroom-based case study of language 
learning strategy instruction (LLSI) then follows. Finally, online tools and methods for two key 
strategies, goal-setting and peer review, are provided with recommendations for applying these 
strategies in a variety of settings. 
 
Keywords 
language learning strategies, critical pedagogy, self-regulation, peer review, goal-setting 

 
 
Background 
In my English as an Academic Language writing class, comprised entirely of multilingual learners, 
peer review days are among the liveliest. I remember one instance in February 2020, the jostling 
of chairs and laughter, attentive reading, and friendly conversations; everyone participated that 
day, even those faltering on their research-based persuasive essay. This demonstrated the self-
regulated language learning strategies (LLS) I taught, which research has long documented are 
effective and teachable (e.g., Cohen & Griffiths, 2015; Dörnyei, 2005; Rubin, 1975). Among my 
colleagues and I, strategy instruction is frequent in our breakroom chats, with questions like: How 
can I creatively teach peer review? What helps struggling listeners more: attending to intonation 
or to key terms? 

Then came March 2020 and an abrupt shift to 100% remote instruction amid COVID-19. 
I’ll never forget when Joe (pseudonym) appeared with disheveled hair and a blank look in our 
online classroom in early April. Typically, he was a meticulous, successful student, so I contacted 
him. He said: “Honestly, I can’t sleep . . . I can’t work. I’m just having a hard time. My flight home 
has been cancelled several times, and my family is worried, so I don’t leave my room.” Suddenly, 
what seemed important as educators was reduced to: get through the curriculum the best we can 
and support ourselves and our students’ urgent needs. L2 learners in the U.S., and many globally, 
have experienced exponentially the losses of this pandemic: lost connection with family, future 
security, sometimes the respect of their community amidst anti-foreign racism (Lingnan University, 
2020). 

Though it may seem counterintuitive, distance teaching amid this crisis highlights the value 
of language learning strategy instruction (LLSI). Strategy-based instruction can help us attend to 

mailto:melissa.grasse@pe.gatech.edu


Aberle-Grasse 71 
 
two critical human needs right now: the need for control and the need for community. First, the 
need for control: As Davidson (2020) wrote, the first priority of educators during COVID-19 
should be: reckon with the trauma, which she explained “means thinking about access in all its 
dimensions: technological, intellectual, personal, financial, medical, educational. And cognitive. 
Distraction is the single biggest deterrent to learning. Physical and emotional distress are the single 
biggest causes of distraction we have” (para. 5). One simple way to address the acute stress is by 
teaching strategies that increase a sense of self-efficacy (Artino & Stephens, 2009; Mastan & 
Maarof, 2014; Nguyen & Gu, 2013). 

Second, the need for community, for genuine human connection that involves laughter and 
trust as well as skill development, is acute for most of us these days. Creating that online is not 
easy. In Minds Online, Miller (2014) cited research that dispels the myth that online interaction 
necessarily divides us. Conversely, Miller emphasized recent research which demonstrates that 
online communication clouds the emotional aspects of communication and tends to foster 
insensitive behavior due to the perceived anonymity of remote communication. The book 
explained how educators should scaffold strategies for avoiding these pitfalls of teaching online. 
LLS, from embodied tactics to culture-conscious peer review, can foster supportive relationships 
and a trusting atmosphere. These strategies can ease the self-consciousness intensified online 
which might block the freedom to make mistakes. 

Perhaps this disruption invites us even to relinquish some aspects of our control in the 
classroom, to move toward critical pedagogy’s aim of critiquing power structures in society and 
in the classroom (Norton & Toohey, 2004). This could mean small changes in our behavior that 
communicate respect instead of control, such as our gut reactions when a student enters class late 
or makes repeated mistakes (Weaver, 2020). Or L2 instructors may consider broader implications 
of applying Freire and later proponents’ ideals through critical language pedagogy (Morris, 2017). 
For instance, students can be systematically led to identify and select their own learning strategies; 
learning outcomes could be allowed to emerge throughout the course. 

Whether to attend to current student needs or to take a more radical approach to student-
led curricula, LLSI offers practical, evidence-based approaches (Chamot & Harris, 2019). This 
essay will explain and demonstrate learning strategies essential for this moment. The section 
“Defining Terms in Context” provides a clear definition of LLS and briefly reviews the history 
and theory that undergird it, including a graphic task-based model. “Case Study of LLS” reviews 
the key outcomes of a classroom-based case study I conducted which applied a LLSI method in 
an L2 writing course. “LLS in Practice Online” is practical, describing online activities and tools 
for two learning strategies: goal-setting and peer review. In the conclusion, I offer implications for 
teaching in a variety of contexts. 

 
Defining Terms in Context 
One common critique of LLSI is simple: a lack of common definitions. In fact, the terms learning 
strategy/self-regulation/meta-knowledge are ill-defined buzzwords in many communities today. 
This confusion led Oxford to conduct a content-analytic study of more than 30 respected LLS 
definitions. Based primarily on this study, she composed the following definition: 
 

L2 learning strategies are complex, dynamic thoughts and actions, selected and used by learners 
with some degree of consciousness in specific contexts in order to regulate multiple aspects of 
themselves (such as cognitive, social, and emotional) for the purpose of (a) accomplishing language 
tasks; (b) improving language performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term proficiency. 
(Oxford, 2017, p. 48) 



72 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 

This definition adds that learning strategies may be mental or behavioral, are learner-chosen, 
creatively applied for various contexts, and are teachable. While linguists continue to debate the 
definitions (Rose et al., 2018), I often return to Oxford’s comprehensive definition; while long, it 
is clear and precise, unifying the best insights of nearly 40 years of scholarship and practice. Just 
as important, it suggests the complex domains and theory undergirding thorough LLS instruction. 
Learning strategies “are part of complex systems—the contexts inside us and the contexts outside, 
all operating dynamically” (Oxford, 2017, p. 170). This complexity has led linguists to develop 
models for LLS. A widely respected taxonomy in K-12 schools in the U.S. is CALLA, the 
Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach developed by Chamot and O’Malley (1994). 
The strategy model I prefer is Oxford’s S2R model, pictured in Figure 1 as applied to a language 
learning task (Oxford, 2017, p. 75; adapted with permission). Two emphases should be apparent 
in this model: the importance of the social and inner context of the learner, and the importance of 
meta-strategies. 
 
Figure 1 
LLS as Applied to a Language Learning Task 
 

 
 

Language learning strategies have been explored by teachers and scholars for more than 
three decades. In the 1970s, when cognitive pedagogy accelerated focus on the learner, Rubin 
(1975) famously launched a focus on successful behaviors of language learners. Steady interest in 
LLS has continued in part due to educators’ intuitive desire to teach how, not just what, to learn. 
LLS scholars have increasingly explored: what works in the classroom? In the last 15 years, a 
growing body of research has confirmed that LLS can be taught (Chamot & Harris, 2019; Plonsky, 



Aberle-Grasse 73 
 
2019; Rose et al., 2018), and that context and methods matter. In a meta-analysis of 77 individual 
studies of LLSI among 7,890 learners, Plonsky (2019) drew the following conclusions: that self-
regulation strategies should be emphasized; larger effects were observed for learners beyond the 
beginning level; and learners should be encouraged to select and develop their own strategies. The 
recent volumes by Oxford (2017) and the edited collection by Chamot and Harris (2019) provide 
comprehensive overviews of LLS, including ongoing critiques and future directions. 

 
Theoretical Frameworks for LLS 
Key theories that underly LLS are cognitivism, constructivism, and sociocultural theory. Each of 
these theories point to questions posed below that can guide instruction online today: 
 
Cognitivism  
This learning theory was prevalent when LLS began in the 1970s and 80s, which analyzes how 
learners process new ideas, sounds, and experiences as well as how they process information. 
Cognitivism also posits the importance of prior knowledge and effort and in the 1990s led to the 
popularization of self-regulation. Since 2000, insights from neuroscience have been added, for 
example how learners remember, attend to, and process information (Miller, 2014). Questions for 
online teaching: What are the key mental distractors for your students? How can your curriculum 
elicit and build on prior skills and knowledge and make students aware and confident in that? 
 
Constructivism and Sociocultural Theory 
These often refer to the work of Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky and his colleagues (Lantolf 
& Thorne, 2007). Constructivism explains that learning is an active process of constructing 
knowledge, dependent on the learner’s experience and self as well as current context. Related is 
the well-known zone of proximal development, commonly defined as the distance between an 
individual’s current learning and their potential with assistance of key sources; and scaffolding, or 
gradually withdrawing assistance as the learner becomes more successful. Also rooted in 
Vygotsky’s work is sociocultural theory, which he posited as a radical new way to look at human 
psychology. He argued that the distinctive aspect of human consciousness is a person’s capacity 
for self-control through the tools of language, logic, and other cultural/mental skills that she can 
use to mediate her relationship to the world (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). Questions for online 
teaching: What is the social and cultural context that needs to be elicited at this time? How do I 
leave some space in the curriculum for the unexpected due to the ongoing process of learners 
constructing knowledge?  
 
Case Study of LLS 
My 2019 classroom-based case study yielded new observations regarding the effectiveness of 
some LLS. I explored the results of integrating new self-regulated strategy instruction into one 
instance of an L2 academic writing class. The course was an intensive English academic writing 
course (35 classroom hours in eight weeks) with nine students, ages 19-35, four males and five 
females representing five nationalities. The instructional method was adapted from “Supporting 
Strategic Writers” (SSW; MacArthur et al., 2015), a curriculum which had proven success in a 
quasi-experimental study with 13 instructors and 276 students at two universities (MacArthur et 
al., 2015; Traga Philippakos et al., 2018). 
 
 



74 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 

Method 
From the SSW curriculum, I adapted and embedded explicit writing strategies I had not taught in 
detail before, such as: modeling by instructor; guided brainstorming, outlining, and drafting, 
scaffolded for increasing independent writing; and instructed/modeled peer review. The self-
regulation strategies comprised a range of strategies such as goal setting, task management, 
monitoring of progress, and reflection. 

Case studies generally are intended to focus on qualitative detail and context in one 
scenario. This approach allowed me to address several criticisms of LLSI research: the need for 
descriptive detail about instructional methods (Chamot & Harris, 2019), and for qualitative 
analysis of learning strategies such as peer review, especially for persuasive writing (Mitchell & 
Pessoa, 2017). My research methods included two quantitative measures. First, I adapted the 
pre/post writing self-efficacy survey from the SSW curriculum which consisted of 27 questions, 
answered on a Likert scale, addressing motivation and attitude about writing. Second, I designed 
a comparative analysis of final student essays paired with completed peer reviews, all anonymized; 
these were scored (independently by a colleague and me) for significant improvement in areas 
related to the peer review. Students utilized a peer review rubric to conduct peer evaluations. The 
qualitative measures were student journals and my participant-observer journal. I had two research 
questions: 
 

1. Do some aspects of strategy- based instruction show impact on student self-efficacy 
and/or on writing revision skills?  

2. Is this methodology efficient (not overly time-consuming) for the instructor? 
 
Results and Discussion 
Regarding my first question, there were limited positive results. The first quantitative method, the 
pre/post survey yielded insignificant results, and therefore are not reported in detail here. Less than 
half of the eight participating students increased their confidence and attitude scores by 1 or more 
points on at least half of the questions. For example, 4/8 students expressed increased confidence 
in correcting their grammar and in finding ideas to write about. On the question “I can tell when 
to use different writing strategies,” only one student increased her score; the majority scored the 
same. This may have been due to a limited time period (eight weeks) for self-observed change or 
to a poorly-matched survey (not designed for L2 writers).  

The comparative analysis of the peer reviews showed more positive results, but not 
consistently related LLSI. Two evaluators who compared peer reviews to improvements in 
anonymized essays found the following: two thirds of the essays showed writing improvement 
related to the peer review, but only in a few areas (a clarified topic sentence or an added supporting 
detail); the same essays ignored other appropriate peer suggestions. Notably, the essay with the 
most relevant positive changes had received a peer review with detailed, clear suggestions.  

The qualitative data of student reflective journals and my participant-observation journal 
showed positive results about my second question (efficiency of the methodology for the 
instructor), and positive results in student perceptions of LLS. In their reflective journals, most 
students (7/9) perceived strategy instruction as significant and positive. These comments were not 
prompted, but rather open-ended questions about their learning throughout the course. For example, 
seven out of nine appreciated the journal-writing (one strategy) as giving them “more freedom” or 
“more confidence,” and planned to continue it as a new habit. Positive comments about other LLSI 
included: “peer review helps me to see how others write”; “modeling out loud by the teacher helped 

http://georgiatesoljournal.org/supplementary_files/100_Aberle-Grasse/100-Writing-Self-Efficacy-Survey.pdf
http://georgiatesoljournal.org/supplementary_files/100_Aberle-Grasse/100-Peer-Review-Rubric.pdf


Aberle-Grasse 75 
 
me to avoid some mistakes.” In my participant-observer journal, I also noted positive results. 
Compared to teaching this course without the LLSI, there was much less frequent writer’s block 
or confusion about writing, and more frequent collaborative problem-solving. With that added 
efficiency, I found that increasing LLSI did not add to my time in preparation or classroom activity.  

In sum, my case study confirmed other research that a systematic approach to incorporating 
strategies is efficient for the instructor and perceived as effective for learners (Cohen & Griffiths, 
2015; MacArthur et al., 2015; Nguyen & Gu, 2013). Regarding peer review, my students’ 
perceptions echo many studies that suggest that peer review is a positive, socially grounded 
language encounter and that conducting peer review enhances learning (Ahmed, 2020; Yu & Lee, 
2016). However, my brief case study failed to show a causal relationship between peer review and 
writing improvement nor contextual data about differences among reviewers and reviews. To 
extend my observations, research should explore LLSI in context: how various types of virtual 
tools might work and for what kinds of learners (gender, age, professional or educational 
background, for example). Finally, my students’ self-reflective journals confirmed the value of 
teaching and researching self-regulation and hopeful mindsets. Even though my pre-post-survey 
was ineffective, with a longer time period I recommend such an instrument to raise awareness in 
learners and provide data for instructors. An accessible instrument is Gkonou and Oxford’s (2016) 
questionnaire which presents scenarios that elicit attitudes and emotions about language learning. 
 
LLS in Practice Online 
As I have argued throughout this essay, teaching a system of learning strategies is ideal (Oxford, 
2017); yet in any stressful environment, simplicity is wise. To this end, I conclude this article with 
approaches—focused on practical methods and tools—for two LLS for empowering learners in a 
global crisis: goal-setting and peer review. Several principles for effective LSSI should be recalled 
when incorporating these activities online (Artino & Stephens, 2009; Chamot & Harris, 2019; 
Miller, 2014): 

• Apply an iterative process: like a spiral, strategy instruction follows a pattern that repeats 
at least twice: instruction, practice, self-assessment (with instructor feedback) and changes, 
if needed; repeat.  

• Explain the purpose of the strategy and accept doubts/ suggestions for changes. 
• Collaborative and multi-modal approaches tap more learner domains and critical needs 

today, the motivational/ social as well as cognitive. 
• Purposefully select tech tools. They should fit the objectives and be accessible to you and 

your students, prioritizing simplicity; suggested tools below.  
 
Multisensory and Self-Regulated Goal-Setting Lesson 
 
Background 
LLSI research emphasizes that goal-setting is most effective when it is self-monitored, with 
explicit definition of the purpose, modeling, and feedback to encourage competence. A meta-
strategy that can access mind and heart, goal-setting develops agency and hope (Oxford, 2017). 
 
Lesson and Timing 
I created a 20-minute interactive presentation to instruct the key meta-cognitive skill of goal-
setting. Ideally taught synchronously, the lesson covers student experience with goal-setting; 
purpose in this course; images for reflection; student written or aural goal-setting. Typically, I 

http://georgiatesoljournal.org/supplementary_files/100_Aberle-Grasse/100-LLS-Goalsetting.pdf
http://georgiatesoljournal.org/supplementary_files/100_Aberle-Grasse/100-LLS-Goalsetting.pdf


76 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 

follow this pattern in the course: instruction and goal-setting week one; reflection and modification 
of goals: mid-course; reflection on goals and future goals: final week. 
 
Instructional Feedback 
In week one, I provide a brief encouraging comment on each student’s initial goals and the 
following day, share an example of any goal that was NOT correct (no name), and ask all students 
to revise their goals if needed, based on that example. I also ask them to share their goals with one 
classmate (which they report on in their goal-setting document). Mid-course:  I only skim their re-
iteration of their goals and share a few positive examples during class. Final week: The overall 
assignment gets a complete/incomplete score at the end, with a final short comment from me (again 
non-evaluative, e.g., “I noticed your improvement . . .”; Glad to hear this felt productive”).  
 
Tools 
For student responses (at least 3 times in the course), the tool needs to be shareable between 
student/teacher, allow for repeated viewing and commenting (begin/mid/end of course), and 
ideally multi-modal, allowing for audio or visual responses. In our Learning Management System 
(LMS) which is Canvas, I use either the assignment tool or the embedded Onenote; these allow 
for student-teacher private posts or whole-class interactions, and easily integrate audio or even 
video responses which I encourage. 
 
Peer Review Lesson 
 
Background 
My top goal for peer review is peer learning which develops essential transferable skills 
(Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012) and meets critical needs for community. Promoting peer learning 
requires a willingness to share authority, not easy for most educators (Morris, 2020). Virtual 
learning may apparently discourage peer learning but has many creative tools that can boost it, 
particularly for less confident or less extroverted learners (Miller, 2014). 

Peer review as a language-learning strategy offers benefits for the reviewer and the 
reviewed (Yu & Lee, 2016). If written or oral dialogue is involved, especially in a dual-language, 
cross-cultural classroom, peer review can foster authentic communication skills such as asking for 
and receiving feedback (Ruecker, 2011). For instructors, effective peer review can save 
instructional time while still providing feedback that is specific and frequent (Oxford, 2017).  

However, my experience agrees with several cautions regarding peer review, especially for 
L2 learners; it is ineffective if students don’t apply effort to the task; and cross-cultural 
misunderstandings can occur. In a recent adult professional writing class, for example, I was asked 
to intervene when one student felt that her peer had insulted her in his comments on her writing.  

Two practices have improved my use of peer review online. First, I provide in-depth 
instruction and scaffolded oversight. For example, I present one aspect of Meyers’ intercultural 
communication global comparison tool (Meyer, 2015) which compares differences across cultures 
in giving and receiving negative feedback. Second, I apply tools that enable flexible yet clear 
approaches, inviting student choice and leadership.  
 
Lesson and Timing 
To instruct peer review in any course (speaking or writing), I have developed a playful yet 
purposeful introductory peer review presentation. This can be presented synchronously or through 

http://georgiatesoljournal.org/supplementary_files/100_Aberle-Grasse/100-Peer-Review.pdf


Aberle-Grasse 77 
 
a video, inviting responses. In a pluri-lingual context, instruction should address possible cultural 
conflicts; and discuss when to focus on global aspects of writing (organization/clarity of 
ideas/coherence) and when to drill down for grammar/mechanics.  

Aiming for at least three experiences of peer review per course, I have developed simple 
rubrics and tools. For the first peer review assignment, I explain and briefly model how to use the 
rubric. Before the second assignment, I invite leadership by asking for any suggestions to change 
the rubric or even to redesign it (for credit). For the third peer review, students can opt to use the 
rubric or omit it, giving only holistic feedback. In all three assignments, tools invite students to 
give audio/visual feedback as well as written, and I elicit feedback from students about the 
assignment. 
 
Instructional Feedback 
Some instructional monitoring/feedback of peer review, at least at first, is needed both to motivate 
students and to correct misinterpretations. I aim to give timely and specific feedback, but I want 
this to be a low-stakes, friendly and peer-driven assignment, so I minimize my teacher-footprint 
on it. For the first assignment, I read each completed peer review and give completion credit; the 
following class, I take five minutes to: share a few examples to the whole class, without names, of 
effective feedback and if necessary, ineffective. For a second peer review assignment, I would 
only skim each one; in class, I would prompt reflection with the question: what went well with the 
peer reviews, and are there questions or suggestions?  Lastly, in a final reflection assignment, 
students are asked to assess the peer review process: What worked for you as a reviewer and being 
reviewed? What didn’t work, and how could it be improved? 
 
Tools 
Rubrics should be simple but should closely imitate the rubric used for grading. Tech tools: My 
preferred method is having students meet synchronously online; they complete the peer review 
documents, prepared in advance, during their meeting or prior; and then talk together for 5-15 
minutes about one another’s work. For an L2 course, every opportunity for multi-modal language 
use is ideal, as it integrates language skills as well as peer relationships. Our LMS (Canvas) has 
rubric tools and a peer review app that are versatile; they can be used anonymously/ non-paired or 
paired with discussion face-to-face online. Other options: video/audio tools like Flipgrid or 
VoiceThread are designed for peer comments, engaging, and user-friendly; a sophisticated tool is 
Peerceptiv (I have not reviewed). 
 
Conclusion 
“It’s like to be on a boat, but on a wild ocean, like with no control. It is a rush of emotions and 
fear, to have no idea what I’m doing.” Written by my student regarding L2 academic writing, her 
metaphor seems apt for all online teaching and learning in 2020: facing distress from within and 
without, with seesawing emotions we nevertheless aim for a place and seek to arrive there with a 
group. Thoughtfully instructing learning strategies can help everyone in the boat to arrive.  

Returning to critical language pedagogy, linguist Coyle (2019) described a vision for “co-
created strategic classrooms…where learners and teachers work in partnership for successful 
learning to take place” (para. 5). Building on Freire’s critical inquiry, Coyle’s pedagogy 
emphasizes the social and cultural construct of language that is shaped by and shapes its context. 
This classroom (online or face-to-face) has the following characteristics: 
 



78 GATESOL in Action Journal 30(1)  
 

• It is pluri-lingual and highly collaborative. 
• Teachers and learners co-construct goals and assessments. 
• Self-directional strategies are frequently fostered. 

Genuine connection and effective language learning online can be enhanced by selecting a 
few key learning strategies and teaching them well. Yet the pandemic also invites us to consider a 
paradigm shift, as Coyle and other practitioners of critical pedagogy envision (Plonsky, 2019; 
Weaver, 2020). Language learning strategies as simple as goal-setting, reflection, and peer review 
can enable students to take control of their own learning outcomes (my case study reported above; 
Artino & Stephens, 2009; Mastan & Maarof, 2014; Nguyen & Gu, 2013). They can also open the 
course to more fluid learning, possible in virtual contexts when instructors and students 
strategically reflect and communicate about their goals and effective assessment.  
 
 
References 
 
Ahmed, R. (2020). Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and 

students. TESOL Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.537 
Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative 

analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. The Internet and Higher 
Education, 12(3–4), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001 

Chamot, A. U., & Harris, V. (Eds.). (2019). Learning strategy instruction in the language 
classroom. Multilingual Matters. 

Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive 
academic language learning approach. Addison Wesley Longman. 

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. Longman. 
Cohen, A. D., & Griffiths, C. (2015). Revisiting LLS research 40 years later. TESOL Quarterly, 

49(2), 414–429. http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.225 
Coyle, D. (2019). Designing strategic classrooms: Self-assessment in enabling self-regulated 

learning. In A. U. Chamot & V. Harris (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language 
classroom (pp. 53–67). Multilingual Matters. 

Davidson, C. (2020, May 26). The single most essential requirement in designing a fall online 
course. https://www.cathydavidson.com/blog/the-single-most-essential-requirement-in-
designing-a-fall-online-course/ 

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second 
language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 
9781410613349 

Gkonou, D., & Oxford, R.L. (2016). Questionnaire: Managing our emotions for language learning. 
University of Essex. 

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. van 
Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). 
Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Lingnan University. (2020, June 07). LU study finds international students’ learning activities all 
over the world have been seriously disturbed by COVID-19 pandemic. 
https://bit.ly/2SbxRYo 

https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.537
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.02.001
http://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.225
https://www.cathydavidson.com/blog/the-single-most-essential-requirement-in-designing-a-fall-online-course/
https://www.cathydavidson.com/blog/the-single-most-essential-requirement-in-designing-a-fall-online-course/
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613349
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613349
https://bit.ly/2SbxRYo


Aberle-Grasse 79 
 
MacArthur, C. A., Philippakos, Z. A., & Ianetta, M. (2015). Self-regulated strategy instruction in 

college developmental writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 855–867. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000011 

Mastan, M. E., & Maarof, N. (2014). ESL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use in 
expository writing. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2360–2363. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.573 

Meyer, E. (2020). The country mapping tool. https://erinmeyer.com/tools/culture-map-premium/ 
Miller, M. (2014). Minds online. Harvard University Press. 
Mitchell, T. D., & Pessoa, S. (2017). Scaffolding the writing development of the argument genre 

in history: The case of two novice writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 30, 
26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.002 

Morris, S. M. (2017, October 27). A call for critical instructional design. 
https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/a-call-for-critical-instructional-design/ 

Nguyen, L. T. C., & Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy-based instruction: A learner-focused approach to 
developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 9–30. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457528 

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. Cambridge 
University Press. 

Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in 
context. Routledge. 

Plonsky, L. (2019). Second-language strategy instruction: Where do we go from here? Plenary 
presented at Situated Strategy Use (SSU3), Osaka, Japan. 

Rose, H., Briggs, J. G., Boggs, J. A., Sergio, L., & Ivanova-Slavianskaia, N. (2018). A systematic 
review of language learner strategy research in the face of self-regulation. System, 72, 151–
163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002 

Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–51. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011 

Ruecker, T. (2010). The potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review. ELT Journal, 65(4), 
398–407. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq067 

Traga Philippakos, Z. A., MacArthur, C. A., & Munsell, S. (2018). College student writers’ use 
and modification of planning and evaluation strategies after a semester of instruction. 
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 63(2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.897 

Weaver, R. (2020). Tiny maneuvers: On changing our instincts as teachers. Hybrid Pedagogy. 
https://hybridpedagogy.org/tiny-maneuvers-on-changing-our-instincts-as-teachers/ 

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing 
feedback? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language 
Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161 

 
 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 

Received: August 14, 2020 | Accepted: September 21, 2020 | Published: October 29, 2020 

https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000011
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.573
https://erinmeyer.com/tools/culture-map-premium/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.10.002
https://www.seanmichaelmorris.com/a-call-for-critical-instructional-design/
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812457528
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.12.002
https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq067
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.897
https://hybridpedagogy.org/tiny-maneuvers-on-changing-our-instincts-as-teachers/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161

	GATESOL in Action Journal2020, Vol. 30(1), pp. 70–79
	Empowering Language Learning Strategies Online
	ISSN: 2331-6845
	Abstract
	Keywords

	Background

