21 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 10 (1). 2020. 21-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.1.2 http://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ssllt The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development Carmen M. Amerstorfer University of Klagenfurt, Austria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1746-2258 carmen.amerstorfer@aau.at Abstract Learners of foreign languages (L2s) apply strategies to support learning pro- cesses and L2 development. They select strategies according to their individ- ual needs and preferences and adjust their strategic actions to suit situational circumstances and contextual conditions. A holistic investigation of strategic L2 learning processes requires the integration of numerous interconnected, flexibly-interacting influences, which are at constant interplay with each other and whose development is difficult to predict. Validated as effective in other fields of applied linguistics, complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) can also provide an appropriate frame for researching strategic L2 learning. Based on state-of-the-art methodological guidance for complexity research, this article presents the re-analysis of empirical data from a previous study through a complexity lens. It further examines the suitability of CDST in strategy re- search, explores its practical value, and demonstrates that a complexity per- spective can generate new, profound information about strategic learning. Keywords: CDST; complex dynamic systems; complexity theory; dynamism; language learning strategies; strategic language learning Carmen M. Amerstorfer 22 1. Introduction Curiosity and skepticism are two of the forces that keep researchers ahead of the game. In combination, they fuel the work of scholars around the globe. This article is inspired by a curiosity about strategic language learning in combination with skepticism about complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), which is steadily gaining popularity in applied linguistics. Learners’ actions to support language learning have been researched since the mid-1970s (Hosenfeld, 1976; Rubin, 1975). Tightly integrated in the complex, flexible processes of foreign language learning, strategies are notori- ously difficult to define. Learners select strategies according to personal prefer- ences and situational circumstances and adapt them to suit dynamic, contextual changes. This article presents the application of a complexity approach to the re-analysis of data from a previous study about language learning strategies (Amerstorfer, 2016). It explores whether new, valuable knowledge about strate- gic language learning can be gained with research methods for complexity the- ory and evaluates the practical significance of CDST for strategy research. The clarification of some key issues regarding strategic language learning and a review of the literature about strategy research are followed by compre- hensible and concise explanations of CDST. The two themes merge in an empir- ical study about strategic language learning, which leads to an evaluation of the practical value of CDST in strategy research. 2. Language learning strategies (LLS1) and strategic language learning The beginning of research into LLS is marked by tentative attempts at describing LLS and how they support successful language learners in developing a foreign language (L22) (Hosenfeld, 1976; Naiman, Fröhlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern, 1975). Realizing the complexity involved in strategic language learning generated in- creasingly comprehensive descriptions of LLS (Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1987). Despite continued efforts at defining the concept and functions of LLS (Cohen, 1998; Oxford, 1999), the absence of a precise and generally acknowledged definition and the emer- gence of some discrepancies concerning terminological issues resulted in criticism about an ambiguous overall concept of LLS and a weak theoretical foundation (Dö- rnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 1994; Macaro, 2006). 1 LLS refers to language learning strategies in the singular and plural form. 2 L2 refers to any language(s) a person develops after the age of three, which is after the person’s native language (L1) has commonly been well established (Dewaele, 2011; Lorette & Dewaele, 2015). L2 does not imply any information regarding the number of languages a person knows. The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 23 A substantial content-analytic study of 33 definitions of learning strategies (Oxford, 2017) resulted in the latest, comprehensive 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, emotional, and social) for the pur- pose of (a) accomplishing language tasks; (b) improving language performance or use; and/or (c) enhancing long-term proficiency. Strategies are mentally guided but may also have physical and therefore observable manifestations. Learners often use strate- gies flexibly and creatively; combine them in various ways, such as strategy clusters or strategy chains; and orchestrate them to meet learning needs. Strategies are teachable. Learners in their contexts decide which strategies to use. Appropriateness of strategies depends on multiple personal and contextual factors. (p. 48; original italics) It is difficult to reduce the complex notion of LLS to a one-liner. It may be possi- ble if the definition follows a thorough discussion of all related issues (e.g., Grif- fiths, 2018b). Oxford (2017) chose to include the related issues in her latest def- inition, which makes it so comprehensive. Besides defining the concept, Oxford clarifies the use and the characteristics of LLS, which has been criticized as too complex to be usable from a pragmatic point of view (Thomas, Rose, & Pojana- punya, 2019). Nevertheless, concurring with Thomas and Rose (2019, p. 254), Oxford’s (2017) definition is “the best we have right now” as it explicitly empha- sizes dynamism, flexibility, and complexity and stresses the importance of con- text involved in strategy choice and application. Instead of a restricted percep- tion of LLS with limited value for theory and practice (Dörnyei, 2009), the lens is widened to a broad, holistic understanding of strategic L2 learning (Amerstorfer, 2016; Gao, 2010; Gu, 2012, 2018; Oxford, 2017). Strategic L2 learning distinguishes itself by definition from non-strategic pro- cesses through the component of consciousness (Cohen, 1998, 2018; Griffiths, 2008; Oxford, 2011; Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2015), which necessitates a distinc- tion between L2 learning and L2 development (Larsen-Freeman, 2015a). The two concepts are inseparable and commonly used synonymously, but their differences are relevant for the current discussion. In general, L2 learning concentrates on the learner as the agent of actions to progress in the development of knowledge, ability, and skills in the target language. L2 learning means actively studying a language, which implies conscious efforts on behalf of the learner to increase L2 proficiency. Strategic L2 learning is deliberate although the degree of consciousness involved in choosing a strategy can decrease with its repeated, successful application. Autom- atized strategy choice becomes habitual, “which no longer reflects the learner’s at- tention, awareness, intention, or cognitive effort” (Oxford, 2017, p. 40). L2 development, on the other hand, describes the unlimited, non-linear alterations in L2 knowledge, ability, and skills and includes effortless processes Carmen M. Amerstorfer 24 that are beyond a learner’s consciousness, for example, when a lexical item trans- fers from passive to active vocabulary. Besides progress, L2 development can also include undesirable, unintentional L2 alterations, for instance, habitually over-using gap-fillers such as like and you know or adopting a rare accent or regionally accepta- ble grammatical structures that deviate from the standard. Also temporary re- strictions to the learning progress are possible. For instance, an inability to master simple constructions of the passive voice (e.g., a net is used to catch a fish) can in- hibit the correct use of more complex constructions of the passive voice (e.g., a net had been used to catch a fish). Occasional regressions are the norm in L2 develop- ment (Larsen-Freeman, 2015a) although the overall aim is progress. 3. Researching strategic L2 learning Quantitative methods have dominated LLS research (Mizumoto & Takeuchi, 2018) with the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL; Oxford, 1990) as the most frequently used instrument for data collection (White, Schramm, & Chamot, 2007) due to its easy handling for researchers and participants (Amerstorfer, 2018b). If adapted to suit specific purposes and research environments, the SILL is still a valuable and popular research tool despite its early publication date (Amerstorfer, 2018b; Rose, 2019). Other instruments for quantitative data collec- tion that have also contributed to LLS research are, for example, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), the Vocabulary Learning Questionnaire (Gu & Johnson, 1996), the Survey of Reading Strategy (Mokharti & Sheorey, 2002), the Language Strategy Use In- ventory (Cohen, Oxford, & Chi, 2006), and the Metacognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire (Vandergrift, Goh, Mareschal, & Tafaghodtari, 2006). However, in recent years, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches have gained popularity (e.g., Amerstorfer, 2018a; Gkonou, 2018; Griffiths, 2018a). While statistical results achieved through quantitative research methods can gen- erate information about large numbers of learners, case studies with a qualitative orientation focus on the strategic behavior of individuals and result in detailed descriptions of situated L2 learning. Both approaches reveal valuable insights, but the outcomes of group studies cannot be generalized for individual learners, and the results of individual case studies are not generally true for groups of learners. Contextual circumstances and individual learner differences are too fundamental in educational research to allow generalizations in either direction. Complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) merges multiple, heterogeneous datasets and analyses them within the context in which they occur. It recognizes the flexible relationships between the individual influences on learners and acknowledges the naturally arising, dynamic alterations in L2 learning situations. The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 25 CDST can change one’s perception from a narrow view on isolated LLS and strat- egy categories (e.g., social, cognitive, affective strategies) to a broad perspective of strategic learning, where L2 learning is understood as “emergent from and dy- namically interconnected with the environment” (Larsen-Freeman, 2018, p. 59). Dörnyei, MacIntyre, and Henri (2015a) note that by 2010, research in SLA3 had undergone a “dynamic paradigm shift” (p. 1). CDST had become an im- portant theme in the literature although most work had been theoretical in na- ture (p. 1). The body of CDST-related literature in the strategy field is also stead- ily expanding with whole chapters being dedicated to the discussion of complex- ity in strategic learning (Oxford, 2017; Wang, 2018). Other recent examples of complexity-related strategy research, albeit without overtly building on CDST, have been published by Cohen and Wang (2018) and Sasaki, Mizumoto, and Mu- rakami (2018). Cohen and Wang (2018) conducted an empirical study about fluctuation in the functions of LLS with a reference to complexity theory in the discussion of the findings. Sasaki et al. (2018) investigated the developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategies in a mixed-methods study that incorporates a multitude of contextual influences. Further empirical work is underway by Ox- ford and Gkonou (in press), who analyze the complexity of emotion regulation strategies, and MacIntyre and Gregersen (2019), who conduct a pre-post, non- verbal strategy training study with change-point analysis. 4. Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 development Complex dynamic systems theory entered the spheres of SLA after it had already been applied for about 40 years to research in natural sciences like physics, bi- ology, and meteorology. What language teachers and researchers (e.g., van Lier, 1988) had already known for decades, namely that teaching is complex and that no two lessons and no two students are ever the same, could now be investi- gated in a scientifically appropriate manner. CDST takes a comprehensive ap- proach rather than isolating individual aspects of L2 learners (e.g., emotions, beliefs), learning processes (e.g., strategy use, turn taking), or learning contexts (e.g., teaching materials, educational policies). A holistic perspective is valid and vital because L2 classrooms rarely display simple cause-and-effect incidents with predictable outcomes; instead they exhibit overall complex, intertwined, and constantly changing situations (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Dörnyei, Mac- Intyre, & Henri, 2015b; Larsen-Freeman, 2015b, 2018; Mercer, 2011, 2013). 3 In concurrence with Larsen-Freeman (2015a) and Oxford (2017), the term acquisition is exclusively used to refer to the academic field of second language acquisition (SLA). Carmen M. Amerstorfer 26 The agents in L2 classrooms, learners and teachers, are at permanent in- terplay with each other, albeit at fluctuating levels of intensity and in varying constellations. On an individual level, the agents are characterized by a host of interconnected personal features, such as their self-concepts as actors in the L2 classroom, individual preferences regarding learning and teaching, anxieties and inhibitions, motivation, and much more. Learners’ and teachers’ identities out- side the L2 classroom are also valid components. For example, the status they have in the communities they belong to, their religious faith, and their positions within family constellations influence their perceptions of themselves and their actions. The agents in L2 classrooms belong to a “unique network of individual cultures” (Mercer, 2016, p. 14) and are engaged in a “symbiotic co-adaptive re- lationship” (Ushioda, 2015, p. 47) with context, which integrates social, psycho- logical, and environmental processes. The significance of an individual’s cultures and sub-cultures as well as the reciprocal relationships between contextual ele- ments and the agents in L2 classrooms are flexible and fluctuate across time. The features that characterize learners and teachers as well as contextual as- pects in and around the classroom are intertwined in complex systems, which are by definition “composed of at least two but usually a multitude of interrelated compo- nents which may themselves be complex systems” (Mercer, 2011, p. 63). Nested within each other (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, 2005; Davis & Sumara, 2006; Oxford, 2017; Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018), complex systems have blurry boundaries that do not clearly demarcate one system from related systems and the context. As a complex system, L2 development is thus embedded in its spatial and temporal environment. A change in one feature anywhere in the system may affect other features within the immediate system, other features in connected systems, or the overall system as a whole. Such changes initiate new alterations whose outcomes are difficult to foresee. Moreover, dynamic systems can attain so-called “attractor states” or simply “attractors,” which describe “the outcome or pattern [a system] has fallen into through self-organisation” (Hiver, 2015, p. 25). As opposed to de Bot et al. (2007), who contrast attractor states with repeller states, Hiver (2015) em- phasizes that “attractor states are not necessarily perceived as pleasant or de- sirable states that a person wishes to be in” (p. 21). Furthermore, “attractors do not actually exert a pulling force of attraction in the way that gravity or magnets do” (p. 21). Attractor states simply describe what a system is doing at a specific moment before it further evolves towards the next attractor state in another critical moment. It has been emphasized in the literature that complex dynamic systems are in a constant state of flux. Nevertheless, continuous movement and development can cause a system to reach and retain a form of equilibrium or “dynamic stability” (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a, p. 43), which does not mean stagnation but continuous adaptation to maintain a certain balance. The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 27 CDST enables researchers to analyze the complexity and dynamism of L2 development, which integrates learners’ cognitive involvement and social inter- action (Larsen-Freeman, 2017; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a) as well as psychological and environmental processes (Ushioda, 2015). CDST can bring or- der to what may seem chaotic and examine the relationships between individual features, the symbiosis of interconnected sub-systems, and the behavior of a system as a whole. It is suited to analyzing the combination and relation of mul- tiple components as it investigates “the collective functioning of the interrelated parts of the system as one organic whole [that] cannot be deduced from an un- derstanding of the individual components” (Mercer, 2011, p. 64). 5. The study The study investigates one L2 learner’s strategy use as a dynamic system. The case under investigation was part of a larger study conducted previously (Amerstorfer, 2016), whose data are now re-analyzed from a complexity angle. The current study draws on best practice in related domains (e.g., Mercer, 2011), explores new meth- odological terrain in LLS research, and aims to resolve the following questions: 1. What are the purposes of the LLS used by the learner? 2. To what degree is the complex and dynamic nature of LLS observable? 3. What new insights does the complexity approach reveal that were not gained in the original study? 5.1. Methodology Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016, 2020) offer guidance in the implementation of a CDST-oriented research approach in applied linguistics. They present a detailed set of guiding questions (2016) and a selection of research methods for CDST that is suitable for qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods research in the field (2020). The methodology of the current study is oriented towards process tracing (Beach & Pedersen, 2013; Bennett & Checkel, 2015), which takes hypo- thetical statements as a starting point and analyses empirical evidence to make inferences “that update our confidence in the presence of a hypothesized causal mechanism” (Beach & Pedersen, 2013, p. 73). Process tracing was selected as a suitable method to test and refine two hypotheses about LLS which were devel- oped from an extensive literature review and the findings of the original study because it can “clarify the scope of conditions under which a hypothesis is trans- ferable to other cases” (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020, p. 112). Carmen M. Amerstorfer 28 Hypothesis 1: Due to their flexible and dynamic nature, the participant’s strategies can have varying purposes depending on contextual influences. Hypothesis 2: Psychological influences such as emotions, self-confidence, and mo- tivation affect the participant’s strategic actions. 5.1.2. Research environment The original study (Amerstorfer, 2016) was conducted at an Austrian vocational school whose educational philosophy demands a large amount of self-regula- tion on the part of the students. About half to two-thirds of the English lessons per week follow a communicative approach and are traditionally teacher-cen- tered. In the remaining lessons, the students complete assignments, which must be submitted electronically by a certain due date. They do this independently of the teacher and in cooperation with peers. During these cooperative learning periods, the teacher functions as a consultant. The innovative teaching ap- proach cultivates learner cooperation and, consequently, enhanced social skills. It demands advanced time-management and discipline from the students, who in return enjoy an increased amount of autonomy in comparison to more tradi- tional, teacher-centered education. 5.1.3. Data collection The original study investigated the LLS use of five teenaged learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) whose first language is German. Over the course of four weeks, each participant was engaged in an initial interview, in which a strat- egy inventory (Oxford, 1990) was administered, three classroom observations during cooperative learning lessons, and three semi-structured, retrospective interviews. The overall objective was to gain a holistic notion of the individual participants as strategic EFL learners, which was supported by questions about the participants’ private lives and their study habits in and outside of school. The strategy inventory was immediately followed by questions related to the indicated frequency of strategy use. Here the focus was on the statements that received the lowest and highest possible ratings on a 5-point scale from never or almost never true of me to always or almost always true of me. The lesson observations were video-recorded and followed by semi-structured stimulated- recall interviews. All interviews were conducted in German (for details about the research design, see Amerstorfer, 2018a). The 2016 study confirmed that research in L2 development profits from a retrospective perspective (Dörnyei, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008b). The interviews revealed details about strategic learning that could not have The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 29 been detected in observations. They provided opportunities for the participants to express their personal views and opinions, which “help identify aspects of con- text that seem salient to particular individuals, and thus help constrain the multi- tude of potential contextual factors to be considered” (Ushioda, 2015, p. 49). Alt- hough any interview’s capacity to access participants’ memory and awareness is limited, the retrospective interviews were invaluable in the 2016 study. 5.1.4. Casing and agents CDST requires the specification of the phenomenological validity and the bound- aries of a system, although “boundary does not imply closure” (Hiver & Al-Hoo- rie, 2016, p. 745). The system under investigation is the strategy use of 18-year- old EFL learner Sabrina (pseudonym) over four weeks. The phenomenological validity of the case is underpinned by what is already known about strategic language learning and Sabrina’s strategy use. Out of the five cases in the original study, Sabrina’s case was selected at random to avoid selection bias (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020). Other agents in the system are cooperation partners, other students in Sabrina’s class, and a teacher, with whom Sabrina engaged in the observed EFL lessons. Influences by people outside of the immediate school environment (e.g., Sabrina’s family members) were not considered. The variables that were isolated to analyze Sa- brina’s case were strategic learning actions and factors that demonstrate a di- rect or indirect influence on her LLS. 5.1.5. Data analysis The sources of data for the current study are Sabrina’s interviews (one semi-struc- tured initial interview and three semi-structured stimulated recall interviews) and the strategy inventory (Oxford, 1990). The transcribed interview data underwent multiple rounds of coding in the data-management software Atlas.ti until further coding could not contribute new information to the analysis. During the coding pro- cess, strategic actions were identified and their situational purposes analyzed. Fur- thermore, contextual influences on Sabrina’s strategy use were marked, and con- nections between individual influencing factors in the system were outlined. Poten- tial causal influences on the application of LLS were hypothesized, and, as Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2020) suggest, the predictions of a wide range of alternative explana- tions were drafted together with supporting and counter evidence to counteract confirmation bias. The memo function of the software was used to note down any thoughts that occurred to the researcher during the coding process. These memos were invaluable in the interpretation of the data and the emerging insights. Carmen M. Amerstorfer 30 5.2. Results 5.2.1. Contextual information Sabrina generally likes going to school and especially enjoys the cooperative learning pedagogy promoted at her school. While her favorite subjects are ac- counting and math, she feels ambivalent about studying EFL. On the one hand, she values learning English in school because it is a universal language that en- ables her to watch the latest movies before their dubbed versions come to the local cinemas. Moreover, Sabrina listens almost exclusively to English music and thinks that she will need English in her later work-life. On the other hand, she finds learning foreign languages difficult and cumbersome and struggles to achieve positive grades in English and Spanish. If it were not mandatory in school, Sabrina probably would not study English. She never reads or writes in English for pleasure. Nevertheless, she uses some English expressions for fun when talking with friends in German, for instance, sweetie, swag (even though she does not know what it means), and yolo (acronym for you only live once). Sabrina enjoys working autonomously during cooperative learning peri- ods because she can take breaks and listen to music. She favors creative tasks such as designing posters and writing texts but complains that teachers often underestimate the amount of work they require. Sabrina owns a laptop com- puter and a smartphone, which she uses daily for school and private matters. If Sabrina needs support with her homework, she calls or texts a classmate. 5.2.2. Results of follow-up questions related to the strategy inventory With regard to the 12 statements rated never or almost never true of me (Table 1) in the 50-item strategy inventory (Oxford, 1990), Sabrina explained that some of the strategies simply do not work for her, for example, using rhymes (Item 5) or acting out new English words to remember them (Item 7). Preparing flashcards to study vocabulary (Item 6) takes too much time. Instead, Sabrina prefers to read new words and phrases repeatedly to memorize them. As Sabrina does not know any people whose first language is English, some statements do not apply to her or are restricted to using English at school (Items 14, 35, 48, and 49). Sabrina men- tioned a school excursion to England in the previous year, but she lost contact with her host family. She does not read in English except for school (Item 16) and does not have a specific strategy for reading in English (Item 18). When asked why she never or almost never makes up new words if she lacks the right ones in English (Item 26), Sabrina explains that she tries to rephrase instead by using other, fa- miliar English words. She adds in a dismissive voice that she would rather say a The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 31 word in German than make up words that do not exist and are bound to be wrong. Sabrina gives no explanations for Items 20 (“I try to find patterns in Eng- lish”) and 43 (“I write down my feelings in a language learning diary”). Table 1 Strategy statements with the lowest possible rating Item in the inventory Strategy statements with the lowest possible rating (never or almost never true of me) 5 I use rhymes to remember new English words. 6 I use flashcards to remember new English words. 7 I physically act out new English words. 14 I start conversations in English. 16 I read for pleasure in English. 18 I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully. 20 I try to find patterns in English. 26 I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. 35 I look for people I can talk to in English. 43 I write down my feelings in a language learning diary. 48 I ask for help from English speakers. 49 I ask questions in English. Regarding the statements with the highest possible rating (Table 2), Sabrina explains that she is fond of a British accent and tries to imitate it as much as possible (Item 11). Before she reads out words in English, she tries to imagine how they are pronounced (Item 12) with a British accent because that sounds cool and fun. Dur- ing English conversations at school, Sabrina uses hand gestures (Item 25), which has proven very useful to her. Sabrina pays attention when someone speaks in English (Item 32) because she finds what they say interesting. Furthermore, careful listen- ing supports comprehension and thereby increases the learning progress, in her opinion. To Sabrina’s mind, trying to find out how to be a better learner of English (Item 33) mainly applies to vocabulary learning. She believes in trial and error to determine which strategies work best for her and how she can memorize words more easily. Sabrina does not explain her rating for Item 45 (“If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again”). Table 2 Strategy statements with the highest possible rating Item in the inventory Strategy statements with the highest possible rating (always or almost always true of me) 11 I try to talk like native English speakers. 12 I practice the sounds of English. 25 When I can’t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. 32 I pay attention when someone is speaking in English. 33 I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 45 If I do not understand something in English, I ask the other person to slow down or say it again. Carmen M. Amerstorfer 32 5.2.3. Purposes of Sabrina’s strategies Sabrina’s data show instances of strategies with clearly definable, seemingly sin- gle purposes, for example, evaluating how much time is available to complete an assignment and planning further action accordingly (2:3, 3:14, 3:20).4 These two strategies, which always co-occurred, were additionally aimed at lowering the distress Sabrina experienced due to the rising time pressure before the ap- proaching submission date of the assignment. The purposes of other strategies were also multi-faceted, for example, consulting an online dictionary (2:5) or another person (2:4) to find out the translation of an unknown phrase. These strategies fulfill two purposes: first, getting an English-German translation and second, avoiding a mistake, as Sabrina states in the interview: Interviewer: . . . and all of a sudden you asked me something. Sabrina: Yes, because I couldn’t find anything useful in the online dictionary and then I prefer asking a person rather than writing down something wrong. (2:4)5 Some strategies were directly connected to L2 use, for instance, mixing German and English (4:3, 4:13) “to avoid stopping in the middle of a sentence” (4:15). Others were aimed at creating favorable conditions for learning, for example, optimizing concentration (2:13, 3:5, 3:8), taking breaks to drink water (4:4), and listening to music to relax between tasks (2:14). The following situations represent examples of strategies with purposes that are not directly connected to L2 learning. Sabrina’s partner was busy with a different assignment because she had frequently been absent from school and had to catch up on what she had missed (2:2). In order to prevent a delay or even missing the joint assignment’s submission date, Sabrina took the initiative and started working on it by herself. Even though Sabrina felt frustration in that situation, she would later share the results with her absent partner to save her the time and effort. The strategic actions of disregarding the prescribed mode of pair work and supporting her uncommitted partner are not directly linked to L2 learning, so technically they are not LLS. Nevertheless, they are important, contextual aspects of the complex system of Sabrina’s strategic L2 learning. Sa- brina does not want to fall behind in English, so the purposes for her actions are connected to her own achievements and L2 progress. Simultaneously, she wants to help her peer catch up on what she has missed, which displays good social competence and empathy. 4 In parentheses there are code numbers of quotes in Atlas.ti. 5 In this situation, the researcher did not answer Sabrina’s question and clarified that her sole intention was to observe. The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 33 Keeping good relations with peers is a strategy purpose that was observed on multiple occasions. In one situation, for instance, Sabrina and her partner, who was present in that lesson, divided the workload of a task. Each student answered half of the questions in a text. While Sabrina was concentrated on reading, her partner interrupted her and asked a question, which Sabrina im- mediately answered (3:6). Although helping others is not an actual LLS, it is cru- cial in Sabrina’s strategic learning for five reasons. First, it generally contributes to good relationships with peers, which adds to a positive classroom atmosphere and hence to a pleasant learning environment. Second, Sabrina profits from help- ing her partner because the two students are a team and will be jointly graded. Third, Sabrina’s support has a motivational effect on the partner, which will con- sequently increase the partner’s investment in the completion of the assignment, hence contributing positively to the joint achievement and therefore benefitting Sabrina. Fourth, having a good reputation as a reliable and caring cooperation partner increases Sabrina’s popularity in the class. As foreign languages are Sa- brina’s sore point, her kindness will pay off when she needs help and her peers support her in return. Fifth, it is in the nature of human beings that helping others makes us feel good about ourselves. However, Sabrina is a person who generally cares for others, so her motives were probably genuine. 5.2.4. Complexity and dynamism of LLS Sabrina used numerous strategies during the observed lessons and adjusted the strategic actions according to the intended purposes and situational circum- stances. She demonstrated flexibility in the way she applied strategies when she ended or altered strategic actions according to contextual influences. For exam- ple, Sabrina halted a dictionary search when she spontaneously remembered an English expression while looking it up. In another situation, Sabrina altered a set of peer-interview questions, which her partner had developed, although it was not Sabrina’s agreed responsibility (4:5, 4:9). Sabrina’s partner was sup- posed to conduct the peer-interview but was again absent during that lesson. Deciding to do the peer-interview herself caused Sabrina to adjust the questions according to her interpretation of the task. The original team decisions were complemented by a strategic change of action caused by the altered conditional circumstance of her partner’s absence. Another example of the flexibility of Sa- brina’s strategic actions occurred just before the actual peer-interview. Sa- brina’s supposed peer-interview partner appeared to be intensely concentrated on a different task when Sabrina was ready to start the interview. So, due to Sabrina’s thoughtful nature and the new situational circumstances, she sponta- neously invited a different student as interviewee (4:6). Carmen M. Amerstorfer 34 Sabrina’s approach towards reading English texts also exhibits complexity. As she reflects, it simply depends on how intensively you deal with an assignment. . . . This is how you learn English . . . so, if you only quickly read over a text, it is obvious that nothing will stick with you, that you won’t remember anything. But if you really deal with it intensively, it’s different. (3:23) For Sabrina, intensive reading in an L2 generally implies large investments of effort and time. Specifically in this situation, it further involved a partner, a set of questions about the content of the text, mono-lingual and bi-lingual online dictionaries, and a vocabulary book to keep record of new words and phrases. At the time of reading, Sabrina was already aware that her investment in reading the text would affect her understanding of a short video on the same topic, the quality of the peer-interview (both of which were part of the same assignment), and her participation during a group discussion in a follow-up lesson. Another example of complexity was noted in Sabrina’s strategic manner of handling unknown phrases in a given text (2:9). She translated them into Ger- man and then searched for “simpler” expressions in English that she could use in an imminent group discussion. While she was clarifying the vocabulary of the new text, Sabrina was already planning strategic actions for a lesson in the fu- ture. She anticipated how she could participate in the discussion without mak- ing mistakes and embarrassing herself in front of her peers and the teacher. 5.2.5. Psychology in strategic L2 learning Sabrina tries to avoid mistakes to prevent unwanted consequences like ridicule and bad grades. Moreover, she applies strategies to reduce distress and frustra- tion generated by the approaching submission deadline and her uncommitted cooperation partner. Overall, she manages to maintain a positive attitude, for example, by persuading herself that the tasks are better suited for individual work rather than pair work (2:11) when she finds herself working alone on an assignment that was designed for two. This reflects Sabrina’s optimistic attitude towards life in general and EFL learning in particular. Instead of complaining about her absent partner, Sabrina quickly came to terms with the changed situ- ation and assigned it a positive value, which had a self-motivating effect. Furthermore, Sabrina decided to share the completed tasks with her partner to support her recovery. For Sabrina, it is vital to maintain valuable relationships with peers. A more egoistic person would find it unfair to share the results of as- signments with a lazy student. They would believe that such students do not de- serve any special treatment particularly due to the greater investment by a single The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 35 person completing the tasks rather than a pair. On the contrary, Sabrina felt sorry for her peer and decided to help. Supporting others is crucial to Sabrina, which was noticed on several occasions during the lesson observations (3:6, 3:13, 3:15, 4:7). The strong sense of community in Sabrina’s class builds on mutual sup- port and respect,6 which was demonstrated, for example, by using earphones in order to keep the classroom quiet (4:2), preventing others from being distracted (4:6), lending things to others (4:8), and a polite tone among the students (4:18). Sabrina is compassionate towards her classmates and appreciates that they are empathetic too (3:17). In fact, Sabrina explained that over the years, solid friendships have developed within the class community (4:7). In addition to the students, the English teacher also contributes to the pleasant learning atmosphere. She does not interrupt students during coopera- tive learning lessons and provides a secure environment in which individuals are not embarrassed or ridiculed. For example, she provided opportunities for con- fidential, individual consultations when returning written exams (3:9). The teacher’s sensitive actions reduce stress and anxiety, demonstrate respect and support, and have a role-model effect. Due to the group cohesion and the posi- tive relationships among the students and with the teacher, Sabrina and her peer-interview partner showed no L2 anxiety when they spoke in English (4:11, 4:12), although Sabrina repeatedly mentioned a fear of making mistakes. The psychological effect of some strategic action was not always immedi- ate. For instance, when Sabrina did not know the English word for remote con- trol during the interview, she used a hand gesture instead (4:16). Her interview partner correctly guessed the German word Fernbedienung to interpret the ges- ture. After the interview, the two students searched for the word in the diction- ary, which created a sense of togetherness and affirmation that it is acceptable to have gaps in vocabulary knowledge. This experience contributed to Sabrina’s self-confidence as an L2 user. Demonstrating mutual empathy during L2 conver- sations, for instance, by active listening or backchannelling, puts students at ease and contributes to a secure learning environment. Sometimes Sabrina lacks motivation and does not make much progress during cooperative learning lessons. In an interview, she expressed a realistic and pragmatic attitude towards temporary lapses of motivation: Sometimes I’m not motivated at all . . . I’m not making any progress but . . . I have to finish at home or work really fast in the next lesson . . . Being lazy during cooperative learning will sooner or later fall back on you. (3:16) 6 For more information about the interpersonal relationships in Sabrina’s class, see Amer- storfer (in press). Carmen M. Amerstorfer 36 In such situations, Sabrina considers her options. She can either finish the tasks in her leisure time or work at a faster pace in the following lesson. Procrastination is not an option because it would lead to further problems and eventually bad grades. Overall, the data show that Sabrina appreciates the innovative teaching approach at her school and the methodological variety in the cooperative learn- ing assignments. Sabrina radiated pride when talking about the positive rela- tionships she cultivates with peers and teachers and the strong solidarity among the students in her class. All of this contributes to Sabrina’s positive attitude despite her fear of mistakes and her poor achievement in foreign languages. 5.3. Discussion Complexity research about LLS requires a holistic perspective on contextualized L2 learning. All strategic actions must be considered, including those that are not directly targeted at language improvement. It is essential to acknowledge a wide context, sit- uational circumstances, and dynamic relationships between individual agents. Fur- thermore, a suitable research methodology that integrates a multitude of dynamic influences and facilitates the analysis of situated strategic learning is necessary. The 2016 study, whose data is the basis of the current study, used a grounded theory approach, an inductive research method that does not impose any hypotheses on the data. In contrast, process tracing deducts hypotheses from existing knowledge and tests them against the new information. Although the fundamentally different methodological approach of the current study led to ad- ditional findings, the re-analysis of the 2016 data caused some problems because the original study was not designed with CDST in mind. In retrospect, integrating self-report (e.g., keeping a diary) in addition to the observations and interviews could have enriched the case with insights from the student’s perspective. More- over, a longer duration of the study could have elicited further information on the developmental trajectory of the learner’s strategy use even though a long dura- tion is not a binding criterion for complexity research or process tracing. “Recycling” the 2016 data was not a smooth process. The first rounds of data analysis were aimed at identifying all expressions of strategic L2 learning, categorizing them according to their types and functions (Oxford, 2011),7 and defining their specific intended purposes. However, the typological conceptual- ization did not contribute any significant value to the study and was terminated after three problems repeatedly occurred. First, some strategies did not fit in the typology, for example, strategies for successful and rewarding learner cooperation. 7 See Oxford (2011, pp. 102-136) for a summary of strategy types, strategy functions, and examples of related tactics, as reported by learners. The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 37 Second, some strategies had multiple purposes and could therefore not be clearly categorized. Third, some strategies occurred in combination with other strategies. In these instances, the strategy combinations were analyzed as joint acts of strategic learning rather than separating and categorizing the individual (language) learning strategies. These problems led to the crucial realization that a complexity approach can only add practical value to strategy research if the attention is on practically relevant issues. In other words, while categorizing strategies may be interesting to researchers in the field, the benefits of identifying typological variation have only limited practical value. Hence, the categorization was discontinued. The purposes of strategies are flexible are dynamic. Learners select strat- egies to suit specific, situational purposes, for instance, to determine the mean- ing of a word by looking it up in a dictionary. However, individual strategies can have multiple purposes, some of which may not be initially intended but may develop during a learning situation. For instance, finding the translation of a word in a dictionary can additionally lead to example sentences and learning about synonyms, antonyms, and phonetic symbols. Although these were not the originally intended outcomes of the dictionary search, they can lead to further investigation and other strategic actions. A holistic view of strategic learning combined with a CDST-oriented research approach can reveal such wide-ranging processes and trigger complex considerations and intricate reasoning. Compared to the original study, the complexity study disclosed more pro- found information about Sabrina’s strategies, for instance, the multi-faceted nature of helping others. Furthermore, the new study shows examples of attractor states, for instance, when Sabrina was deeply concentrated on a task and strategically ig- nored all distractions to optimize concentration. This pattern ended abruptly with an interruption by Sabrina’s partner. Further revelations concerned the interaction of agents and their psychological ramifications, which were noted, for instance, in the teacher’s encouraging sensitivity or the frustration caused by Sabrina’s partner. The study further highlighted information that was neglected in the 2016 study, for example, Sabrina’s advanced awareness of the benefits of careful listening. Despite the newly gained knowledge, one crucial question remains, which has been critically debated by strategy researchers around the globe. What are the practical implications of complexity theory in strategy research? One article that revises a single case cannot adequately answer this question. However, this article demonstrates that a complexity perspective can generate new, profound information about strategic learning even through reviewing previous data. For example, the reanalysis uncovered a major problem induced by Sa- brina’s idiosyncratic way of handling unknown vocabulary. Obviously, translating unknown words and phrases into German helps Sabrina to understand what an expression means. But translating the new expressions back into “simple” English Carmen M. Amerstorfer 38 phrases is not ideal for her L2 development because Sabrina’s approach hinders vocabulary growth and consequently impacts conversational skills and variety. Sa- brina should instead study and practice the new expressions rather than using their simplified versions in conversations. The reason for Sabrina’s unusual ap- proach is the fear of misusing the L2 in front of her peers and the teacher. Sabrina wants to avoid mistakes, which, in her opinion, would make her the target of rid- icule and embarrassment, even though such a scenario is only hypothetical and unlikely to occur in her class. Sabrina is unaware of the drawbacks of her individual way of handling new vocabulary, which is paradoxical because she thinks that be- ing a good language learner is mainly concerned with vocabulary learning. The depth of Sabrina’s problem was only discovered in the complexity study, which shows that a CDST-oriented research approach can have practical benefits for students’ EFL development because it intertwines multiple strands of dynamic, situational information and hence enables conclusions of practical relevance. Informed by complexity studies, teachers can act upon their stu- dents’ problems in targeted strategy instruction, which, in Sabrina’s case, could be conducted during the individual coaching sessions offered at her school. 6. Conclusions Students select and apply strategies according to their needs and situational cir- cumstances, both of which change across time. They assess the effectiveness of strategies, make suitable adaptations, and use strategies or strategy combina- tions flexibly. CDST acknowledges the dynamism and complexity of strategic learning, which gives it a favorable appeal over more traditional, rigid theories despite restricted methodological guidance. This article shows that complexity research about strategic learning can result in practical benefits to L2 learners and teachers. Through the discovery of information that would remain disclosed without a holistic perspective that acknowledges complexity, learners and teachers can achieve a clearer aware- ness of strategic actions. Teachers can deduce information about students’ spe- cific skill and knowledge areas and can hence design individualized, targeted strategy instruction that supports L2 development. Complexity theory enables researchers to analyze a multitude of intercon- nected influences in contextualized strategic learning situations. Instead of ex- ploring isolated features of a phenomenon, CDST holistically combines a host of dynamic factors that affect one another. Confirming its practical relevance to strategy research, this article intends to inspire other researchers in the field to ex- amine the suitability, value, and practicability of a complexity perspective in their own work. Given the increasing interest in CDST and methodological guidance for The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 39 complexity research in applied linguistics, further studies about strategic learning, either reviews of previous data or specifically designed new studies, will contrib- ute valuable knowledge to the strategy field in the future. Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to Andrew Cohen, Andy Gao, Carol Griffiths, Phil Hiver, Peter MacIntyre, Rebecca Oxford, and Mirosław Pawlak, who recently engaged in an email thread about CDST in strategy research. Thanks for the per- sonal opinions and scholarly advice. Carmen M. Amerstorfer 40 References Amerstorfer, C. M. (2016). Situated strategy use in cooperative learning: A de- scriptive case study of five learners of English as a foreign language (Un- published doctoral dissertation). University of Klagenfurt, Austria. Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018a). Mixing methods: Investigating self-regulated strategies in a cooperative EFL learning environment. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amer- storfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner charac- teristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 123-140). London: Bloomsbury. Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018b). Past its expiry date? The SILL in modern mixed-meth- ods strategy research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 497-523. Amerstorfer, C. M. (in press). Learners’ inner peace and interpersonal peace in innovative L2 teaching. In R. L. Oxford, M. Olivero, & T. Gregersen (Eds.), Peacebuilding in language education: Innovations in theory and practice. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Bennett, A., & Checkel, J. (Eds.). (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to an- alytic tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through time and space: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 619-647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological per- spectives on human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Longman. Cohen, A. D. (2018). Moving from theory to practice: A closer look at language learner strategies. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situated strat- egy use in diverse contexts (pp. 31-53). London: Bloomsbury. Cohen, A. D., Oxford, R. L., & Chi, J. (2006). Language Strategy Use Inventory. In R. M. Paige, A. D. Cohen, B. Kappler, J. Chi, & J. Lassegard (Eds.), Maximiz- ing study abroad: A students’ guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use (2nd ed.; pp. 21-27). Minneapolis: University of Minne- sota Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition. Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2018). Fluctuation in the functions of language learner strategies. System, 74, 169-182. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.03.011 The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 41 Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching and research. London: Routledge. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory ap- proach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cog- nition, 10(1), 7-21. Dewaele, J.-M. (2011). Reflections on the emotional and psychological aspects of foreign language learning and use. Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 22(1), 23-42. Retrieved from https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/ 5096/1/Dewaele2011Anglistik.pdf Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differ- ences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59, 230-248. Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: “Retrodictive qualitative modelling” in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80-91. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (2015a). Introduction: Applying com- plex dynamic systems principles to empirical research on L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 1-7). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.). (2015b). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learn- ing. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language ac- quisition (pp. 589-630). Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press. Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Gkonou, C. (2018). Listening to highly anxious EFL learners through the use of narrative: Metacognitive and affective strategies for learner self-regula- tion. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strate- gies and individual learner characteristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 79-97). London: Bloomsbury. Griffiths, C. (Ed.). (2008). Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, C. (2018a). How individual differences relate to successful strategy use: Self-regulated language learners around the world. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 55-73). Lon- don: Bloomsbury. Carmen M. Amerstorfer 42 Griffiths, C. (2018b). The strategy factor in successful language learning: The tor- nado effect (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gu, P. Y. (2012). Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of varia- tion. Studies in Self-Access Learning, 3, 330-356. Gu, P. Y. (2018). Making language learning strategies research useful: Insights from China. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 145-166). London: Bloomsbury. Gu, P. Y., & Johnson, R. K. (1996). Vocabulary learning strategies and language learning outcomes. Language Learning, 46(4), 643-679. Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Moti- vational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20-28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. Modern Language Jour- nal, 100(4), 741-756. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Research methods for complexity theory in applied linguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hosenfeld, C. (1976). Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strate- gies. Foreign Language Annals, 9(2), 117-129. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015a). Saying what we mean: Making a case for “language acqui- sition” to become “language development.” Language Teaching, 48(4), 491-505. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015b). Ten “lessons” from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 11-19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2017). Complexity theory: The lessons continue. In L. Ortega & Z. H. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 11-50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Second Language Annals, 51, 55-72. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008a). Complex systems and applied lin- guistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008b). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200-213. Lorette, P., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2015). Emotion recognition ability in English among L1 and LX users of English. International Journal of Language and Culture, 2(1), 62-86. http://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.2.1.03lor Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revis- ing the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00425.x The dynamism of strategic learning: Complexity theory in strategic L2 development 43 MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2019, March). Applications of two methods for studying language’s dynamic systems: Idiodynamics and experience sam- pling. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Ap- plied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA, USA. Mercer, S. (2011). The self as a complex dynamic system. Studies in Second Lan- guage Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 57-82. Mercer, S. (2013). Towards a complexity-informed pedagogy for language learn- ing. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 13(2), 375-398. Mercer, S. (2016). The context within me: L2 self as a complex dynamic system. In J. King (Ed.), The dynamic interplay between context and the language learner (pp. 11-28). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2018). Modeling a prototypical use of language learning strategies: Decision tree-based methods in multiple contexts. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 99-122). London: Bloomsbury. Mokharti, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10. Naiman, N., Fröhlich M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco A. (1978). The good language learner. Research in Education Series No. 7. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Learning strategies. In B. Spolsky & R. E. Asher (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 518-522). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Oxford, R. L. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Har- low: Pearson Education. Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018). Introduction: The state of the art in language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics. In R. L. Oxford & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and indi- vidual learner characteristics: Situated strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. xxiii-xxxiv). London: Bloomsbury. Oxford, R. L., & Gkonou, C. (in press). Working with the complexity of language learners’ emotions and emotion regulation strategies. In R. J. Sampson & R. S. Pinter (Eds.), Complexity perspectives on researching language learner and language teacher psychology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Carmen M. Amerstorfer 44 Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan. Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quar- terly, 9(1), 41-51. Rose, H. (2019, October). Evolving directions in language learning strategies: The interplay between self-regulation and learner strategies in teaching and research. Keynote speech at the SSU3 conference, Osaka, Japan. Sasaki, M., Mizumoto, A., & Murakami, A. (2018). Developmental trajectories in L2 writing strategy use: A self-regulation perspective. Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 292-309. Stern, H. H. (1975). What can we learn from the good language learner? Cana- dian Modern Language Review, 34, 304-318. Thomas, N., & Rose, H. (2019). Do language learning strategies need to be self- directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 248-257. Thomas, N., Rose, H., & Pojanapunya, P. (2019). Conceptual issues in strategy research: Examining the roles of teachers and students in formal education settings. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. http://doi. org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0033 Ushioda, E. (2015). Contexts and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47-54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C. M., Mareschal, C. J., & Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). Met- acognitive Awareness Listening Questionnaire: Development and valida- tion. Language Learning, 56(3), 431-462. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. Harlow: Longman. Wang, I. K.-H. (2018). Learning vocabulary strategically in a study abroad con- text. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 3-13). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. White, C., & Schramm, K., Chamot, A. U. (2007). Research methods in strategy research: Re-examining the toolbox. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice (pp. 93- 116). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.