Introduction

Researchers in the field of language learning strategies have utilized a wide range of methods and approaches. In doing so, they have generated numerous ideas about strategic behavior and documented such behavior empirically. Early studies tended to be inductive and exploratory, as pioneers in this area articulated notions of strategies from their practical experiences as language teachers (see Hosenfeld, 1976Hosenfeld, C. (1976) Learning about learning: Discovering our students’ strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 9 (2), 117–130. , 1977Hosenfeld, C. (1977) A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language learners. System, 5 (2), 110–123. ; Rubin, 1975Rubin, J. (1975) What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9 (1), 41–51. ; Stern, 1975Stern, H. H. (1975) What can we learn from the good language learner? Canadian Modern Language Review, 31 (4), 304–319. ). Much of this early work was qualitative and ethnographically informed (e.g., Naiman et al., 1978Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A. (1978) The good language learner. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.; Stevick, 1989Stevick, E. W. (1989) Success with foreign languages: Seven who achieved it and what worked for them. Prentice Hall.; Wong-Fillmore, 1976Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976) The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Standford University.). Later, researchers such as O’Malley and Chamot (1990)O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. and Oxford (1990)Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle. developed categorizations of strategies that paved the way for a boom in strategy research that was more deductive in nature, driven by the use of large-scale questionnaires. This line of quantitative research played a key role in the field’s increased popularity and still has value today. Griffiths and Oxford (2014)Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2014) The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this special issue. System, 43 , 1–10. went as far as stating that “questionnaires have formed the ‘backbone’ of strategy research methodology” (p. 3). Nevertheless, many field insiders have acknowledged that such research is limited in its ability to “go beyond pattern finding or relationship mapping” (Gu, 2016Gu, P. Y. (2016) Questionnaires in language teaching research. Language Teaching Research, 20 (5), 567–570. , p. 567). Sacrificing depth for breadth is a decision researchers may need to make if they want to harness the unique capability of questionnaires to gather “a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily processable” (Dörnyei & Dewaele, 2023Dörnyei, Z., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2023) Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Routledge. , p. 1). This is suitable and justified for certain research questions. However, it is not all we do as strategy researchers and, like any data collection method, large-scale questionnaires leave gaps that other methods can fill. Although qualitative methods also have limitations, they have the potential to contribute needed depth and nuance.

Our intention is not to draw a false dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research on language learning strategies. In fact, although two of us Guest Editors see ourselves as primarily qualitative researchers (Nathan and Jason), all three of us have conducted research that works across the divide, often using mixed-methods approaches (see An & Thomas, 2021An, J., & Thomas, N. (2021) Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China. Linguistics and Education, 65 , 100972. ; Jin & Schneider, 2019Jin, L., & Schneider, J. (2019) Faculty views on international students: A survey study. Journal of International Students, 9 (1), 84–99. ; Zhou & Thompson, 2023Zhou, S., & Thompson, G. (2023) A longitudinal study on students’ self-regulated listening during transition to an English-medium transnational university in China. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 13 (2), 427–450. ). Nonetheless, on the whole, the study of language learning strategies has been closely tied to a specific methodological tradition, so we felt the need to call explicit attention to work that has, for the most part, existed in the margins of this field. By editing this special issue, we wanted to create a space that spotlights some of this work. A personal anecdote might be helpful to illustrate our motivation.

Nathan can recall quite vividly being at a conference in Singapore in 2018. At one of the coffee breaks, he met a researcher from Hong Kong whom he has not seen since. When asked what kind of research he does, Nathan said he was mostly interested in language learning strategies, to which the other researcher replied “You mean like Oxford’s SILL [Strategy Inventory for Language Learning]? Are people still doing that?” In the moment, Nathan was unsure of how to respond. Yes, like Oxford’s (1990)Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle. SILL, “I guess,” in the sense that the SILL has long been the “most widely used instrument for data collection in the field,” Oxford’s (1990)Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Heinle. definition “the most widely cited,” and her work in general becoming synonymous with the field at large (Thomas et al., 2021aThomas, N., Bowen, N. E. J. A., Reynolds, B. L., Osment, C., Pun, J. K. H., & Mikolajewska, A. (2021a) A systematic review of the core components of language learning strategy research in Taiwan. English Teaching & Learning, 45 , 355–374. , p. 357). However, also, not like that at all, in conceptualizing strategies from a different perspective (see Thomas & Rose, 2019Thomas, 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 et al., 2021bThomas, N., Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Rose, H. (2021b) A diachronic analysis of explicit definitions and implicit conceptualizations of language learning strategies. System, 103 , 102619. , 2021cThomas, N., Rose, H., & Pojanapunya, P. (2021c) Conceptual issues in strategy research: Examining the roles of teachers and students in formal education settings. Applied Linguistics Review, 12 (2), 353–369. ) and preferring a different approach to strategy research, ironically, much like Oxford (2017)Oxford, R. L. (2017) Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation in context (2nd ed.). Routledge. herself has shifted to in more recent work (see also Oxford & Amerstorfer, 2018Oxford, R. L., & Amerstorfer, C. M. (Eds.) (2018) Language learning strategies and individual learner characteristics. Bloomsbury.).

Experiences like this one can make researchers, especially novices, feel isolated, and possibly even pressured to move on to more “cutting-edge” projects (i.e., whatever is trending at the time, regardless of its practical relevance or lasting value). An awareness of the strengths and limitations of the field writ large can also make the discerning strategy researcher feel “guilty by association,” to the extent that they become associated with research that may or may not represent their core values. We wonder: Why would inquiring about how learners endeavor to make their learning more effective and efficient not be an important undertaking? And why would there be only one way of carrying out such work?

It has become somewhat of a trope in the field of language learning strategies to say that strategies have been defined differently by different researchers and then to story the evolution of the field. All tropes aside, this definitional fuzziness and internal narrative are what drew us into this area of inquiry. A handful of Nathan’s early publications tackled definitional and conceptual issues with a tenacity indicative of an overworked language teacher and aspiring scholar looking to make a splash in the field. While these discussions still have value, in agreement with Gu’s (2021)Gu, P. Y. (2021) Foreword: strategies for sustainable language learning. In Z. Gavriilidou & L. Mitits (Eds). Situating language learning strategy use: Present issues and future trends (pp. xxi–xxiii). “conceptual fuzziness fallacy” (p. xxi), they seem less pressing today. Nevertheless, similar definitional, conceptual, and methodological issues provided fodder for Dörnyei’s (2005)Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge. now infamous call to replace strategy research with research on self-regulatory capacity. Moreover, they can still lead to comments like the one encountered by Nathan at the conference in Singapore. A decade later, Dörnyei and Ryan (2015)Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. softened their stance, but this did little to rectify the field’s internal narrative. This is especially the case for casual readers, journal editors, and reviewers who regularly encounter poorly planned and executed strategy research and treat it as representative of the field. We ask: How can researchers committed to the importance of language learning strategies make a place for themselves in this context? How can we persuade other applied linguists, especially those who have become dismissive of strategy research, that investigating the specific steps that learners take to enhance their learning is still highly relevant?

One response is to create a non-oppositional stance, keeping both strategies and self-regulatory capacity on the table, as we have done when curating this special issue. For example, Graham and Zhang (this issue) address the role of strategy use and linguistic proficiency in learning vocabulary through listening without ever mentioning self-regulation. In a very different study on adult migrants’ Norwegian learning strategies, Arum (this issue) takes a similar approach to learning regulation, though she frames her study using investment theory. Meanwhile, Fung (this issue) indicates that learners may shift from other-regulated strategy use to self-regulated strategy use in his discussion of listening strategy instruction, as do Yuasa and Takeuchi (this issue) in framing their study on strategy instruction for writing with machine translation (see also Hajar, this issue). Compagnoni and Fazzi (this issue) see their study of mediation strategies in online language learning as representative of co-regulation, while Teng et al. (this issue), Fukuda (this issue), and Ambinintsoa and Castro (this issue) employ self-regulated learning theory to frame their studies. Finally, Dalderop (this issue) takes a grounded theory approach. She mentions the inability of some of her participants to self-regulate their learning as a discussion point but not as a guiding framework.

Taken together, the studies in this special issue illuminate how a non-oppositional stance may be fruitful, and perhaps even necessary, for the field to progress. Certainly, different perspectives engender different solutions to both existing and emerging concerns. This stance is consistent with the development of the field of language learning strategies beyond this special issue, where strategy research has developed in its own right (see Cohen et al., 2023Cohen, A. D., Gu, P. Y., Nyikos, M., Plonsky, L., Harris, V., Gunning, P., Wang, I. K.-H., Pawlak, M., Gavriilidou, Z., Mitits, L., Sykes, J. M., & Gao, X. (2023) Tangible insights on the strategizing of language learners and users. Language Teaching, 56 (3), 313–332. ; Forbes, 2021Forbes, K. (2021) Cross-linguistic transfer of writing strategies: Interactions between foreign language and first language classrooms. Multilingual Matters. ; Gavriilidou & Mitits, 2021Gavriilidou, Z., & Mitits, L. (Eds) (2021) Situating language learning strategy use: Present issues and future trends. Multilingual Matters. ; Griffiths, 2020Griffiths, C. (2020) Language learning strategies: Is the baby still in the bathwater? Applied Linguistics, 41 (4), 607–611. ; Hajar & Karakus, 2024Hajar, A., & Karakus, M. (2024) Five decades of language learning strategy research: A bibliometric review and research agenda. Language Learning Journal (Advanced Access), 1–30. ; Pawlak; 2020Pawlak, M. (2020) Grammar learning strategies as a key to mastering second language grammar: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 53 (3), 358–370. ; Thomas et al., 2023Thomas, N., Rose, H., Cohen, A. D., Gao, X., Sasaki, A., & Hernandez-Gonzalez, T. (2023) The third wind of language learning strategies research. Language Teaching, 55 (3), 417–421. ; Zhang et al., 2019Zhang, L. J., Thomas, N., & Qin, T. L. (2019) Language learning strategy research in System: Looking back and looking forward. System, 84 , 87–92. ; Zhou et al., 2023Zhou, S., Fung, D., & Thomas, N. (2023) Towards deeper learning in EMI lectures: the role of English proficiency and motivation in students’ deep processing of content knowledge. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Communication (Advanced Access), 1–16. ), and where a recognition of self-regulation theory, as one of many fruitful ways to view strategic learning, is undeniable (see Bowen & Thomas, 2022Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2022) Self-regulated learning and knowledge blindness: Bringing language into view. Applied Linguistics, 43 (6), 1207–1216. ; Oxford et al., 2024Oxford, R. L., Gu, P., Gunning, P., & Hernández González, T. (2024) Considerations in designing and validating the Diagnostic Inventory for Self-Regulated Language Learning (DISLL): Status of the process. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 41 , 4–20. ; Rose et al., 2018Rose, 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. ; Teng & Zhang, 2022Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2022) Can self-regulation be transferred to second/foreign language learning and teaching? Current status, controversies, and future directions. Applied Linguistics, 43 (3), 587–595. ; Reinders et al., 2023Reinders, H., Phung, L., Ryan, S., & Thomas, N. (2023) The key to self-regulated learning: A systematic approach to maximising its potential. Oxford University Press. https://​elt​.oup​.com​/feature​/global​/expert​/srl; Wang, 2022Wang, I. K-H. (2022) Self-regulation. In T. Gregersen & S. Mercer (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 218–230). Routledge. ; Zhou et al., 2024Zhou, S., Xu, J., Thomas, N. (2024) L2 listening in a digital era: Developing and validating the mobile-assisted self-regulated listening strategy questionnaire (MSRLS-Q). System, 123 , 103310. ). Indeed, the silos within which different researchers situated themselves in the early 2000s seem to have fallen, somewhat. Seeing this theoretical diversity as a positive development was part of the impetus for the symposium from which this special issue emerged.

Organization of the special issue

Stemming from a symposium at the 2023 AILA World Congress, this special issue features 10 empirical studies from researchers who either presented at the symposium or within the wider Congress program. While some studies that were originally presented in the symposium have been published elsewhere and were thus unable to be included (see Schneider, in pressSchneider, J. in press). International student mobility in higher education: Case studies in agency. Palgrave Macmillan.; Wang & Cohen, 2022Wang, I. K-H., & Cohen, A. D. (2022) Self-access strategy instruction for academic writing vocabulary: What learners actually do. Applied Linguistics, 44 (6), 976–1009. ; Zhou & Thomas, 2023Zhou, S., & Thomas, N. (2023) To survive or to thrive? Synthesizing the narrative trajectories of students’ self-regulated listening practice in an EMI transnational higher education context. Language and Education (Advanced Access), 1–20. ), the inclusion of additional AILA 2023 presentations helped to complete the issue. We have organized the content to illustrate work from both experienced and emerging scholars. Contributors represent universities in mainland China, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK, with participants in their studies from even more diverse contexts.

Methodologically, all 10 studies extend beyond the surface level (e.g., what strategies are used and when), delving as well into complex questions of why and how. They draw on a wide range of qualitative research methods and approaches. Some of the studies work within longstanding traditions (e.g., grounded theory and thematic analysis) and others utilize relatively recent innovations (e.g., dialogic reflection and multimodal analysis). In line with Thomas et al.’s (2023)Thomas, N., Rose, H., Cohen, A. D., Gao, X., Sasaki, A., & Hernandez-Gonzalez, T. (2023) The third wind of language learning strategies research. Language Teaching, 55 (3), 417–421. proposal for a third wind of language learning strategies research — introduced at the 2021 AILA World Congress — all contributions are methodologically rigorous and contribute to both theory and practice. Holistically, this special issue captures just a snapshot of activity in the field but serves as a reminder that high-level qualitative research is being conducted in this area.

The articles are organized based on language skills in focus and other factors. For example, in the first two articles, Teng et al. (this issue) and Yuasa and Takeuchi (this issue) approach different aspects of the writing process. In the next two articles, Graham and Zhang (this issue) and Fung (this issue) tackle listening. As the issue progresses, articles from Arum (this issue), Hajar (this issue), and Dalderop (this issue) draw our attention to wider social issues that mediate strategy use from broad perspectives, while Compagnoni and Fazzi (this issue) bring us back to the immediacy of social interactions in online spaces, demonstrating mediation at a more micro level. Finally, Fukuda (this issue) and Ambinintsoa and Castro (this issue) conclude the issue, working within a self-regulated learning framework, illustrating how much can be learned from an in-depth focus on individual learners.

Overall, we have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know the contributors and their work. Some contributors we only met via the Congress, while others have been inspirations for our work long before the Congress took place. We hope the articles in this special issue inspire readers as much as they inspire us to continue down the path of strategies and self-regulation. The contributions show that research on language learning strategies continues to be an important endeavor, with clear implications for theory and practice. Furthermore, they illustrate how, even under the “qualitative” banner, there are numerous ways of conducting high-quality strategy research.

Future directions for research

It would be remiss to conclude this introduction without suggesting some future directions for research. While there are various questions that we would like to see addressed, there are three concerns that preoccupy us at present. We would like to see future research that:

• Acknowledges various sources of learning regulation (e.g., self-, co-, other-, and socially shared). Without rehashing our previous arguments (see Bowen & Thomas, 2022Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2022) Self-regulated learning and knowledge blindness: Bringing language into view. Applied Linguistics, 43 (6), 1207–1216. ; Thomas et al., 2021bThomas, N., Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Rose, H. (2021b) A diachronic analysis of explicit definitions and implicit conceptualizations of language learning strategies. System, 103 , 102619. ; Thomas & Rose, 2019Thomas, 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. ), we believe that the recognition of alternative sources of learning regulation will be especially relevant in the digital era, with both humans and artificial intelligence as learning peers (see Dai et al., 2023Dai, Y., Liu, A., & Lim, C. P. (2023) Reconceptualizing ChatGPT and generative AI as a student-driven innovation in higher education. Procedia CIRP, 119 , 84–90. ). Strategy instruction and self-regulated learning facilitation will be especially beneficial in helping learners move from other sources of learning regulation towards the educational ideal of being successfully self-regulated.

• Explores both immediate and larger sociocultural factors that influence and even mediate strategy use. Again, this is something our previous work has touched on (see Bowen & Thomas, 2022Bowen, N. E. J. A., & Thomas, N. (2022) Self-regulated learning and knowledge blindness: Bringing language into view. Applied Linguistics, 43 (6), 1207–1216. ; Schneider, 2022Schneider, J. (2022) Writing strategies as acts of identity. TESOL Quarterly, 56 (1), 230–253. ; Thomas et al. 2023Thomas, N., Rose, H., Cohen, A. D., Gao, X., Sasaki, A., & Hernandez-Gonzalez, T. (2023) The third wind of language learning strategies research. Language Teaching, 55 (3), 417–421. ); however, as the articles in the current issue show, there is still meaningful work to be done. This is especially true as learners strategically adapt to the effects of internationalization, where mobility and multicultural environments are often the norm (see Schneider, in pressSchneider, J. in press). International student mobility in higher education: Case studies in agency. Palgrave Macmillan.). Strategy research can then forge stronger links with English medium instruction, study abroad, heritage language learning, digital learning communities, and so on.

• Broadens the methodological traditions for both language learning strategies and sources of regulation. In line with Gu’s (2021)Gu, P. Y. (2021) Foreword: strategies for sustainable language learning. In Z. Gavriilidou & L. Mitits (Eds). Situating language learning strategy use: Present issues and future trends (pp. xxi–xxiii). call to “go beyond strategy tallying and other surface level exploratory research” (xii), we would like to see more deep-level interpretive work, explanatory research, and theory-building/testing research. This may necessitate exploring research methods that have been used in other domains but have not yet made waves in this field, as well as optimizing our use of existing methods. For example, Process Tracing can be used to build and test theories regarding causal mechanisms that are hypothesized to underpin strategic behavior (Thomas et al., 2024Thomas, N., Hultgren, A. K., Zuaro, B., Yuksel, D., Wingrove, P., Nao, M., & Beach, D. (2024) Process Tracing for applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3 (2), 10018. ); the Idiodynamic Method can be used to examine moment-to-moment variations in strategic behavior (MacIntyre & Ducker, 2022MacIntyre, P., & Ducker, N. (2022) The idiodynamic method: A practical guide for researchers. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 100007. ); and the Experience Sampling Method can be used to capture longitudinal data on strategic behavior from participants in real-time and in situ (Sulis, 2024Sulis, G. (2024) Exploring the dynamics of engagement in the language classroom: A critical examination of methodological approaches. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3 (3), 100162. ). Furthermore, finetuning our use of existing methods such as verbal reports may provide more robust measures of learners’ cognitive processes (Cohen & Wang, 2024Cohen, A. D., & Wang, I. K.-H. (2024) Revisiting ‘think aloud’ in language learner strategy research. Language Teaching Research (Advanced Access). ).

As this introduction and the first 50 years of research on language learning strategies draw to a close (see Hajar & Karakus, 2024Hajar, A., & Karakus, M. (2024) Five decades of language learning strategy research: A bibliometric review and research agenda. Language Learning Journal (Advanced Access), 1–30. ), one of McKinley et al.’s (2024)McKinley, J., Zhang, L. J., Elola, I., Hennebry-Leung, M., Zheng, Y., Greenier, V., Thomas, N., & Matzler, P. (2024) Fifty years of System research and projections for the future. System, 121 , 103210. predictions for the future of foreign language education research leaves us hopeful:

As learners increasingly take charge of their own language learning journey, especially through online resources, research will focus on strategies to promote learner autonomy and self-regulation, as well as consider other forms of regulation in the learning process … We look forward to seeing how the next 50 years play out!.(McKinley et al., 2024McKinley, J., Zhang, L. J., Elola, I., Hennebry-Leung, M., Zheng, Y., Greenier, V., Thomas, N., & Matzler, P. (2024) Fifty years of System research and projections for the future. System, 121 , 103210. , p. 8)