We began this book with a reminder of the old proverb about the value of teaching a man to fish, and along the way we have encountered other metaphors used to describe the language learning strategy phenomenon, including ‘tool’ (O’Malley et al., 1985) and ‘orchestra’ (e.g. Anderson, 2008). Might we therefore gloriously mix the metaphors and describe the use of LLS as going fishing with an orchestrated toolkit? Why not?

As noted previously, the strategy field has at times been criticized for being atheoretical (for instance, Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003; Ellis, 1994, 2008; Macaro, 2006). This book has attempted to address underlying theoretical issues by looking at terminology, definition, theoretical underpinnings and classification systems, as well as considering issues in research methodology and providing suggestions and guidance for collecting and analysing data. Rather than merely discuss concepts, this book has presented empirical evidence from research studies for each of the fundamental questions posed in Chapter 2. In addition, strategy use by individuals has been examined qualitatively in Chapter 3 and the implications of the interview data have been considered. Finally, in Chapter 4, rather than looking at strategies divorced from the ‘real world’ of the classroom, this book has looked at the issues from the teaching/learning point of view.

5.1 The Strategy Concept

Although widely believed to be a significant factor in successful language learning, the language learning strategy concept, referring to behaviour employed by learners in order to promote language learning, has proven elusive, even at the basic level of terminology. However, even though a range of terms has been used to cover this kind of behaviour (including learning behaviours, tactics, techniques and so on) the term strategy has probably been the most consistently used over the years, and for this reason it is probably the term best recognized and most widely accepted today.

Since it has been so difficult to achieve consensus even on a name, it is, perhaps, hardly surprising that defining this terminologically challenged concept has caused no less debate.