Even once we have dealt with some of the basic concepts, including terminology, definition, theoretical underpinnings, classification and research methodology, some thorny fundamental questions remain. It is, for instance, by no means universally agreed that language learning strategies are related to successful language learning, or, if they are, precisely how. This question has given rise to a great deal of debate over many years. If we check the previous literature on the subject, we find that Green and Oxford (1995) discovered a ‘significantly greater overall use of language learning strategies among more successful learners’ (1995: 285) when they surveyed 374 Puerto Rican university students using the 50-item version of the SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, Oxford, 1990). In other words, the more proficient students used language learning strategies more frequently than less proficient students. Dreyer and Oxford (1996) and Kyungsim and Leavell (2006) also reported a positive relationship between frequency of strategy use and successful learning.

But by no means all studies have yielded such clearly positive results. Studies by Bialystok (1981), O’Malley et al. (1985), Huang and Van Naerssen (1987) and Ehrman and Oxford (1995) all failed to find a significant relationship between frequency of language learning strategy use and successful learning, although they managed to show relationships between effective learning and various types of strategies (such as metacognitive, functional practice or cognitive strategies).

And there have also been studies which seem to cast doubt on the role of language learning strategies. Porte (1988), for instance, interviewed 15 under-achieving adolescent learners in private language schools in London and discovered that his ‘poor’ learners were using strategies very similar to those reported by ‘good’ language learners. Another key observation was that, ‘the majority of learners said that they used strategies which were the same as, or very similar to, those they had used at schools in their native countries’ (1988: 168). It would seem, then, that these low-level students were unable to select strategies which were appropriate for the situation in which they found themselves.