As has been shown in Sect. 2.5 . in Chap. 2 , research into grammar learning strategies (GLS) remains in its nascent stages, even though the number of relevant studies has been on the increase over the past few years. While the sheer number of empirical investigations in this area is clearly important, even more important and indicative of the progress being made are the foci of this line of inquiry as well as the methodological choices made. The bulk of research undertaken to date has been confined to the identification, description, and categorization of GLS (e.g., Alsied et al., 2018; Kemp, 2007; Nakachi, 2021; Pawlak, 2008, 2012b, 2019b; Wach, 2016), with efforts also being made to validate and refine the Grammar Learning Strategies Inventory (GLSI; Pawlak, 2018a) in different national and educational contexts (e.g., Pawlak et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). Few studies have attempted to establish the link between GLS use and L2 (grammar) achievement (e.g., Pawlak, 2021a; Pawlak & Csizér, 2022; Zhou, 2017) and just a handful have examined the contribution of demographic (Tilfarlioğlu, 2005) and individual difference (ID) variables in this respect (e.g., Zarrinabadi et al., 2021). What is particularly disconcerting is that there are only a few studies that have explored the effects of strategies-based instruction on GLS use and the mastery of TL grammar (e.g., Hao & Zhang, 2026; Pawlak & Kruk, 2025c; Trendak, 2015) as well as students’ response to such pedagogical interventions (Pawlak & Kruk, 2025b), although such research has considerable pedagogical relevance as well as the potential to improve second or foreign language (L2) grammar instruction. While existing research into GLS has generated invaluable insights, many studies suffer from methodological limitations, such as reliance on domain-general data collection instruments that do not factor in the specificity of learning grammar (e.g., slightly adjusted items from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, or SILL; Oxford, 1990), the inclusion of crude or subjective measures of L2 proficiency or TL grammar attainment (e.g., grammar test scores with little consideration given to the nature of such tests, self-evaluation), or failure to comply with key principles of quasi-experimental research (e.g., absence of a control group or delayed posttests). In addition, the bulk of the pertinent studies represent the macro-perspective, giving little attention to how GLS are employed in a more situated manner in specific tasks and activities (see Pawlak & Kruk, 2022).

Methodology of the Research Project

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Mirosław Pawlak,
Mariusz Kruk,
Joanna Zawodniak

摘要

As has been shown in Sect. 2.5 . in Chap. 2 , research into grammar learning strategies (GLS) remains in its nascent stages, even though the number of relevant studies has been on the increase over the past few years. While the sheer number of empirical investigations in this area is clearly important, even more important and indicative of the progress being made are the foci of this line of inquiry as well as the methodological choices made. The bulk of research undertaken to date has been confined to the identification, description, and categorization of GLS (e.g., Alsied et al., 2018; Kemp, 2007; Nakachi, 2021; Pawlak, 2008, 2012b, 2019b; Wach, 2016), with efforts also being made to validate and refine the Grammar Learning Strategies Inventory (GLSI; Pawlak, 2018a) in different national and educational contexts (e.g., Pawlak et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). Few studies have attempted to establish the link between GLS use and L2 (grammar) achievement (e.g., Pawlak, 2021a; Pawlak & Csizér, 2022; Zhou, 2017) and just a handful have examined the contribution of demographic (Tilfarlioğlu, 2005) and individual difference (ID) variables in this respect (e.g., Zarrinabadi et al., 2021). What is particularly disconcerting is that there are only a few studies that have explored the effects of strategies-based instruction on GLS use and the mastery of TL grammar (e.g., Hao & Zhang, 2026; Pawlak & Kruk, 2025c; Trendak, 2015) as well as students’ response to such pedagogical interventions (Pawlak & Kruk, 2025b), although such research has considerable pedagogical relevance as well as the potential to improve second or foreign language (L2) grammar instruction. While existing research into GLS has generated invaluable insights, many studies suffer from methodological limitations, such as reliance on domain-general data collection instruments that do not factor in the specificity of learning grammar (e.g., slightly adjusted items from the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, or SILL; Oxford, 1990), the inclusion of crude or subjective measures of L2 proficiency or TL grammar attainment (e.g., grammar test scores with little consideration given to the nature of such tests, self-evaluation), or failure to comply with key principles of quasi-experimental research (e.g., absence of a control group or delayed posttests). In addition, the bulk of the pertinent studies represent the macro-perspective, giving little attention to how GLS are employed in a more situated manner in specific tasks and activities (see Pawlak & Kruk, 2022).