Your company has seen important internal projects go off course during execution. After-the-fact analysis has revealed that the common factors are inadequate budget controls and inconsistencies in budget estimation. Senior management now believes that developing and integrating a set of standard control processes for both planning and execution will raise success rates.
As a group, decide who will take the following topics: •Expert judgment •Analogous estimating •Bottom-up estimating •Parametric estimating
nd relating new information to other concepts from memory. Metacognitive strategies involve consciously directing one’s own efforts into the learning task. Social/affective strategies involve interaction with another person or taking control of ones’ own feelings on language learning. Wenden and Rubin (1987) again classifies learning strategies into two categories: cognitive (steps used by learners to process linguistic and socio-linguistic contents) and self-management (planning, monitoring and evaluating), on the basis of their learning functions. Macaro (2001) conceptualizes all language learning strategies as standing in a continuum without a clear line dividing the strategy types into particular areas. Cognitive strategies lie at one end with their inherent, subconscious, automatic tasks and metacognitive/social/affective at the other end with their conscious, evaluative strategies. Much of this classification research has been conducted in English as second/foreign language (ESLJEFL) settings. Regardless of how they are classified, the exact number of strategies available and how these strategies should be classified still remain open for discussion. A comparative analysis of various kinds of strategy classifications reported so Chapter Two Literature Review 11 far supported the view that O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classification of strategies into cognitive, metacognitive and socio/affective strategies as well as Oxford’s six-subset strategy taxonomy are more consistent with use of learners’ strategies than the direct and indirect dimensions (Hsiao and Oxford, 2002). Purdie and Oliver (1999) discuss the potential dangers of applying results of strategy studies with adults and adolescents to child second language learners. Apart from the psychological and sociological differences that exist between adults and children (Purdie and Oliver, 1999), the approach to second language acquisition among child learners has been associated more with first language acquisition (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). Among them, Oxford’s classification (1990) is the most extensive and detailed one so far. Oxford’s classification system is developed from Rubin’s and overlap with O’Malley’s to a great extent. And in this case study, one of the research questionnaires adopted is Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Therefore, the framework of Oxford’s classification of learning strategy (in Table 2.2) will be conducted in the study. Table 2.2 Oxford’s Classification>