Abstract Language learning and communication strategies are purposeful tactics that learners use to overcome linguistic challenges and enhance proficiency. This study aims to explore how these strategies have developed over the past five decades (1973–2023), assess their effectiveness and examine how learner‐related and contextual factors shape their use. To achieve this, 404 studies were systematically selected from Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC and PsycInfo following the PRISMA framework. The analysis revealed that research has largely centred on individual learner differences and psycholinguistic contexts, while sociocultural influences, language transfer and plurilingual competence (including third‐language acquisition) remain underrepresented. Metacognitive strategies, such as self‐regulation and goal‐setting, emerged as the most effective for language skill development, followed by cognitive strategies like summarizing and repetition. Affective and compensatory strategies received relatively limited attention. Likewise, learner traits (e.g., motivation, age) and learning settings (EFL vs. ESL) significantly influenced strategy use, although inconsistent variable definitions hinder cross‐study comparisons. While Oxford's (1990) taxonomy still guides much of the field, gaps in theoretical clarity and methodological consistency persist. These findings underscore the need for standardized constructs, greater integration of technological tools and adoption of holistic frameworks that combine cognitive, affective and sociocultural dimensions to strengthen future investigations. Context and implications Rationale for this study : This study synthesizes five decades of research on language learning/communication strategies to identify trends, efficacy and gaps in integrating cognitive, affective and sociocultural factors. Why the new findings matter : The evidence that metacognitive strategies (e.g., self‐regulation) yield the largest proficiency gains matters because it provides empirical validation for prioritizing these strategies in pedagogy and resource allocation. Conversely, the persistent underuse of affective strategies represents a lost opportunity, since these strategies reliably support motivation and reduce anxiety, mechanisms that sustain engagement and lower attrition. Moreover, identified sociocultural gaps signal a risk that Western‐centric models will continue to generate interventions poorly matched to diverse learners, undermining equity and ecological validity. Finally, pervasive methodological inconsistencies (unclear variable definitions, overreliance on self‐report and divergent measurement practices) hinder cross‐study comparison and weaken the evidence base for policy, meaning that until methods are standardized and made more objective and context‐sensitive, the field's capacity to endorse universally effective but locally adaptable teaching practices will remain constrained. Implications : For practitioners and policymakers, the evidence underscores the critical importance of prioritizing metacognitive training while embedding affective strategies like mindfulness to strengthen emotional regulation. Practitioners can leverage peer‐led social strategies for adolescents, given their high effectiveness for collaborative learning, and integrate technology‐enhanced scaffolds (e.g., AI‐driven chatbots) to support plurilingual development in diverse classrooms. Concurrently, policymakers can fund teacher training that equips educators with adaptive strategy repertoires and support immersive programs (e.g., ESL environments) to provide authentic strategy application opportunities. For researchers, the findings necessitate moving beyond dominant Western paradigms through decolonized frameworks (e.g., Afrocentric or Sinocentric perspectives) and designing longitudinal studies that capture third‐language and multilingual learning complexity. Methodologically, reliance on self‐reports can shift towards triangulated approaches to precisely map cognitive, affective and sociocultural dimensions of strategy use. This dual focus on inclusive theoretical frameworks and robust methodologies is essential to address inequities and generate actionable insights for diverse learning contexts.
Belali et al. (Mon,) studied this question.